Bunkers: Should they be maintained to "perfect" standards?

[John Moore II]

I would be fine with most any bunker condition, so long as people smoothed footprints. That would be the only thing I would gripe about. It doesn't have to be prefectly smooth and uniform depth, etc. but please people, at least smooth out the footprints a little bit.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kyle

I like your view and comment re unpredictability, however I feel hazards such as bunkers, mounds, stonewalls etc equate to be more that just unpredictable.

They should be a deterrent, so come into play before the golfer considers his shot. The golfer needs to decide if his/her skills are adequate to beat the hazard, if not then he/she are forced into planning another approach route. I would hope that a designer would want to challenge all, as well as offer options to lesser skilled golfer.  The unpredictability of golfers as a whole needs to be taken in to account by the designer when he puts his own skills to the test when designing a public course.

As for the maintaining the bunker in perfect condition, that I do not think is necessary, However, IMHO for the bunker to be effective it must not be shallow or have hairy edges. My reasoning, the golfer should never be encouraged to use a bunker - after all, it is meant to be a hazard and the edges should be well trimmed to allow a golf ball to roll into them. Long grass stops movement and whilst not a simple shot may be far easier that trying to retrieve a ball form a penal bunker.

Kyle, you state, “The key to restoring some of the strategic challenge to the game is to present a golf course that offers unpredictable hazards for which the player may not fully prepare and account”. What about the average to lesser skill golfer, this might drive them away from that type of course or golf itself. Hence, my belief that the designer should allow options. The result, for taking the optional route is more strokes to get to the 18th pin. Penalty enough, if we want to keep the less skilled playing golf.

Good post, Kyle and I do take your point
 
Melvyn

[Kyle Harris]

Melvyn,

I've given a lot of thought to the plight of the lesser skilled golfer.

I think I'm about to reach the conclusion that the lesser skilled player is doomed regardless. Skills are a combination of decision making and ability to execute. Should poor decision making and poor execution lead to any sort of "easy" result, or should the player "learn" to play within himself and thus save shots?

In order to accommodate the lesser-skilled golfer, it is the job of the architect and superintendent to cleverly place and present the hazards in such a manner that he less-skilled player is given plenty of room to work around them, while still tempting the better players.

Essentially, the architect must be judicious with the use of hazards and the superintendent must be judicious in his management of the day-to-day playability of the golf course.

In the end, however, the less-skilled golfer is just that... less-skilled. Strokes are the currency of the game and those with less-skill are naturally going to lose more than the better player regardless.