[John Kirk]

On a recent golf trip, it occurred to me after several days that every greenside bunker shot I attempted was difficult.  In general, our group admires and covets deep bunkering, especially those created by the best Golden Age architects.  In my opinion, the course I played has absolutely beautiful bunkers, with a style reminiscent of Mackenzie and Bell.

However, I was never presented with an easy bunker shot.  A ball that flies into a deep bunker rolls down to the bottom of the bunker, unless it plugs into the face.  The player is then confronted with a long, severely uphill shot, and the chances of a sand save are pretty slim.  For the typical 5-10 handicapper, the sand save percentage might be 10-15% on shots like this, with a 60-75% probability that it requires 3 shots to hole out.

One of my favorite shots is a really easy bunker shot, like a 20-40 foot, slightly uphill shot from a relatively shallow bunker.  There are several variations; a favorite is one where there's a backstop, and balls will funnel down to the hole.  What's great about this shot is the success rate, which is closer to 50%.  It's the equivalent of a short par 4 or 5, where the birdie-or-par (or par-or-bogey) equation becomes more exciting.

I'm not ready to propose that important championship courses feature the random easy bunker shot, but feel it's an important and very enjoyable shot to encounter.  And based on my limited knowledge, I would guess it's much more likely that one would encounter this type of shot on a Donald Ross course, versus Mackenzie, Tillinghast, or Thomas.


 

[JESII]

And the trees should be filled with little monkeys trained to throw our balls back into the fairway...

come to think of it, they could be big monkeys. Size doesn't much matter if they've got the arm to get the ball back to the fairway.

[John Kirk]

So you don't enjoy the occasional easy bunker shot.  How come?  I would think the challenge of trying to hole out, plus the skill to execute the delicate swing required would interest you.

Trees?  The courses you play on have trees?

[JESII]

Gotta have trees...the monkeys would go ape sh*t without 'em.

[Garland Bayley]

If the shot is going to be easy, shouldn't it not be a bunker? Remember, a bunker is a form of hazard. With what you propose, you get into the realm of trying to get into hazards instead of avoiding them.

As far as Ross bunkers are concerned, remember Ross advocated a calvary troop ride through every bunker before play commences.

Aside from all that, with my golf skills, of course I enjoy an easy bunker shot from time to time.  

Of course I'm not a real golfer as I lay up short of a 130 yard par 3 that has steep faced bunkers in front of it.
 

[John Kirk]

JES II,

I take it from your sarcastic, dismissive comments that you disagree with my premise.  Do you feel every bunker shot should be a blind, 35 yard, ballbreaker that only players of your caliber can execute?

For me, it's all about variety.  Not only that,  different types of bunker shots require different skills to execute.  Besides, isn't it OK to let the novice player make a good play out of a bunker from time to time?

If you put the pin right behind the little pot bunker on #2 at Friar's Head, you may very well end up with an easy little up and down.  I like that bunker.

Doesn't it drive a good player nuts if he doesn't get up and down from an 80/20 scenario like the one described?

Sorry about responding with a barrage of questions.  It just came out that way.

[JESII]

John,

I am a proponent of less bunkers. Fewer, more penal bunkers.

I do not know Friars Head so I can't respond directly, but I can't see anything positive coming from a bunker that friendly.

Golfer's do not need their rear-end's patted to make them feel better.

[Lloyd_Cole]

I don't think there is a single easy bunker shot for the double digit player. So they are intimidated every shot, it's easy to thin, or dig too deep. That lovely thump they all talk about on TV - I don't hear it that often.

[James Bennett]

Give it a month or so Lloyd - you might just hear that 'thump'.  It mgiht be in a different style of bunker than you are used to.

James B

[John Kirk]

John,

I am a proponent of less bunkers. Fewer, more penal bunkers.

I do not know Friars Head so I can't respond directly, but I can't see anything positive coming from a bunker that friendly.

Golfer's do not need their rear-end's patted to make them feel better.

Conversely, I am for a variety of different bunker outcomes.  And if it takes having lots of bunkers to achieve the variety, then I'm for it.  By the way, I think the PGA tour plays many courses with relatively easy bunkers, and that we as a group prefer more challenging hazards than are presented at your typical PGA tour stop.

Of course, the same bunkers producing easy shots can produce very difficult shots, depending on pin position.  On #2 Friar's Head, for instance, I had 110 yards in, straight downwind, from the rough.  I fluffed a sand wedge a little and ended up in the pot bunker.  I was crestfallen because I thought it was far enough.  The pin was back, and I was left with a 35 yarder, and made bogey.

#5 Ballyneal has a very similar hazard, a simple little shallow bunker right in front of the center of the green.  This par 3 often plays downwind.  Easy bunker shot to a short pin, but really tough to a back pin.

Thanks for responding again.  I'll be back in a couple hours.

[JESII]

John,

Agreed about the PGA Tour stops in general, but don't mistake their ability to make a bunker shot looks easy for one that actually is. I also think bunker preparation on Tour is a significant contributor to the shots those guys pull off.

Also, agreed on this group's preferrences for hazards.

[Kalen Braley]

Those PGA tour stop bunkers can be enhanced with the furrowed rake.  The players sure loved those bunkers are the memorial last year.  This could be a good way to make existing bunkers more penal without have to rebuild them.

[Mark_F]

For me, it's all about variety.  Not only that,  different types of bunker shots require different skills to execute.  Besides, isn't it OK to let the novice player make a good play out of a bunker from time to time?

Pretty difficult to mount a dismissive argument against this statement I would have thought.

[PCCraig]

John,

I have to agree with you.

On the local Muni in Wilmette, IL that I grew up on actually had bunkers that were greenside but managed to be on a higher level than the actual green. It was a easy shot, sure, but they were still sort of fun.

While I wouldn't put them on an optimal course design...I could see how they would maybe be fun.

Pat

[Peter Pallotta]

John,

That's a terrific idea/post (though I did laugh at the "trees filled with little monkeys..." line. I think the word "little" is what makes it work).  I also think they'd work best -- for amateurs -- on an "optimal design".

1) It would add an extra bit a variety to the already wide variety of shots and options that a good course offers/demands, i.e. depending on the pin position, and one's skill level, putting it in the bunker might be the best option some days.

2) It's a bit of quirk that, like the occasional blind tee shot or visual deception, rewards repeated play and/or careful observation.    

3) It gives the golfer a legitimate break/breather, and can help the flow of a round. Good architects already use several techiques (e.g. a variety of lengths) to balance challenging holes with less challenging ones, or to set them off against eachother in interesting ways. This is just one more.

4) It might free up the architecht to design a particularly interesting/unusual/undulating green if the bunker(s) surrounding that green aren't called upon to serve their usual penal function. And

5) I'd like to get up and down, once.

Peter    

   

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,

Your thinking is typical of both most good players and most course operators (for speed of play)  For good players, it seems that the idea of a 50% chance of recovery (the old half shot penalty proposed by RTJ and others) is now too difficult a standard.  I think (based on discussions I hear) that a 1/4 shot penalty is now preferred.

If you want a justification for shallower bunkers other than speed of play and ease on the handicap player (why do we always relate these questions to the PGA Tour when its such a small % of the equation?) it might be that shallower bunkers and easier recovery keep the drama of a match play type hole or even an 18 hole stroke play round going longer.

With easier recovery, the bunkered player is still "in the hole" in match play and less likely to pile up a big score that effectively ends a stroke play match.  In either case, a bunker that costs one stroke is plenty and you could argue that potentially costing too many strokes makes golf matches less fun for all, not to mention makes the bunker shot itself less fun for most all.

I like your variety theory. A deep bunker shot stands put if you have it once a round.  Its a 19th hole conversation piece, like the famous PGA West Bunker that Tip O'Neil got in.  Too often, and its just a long round.

Pat Mucci (and others) have often proposed progressively deeper fw bunkers to make recovery with short irons about as difficult as with long irons.  (IE ball will just clear lip in any case)  Instead of random bunker depths, I have toyed with the idea of varying green side bunker depths by approach shot length - i.e. a 9 iron approach might have a 9' deep greenside bunker and a 4 iron approach might "ideally" have a 4' deep greenside bunker.  That would vary the depths, but also serve sort of to provide proportional punishment.  Missing with a short iron should be a bigger penalty than missing with a long iron, no?

I don't follow this religiously at all, but do tend to build higher fill pads on shorter holes in most cases.  As always, the land usually dictates and like everything else I do, I think it helps the flow of the course if there are some short approach shots should be easier and some should be harder, as should long ones.  That affects how aggressive players might be on select holes.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

I, too, like a variety of bunkers; some of my most memorable shots I've played involve putting out of a bunker to get close to the hole.  My favorite bunker at Crystal Downs is the flat, shallow bunker to the right of the 12th green ... simplicity itself, except that the green goes away from you and you might have to tangle with the birch trees if playing from the back part of the bunker.

But the Scots would surely disagree with you and with Jeff, and I must admit it was a lot of fun to build those small, deep, nasty bunkers at Archerfield.

Have you ever played The Bear at Grand Traverse Resort?  Every green is surrounded by 2-4 small, deep bunkers (unless there's water instead).  It is the most intimidating course for the hacker / resort golfer I've ever seen in a resort setting.

PS  I suspect your original post was partly about Stone Eagle, which doesn't have many easy bunker shots.  Just have to look at that one in terms of variety within my own body of work.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I was struck by the pix of Stone Eagle that one green appeared to have had a single very flat bunker near it.  Was that to accomodate your thrill of putting out of the bunker concept?  Or just the variety.

Out of curiosity, how does that Bear at Grand Traverse do in total rounds vs. the other courses up there?  Does the daunting nature of the course cost it any business?

Lastly, I think you have stated that your fee varies if you can build without cart paths and other things.  What kind of a discount do you give it you get to have fun building bunkers?

[Cassandra Burns]

I am definitely a proponent of less bunkering, but severe bunkering.  I don't like the idea of low lip bunkers because balls can run through them.  A ball running through a bunker is one of the most disgusting sights one can see on a course!  I would however, advocate some bunker shots being made easier by green contours - sort of the ball feeding to certain hole locations if the guy can just get the ball out with any sense of skill.  Its the same old deal - making some shots look harder then they are is cool!

I love bunkers with no lip, so I can putt out of them.  It always flips people out to see someone putting successfully out of a bunker!  I love that shot, just for the entertainment value!  It's best when the bunker has firmly packed sand or dirt combined with a high face.  Putting, the ball runs up the slope, goes airborne, then plops gently on the green and tumbles to the hole.  It is a sight of beauty.

[Jason Blasberg]

PS  I suspect your original post was partly about Stone Eagle, which doesn't have many easy bunker shots.  Just have to look at that one in terms of variety within my own body of work.

I can't speak for John but 18 is the easiest bunker I've played in a long time

After two goes at the green in regular play I successfully avoided that caverness beast so threw a ball down in it just for kicks.  

It's tough as nails and with a front right pin was very difficult to get close but I loved the shot.  I played it conservatively and left myself 20 feet behind the pin with a devilishly quick putt.

Generally speaking, I lean toward the "bunkers are hazards"  camp. There should be bailout room however, which there is plenty of to the right of 18 green at Stone Eagle, for example.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't recall much discussion on the theory of bunker depth in any of the books I have read, other than fw bunkers should be shallower than greenside bunkers.  And yet, it seems a subject worthy of scholarly discussion and debate, no?

Did the early Scots really think about bunkers or just accept what the sheep dug?  Most TOC bunkers are similar depth, a function of how low a sheep digs to stay warm perhaps?  (like railroad tracks being 4'8.5" wide because that was the width of Roman carts, are bunkers unconsciously as deep as a sheep burrow?)

While bunker depth has to follow the land in most cases, there are many pictures of "built" bunkers to suggest that its not just a function of land in each case.  Did the Golden Age guys just dig until the horse gave out?  

Or did they think about the theory of bunker depth?  As mentioned, Ross plans usually had a +2 or -4 depth indicator which might suggest a penchant for moderate bunkers.  MacKenzie (my impression) was more interested in the art of his bunkers, and more depth allowed more interesting shapes.

Now that bunkers are more easily built with dozers, it seems like perhaps we can give it more thought.  For all the words devoted to the subject of bunker placement, shouldn't there be at least some on the subject of bunker depth?  Its an equal component of how they affect the game.  For example, the gca places a bunker on the inside corner of the DL to challenge/encourage a shortcut. Do players react differently if that bunker is 2 or 20 feet deep?  I think so!

As to the overall ease of bunkers, you could look it up in my previous writings, but I have speculated that basically, as life has gotten easier (when was our last US potato famine?) people generally want sports easier.  As we can predict things (weather, etc.) better, people want their bunkers more predictable, etc.  

Then there are the obvious speed of play/average golfer difficulty issues.  While Doak seemingly dismisses myself and John's questions by speculating on the Scots, his idol MacKenzie did write something about golfers not "piling up" huge scores as well, and was part of the softening trend for this reason.

As John says in the original post, there is the attitude that the bunker shot isn't really penalty, its an ability to create/play a different type of recovery shot.  Among them high and low, high and low spin, shots into banks and trail away slopes, and even putting or chipping out of the bunkers.  

Of course, add in fw chipping areas, grass bunkers, etc. and it seems that over the course of a season at a course with a wide variety of hazards, the the player would have the fun of playing a wide variety of recovery shots.  So, generally, variety is good for everyday play, no suprise.

 I must go, and look forward to related thoughts.  Sorry for the rambling thoughts.At some point, maybe I will have time to codify.

[John Kirk]

Just to clarify, my favorite bunkers are the big deep bunkers popularized at courses like Pasatiempo or Stanford (that's where I grew up).  For variety's sake, I really enjoy the little easy sand shot that you think about holing out.  Five or maybe ten percent of my total greenside shots is the ideal number.

I thought the greenside bunker at 18 on PGA National was a really easy bunker.  On the first hole of the playoff, Boo Weekley had 85 yards to the pin and hit it 10 yards short into the bunker.  The resulting bunker shot was very easy; I think I could have gotten up and down 60% of the time.  Weekley hit it to a foot, tapped in, and stayed alive in the playoff.  In that case, perhaps Mr. Weekley should have been penalized more for such a poor approach.

Jeff,

Tom correctly identified Stone Eagle.  When I went through the course in my head, I realized there are no simple bunker shots there.  You might get a medium easy shot on #7, but still we are talking a 3-4 foot rise and 30-40 feet to a front left pin.  Bunkers are very penalizing there.  Sometimes you can get the ball to feed to a pin for a close putt, but often you don't get to see it.

Another fun shot to attempt involves trying to run the ball through the bunker.  Let's say you've got 120 yards left, with a big bunker between you and the green, but you have to hit it under a tree.  Sometimes, I will try to punch a low iron hard and see if I can get to run through the bunker onto the green.  I remember pulling it off twice.  However, you don't need an easy bunker to do that, only one without an inescapable lip.

[Bill Gayne]

John,

I like your premise.

1. I agree with Tom Fazio's quotes in Golfweek (the top 100 list edition) about including bunker shots that look hard but play easy.

2. I concur with what Jeff Brauer said: "A deep bunker shot stands put if you have it once a round.  Its a 19th hole conversation piece, like the famous PGA West Bunker that Tip O'Neil got in."

3. I think the difficulty of the bunker shot should proportionate to the difficulty of the shot into the green. For instance on a par three of 130 yards I would expect a much more difficult recovery shot than would be required on a 200 yard par three. I think how proprtionate the penalty is part of the concept of the golf course being fair.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()