The mythical 75/25 bunker

[Joe Hancock]

No one has mentioned it but I think there is a way: Allow bunkers to vary throughout the property...over time, of course. The fact that every bunker on tour plays the same(sand consistency is my primary focus) is why the tour players have no fear of the bunkers. In fact, that's why they prefer them; they know exactly what to expect, so they play with confidence. If some bunkers were soft, some dry, some moist(allowed to vary based on soil/ micro-climate/ etc.) then the player has some element of doubt creep in.

But, most would view this as a step backwards......and we all know that going back to a proven method isn't allowed.......


Joe

[Jon Cavalier]

There were plenty of bunkers at Dunes Club that you can putt out of and on to the green - the rear bunker on 1 and the left bunker on 8 come to mind - and depending on the pins I imagine anyone would be hard pressed to get up and down more than 25% of the time.

Truth be told, I think the only way an 18 is getting out 75 percent of the time is if he's putting out.

[George Pazin]

I know you guys are much more into the "Oh my god, that was awesome I really got screwed and had to take an X" kind of thing than I am. I'm sure it makes you much more complete and highly evolved as golfers and as persons.

And as I say, I'm cool with a few such features.

....


To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a bunker is just a bunker.

And sometimes a straw man is just a straw man.

Seriously, how many times have you hit into bunkers you couldn't escape in two? I can't recall any, though I will admit I don't have the experience most on here do. I do recall walking past the long hazard lining the right side of the 11th at Tobacco Road thinking, I don't think I could get out of that, but that was one bunker. I've never taken an X from a bunker, I have from water hazards.

I'm the furthest thing from a masochist on the golf course. I just want to have fun with friends. I can say I've never had nearly the problem with bunkers interfering with that than water hazards and heavy woods/OB.

[Brent Hutto]

George,

It's probably only happened a handful of times (not counting the occasional technique/mental/emotional meltdown) and pretty much only if the sand were really, really, really soft and fluffy or if it is in a very small and deep pot bunkers. But like I say, I tend to play away from such bunkers so I'm not going to be in them in the first place.

[Garland Bayley]

No one has mentioned it but I think there is a way: Allow bunkers to vary throughout the property...over time, of course. The fact that every bunker on tour plays the same(sand consistency is my primary focus) is why the tour players have no fear of the bunkers. In fact, that's why they prefer them; they know exactly what to expect, so they play with confidence. If some bunkers were soft, some dry, some moist(allowed to vary based on soil/ micro-climate/ etc.) then the player has some element of doubt creep in.

But, most would view this as a step backwards......and we all know that going back to a proven method isn't allowed.......


Joe

Not to mention that bunkers in tour events are always raked the same way, towards the pin. There is no raking at right angles to the pin or other ridiculous activities such as sending a cavalry troupe through them before play.

[Zack Molnar]

What about using rakes that create larger furrows in the sand? I remember the Memorial Tournament doing something similar a few years ago, but I don't think they did it more than a year or two. As I recall, the players were none too happy with the change

http://thesandtrap.com/b/pga/pga_tour_nicklaus_experiment_with_furrowed_bunkers_at_memorial

[Joe Hancock]

No one has mentioned it but I think there is a way: Allow bunkers to vary throughout the property...over time, of course. The fact that every bunker on tour plays the same(sand consistency is my primary focus) is why the tour players have no fear of the bunkers. In fact, that's why they prefer them; they know exactly what to expect, so they play with confidence. If some bunkers were soft, some dry, some moist(allowed to vary based on soil/ micro-climate/ etc.) then the player has some element of doubt creep in.

But, most would view this as a step backwards......and we all know that going back to a proven method isn't allowed.......


Joe

Not to mention that bunkers in tour events are always raked the same way, towards the pin. There is no raking at right angles to the pin or other ridiculous activities such as sending a cavalry troupe through them before play.

And I happen to think that the level of perfection in which bunkers are presented are as ridiculous an activity as other gimmicky things such as furrowing, sending in the cavalry, etc. What could be more tricked up than a hazard that presents a perfect lie every time?

Joe

[Brent Hutto]

You guys are imputing meaning to the word "hazard" that is far beyond its usage in the Rules of Golf. That is simply the term chosen by the Rules to describe portions of the course that entail certain ways of proceeding under the Rules. No grounding clubs, different ways of taking unplayable lie drops, it's all spelled out.

The choice of the word "hazard" does not imply that it has to be some kind of fucked up ground that's impossible to play a shot from. If you don't like perfectly raked bunkers go play a goat ranch course somewhere. If you're lucky they'll only mow the greens twice a week and have crabgrass in the fairways. Hell maybe they'll have crabgrass and dandelions in the bunkers, too. Whatever gets you off.

In the mean while you're never going to convince the other 99.9999% of the world that a perfectly raked bunker on a perfectly manicured golf course is anything other than a normal, expected portion of the course. Albeit one in which certain Rules apply because it's a "hazard".

[A.G._Crockett]

I think some of you may be underestimating Tour pros.  Anything you do to make it tougher for them to get up and down is going to exponentially impact high handicappers. 

[Garland Bayley]

You guys are imputing meaning to the word "hazard" that is far beyond its usage in the Rules of Golf. That is simply the term chosen by the Rules to describe portions of the course that entail certain ways of proceeding under the Rules. No grounding clubs, different ways of taking unplayable lie drops, it's all spelled out.

The choice of the word "hazard" does not imply that it has to can be some kind of fucked up ground that's impossible to play a shot from. If you don't like perfectly raked bunkers go play a goat ranch course somewhere. Many goat ranch courses are a lot more fun than bland perfection, and I will happily go there. If you're lucky they'll only mow the greens twice a week and have crabgrass in the fairways. Hell maybe they'll have crabgrass and dandelions in the bunkers, too. Whatever gets you off. What's the difference between crabgrass accidentally in the bunkers through lack of maintenance, and some overpaid architect and maintenance staff growing tufts of grass in bunkers on purpose. Aesthetics? Are you golfing, or appreciating art?

In the mean while you're never going to convince the other 99.9999% of the world that a perfectly raked bunker on a perfectly manicured golf course is anything other than a normal, expected portion of the course. Hyperbole to the max, eh? Most of the world plays golf without perfectly raked bunkers, and perfectly manicured golf courses. So I think the the convincing would be extremely simple. Albeit one in which certain Rules apply because it's a "hazard". A high percentage of golfers in the USA (although not 99.9999%  ) think golf should be played in calm weather. So what's the point of your rant? Just like to rant?

[Brent Hutto]

I'd consider the "get rid of the rakes" nonsense to be a rant. I'd consider my comments to be a reality check.

[Garland Bayley]

I'd consider the "get rid of the rakes" nonsense to be a rant. I'd consider my comments to be a reality check.

Then stop playing in the wind. Most golfers think that is unnatural.
 

[Brent Hutto]

I love playing in a bit of a breeze.

[Joe Hancock]

Is there no room for middle ground? No room for nature to have some say so in a game played on a surface dependent on the forces of nature?

What seems to be mythical is a common sense presentation of a ground intended for the game of golf. I'm hearing an all or nothing kind of argument for present-day bunker conditioning.

Joe

[Garland Bayley]

I love playing in a bit of a breeze.

Well it seems that your argument is that people love manicured bunkers, so be it.
Those of you against it are odd balls.

But, people prefer to play in calm weather.
You however are the odd ball that doesn't.

So an odd ball calling others odd balls? Brings pot and kettle to mind.

[Brent Hutto]

Well this thread was initially an offshoot of commentary on the bunker presentation at Valhalla. That's going to be as perfect as humanly achievable given the conditions because it's a PGA Championship at the PGA of America's flagship course.

There's tons of middle ground if we're talking courses people play every day. My own club has long since given up on power raking every bunker every morning (due to budget constraints). But they get smoothed out a couple times a week and they certain have rakes in them, although our members are far from consistent in applying them.

Would my club be improved by doing LESS maintenance on bunkers? I just can't see it. Was my club better when they spent 4x MORE on bunker maintenance as they do today? Maybe some marginal benefit but not commensurate with the cost. Like all thing, moderation is a virtue. Just don't expect moderation at major championship venues or high-$$$ resort and private clubs. Those are not places where cost benefit analysis is applied.

But the "moderate" maintenance bunkers at my club would I'm sure present absolutely no challenge to a Tour player or even a top State Amateur level golfer. There are only a couple of bunkers on the entire course where I have often taken more than three shots to hole out. And I have a below-mediocre sand game for a bogey golfer. Anything done to reduce a Tour player's up-and-down percentage from roughly half to say one quarter would render the course absolutely miserable for me to play every day.\

P.S. Garland, whatever you say buddy. Whatever you say.

[Sean_A]

I think putting from bunkers is a scam.  I can see the hopeless or desperate guy give it a go.  But honestly, what is the point of maintaining sand flat and enough to make putter a viable choice?  In Arble is King of the Golf World the archie should never build enough bunkers where he can afford to "waste" some on this folly.  Just leave it a hollow.  It will look and pay better. Or, put a hump in - it will look and play better.  What is the obsession with sand being the be all and end all?  In my world, bunkers should be harsh, used judiciously, wisely placed and in balance with other features/hazards.  I said it before, but I would love archies to defend each and every bunker.  When they approach the same reason for a bunker five times - then rethink the hazard.  An approach like this, in the right hands,  would I think make for better and more varied courses.

Ciao  

[Brent Hutto]

Ganton.

It's the very I.E. of 75/25 philosophy in bunkering, or at least it was the week I played there.

I've never seen a course whose bunkers insert themselves into more shots per round than Ganton. I'd day well over half the tee shots and between a third and a half of my shots from the fairway over six rounds needed to be struck with some consideration of risk/reward involving bunkers. Especially fairway bunkers.

Yet I honestly recall only one occasion where I took a couple of attempts to extricate myself from a bunker before deciding it wasn't going to happen and just picking up. Now I'm only talking about bunkers that I play sensibly for a 17-handicapper with a mediocre sand game. There were certainly a few times I chose foolishly to try and advance a ball rather than going backwards or sideways but that's my stupidity and says nothing about the design of the bunkering.

I think Tour pros would eat up the greenside bunkers at Ganton like they do everywhere else. But the degree of difficulty on average would be pretty high even for them. Not like Valhalla for sure. But the fairway bunkers are typically well with my capability to JUST GET THE BALL OUT without advancing it while in most cases of fairway-bunker shots I faced I don't think a Phil Mickelson or Bubba Watson could have meaningfully advanced the ball toward the green (unless you count maybe picking it clean with a lob wedge and moving it 80-90 yards toward the green).

Yep, go look at Ganton. Greenside and fairway bunkering but especially fairway. Daunting but playable for mid-handicappers, no pushover for elite players and all done with mostly flat bottom and well raked, fairly consistent (if a bit dusty) local sand providing the playing surfaces. Not tricked up in the slightest. No furrows, no cavalry stampede, plenty of rakes available.

[Joe Hancock]

Brent,

Maybe I missed the topic shift, but I thought the original poster was talking about tour caliber golfers and how to present a bunker to make it more difficult for them. I still stand by my recommendation of allowing the sand to be variable, thus creating doubt. And, even if we're going to include everyone, this likely won't make it harder for the golfer who enters the bunker with doubt already.

If we want to discuss a possible change in things, then let's do so. If we want to say nothing will change, then let's say nothing at all.

Joe

[George Pazin]

Joe, you missed the word "mythical" in Jason's topic title. This thread was his way of chiding those of us who hate the notion of a pro actually playing for a bunker.

I do greatly appreciate Brent's thoughts and recommendation of Ganton, thanks Brent.

-----

Apologies for the threadjack -

Is it just me, or are the names (actual and colloquial) of UK course infinitely superior (superiour?) to the names of US courses?

Ganton - Rye - St Enodoc - Woodhall Spa - Sandwich - Hoylake - Deal - Westward Ho

vs.

National Golf Links - Augusta National - Oak Hill - Oakland Hills - Sawgrass - Winged Foot

The former inspire me to tee it up; the latter inspire me to get fitted for a new suit...

 

[Paul Gray]

Arble has all but nailed it but I will just add the follow:

Less receptive greens. It's the whole darts argument all over again.