[Rob Marshall]

We have a 500 yard 90 degree dogleg par 5. There is a fairway bunker on the inside of the dogleg about 235 to 240. It’s a flat bottom bunker that has pretty severe grass mounding that you need to cover to get to the fairway. The mounding runs parallel to the direction of your second shot to the green. Seems like every time someone in my game hits into the bunker the ball rolls to the base of the mounding so you are standing 2 feet above the ball on a very severe down slope. You’re lucky to be able to get a club on it without falling in the bunker. Two scratch players in the same group Thursday were able to advance the ball 20 yards. Is there a preferred angle a bunker like this should be positioned?

[Brad Lawrence]

Sounds like it’s a good and proper hazard to guard the preferred line on a short par 5.   

[Rob Marshall]

Sounds like it’s a good and proper hazard to guard the preferred line on a short par 5.

The play is to try an squeeze a shot between the bunker and the trees that create the dogleg. If you miss it you want to hit in the trees. It’s an easier shot from there than the bunker. I’d post pictures if I knew how.

[Brad Lawrence]

Yeah, only a Sith Lord can figure how to post pics here.  I have tried and failed. 

[Tom_Doak]

Maybe they should learn to hit a shot left-handed? 


Or, not hit it there.

[Rob Marshall]

Maybe they should learn to hit a shot left-handed? 


Or, not hit it there.

I can’t argue with that, you are right. I would however like to be able to hit a shot without worrying about blowing my knee out. The bunker is too narrow IMO. Seemingly every shot I see hit into it runs to or on the first few inches of the grass mounding.


The bunker is in a great location. If I hit a very good drive I can carry it. Come up short and you are in the bunker. Doesn’t bother me to have a tough shot. I just don’t want it to be the last I hit for the next year. I think the bunker should be on a different angle.


Hence my question about the angle……

[Mark_Fine]

Rob,
The Old Course at St. Andrews has been a model for ideas for many architects.  As you know, it can be and still is played in reverse.  There are times your only shot from a bunker or hazard is sideways or backwards. 


There is too much focus on what is or is not fair when it comes to golf course design.  I will leave it at that.
Mark

[Kalen Braley]

I'm having a tough time understanding this one as well. 

If instead of the bunker there was a small pond or knee high ball-eating gunch, would that be any better?  Some hazards should just be avoided at all costs, even if your ball is readily "playable" from it.

[Jon Sweet]

Yeah, only a Sith Lord can figure how to post pics here.  I have tried and failed. 

There is no try.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rob,


I have heard good players opine about similar problems.  They (presumably right handers) always want the high side of any bunker to the outside of the fw.  They dislike fw bunkers on the right that sit below the fwe, etc.  On your dogleg, in essence, the high side is on the inside of the fw, causing the problem.


That said, and in combo with the tongue thread, I have thought about it over the years and really can't see how any bunker design other than a relatively flat oval might eliminate all lie problems, so I rarely worry about it.  I have never done the old Robert Bruce Harris oval bunkers just to avoid the possibility of a sidehill lie.


It does remind me of an interview I had at a club, where they complained that if they hit a fw bunker on the par 5 18th, they couldn't get home in two.  "Mr. Brauer, they asked, don't you think it should be just as easy for us to hit the green in two from that sand bunker as it is from the middle of the fw?"  My answer of "no" didn't sit well with them.  I did allow that it was a tight space, and the first renovation architect insisted on shapely bunkers in tight spaces, so each sand lobe was really too small to stand in, just because he wanted a certain look.  I suggested we could simplify the shape, but somehow that also offended their sensibilities, but I didn't get the job anyway, for my "senseless" answer concering the hazard being a hazard.  I even had elaborated that I thought it could be deeper, because if they hit it, they could go 9I, 9I and still hit the green in regulation, so there was really no penalty anyway.

[Rob Marshall]

Rob,
The Old Course at St. Andrews has been a model for ideas for many architects.  As you know, it can be and still is played in reverse.  There are times your only shot from a bunker or hazard is sideways or backwards. 


There is too much focus on what is or is not fair when it comes to golf course design.  I will leave it at that.
Mark

Fair enough, Mark.

[Rob Marshall]

Rob,


I have heard good players opine about similar problems.  They (presumably right handers) always want the high side of any bunker to the outside of the fw.  They dislike fw bunkers on the right that sit below the fwe, etc.  On your dogleg, in essence, the high side is on the inside of the fw, causing the problem.


That said, and in combo with the tongue thread, I have thought about it over the years and really can't see how any bunker design other than a relatively flat oval might eliminate all lie problems, so I rarely worry about it.  I have never done the old Robert Bruce Harris oval bunkers just to avoid the possibility of a sidehill lie.


It does remind me of an interview I had at a club, where they complained that if they hit a fw bunker on the par 5 18th, they couldn't get home in two.  "Mr. Brauer, they asked, don't you think it should be just as easy for us to hit the green in two from that sand bunker as it is from the middle of the fw?"  My answer of "no" didn't sit well with them.  I did allow that it was a tight space, and the first renovation architect insisted on shapely bunkers in tight spaces, so each sand lobe was really too small to stand in, just because he wanted a certain look.  I suggested we could simplify the shape, but somehow that also offended their sensibilities, but I didn't get the job anyway, for my "senseless" answer concering the hazard being a hazard.  I even had elaborated that I thought it could be deeper, because if they hit it, they could go 9I, 9I and still hit the green in regulation, so there was really no penalty anyway.

I get it Jeff, sometimes you need to take your lumps. Problem is I want to move the ball forward. I’m standing on a severe side hill with the ball 2 feet below me feet against lip of a flat bottom bunker. It’s physically a risky shot. My foolish decision. Problem is it’s not a one off thing. Happens almost every time when a ball goes in that bunker. As Mark said, It’s not supposed to be fair.

[Thomas Dai]

It's a hazard. Take it on and succeed, yippee. Take it on and fail, accept the medicine.
atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rob,


I have heard good players opine about similar problems.  They (presumably right handers) always want the high side of any bunker to the outside of the fw.  They dislike fw bunkers on the right that sit below the fwe, etc.  On your dogleg, in essence, the high side is on the inside of the fw, causing the problem.


That said, and in combo with the tongue thread, I have thought about it over the years and really can't see how any bunker design other than a relatively flat oval might eliminate all lie problems, so I rarely worry about it.  I have never done the old Robert Bruce Harris oval bunkers just to avoid the possibility of a sidehill lie.


It does remind me of an interview I had at a club, where they complained that if they hit a fw bunker on the par 5 18th, they couldn't get home in two.  "Mr. Brauer, they asked, don't you think it should be just as easy for us to hit the green in two from that sand bunker as it is from the middle of the fw?"  My answer of "no" didn't sit well with them.  I did allow that it was a tight space, and the first renovation architect insisted on shapely bunkers in tight spaces, so each sand lobe was really too small to stand in, just because he wanted a certain look.  I suggested we could simplify the shape, but somehow that also offended their sensibilities, but I didn't get the job anyway, for my "senseless" answer concering the hazard being a hazard.  I even had elaborated that I thought it could be deeper, because if they hit it, they could go 9I, 9I and still hit the green in regulation, so there was really no penalty anyway.

I get it Jeff, sometimes you need to take your lumps. Problem is I want to move the ball forward. I’m standing on a severe side hill with the ball 2 feet below me feet against lip of a flat bottom bunker. It’s physically a risky shot. My foolish decision. Problem is it’s not a one off thing. Happens almost every time when a ball goes in that bunker. As Mark said, It’s not supposed to be fair.

Rob,


Well, now you have me thinking about potential lawsuits against archies, LOL.  Has anyone ever heard of a lawsuit where a golfer was actually hurt trying to get into, out of, or during play of a shot?


I have only designed a few bunkers where I have personally experienced a possibility of an awkward fall.  Of course, at 66, my tendency would be never to take a stance where I could hurt myself, although a younger me may have taken more chances.  I did testify for a club being sued by a senior man who climbed down a near vertical creek bank to retrieve a used, $1 golf ball for his buddy, and sued the club for not foreseeing that he would do that.  Luckily, he not only lost, but the judge wrote and talked about the decision in such a way as to let the record show it was frivolous in every way.


That said, I could see a more liberal judge rule that hazards shouldn't be designed to be hazardous to your health, maybe in some place like California.  And, there is the old joke about the golfer complaining to the architect that he can't get out of the bunker, and when the architect said "then you shouldn't hit your ball in there" replying that he didn't understand - he couldn't physically get himself out of the bunker without his friends pulling him up.


And, I find myself wondering if the defense that the creek is natural, vs a bunker that is clearly built would make a difference if any such case came up?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()