[Thomas Dai]

means a radical rethink of how archies treat bunkers

........plus a rethink of how sand bunkers are treated in the rules.
All the best

[Jon Wiggett]

Thomas,

I thought your idea of not raking the bunker and allowing the player to drop with penalty was a great solution.

Jon

[Paul Gray]

Jon,

And with that I'm beginning to think your plan, with the banning of rakes from the powers that be, has a great deal of merit.

[Andrew Buck]

I think there is a middle ground between perfect bunkers with exotic sand that require close to a million dollars a year to maintain, and the need to trot elephants through bunkers every morning to make them more of a hazard.  

I think we've already established that sand bunkers provide a more stern challenge than rough (ever so slightly) for pro's.  I think it's safe to assume this only increases for the amateur player, so for the 99.9 percent that play golf courses, sand bunkers do influence the way a hole is played.  I find it interesting that many of the people who were proponents of 6,500 yard golf courses and essentially "letting the pro's shoot what they shoot" instead of altering courses for them, are now lamenting how easy bunker shots are for the best of the best.  It's certainly true tat fairway sand bunkers influence decision making, even at the tour level, and for top amateurs, well placed greenside bunkers will certainly impact strategy.

That said, it's probably clear that bunker maintenance has gone too far (at some, not all courses).  To the extent that perfection on TV is driving demand for perfection at clubs, that is not the right standard for a hazard.  I have no problem with the occasional plugged lie, bad break in a footprint, or less than perfect sand, but I think the general practice of raking bunkers is a fine one.  Plenty of clubs don't need to do this every day, and generally speaking I like less sand bunkers and more use of grass bunkers or undulations.

[Steve Lang]

   hrrrrrumph,

did i miss it or has anyone spoken of how in competitions, the object is for the field to play the same course and the winner is the one who best plays teh game of his making?  though greens may get tracked up or deformed for the last groups in a tourney, certainly basic raking to leave it as you found it is a reasonable thing to ask??

the sand is my friend..

[Lou_Duran]

Jon,

And with that I'm beginning to think your plan, with the banning of rakes from the powers that be, has a great deal of merit.

Wow!  The level of play in this DG must be extraordinary.  Perhaps the great burdens of travel intervene at the various outings I've attended.

As to the proposed ban on rakes, in effect, this has already taken place at many courses I play.  Though rakes are readily available, and some of them have had great amounts of engineering in their design, it appears that their use has become optional.  It now seems that I had wrongly attributed this lack of concern for our fellow golfers to poor manners and narcissism.  Instead, there appear to be a few higher-functioning souls playing in front of me who believe that golf is too easy, bunkers are too perfect, and course owners have way too much cash for their own good.  I'll be more reflective next time when my playing partner complains after his second or third lie in a heel print on a $200+ resort course and reference this wonderful thread.  I am sure he too will come to the right way of thinking: bunkers are hazards; golf is to be endured; who cares if you can't break 100!        

[Lou_Duran]

In my opinion the best point so far is that you don't really need bunkers at all around the greens.
If the pro plays the rough the same as a bunker who cares what surrounds a green?
Get rid of most of the greenside bunkers, keep them on the pro sides on balance, and rough them up a little.
Don't bring in Arkansas white, unless you are in Arkansas.  

Look at the aerial of Wolf Point you'll see about 6 green side bunkers and I don't want to be in any of them - especially since the greens run away from most of them.  the sand is far from PGA tour ideal.  It is bought from a local quarry for about 1/7th the price of a fancier brand - the increased cost is mostly fuel for delivery anyway.

Peace

But Mike, what about the good folks in Arkansas who have this wonderful resource for all of us to enjoy?  Would you deny them their livelihood in the name of local sourcing?  Might your principal have enjoyed this superior sand at a cost of what, $100k incrementally?  Amortized over his life, pursuing the game he loves so dearly, it is probably chump change.  On the other hand, maybe he does prefer less perfect, more difficult hazards.

You do believe that the customer is king, don't you?  Of course, I know that the corollary is that it is up to the enlightened few to educate and refine the tastes of the consuming masses.   The real trick is how we convince the unwashed that six greenside bunkers are all that's necessary for a compelling course when Pine Valley, Sand Hills, Cypress Point, Augusta National, and Oakmont populate the top of most lists of best courses.  Hard to do in the day of gca.com and the internet.  

[Jud_T]

Lou,

You haven't lived 'til you've made a sandie out of a bunker filled with hand-shaved blood diamonds...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Andrew, again I agree with you.  I also wonder what percentage of clubs really has the perfect Augusta bunkers?  Mine certainly doesn't!  In DFW (and maybe Lou can help with this estimate) we have Colonial (although only a relatively recent convert) Preston Trail, Brook Hollow, Dallas CC, DAC, Northwood, Stonebriar, Dallas National, Vaquero, etc.  

In other words, the top 15 courses out of nearly 100 now spend over a million on maintenance, and they probably "over do" their bunkers in the minds of many here.  Not sure this is representative, but if it is, is 15-20% of courses too many trying to emulate the "Augusta look?"  If not, where would the powers that be "draw the line?"  

Or, does the economy and dues structure really do that for us, despite the skewed perception of TV golf?

[Richard Choi]

I think we've already established that sand bunkers provide a more stern challenge than rough (ever so slightly) for pro's.  I think it's safe to assume this only increases for the amateur player, so for the 99.9 percent that play golf courses, sand bunkers do influence the way a hole is played.  I find it interesting that many of the people who were proponents of 6,500 yard golf courses and essentially "letting the pro's shoot what they shoot" instead of altering courses for them, are now lamenting how easy bunker shots are for the best of the best.  It's certainly true tat fairway sand bunkers influence decision making, even at the tour level, and for top amateurs, well placed greenside bunkers will certainly impact strategy.

I think you are missing an important point. The angst, at least for me, is not because the pros are shooting too low or they are making the course too difficult for the rest of us.

What bothers me is that they are compromising the architecture of the course by not raising the difficulties of its hazards evenly. When you are preparing a course for a high-level tournament, the greens and fairways get firmer/faster, narrower, roughs get taller, etc. Almost every conditioning element gets harder for players... EXCEPT for bunkers. Bunkers are the only hazards that actually get easier when tournaments come around (because of excessive grooming over the norm). That compromises the design that relies on bunkers' relative difficulty to provide interest and defense.

What we care about is the integrity of golf course architecture. If you do not care about that, you are at a wrong place.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Richard,

But you are ignoring the obvious that the recovery rates from clean bunkers and longer rough seems to be about the same, so what is the real problem, even in tournament golf?

And where is it written that bunkers need to be the hardest hazard?  They already aren't, after OB and water.  They were probably in fourth place after rough anyway, at least based on the fact that there are 100 acres of rough, and maybe 2 acres of sand bunkers.

If rough were lighter, then I can understand bunkers being harder, and they definitely would be more strategic in that case.  

Another random question, but while we have heard "get in the bunker" why do we imagine that a pro would aim there, or if a 6000 foot green is too small to hit, that a 1500 SF bunker would be an easier target?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wouldn't added depth increase bunker difficulty irrespective of the degree of grooming.

Bunkers where you can't see the flag are more difficult than bunkers that provide you with a complete view.

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff,

This thread is so esoteric that it borders on the ridiculous.  Outside of this august group, I can't think of a single time when I've heard a user (one who plays golf as opposed to maintains or designs) suggest that bunkers are too perfect.  Quite the opposite- and you can poll the owners and managers of the courses you designed- I suspect that one of the most common complaints they get from customers are the poor condition of the bunkers.

As to the courses you note, I haven't played DCC, but most of the rest are known for their conditioning.  Yet, not one of them offer perfect conditions for everyday play nor are their bunkers easy to play from for 99.9% of golfers.  Those which require caddies typically have better conditions, but they all have some "patrons" who are less than casual in cleaning after themselves.  As you probably have heard, a couple of the recently renovated clubs which deepened their bunkers are already considering some changes, not because they are too easy or too perfect, but because some of them members are having difficulty getting out of them, literally.

The Augusta National Syndrome, to the extent that it exists, is probably greatly exaggerated.  Except for important competitions, I suspect that the actual number of clubs which truly strive to meet Masters condition (people I know who have played ANGL in the fall and early spring- it is closed late spring and summer- tell of quite a different course than we see on television) is infinitesimal.  Those that do, can, by structures that we don't need to consider on this site.

One of the reasons I like your courses so much is your bunkering.  Ditto for Jay Morrish.  I remember our friend Redanman complaining about a couple bunkers at Cowboys lacking function, serving only as "eye candy".  Yet, it is probably one of the most successful CCFAD/$$$$$ daily fee courses in north Texas.

At the other end of the scale, Ridgeview Ranch, Whitestone, Frisco Lakes (Gary Stephenson), and even the now private Lantana (Morrish), all wonderful courses with outstanding bunkering, are suffering from very poor bunker conditions.  I suppose that the developers' crystal balls were a bit inaccurate, but more modest bunkering would probably have suited these courses better.  Hind sight being 20/20, but then again, would they have gained sufficient following with more mundane features.  Drainage, sand quality, and weather are all intertwined in how bunkers perform.  I travel throughout much of the country and hope to some day find such conditions where I can start to ponder the perfection of bunkers.  

[Richard Choi]

Jeff, if the bunkers are not supposed to be more challenging than rough, I fail to see why one even needs to add them on the course at all.

The bunkers are only marginally harder on PGA Tour. That is due to conditioning.

[Brent Hutto]

Jeff, if the bunkers are not supposed to be more challenging than rough, I fail to see why one even needs to add them on the course at all.

Silly boy, they are added to boost a course's ratings.

[Andrew Buck]

I think we've already established that sand bunkers provide a more stern challenge than rough (ever so slightly) for pro's.  I think it's safe to assume this only increases for the amateur player, so for the 99.9 percent that play golf courses, sand bunkers do influence the way a hole is played.  I find it interesting that many of the people who were proponents of 6,500 yard golf courses and essentially "letting the pro's shoot what they shoot" instead of altering courses for them, are now lamenting how easy bunker shots are for the best of the best.  It's certainly true tat fairway sand bunkers influence decision making, even at the tour level, and for top amateurs, well placed greenside bunkers will certainly impact strategy.

I think you are missing an important point. The angst, at least for me, is not because the pros are shooting too low or they are making the course too difficult for the rest of us.

What bothers me is that they are compromising the architecture of the course by not raising the difficulties of its hazards evenly. When you are preparing a course for a high-level tournament, the greens and fairways get firmer/faster, narrower, roughs get taller, etc. Almost every conditioning element gets harder for players... EXCEPT for bunkers. Bunkers are the only hazards that actually get easier when tournaments come around (because of excessive grooming over the norm). That compromises the design that relies on bunkers' relative difficulty to provide interest and defense.

What we care about is the integrity of golf course architecture. If you do not care about that, you are at a wrong place.

In my opinion, that entire sentence has nothing to do with integrity of golf course architecture, and everything to do with setup of golf courses.  If this thread is focused on major tournament setup, I'm 100% in agreement that courses should not be altered in a way that rewards hitting into hazards.  

If this thread is focused on the role of sand bunkers and maintenance for golfers (not playing in a major championship), I think ranking sand bunkers is perfectly reasonable and they are still a strategic part of design of golf courses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Richard,

As I mentioned before, even if equal challenge, at least they provide a variety of challenges, which ain't a bad thing.  

I'm with Lou, this thread is intertwining architectural theory with maintenance with cost, etc.  I get the impression that we are looking for solutions where there is no problem.  

Even IF the top 10% of courses are seeking perfection, what's the big whoop?  Does all of golf have to be to some exact prescribed notion?

Lou,

Well said.   Yes, there are some eye candy bunkers on my courses.  What can I say, they look good and dammit, people like them!

Now, bunker depth is an esoteric discussion that should occur here.  As my first round was at Medinah No. 3, I at one time promised to do fewer bunkers but make them really deep.  As it turns out, the industry trend (which I followed) was shallower bunkers and more of them.  Look better, play easier, etc.

As to those developers considering fewer bunkers? Nah, they sell houses and they were necessary the first five years of the course's life.  Whether they are now or not is a different question.

[Lou_Duran]

What bothers me is that they are compromising the architecture of the course by not raising the difficulties of its hazards evenly. When you are preparing a course for a high-level tournament, the greens and fairways get firmer/faster, narrower, roughs get taller, etc. Almost every conditioning element gets harder for players... EXCEPT for bunkers. Bunkers are the only hazards that actually get easier when tournaments come around (because of excessive grooming over the norm). That compromises the design that relies on bunkers' relative difficulty to provide interest and defense.

What we care about is the integrity of golf course architecture. If you do not care about that, you are at a wrong place.

Wow!  Here I thought that one of the things that the smart folks on this site like to wear on their sleeves right below their classic course logos is the "there are no rules in gca" declaration.  Is a new standard being canonized- "difficulty of hazards must be even"?  Wasn't there the time-tested principle of shots being proportionally rewarded or penalized commensurate with their execution?  And all those "high-level tournament" techniques would seem to make bunkers all that much more difficult- as Jeff points out, it is a rather daunting, fantastical ability to hit a surface 10 times smaller out of the rough, not to say anything about then having to get up and down to tucked pins on firmer, faster greens.

BTW who is the "We" who are in a select group guarding the "integrity" of gca?  My, my, aren't we feeling important today!  

As to why one "needs" bunkers at all, not to say anything about the very important role bunkers have played in gca since Day 1, but maybe because most of us golfers like them?  With what seems to be a Malthusian streak infecting this site, perhaps the better question might be "why do we "need" golf at all".  

[Jud_T]

Yet another reason why the best courses are built on sand-  no debate about whether sand is warranted!

[Lou_Duran]

Yet another reason why the best courses are built on sand-  no debate about whether sand is warranted!

Yep.  And near oceans too.  But where such bounties of God (or nature) are lacking, let's be thankful we have a good number of able architects, developers, builders, and superintendents which can approximate.  

[Richard Choi]

Lou, I am not sure how to communicate this any better. But I am probably wasting my breath and you are not listening.

Golf course architecture, a lot like other design/artistic ventures, is about harmony and balance. When an architect places a bunker, he is placing it hoping that it produces the kind of challenge that is in harmony with the rest of the features of the hole. There is balance that needs to be maintained for the hole to be played as intended.

It is just like watching an image on the TV and increasing the saturation of the color. If you increase the saturation of the color evenly, the resulting picture will be in balance and pleasing. However, if you increase the saturation of all colors with exception of green, the resulting picture will not be in balance and will not be pleasing.

I don't understand how advocating balance reflecting the architect's intent is somehow something that should be shouted down.

[Andrew Buck]

Lou, I am not sure how to communicate this any better. But I am probably wasting my breath and you are not listening.

Golf course architecture, a lot like other design/artistic ventures, is about harmony and balance. When an architect places a bunker, he is placing it hoping that it produces the kind of challenge that is in harmony with the rest of the features of the hole. There is balance that needs to be maintained for the hole to be played as intended.

I don't understand how advocating balance reflecting the architect's intent is somehow something that should be shouted down.

Richard,

Is it your contention that well manicured bunkers are not reflecting the architect's intent of balancing difficulty in most situations?  For example, Dallas Country Club has been offered as an example of a club that has taking bunker maintenance to the extreme.  If we assume that 30,000 rounds are played there over the course of the year, what number of rounds do you think players are intentionally challenging bunkers because they perceive they provide less of a difficulty than rough?  Do you think that Tom Bendelow or Jay Morrish's (redesign) challenge does not exist or has been diminished?  

I would say on 99% of courses, for 99% of golfer, sand bunkers are creating a significant challenge, and thus in harmony with architect's intent. 

[Brent Hutto]

For a player who can hit a 6-iron 180 yards in the air, having a forced carry of 150 yards over a pond and landing in a fairway that's 30 yards wide is NO PROBLEM. Even a club he can hit straight, high and accurately 99.9% of the time will clear that pond with 25+ yards to spare. Heck he can catch it fat or thin and clear the water with room to spare.

Yet for me, with that carry, I'm looking at hitting at least my 4-wood and if there's a breeze in a face I might hit driver just to be safe. And a fairway 30 yards wide with a driver or fairway wood is pretty darned narrow, I'll probably miss that fairway half the time. Especially given the pressure of knowing that a dropkick or thinned shot is going in the drink.

That's exactly what a high-lipped, greenside bunker is for an elite player vs. myself. He can get the ball on the green even from a horrible plugged lie and from a normal lie will get it inside of 10 feet more often than not. For me I might hit one shot a week inside 10 feet from a bunker and at least once a week I'll miss the green with a bunker shot from a perfect lie. From a plugged lie? One swing to unplug it and another to get it out would be typical.

A lot of these bloody-minded proposals are akin to saying that the pond carry ought to be 220 yards instead of 150 and/or the fairway 20 yards wide instead of 30. After all, the pond is supposed to be a hazard. Anyone who can play well beyond it with a 6-iron might as well not be facing the hazard at all!

[Jud_T]

Well let's see Andrew... The sand wedge was introduced in 1935.  Tom Bendelow died in 1936.  Somehow I doubt Bendelow put this in his pipe and smoked it:

http://www.usga.org/course_care/articles/construction/bunkers/How-to-Select-the-Best-Sand-for-Your-Bunkers/

[Steve Lang]

  hrrrrumph, hrrrrrrumph,

Harmony and Balance???  since when is a golf course supposed to sooooothhhh your mental acuity?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()