Should bunkers be deeper ?

[Kyle Harris]

Fair enough, just a thought I had.

This year in particular seemed to have an increase in the amount of bunker lessons I've given.

I've also practiced the shot more.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I always thought bunkers were only too deep if your feet got warm from being too close to the core of the earth.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I"m with you on that pal.

I think depth impairs vision which impairs a positive thought process and brings the unknown and uncertainty into the equation.

It also presents two or more physical problems, getting a steep angle of ascent, and getting enough power to propel the ball over the embankment, close to the hole location.

When a golfer has to take a mighty swing in a bunker, something usually goes wrong in the thought behind or the execution of the shot.

If a golfer is aware of that bunker, and the severe problems associated with entry, it creates pressure on the golfers game to avoid that hazard.  This mental pressure can manifest itself in poor thinking or poor execution, hence the bunker serves its purpose quite well, irrespective of whether you land in it or not.

[michael_j_fay]

I've reviewed literally hundreds of Donald Ross hole drawings.

In the margins he would spell out the depths that he desired. I have yet to see one drawing that called for less than 3'6" and the majority for fairway bunkers are 4'6".

I have also reviewed literally hundreds of Ross designed holes. Seems that the idea of 4'6" has been forgotton.

Many of his bunkers have evolved into raised platform bunkers that are often 2"' or even less. My contention is that a fairway bunker with a 2' depth provides a much easier approach shot than 3" of rough.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I like the idea of 4.5 feet deep.  Deep enough to be a challenge, and yet shallow enough to see out of to the green floor......more importantly, after reading the cheating thread, shallow enough for opponents to look in to make sure you aren't throwing it out!

And, I am sure thats exactly what DR had in mind.......

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael J Fay,

Now that you mention it, all of the Ross plans that I've seen had specific instructions with respect to bunker depth.

Obviously, memorializing his design intent, so that there could be no mistake in construction was important to him.

Ross would appear to be intent on substantive bunker depth.
Charles Blair MacDonald, Seth Raynor and Steamshovel Banks also showed a proclivity toward deep bunkers.

Has bunker depth yielded to the perceived need for fairness ?

Has woman's golf, senior golf and junior golf been partially responsible for their demise ?

[Kyle Harris]

Pat,

I think it may be more practical a reason.

My best friend (non-golfer) likes to occasionally point out that most states have disability laws that dictate slopes in commercial facilities, including golf courses. 1 foot over the course of 6 feet being the maximum for an "entrance" to a bunker. I am not sure how much this is regulated here in PA, but I do know that two local munis (Five Ponds and Makefield Highlands) and the Penn State Golf Courses hold themselves to this standard.

Furthermore, bunker maintenance practices dictate bunker design/reconstruction. The advent of the sand pro makes it preferential to have a relatively grade-level entrance to a bunker to maintain it with a minimum of hard labor. With steeper faces- be they sand or grass - a super may be required to spend more man hours maintaining the face by hand, instead of dragging a sand pro or chain rake through the sand for five minutes. Perhaps the modern proclivity for a lot of bunkers has caused a lot of this?

If a course with 180 bunkers only has a 10 hour day to maintain them all... the course isn't going to spend a lot of time on one bunker.

These are generalizations, naturally. However, the above points to a cultural cause of the lack of bunker depth.

Interesting note regarding Ross's plans. Having seen the plans for Schuylkill CC handwritten by Ross they pretty much follow the same guidelines. Ron Prichard's restoration has made the bunkers deeped, and at some points in the 3-4 foot deep range.

[Matt_Ward]

Pat:

My issue with bunkers is that too much focus is on how they "look" and not how they "play."

I'd personally like to see bunkers which are not only deeper but lean more towards the penal side -- much as you see across the pond.

Bunkers have lost their "fear factor." They are simply set decorations much of the time and with lob wedges and the like they have become defacto hitting  areas when in doubt with club selection to greens because of the ability to get a relatively flat lie and easy-to-spin situation -- especially with better players.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kyle Harris,

Having gone through a disabling illness, I think the application of the law to athletic endeavors is absurd, especially as it applies to the field of play.

Are steeplechase courses altered to accomodate disabled participants ?

If I couldn't play the game I love and have played for 50+ years, so be it.  Why should I cause the field of play to be altered for 99 % of those who compete ?  Especially when that alteration diminishes the challenge, which is the core of the game ?

Your point on maintainance is well taken.
However, isn't that the tail wagging the dog.
And, isn't that a function of the use of the club ?
I can see a public, or for profit golf course factoring bunker depth into the equation, but, I can't see a private club, especially one that wants recognition allowing the sand pro to dictate design.

With respect to grooming, I'm of the opinion that bunkers should only be maintained on a need to be maintained basis, and not on a daily basis.  This would cut down on maintainance costs and perhaps provide more of a challenge to the golfer.

[michael_j_fay]

Pat:

I believe that bunker depths have been raised over the years for some of the reasons you mentioned (i.e. Senior and Womans Play) but I really think the reason is poor play on the part of the average member.

The normal 19 handicap, finding himself in a bunker, retreats to his cart with a look of total disdain, pulls his Sure-Out or Alien and descends into the pit with the look of a lamb to slaughter.

4'6" is in his mind a death sentence because he has never learned to extract himself from the sand properly. This mainly due to the fact that he has no practice bunker or has one and never avails himself for self improvement.

Look at the Tillinghast Courses that have been relatively unscathed by redesign. Winged Foot and Quaker Ridge come to mind. There the bunkers descend 5' to 8' and putting the ball in the bunker is a quandrey and not 50% chance of saving par as it is at most courses. Hit it in the wrong greenside bunker (short-sided) and you bring double bogey to the forefront.

Most of the stuff that has been redone and a lot of the stuff built since 1960 offer panacea bunkers to a competent bunker player.

When Ron Forse redid the bunkers at Newport (Tillinghast) be dug them out and returned them to proper depths. They remain my favorite grouping of bunkers anywhere.

Overall, I would not hold the Architects that redid Ross courses responsible for the lowering of bunkers depths in the 50's, 60's, 70's or 80's. I am sure that they were charged by many a Committee to do exactly what they did. Chalk the bunker bottom raising up to the incompetent golfer who looks to improve by changing the spirit of the hazard.

[Kyle Harris]

Pat,

I am in full agreement with pretty much everything you said. Insurancing issues for a club come in to play as well, especially clubs that allow general public access. Not sure how private clubs have to (if they do) handle such issues. Unfortunately, it seems that public courses have to be more worried about one lawsuit closing them down than providing an enriching experience to its patrons.

Regarding maintenance practice, it's very much the tail wagging the dog. And like I said in my first post, I believe it to be cultural.

Would a club membership (in general) rather more laborhours spent on maintaining pristine putting surfaces and fairways or making sure their deep bunkers are in decent shape? More often than not, the membership would like decent bunkers and lush conditions through the green, so what is compromised for the budget?

-The bunker's physical severity.

The fact that both pristine fairways and greens, and pristine bunkers are a REQUIREMENT is the problem. Which is why I feel that before bunkers can regain their physical nastiness, the feeling the bunker sand and conditions should be perfect day-to-day needs to be eliminated.

[Michael Hayes]

I have a close friend who is a USGA agronimist that makes this statement at every site visit or presentation he makes when asked about bunkers...

"Bunkers...you mean the areas formerly known as hazards!?!"

I believe that the PGA tour has hurt golf more with bunker conditioning, than Augusta National has with the "green is good" ideals seen on TV...I long for the day where tour pros stop yelling for a missed shot to "Get in the TRAP!!"

[Ed_Baker]

When we did the restoration at my club, we found that ALL the bunkers were consideribly shallower than the original drawings called for. We also confirmed this with photographic evidence by comparing tournament photos from different decades, even going so far as to compare photos of the same player in the same bunker 10 and 15 years apart !! It seems that while bunkers evolve, swing flaws and club selection are more constant !!

The most severe depth difference was found on the right greenside bunker on the short par 4, 6th hole, which is mentioned in the course profile by Ran as " the dramatic 8 foot bunker.." We took over six feet of sand and silt out of that bunker. The knob on the top of the face was at about thigh level for a 6' foot tall player before the restoration.

 All the fairway bunkers down the right side of the hole were so shallow that the higher handicappers could hit fairway woods out of them and reach the green with a good shot.

Even the good players aim a little left off the tee now, no more big draws that end up in front of the green, much better little hole now, a visit to any of the bunkers on 6 turn it in to a bogey or worse hole instead of an easy birdie.

Check out the profile on Charles River and you'll see the restored bunkers in all their Prichard glory.

Best,
Ed