If the bunker rake never existed...

[Craig Sweet]

I assumed that *originally* bunkers were naturally occuring blow outs in a sand dune.  So, I guess I am not sure why they even exist on some courses other than to imitate a natural feature that otherwise would not be found on site. 


I currently belong to a club with no sand bunkers at all....speeds up play, saves the club money, and no bitching from members

[Thomas Dai]

...I am not sure why they even exist on some courses other than to imitate a natural feature that otherwise would not be found on site. 

Yellow sand looks nice against a green background in photographs and on TV (as do blue ponds).
atb

[Richard_Mandell]

I once asked Gary Player about getting rid of all the bunker rakes in the world after he spoke at a conference about making the game less formal and manicured.  He thought it was a terrible idea.  Like most pros, he doesn't want anything to get in between him and a low score, no matter his public stance on sustainability.


Here is a blog article about bunker rakes I wrote for the Washington Times back in February 2011:  https://www.golf-architecture.com/post/toss-the-rakes-all-of-them

[John Kavanaugh]

I had a good day yesterday against my buddies because I got up and down 3 out of 4 times. I simply hit a few nice shots while my opponents did not. Now if you want all things to be equal wouldn't it be easier to just fill all the traps with water? That is exactly what happens when bunkers are not maintained. Everyone gets the same result regardless of skill, a one shot penalty. I thought you guys hated water.


On one hole, playing match play, my opponent was on the green in regulation while I was in a green side bunker. He three putted after I stiffed my bunker shot. It doesn't get more fun than that.

[Richard_Mandell]

John,  a bunker that doesn't get raked by golfers isn't going to automatically hold water.

[John Kavanaugh]

John,  a bunker that doesn't get raked by golfers isn't going to automatically hold water.

What I'm saying is that an unmaintained bunker plays like a water hazard. Or in modern terms, a penalty area.

[Thomas Dai]

Once upon a time there were no bunker rakes nor sand wedges yet folks like those seen in the photos below seemed to cope. And the game grew.
These days we have rakes and multiple varieties of specialist sand wedges and bunkers (and courses generally) are manicured and yet the game is apparently declining.
Strange times.
atb

[John Kavanaugh]

I bet it was tough to shoot your age back in the good ole days.

[Tim Martin]

Once upon a time there were no bunker rakes nor sand wedges yet folks like those seen in the photos below seemed to cope. And the game grew.
These days we have rakes and multiple varieties of specialist sand wedges and bunkers (and courses generally) are manicured and yet the game is apparently declining.
Strange times.
atb

Thomas-Great pictures!!!!

[Joe Hancock]

I bet it was tough to shoot your age back in the good ole days.

Life expectancy, for one....

[Wayne_Kozun]

And 22 holes at The Old Course at St Andrews.

[Lou_Duran]

Yes, nice pictures David.  The commentary, not so much.  Sand wedges and rakes as causes for the decline in golf?  Maybe there, but certainly not here.


Sand bunkers are an important part of golf's traditions, looks, feel, evolution, etc.  They provide strategic and physical challenge, variety, and satisfaction when negotiated successfully.  For me, a course without bunkers is missing an integral design feature and would have only limited interest.


As to rakes, from my experience they are more of a suggestion for far too many golfers than a tool for leaving the course in better condition than you found it and demonstrating respect for your fellow golfers.  We whine at my home club on a regular basis about the lack of consideration shown by some of our members.  And we're a private club in a demographically advantaged area.


Bunkers are too easy?  Rakes are unnecessary?  Y-t-D, I am getting up and down from the green-side bunkers around 25% of the time.  I suspect that my bunker play is in the top 10-15% of amateurs.  And here I thought that we all wanted golf to be fun! 
 

[Sean_A]

Sweet Lou

Holes without bunkers hold minimal interest for You? Or are you saying a course must have bunkers? If so, how many and on how many holes?

I think we generally agree, except I would rather see the range of 10-25 bunkers explored rather than the more typical 40-80. In my opinion, less bunkering would force archies to be more creative in bringing interest to courses. Much of the time bunkers actually reduce variety, often times because archies are afraid to be bold with bunker placement. This lack of balls results in the placement of far more bunkers than is necessary and instead aims toward beautification and road mapping.

Ciao

[JJShanley]

Do the Oakmont tined takes require a particular type of sand to leave furrows?  Would they have the same effect on links courses that often have a finer grain of sand?

[David_Tepper]

"Bunkers are too easy?  Rakes are unnecessary?  Y-t-D, I am getting up and down from the green-side bunkers around 25% of the time.  I suspect that my bunker play is in the top 10-15% of amateurs.  And here I thought that we all wanted golf to be fun!"


I totally agree with Lou D. on this one. If he is getting up & down 25% of the time, he very much the exception rather than the rule among amateur/social golfers.

My guess is the average double-digit male handicap golfer loses at least 1 stroke every time they hit into a bunker, even the perfectly groomed ones. The typical 20-25 handicap female golfer likely loses at least 1.5 shots every time they hit into a bunker.

Granted the pros at times make bunker play look easy. But even they rarely get up & down more than 50% of the time. And they are great putters!

[Bob Montle]

My favorite photo of Hell Bunker:

[Thomas Dai]

Nice photo Bob.
I can imagine why it was termed ‘Hell’ bunker. Once upon a time a genuine hazard, an obstacle to be avoided. Hit the ball into it at your peril and suffer the consequences.
Atb

[Sean_A]

My favorite photo of Hell Bunker:

Nevermind the bunker itself...why are they hitting out the wrong way?  Is the a reverse course photo? 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

A proper hazard ... and with no rakes!
atb

[Kalen Braley]

I understand the desire for unraked, old school, bunkers...I really do.

But in practice, assuming no formal maintenance, they would become even worse than small ponds scattered all over the course.  Your ball settles into a low lying hole from all the foot prints, which will be everywhere, and for 90% of golfers you can forget about getting out in 1, much less getting anything near your desired target.

If this was the new "standard", then it would be even worse than a water hazard as it now costs two strokes to drop outside the bunker...

[Bob Montle]

Sean - wrong way from Hell!

I noticed that also, and just assumed it was on reverse course.
Would love to play it reverse one day!

[Lou_Duran]

Sweet Lou

Holes without bunkers hold minimal interest for You? Or are you saying a course must have bunkers? If so, how many and on how many holes?

I think we generally agree, except I would rather see the range of 10-25 bunkers explored rather than the more typical 40-80. In my opinion, less bunkering would force archies to be more creative in bringing interest to courses. Much of the time bunkers actually reduce variety, often times because archies are afraid to be bold with bunker placement. This lack of balls results in the placement of far more bunkers than is necessary and instead aims toward beautification and road mapping.

Ciao

Sean, I am perfectly fine with some holes without bunkers.  If there are a number of natural features on the site- creeks, knobs, mounds, hollows, drop-offs, specimen trees, etc.- maybe 20-30 bunkers are plenty.  On a flat, mostly featureless site like my home course, maybe 50 is the right #.  Of course, the bunkers' location, size, shape, depth, etc. are all-important.  And I am not all against the occasional bunker for misdirection, aiming, or aesthetics.