[Patrick_Mucci]

1/2 a shot ?


A full shot ?


More ?


Oakmont tried to make their bunkers more penal by creating furrows.


Nicklaus experimented with furrows at the Memorial.


Neither survived.


So what impact should a bunker within the body of a hole have, score wise ?


And, what impact should a green side bunker have on scoring ?


What impact should the combination of the two have on scoring ?


Isn't it one of the most rewarding feelings in golf when you walk off a green with a par when you've driven the ball into a bunker, then hit into a green side bunker, then up and downed it ?

[jeffwarne]

Every bunker and every bunker shot should be different in some small way.
Some should be easy, some hard, some medium,some soft, some firm, some evolving,some unfair, some doable by experts only.etc....
Bunkers have become a predictable expected feature on courses and only recently have they become less generic (again) as they often used to be by ODGs.
They are way over utilized IMHO and it's because the decision makers (usually good players) like that they extract minimal penalty from them and maximal penalty from poorer player.


For a bunker to even be consisdered it has to be a place that a good player seeks to avaoid, or at least only challenges when there is a reasonable reward for doing so. Very few bunkers create that in our white, faux sand world.


I get it-maintenance is a big issue. If so, just build less bunkers and less acreage of sand ,but make them count.

[Joe Hancock]

Sometimes a bunker affects ones score if they get in it, sometimes a bunker affects ones score by choosing to avoid it. It's called strategy, and having an understanding of one's strengths and weaknesses.

Designing, or placing, a bunker to demand a certain amount of penalty is difficult, as the level of golf ability varies wildly amongst the golfing population.

Perhaps you could specify whether we are talking every day golfers enjoying their club, or if we are talking championship level golfers who are very adept at bunker play.

[RJ_Daley]

I agree with Joe and also feel that no decent golf course needs a formula as such for bunkering to conceptually be designed to extract 1/2 shot or whole shot as a design goal.  I think the positioning, shape and style of bunkering must be such that they all present their own individual scoring consideration from multiple factors of shot penalty to even in such a position as to 'save' s more severe consequence in rare cases.  It is hard to imagine any course being designed for any specific level of skill level in order to formulate a bunker penalty scheme, IMO.

[Sean_A]

Anything from a great holed out great recovery to a kiss on the card.  Very strange question.


Ciao

[Steve Burrows]

Anything from a great holed out great recovery to a kiss on the card.  Very strange question.


Ciao

+1.

It seems folly to make any aspect of golf course design prescriptive or formulaic.

[Peter Pallotta]

Good posts and thread.

Patrick - I've read Tom D mention often the idea/design of there being a "place NOT to miss" when it comes to greenside hazards/bunkers. If understand it, Tom means designing greens, surrounds and pin placements such that the better player, pleased that he finds himself in the fairway (and perhaps not realizing he's on the wrong side of it), is tempted to fire at the pin/into birdie range but in doing so risks missing the green in the one place/hazard from which he almost certainly will NOT get up and down. It seems to me, then, that for this design/approach to work as intended, the hazard involved (a bunker sometimes, and working in concert with the green contours) must be very severe. Luckily, the other part of this approach is that said hazard is likely not the place that the AVERAGE golfer will miss -- and so you get that lovely ideal of a "green complex" that serves many types of golfers, is tailored to their varied skill sets, and allows for many kinds of goals (from making birdies to simply hitting greens to playing bogie golf). I think that FAIRWAY bunkers can/should work in this same way -- severe and a full stroke penalty for the better and more ambitious player who either doesn't recognize or foolishly disregards the risks involved, but for the most part not a factor for the average golfer (and if it is, no more a factor on his ultimate score than would be a tame and mild bunker, since for the average golfer any such hazard will, more often than not, result in a full stroke lost).
Peter       

[Tom_Doak]

A bunker cannot cost you half a stroke.  It's sometimes one, and sometimes none, depending on all the factors that Jeff Warne mentioned above.  I don't really think anyone should read any more into it than that.


There are bunkers that occasionally cost the good player more than one shot, if they get right up against a steep face; and of course they frequently cost the bad sand player more than one.  But, in general, bunkers that severe should be kept to a bare minimum.


I think the main problem with bunkers nowadays is that most are too big, because they're being built to look good, and look in scale within the huge landscapes we work in.  As a result, one gets many clean bunker lies with no lip to worry about, which costs the expert almost nothing at the same time it penalizes the weak player.

[Tom_Doak]

I've read Tom D mention often the idea/design of there being a "place NOT to miss" when it comes to greenside hazards/bunkers. If understand it, Tom means designing greens, surrounds and pin placements such that the better player, pleased that he finds himself in the fairway (and perhaps not realizing he's on the wrong side of it), is tempted to fire at the pin/into birdie range but in doing so risks missing the green in the one place/hazard from which he almost certainly will NOT get up and down. It seems to me, then, that for this design/approach to work as intended, the hazard involved (a bunker sometimes, and working in concert with the green contours) must be very severe.   

Sometimes it can be the opposite way around ... if the green all slopes toward a green side bunker on the right, and the bunker scares unthinking players to the left, they may find a much more difficult up and down than if they'd just hit it in the bunker and played a straightforward bunker shot uphill to the flag. 


The bunker doesn't always have to be the worst place to be; it just has to cause people to adjust their attack.

[Mike_Young]

The bunker doesn't always have to be the worst place to be; it just has to cause people to adjust their attack.

TD,
I struggle with the above sometimes....I always think a hazard should be a worse place to play from than through the green.  Yet so many bunkers today are groomed better than the surrounds.  I see some complexes where the grass between the bunker and the green is much tougher than the bunker itself.  While the bunker hazard itself may be immovable the conditioning of it may determine whether it is the place to miss or not.  Seems modern golf wants to make it where the player has a reasonable idea of how the bunker will play before he gets there and therefore is not as worried about a miss.  Whereas  a good, ragged, less kept bunker that collects would be much more feared IMHO.....

[Patrick_Mucci]

JeffWarne, et. al.,
 
Look at the following bunkers at NGLA and let me know your thoughts on their impact on scoring.
 
Hole #   Location                                           Consequence
 
1          Right & 90 yards short of green                         
3          Any fairway bunker
            Bunker 20 yard short of green
 
4          Front & Rear bunkers
 
6          Surrounding green
 
7          Hotel bunker, Front DA bunker, Back Road Bunker
 
8          Center line bunkers and front bunker
 
11        Back left bunker
 
12        Back Bunker
 
13        Front, left and back bunker
 
14        Fairway bunkers
 
15        Fairway bunkers & back bunker
 
16        Front green bunker
 
17        Front & back Bunkers
 
18        Fairway and greenside bunker

[Sean_A]

The bunker doesn't always have to be the worst place to be; it just has to cause people to adjust their attack.

TD,
I struggle with the above sometimes....I always think a hazard should be a worse place to play from than through the green.  Yet so many bunkers today are groomed better than the surrounds.  I see some complexes where the grass between the bunker and the green is much tougher than the bunker itself.  While the bunker hazard itself may be immovable the conditioning of it may determine whether it is the place to miss or not.  Seems modern golf wants to make it where the player has a reasonable idea of how the bunker will play before he gets there and therefore is not as worried about a miss.  Whereas  a good, ragged, less kept bunker that collects would be much more feared IMHO.....

Mike


In theory I agree with Doak, but that is assuming courses are built with too many bunkers as practically every course built today is. If the bunker count was kept down, in theory, the bunker should be about the worst place to be excepting water and OOB. There would of course be exceptions...likely accidental exceptions depending on skill and luck.  The main area I think of are greenside bunkers. It can be much better to be in the bunker rather than wide of it...even if the bunker is quite demanding. For fairway bunkering, this situation should be less so unless a wild shot was hit.  With the way rough is kept these days it is often the case that rough is worse than being in an adjacent bunker.  It begs the question as to why the bunker is there if this is the case.  To me, there should be enough width to make bunkers matter.  Once it is the case that nearby rough is worse than sand...something has gone amiss. 


Ciao 

[Tom_Doak]

The bunker doesn't always have to be the worst place to be; it just has to cause people to adjust their attack.

TD,
I struggle with the above sometimes....I always think a hazard should be a worse place to play from than through the green.  Yet so many bunkers today are groomed better than the surrounds.  I see some complexes where the grass between the bunker and the green is much tougher than the bunker itself.  While the bunker hazard itself may be immovable the conditioning of it may determine whether it is the place to miss or not.  Seems modern golf wants to make it where the player has a reasonable idea of how the bunker will play before he gets there and therefore is not as worried about a miss.  Whereas  a good, ragged, less kept bunker that collects would be much more feared IMHO.....

Mike:


In general, I agree.  On vintage courses the bunkers were built with the idea they would extract some penalty.  The insistence that bunkers be perfectly maintained has subverted the logic under which the holes were designed.


But I'm also a big believer that you should never say "always".  One of the reasons I made my other post is that I want to be able to fool the good players like you who think avoiding the bunker is always good. 

[Thomas Dai]

Isn't it one of the most rewarding feelings in golf when you walk off a green with a par when you've driven the ball into a bunker, then hit into a green side bunker, then up and downed it ?

It would certainly be a rewarding feeling Pat, big smiles time probably, but it also raises the issue that if folks can reach greenside bunkers from the fairway bunkers then are the fairway bunkers lacking severity?
However, with increased severity comes less options (fun?) by removing the element of challenge and excitement and memorability - Johnny Miller's bunker on the 18th (for him in 1975 72nd hole) at Carnoustie comes to mind.

As to the greenside bunker being on the more difficult or easier side, I like deception, camouflange and all that. Working out the puzzle of what the architect is encouraging the player to do, what seed they're trying to get into the players head, what are the options available, how the architect encourages the player to attack a pin or to play to one side of the fairway or lay-up area or green when the opposite side might be more appropriate.

As an example, I was fortunate to play wonderful Portmarnock earlier this year and recall a dogleg par-4 on the front-9 where there was just a single pretty visiable high lipped pot bunker front left of the green and a deep, shaved drop-off to the right. The bunker attracted the eye as in "I mustn't go there" yet with the pin position and wind on the day it was the deep, shaved drop-off to the right that was the real detriment to making par.

Atb

[Bradley Anderson]

The hickories were no comparison to the club technology we have now. Originally the fairway bunkers had a full shot penalty effect on the score and the green side bunkers were more penal than what we are accustomed to now, but not quite a full shot. The really deep greenside bunkers that Raynor and Banks built might have been full shot penalty.

[Padraig Dooley]

A skilled player around the green will hit to half the distance from a fairway lie then from a similar shot in a bunker, e.g. level stance in the fairway from 20 yards might lead to 5 feet on average whereas a level stance in the bunker from 20 yards might lead to 10 feet on average.

On tour the expected number of shots from 10 feet is 1.626 and from 5 feet is 1.256, if the figures were precise in the above example being in that bunker would lead to a 0.37 shot difference on average.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe & RJDaley,


So you don't think that the DA at PV is designed/intended to extract a full shot or more from the golfer ?


How about the road hole bunkers at TOC and the 7th at NGLA ?


And how about the left flanking bunker on # 13 at PV that saves the golfer 1, 2, 3 or more strokes by it's presence ?


Joe,


Why are you assigning "systemic" values to "individual" bunkers.
Why are you categorizing individual bunkers as "formulaic"


Each bunker is unique and serves it's own individual function.


I.e. The deep, narrow circular bunker fronting the 7th green at NGLA and the expansive bunker behind that green,  Each is configured differently, dramatically different and each serves a different function and each requires a different recovery technique.


How are the bunkers at NGLA "formulaic" ?

[Mike_Young]

The bunker doesn't always have to be the worst place to be; it just has to cause people to adjust their attack.

TD,
I struggle with the above sometimes....I always think a hazard should be a worse place to play from than through the green.  Yet so many bunkers today are groomed better than the surrounds.  I see some complexes where the grass between the bunker and the green is much tougher than the bunker itself.  While the bunker hazard itself may be immovable the conditioning of it may determine whether it is the place to miss or not.  Seems modern golf wants to make it where the player has a reasonable idea of how the bunker will play before he gets there and therefore is not as worried about a miss.  Whereas  a good, ragged, less kept bunker that collects would be much more feared IMHO.....

Mike:


In general, I agree.  On vintage courses the bunkers were built with the idea they would extract some penalty.  The insistence that bunkers be perfectly maintained has subverted the logic under which the holes were designed.


But I'm also a big believer that you should never say "always".  One of the reasons I made my other post is that I want to be able to fool the good players like you who think avoiding the bunker is always good. 

I got it....hmmmmm....

[Joe Hancock]

Joe & RJDaley,


So you don't think that the DA at PV is designed/intended to extract a full shot or more from the golfer ?

No, I think it was designed to be difficult without regard to a value as to how difficult.


How about the road hole bunkers at TOC and the 7th at NGLA ?


And how about the left flanking bunker on # 13 at PV that saves the golfer 1, 2, 3 or more strokes by it's presence ?


Joe,


Why are you assigning "systemic" values to "individual" bunkers.
Why are you categorizing individual bunkers as "formulaic"

I don't recall using those terms in my response to your original post. Perhaps you could quote me using those terms in this discussion.


Each bunker is unique and serves it's own individual function.


I.e. The deep, narrow circular bunker fronting the 7th green at NGLA and the expansive bunker behind that green,  Each is configured differently, dramatically different and each serves a different function and each requires a different recovery technique.


How are the bunkers at NGLA "formulaic" ?

I don't consider them to be so.

[Rob Marshall]

A bunker cannot cost you half a stroke.  It's sometimes one, and sometimes none, depending on all the factors that Jeff Warne mentioned above.  I don't really think anyone should read any more into it than that.


There are bunkers that occasionally cost the good player more than one shot, if they get right up against a steep face; and of course they frequently cost the bad sand player more than one.  But, in general, bunkers that severe should be kept to a bare minimum.


I think the main problem with bunkers nowadays is that most are too big, because they're being built to look good, and look in scale within the huge landscapes we work in.  As a result, one gets many clean bunker lies with no lip to worry about, which costs the expert almost nothing at the same time it penalizes the weak player.

I can't think of many more severe than the one front left of #5 on the Blue. I'm guessing more than a few players lost 3 or 4 shots in that monster.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The hickories were no comparison to the club technology we have now. Originally the fairway bunkers had a full shot penalty effect on the score and the green side bunkers were more penal than what we are accustomed to now, but not quite a full shot. The really deep greenside bunkers that Raynor and Banks built might have been full shot penalty.


Bradley,

I'd agree.

Bunkers pre Sarazen presented a different, more difficult challenge and extracted more strokes from the golfer's round, therefore they were more of a factor in the golfer's thoughts, tactics and play.

I know that my bunker game improved significantly when I obtained a Ping L-Wedge, as did my game around the green.

I think one of the features that have allowed CBM/SR/CB courses to remain relevant today is the depth of their bunkers

[Thomas Dai]

A bunker should surely first and foremost make the golfer think before playing his/her shot.


It seems that as bunkers have generally become less severe over the decades through raking, consistancy of sand depth, the SW then LW, larger size low lipped fairway bunkers, hybrid clubs etc, that much of the necessity for pre-shot thinking has lessened, unless perhaps you count deliberately playing into greenside bunkers (including the "get in a bunker" shout we sometimes here on TV) as pre-shot thinking.


The bunker 'fear factor' is IMO generally not what it once was, particularly amongst better players, which seems a shame.


Atb

[Patrick_Mucci]

What about bunkers that are not visible to the golfer as he plays his shot ?

[Mike Policano]

Pat,


At the risk of jinxing myself, at Pine Tree, I often try to get my approach shot in a greenside bunker when I can't reach and hold the green. This is because I have much better success out of the bunker than I do on the 30-40 yard shot off a tight lie over a bunker to a small landing spot.


Cheers

[jeffwarne]

Pat,


At the risk of jinxing myself, at Pine Tree, I often try to get my approach shot in a greenside bunker when I can't reach and hold the green. This is because I have much better success out of the bunker than I do on the 30-40 yard shot off a tight lie over a bunker to a small landing spot.


Cheers

another example of where today's super tight "fairway" has become the hazard , and the "hazard" where one can actually hit the shot required , has become the preferred area

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()