[Bill Brightly]

I've been having a running friendly "discussion" with the best players at my club. Since I am a former Grounds Chair with a good relationship with our superintendent, they come to me with their complaints about the "inconsistency" of the sand in our bunkers. Naturally, I respond by saying: "You know, you really need to avoid hitting your ball in our sand hazards." And I laugh a little about how much low-handicappers whine.

But I'm also seriously trying to convince a few that they need to alter their expectations and to re-think what they should expect when they hit a ball in a bunker. I've just about convinced a young, multiple-time club champ. He ran the concept by his buddy David, a GREAT player who has played on mini tours for years. David said he agreed, he'll accept thin or fluffy sand, all he wants is "consistency" in the bunkers throughout the course,

Here is my response. Feel free to tell me where I was wrong.

Steve,

I wanted to respond more fully so you could forward this to your friend David (unnamed player with near-PGA pro ability.)

As a decent player, of course I prefer consistent bunkers. I love saving par from bunkers. But having served as Grounds Chair for four years, and as a fairly serious student of the history of golf course architecture, I want to give David some things to think about.

Bunkers are not static. They are greatly affected by wind, rain, equipment (sand pros) and players whacking at golf balls with sand wedges.

I can’t quote statistics, but an amazing amount of sand simply blows out of sand hazards. Of course, some bunkers are constructed to better protect from the wind. So that means if the Superintendent fills every bunker PERFECTLY on a Monday, there will be inconsistency of the bunkers by Friday if we have four windy days.

Rain and water beats the sand down, but not every bunker collects, or repels, water in the same manner. Drainage is HUGE in how well each bunker handles water. Our course has 15 bunkers built in the last 4 years, all with good drainage. The rest were built 20 years ago. Some of those drain OK, some do not. Some are greatly exposed to the wind, some are not.

The point is: How much money does a club want to spend to maintain “consistent” bunkers? A better question is: “How much money should a club spend to groom their HAZARDS?” These are  places where the golf course architect made it clear to the player: “Don’t hit it here!” Exactly how many man hours per week do you want our superintendent to spend tending to hazards? Should we spend less time filling divots in the fairway? Or less time cutting and  rolling greens,  mowing roughs, edging bunkers and sprinkler heads, trimming overhanging trees , repairing equipment, or a host of other tasks that need to be completed? Our grounds budget is above average, but it has limits. At some point, it becomes a zero sum game.

Sorry, but there is a limit to how much money I want to spend to help out players who hit where they should not have. C.B. Macdonald wrote that hazards should be “maintained” by sending a team of mules through them….

The invention of the sand wedge coupled with the “Augusta Effect” sent most golf clubs in the US on a mad rush to produce perfectly groomed playing conditions in bunkers, and this greatly reduced the penal nature of sand hazards. Simply because such pristine conditions were possible (given unlimited resources).

I say we have reached the breaking point and clubs have to draw the line somewhere. I’m perfectly OK if those clearly obvious sand hazards return a little bit  to their original intent: “This is a place to be avoided. Hit your ball here and accept the consequences!”

David is a great player, and I’ve come to understand that better players have an inordinate amount of influence on people’s opinion about golf courses. So I figure that winning him over is worth 50 mid-handicappers!

Bill

[Ryan Coles]

Bill

Excellent response. I'll be stealing much of that, I'm sure.

[Matthew Sander]

Bill,

Well done. I think you successfully made your case.

Really, the situation is quite simple as you describe above. Bunkers are hazards, end of story. There needn't be any level of predictability involved in playing from a bunker, nothing should be guaranteed. If a club wants to go to the expense of maintaining bunkers in an uber-friendly and consistent manner, more power to them, but it doesn't need to be the norm (IMHO).

I think many players (high and low handicappers) want very little uncertainty, if any, in their course presentation. Anything that negatively affects their ability to reliably predict outcomes leads to uneasiness. I absolutely get that, but it doesn't mean the course should be groomed to maximize anyone's comfort.

[Don_Mahaffey]

While I like the message and tone, please report back how it is received by David.
My experience is he has heard it plenty before.

One answer, fewer bunkers, more penal.

Most of our courses are over bunkered; the architects crutch.
Too many bunkers mean too many players are in them all the time and we have to make them "playable"

So many of golf's problems come back to design.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

Most forget that a bunker is a hazard and there's no obligation that it be kept in pristine or even consistent condition.

The golfer, upon entering the bunker, observing and taking their stance is given ample opportunity to assess it's condition and character.

[Joe Sponcia]

Bill,

You sir are what my kids call a 'baller'!  Great response, and with your permission, I would like to use parts of this myself as we discussed this exact topic tonight at my Green Committee.

To your point Don, I just re-read Daniel Wexler's excellent "in my opinion" article on Augusta last night...and what stood out to me was the number of bunkers that have been added, coupled with quotes I have seen by Dr. Mackenzie with regard to too many.

Exceptional job!

[BCowan]

Bill ''Baller'' Brightly!   

it has a nice ring to it

[Jim_Kennedy]

When I look at old photos that were taken at some well known clubs during the first 1/3 of the 20th century I'm always struck by how well all the parts of the course seem to blend with each other.

Tee boxes look a tad scruffy, fairways never seem pristine, rough looks, well, rough, and the bunkers have somewhat of an unkempt look to them -  and sometimes they're not even raked!!!

Same goes for these clubs in the modern area, except that the tee boxes are  perfect, the fairways are  pristine, the rough looks, well, manicured, and the bunkers have a kempt look to them -  none are left unraked!!!

Bill, I wish you good luck (seriously) in trying to send bunkers back to 1930 when every other part of the course is 2013.      

[Lyndell Young]

Bill I agree with you, I hear this a lot at my course. Better players don't want there round ruined by a poor bunker shot,due to sand, too much, too soft,too coarse etc. Bunkers should be a penalty but players actually try to hit them because there too perfect. I like the bunkers of Scotland that you must avoid at all costs ,even some you have to hit out backwards. JMO

[Garland Bayley]

It oft seems to me that high handicappers blame themselves, and low handicappers blame the course. Kinda goes along with the study that shows you have to be a liar to get to be really good. (And, no I didn't take down the reference to give you.) If you can lie often about how other factors were at blame, you can gain confidence and become really good. Works in multiple sports. As I recall, the paper presented an example of a champion swimmer.

[Pat Burke]

When I was still playing, I played with a NHL player.
He is a great guy, and a single digit player.  He hit it in 3 bunkers
on the front nine, and complained about how bad the bunkers were.
We were playing with the Director of Golf of the course, and they had
 a good-natured argument going for 2-3 holes.
The NHL player asked me what I thought of the bunkers.  I told him that I hadn't
been in one yet.  Everyone laughed, made me wish I was trying to be funny!

I made a comment when asked about the bunkers on tour, that they generally were perfect to
hit a recovery shot from.  The NHL guy said "that's the way it should be".
I am a fan of the Pine Valley approach (well old Pine Valley approach), and told him a good player
will a) miss the bunkers or b) be able to deal with them.
He started arguing with me next .  I told him he shouldn't play against the Islanders, because the Nassau Coliseum sucks
and the public restrooms were disgusting.

[V. Kmetz]

Rhetorical note:

Q1. Why are bunkers raked or maintained at all, outside of wash-outs?
A1. Because its no fun to have a shot that you can't play.  Most people play the darn sport for fun. If you're in a footprint or plugged in a section that's soft, or on hard pan, for most it's one whack and game over...concede, pick up, put down your ESC number for the hole and move on.  Less fun than having a chance

I'd be willing to allow bunkers to be unraked and largely incosnistent if you could ground your club in them, and test the surface at address.  The change of surface is the real challenge, for me, of a bunker and this shouldn't be further doubled by having generally inconsistent, unraked surfaces about the course.

As for the meaning, definition or spirit of "hazard," let's let the bunkers be whatever, but put yellow and red lines around them like the water hazards and let people drop with penalty stroke out of them.  It'd be an interesting adjunct of game play for good, middlin and poor players alike - to see if they want to dare the wild conditions of a particular trap or take the drop.

In all things with GCA, I want to enhance the fun and the amusements therein - un-raked or exceedingly inconsistent bunkers, in a game that is more defined by medal and stroke play, seems capricious and anti-fun.

Plus, I think the charges of inconsistency are largely overwrought anyway.  Most courses I know good bad or indifferent have fairly uniform standards from bunker to bunker

cheers

vk

[Colin Macqueen]

"Baller" Bill,

"Most forget that a bunker is a hazard and there's no obligation that it be kept in pristine or even consistent condition."

Pat Mucci's quote above echoes a sentiment expressed by David Elvins (I forget which thread!) when he described bunkers on The Sandbelt.

David pointed out that the bunkers on these very fine courses could vary enormously. Not only from day to day given local weather conditions but also on the same day and even around any given green one bunker could play quite differently from another. It was a matter of dealing with the errant shot on a case by case basis! I would concur from my own experience having played a number of them quite a few times (though not Royal Melbourne!).

Resident Melbournians might scotch this and claim it is a flight of fancy and that Macqueen just cannot play bunker-shots well but I have found it so!

Thus I guess if it is good enough for these excellent courses to have inconsistency in their bunkers then it might be okay for Hackensack!

Cheers Colin

[Jason Thurman]

I suspect it's preaching to the choir around here, but I basically agree with every word you said.

At our greens committee meeting this month we talked about the percentage of total maintenance costs spent on bunkers. I think it was about 15%, although the exact numbers escape me. On our course, bunkers probably comprise about 1% of our total acreage. We had a consulting architect present, and he mentioned that square yard for square yard, bunkers are often the most expensive part of the course to maintain. That seems ridiculous for a hazard.

[BCowan]

Bill

    what do you think about grass bunkers?  Would you like to see more on a course?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Perhaps I'm in the minority here but I agree with V. Kmetz.  What about thin sand like hard pan with a short side pin while other bunkers have more sand? Where can I practice that shot if practice bunkers at my club are not hard pan?

I like the choices he gave.

[DMoriarty]

I think it a good thing when a course occasionally makes the golfer improvise by hitting a shot he hasn't practiced.

[Bill Brightly]

Bill

    what do you think about grass bunkers?  Would you like to see more on a course?

I LOVE grass bunkers, but they have to be used very sparingly. I play a lot at Saucon Valley, and each of their three course has a green with no sand hazards. I've learned that if you have a landform that is the same shape and depth as a sand bunker, but is covered with long rough, it plays essentially like a sand hazard. Balls that land against the face usually bounce back into the "bunker" and a type of explosion shot is required. A low running shot will only rarely roll through sand or grass bunkers.

My guess is that the number of up and down par saves are about the same, except higher handicappers probably would favor grass over sand.  But if an architect did it too often on a course, it would be boring. And there's no denying that sand bunkers are visually appealing, so too many grass bunkers would leave a drab look, IMO.

[Sean_A]

Bill

I essentially agree wth you so long as the bunkers are reasonable.  For instance, I wouldn't want to see clay a half inch below the sand in one bunker and six inches of sand in another, but I am sure your parameters are much tighter than that.  Its a good argument which however sad, relies basically on saving money to make the most important point. 

As a matter of expediency, I really dislike seeing thin sand bunkers combined with steep and high slopes simply because its boring to watch watch guys thin shot after shot into the wall or or over the green.  If there are going to be steep and high banks involved, provide enough sand for the 18 capper to splash out.  Much of the time they will fail, but at least their odds are increased without making much difference to the good player. 

I agree with completely with Don and V Kmetz.  Less bunkers, more meaningfully placed and nastier.  I also think drops should be allowed from sand.  Never understood why a guy can't take a penalty and drop at the nearest point of relief plus 2.  Its awful watching a guy hack away knowing he can't retrieve himself. 

Bottom line, way too much time and money goes into building and taking care of bunkers.  Archies need to become more savvy.

Ciao 

[David Davis]

Great letter Bill. I've been dealing with similar issues for some time as well. People love to complain, simple fact.

It's almost comical to suggest hazards should not be hazardous. Pros play for the bunkers as it assures a better chance of making an up and down than the rough. I honestly doubt architects had that in mind when bunkers were designed.

I can't wait to start receiving complaints about there being too much water in the water hazards...

If you wouldn't mind drafting that letter I would certainly get a big kick out of it.

The bunker complainers certainly don't remember the Open at Royal Lytham and watching even the likes of Tiger taking a few extra swings in the bunkers. Now those are hazards...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Might even be more effective if you could work with the super to put some exact numbers to that bunker perfection.   Around here, the "perfect sand" comes from Arkansas, cost well over $100 per ton, while an "acceptable" local sand, with some plugging, less bright white, can be had from $25-$50 per ton, about a quarter to half.

I know of two side by side courses in the Midwest - one public, one private - who pay $50K and $300K a year for bunker maintenance, with the difference being 7 days a week bunker raking, and more expensive sand, plus trimming edges frequently for that perfect Augusta look.  At 250 members and $250,000 per year, I guess its $1000 per year for that perfection, or more with fewer members.  Is a few strokes that are probably your fault anyway worth another $1000 (or for the once a week player $20 per round?)  Who knows, for some it might be worth it, for most, I gather not.

Also reminds me of Gary Player, who seemed to blame little pebbles under his ball and other things whenever he hit a bad bunker shot.  On the other hand, he is famous for saying that the more he practices, the luckier he seems to get in the bunkers.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

All I ask for is not to be in a front print, other than that it is a hazard.
And if I am in a foot print I understand that just means an ignorant golfer has been playing in front of me, not the green staff fault.

[Richard_Mandell]

Bill,

I once asked Gary Player, after he droned on about the sorry state of the golf business and how we needed to cut costs and maintenance, if he was in favor of eliminating bunker rakes form golf courses.  His response was, "Oh no, we can't do that!".

Shortly thereafter I wrote one of my blog entries for The Washington Times on the subject.  I have stopped contributing a few years ago, but here is the original word document below.  Since this originally appeared in 2011, I have found a horse's head in my bed, I get threatening letters from the Standard Golf company weekly, and I have Ben in my office start my car for me (he is doing fine with one hand after the first "unfortunate ignition incident".  I call him lefty now).

Toss The Rakes!  All of Them!

[/b]
I once got chastised for not raking a bunker “properly” when caddying at the 1989 LPGA Greater Washington Open as my player was miss-aligning herself to a first round 85 and a quick WD.  Just for the record, what my player recognized was someone else’s ball mark that was previously at her back.  Nonetheless, that is part and parcel of the ‘plight of the tour caddy’.  This was in my last summer of freedom before I interned as a golf architect the following year and went down the path I am currently on.

One other fond memory of absolute sand bunker abuse I recall was watching a young woman simply drive her cart right through the back left bunker of the fourth hole at Rye Golf Club in Rye New York about five years prior to my Bethesda Country Club caddying experience.  Of course, there are many places in the world where one is actually expected to drive through sand bunkers and the golfers have to deal with tire tracks or anything else for that matter.  Purists call these bunkers ‘waste areas’ and so they are therefore exempt from the perfect conditioning that is expected in a more ‘formal’ sand bunker.

I am not sure when people were first expected to rake after themselves nor am I clear on when it became a regular maintenance practice.  I did recently read a golf course maintenance book from 1931 which referenced rakes on golf courses, though.  So at some level the rake has been a part of the routine for at least eighty years. 

There was once a time when a sand bunker was truly considered a hazard and they were feared by golfers.  Nowadays, more man-hours are put into sand bunker maintenance than putting surfaces.  We have already listened to at least two decades of television commentators remarking how the U. S. Open participant would rather find a sand bunker than the rough. 

Over the past decade or so we have certainly seen attention ramped when it comes to bunker maintenance.  I have heard of numerous clubs replacing sand mere months after a complete bunker renovation project because the members were not happy with the sand consistency.  Frankly, it’s not pizza dough.  It is SAND, a hazard, a feature that was born out of the whole concept of erosion. 

Here’s another one:  I was recently asked by a general manager why the bunkers at one particular club were so inconsistent only to learn from the superintendent that he actually irrigates some bunkers to firm up the sand!  I have since learned that this is somewhat of a common practice.

I say ditch ‘em.  Ditch every single one of them.  Throw all the world’s bunker rakes away.  Why should we have to do yard work at a place we specifically chose to visit instead of our own backyards?  Let the sand bunker be a challenge hazard as it was meant to be.  Play it where it lies!  So there is my rant.

Now that I have it out of my system, let’s talk about the practical applications of this simple and possibly very cost-effective idea.  First of all, think of how much time we can eliminate from our daily rounds of golf by not having to seek out a rake, possibly retrieve it from the opposite side of the hazard from where we stand, work on carefully smoothing the sand (utilizing proper technique), and then carefully rake ourselves out of the bunker.  It’s worse than mopping a kitchen.  I bet we could shave fifteen to maybe thirty minutes off a typical round of golf among four high-handicappers. 
Now realize how many man-hours a golf course maintenance crew could save by eliminating this task from their daily routines.  Those bunkers we first encounter are already perfectly smooth each day, and it isn’t the deer from the night before (or young Bobby and Darlene from the night before either).  On average, a club spends twelve to fifteen man-hours a day hand raking sand bunkers.  This can translate to an annual savings of about $40,000 a year.  That may not be a lot when considering the higher-end clubs, but for others, that can equate to ten to fifteen percent of a total maintenance budget.

Less savings can be realized from machine raking, but that process brings about a whole set of problems trying to fix the damage a sand pro machine imparts on a sand bunker’s edges.  Constant repair is the norm at most clubs and renovations occur at a more rapid pace as sand is constantly displaced and the bunker loses its form and integrity.

Of course, the professional golfer will look to hang me from the nearest limb or impale me with a rake, but there was a day when the professional did not have the course conditioning luxuries they have today.  These guys are the most talented golfers on the planet.  They should be able to extricate themselves from a footprint every now and then.  Heck, they even have a club specially designed to get out of the sand!  It’s called a sand wedge.

So there you go, a novel idea to speed up play, cut expenses, and bring back yet another lost reminder of the original spirit of the game!  Regardless of where we go from here, keep your cart out of the sand.

Richard Mandell has been a Golf Content Creator for the Washington Times Communities since October 20, 2008

[Bill Brightly]

OK, here is David's response to my memo. Your comments are encouraged:


Billy,

Thanks for the note. I will try to hit on the major talking points from your email to Steve.
 
Regarding sand traps as hazards, yes, that is the case.  However, the severity of their conditions is where I have some issues.  The USGA definition is here: (<http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#bunker>) 'A bunker is a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the likes of it.  This is the proper term as defined in the Rules of Golf."  The key word in this definition for me is PREPARED.  I feel that if a bunker is "prepared" properly then it should be groomed in a certain way, unlike water and lateral hazards.   
 
Do not get me wrong, I am not asking for a simple up and down to save par, etc.  I understand they are hazards.

That said, I find it unfair to the golfer when, on one hole, your approach shot plugs in a bunker and then on the very next hole you blade one out of a bunker because there is no sand. Or even worse (and I think this is why a lot of low handicappers complain) is when you and I each hit seven irons into the same exact bunker--one ball plugs and the other ball, which is just a few feet away, has a thin lie.  This is my main gripe--consistency.
 
Regarding maintenance time, raking a bunker never takes away time from maintaining the greens since the greens are handled before play commences each day. You have approximately 2 to 2.5 hrs to cut (and roll if you so choose) all 18 greens at the start of the day--and that is it.  Once play starts there is no going back and cutting greens, leaving you ample time to maintain the bunkers and other important areas of the course.  More time can and should be spent on  bunkers.  For example, at Muirfield Village (at one point four or five years ago) they had three guys from the crew driving around all day working on bunkers. They were assigned 6 holes each.  They were tasked with raking the bunkers after any shots were played out of them so the bunkers were perfect at all times. Trust me, I am not an advocate of this but I am trying to convey that many high-end courses do care a lot about the conditions of the bunkers.
 
I do understand that this same Muirfield Village was trying to implement the old school rakes a couple of years ago as a test for the tour players but that lasted for only two weeks.

Your argument that the wind blows sand out of bunkers and bunkers are not static is true but this is, once again, where maintenance and budgets come into play to resolve the issues.
 
Regarding drainage, if you are paying healthy dues at a club, shouldn't you expect ALL bunkers to drain well not just some of them?

Your club has done a great job at eliminating low spots in fairways and getting them all to drain well.  Why wouldn't you want to spend money on the bunkers to get the same results?

Your theory that "bunkers are hazards and you need to just stay out of them" is a little off, in my opinion.  In my eyes, if I was paying the dollars, I would want everything in tip-top shape.  I understand there are budgeting concerns and a priority list for everything, but as you approach almost every green at HGC (16 holes in my estimation) you are looking at bunkers framing every green.  I would want every one of them looking bright, clean, and perfect because they are the picture frames to your greens.
 
Basically, I believe there needs to be as many man hours and dollars spent on the bunkers "as required" so that they all play in the same manner--once again my point being consistency.  This "as required" endeavor should not break the budget or drain man hours.

I really do the debate because I appreciate your passion for golf courses and I also appreciate how much time you dedicate to it and how much knowledge you have on the subject.

Regards,
David

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Equally good points, hard to argue with what he is saying in terms of the "fairness" of maintenance time.
My guess is that the two of you are not very far apart in what you expect from the bunkers, perhaps just a little too caught up in the word consistency.
Most of the time I believe that good raking manners from the members assures that bunkers are at least close to being consistent and it is they the members that create the issue rather than the greens staff.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()