[Rob Marshall]

So yesterday, I hit into a bunker. The ball buried in the sand at the base of a steep 10’ grass face. No stance so I took an unplayable. It’s taken me 50 years to come to the realization that while a bad break I shouldn’t have hit it there (it’s all on me)Missed my bogie putt and moved on and had a decent round.


Got me thinking when shaping and designing bunkers is anything that’s just too far over the top? I know when Andrew Green finished the Oak Hill renovation there were grumblings about not having backswings in some  greenside bunkers and having to play away from the green. Any thoughts?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Yes Rob, if all fairway bunkers on a course are designed or presented in such a way that an unplayable lie or splash out of no more than 20 yards is common, it negates what we consider as “classic strategy” (I.e. taking on a hazard to play for an angle). In other words, we will just hit away from trouble.


This in itself is a form of strategy, what we more commonly think of as plotting our way around a course, staying short of trouble to give a wider target or just hitting it away from the trouble in the first place. I am going to call that “modern strategy”.


I will expect a reference when these two terms become the norm!


Bottom line - yes I think there can be bunker scheme designs that are too much.

[Thomas Dai]

One of the most challenging aspects particularly of pot bunkers is the awkward stances that can occur. Same plus lie issues if a ball comes to rest near wooden entry/exit steps
As a slight aside didn’t Mackenzie like balls to roll back into the flatter more central areas of his bunkers?

Atb

[Sean_A]

I think it’s a bit much to worry too much about folks getting out of bunkers in 1 toward the target with distance. That sort of thing is for very good golfers. Most golfers just try to get out. If we want to build insipid bunkers where distance recovery is fairly easy then bunkers aren’t worth the extra maintenance cost. The issue for me is not harsh bunkers, but numbers of bunkers. Keep bunkering fairly light and meaningful and there are no problems. It’s when bunkers are everywhere that they become tiresome.


Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think it’s a bit much to worry too much about folks getting out of bunkers in 1 toward the target with distance. That sort of thing is for very good golfers. Most golfers just try to get out. If we want to build insipid bunkers where distance recovery is fairly easy then bunkers aren’t worth the extra maintenance cost. The issue for me is not harsh bunkers, but numbers of bunkers. Keep bunkering fairly light and meaningful and there are no problems. It’s when bunkers are everywhere that they become tiresome.


Ciao

I’m not against harsh bunkers, Sean. I like them.


I’m against all bunkers being so harsh that the primary objective is to avoid them. If one believes in “classic strategy” (and angles in general), then bunkers need to be flirted with, not avoided at all costs.


I once had a pro state to me that he didn’t like fairway bunkers where he couldn’t advance the ball 90 yards. I laughed him off at the time but the more I considered it, the more I realised he had a point. In the context of strategy, a half-shot penalty sits about right to keep you taking on the hazard.

[Sean_A]

I think it’s a bit much to worry too much about folks getting out of bunkers in 1 toward the target with distance. That sort of thing is for very good golfers. Most golfers just try to get out. If we want to build insipid bunkers where distance recovery is fairly easy then bunkers aren’t worth the extra maintenance cost. The issue for me is not harsh bunkers, but numbers of bunkers. Keep bunkering fairly light and meaningful and there are no problems. It’s when bunkers are everywhere that they become tiresome.


Ciao

I’m not against harsh bunkers, Sean. I like them.


I’m against all bunkers being so harsh that the primary objective is to avoid them. If one believes in “classic strategy” (and angles in general), then bunkers need to be flirted with, not avoided at all costs.


I once had a pro state to me that he didn’t like fairway bunkers where he couldn’t advance the ball 90 yards. I laughed him off at the time but the more I considered it, the more I realised he had a point. In the context of strategy, a half-shot penalty sits about right to keep you taking on the hazard.

The pro game isn’t the issue and it rarely is. Handicap golfers can’t progress the ball far even from easy bunkers.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

The pro game isn’t the issue and it rarely is. Handicap golfers can’t progress the ball far even from easy bunkers.

Which then relates to the ‘treat bunkers like water hazards’, ie a 1-stroke penalty drop-out (say in the amateur/handicap/non-elite game only).
Players would then still have the choice of attempting challenging bunker shots if they wish or taking an alternative penalty/relief option.
Atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think it’s a bit much to worry too much about folks getting out of bunkers in 1 toward the target with distance. That sort of thing is for very good golfers. Most golfers just try to get out. If we want to build insipid bunkers where distance recovery is fairly easy then bunkers aren’t worth the extra maintenance cost. The issue for me is not harsh bunkers, but numbers of bunkers. Keep bunkering fairly light and meaningful and there are no problems. It’s when bunkers are everywhere that they become tiresome.


Ciao

I’m not against harsh bunkers, Sean. I like them.


I’m against all bunkers being so harsh that the primary objective is to avoid them. If one believes in “classic strategy” (and angles in general), then bunkers need to be flirted with, not avoided at all costs.


I once had a pro state to me that he didn’t like fairway bunkers where he couldn’t advance the ball 90 yards. I laughed him off at the time but the more I considered it, the more I realised he had a point. In the context of strategy, a half-shot penalty sits about right to keep you taking on the hazard.

The pro game isn’t the issue and it rarely is. Handicap golfers can’t progress the ball far even from easy bunkers.

Ciao

Not sure that’s got anything to do with my point, Sean.


A 36 handicap golfer might see a one shot penalty as worth flirting for. But they’d need an easier bunker to realise “only” a one shot penalty.

[Chris Hughes]

The pro game isn’t the issue and it rarely is. Handicap golfers can’t progress the ball far even from easy bunkers.

Which then relates to the ‘treat bunkers like water hazards’, ie a 1-stroke penalty drop-out (say in the amateur/handicap/non-elite game only).
Players would then still have the choice of attempting challenging bunker shots if they wish or taking an alternative penalty/relief option.
Atb

Based on feedback from a rules official friend the option you describe is currently available -- a player can drop outside the bunker any time they like and the price for doing so is 2 shots.

[Thomas Dai]

The pro game isn’t the issue and it rarely is. Handicap golfers can’t progress the ball far even from easy bunkers.

Which then relates to the ‘treat bunkers like water hazards’, ie a 1-stroke penalty drop-out (say in the amateur/handicap/non-elite game only).
Players would then still have the choice of attempting challenging bunker shots if they wish or taking an alternative penalty/relief option.
Atb

Based on feedback from a rules official friend the option you describe is currently available -- a player can drop outside the bunker any time they like and the price for doing so is 2 shots.

Note that this rule has recently been revised in respect of physically disabled golfers to 1 shot. Merely passing this information on.
Atb
Atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()