[Don Mahaffey]

At the PGA Championship, was there a single case where being in the bunker was worse then being in the grass near a bunker? I wasn't there and I didn't watch it all, but those bunkers seemed to always feed the ball right to a center flat lie and the sand quality resulted in what looked like perfect lies.

Are bunkers now in the "dumb blond" category?

IMO, that course is harder with no bunkers.

[Garland Bayley]

Don Mahaffey, advocate of architorture.

Hey. Do you suppose if they are designed by a tour pro, they will be playable like a tour pro would like them to be playable?

[Bill Brightly]

I thought the same thing, both fairway and greenside bunkers. But I also realized that the sand had been beaten down by all of that rain. I wonder how the bunkers play when dry, sure seemed like they were designed to have the ball feed to the center.

[George Pazin]

Having only enjoyed the links overseas on the tube, I would say the two biggest differences between UK courses and US course are:

1) maintenance practices

2) bunkers as hazards, as opposed to preferred options

I wonder why this is? Perhaps someone with more knowledge can explain it.

[Garland Bayley]

Having only enjoyed the links overseas on the tube, I would say the two biggest differences between UK courses and US course are:

1) maintenance practices

2) bunkers as hazards, as opposed to preferred options

I wonder why this is? Perhaps someone with more knowledge can explain it.

Perhaps one reason is that you cannot make bunkers to your liking, or the wind will just blow the sand out of them.

[Nigel Islam]

Don you are right the bunkers always feed to the center. Rare to have an uphill or downhill lie. Many bunkers are deep, but the only penalty was on 18 for those close to the lip in FW bunker they had to lay up. The PGA worked on the bunkers and smoothing them with the rains. The rough wasn't much of a penalty either. I'd estimate 1 1/2 inches and a touch more around the greens. The course was set up easy and the rain magnified that.

[Mike H]

This is not common at Valhalla.  They do have a maintenance practice similar to Royal Melbourne where they rake the bottom of the traps and smooth out the edges or do not maintain them.  The only reason this happened is because of the torrential downpours we had in the area.

[Jason Thurman]

For what it's worth, Valhalla had the lowest scrambling percentage on Tour in 2000 (i.e., it was the toughest course on which to get up and down). I'm not sure how the numbers came out this year, but even if the bunkers are "easy" it still historically has shown plenty of greenside teeth.

I also don't recall seeing very many lies in links bunkers that couldn't be described as "flat." It's 2014. We have sand wedges and rakes now. Bunkers aren't as tough as they were in 1870. Let's move on.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I also don't recall seeing very many lies in links bunkers that couldn't be described as "flat." It's 2014. We have sand wedges and rakes now. Bunkers aren't as tough as they were in 1870. Let's move on.

Membership in website revoked for that clueless statement.

[Paul Gray]

...
I also don't recall seeing very many lies in links bunkers that couldn't be described as "flat." It's 2014. We have sand wedges and rakes now. Bunkers aren't as tough as they were in 1870. Let's move on.

Membership in website revoked for that clueless statement.

Yep, way off.

Paul Gray
Links Golfer

[Anthony_Nysse]

At the PGA Championship, was there a single case where being in the bunker was worse then being in the grass near a bunker? I wasn't there and I didn't watch it all, but those bunkers seemed to always feed the ball right to a center flat lie and the sand quality resulted in what looked like perfect lies.

Are bunkers now in the "dumb blond" category?

IMO, that course is harder with no bunkers.

They were using brooms in the bunkers at Valhalla all week.

[Jason Thurman]

Paul, tell me more about all the uneven lies you've encountered in revetted bunkers. All the ones I've ever been in had a base just as flat as the ones we saw this week at the PGA Championship.

[Don Mahaffey]

Jason,
Are you really comparing revetted bunkers to those at Valhalla?

I really don't want to get into a wise crack contest with you. My point is the maintenance of bunkers has surpassed, or maybe better said, become incongruous with their use in golf architecture as a hazard.

For years we have heard "get in the bunker" from players but it seems to have reached a new level. And, since bunkers are the most expensive feature to maintain or build next to greens. Maybe we've reached a time where they have out lived their usefulness, especially on a clay site where they are totally manufactured. 

At Valhalla it seems to me that it would have been just as good to have little perfectly manicured pieces of fwy turf in place of the perfectly manicured and smooth broom finish of the bunkers.

If we are going to reward a miss, why go to the trouble and expense of building such artificial "hazards" when they are actually the preferred area to moss.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Don,

Based on yesterday, one solution -- for flog toonamints -- could be to replace bunkers with long grass watered just short of the point where casual water would be created. Additionally, these grassy areas should be trampled by spectators whenever no floggers are approaching the green.

[Brent Hutto]

Don,

For elite players bunkers are often a bail-out spot that, if reached, offer the likeliest up and down.

For weaker players bunkers are a true hazard, to be feared.

And for everyone in between they are basically eye candy. There is certainly more discussion of bunker "visuals" on this site than any other aspect of courses except perhaps length and putting-green speeds.

[jeffwarne]

 

If we are going to reward a miss, why go to the trouble and expense of building such artificial "hazards" when they are actually the preferred area to moss.

been saying that for years.
Now the true hazards are the super tight fairways
exactly backwards

[Brent Hutto]

The answer to "why go to the trouble and expense" is because bunkers can be the most instantly recognizable stylistic element on an otherwise bland or awkward site.

[Jason Thurman]

Don, I don't necessarily disagree with that premise. I do think it's unnecessarily focused on the professional game though. Bunkers seem to serve their purpose just fine at the club level, at least where I play.

Is it even possible to build a bunker that is more challenging for a pro than 2" bluegrass rough without creating a hazard that's damn near impossible for an average player? Pros are just really good from sand. I've learned to accept it.

I do think modern bunkers have been relegated to the role of eye-candy. They do provide some variety of playing challenge, at least when placed greenside, but they aren't true hazards. That seems to have been the case for 40 or 50 years now and I'm just not sure it's that big of a deal. Fairway bunkers are a different story, at least when they haven't been soaked beyond saturation like the one on 17 yesterday. In normal conditions, Rory's would have been a very difficult approach.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Is it even possible to build a bunker that is more challenging for a pro than 2" bluegrass rough without creating a hazard that's damn near impossible for an average player? Pros are just really good from sand. I've learned to accept it.
...

Ran,

This guys getting out of hand. Get your software geeks to delete him.

[Don Mahaffey]

Easier for pros, harder for the rest of us...and why exactly do we build so many?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Because they sell condos and, lacking subtlety, appeal to hit-n-runners and one-timers?

[John Kavanaugh]

Easier for pros, harder for the rest of us...and why exactly do we build so many?

They are fun and tend exacerbate failure under pressure.  They also are a nice addition to a gambling game.  The "sandy" is an interesting animal.  Funny how a fairway bunker on a par 5 is often seen as an easy sandy.

For those of us who play a lot of golf they can turn an average day into something memorable.  

[Chris DeNigris]

For a majority of the golfers on the planet bunkers are still feared.  Any kind of bunker.  I can't understand why we have such a problem differentiating us from them?

[John Kavanaugh]

An old golfer once told me something similar about the female breast.  His advice was that even when you get older they might lose some of their luster but they are always a good place to start.  The comparisons are limitless.  The thought of a world without either is a depressing one indeed.

[Andrew Buck]

Easier for pros, harder for the rest of us...and why exactly do we build so many?

They are fun and tend exacerbate failure under pressure.  They also are a nice addition to a gambling game.  The "sandy" is an interesting animal.  Funny how a fairway bunker on a par 5 is often seen as an easy sandy.

For those of us who play a lot of golf they can turn an average day into something memorable.  

I resemble that remark. 

I lost in a playoff for our club championship this weekend.  I was in 4 greenside bunkers during the competition and it took me 15 shots to get in from those 4 bunkers, including 5 shots for a double from a reachable par 5.  I know bunkers are supposed to be easy for the "scratch" player, but if the sand is soft, I still tremble in them (greenside). 

I guess I should practice more, but unless rough is 3+ inches or sand is consistently firm, you won't find me wishing a ball into bunkers.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()