[Patrick_Mucci]

become architecturally and functionally obsolete ?

Historically, fairway bunkers in the DZ have been at the flanks and relatively small.

In most cases, they were designed to catch wayward drives, contemporaneously.

Fairway bunkers migrated further away from the tee as the I&B produced higher and longer drives.
But, in many cases, bunkers either remained static or were moved from their original location in an attempt to "catch up" with longer drives.

In many cases, fairway bunkers became no more than vestigial features, serving perhaps limited function in terms of play and visuals.

Should the concept of a fairway bunker's configuration change to match and interface with the broader spectrum of drives produced by today's golfer ?

Instead of a DZ bunker that's 10 X 13, wouldn't a bunker that's 15 X 45 better perform it's intended function ?

Bunkers are meant to interface with the golfer during their round, but far too many of those bunkers are now out of play for many.

Wouldn't expanding/elongating the bunker to match the expansion/elongation of the DZ seem like an efficient method for returning those bunkers into play ?  For having them perform their intended function ?

Wouldn't it allow the DZ fairway bunkers to again interface with the broader spectrum of golfers ? 

When I look at some fairway bunkers, such as those on the 5th, 7th and 12th hole at NGLA, some of the holes at SHGC along with the 1st, 6th and 16th at PVGC, those large bunkers function as intended, interfacing with golfers long and short.

With many golfers ignoring bunkers in the DZ vis a vis the I&B, why not expand fairway bunkers in the DZ so that they may better perform their intended function for the broader spectrum of golfer ?

[John Percival]

P,
You make a good point.
As the scale of the game increases, so too should the bunkering.
Problem...in a large bunker, the low hdcper will often find their ball somewhere in the middle. The shot from there FOR A LOW HDCPER is usually not that difficult. At least somewhere on or near the green. However, the average player often hits a poor shot from  the sand, thus making the penalty greater for them.
The old-style bunkers affected most players in that the smaller size meant shots played from closer to lips, and much more difficulty clearing the lip. Often, a short iron lay-up. The proverbial half-shot penalty.
In the larger bunkers, an introduction of fingers, islands (church pews) makes it more likely that the low hdcper will feel the penal nature of the hazard, as well as the average or lesser player.

By way of example, recall last year's PGA, where Rory's winning margin was the birdie from the bunker on 17.

[Bill Brightly]

I interrupt this thread for definitions.

DZ:


I & B:

[Bill_McBride]

I interrupt this thread for definitions.

DZ:


I & B:

Driving zone.   I suspect this varies widely unless Pat is thinking about a scratch player at 275 yards.  Unless it's Bubba at 300 or me at 210. 

I & B.   Implements and balls, what the USGA and R&A should have had the balls to keep in check.

Pat does not mention the center fairway bunker which can be even more effective than flanking bunkers. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I interrupt this thread for definitions.

DZ: = Drive Zone


I & B:      = Implements & Ball (shame on you for not knowing that  )

[Patrick_Mucci]

P,
You make a good point.

As the scale of the game increases, so too should the bunkering.

Agreed

Problem...in a large bunker, the low hdcper will often find their ball somewhere in the middle.
The shot from there FOR A LOW HDCPER is usually not that difficult. At least somewhere on or near the green.
However, the average player often hits a poor shot from  the sand, thus making the penalty greater for them.

John,

Agreed, but, the poor player isn't supposed to score the same as the low handicap.

The old-style bunkers affected most players in that the smaller size meant shots played from closer to lips, and much more difficulty clearing the lip.

Agreed, but, this would be less likely to happen with an expansive fairway bunker

Often, a short iron lay-up. The proverbial half-shot penalty.

In the larger bunkers, an introduction of fingers, islands (church pews) makes it more likely that the low hdcper will feel the penal nature of the hazard, as well as the average or lesser player.

That might be excessively penal, I was thinking more along the lines of expansive, but relatively shallow bunkers

By way of example, recall last year's PGA, where Rory's winning margin was the birdie from the bunker on 17.

We can't think of architectural features in the narrow context of the PGA Tour player, rather, in the context of the broad spectrum of golfers, including the PGA Tour golfer

[John Percival]

P,
We both seem to agree.

My previous post was meant to point out the much more penal nature relative to the average player v the low hdcper.

Case in point...a few years back, played at OH with a member who normally played the whites. He insisted on playing the blues and scored his low round of the year!
'Couldn't reach the fairway bunkers' he said. Was able to advance the ball near the greens and often could not reach the greenside bunkers either. However, he was able to get chips/pitches on and beat his previous low score by 4 shots.
Personally, his round seemed bland. Almost adventureless. Is that a good trade-off for the lower score? Who's to say one way or the other.
But not being in the sand sure let him clean up on LOTS o' bets!

And, of course, the Tour boys/girls are in their own league. Just think that most scratch players would rather play from the sand (especially today's groomed versions and not near lips) than from the rough (say , even 3-4"). There would be some exceptions, but would be curious to hear from other scratch players.

And BTW, for the record, am no longer a scratch. Ship has sailed.
Growing old sucks.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

John,

I would agree with you about better players preferring to play from bunkers, but that's greenside bunkers, not necessarily fairway bunkers.

Expanding fairway bunkers in a DZ expanded by hi-tech retains the architectural integrity of the bunker and allows it to retain it's intended function rather than remain static like the Maginot line.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()