A Theory of Bunkering

[Peter Pallotta]

Reading this thread, I realized that as an average golfer playing with many other average golfers I'd say: Thank God for bunkers, and difficult ones at that.

Without them, it's only our own many miscues and myriad of poor shots and wide variety of missed chips and misplayed recoveries that get us in trouble and that send our scores soaring. But with them, we are in a sense redeemed -- we can truthfully and without self-delusion/embarrassment point to the architect-created hazard for our woes instead of to ourselves.

It's the difference between dying by the sword in a fierce battle against the Orcs (while in service to our King) and breaking our necks slipping on a banana peel (while in a bathrobe getting the Sunday flyer from the mailbox). 

[Kyle Harris]

Nice quote from 103 years ago.
If a ball is lodged under the lip of a bunker and a player has several attempts at extracting the ball striking simultaneously the sand, the ball and the bunker face is it a good or bad thing?
atb

If the embedded ball is above the margin of the bunker, the player is not in the bunker.

Wait - I had that situation this year, playing at Tara Iti (17th hole).


Once the ball embeds under & above the lip, what are my options?


Also, technically there are no bunkers at Tara Iti anyway- all the sand is through the green (or whatever it's called now - sigh).

Per definition of bunker:

A specially prepared area of sand, which is often a hollow from which turf or soil was removed.
[/size]These are not part of a bunker[/i][/url]:[/size][/size]A lip, wall or face at the edge of a prepared area and consisting of soil, grass, stacked turf or artificial materials,
[/color]

• Soil or any growing or attached natural object inside the edge of a prepared area (such as grass, bushes or trees),

• Sand that has spilled over or is outside the edge of a prepared area, and

• All other areas of sand on the course[/i][/url] that are not inside the edge of a prepared area (such as deserts and other natural sand areas or areas sometimes referred to as waste areas).[/size][/font]

• 
  The old definition of the bunker had a key phrase I don't see in the current one, namely that the margin of the hazard/bunker extends below but not above the place where the sand meets the turf or the soil.
  
  
  If Tara-iti is defining everything as the general area (through the green) then you get to proceed under the embedded ball rule unless it's sand, see the video below - the location of which may look familiar to you.
  
  https://www.usga.org/videos/2016/05/25/160524-uswafb_rules-bunkers-mp4-4911537928001.html
  
  
  Thomas Dai,
  
  
  Your answer supposes and assumes that every golf course needs to be for every golfer.
  
  I can't dunk, but I don't demand that every basketball rim be lowered to accommodate my lack of athleticism in that regard. I either don't play basketball (I don't) or I find a league and location that has a setup to accommodate my skill level.
  
  Golf courses serve the rules - not the other way around. If a golf course is overly penal in terms of bunkers and that is so prohibitive to influence your game I would suggest that it's either not a good golf course for you or perhaps you need to practice so much that you're not in so many bunkers that it causes a problem.
  
  
  Same goes for OB and Water Hazards - if there are so many that it becomes impossible or not fun to play the problem is with the golf course, not the rule!
  
  That was Hugh Wilson's whole point. And it lead to the "white faces of Merion!"

[Thomas Dai]

Still far from convinced Kyle, quite the opposite in fact.
Atb

[Kyle Harris]

Still far from convinced Kyle, quite the opposite in fact.
Atb

As embedded in opinion as the balls you espouse to be a problem? 


Perhaps the fundamental question is whether or not extracting one's self from a bunker is a fundamental aspect of golf? The rules, after all, do not allow us to pardon ourselves from tee shots we find overly difficult.

[Sean_A]

I wouldn't say golf courses serve the rules. I would say the rules and golf courses serve golfers.

Happy Hockey

[Thomas Dai]

Still far from convinced Kyle, quite the opposite in fact.
Atb

As embedded in opinion as the balls you espouse to be a problem? 
Perhaps the fundamental question is whether or not extracting one's self from a bunker is a fundamental aspect of golf? The rules, after all, do not allow us to pardon ourselves from tee shots we find overly difficult.

Takes two to tango!
... but the rules do allow us to pardon ourselves from all sorts of sins, and hazards.
If administered properly however, the rules, the golf course and the game in general should fit and work together and in doing so enhance and opportunitise the game for all.
Atb

[Kyle Harris]

Still far from convinced Kyle, quite the opposite in fact.
Atb

As embedded in opinion as the balls you espouse to be a problem? 
Perhaps the fundamental question is whether or not extracting one's self from a bunker is a fundamental aspect of golf? The rules, after all, do not allow us to pardon ourselves from tee shots we find overly difficult.

Takes two to tango!
... but the rules do allow us to pardon ourselves from all sorts of sins, and hazards.
If administered properly however, the rules, the golf course and the game in general should fit and work together and in doing so enhance and opportunitise the game for all.
Atb

Agreed. One thing I like about the recent rules ermmm updating is that it does finally distinguish that a bunker is a thing on to itself and not a "penalty area."

"The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" proposes that like situations on the golf course should be treated alike. That's my problem with the dropping OUT of the bunker rule. It is not a situation that is alike to a water hazard - now penalty area. I much prefer the game when you must overcome the bunker. I feel it is a fundamental shot.

[Thomas Dai]

That's my problem with the dropping OUT of the bunker rule. It is not a situation that is alike to a water hazard - now penalty area. I much prefer the game when you must overcome the bunker. I feel it is a fundamental shot.

I’m appreciative of where your coming from but I see them as interlinked and inconsistently so.
For example, a player hits their ball into a bunker and the bunker is full of water, so full of water that the ball can’t be played at all. The player can drop a ball outside the bunker at the cost of 1-shot penalty.
Now if an physically weak person or a unskilled player hits a ball into a bunker, a dry bunker this time, but they are physically unable or lack the skill to extract the ball they must incur a 2-stroke penalty to take an outside drop.
This seems highly inconsistent and not to the overall benefit of the game which in my eye we should be encouraging more to play and less to give up.
An example. A gentleman I know uses a walking stick to get around the course. I recall a situation where he hit a shot into a bunker but with his physical limitation he physically couldn’t step/climb down into the bunker to play his next shot. This meant, after a playing partner had thrown his ball out to him, that he had to take a 2-shot penalty drop. If however the exact same bunker had been full of water he’d only have incurred a 1-stroke penalty.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

An example. A gentleman I know uses a walking stick to get around the course. I recall a situation where he hit a shot into a bunker but with his physical limitation he physically couldn’t step/climb down into the bunker to play his next shot. This meant, after a playing partner had thrown his ball out to him, that he had to take a 2-shot penalty drop. If however the exact same bunker had been full of water he’d only have incurred a 1-stroke penalty.
Atb

Had it happened in America, he could sue the course [and its architect!] under the Americans with Disabilities Act.


I don't think he would get a settlement, but I cannot be sure.

[Lou_Duran]

David T,


I think under the rules, the committee (or golf pro) can declare a submerged bunker as AGC and part of the general area, allowing a free drop.


Maximum score is also allowed for regular play by committee approval, allowing the elderly gent to have someone toss his ball back and take his two-stroke medicine.  As golf must accommodate a wide range of players, are you suggesting that courses should be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, say the golfer who can't get the ball airborne?

[Thomas Dai]

Dumbing down to the lowest common denominator Lou? No, although I recollect there have been threads written herein on GCA about how courses should be playable with just a putter!
Atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If the stat you gave is correct, then geez, it seems like it would matter quite a bit to strategy if the ball were rolled back just far enough that players were left with 150 yard approach shots on long par-4's, instead of 100-125.  If you add 60 to 150, it would make their scoring average go up enough that they would think more about the fairway.

I'm just saying that a shot from the fairway at 200 will score about the same as a shot from the rough at 130 on the PGA Tour. Good long drivers are also pretty accurate: they're not missing a lot more fairways than the shorter hitter, and so the one or two extra drives they hit in the rough and lose expected scoring are more than made up for the by the 7 or whatever drives they hit 20 yards past the shorter hitters that also find the fairway.

In other words:
Furyk: 275.0 yards, 80.95% (11.3 fairways), -.072 SG Driving
Rory: 313.5 yards, 61.11% (8.5 fairways), 1.195 SG Driving

That's the most extreme case, of course, but for Rory, gaining nearly 40 yards over Jim 8.5 + 2.7 (Jim is in the rough 2.7 times per round, too) or 11.2 times per round is more than enough to offset the 2.8 times he's maybe 30 yards past Jim but in the rough when Jim isn't.

But it isn't like Rory isn't trying to hit fairways. They're a 60-70 yard penalty from a Strokes Gained perspective, and fairway bunkers are slightly worse: maybe 70-80.

The rule changes introduced last year could have had a considerable effect on all aspects of bunkering. However, the rule authorities decided to introduce a 2-shot penalty should a player wish to drop out of bunker.With a 2-shot penalty players are more likely to give a shot a go, whereas only a 1-shot penalty ought to change a players thinking, which then has other implications for bunkering in general.

I don't quite agree that it will have much impact.

Guy hits his approach shot into a green side bunker trying to "go for" something. Decides to take a two-stroke penalty to drop behind it. He lay four and is playing five.

Before the 2019 Rules… the guy could have just taken stroke and distance, dropped three, and hit four. It's almost the same thing as dropping out of the bunker for two strokes.

Plus… most of the people who will take the two strokes are the poorer players, anyway. I don't foresee many good or even average players willingly taking two strokes to escape a bunker.

Do you?

One may take an unplayable lie in that situation but in doing so must remain in the bunker. This is a like situation being treated alike without removing the condition of the bunker.

That's not true. He can take stroke and distance, too.

I agree with David. A 1shot penalty drop situation makes it a reasonable and fun risk should one fail to carry some horrible pit of doom. A rule such as this would, I believe, give more archies a free hand at designing harsher bunkers. Plus, treating all penalty areas the same makes sense and rightly simplifies rules. As the rules are now, it is difficult to understand why a bunker dishes out a worse penalty than a lost or OOB ball.

Because for the vast majority of the time… it doesn't. Good players can get out of a bunker. And even if they play backward, their next shot likely won't be from 180 or whatever their previous shot (stroke and distance) would have come from.

"The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" proposes that like situations on the golf course should be treated alike. That's my problem with the dropping OUT of the bunker rule. It is not a situation that is alike to a water hazard - now penalty area. I much prefer the game when you must overcome the bunker. I feel it is a fundamental shot.

You're perverting the Principles just because both situations have penalty strokes associated with escaping them. Golfers are welcome to, for a penalty, remove their ball from a divot hole, too, if they like: that doesn't mean the Rules treat divot holes as "like situations" to  penalty areas or bunkers. (Edited this paragraph for clarity.)

And, you must drop behind the bunker, so you must still "overcome" it, either by playing over it or, if available, around it.

As for the player who is too weak to get out of a bunker… the two-stroke penalty lets him turn in a score, rather than being left to die of starvation or exposure in a bunker, or to declare it unplayable and have to walk back under stroke and distance.

[Thomas Dai]

Guy hits his approach shot into a green side bunker trying to "go for" something. Decides to take a two-stroke penalty to drop behind it. He lay four and is playing five.
Before the 2019 Rules… the guy could have just taken stroke and distance, dropped three, and hit four. It's almost the same thing as dropping out of the bunker for two strokes.
Plus… most of the people who will take the two strokes are the poorer players, anyway. I don't foresee many good or even average players willingly taking two strokes to escape a bunker.
Do you?

With regard to your first point, a player taking the stoke and distance option has an adverse impact on pace of play and pace of play is slow enough already.
As to your second point, nail on head time, not many will take the 2-shot penalty, that's why it should only be a 1-shot penalty, then more may be inclined to take it.
atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

With regard to your first point, a player taking the stoke and distance option has an adverse impact on pace of play and pace of play is slow enough already.

That's really neither here nor there wrt the Rules, "Principles," etc.

As to your second point, nail on head time, not many will take the 2-shot penalty, that's why it should only be a 1-shot penalty, then more may be inclined to take it.

I don't think you should be able to escape a bunker for a one-stroke penalty (that doesn't involve stroke and distance). This isn't really the topic of the thread, so I'll be brief and am happy to move the discussion to a new topic or PMs, but I disagree: I think the one- and two-stroke options that exist now are good. They don't need to be given the same options as penalty areas, because they're different than penalty areas. Even before when they were both "hazards" you couldn't escape a bunker for a one-stroke penalty.

[Thomas Dai]

And there was me thinking that some of the reasons that the RoG were updated a little while ago now were speed of play and simplification, but we’ve been down these rabbit holes before.
Atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

A couple of the reasons that the RoG were updated a little while ago now were speed of play and simplification, but we’ve been down these rabbit holes before.

If a player hits into a bunker from which they know they can't escape, they can immediately drop another ball and not waste time. Stroke and distance doesn't always mean the player walks forward and then has to walk back.

To the topic… Off the top of my head I can imagine that there are a few reasons to have a bunker. In no order:

• Visual interest
• Penalize a shot/strategy
• Soften a shot (keeping a shot on the golf course that is headed OB/into water, etc.).
• Trick a player (strategic, in a sense, where the player assumes that he wants to play near the bunker, when in reality the best play is away from it for the better approach angle or something).

Are there others? Is my list crap?

[Thomas Dai]

Your list isn’t as you reverse-suggest at all Erik. Some bunkers though do occur or have evolved or been formalised over time for other reasons, for example from tidal/watery areas (Westward Ho!) or spots where seashells were collected (TOC) or paths across to the beach (North Berwick).
Ian wrote an very fine piece about bunkering that’s within this website here - http://golfclubatlas.com/best-of-golf/on-bunkers-by-ian-andrew/
As to knowing whether or not you can escape from a bunker before you even reach the bunker let alone the ball, well not all folks are blessed with such vision nor such foresight.
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Been busy, and thus, late to this party, but wanted to say I appreciate the topic, especially coming from TD.  He has always been reluctant to put any theory in writing, as it might dampen his image as an iconoclast.  I gather he has been asked enough, he sort of had to come up with something.  


I have often put my basic philosophy in writing, not fearing being trapped so much.  If I want to ignore my own philosophies, I figure I could just say, "It's an architects prerogative to change their minds" or say its a special case and the site doesn't allow it, or that I am giving the client a unique (at least for me) hole.  It's hard for me to understand beginning design without some basic philosophy to guide it, even if I decide to ignore it a few times.  Of course, you ignore it too often, and pretty soon you just get goofy golf.


A few things stand out to me.  First, Eric's use of stats to dispel some myths about how easy bunkers are for even top players.  Approximately doubling the distance to flag and halving the % of greens hit in regulation seems like a pretty tough penalty for those guys.


Another is Tom's admission that players probably hit away from fw bunkers, at the top and bottom of the spectrum, with the middle handicap men not realizing what they should do, perhaps letting ego take over.  I have always wondered if the Golden Age philosophy of making them challenge a fw hazard was ever statistically a good idea or played as designed.  With more stats now, intuitively it seems not.  Although, it seems it still works for what was the presumed target audience of design back then, so maybe the ideas were perfect for the times. And maybe other ideas are better for these times.


Lastly, TD's bunker philosophy is far more main steam than most here would think.  Like football coaches, and other gca's, I think the tendency for all of us is to get more conservative with age.  As with the center bunker idea - you build a few, get no positive reaction (except on this website) and a few negative grumblings, and voila, center bunkers are not on your hip pocket list of design ideas.


I eagerly await Tom's philosophical discussions on green contours, fw width, etc.

[Bob Montle]

Local rule at my public Doak 2.5, where there are a lot of senior and or women players.

Anyone may lift ball from sand bunker and drop on a line away from the pin any distance back with a penalty of one stroke.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Local rule at my public Doak 2.5, where there are a lot of senior and or women players.

Anyone may lift ball from sand bunker and drop on a line away from the pin any distance back with a penalty of one stroke.

Unfortunately, that's not a legitimate Local Rule.

Just make it two and it's fine.

[Jason Topp]

I appreciate the discussion.


I think most of the ideas related to bunker placement have been covered.  My biggest preference is that fairway bunker placement vary so that all levels of player face temptation once in awhile.   


I often have thought that as a general rule fairway bunkers should be deeper.  Deeper fairway bunkers present more of a dilemma to the player regarding whether to aim away and, once in the bunker,  whether to wedge out or risk the lip to get it on or close to the green. For the lesser player, a conservative wedge out might yield better results than trying to be a hero.


I think green-side bunkers could be less deep.  For the better player, I believe judging the sand is the biggest challenge for a green-side bunker shot.  There is a bit of randomness regarding whether a ball checks or runs out and that randomness exists regardless of the depth of the bunker.  For the lesser player, a shallow bunker can present the option of putting - which is a great way to get down in three but a difficult way to get down in two.


Crystal Downs had a number of shallow bunkers that appeared to be scabs in the ground - shallow but sloping in the same way as the surrounding turf.  Those struck me as interesting hazards that I do not recall seeing very often.

[Thomas Dai]

Thoughts?
atb

[Jason Topp]

Thoughts?
atb

What happens to the sand on a windy day?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I appreciate the discussion.


I often have thought that as a general rule fairway bunkers should be deeper.  Deeper fairway bunkers present more of a dilemma to the player regarding whether to aim away and, once in the bunker,  whether to wedge out or risk the lip to get it on or close to the green. For the lesser player, a conservative wedge out might yield better results than trying to be a hero.


I think green-side bunkers could be less deep.  For the better player, I believe judging the sand is the biggest challenge for a green-side bunker shot.  There is a bit of randomness regarding whether a ball checks or runs out and that randomness exists regardless of the depth of the bunker.  For the lesser player, a shallow bunker can present the option of putting - which is a great way to get down in three but a difficult way to get down in two.

Jason,


I once lost a job (i.e. the minute I said it, the room went cold) by my answer to the question, "Mr. Brauer, don't you think it should be just as easy to reach a par 5 in 2 shots from the fw bunker as from the middle of the fairway?"  My answer of "no" was apparently a shock to them, as was my follow up explanation that I usually make tee shot fw bunkers on par 5 holes deeper, figuring that even with a short iron out, they can still reach the green in 3, thus, there is no real penalty for hitting the bunker.  Apparently, the penalty of "only" reaching a par 5 green in regulation figures was very real to those golfers.


Very few golfers I know think that putting out of a green side bunker is a viable way to play and avoid those.


As to the volcano bunker, I agree it is a problem in the wind.  Plus, ancient sheep huddled in hollows, not on top of mounds to get out of the wind.

[Tom_Doak]

Hi Thomas:


The feature in question is from the restored 12th hole at Garden City Golf Club.


Originally, there were two sand mounds to either side of the green.  I struggled to imagine how they would be maintained in a modern restoration . . . they would get footprinted up on a regular basis, the sand would get depleted by wind erosion, etc.  But, they were part of the hole for a long time, back in the days when maintenance was not so fussy.


To restore them, Jim Urbina basically built the mounds out of gravel, and put a few inches of bunker sand over the top.  Most approach shots that hit the mounds will bounce off, so there isn't as much foot traffic on them as we anticipated, and I don't think they've been a big pain to maintain.


Playing-wise, though, the mounds are an obstacle for those whose shots finished wide of the target.

Thoughts?
atb