Hazards guarding hazards.

[David Davis]

I just returned home from an extensive tour in the US. I had a fabulous time but noticed how often courses are set up with hazards protecting or guarding other hazards. I think this is becoming one of my least favorite course features. In most cases it seems to be high rough guarding bunkers both in and around fairways and around greens. However, sometimes it's even trees and bunkers or vice versa. Once in a while it's bunkers guarding water (this one is perhaps less of an issue given the severity of the penalty).

What's your thoughts on this? My biggest issue would be with fairway bunkers (or what was supposed to be fairways bunkers) being no longer in play or in play and deep into the rough. That could simply be an issue with mowing lines but in my opinion the bunkers should be challenging your shot on lines of play, making players question the risk reward of taking them on in one way or another.

[Sean_A]

DD

I have asked many times why it is popular to surround bunkers with rough.  Around greens I am guessing its a matter of convenience due to machinery, but I also think it is an aesthetic style that is liked and is popular.  As for fairway bunkers with the same issue, I can't get my head around it.  I recall seeing a course in PA that partially opened up fairways around greens and it did look odd, but in a cool sort of way.  Sort of like when oddball chipping zones are created on one side of the green, but not the other. Anyway, I don't expect there to be any change except for maybe the tee side of more bunkers having short grass feed into the sand.  Thats okay for diagonal bunkers cutting in from the rough, but what about centreline bunkers?  I think to TOC's P Nose and wonder if the stewards of that course are properly leading the world in maintaining the architectural features properly and if TOC doesn't.... 

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

What's your thoughts on this? My biggest issue would be with fairway bunkers (or what was supposed to be fairways bunkers) being no longer in play or in play and deep into the rough. That could simply be an issue with mowing lines but in my opinion the bunkers should be challenging your shot on lines of play, making players question the risk reward of taking them on in one way or another.

This is a big bugbear of mine.  I really hate it when classic era courses have modern, narrow mowing lines that mean most fairway bunkers are surrounded by rough.

[Paul Gray]

The trick is to build, at some cost, 300 nondescript bunkers where 50 well placed ones would have done. Then surround those 300 bunkers with rough so that a ball can never actually find them. Then, if you're feeling particularly expansive, continue the practice by burning £50 notes on the spot. 

[A.G._Crockett]

Now playing devil's advocate...

It's about options and different shots for different levels of playing ability.

I think it's possible that a better player would prefer the bunker to the rough in many cases, while a lesser player would have no chance from some fairway bunkers but can play from the rough.

Similarly, a pitch over a greenside bunker from a closely mown tight lie is a VERY difficult shot for a high handicapper, but he might have a chance of getting the club under the ball from rough.  The low handicapper, though, will far prefer the ball in the bunker; his inability to spin the ball out of the rough will be a much bigger penalty.

[Peter Pallotta]

AG - but to play devil's minion to your devil's advocate, for this average golfer if you're going to have high rough around bunkers, your bunkers immediately become useless. My drives have a much better chance of landing in the 3600 square feet of turf before/around the bunker than in the 360 square feet of bunker itself; and if that turf is high rough, the ball ain't moving any further and won't ever be getting into said bunker. So either lose the bunker or cut the grass, cause if you cut the grass my ball might at least bound along and fall into the sand eventually, and the purpose (so-called) of that fairway hazard will be fulfilled.

Peter

[Thomas Dai]

Hazards guarding other hazards deserves a mention in the 'What design/maintenance feature(s) do you dislike the most?' threads. Unnecessary overkill.
atb

[David_Tepper]

"I just returned home from an extensive tour in the US."

David D. -

Tell us more. What courses did you play?

DT

[Ken Moum]

Hazards guarding other hazards deserves a mention in the 'What design/maintenance feature(s) do you dislike the most?' threads. Unnecessary overkill.
atb

Well I did mention in that thread that I detest bunkers surrounded by rough, especially greenside bunkers... So I have that going for me.

I do think that the sometimes odd looking tendency to put a bunker on a steep slope down to a water hazard is another matter entirely.  I know of a couple that are clearly there to prevent balls from landing near the green from going all the way down into the water.  Kingsmill has one IIRC.

K

[A.G._Crockett]

I should point out, at the risk of being tedious, that grass of any length is NOT a hazard; it's a maintenance practice.

Sorry...

[David Davis]

"I just returned home from an extensive tour in the US."

David D. -

Tell us more. What courses did you play?

DT

David, for me it was extensive but that's all relative, extensive also sounds like it was extremely long or perhaps complete but that was not the case by any means.

I played:

Merion
Sebonak
The Bridge
Fisher's Island
Hay Harbor (on Fisher's Island)
Maidstone
NGLA
Shinnecock
Friar's Head
Winged Foot
Quaker Ridge
Garden City
Bethpage Black

[A.G._Crockett]

AG - but to play devil's minion to your devil's advocate, for this average golfer if you're going to have high rough around bunkers, your bunkers immediately become useless. My drives have a much better chance of landing in the 3600 square feet of turf before/around the bunker than in the 360 square feet of bunker itself; and if that turf is high rough, the ball ain't moving any further and won't ever be getting into said bunker. So either lose the bunker or cut the grass, cause if you cut the grass my ball might at least bound along and fall into the sand eventually, and the purpose (so-called) of that fairway hazard will be fulfilled.

Peter

Pete,
I don't think "high" rough is usually going to be the case, either fronting a water hazard or surrounding a bunker.  I think more commonly you would see light to intermediate rough.  I think of high rough as a place where you can lose your golf ball.  In a more standard cut of rough, you could see the ball sit down but be playable, or in rough that is lighter still a flyer might be the danger.

So think of it this way:  light rough keeps your not-so-bad shot from trickling into the water, which most of us would think is fair and a good thing, plus a cheaper and better maintenance practice.  But your REALLY bad shot, whether a misclub or skulled or way off line, gets rinsed.

So fairway bunkers, and to a lesser extent greenside bunkers would be the same, no?

[Bill_McBride]

"I just returned home from an extensive tour in the US."

David D. -

Tell us more. What courses did you play?

DT

David, for me it was extensive but that's all relative, extensive also sounds like it was extremely long or perhaps complete but that was not the case by any means.

I played:

Merion
Sebonak
The Bridge
Fisher's Island
Hay Harbor (on Fisher's Island)
Maidstone
NGLA
Shinnecock
Friar's Head
Winged Foot
Quaker Ridge
Garden City
Bethpage Black

You must be Australian. 

[Peter Pallotta]

AG - I'm not sure. Btw, I shouldn't have said "high rough" because for my point I think just plain old fashioned "rough" suffices. And what I'm not sure about is whether, on a typical golf course, the fairway bunker is to some extent extent analogous to a water hazard.

What I tend to find is that many architects take a short-cut to playability and challenge -- i.e. instead of designing fairway bunkers that are truly hazardous and penal (and then making sure that the smart average golfer has room/options to avoid them), they create fairway bunkers that are shallow enough not to be too much of a penalty, and thus let themselves off the hook in terms of having to design a wide and/or interesting enough hole to be 'playable' for me and 'challenging' for the better golfer. In that context, the fairway rough seems to makes a mockery of even that initial short-cut -- almost ensuring that I'm rarely either in the bunker or in the fairway!  

I've made this post to convoluted, AG - but in short: while your analogy may be a good one in theory, in practice I find that, while I'm not a big fan of the banal and forgiving fairway bunker, I'm even less a fan of that hazard (such as it is) being made redudant by rough.

Peter

[Sean_A]

I do think that the sometimes odd looking tendency to put a bunker on a steep slope down to a water hazard is another matter entirely.  I know of a couple that are clearly there to prevent balls from landing near the green from going all the way down into the water.  Kingsmill has one IIRC.

This is one of the few instances where I am very interested in the aesthetic of the bunker.  As I don't want a bunker blocking the true penalty for a missed shot, if sand is going to be used as an intervention, it better be VERY attractive and look like it belongs next to the water.  In other words, for the most part it better look like a natural beach or I will be scathing about it.  In general though, the archie shouldn't have so much leeway with bunkers.  Only so many should be employed so very few should be wasted on saving poor shots or merely for looking good.  

Ciao

[David Davis]

You must be Australian. 

No Bill, American with a Dutch passport as well living in Holland.

[Bill_McBride]

You must be Australian. 

No Bill, American with a Dutch passport as well living in Holland.

I know, it was a joke.   The Aussies seem to visit here and play everywhere.  Your list was typical of an Aussie itinerary!