[John Chilver-Stainer]

We’ve seen the « one shot penalty » fairway bunkers of Hoylake and the « no shot penatly » bunkers on the PGA Tour.
How many « one shot penalty » bunkers can a golf course take before whimperings of « too difficult » can be heard ?
What about the « half shot penalty » where the fairway bunker is deep and small enough to prevent anything more than an 8-iron.
Looking at the pictures of Sebonak the bunkers appear to be about « half shot penalty » depth.
Personally I would prefer a good mix up of the different bunker types as far as penalty is concerned.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,

In my mind, the half shot penalty would be a bunker just deep enough and steep enough to make getting out of it with a club that will reach the green a 50% proposition.

Although the free form nature of bunkers makes a formula impossible to carry out, if the general ratio from the middle of the bunker to the top lip approximates the loft of the typical club, as shown below, clearing the lip would not be a given.  In looking at that list, remember that % slope is about half degree of loft, and the ball launches a bit higher than actual loft, unless hit thin.  In general, this would make fw bunkers closer to the green deeper than ones further out.

2   18
3   21
4   24
5   27
6   30.5
7   34
8   38
9   42
AW   46
PW   50
SW   54
LW   58

Of course, I agree with your varitey theory.  There is nothing wrong, IMHO, with the occaisonal bunker that you can't recover all the way to the green from, esp. on par 5 holes where the penalty is hitting it in regulation figures (boo hoo) rather than in two shots.  Knowing which bunkers to avoid and which to challenge based on probable penalty is part of the strategy.

I did lose a remodel job once for suggesting such a thing, though, so many golfers apparently believe that sand hazards should be no hazard at all.  I know clubs that maintain fw bunkers firmer than greenside bunkers so that you can hit a normal shot out, just like you weren't in a bunker at all!

I have also heard the theory that fw bunkers should be simply shaped, both to make it "fairer" about who goes in (no squiggly lines that might have one golfer go in and another on turf) and also that capes and bays treat golfers unfairly, as one may not be blocked by a cape, while another would.  If the front edge is simple, and the extravagant shaping is at the back (away from the fw) then I think the worse shot is usually punished more than the one closer to the fw, but not every one sees it this way......

All of which is a long winded way of saying it appears that the modern country club would trend towards the zero penalty bunker.

[Dan_Callahan]

I like bunkers that are truly penal, forcing you to come out sideways or even backwards at times (ala Yale). An the other hand, giving the really good player a chance to do something special can create some unbelievable moments. Think Tiger at the 18th over water at the Bell Canadian or his 200-yard shot around trees from a sidehill lie at Hazeltine.

Not sure that answers the question, but thinking about those shots gives me goosebumps.

[Jon Wiggett]

Hi John,

I believe that it is better to have a few bunkers that are tough than to have loads that are easy. The only time a flat bunker is really difficult for a good player is around the 40 to 80 yard mark which is a real schwein (yu no vot I meen) to judge. Although I don't like bunkering just for the sake of it (greenkeeperistus) I believe there are good arguments for cosmetic bunkering in the right setting. Lastly, as I have mentioned in a previous post I think we should stop this modern vogue of raking bunkers more than say once in the year and go back to having bunkers that are real hazards, nasty lies and all.

[Phil Benedict]

Bunkers are supposed to be hazards aren't they?  On most regular tour courses, fairway bunkers don't present much of a challenge.  They don't do much in a strategic sense.  In the British Open, by comparison, the strategy of the course is usually dictated by the position of the fairway bunkers, which smart players avoid because they really are hazards.

[Kirk Gill]

The only time a flat bunker is really difficult for a good player is around the 40 to 80 yard mark which is a real schwein (yu no vot I meen) to judge.

Do you feel like the placement of a fairway bunker, and the degree to which it would tend to interact with the game of various levels of player, should determine the severity?

[Jason Topp]

While most people complain about them, I think fairway bunkers that are steep enough that it takes a truly exceptional shot to get to the green are more interesting than the flat ones you typically see.  Absent a big lip or grass face, I think it is much easier to hit a green for a decent player from the bunker than it is to hit it from the rough.  

On my course, there are a couple of fairway bunkers that are right where my good drive would otherwise go, that are pretty penal.  I think a lot more about my tee shot placement on those holes than I do for the flat ones.  On the flat ones, I just aim at them.  If I am in, I do about as well as I would do otherwise.

I don't think penal fairway bunkers hurt a higher handicapper, because he will struggle regardless.

Incidentally, I have the opposite view for greenside bunkers.  I think that it is almost impossible to make a grass face or a lip steep enough to make a bunker shot more difficult for a good player, but it gives the higher handicapper hope.  When I really struggled out of the sand about 10 years ago, I loved hitting the putter.  

[Jon Wiggett]

No Kirk. My comment was made mainly to emphasise that a flat bunker presents no difficulty to a low handicap player except at that distance. Infact you could say that from 40 to 80 yards depth is irrelevant. I do not feel that you should lay out a set of rules to dictate the type of bunker built as building by system leads to boring golf courses and would put alot of talented GCAs out of work.  

[cary lichtenstein]

John;

I belong to the Ritz in Jupiter, Florida. One of the key features of this course, was the construction of both the fairway and greenside bunkers.

Very deep with big Angelina Jolie lips was the way they started out. The fairway bunkers defined the course and their was not one that you could hit anything more than a 9 iron out of. I liked that because this is the way the course defended it self as other than water, the trees don't come into play all that much.

I have watched to my dismay the continual adding of sand to these bunkers. They still defend the course, but you can now hit some 5 irons out of some, ditto with the green side bunkers.

There were some greater than your height, and they are now 5 feet and the 5 footers are now 3 footers, so they have given in to the weaker player complaints that they are just too difficult.

I was sorry these changes were made as some of the character of the course is dissappearing.

[Brent Hutto]

How penal should fairway bunkers be? As penal as needed to serve the purpose for which they are designed. Not every fairway bunker needs to offer the same penalty.

Let's look at the classic strategic option that gets discussed on this forum. You offer a safe side of the fairway with some cost invoked for choosing that side, stereotypically by putting a greenside bunker on that side of the green. On the other side of the fairway you offer a bunker at a distance that ideally would be difficult to carry let require a true layup to play short of. The reward for playing to that side of the fairway is stereotypically an unobstructed shot to the green and/or a favorable angle of approach relative to the green contours.

So given that setup, the penalty for ending up in the fairway bunker needs to be comparable to the advantage gained by challenging the bunker. If carrying the fairway bunker lets a player hit a wedge or nine-iron to a wide-open green whereas playing to the other side of the fairway leaves a longer shot over a deep greenside bunker to a highly contoured green then the fairway bunker needs to extract something like a full stroke penalty. But if carrying the bunker basically leaves you one club closer than playing safe then you'd want a bunker from which a shot at the green could be attempted or else challenging the bunker is a sucker play.

[SL_Solow]

I am with the group that thinks variety is appropriate.  If the objective is to combine strategy with a significant degree of naturalness, then the architect should mimic nature.  Bunkers of all sizes, shapes and depths should be found throughout the course and should be place wherever possible in features where depressions of this type might naturally occur, e.g. into the sides of hills and mounds.   Some will be 1/2 stroke penalties, some more and some less.  The player can take that into account when planning his shots.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Thanks for the great replies

Jeff
That’s a very well thought out table of bunker shots.
The table would correspond for the design of the bunker that would on average require a « safe » iron, when struck properly, to arrive just short of the green. A sort of « a chance for an up and down » bunker design. Generally it would mean the closer you get to the green the deeper the bunkers. Quite a good philosophy. If they are mixed up with some « one shot penalty » bunkers it would get the golfer thinking from the tee.


Dan, Phil and SL
I couldn’t agree more.

Jon
Once again you get it right – not too many bunkers, but a few penal « one shot penalty » bunkers in the right places. Presumably infrequent raking and less bunkers are the cure for « greenkeeper-itis ».  
A flat bunker at 40 yards would look harmless but be harmful. Of course you could always putt out of it !!   I’ve seen the « Putt out of » Bunkers as greenside bunkers at Crans Hole Nr. 16. (The European Tour Swiss Open  Venue - where Michelle Wie will be playing in months time)

Kirk,
Why not - the bunkers in the fairway collecting the long drives at the end of the landing zones should be more severe « one shot penalty » than the ones say at the beginning of a landing zone « half shot penalty ». The higher the reward for length the higher the risk penalty.

Cary
I’ve seen bunkers that over the years literaly brim over with sand, usually because every year a fresh layer of sand is put in without removing the dirty sand. A bunker with no depression  is also easier for the sandpro to run in and out of. Another case of courses been dumbed down by « easing the maintenance ».

Brett
Good analysis. But then again if the Bunker is a « one shot penalty » then you would think twice about taking it on otherwise if it was flat you’d try to fly it anyway knowing if you got in you could go for the green anyway.

[Kyle Henderson]

I also favor the variety idea. I think designers should vary the area, depth, placement, etc. of bunkers within and between holes, and especially from course to course, with strategy and shotmaking (and to a lesser extent, aesthetics) dictating their final distribution. In general, I do prefer that bunkers (and rough) be less penal on heavily-trafficked municipal courses to favor faster play, but otherwise I think that it is more fun when you have to play each bunker as its own unique challenge.

[Tom_Doak]

I was really pleased with the variety of bunker shots I saw at the Curtis Cup.  

The best shot I saw the entire week was from an 18-year-old Welsh girl who was steamed about driving it into the far fairway bunker on #4 (her caddy told her it wasn't in the bunker), who then recovered by hitting a medium iron to about ten feet to win the hole.  Jane Park's up-and-down from the back bunker on 16 the first day to close out her singles match was also excellent stuff.  But, there were also instances of leaving shots in bunkers by trying too much on the recovery shot.  If every recovery is a wedge back to the fairway, then judgment does not play a big enough part.

[Mike_Young]

John;

I belong to the Ritz in Jupiter, Florida. One of the key features of this course, was the construction of both the fairway and greenside bunkers.

Very deep with big Angelina Jolie lips was the way they started out. The fairway bunkers defined the course and their was not one that you could hit anything more than a 9 iron out of. I liked that because this is the way the course defended it self as other than water, the trees don't come into play all that much.

I have watched to my dismay the continual adding of sand to these bunkers. They still defend the course, but you can now hit some 5 irons out of some, ditto with the green side bunkers.

There were some greater than your height, and they are now 5 feet and the 5 footers are now 3 footers, so they have given in to the weaker player complaints that they are just too difficult.

I was sorry these changes were made as some of the character of the course is dissappearing.

Cary,
Are you saying they decreased the depth of these bunkers by adding sand..?  Just wondering.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

I suspect they took the Ohio sand out, put some more Florida sand underneath, and put the Ohio sand back in.

[cary lichtenstein]

Mike:

Yes, some by 1 or 2 feet or more

Cary

[Patrick_Mucci]

JCS,

I think the penalty should be related to, and in part, determined by, the width of the DZ and the distance to the green from the bunker.

[Doug Siebert]

You can also make bunkers more penal by setting them up to make it more likely to create buried lies.  I've always thought this was a better way of making bunkers penal because they hurt better players who are hitting the high ball moreso than the poorer players who are probably rolling the ball into the bunker, or if they carry it in it is coming in at a lower trajectory and with more sidespin and is thus less likely to bury.

For fairway bunkers this is a way of counteracting the modern high trajectory moon ball drives, you could make a fairway bunker that's large, a bit tilted from front to back with some nice soft sand it'll bury the drive of a guy who is flying it 290, but probably not the ball of a guy who is flying it 190 from the forward tees.

I've buried a few drives in bunkers and that's a lot more effective in making me think twice about them in the future than having some bunker where its only a 50/50 chance of getting it to the green over the lip.  If I need a 5 iron to get to the green but a 7 iron to safely go over the lip I can still get pretty damn close to the front of the green so it isn't that big a penalty (and it isn't like I'm hitting a high percentage of greens from a bunker with a 5i even from a perfect lie so its probably no penalty at all that I have to lay up)  If I'm buried I may get 40 yards out of the bunker, plus I may have to go sideways if I have a lot of remaining bunker to cover because I don't want to risk leaving it in the sand.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()