Pace of play—Size and Depth of Bunkers

[Ira Fishman]

Clearly from my prior thread, I think Bandon is a special place. However, as the subject line previews, the bunkers do slow the pace of play. This is particularly true of the large fairway bunkers. I have zero problem with penalizing a player for a less than good shot, but the time it takes to rake a large bunker is meaningful. And I am not limiting the question to Bandon, but I do not remember the problem on our visits to the UK&I.


Ira

[Ian Mackenzie]

Pace of play is always an issue with resort golf, Ira.
It is at Bandon and it is at Sand Valley.


Both places have bunkers, yes, but also have huge sand waste areas where players, ahem - "retail golfers"...;-)...find themselves frequently.


I have heard that Keiser and Co are aware of the issue, but choose to side with the 90% who gladly will play in 5 hours over the 10% that clamor for a 4 hour pace.


Once I dodge the cooler-carrying crowd and then the boom-box blasting crowd, I can safely conclude that the size and depth of bunkering does not even factor into the calculus of the Keiser clientele...

[Jim Hoak]

A related issue to the pace of play caused by large bunkers is the playability (and safety) of large and deep bunkers, especially as the age of golfers increase.  I think course architects are only sometimes aware of the need for ease of ingress and egress of bunkers.  (My wife recently fell coming out of bunker and broke her elbow.)  I wish this design feature of bunkers was more recognized and more prevalent at all new courses.

[Ira Fishman]

Ian,


A more than fair point given that on our first visit to Bandon in 2017 our slowest round was 4:15 and three of our rounds were under 3:30. Resort golf in the US does seem to be going in the wrong direction. PH4 was a miserable 5+ hours in 2019. At Sheep Ranch last week, the group in front of us thought it was a good idea to sit down to eat after Number 11–their caddie had to go retrieve them. My wife (G-d bless her) gave an earful to the most available staff person after our round. She is 100% correct. SR should be less than four hours. Btw, we are not good golfers.


Castle Stuart and Kingsbarns are the only overseas courses where we have encountered the problem.


Ira

[Ira Fishman]

A related issue to the pace of play caused by large bunkers is the playability (and safety) of large and deep bunkers, especially as the age of golfers increase.  I think course architects are only sometimes aware of the need for ease of ingress and egress of bunkers.  (My wife recently fell coming out of bunker and broke her elbow.)  I wish this design feature of bunkers was more recognized and more prevalent at all new courses.

Jim,


Our posts crossed, but could not agree more. Sheryl and I needed to pay careful attention as we entered and exited the bunkers. I trust that your wife has recovered fully.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

A related issue to the pace of play caused by large bunkers is the playability (and safety) of large and deep bunkers, especially as the age of golfers increase.  I think course architects are only sometimes aware of the need for ease of ingress and egress of bunkers.  (My wife recently fell coming out of bunker and broke her elbow.)  I wish this design feature of bunkers was more recognized and more prevalent at all new courses.

We are aware of the need for good ingress and egress to bunkers, although some of the shapers need reminding now and again. 


It's a little more difficult nowadays because the bunkers are built in several layers with drainage and liners etc., and since we aren't there for all of those steps, it's sometimes hard to get a feel for what the finished floor is going to be.  We are wary of the bunker winding up so shallow that it's just a cat box, and sometimes you wind up too deep if things don't get finished as you visualize.


You don't have this problem at Bandon or Sand Valley where you are just digging bunkers out of the native sand -- but then you do have the issue of the bunkers getting deeper over time due to wind erosion.  Some of the bunkers at Pacific Dunes are 3-4 feet deeper than when we built them!

[Mike Wagner]

I have heard that Keiser and Co are aware of the issue, but choose to side with the 90% who gladly will play in 5 hours over the 10% that clamor for a 4 hour pace.

100% not true in my experiences at Bandon.

[Andrew Carr]

This poster doesn't mean to be callous or insensitive, but at what age/physical ability do we reasonably need to discount the participant?  The game of golf allows for participation later in one's life but does that mean the architecture needs to cater to that twilight period?

I shutter to define the game as a sport as there is no active defense but it certainly is athletic, does that mean nothing in today's society?

Yes, QE2 lived in charge until she was 96 but was she in her prime at that stage?


Reality is harsh but a necessary reminder of one's mortality.


Carpe Diem!

[Mark Fedeli]

This poster doesn't mean to be callous or insensitive, but at what age/physical ability do we reasonably need to discount the participant?  The game of golf allows for participation later in one's life but does that mean the architecture needs to cater to that twilight period?

I shutter to define the game as a sport as there is no active defense but it certainly is athletic, does that mean nothing in today's society?

Yes, QE2 lived in charge until she was 96 but was she in her prime at that stage?


Reality is harsh but a necessary reminder of one's mortality.


Carpe Diem!

This is my thought as well, Andrew. And I don’t think it’s a callous one. As you rightly point out, golf is a sport. If a course has become too physically demanding for a person, they should consider playing a different course. Every course shouldn’t be expected to accommodate every body (pun intended).

[Ally Mcintosh]

Andrew, Mark,


You can build the most fearsome bunkers in the world that still allow good access for less mobile, older bodies.

[Tom_Doak]

This poster doesn't mean to be callous or insensitive, but at what age/physical ability do we reasonably need to discount the participant?  The game of golf allows for participation later in one's life but does that mean the architecture needs to cater to that twilight period?

I shutter to define the game as a sport as there is no active defense but it certainly is athletic, does that mean nothing in today's society?

Yes, QE2 lived in charge until she was 96 but was she in her prime at that stage?


Reality is harsh but a necessary reminder of one's mortality.


Carpe Diem!

This is my thought as well, Andrew. And I don’t think it’s a callous one. As you rightly point out, golf is a sport. If a course has become too physically demanding for a person, they should consider playing a different course. Every course shouldn’t be expected to accommodate every body (pun intended).

I believe there are now laws in the U.S.A. about accessibility of bunkers on a golf course for people with disabilities, at facilities which cater to public play.  So, your pun might be illegal.


I do agree with Ally, though, that you can have a very difficult hazard that's pretty easy for anyone to get down into.  If you've got to hop down into the foxhole and get a hand from someone to get out, that's lazy shaping work.  The maintenance guys are supposed to be able to get down in there, too.

[jeffwarne]

My wife (G-d bless her) gave an earful to the most available staff person after our round. She is 100% correct. SR should be less than four hours. Btw, we are not good golfers.

I'm sure that solved the problem.
No doubt that "most available staff person" will sit right down with Keiser and get it worked out(as soon as he finishes cleaning the 800 bags on property)
A thoughtful direct letter/email to upper management might be more fruitful.


You weren't be chance a two ball...........?


Not condoning a group sitting down to eat mid round, but surely you could have approached them and asked to go through IF indeed there were holes open in front of them?

[Ira Fishman]

Jeff,


LOL. But yes, I did send an email as a follow up.


We did not play through because it was a group of 12 guys playing together. We were a 2 ball but their three groups were at least two holes behind the groups in front of them. We also had the same problem playing as a 4 ball behind a 3 ball at Pac Dunes.


I understand groups wanting to enjoy themselves on terrific courses. And don't get me wrong; we love Bandon. My beef is not so much with the players as with the Marshalls (or their Managers) who saw what was going on. As noted, we had the same problem at PH4 as a 4 ball. I only have our own experience to go on, but it does seem as if we are going backwards in terms of the culture of pace of play at destination courses.


And no, I have not received a response to my email yet. 😀


Ira

[Ira Fishman]

Jeff,


LOL. But yes, I did send an email as a follow up.


We did not play through because it was a group of 12 guys playing together. We were a 2 ball but their three groups were at least two holes behind the groups in front of them. We also had the same problem playing as a 4 ball behind a 3 ball at Pac Dunes.


I understand groups wanting to enjoy themselves on terrific courses. And don't get me wrong; we love Bandon. My beef is not so much with the players as with the Marshalls (or their Managers) who saw what was going on. As noted, we had the same problem at PH4 as a 4 ball. I only have our own experience to go on, but it does seem as if we are going backwards in terms of the culture of pace of play at destination courses.


And no, I have not received a response to my email yet. 😀


I should emphasize that the folks working at Bandon were otherwise simply terrific—genuinely friendly and helpful. I highly recommend hanging out at McKee’s in particular for the daily soups but more importantly for the wonderful servers and bartenders.


Ira

[Jeff_Brauer]

The obvious answer is "courses for horses."  Deep bunkers not typically great at public or resort courses, but golf would be worse off if any design rule (i.e., shallow bunkers) were mandated across every type of course.  What is perfect at Pac Dunes is inappropriate elsewhere, but then, no one travels across the country on a golf trip to play a course similar to the one they play every day.


As to the OP, I distinctly recall playing Royal Melbourne with my first wife, obviously not an easy course, and with some pretty deep bunkers, although the balls tend to roll down the hard packed slopes to a relatively easy shot from the bottom.  Even with her shooting 100+ and me shooting 80+, we played three times and never took more than 2 hours and 45 minutes.  And one day, we were behind a seniors  ladies league!


All of this makes me wonder why the pace of play in the US is always so dang slow.  Even muni's tend to take 4.5 or more hours, without deep bunkers.  I would suspect, since they cover a mere 2000 SF or so, vs. 3 Acres of rough or surrounding trees or natives around the play corridor, so they can't come into play as much.  Deep rough and narrow corridors are to me the bigger culprits in slow play.


Lastly, to my mind, even a muni course ought to have a hole or two with a deep bunker, as a contrast to the others.  They could start to get in a golfer's mind early, sort of like the island green at TPC.  If the gca goal is to make each hole unique and memorable for the player, certainly a few really difficult bunkers would make that hole memorable.  And, my tendency would be to follow up a hole with either a lot of, or deep bunkers with a bunkerless hole to maximize the contrast between consecutive holes.

[Joe_Tucholski]

As mentioned, resort courses are going to have slow pace of play.  I don't think that's due to the cooler or music crowd as Ian alludes.  I think it's primarily because the majority of golfers aren't familiar with the course.  At my home course I know where my offline shots are going to end up.  I've been there before, and I can usually find my ball quickly and move on.  I also know how putts will react so don't really need to read putts.  Last I'm familiar with the scenery so not really soaking in the experience.  At resort courses that's not the case.


Interestingly just received some info on average pace of play at some resort courses.


PH #1 3:54
PH #2 4:50
PH#3 3:33
PH#4 4:33
PH#5 3:58


I'd put depth of bunkers outside the top 10 in terms of pace of play importance.

[Peter Sayegh]

Interestingly just received some info on average pace of play at some resort courses.


PH #1 3:54
PH #2 4:50
PH#3 3:33
PH#4 4:33
PH#5 3:58


I'd put depth of bunkers outside the top 10 in terms of pace of play importance.

Joe, "resort courses" data shouldn't be limited to PH. Where'd you get get those numbers?
I agree to a point. The times for 2 and 4 have nothing to do with the bunkers.

[Forrest Richardson]

70% of bunker shots are played from greenside bunkers. These shots take less time than most shots because there is typically no club selection — it’s a SW. Fairway bunker shots don’t usually take anymore time than any other shot, but it depends on the lie.

Raking can cause delays, which is why it’s pleasant for players in a group to help each other.

If a course obtains a course time rating, it’s possible — if you know what you’re doing — to make adjustments.

And, as Bill Yates would remark — focus on flow, not speed. Waiting is what drives golfers to complain. If managed properly, a course can deliver quality and consistent flow, which should be the goal.

[Sean_A]

Flow matters to a point. The goal still should be quicker rounds. That said, I don't believe bunkers are a main reason for slow play most of the time. One place where I experienced slower play due to bunkers is Yeamans Hall. There was a ton of back and forth...I belive mainly due to hard packed greenside sand. A trend in bunkering which is unfortunately increasing.

Ciao

[Mark Fedeli]

This poster doesn't mean to be callous or insensitive, but at what age/physical ability do we reasonably need to discount the participant?  The game of golf allows for participation later in one's life but does that mean the architecture needs to cater to that twilight period?

I shutter to define the game as a sport as there is no active defense but it certainly is athletic, does that mean nothing in today's society?

Yes, QE2 lived in charge until she was 96 but was she in her prime at that stage?


Reality is harsh but a necessary reminder of one's mortality.


Carpe Diem!

This is my thought as well, Andrew. And I don’t think it’s a callous one. As you rightly point out, golf is a sport. If a course has become too physically demanding for a person, they should consider playing a different course. Every course shouldn’t be expected to accommodate every body (pun intended).

I believe there are now laws in the U.S.A. about accessibility of bunkers on a golf course for people with disabilities, at facilities which cater to public play.  So, your pun might be illegal.


I do agree with Ally, though, that you can have a very difficult hazard that's pretty easy for anyone to get down into.  If you've got to hop down into the foxhole and get a hand from someone to get out, that's lazy shaping work.  The maintenance guys are supposed to be able to get down in there, too.

Interesting. So bunkers are treated  different from other challenging landforms from a legal standpoint?


It doesn’t take that much for a deep bunker to be difficult to descend or ascend for someone with any kind of foot/ankle/knee issues, regardless of age. Same with hills and dunes and so on. I’m just not sure where the line gets drawn when it comes to physical accessibility.

[Pete_Pittock]

I am thinking of using a ball-marker inscribed "Help I've fallen and can't get up". I've had problems entering and exiting bunkers for the past couple of years, usually coming into trouble backing out and catching a heel or not exiting where the sandpros access the bunker.  A ball retriever works just as well in sand as water.
One possible, but costly, solution is the hiring of a caddy.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Stairs can be a solution to an ingress egress issue. A bunker was enlarged at my course several years ago. It created a 30 yard walk in and out of the bunker almost every time. The architect, whom I very much respect, rejected my suggestion to install stairs which would eliminate the walk. 3 years later he returned, hit his ball into the bunker, made the trek, and installed 3 stairs. They have been there ever since. Problem solved. Those of you who play Woodhall Spa this week will see what I mean.

[Thomas Dai]

Another reason to adjust the Rules to allow a 1 stroke (not 2 strokes as at present) penalty drop from a bunker, ie the same as a pond etc. And let’s face it not many folk able bodied or not are going to wade into a pond to play a shot or even recover their ball (especially if there are alligators around!).
Atb

[jeffwarne]

Another reason to adjust the Rules to allow a 1 stroke (not 2 strokes as at present) penalty drop from a bunker, ie the same as a pond etc. And let’s face it not many folk able bodied or not are going to wade into a pond to play a shot or even recover their ball (especially if there are alligators around!).
Atb

Problem solved. First thing I thought of.(an absolute nightmare for older, infirmed players, to say nothing of the raking)One shot makes perfect sense-two they're going in!
Perhaps such a logical rules change(consistency) would advance the cause of bunkers becoming hazards again.
LOL-except water isn't a "hazard" anymore

[Sean_A]

Another reason to adjust the Rules to allow a 1 stroke (not 2 strokes as at present) penalty drop from a bunker, ie the same as a pond etc. And let’s face it not many folk able bodied or not are going to wade into a pond to play a shot or even recover their ball (especially if there are alligators around!).
Atb

We have long agreed on this. A one stroke penalty drop would free up the concept of making bunkers nasty hazards again.

Ciao