[Tim Martin]

This style of bunker where the ball is getting stuck in a “grass tongue” between the sand is no fun. To continually have your feet in the bunker and the ball in grass or the ball in the grass and your feet in the bunker gets old fast. I recently played a course where these were installed liberally both green side and as flanking fairway hazards. From a maintenance perspective a Sand Pro won’t be able to get into many of these spots making hand raking and trimming necessary. I don’t see the aesthetic appeal.

[Cal Seifert]

Bethpage Black has many of these. Though not sure if they were that style in Tillinghast’s day or if they are a product of a reestoration.

[Brad Lawrence]

I tend to like tongues but anything can be overdone or done poorly.  Aesthetically, I would judge them on a case by case basis. I feel like sand should be perfectly manicured but I also feel that bunkers should be hazards and tongues make it more likely you will be penalized/challenged.

[Tom_Doak]

I tend to like tongues but anything can be overdone or done poorly.  Aesthetically, I would judge them on a case by case basis. I feel like sand should be perfectly manicured but I also feel that bunkers should be hazards and tongues make it more likely you will be penalized/challenged.

Tortured logic leads to tortured shaping?

[Brad Lawrence]

I tend to like tongues but anything can be overdone or done poorly.  Aesthetically, I would judge them on a case by case basis. I feel like sand should be perfectly manicured but I also feel that bunkers should be hazards and tongues make it more likely you will be penalized/challenged.

Tortured logic leads to tortured shaping?

What are you challenging?  That sand should not be manicured? That bunkers should not be penalizing or challenging? That aesthetically, I should hate all tongues in bunkers?

[Tom_Doak]

I tend to like tongues but anything can be overdone or done poorly.  Aesthetically, I would judge them on a case by case basis. I feel like sand should be perfectly manicured but I also feel that bunkers should be hazards and tongues make it more likely you will be penalized/challenged.

Tortured logic leads to tortured shaping?

What are you challenging?  That sand should not be manicured? That bunkers should not be penalizing or challenging? That aesthetically, I should hate all tongues in bunkers?

I think there is a disconnect between "sand should be perfectly manicured" and "bunkers should be penalizing or challenging".  You implied that weird shaping is a way to keep both of your goals in place, and then complained about the weird shaping.  In fact, you need to ditch one of the other two premises.

[Forrest Richardson]

A bunker has several roles, and they’re not exclusive.


Makes you think (decide)
Makes you detour
Makes you smile
Makes your eyes smile
Gives you a reference point
Prevents roll off (saves)


Do the math on the percentage of all shots that get caught in the edges. It’s low. Very low. And, it’s preventable by the player.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Curious as to what y'all think about the OG bunkers at Augusta National:


https://www.masters.com/en_US/news/gallery/2015-04-06/1935_course_imagery.html


I personally am a fan of simplicity in bunkering, however I find the shapes of these intricate bunkers quite attractive. I also like how there weren't that many of them. That being said, one can envision some terrible lies in these bunkers as the OP mentioned. For example, finding oneself over the back of 13 in one of those "scar" bunkers would probably be a really bad spot.

[Thomas Dai]

I recall a thread about bunker tongues a while ago.
Comments were made about maintaining them, specifically how they can dry out and crumble and lose shape unless considerable amounts of water is used, and water isn’t something that’s universally available in our worldwide game.
And when money it tight and the manpower, water etc resources are on the short side then bunker maintenance tends to be one of the first things to be neglected, which is maybe why elaborate bunkers tongues and intricate bunker edge shaping tend to dissipate at many courses over time.
Atb

[Brad Lawrence]

I tend to like tongues but anything can be overdone or done poorly.  Aesthetically, I would judge them on a case by case basis. I feel like sand should be perfectly manicured but I also feel that bunkers should be hazards and tongues make it more likely you will be penalized/challenged.

Tortured logic leads to tortured shaping?

What are you challenging?  That sand should not be manicured? That bunkers should not be penalizing or challenging? That aesthetically, I should hate all tongues in bunkers?

I think there is a disconnect between "sand should be perfectly manicured" and "bunkers should be penalizing or challenging".  You implied that weird shaping is a way to keep both of your goals in place, and then complained about the weird shaping.  In fact, you need to ditch one of the other two premises.

I think putting should be challenging but shouldn’t that be done with creative green design rather than failing to maintain the putting surface? Or can we not have a challenging 20 footer with 3’ a break across a perfectly manicured surface?

[Adam Lawrence]

I personally have an intense distaste for the large, splashy bunkers with extended tongues look, principally because it is so punishing to weak golfers. With that sort of bunker it’s quite common to get a shot where you might have to carry it thirty yards to get completely over the sand and to comparative safety, a shot that is totally beyond a lot of high handicappers

[Jon Sweet]

I personally have an intense distaste for the large, splashy bunkers with extended tongues look, principally because it is so punishing to weak golfers. With that sort of bunker it’s quite common to get a shot where you might have to carry it thirty yards to get completely over the sand and to comparative safety, a shot that is totally beyond a lot of high handicappers

Can they not simply play backwards? Are they required to hit a shot they cannot hit?

[Tom_Doak]

I think putting should be challenging but shouldn’t that be done with creative green design rather than failing to maintain the putting surface? Or can we not have a challenging 20 footer with 3’ a break across a perfectly manicured surface?

I also see a difference between "a perfectly manicured surface" and "failing to maintain the putting surface"


Bunkers were not meant to be perfectly maintained, according to the people who built them.  [Macdonald's "herd of elephants"]  The idea that they should be perfectly maintained is a very modern notion, and it clashes with the idea that the bunker should be a hazard.  I just think it's ridiculous that clubs will truck in sand from Ohio to provide perfect lies, and then sit around trying to figure out some way to keep the bunker difficult.

[Jon Sweet]

I tend to like tongues but anything can be overdone or done poorly.  Aesthetically, I would judge them on a case by case basis. I feel like sand should be perfectly manicured but I also feel that bunkers should be hazards and tongues make it more likely you will be penalized/challenged.

Tortured logic leads to tortured shaping?

What are you challenging?  That sand should not be manicured? That bunkers should not be penalizing or challenging? That aesthetically, I should hate all tongues in bunkers?

I think there is a disconnect between "sand should be perfectly manicured" and "bunkers should be penalizing or challenging".  You implied that weird shaping is a way to keep both of your goals in place, and then complained about the weird shaping.  In fact, you need to ditch one of the other two premises.

I read this more as hey, ok w odd shaping, as long as sand is consistent throughout. Fine with recovery being tough, just can’t have a foot of sand below you on one bunker and an inch below you on the next. Maybe I’ve read it wrong or we all have read it wrong.

[Jon Sweet]

I think putting should be challenging but shouldn’t that be done with creative green design rather than failing to maintain the putting surface? Or can we not have a challenging 20 footer with 3’ a break across a perfectly manicured surface?

I also see a difference between "a perfectly manicured surface" and "failing to maintain the putting surface"


Bunkers were not meant to be perfectly maintained, according to the people who built them.  [Macdonald's "herd of elephants"]  The idea that they should be perfectly maintained is a very modern notion, and it clashes with the idea that the bunker should be a hazard.  I just think it's ridiculous that clubs will truck in sand from Ohio to provide perfect lies, and then sit around trying to figure out some way to keep the bunker difficult.

I’m of the I don’t want to play out if a footprint mind but also understand I’m the idiot that hit it there. I think they can be penal while still consistent throughout.

[Brad Lawrence]

I think putting should be challenging but shouldn’t that be done with creative green design rather than failing to maintain the putting surface? Or can we not have a challenging 20 footer with 3’ a break across a perfectly manicured surface?

I also see a difference between "a perfectly manicured surface" and "failing to maintain the putting surface"


Bunkers were not meant to be perfectly maintained, according to the people who built them.  [Macdonald's "herd of elephants"]  The idea that they should be perfectly maintained is a very modern notion, and it clashes with the idea that the bunker should be a hazard.  I just think it's ridiculous that clubs will truck in sand from Ohio to provide perfect lies, and then sit around trying to figure out some way to keep the bunker difficult.

With all due respect to MacDonald, his opinion has nothing to do with me creating my opinions.


I would never advocate that bunkers be a reward.  Like I said, they should be penalizing and challenging. I think there are more creative ways to make bunkers penalizing without having unmaintained poor sand. Good sand provides the better bunker player an increased chance of exerting his or her superiority. I think it is more fun and more interesting trying to pull off a difficult shot from good sand than slashing at a ball from a footprint.

[Thomas Dai]

Good sand provides the better bunker player an increased chance of exerting his or her superiority. I think it is more fun and more interesting trying to pull off a difficult shot from good sand than slashing at a ball from a footprint.

Disagree 100%. It's when circumstances get difficult that the truly skilled and creative player shines through.
atb

[Joe Hancock]

I tend to like tongues but anything can be overdone or done poorly.  Aesthetically, I would judge them on a case by case basis. I feel like sand should be perfectly manicured but I also feel that bunkers should be hazards and tongues make it more likely you will be penalized/challenged.

Tortured logic leads to tortured shaping?

What are you challenging?  That sand should not be manicured? That bunkers should not be penalizing or challenging? That aesthetically, I should hate all tongues in bunkers?

I think there is a disconnect between "sand should be perfectly manicured" and "bunkers should be penalizing or challenging".  You implied that weird shaping is a way to keep both of your goals in place, and then complained about the weird shaping.  In fact, you need to ditch one of the other two premises.

I think putting should be challenging but shouldn’t that be done with creative green design rather than failing to maintain the putting surface? Or can we not have a challenging 20 footer with 3’ a break across a perfectly manicured surface?

A perfectly groomed green surface is a reward; a less-then-perfectly groomed hazard is in large part, why it is a hazard. The two areas of the golf course are, and should be separated by a stark difference in how they are maintained.

[Tom_Doak]

Good sand provides the better bunker player an increased chance of exerting his or her superiority. I think it is more fun and more interesting trying to pull off a difficult shot from good sand than slashing at a ball from a footprint.

Disagree 100%. It's when circumstances get difficult that the truly skilled and creative player shines through.
atb

Yes, this is where the rubber meets the road . . . the idea that the better player should have a better chance of escaping without penalty, even when he makes a mistake on the previous shot.


I am not advocating that we trample elephants through bunkers, although I could live with it, because it would make players think more about avoiding the bunkers on a course.  Imperfect sand is a less penal way of achieving the same objective [and it's also cheaper].

[Pete_Pittock]

Grass tongues make sense if they provide the golfer with an entry point, which reduces raking. If they are more decorative than functional they lose purpose.


Now if they take 'ph" out of amorphous, now your talking.

[Brad Lawrence]

Good sand provides the better bunker player an increased chance of exerting his or her superiority. I think it is more fun and more interesting trying to pull off a difficult shot from good sand than slashing at a ball from a footprint.

Disagree 100%. It's when circumstances get difficult that the truly skilled and creative player shines through.
atb

Yes, this is where the rubber meets the road . . . the idea that the better player should have a better chance of escaping without penalty, even when he makes a mistake on the previous shot.


I am not advocating that we trample elephants through bunkers, although I could live with it, because it would make players think more about avoiding the bunkers on a course.  Imperfect sand is a less penal way of achieving the same objective [and it's also cheaper].

Yep. That’s the flipside of the argument. The less likely you are to get up and down,  the more you have to take into account that bunker strategically. But I think when you look at the odds of getting up and down for even accomplished players, we have to consider sand a penalizing area.  I think we have a more fun and more interesting situation if the odds are 50-50 than close to zero. I can only speak for myself, but if there’s a 50% chance I’m making bogey, that bunker is definitely on my mind. [size=78%]But I think bunkers serve a more important role as eye candy, directing and misdirecting. [/size]

[Brad Lawrence]

Good sand provides the better bunker player an increased chance of exerting his or her superiority. I think it is more fun and more interesting trying to pull off a difficult shot from good sand than slashing at a ball from a footprint.

Disagree 100%. It's when circumstances get difficult that the truly skilled and creative player shines through.
atb

[/size][size=78%] I agree with that statement on the surface. My point is, take a good bunker player and an average bunker player... I think you will see a greater deviation between the two from great sand than poor sand. As a good bunker player, I have a ton of options from a good lie. From the footprint, not so much. [/size]

[Thomas Dai]

Good sand provides the better bunker player an increased chance of exerting his or her superiority. I think it is more fun and more interesting trying to pull off a difficult shot from good sand than slashing at a ball from a footprint.

Disagree 100%. It's when circumstances get difficult that the truly skilled and creative player shines through.
atb

[size=78%] I agree with that statement on the surface. My point is, take a good bunker player and an average bunker player... I think you will see a greater deviation between the two from great sand than poor sand. As a good bunker player, I have a ton of options from a good lie. From the footprint, not so much. [/size]

Not convinced, in fact I reckon from a lousy lie or a generally difficult situation options become more varied and the more skilful, the more creative and the more thoughtful a player is the more the options increase.
Bunkers are supposed to be hazardous places, places best avoided, places to make the game more interesting, not bale-out zones or manicured sand gardens designed and maintained to look glamorous in photographs.
Not sure we need more ‘dumbing down’ in the game, it’s gone snowflakey enough over the last few decades.
Atb

[JohnVDB]

Good sand provides the better bunker player an increased chance of exerting his or her superiority. I think it is more fun and more interesting trying to pull off a difficult shot from good sand than slashing at a ball from a footprint.

Disagree 100%. It's when circumstances get difficult that the truly skilled and creative player shines through.
atb

I believe Bob Jones felt the rakes used at Oakmont to create furrows were bad because they took away the advantage of the skills possesses by the better player.

[Tom_Doak]

The less likely you are to get up and down,  the more you have to take into account that bunker strategically. But I think when you look at the odds of getting up and down for even accomplished players, we have to consider sand a penalizing area.  I think we have a more fun and more interesting situation if the odds are 50-50 than close to zero. I can only speak for myself, but if there’s a 50% chance I’m making bogey, that bunker is definitely on my mind.

I think this is yet another example of good players thinking about their own games, surely, since the odds of an average player getting up and down out of a bunker are nowhere near 50%.  So why, exactly, is the game better when the odds are 50-50 for you?  If the odds of getting up and down from sand are just as good as from the rough around the other sides of the green, then is the bunker REALLY on your mind?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()