Does a bunker need to be better maintained than this?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Tom,

Give your keys to a friend right now and call a cab.

[TEPaul]

What keys? I lost my drivers license years ago. If I need to go anywhere now I just fly my open cockpit, double winged skypuffer! Generally I fly it upside down too. It's easier that way because if I fly it normally the weight of my head is too great---there's way too much knowledge in there--it's too damed heavy so it's more relaxing to fly the skypuffer upside down!

And furthermore if I fly the open cockpit 'puffer upside down and low it's a lot easier to yell to anyone on the ground that a golfer like Rich Goodale is a damn fool for getting himself and his ball hoodwinked by Rule 28b into being stymied and f....ed by some damn bush!

[TEPaul]

Cos;

Tommy Naccarato and I ran into Maidstone's super "Hook" (Williams) very near that cavernous bunker last summer. Hook was doing some spraying with a rig and he had a suit on that made him look like he just arrived from Mars so TommyN and I didn't want to get all that near him. But I did get a chance to ask Hook how much maintenance time he gave that bunker to the right of #9 in that photo above. Hook thought about that  for a while and said near as he could remember he was last in there for maintenance maybe some time around 1976! So we all went around to the other side of #9 green to look at that big cavernous pit and "Hook" said;

"Oh My, like I just said I haven't really looked at this bunker since may '76 but this thing is coming along so well I doubt I'll have to look at it again until at least.....what's it been now, about 27 years, yeah, I won't need to come back here until around 2030!"

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Thanks Tom......So much for that theory about working onmaking unkempt bunkers look that way....

I once dated a gorgeous girl who claimed she didn't do much either......then I saw her in the morning

[Willie_Dow]

Cos

If she looked so good the "nite before" why did you look at her in the morning?

[ForkaB]

Tom

Your reference to rule 28a is characteristically kind and thoughtful, but in this particular case, tragically misguided.

In the actual incident to which I was imaginating, the ball reached the base of that bush after a stroke from an embedded lie in the unmaintained face of that bunker.  The hapless player tried to hack his ball out with his rut iron (he WAS lucky to be playing in a "hickory" competition!), but unfortunately his club hit not only the ball but the business end of an old shovel inadvertently left there 20+ years ago--the last time "Hook" Williams re-sodded the area.  The ball hit the shovel face, bounded back over his head (clipping his deerstalker in the process and adding yet another 2 strokes to his score) then landed in the unplayable place we are discussing.  So, as far as I can see, from a strict reading of the rules, if the player wished to invoke Rule 28a, he would have to replace the ball in an embedded lie on top of the rusted shovel head (as I understand it, after 20 years, such buried objects become "integral parts of the course" under The Tufts Bible's 4th Law of Golf--"Whenever in doubt, screw the player!").

So....28a was not really an option, and the poor chap had to find relief somewhere both in the bunker and either 2 clubs length no closer to the hole, or behind the point where the ball lay (but still in the bunker) in line with the flag.  As it turned out, the player chose the only feasible course of action which was to not attempt relief, but rather wade into that bush (a gnarly old bramble) and hack away at his ball until it was propelled to a safer place.  It took him seven goes to do so, and all was well afterwards, save the fact that he, a young man of prominent family and great prospects, sadly was never able to have children and carry on his line..........

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Interesting story! My mention of consideration of the Rule 28a option was only predicated on the importance of considerating it BEFORE effecting the Rule 28b option thereby automatically giving up the Rule 28a option for that next shot! But as it turned out your player in question did not apply Rule 28 at all and simply chose to go with that first of the two GREAT PRINCIPLES of golf--eg;

"You play the course as you find it."

Frankly, that was an impressive and pure thing that he did, in my opinion, but I'm sorry that he ruined the potential perpetuation of his family line in the process. These things are just part of some of the little ignominies of the first of the two GREAT PRINCIPLES of golf!

(I will check it out as there may be a new wrinkle in all this with the new 2004 Rules changes but of course it sounds like your player had these problems prior to 2004).

[A_Clay_Man]

See rihc, that players pruning was very effective in saving on maintenance costs. Plus, in the situation you described, I was always under the impression that was clearly a "do over" under the rules.

[Mike Hendren]

Is the strategic merit of the bunker impacted by its upkeep or lack thereof.  Probably not.  

I am reminded of my first shot at the The Old Course's 11th hole.  I had never understood why this hole was so acclaimed until I stumbled upon it during a Sunday afternoon stroll only hours after touching down in Edinburgh.  

Having studied it briefly, I desperately longed to make a 3 the next day.  It was not unprecedented, however, when my 5-iron ballooned in the wind and felt a yard short of Strath bunker.  I was relieved, only to discuss my ball in a patch of shallow sand in the fairway where people had exited the bunker, precursing a chili-dip or bladed pitch.  Naturally, I executed the latter.  My pitch from behind the green then rolled back into the fairway, though it was well played.

Question:  Why did I make a triple at The Eden?  Answer:  Because I hit a poor tee shot and have a heavy handed short game that cannot nip the ball on delicate pitch shots.  Maintenance only exposed my weakness.  What's so bad about that?

Mike

[TEPaul]

"Is the strategic merit of the bunker impacted by its upkeep or lack thereof? "

MikeH:

Definitely the lack of maintenance effects the strategy of playing that hole. In a short phrase the way that bunker is maintained means you definitely don't want to go down there. Even if that bunker and its surrounding areas was maintained much more immaculately, though, the primary problem with being down there is it's really tough to get a sand shot up that high. From the sand floor of that bunker up to that green must be a good 15 feet--maybe more.

[Mike Hendren]

Tom Paul,

I don't want to go down in any bunker, no matter how pristine the sand is.

Mike

[Tom MacWood]

bump

[TEPaul]

Would it be beyond the pale of the Roberts Rules of Order to ask the contributor who just bumped this thread up from a long hiatus to explain why he bumped it up out of its slumber?

[Mike Cirba]

My Lord...was it me who started this thread?

How young and naive I was back then.

And probably philosophically correct and probably practically wrong.   

Ah hell....it's been a great day today that has me believing in magic and idealism again and throwing cynicism out the goshdamn window, that bunker looks to me just about friggin' perfect!!!   

[Sean_A]

The key word is "need".  For me, there is no way, no how this bunker needs to be better maintained. 

Ciao 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I believe that you and all of the cretins who answered your question were focused on the wrong object.

The bunker is fine, I think it's the surrounds that you're concerned with.

If that's the case, the position of the bunker and the incidence of reception/interaction are a factor regarding the issue of maintainance.

In addition, function is an issue.
Do you want balls to feed into that bunker.
If so, I'd rather see the surrounds maintained to accomodate and expedite that process.
But, I'd prefer a complete feed, not one where a ball comes to rest in an impossible lie in the bank/s of the bunker.

[Jerry Kluger]

First let me say this - the members at my club would go bonkers if the areas around the bunkers were maintained as shown.

Second, it is often said that bunkers are maintained so perfectly today that you are often better off in the sand than the area around the bunker.  I agree with that proposition if the difficulty in the area around the bunker is deep grass, difficult slopes, etc., but if the randomness is a result of maintenance issues resulting in bare lies or clumps of grass, etc., then I think it needs to be corrected. 

[Jim Sweeney]

If the bunker fits.....

I see no problem with htis bunker in its environment. As others have pointed out, it would not fit in others.

In two fairly recent US Mid Ams we had similar situations that we dealt with quite differently. At Sea Island Ocean, areas of open sand within the dunes were bunkers if they were raked. Any ball in our touching the raked area was in the bunker. At Pacific Trails, we actully staked some areas to define bunker margins, and any ball touching the line defined by the outside edge of the stakes was bunkered.

A long time ago in rules school C. Mcdonlad England taught me a great lesson. I pressed him on what one should do when, while playing, fis aced with a conundrum for which there was no ready answer. His answer: "avoid the appearance of evil." In other words, if you don't know whether or not you are in the bunker, don't ground your club!

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I like Kelly's answer..if you want them to run "au natural" like the picture treat them as waste areas.
I often think that should be a rule in golf anyway...I undrtand that the grounding of the club can be abused by people making a convenient ridge behind the ball...but that should be an integrity deal not a rule..

[Joe Hancock]

Interesting to go back and read the opinions.

The thing that struck me the most, however, was the title of the thread. The word "better" seems to predispose the circumstance, in that the bunker pictured isn't maintained perfectly for it's setting, perhaps.

Joe