Bunkers: same location but different styles

[Mike_Young]

Reading a couple of other threads on bunkers convinces me even more that the modern bunker is a "cop-out". 
Does anyone think that a well manicured bunker where the ball rolls away from the edges and into a well raked lie is a hazard that intimidates a good player.  Doesn't this type of "hazard" actually keep a ball from rolling further away in many situations.  IMHO if a bunker with many variables, whether it be lie, grasses, slope, hairy etc, is much more intimidating and will make a good player think much more about missing into the same location than if it is a well maintained modern bunker.  Of course I guess we could say the same thing about taking grain out of greens also , variables continue to be removed.

[James Bennett]

mike

the bunkers are less of a hazard when the 'sand' (or whatever mineral combination is used) can support a ball like a hard-pan surface with a clean lie. Most sands that I play from invariably have some percentage of the ball in the sand, not on the sand.

[Mike_Young]

James,
IMHO that would be a matter of skill as to hard sand vs. fluff.   I am asking or maybe even stating  that a bunker where the player knows a ball could end up in a position where you could not take the club back or it could be next to a clump of grass or in a position where the only shot is away from the green creates a much tougher mental evaluation of the shot than just one knowing they can miss in a clean bunker.  JMO

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

It could be argued that a difficult, unpredictable bunker will just make the good player think less about whether to challenge it, no?  Too hard, and the answer is a resounding "Hell, no!" unless of course, its late in the round when that $5 Nassau is on the line. In general, I think a player would have to feel he has a 2/3 chance of hitting it to the green from the bunker to do anything other than steer clear of it.

Its not about thinking about where not to miss, strategic architecture is about thinking where to challenge and play for advantage.

Of course, depending on where in the round, what type of hole, etc. there sure doesn't need to be any standard depth bunker, although using the 2/3 rule of thumb, that would obviously be deeper for shorter shots.  And, nothing wrong with the occaisional "hit it anywhere but here bunker".

Most would argue sand should at least be the same general consistency.  We can disagree about how much that ought to be, and most would agree that spending $250K a year - or maybe $10 per round seems like too much to spend, proportionally speaking......

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

It could be argued that a difficult, unpredictable bunker will just make the good player think less about whether to challenge it, no?  
Its not about thinking about where not to miss, strategic architecture is about thinking where to challenge and play for advantage.

Jeff,
Exactly.  The good player will think less about challenging it.

But as for "missing", IMHO  strategic architecture is more about knowing when and where to miss.  Actually I think the key to playing well consistently is knowing where to miss.

Oh well....u still haven't answered my email...you need to come over...

[Bradley Anderson]

If a club provides a practice facility with bunkers and with a teaching professional (as most all clubs do) then shouldn't the members of the club expect to find conditions on the golf course where their shots are going to work out exactly as they have been taught and practiced?

My answer is NO. But the average club members doesn't see it that way. Their thinking is more along the lines of:

1. I have bought the best clubs money can buy
2. I have paid for good professional lessons
3. I have practiced the sand shot
4. I pay good money to belong to this club and I deserve to have "fair" conditions on every shot

It's the fairness doctrine.

[BCrosby]

If a club provides a practice facility with bunkers and with a teaching professional (as most all clubs do) then shouldn't the members of the club expect to find conditions on the golf course where their shots are going to work out exactly as they have been taught and practiced?

My answer is NO. But the average club members doesn't see it that way. Their thinking is more along the lines of:

1. I have bought the best clubs money can buy
2. I have paid for good professional lessons
3. I have practiced the sand shot
4. I pay good money to belong to this club and I deserve to have "fair" conditions on every shot

It's the fairness doctrine.

Well said. The fairness doctrine includes the notion that you should be able to two putt every green and never be punished for a good shot.

Bob

[Brent Hutto]

I realize the main purpose of this web site is to demonstrate its participants are "more purist than thou". That aside, riddle me this...

What proportion of golfers do you guys think look at a more-or-less properly raked sand bunker and think "Man, that would be a much better hazard if it were full of footprints, had a few washed-out spots of bare hardpan or maybe even had a few sprigs of grass growing here and there"?

Or even if those golfers are just too stupid to realize what they're missing, what proportion do you think walk up to an unraked, unkempt bunker half full of dirty sand and think "Wow, this is going to be soooo much more fun than the usual groomed bunkers"?

If it's 1% I'd be gobsmacked. You'd be better off wishing for oiled-sand greens or 150-yard forced carries in front of every tee box.

I mean seriously, do you guys play with anyone who gets up and down even 50% of the time from a groomed bunker? I'm all for bunkers presenting more of a hazard than rough, OK? But that means a lot of courses need to trim back their rough, not turn the bunkers into scraggly hardpan.

[JMEvensky]

I realize the main purpose of this web site is to demonstrate its participants are "more purist than thou". That aside, riddle me this...

What proportion of golfers do you guys think look at a more-or-less properly raked sand bunker and think "Man, that would be a much better hazard if it were full of footprints, had a few washed-out spots of bare hardpan or maybe even had a few sprigs of grass growing here and there"?

Or even if those golfers are just too stupid to realize what they're missing, what proportion do you think walk up to an unraked, unkempt bunker half full of dirty sand and think "Wow, this is going to be soooo much more fun than the usual groomed bunkers"?

If it's 1% I'd be gobsmacked. You'd be better off wishing for oiled-sand greens or 150-yard forced carries in front of every tee box.

I mean seriously, do you guys play with anyone who gets up and down even 50% of the time from a groomed bunker? I'm all for bunkers presenting more of a hazard than rough, OK? But that means a lot of courses need to trim back their rough, not turn the bunkers into scraggly hardpan.

Agreed. Plus,not many members pay private club dues for muni-maintained bunkers.

That said,seems like most golfers would have about the same sand save success playing from a foot print as a perfect lie.Never will understand why most members insist on perfect bunkers when they only benefit a handful of players.

[Ben Hollerbach]

What proportion of golfers do you guys think look at a more-or-less properly raked sand bunker and think "Man, that would be a much better hazard if it were full of footprints, had a few washed-out spots of bare hardpan or maybe even had a few sprigs of grass growing here and there"?

Or even if those golfers are just too stupid to realize what they're missing, what proportion do you think walk up to an unraked, unkempt bunker half full of dirty sand and think "Wow, this is going to be soooo much more fun than the usual groomed bunkers"?

If it's 1% I'd be gobsmacked. You'd be better off wishing for oiled-sand greens or 150-yard forced carries in front of every tee box.

I mean seriously, do you guys play with anyone who gets up and down even 50% of the time from a groomed bunker? I'm all for bunkers presenting more of a hazard than rough, OK? But that means a lot of courses need to trim back their rough, not turn the bunkers into scraggly hardpan.

Its probably closer to 0.0001%

A well manicured bunker offers little challenge to the good player. If you can spin the ball out of a bunker you're better off attacking a pin tucked behind a bunker as that recovery would most likely give you your best chance at par. For 95% of all golfers their recovery rate from a bunker is well below 50%, but if the bunker was presented in a less than ideal manor would their recovery rate drop that far? I would suspect not.

While letting bunkers go across the landscape of all courses may not be the best course of action I'd like to see bunker furrowing become a more widespread practice. I thought it was fantastic that Nicklaus started experimented with them a half decade ago at the Memorial, I believe it should be commonplace at events like the US Open and maybe the whole of the PGA tour.

[Bill_McBride]

We have a bunker I avoid like the plague, a small one short left of our dogleg right par 4 second.   It's well maintained and has a flat bottom, but the grass banks are steep.  Most of the shots I've hooked or pulled into it seem to wind up close to the left bank, where very awkward lies are routine.  One foot in, one out, or both out, or on your knees, are not uncommon situations.  

[Brent Hutto]

It's just amazing to me that anyone can watch a really skilled bunker player hit a few shots close to the hole and their first thought is "We need to bugger up those bunkers so he can't do that". The bloody-mindedness of the Treehouse astounds me some time.

I think it's kind of cool that I can go spend an hour or two in the practice bunkers and for at least a few weeks or months I'm only mildly disappointed at my ball ending up in the sand on an approach shot. Not that I get up and down 50% of the time but then again I don't get up and down half the time from 30 yards in the rough either.

Then sure enough a year or so goes by and every bunker becomes a triple-bogey waiting to happen. It's almost like the sand presents its own special challenge and I'm rewarding for acquiring and maintaining that specific skill.

I can't see why making it a crapshoot (with awful odds) is an improvement over a situation that requires a special skill but a special skill acquirable by even a rank hacker like myself. Then again, I like smooth fast greens and I prefer knowing how far I'm standing from the green so I realize I'm a total outlier in the rarefied realm of Golf Club Atlas.

[Ben Hollerbach]

I think a bunker should be a hazard that even the best in the game won't get up and down more than 30% of the time. I still want people to be able to hit their ball out of the bunker in one stroke but not get it in the hole in two. The existence of a bunker should be a clear sign to a player to play away and not challenge.

[John Kavanaugh]

Every year golfers are bigger jerks than ever.  Every year fewer bunkers are raked and when they are it is haphazardly at best.  The beauty of this from a purist standpoint is that you never really know when you are going to get screwed.  Worst of all are they guys with Trues that think they don't leave prints.  Is that crap hole out of business yet?

[Sean_A]

I realize the main purpose of this web site is to demonstrate its participants are "more purist than thou". That aside, riddle me this...

What proportion of golfers do you guys think look at a more-or-less properly raked sand bunker and think "Man, that would be a much better hazard if it were full of footprints, had a few washed-out spots of bare hardpan or maybe even had a few sprigs of grass growing here and there"?

Or even if those golfers are just too stupid to realize what they're missing, what proportion do you think walk up to an unraked, unkempt bunker half full of dirty sand and think "Wow, this is going to be soooo much more fun than the usual groomed bunkers"?

If it's 1% I'd be gobsmacked. You'd be better off wishing for oiled-sand greens or 150-yard forced carries in front of every tee box.

I mean seriously, do you guys play with anyone who gets up and down even 50% of the time from a groomed bunker? I'm all for bunkers presenting more of a hazard than rough, OK? But that means a lot of courses need to trim back their rough, not turn the bunkers into scraggly hardpan.

Brent

If its either or, sure, cut the rough and leave the sand alone.  But if I am dreaming, why can't I wish for fewer, better placed, harsher bunkers and the rough cut? 

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

Every year golfers are bigger jerks than ever.  Every year fewer bunkers are raked and when they are it is haphazardly at best.  The beauty of this from a purist standpoint is that you never really know when you are going to get screwed.  Worst of all are they guys with Trues that think they don't leave prints.  Is that crap hole out of business yet?

If you are a True wearer you always rake.  Otherwise the truth is in the sand, "TRUE" and easy to read. 

Have you worn any of those crap shoes?   I love the new all white saddle classic, very retro and very comfy.  Since I started wearing Trues, no blisters.  Or maybe one. 

[Brent Hutto]

Well Sean, I think that's a well reasoned wish consistent with your general philosophy.

I'm all for pot bunkers, assuming they can be implemented at all in keeping with the general lay of the land. And if they are small, deep, steep-sided and nasty then any reasonable person will avoid them.

What I'm not in favor of is a perfectly easy and playable bunker that's large, shallow and flat with only a minor lip to contend with but may or may not be rendered nigh unplayable because a hundred feet have tromped through it and there are big berms of soft, fluffy, white sand pushed up in random spots.

On a typical USA parkland course with an acre of sand per hole on average and every green have two, three or more bunkers greenside it would be silly and impractical from the higher handicapper's perspective to try and achieve pot-bunker-like difficulty through lack of maintenance of each.

So I'm good with acres of white sand, with rakes. And I'm good with sparse but cunningly placed pot bunkers. Just not good with taking bunkers designed to be a combination of modest "hazard" plus visual eye candy and making them ugly and penal by the accumulation of kicked-up sand from the golfers playing ahead of you.

[Sean_A]

Well Sean, I think that's a well reasoned wish consistent with your general philosophy.

I'm all for pot bunkers, assuming they can be implemented at all in keeping with the general lay of the land. And if they are small, deep, steep-sided and nasty then any reasonable person will avoid them.

What I'm not in favor of is a perfectly easy and playable bunker that's large, shallow and flat with only a minor lip to contend with but may or may not be rendered nigh unplayable because a hundred feet have tromped through it and there are big berms of soft, fluffy, white sand pushed up in random spots.

On a typical USA parkland course with an acre of sand per hole on average and every green have two, three or more bunkers greenside it would be silly and impractical from the higher handicapper's perspective to try and achieve pot-bunker-like difficulty through lack of maintenance of each.

So I'm good with acres of white sand, with rakes. And I'm good with sparse but cunningly placed pot bunkers. Just not good with taking bunkers designed to be a combination of modest "hazard" plus visual eye candy and making them ugly and penal by the accumulation of kicked-up sand from the golfers playing ahead of you.

We all have an opinion.  The thing is, it doesn't much matter if we are dreaming.  I don't mind if penalty drops were allowd from sand so thats why I don't mind if bunkers are harshly " maintained" - if were are dreaming.

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

Well if we were really dreaming I love the Tobacco Road/Ocean Course/Whistling Straits approach of unmaintained (or carefully maintained "imperfectly") sand areas that are deemed through the green.

[Mike_Young]

Well if we were really dreaming I love the Tobacco Road/Ocean Course/Whistling Straits approach of unmaintained (or carefully maintained "imperfectly") sand areas that are deemed through the green.

I'm not speaking of poor bunkers when I say unpredictable.  I'm saying a bunker as you describe at Tobacco road or Ballyneal or Sandhills or Cuscowilla vs a well maintained predictable bunker.  The pro will think about the latter bunkers more IMHO.

[Bradley Anderson]

I have a superintendent friend here in Chicago who is sending out 6 men every morning to firm bunker faces with squeegie rollers before they are raked. Imagine the sight of grown men rolling the sand in bunkers with sqeegies!

On a cost per square foot basis bunkers are becoming as expensive to maintain as greens. This is because they are considered to be just another feature on the golf course where predictable results may be expected if one uses the proper technique and club selection.

Many of the people who can afford to join private clubs arrived at their success in life through discipline and effort - the same formula for success should apply to their golf game and that's what they expect.

[Brent Hutto]

Our club has been continually flirting with the edges of severe financial difficulty for quite a few years now. And the Board keeps saying they've cut spending to the bone but I won't believe them as long as they send a crew around to all 27 holes several mornings a week (pretty much every day with certain exceptions) to groom the bunkers. Not being in the golf-course keeping business, I can only speculate as to what other worthwhile endeavors the crew could undertake if they groomed each bunker once a week instead of daily.

[Jon Wiggett]

Our club has been continually flirting with the edges of severe financial difficulty for quite a few years now. And the Board keeps saying they've cut spending to the bone but I won't believe them as long as they send a crew around to all 27 holes several mornings a week (pretty much every day with certain exceptions) to groom the bunkers. Not being in the golf-course keeping business, I can only speculate as to what other worthwhile endeavors the crew could undertake if they groomed each bunker once a week instead of daily.

Spot on Brent. Why should a club waste money and time repairing the damage that golfers leave.

Bradley,

you can flip your point on its head. Why should the many people who can afford to join private clubs and have arrived at their success in life through discipline and effort not be expected to be capable of applying the same formula for success should apply to their golf game and repair the damage they inflict on the course?

Jon

[Dave McCollum]

Just the other day, I had a regular daily golfer complain about the sand being too firm.  I said “so you never get a plugged lie?”  Honestly, he said he had never thought of that.  Those in the biz have heard it all.  Some of the most bizarre complaints come from the old guys that have played the longest.  My personal favorite is when they ask for the fairway cut to be longer so as to have more “cushion” under the ball to aid the scoopers.  I’ve learned to say stuff like that’s easy and it saves us money.  After the subject changes, I ask innocently if they want to lose 20 yards off every drive they hit in the fairway?  They always respond as if I just asked if they want some Ebola in their cocktails.  Golf is a religion and, for the average golfer, there are many faith based assumptions not disturbed by the application of logic.

I’ve said it before, but here in the land of affordable public golf most golfers are not looking for more challenge to their games.  They have enough already.

[Thomas Dai]

I recall a story form Ireland, whether it's a true story or not I don't know.

A visitor went into the Pro-shop after finishing his round on a links course and complimented the courses condition but mentioned how there seemed to be too much sand in the bunkers.

The Pro replied along the lines of "Well, the sand around here's only about 100ft deep, so how much of it exactly would you suggest we remove?"!

atb