[Patrick_Mucci]

Connor,

Often, the terrain and/or drainage will determine bunker depth.

One of the deepest fairway bunkers I've ever seen is the left fairway bunker on # 5 at ANGC.

It's a bunker to be avoided at all costs.

Ditto the left side fairway bunker on # 18 at NGLA, which will be on TV this year,

whereas the center fairway bunkers on # 3 are relatively shallow.

All bunkers fit into the terrain rather well

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, fw bunkers are probably the hardest shot for average golfers.  They shouldn't be too abundent on public courses.

As to the relevant advantages, I wonder how many average golfers are in a match with better players for whom this might be a problem?  Most events are scrambles, teams, or at the very least, a handicapped match to allow (perhaps) for that extra recovery stroke.

There is also placement.  It is not uncommon for more bunkers to be placed left than right, on the theory that bad golfers slice and good ones hook, etc.  Or, just place them at 290-300 from the back tees, and keep the mid tees at a distance where most average golfers just come up short.  Of course, if we were religious about that, I guess we could then design the fw bunkers as deep as we wanted to challenge the better players.  

Problem is, on most courses, we want ALL paying customers to experience all the course has to offer for their greens fee (better players don't pay more, do they?) and thus, in many ways, locate bunkers for all, and then make them reasonable to escape.  Cynics will say this is designing to the lowest common denominator, and it is.  Perhaps not championship architecture, but then, how many courses do we need that are strict tests of golf?  How many do we need that are fun?  Based on the percentage of average golfers, probably 99% in the latter category.

[Jason Topp]

I have always thought that fairway bunkers should be deeper than they generally are and greenside bunkers should be more shallow.  A high handicap player is going to struggle out of a fairway bunker regardless of how deep it is.  Thus, a deep fairway bunker imposes significantly more relative punishment on the low handicap player than it does the high handicap player. 

By contrast, assuming a decent lie, a good player is not going to have materially more difficulty saving a shot out of a deep greenside bunker than he will with a shallow greenside bunker.  A shallow greenside bunker also opens up additional possible recovery shots for a high handicapper, including the option to putt.  A good bunker player is unlikely to choose that option because the probability of getting down in two is much less likely.  Thus, I think a shallow greenside bunker imposes less relative penalty on the high handicap player than it does the low handicap golfer.

If the goal of a course is to be interesting for all levels of player, I suspect shallow greenside bunkers and deep fairway bunkers make sense.  Most architects design the opposite. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,  Jeff Brauer, et., al.,

Isn't deepening fairway bunkers a valid method for placing a premium on driving accuracy ?

[Connor Dougherty]

All bunkers fit into the terrain rather well

Patrick,
How important is this feature? Carnoustie has a few deep bunkers around the turn that stick out like a sore thumb, but for the most part promote strategy and were often used to make shots from portions of the fairway blind. I seem to recall you posting a thread earlier with a photo of some east coast club that also had deep bunker hazards that made each golf hole more interesting but could not have looked more manufactured.

Connor

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have always thought that fairway bunkers should be deeper than they generally are and greenside bunkers should be more shallow.  A high handicap player is going to struggle out of a fairway bunker regardless of how deep it is.  Thus, a deep fairway bunker imposes significantly more relative punishment on the low handicap player than it does the high handicap player. 

I couldn't disagree more

If a shallow bunker poses a problem for the high handicap, a deeper bunker will pose an exponentially worse problem for that golfer, whereas, a low handicap player will just take a higher lofted club and not advance the ball as far

By contrast, assuming a decent lie, a good player is not going to have materially more difficulty saving a shot out of a deep greenside bunker than he will with a shallow greenside bunker. 

Disagree and you're contradicting yourself

A shallow greenside bunker also opens up additional possible recovery shots for a high handicapper, including the option to putt.  A good bunker player is unlikely to choose that option because the probability of getting down in two is much less likely.  Thus, I think a shallow greenside bunker imposes less relative penalty on the high handicap player than it does the low handicap golfer.

Agree that the high handicap will fare better in a shallow bunker

If the goal of a course is to be interesting for all levels of player, I suspect shallow greenside bunkers and deep fairway bunkers make sense. 
Most architects design the opposite. 

Why do you suppose that is ?
Are they wrong ?  Or are you wrong ?

[Tom_Doak]

I thought about this one over lunch a bit.  Looking back at 36 years of doing this, only on a few courses did I consciously think about fw bunker depth (and those were flat, like my course in Davis CA).  If there is any topo, the over riding factor is fitting it in there, regardless of depth.  Then, at that point, you have sort of a random bunker in terms of any particular philosophy - such as a deeper bunker on a long par 4, or shallow one on a short par 4.  It is what it is, and I then start instituting the "corrolary" principles of more room if its deep, etc. as mentioned above. 

Jeff:

When I started working at Garden City Golf Club years ago, I couldn't figure out why some bunkers were deeper than others.  Most of them are relatively small pot bunkers, but on some holes the fairway bunkers were deeper, and on others they were shallower; same for the greenside bunkers.  It didn't seem to have much to do with the strategy of the hole(s) in question.

Then, as part of my master plan, we started to dig a few new bunkers.  We'd dig for a while through their nice sandy loam and eventually hit a seam of gravelly material.  Sometimes it was farther down; sometimes it was closer to the surface.  Wherever it was, that's where Walter Travis must have stopped digging ... so he didn't dig up a bunch of gravelly material that he would have to "lose" in some mounds.  What controls the bunker depths there is simple -- it's how deep you have to dig to reach the gravel layer!

[Marc Westenborg]

As far as I am concerned, it is fairly straight forward. A bunker is a hazard, therefore the golfer should be penalised when in one. I always relate a shot a saw on TV to clients when discussing this subject. The commentators aired "the shot of the day" It was of Harrington hitting a 3-wood out of a fairway bunker on a Par 5 to within a few feet of the pin. This shot, in my view, should not have been possible, no matter how good the golfer or where in the bunker the ball ends up. The golfer should be able to advance the ball down the fairway, (how far, depending on how much risk they are willing to take) and then rely on their short game to achieve Par.
Should Sandy Lyle have been able to reach the 18th green at Augusta from the fairway bunker and ultimately win the Masters?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

And thus, the source of some of the quirky charm of those old courses.  Of all the thought processes some here attribute to the ODG's, I bet "Dig until you hit gravel" was never uttered on this site as a design principle they followed......but sometimes, its just that simple.

[Will MacEwen]

Should Sandy Lyle have been able to reach the 18th green at Augusta from the fairway bunker and ultimately win the Masters?

What if he split the fairway, put his approach in a bunker, and dunked it from the sand for a 3?  Would that be okay?

[Alex Miller]

As far as I am concerned, it is fairly straight forward. A bunker is a hazard, therefore the golfer should be penalised when in one. I always relate a shot a saw on TV to clients when discussing this subject. The commentators aired "the shot of the day" It was of Harrington hitting a 3-wood out of a fairway bunker on a Par 5 to within a few feet of the pin. This shot, in my view, should not have been possible, no matter how good the golfer or where in the bunker the ball ends up. The golfer should be able to advance the ball down the fairway, (how far, depending on how much risk they are willing to take) and then rely on their short game to achieve Par.
Should Sandy Lyle have been able to reach the 18th green at Augusta from the fairway bunker and ultimately win the Masters?

I agree with the idea that a player should be punished, but I could also argue that Harrington was punished and just pulled off a masterful shot (I didn't see it). He is a tour pro after all, and I think 100 times out of 100 a player would prefer to be in short grass.

I am not familiar with the hole he played, but to say a golfer should never be able to hit a fairway wood out of a bunker seems a bt severe to me. This could have been a shot that is pulled off 1 in 100 times, and the fact that there are multiple potential outcomes seems like it could outweigh some of the negatives.

Deep bunkers do have more strategic impact on a hole, and I think if the spectrum could be shifted in general I would like to see things go deeper rather than shallower, but there has to be some value in increasing the possibility of outcomes from a shot.

[Matthew Petersen]

It's interesting that the general refrain here is anti-water hazard because it's an automatic penalty and takes away the chance for recovery, which is the most dramatic shot in the game. Or so goes the argument, typically.

But then in this thread we have no small number of people arguing that a fairway bunker should necessarily extract some kind of defined penalty.

Maybe it's not the same people making both arguments, but it sure sticks out to me.

There's an awful lot going into all this, not just depth. The size and shape of the bunker make a huge difference too. Even a fairly deep bunker, or one with a high lip, can be a lot easier to recover from the further back in it you are. Those are the breaks of the game. I have no problem with Lytham-style pot bunkers that demand a pitch out sideways either. Variety and randomness are what I love about golf.

[Jason Topp]

OK.  I will bite.

I have always thought that fairway bunkers should be deeper than they generally are and greenside bunkers should be more shallow.  A high handicap player is going to struggle out of a fairway bunker regardless of how deep it is.  Thus, a deep fairway bunker imposes significantly more relative punishment on the low handicap player than it does the high handicap player. 

I couldn't disagree more

If a shallow bunker poses a problem for the high handicap, a deeper bunker will pose an exponentially worse problem for that golfer, whereas, a low handicap player will just take a higher lofted club and not advance the ball as far

A higher handicap golfer willl just try and escape from a deep fairway bunker which requires less skill than trying to hit the green.  Thus, the penalty for a high handicap golfer is about the same result as he would get from hitting a shot fat from a shallow bunker.  The good player, by contrast pays a specific price for hitting the fairway bnunker, specifically the inabulity to hit a green.

By contrast, assuming a decent lie, a good player is not going to have materially more difficulty saving a shot out of a deep greenside bunker than he will with a shallow greenside bunker. 

Disagree and you're contradicting yourself

No I am not contradicting myself.  It is my view that a good player does not have a materially more difficult shot from a deeper greenside bunker than he will from a shallow greenside bunker.  If one can make a good thump with a bunker shot, the size of the lip does not make a teremendous difference.

A shallow greenside bunker also opens up additional possible recovery shots for a high handicapper, including the option to putt.  A good bunker player is unlikely to choose that option because the probability of getting down in two is much less likely.  Thus, I think a shallow greenside bunker imposes less relative penalty on the high handicap player than it does the low handicap golfer.

Agree that the high handicap will fare better in a shallow bunker

At least you got that one right.   

If the goal of a course is to be interesting for all levels of player, I suspect shallow greenside bunkers and deep fairway bunkers make sense. 
Most architects design the opposite. 

Why do you suppose that is ?
Are they wrong ?  Or are you wrong ?


I suspect it has to do with tradition, the topography that results from push up greens and notions of fairness.  Many public courses, hoever, have very flat greenside bunkers and I think they work well as hazards consistent with my views.  And . . . of course I am right and they are wrong.[color]

[Norbert P]

 Offer options on approach and escape shots.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()