Bring back the wide bunker rake tines!

[David Ober]

God how I would love to make the pros have to think a bit. Imagine the following:

• Reachable Par-5
• Pin cut front-right, just over a bunker
• Hole playing downwind a bit
• Green firm and very fast and maybe even sloped away a bit
• Water left
• Bunker sand is raked, but with a wide tine rake, where the ball is just as likely to be sitting where almost no spin can be imparted as it is to be sitting where lots of spin can be imparted.

A shot from a perfectly raked bunker is a 60%+ up-and-down for the Tour guys in the "perfect lie" scenario. From a bad lie, though, sitting down in a furrow, it's maybe 10% (the ball will run out considerably, similar to Bryson's plugged lie shot in the final round). And if they play it to NOT run out by trying to "get cute," there's a good chance the ball stays in the bunker, or is even bladed if they get too cute.

So now the best players in the world have to THINK about what they want to do instead of feeling absolutely no compunction whatsoever to just blast at the green as long as they don't pull it into the water.

It reintroduces RANDOMNESS to being in a bunker, which should absolutely be part of what a bunker represents to the thoughtful golfer.

I know Nicklaus did this at the Memorial a while back. Does anyone know the bunker-save stats from that week? And were they raked TOWARD the hole? Or was the grain ACROSS the hole, as there's a big difference.

I'm just so sick of there being absolutely no consequence to being in a bunker.

[David_Tepper]

Current PGA Tour stats show less than 30 players have gotten up & down from the sand 60% or more of the time. Over 100 players have gotten up & down from the sand less than 50% of the time (including Rahm, Kisner, Day, Matsuyama, Fitzpatrick, Snedeker, English, Garcia & Fowler). 


https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.111.html

And remember, these are the best putters putting on very smooth/true greens.

[Peter Pallotta]

David O -
your post brought this to mind: that the biggest difference between pro golf in the 70s and pro golf today, and one of the worst things to happen to golf courses & gca during that time, is that the PGA Tour began using the "These Guys are Good" tagline.
Now, everything the Tour does (golf course wise) is about 'proving' that tagline true, and making it as obvious as possible to even the most casual of golf fans. It is all about marketing (and enabling) two things: distance and birdies. And Golf (ie the PGA Tour) will do about absolutely nothing that might 'threaten' or impinge on either of those selling points in the least.

[Pete Lavallee]

Peter has a very good point: the PGA TOUR is not in the business of making their constituents work hard to look good. Bunkers are compacted by machines and then fluffed by hand on top to make it super easy to hit great shots. Although the GCA Crowd would relish a Tour Pro sweating over a bunker shot, would the casual fan appreciate the extra effort needed? As DT mentioned, it’s still not routine for even the best on the Planet!

[David_Tepper]

The reality is, these guys are very, VERY good.

[Phil Burr]

It's really easy to watch last weekend's Bay Hill telecast and conclude the bunkers are not very penal.  It seems, however, that are numerous variables in play:


Course design: the largest percentage of bunkers are in front of the green and the largest percentage of greens are uphill from the front, making recovery much easier;
Large greens such as Bay Hill's seem to demand large scale bunkers to fit the eye, simply leaving more room for recovery;
Florida's terrain is flat, making it difficult to construct deep bunkers into abrupt terrain such as you find at Pebble, Riviera...
Although we're led to believe that player-caddie conversations are nothing but positive reinforcement, I hear a lot of discussion of where NOT to miss, meaning bad shots are less likely to end up in a disadvantageous bunker.


It would be interesting to track sand save stats week-to-week instead of in aggregate.  I'd suspect they were relatively high at Bay Hill; I can't imagine how they would be anywhere similar at hack-&-hope venues such as at the Open Championship.

[David Ober]

Current PGA Tour stats show less than 30 players have gotten up & down from the sand 60% or more of the time. Over 100 players have gotten up & down from the sand less than 50% of the time (including Rahm, Kisner, Day, Matsuyama, Fitzpatrick, Snedeker, English, Garcia & Fowler). 


https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.111.html

And remember, these are the best putters putting on very smooth/true greens.

That's all bunker shots, all conditions. "Easy" bunker shots are certainly higher than the average of ALL bunker shots. I'll stand by my ~60% for an easy shot to a close"ish" pin, but 50% is probably closer.

[David Ober]

The reality is, these guys are very, VERY good.

I've played many rounds with them. Yes they are -- which is why I'd like to see them have to negotiate some tougher situations more frequently.

[David_Tepper]

David O. -

I don't disagree with you.


The reason I like to quote those statistics whenever the subject of "bunkers are too easy for the pros" comes up is that watching the 6 or 8 players leading the tournament on Saturday & Sunday on TV can give a false sense of just how tough a course is playing. The players we mostly see on TV are the ones playing the very best that week among the best players in the world. Yes, they can make the game look too easy at times. But the game and the course was not so easy for the 60-80 players who missed the cut or didn't finish in the top 25 that week.

DT

[David_Tepper]

Phil B. -

Here are the Sand Save stats for the Palmer Invitational for the players who played all 4 rounds:

https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.111.y2021.eon.t009.html

Yes, the save percentages were quite high for a number of the players. But note that a healthy percentage of the players (40%) could do no better than convert half their attempts.

It would certainly be interesting to see the stats for all the players over the first 2 rounds. My guess is the percentage of sand saves would be lower.

DT

[Kyle Harris]

A shot from a perfectly raked bunker is a 60%+ up-and-down for the Tour guys in the "perfect lie" scenario.

Just under a half-shot penalty seems appropriate for a bunker and Hugh Wilson agreed. He argued that if a bunker was ultimately no different from a water hazard with a drop there is no point in having a bunker.

That attitude is how we got the White Faces of Merion.

[Dan_Callahan]

What are the Tour stats for getting up and down from greenside rough? If bunkers are supposed to be hazards (or pseudo-hazards?), it would be great if they converted out of the bunkers at a lower percentage than chipping from around the green. Yet it seems to me most Tour players prefer to be in the sand because they have a much better chance of getting a decent lie.

[Kyle Harris]

What are the Tour stats for getting up and down from greenside rough? If bunkers are supposed to be hazards (or pseudo-hazards?), it would be great if they converted out of the bunkers at a lower percentage than chipping from around the green. Yet it seems to me most Tour players prefer to be in the sand because they have a much better chance of getting a decent lie.

This is more an argument against deep rough than it is an argument FOR harder bunkers.

[Jason Thurman]

A shot from a perfectly raked bunker is a 60%+ up-and-down for the Tour guys in the "perfect lie" scenario.

Just under a half-shot penalty seems appropriate for a bunker and Hugh Wilson agreed. He argued that if a bunker was ultimately no different from a water hazard with a drop there is no point in having a bunker.

That attitude is how we got the White Faces of Merion.

Is that the right way to think about a half-shot penalty, though? If we think greenside bunkers, you've already missed the green. That alone is about a half-shot penalty for a pro, right?


So if a bunker is really just a "different" kind of lie to get up-and-down from, but not really a "hazard" that's substantially more or less difficult than lying in the rough, or on short grass... I guess that's starting to feel pretty boring to me when I watch pro golf.


I don't see the same issue in my daily playing life - if I'm playing a match against a guy, I'd generally rather see his ball splash into the sand than roll into the rough. But there's rarely any real drama that stems from watching high-level golf when a guy hits into a bunker as compared to missing anywhere else around the green. So like, what's even the point of having bunkers? Just to punish amateurs and make pictures look prettier, and force us to replace our wedges a little more often?


I think there's a big opportunity to inject a little more drama and strategy into the proceedings by allowing hazards to play a little more like hazards. It's a fine line - I don't want them to be impossible or anything - but more of an appreciable bind that requires a higher degree of execution for recovery as compared with other greenside misses seems about right. Whereas creating sand conditions that are honed to deliver excellent lies consistently seems about wrong.

[Thomas Dai]

A few greenside bunker generalisations .... apologies in advance to left handed players ....
Most greenside bunkering is at the front or towards the middle of greens.
Most greens slope upwards from front to rear.
Most players are right handed.
Bunker shots played by right handers from right side bunkers mostly spin into the upslope hence on fast greens it’s easier to nestle short bunker shots nearer the pin
Bunkers shots played by right handers from left side bunkers mostly spin down the slope hence are more likely to run away from the pin
Generalisations yes, but stats wise where the miss takes place is important as it effects the length/difficulty of the resulting next shot/putt.

A question on other categories of stats .... what’s the percentage up-n-downs when greens are surrounded by very short grass and the ball rolls away from the edge of the putting surface by 10’-20’-30’-40’ etc? Just curious.

It’s a pretty obvious statement but it’s always worth remembering that any stats for elite tour pros of either gender and those (if recorded) for various ages, abilities and physical strength etc of amateur player will vary.

Atb

[Kyle Harris]

A shot from a perfectly raked bunker is a 60%+ up-and-down for the Tour guys in the "perfect lie" scenario.

Just under a half-shot penalty seems appropriate for a bunker and Hugh Wilson agreed. He argued that if a bunker was ultimately no different from a water hazard with a drop there is no point in having a bunker.

That attitude is how we got the White Faces of Merion.

Is that the right way to think about a half-shot penalty, though? If we think greenside bunkers, you've already missed the green. That alone is about a half-shot penalty for a pro, right?


So if a bunker is really just a "different" kind of lie to get up-and-down from, but not really a "hazard" that's substantially more or less difficult than lying in the rough, or on short grass... I guess that's starting to feel pretty boring to me when I watch pro golf.


I don't see the same issue in my daily playing life - if I'm playing a match against a guy, I'd generally rather see his ball splash into the sand than roll into the rough. But there's rarely any real drama that stems from watching high-level golf when a guy hits into a bunker as compared to missing anywhere else around the green. So like, what's even the point of having bunkers? Just to punish amateurs and make pictures look prettier, and force us to replace our wedges a little more often?


I think there's a big opportunity to inject a little more drama and strategy into the proceedings by allowing hazards to play a little more like hazards. It's a fine line - I don't want them to be impossible or anything - but more of an appreciable bind that requires a higher degree of execution for recovery as compared with other greenside misses seems about right. Whereas creating sand conditions that are honed to deliver excellent lies consistently seems about wrong.

Thomas Dai started my next train of thought...

Basically, the bunker also affords an opportunity to place the player in a bad bad bad location from which to extract themselves, especially bunkers whose sphere of influence far exceed their boundaries.

One of the most nefarious ones I know of is on the first at the Winter Park 9, about 30 yards back and to the left of the short, driveable Par-4 - just ready to catch a slightly pulled tee shot and hold it at a most awkward angle and distance.

[David Ober]

A shot from a perfectly raked bunker is a 60%+ up-and-down for the Tour guys in the "perfect lie" scenario.

Just under a half-shot penalty seems appropriate for a bunker and Hugh Wilson agreed. He argued that if a bunker was ultimately no different from a water hazard with a drop there is no point in having a bunker.

That attitude is how we got the White Faces of Merion.

how are you getting a half-shot penalty? Assume rough, instead of a bunker, and maybe the up and down is 75%, so the delta there is 15%, not 50%. (Yes, I pulled those number out of my booty!).


Modern bunkers are nowhere near enough of a penalty, IMHO. I want to see everyone fear the unpredictable nature of greenside bunkers. You go into one and you think ... "Uh oh, what awaits me when I get there," instead of "I will likely make par and almost certainly not make double-bogey."


In other words, I would like it to be where a 30-yard pitch OVER a bunker is perhaps the preferred leave than IN the bunker -- due to its unpredictable nature.

[David Ober]

A shot from a perfectly raked bunker is a 60%+ up-and-down for the Tour guys in the "perfect lie" scenario.

Just under a half-shot penalty seems appropriate for a bunker and Hugh Wilson agreed. He argued that if a bunker was ultimately no different from a water hazard with a drop there is no point in having a bunker.

That attitude is how we got the White Faces of Merion.

Is that the right way to think about a half-shot penalty, though? If we think greenside bunkers, you've already missed the green. That alone is about a half-shot penalty for a pro, right?


So if a bunker is really just a "different" kind of lie to get up-and-down from, but not really a "hazard" that's substantially more or less difficult than lying in the rough, or on short grass... I guess that's starting to feel pretty boring to me when I watch pro golf.


I don't see the same issue in my daily playing life - if I'm playing a match against a guy, I'd generally rather see his ball splash into the sand than roll into the rough. But there's rarely any real drama that stems from watching high-level golf when a guy hits into a bunker as compared to missing anywhere else around the green. So like, what's even the point of having bunkers? Just to punish amateurs and make pictures look prettier, and force us to replace our wedges a little more often?


I think there's a big opportunity to inject a little more drama and strategy into the proceedings by allowing hazards to play a little more like hazards. It's a fine line - I don't want them to be impossible or anything - but more of an appreciable bind that requires a higher degree of execution for recovery as compared with other greenside misses seems about right. Whereas creating sand conditions that are honed to deliver excellent lies consistently seems about wrong.

^^^^^Exactly.

[Kyle Harris]

A shot from a perfectly raked bunker is a 60%+ up-and-down for the Tour guys in the "perfect lie" scenario.

Just under a half-shot penalty seems appropriate for a bunker and Hugh Wilson agreed. He argued that if a bunker was ultimately no different from a water hazard with a drop there is no point in having a bunker.

That attitude is how we got the White Faces of Merion.

how are you getting a half-shot penalty? Assume rough, instead of a bunker, and maybe the up and down is 75%, so the delta there is 15%, not 50%. (Yes, I pulled those number out of my booty!).


Modern bunkers are nowhere near enough of a penalty, IMHO. I want to see everyone fear the unpredictable nature of greenside bunkers. You go into one and you think ... "Uh oh, what awaits me when I get there," instead of "I will likely make par and almost certainly not make double-bogey."


In other words, I would like it to be where a 30-yard pitch OVER a bunker is perhaps the preferred leave than IN the bunker -- due to its unpredictable nature.

Do this through placement and number, not lie. Contour funneling a ball to a bunker 20 yards from the landing spot, etc.


Hugh Wilson's point is compelling. The minute recovery becomes more costly than a stroke, you've just created a penalty area.

[Jason Thurman]

I'm with you on these last two points, Kyle. There are ways to make bunkers play like hazards without furrowing. Although I also don't dislike furrowing as an idea, especially on existing courses with large, flat-bottomed bunkers already in place and when they're filled with player-friendly sand.


Honestly, after a year of COVID life, I'd be happy to see ANY bunker rakes. I think they'll be back on my home course this weekend.

[David Ober]

A shot from a perfectly raked bunker is a 60%+ up-and-down for the Tour guys in the "perfect lie" scenario.

Just under a half-shot penalty seems appropriate for a bunker and Hugh Wilson agreed. He argued that if a bunker was ultimately no different from a water hazard with a drop there is no point in having a bunker.

That attitude is how we got the White Faces of Merion.

how are you getting a half-shot penalty? Assume rough, instead of a bunker, and maybe the up and down is 75%, so the delta there is 15%, not 50%. (Yes, I pulled those number out of my booty!).


Modern bunkers are nowhere near enough of a penalty, IMHO. I want to see everyone fear the unpredictable nature of greenside bunkers. You go into one and you think ... "Uh oh, what awaits me when I get there," instead of "I will likely make par and almost certainly not make double-bogey."


In other words, I would like it to be where a 30-yard pitch OVER a bunker is perhaps the preferred leave than IN the bunker -- due to its unpredictable nature.

Do this through placement and number, not lie. Contour funneling a ball to a bunker 20 yards from the landing spot, etc.


Hugh Wilson's point is compelling. The minute recovery becomes more costly than a stroke, you've just created a penalty area.

I'm not a big fan of funneling balls to bunkers -- except in rare instances.

[Kyle Harris]

I'm with you on these last two points, Kyle. There are ways to make bunkers play like hazards without furrowing. Although I also don't dislike furrowing as an idea, especially on existing courses with large, flat-bottomed bunkers already in place and when they're filled with player-friendly sand.


Honestly, after a year of COVID life, I'd be happy to see ANY bunker rakes. I think they'll be back on my home course this weekend.

I can do without the rakes. Using your foot to smooth your marks provides a good compromise of uneven surface and recovery.

[David_Tepper]

"What are the Tour stats for getting up and down from greenside rough? If bunkers are supposed to be hazards (or pseudo-hazards?), it would be great if they converted out of the bunkers at a lower percentage than chipping from around the green. Yet it seems to me most Tour players prefer to be in the sand because they have a much better chance of getting a decent lie."


Dan C. -

In fact the Tour has a wide assortment of stats for scrambling/getting up & down around the green - from the sand, the rough, the fringe and from various distances as well. You can find them all here:

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/categories.RARG_INQ.html

Here are the stats for Scrambling from the Rough. As I compare them to the Sand Save stats, it is slightly easier from the rough than the sand.

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.363.html

DT 
 

[Jason Thurman]

I'm with you on these last two points, Kyle. There are ways to make bunkers play like hazards without furrowing. Although I also don't dislike furrowing as an idea, especially on existing courses with large, flat-bottomed bunkers already in place and when they're filled with player-friendly sand.


Honestly, after a year of COVID life, I'd be happy to see ANY bunker rakes. I think they'll be back on my home course this weekend.

I can do without the rakes. Using your foot to smooth your marks provides a good compromise of uneven surface and recovery.

I’m ok without them in theory. But in practice, rakeless bunkers too often turn into “lift, smooth, place” local rules. That’s been the standard at my club for a year, and I’m tired of watching these no-strategy hacks fondle their sandy balls.

[Kyle Harris]

I'm with you on these last two points, Kyle. There are ways to make bunkers play like hazards without furrowing. Although I also don't dislike furrowing as an idea, especially on existing courses with large, flat-bottomed bunkers already in place and when they're filled with player-friendly sand.


Honestly, after a year of COVID life, I'd be happy to see ANY bunker rakes. I think they'll be back on my home course this weekend.

I can do without the rakes. Using your foot to smooth your marks provides a good compromise of uneven surface and recovery.

I’m ok without them in theory. But in practice, rakeless bunkers too often turn into “lift, smooth, place” local rules. That’s been the standard at my club for a year, and I’m tired of watching these no-strategy hacks fondle their sandy balls.

Same. But just because a club says you *may* do it doesn't mean you have to. Curious what that eventually does to handicaps, too.


Cleaning up after yourself, regardless of the local rules, should be de rigueur.