Unraked Bunkers?

[Thomas Dai]

.... Bunkers are not hazards.

?
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

This is a tough one because the argument to not rake bunkers could extent to not fill divots in the fairways, to not fix ball marks on greens, to … Where does it end?  I have seen golfers climb up the faces of steep bunkers to exit and then leave their six inch deep footprints un-raked!  Not sure that was what the architect intended.  I am not one who ever uses the word "fair" or "unfair" especially when it comes to hazards.  That said, common sense does need to prevail at times and sometimes rub of the green and play it as it lies is more than any golfer should expect to have to deal with.  So what does that mean?  One example - my fellow competitor’s ball landed in a bunker right next to a hornet’s nest in the sand.  I gave him a free drop in a safer part of the bunker.  We never discussed it with the “rules officials” and luckily for us, no one called it in from home [/size]

[Kalen Braley]

Sean,


I did read it actually.  The part I was addressing was this part of the comment he made just before that:

"if it is unfair for everyone in the same way".
The reality is, it is never unfair for everyone in the same way...

[Sean_A]

Sean,


I did read it actually.  The part I was addressing was this part of the comment he made just before that:

"if it is unfair for everyone in the same way".
The reality is, it is never unfair for everyone in the same way...

Okay...if you don't think the two paragraphs are connected...no worries. 


Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

Bunkers are classified as bunkers, the word hazard is within the defintion (and would be removed in the 2019 revisions as water hazards now become "Penalty Areas"), however they are within their own category as per the definition.

I was inelegant in my statement because I am simply making the distinction between bunker and water hazard. The term "hazard" is redundant within the rules and in fact, the defintion of hazard simply refers to the other two.

Skip the unnecessary step, easy enough.

You have bunkers.
You have water hazards.

Same statements otherwise apply.

[Sean_A]

Kyle

Thanks.  I can appeciate the sentiment that bunkers are meant to be played from and I do believe most golfers treat sand this way (even if out of  sense of obligation much like guys will hack out of crap without much hope of being much better off than taking a drop), but drops can be taken anywhere on the course with a penalty stroke.  And water hazards are allowed the distance gained.  What is the benefit of taking away distance for a drop from a bunker and/or not allowing a drop as it is done on the remainder of the course? Why should a bunker drop be a more severe penalty than a water hazard?  This wasn't always the case, what is the theory behind the added penalty for bunkers...as if a penalty shot isn't enough such as is the case for water? It is interesting to me that people could be so hard line about this topic when it is an anomoly in golf.

Ciao

[V. Kmetz]

Ideally, unraked...


As an organic historical feature, they were/are a thing to be avoided for one or all of the following:

• they are a trap door below sight line for subsequent play...
• that possibly confines, alters or altogether thwarts a standard swing of the club...
• that is a "change of surface," commanding a swing/playing skill not widely enjoyed... ([size=78%]this is how I suppose the not-grounding the club thing got started, because the historical golfer recognized that here, grounding the club, could improve the lie, something verboten out on the grass[/size][/size][size=78%]).[/size]

So, in the original sense they are a hazard, a capricious obstacle to the standard play of the hole.


Nowadays though, as an engineered feature of design with a bevy of rules pertaining to their definition and use, too many concurrent and slow-paced design changes would have to take place for golfers to be satisfied/embrace such a rule... I don't mind playing it as "you get what you get; that's golf" ...but I recognize that many golfers, playing for fun, for friendlies or for treasure feel that coming up to a ball impeded or stopped by a footprint is no fun at all. Rethinking bunker design, compaction level, and materials would have to synchronize or match such an allowance.
cheers
vk

[Thomas Dai]

..many golfers, playing for fun, for friendlies or for treasure feel that coming up to a ball impeded or stopped by a footprint is no fun at all.

Hence give them the opportunity to drop out under penalty should they so wish.
Atb

[V. Kmetz]

TD,
I know Golf doesn't "owe it" to a player or some such... but the least fun in golf, for many reasons, is losing a ball. Just below that sourness though is not being able to "play something," and having to take a stroke to be able to play it.


Hitting it in a screwed up, unplayable spot is one thing...but hitting it into a place that is merely impacted by the previous players' play - that's not the course, the cunning of the design, the pressure of the prize, or an enjoyment of any sort...it would make me want to ensure I play first every morning, and be sure to take my time walking around the bunker and sizing up my shot.


I guess we should leave ball marks on the green too, or move the ball under a penalty stroke?


I simply maintain that such a thing is more feasible if bunker design and implementation adjusts accordingly, which will be a slow process...as slow as the 50-60 year period where thousands of trees were planted, grew up or allowed to overgrow, were a perma-fact of how the course played and maintained, started to come down in what was a controversially radical treatment 20 years ago, and now are 80-90% obliterated as if the 1946-96 period didn't exist in terms of arboreal management.


vk

[Thomas Dai]

To avoid the risk of going over old ground perhaps a look at this thread might refresh memories and provide additional insight and discussion points -


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,56595.0.html


Atb

[Kalen Braley]

Sean,


I did read it actually.  The part I was addressing was this part of the comment he made just before that:

"if it is unfair for everyone in the same way".
The reality is, it is never unfair for everyone in the same way...

Okay...if you don't think the two paragraphs are connected...no worries. 


Ciao

Not to grind this into the ground....


But the point was moot as soon as he said that, because no matter what you do (short of building a course indoors with an artificial surface).., you can never, ever control that a course will be unfair to everyone in the same way....whether its a "natural" condition or not.

[Josh Stevens]

One potential issue is that of malicious intent.

Probably unlikely but certainly someone could if they were a complete bastard make a point of leaving as many prints in a bunker as humanly possible just to make it hard for those coming behind.  How do you police this, other than by another 15 pages of rules that we don't really need?

Leave it as you find it is just easier for all.

[Tyler Kearns]

Why are we worried about how good PGA Tour professionals are from the sand?  The average club member or municipal player has great difficulty from bunkers maintained as there are today, why make it even harder on them by adding a ton of footprints?


Golfers should rake bunkers after they use them.  The real discussion is regards to raking bunkers are the maintenance costs involved.  The private club where I belong mechanically rakes the bunkers 3x per week - it's not excessive and places a fair bit of responsibility on the membership to clean up after themselves.


TK 

[Jon Wiggett]

This is a tough one because the argument to not rake bunkers could extent to not fill divots in the fairways, to not fix ball marks on greens, to … Where does it end?  I have seen golfers climb up the faces of steep bunkers to exit and then leave their six inch deep footprints un-raked!  Not sure that was what the architect intended.  I am not one who ever uses the word "fair" or "unfair" especially when it comes to hazards.  That said, common sense does need to prevail at times and sometimes rub of the green and play it as it lies is more than any golfer should expect to have to deal with.  So what does that mean?  One example - my fellow competitor’s ball landed in a bunker right next to a hornet’s nest in the sand.  I gave him a free drop in a safer part of the bunker.  We never discussed it with the “rules officials” and luckily for us, no one called it in from home

Mark,


the golfer should repair damage that he/she has caused but footprints, etc. in a bunker do not damage the bunker so are not damage. I do not believe therefore your comparison holds much water. I believe the main reason for people wanting bunkers raked is in some deluded search for fairness.


Jon

[Kalen Braley]

Jon,


Fully agreed on that last statement.  I don't see anyone claiming "unfair" when a ball just barely goes into a water hazard, such that its still playable without taking a drop.  Why should a bunker be any different?