[Jim Sherma]

Hunt Valley GC in Maryland has a drop shot par 3 (#1 on the white-9) that is bunkered on the right side of the green. Fry-Straka rebuilt the bunkers last winter and this one is similar to the rest in that it is pretty steep and deep, much deeper than the original Ault bunkering. The hole measures 190-210 from the tees I play but effectively plays 160 or so. I've had the misfortune of hitting into the bunker a few times recently and the distance and drop nature of the hole usually results in a plugged lie. The deep nature of the bunker makes it very difficult to get a plugged lie out and usually the best I can do is just chop it into a better lie in the bunker. I don't believe that this is a maintenance issue as buried lies are not that common to the course. The bunkers may firm up a little as they age but this appears to be a problem with drop shots in general. Have others encountered this and should bunkers be kept more shallow on holes that present steep drops?

[Thomas Dai]

Hunt Valley GC in Maryland has a drop shot par 3 (#1 on the white-9) that is bunkered on the right side of the green. Fry-Straka rebuilt the bunkers last winter and this one is similar to the rest in that it is pretty steep and deep, much deeper than the original Ault bunkering. The hole measures 190-210 from the tees I play but effectively plays 160 or so. I've had the misfortune of hitting into the bunker a few times recently and the distance and drop nature of the hole usually results in a plugged lie. The deep nature of the bunker makes it very difficult to get a plugged lie out and usually the best I can do is just chop it into a better lie in the bunker. I don't believe that this is a maintenance issue as buried lies are not that common to the course. The bunkers may firm up a little as they age but this appears to be a problem with drop shots in general. Have others encountered this and should bunkers be kept more shallow on holes that present steep drops?

A ghastly scenario and another reason for introducing an 'optional penalty drop from a sand bunker' rule.


Not sure about a shallower bunker as the ball will still be plugged although it may make getting out a little easier. Firmer sand maybe might limit plugging to some degree as might less depth of sand.


Converting the bunker to a 'grass bunker' might be worth considering, although that could result is quite a few divots in a confined area. And then there's the question of is a bunker in that position even really necessary at all?


As say above, another reason for introducing an 'optional penalty drop from a sand bunker' rule.


atb

[Kyle Harris]

If one were to build a 1000 sq. ft. green 200 yards in the middle of the lake, we would call it a bad hole and move on.

We would not change the water hazard rule to accommodate the bad design.

Why change the rules for bunkers for the same reason? It is a bad hole. Move on.

[Thomas Dai]

Have a look at these two threads Kyle -
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,64290.msg1532651.html#new
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,64283.msg1532412.html#new
Atb

[Kyle Harris]

Have a look at these two threads Kyle -
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,64290.msg1532651.html#new
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,64283.msg1532412.html#new
Atb

I've seen them. Doesn't address the issue, though. Golf rules specifically avoid legislating architecture, and an understanding of the rules and the possible outcomes therein is a key to proper golf course architecture.

Bad hole. Bad implementation.

[Tim Gavrich]

Why is that more-severe-than-usual penalty necessarily bad? Looking at the hole on Google Maps, it seems the green is of a decent size and there is some room to miss left. That bunker may not look like the Road bunker or the Devil's A-hole, but if those bunkers wreak similar havoc as it sounds like this one does, with the only difference being its innocuous look, why are they okay and this one is not?


I agree with everyone who says playability is a virtue of golf courses, but I don't think I agree that one particular bunker where a plugged lie is significantly more likely than usual is necessarily a bad feature, or that the hole it protects is necessarily a bad hole. Just don't hit it there, or know that if you do commit that grave error, bogey is probably the best you're going to do.

[Sean_A]

If one were to build a 1000 sq. ft. green 200 yards in the middle of the lake, we would call it a bad hole and move on.

We would not change the water hazard rule to accommodate the bad design.

Why change the rules for bunkers for the same reason? It is a bad hole. Move on.

Rules change all the time...sometimes quite drastically.  Because we have used the stroke and distance penalty for sand hazards these great many years doesn't, nor should it, imply that the rule as it is now is the best iteration.  The rule makers have taken on a holier than thou dependence upon the "play the ball as it lies" party line,  but that has never strictly been the case in golf.  There have always been exceptions and indeed it is believed that there was a time one could drop anywhere with the penalty of one stroke. The St Andrews rules allowed for differences between match and medal play with the 1 shot penalty prevailing in medal play. 

It is my belief that if we are going to have defined hazards (ie bunkers and water) then the drop rules should apply equally for these hazards.  Not only is this a more consistent and logical expression of the rules, but I also believe it would allow for more bold sand hazards to be built, thus making golf a more varied and interesting game.  Few things are as black and white as you would have it in this case.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

It is my belief that if we are going to have defined hazards (ie bunkers and water) then the drop rules should apply equally for these hazards.  Not only is this a more consistent and logical expression of the rules, but I also believe it would allow for more bold sand hazards to be built, thus making golf a more varied and interesting game.  Few things are as black and white as you would have it in this case.
Ciao

+1.
"........it would allow for more bold sand hazards to be built, thus making golf a more varied and interesting game." Nicely described.
[/size]atb

[Jon Wiggett]

It is my belief that if we are going to have defined hazards (ie bunkers and water) then the drop rules should apply equally for these hazards.  Not only is this a more consistent and logical expression of the rules, but I also believe it would allow for more bold sand hazards to be built, thus making golf a more varied and interesting game.  Few things are as black and white as you would have it in this case.
Ciao

+1.
"........it would allow for more bold sand hazards to be built, thus making golf a more varied and interesting game." Nicely described.
atb

[Chris DeToro]

Sure, it makes sense that this type of hole could result in more plugged lies in those bunkers, but you could say the same about hitting into shorter par 4 holes with wedges that are coming in higher.  I've never been a huge fan of the drop shot hole and I err on hitting the shorter club on those holes but maybe the play is to flight a longer iron down instead?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()