A Theory of Bunkering

[Jeff Schley]

Hi Thomas:


The feature in question is from the restored 12th hole at Garden City Golf Club.


Originally, there were two sand mounds to either side of the green.  I struggled to imagine how they would be maintained in a modern restoration . . . they would get footprinted up on a regular basis, the sand would get depleted by wind erosion, etc.  But, they were part of the hole for a long time, back in the days when maintenance was not so fussy.


To restore them, Jim Urbina basically built the mounds out of gravel, and put a few inches of bunker sand over the top.  Most approach shots that hit the mounds will bounce off, so there isn't as much foot traffic on them as we anticipated, and I don't think they've been a big pain to maintain.


Playing-wise, though, the mounds are an obstacle for those whose shots finished wide of the target.

Thoughts?
atb

I played there this summer and my host's ball came to rest on the downhill side of the mound closer to the green.  He just asked for his putter and putted it onto the surface like there was no thought to it.  It was on a downhill lie and perhaps he didn't want to skull a wedge? I remember thinking why is he putting that ball from the sand, but I guess there isn't deep sand there as I didn't sample it.

[Thomas Dai]

Thank you Tom.
I was aware that the restoration work was undertaken by you and your team so it’s nice to hear from source a bit about the history and how the restored version was constructed.
Once upon a time seeing two such features from certain angles, or these days from a drone, might have been visually rather suggestive particularly at an all male club.
In many ways an inverted bunker doesn’t seem much different to an area of sand on a links course that happens to slope upwards instead of being more pit like. More likely to be seen on a rural and rustic links course where to use your nice wording “maintenance was not so fussy” though than on some of the more manicured links courses prevalent these days. And as you intimate, potentially changing shape over time as erosion etc takes place.
Atb

[Michael Felton]

I appreciate the discussion.


I often have thought that as a general rule fairway bunkers should be deeper.  Deeper fairway bunkers present more of a dilemma to the player regarding whether to aim away and, once in the bunker,  whether to wedge out or risk the lip to get it on or close to the green. For the lesser player, a conservative wedge out might yield better results than trying to be a hero.


I think green-side bunkers could be less deep.  For the better player, I believe judging the sand is the biggest challenge for a green-side bunker shot.  There is a bit of randomness regarding whether a ball checks or runs out and that randomness exists regardless of the depth of the bunker.  For the lesser player, a shallow bunker can present the option of putting - which is a great way to get down in three but a difficult way to get down in two.

Jason,


I once lost a job (i.e. the minute I said it, the room went cold) by my answer to the question, "Mr. Brauer, don't you think it should be just as easy to reach a par 5 in 2 shots from the fw bunker as from the middle of the fairway?"  My answer of "no" was apparently a shock to them, as was my follow up explanation that I usually make tee shot fw bunkers on par 5 holes deeper, figuring that even with a short iron out, they can still reach the green in 3, thus, there is no real penalty for hitting the bunker.  Apparently, the penalty of "only" reaching a par 5 green in regulation figures was very real to those golfers.


Very few golfers I know think that putting out of a green side bunker is a viable way to play and avoid those.


As to the volcano bunker, I agree it is a problem in the wind.  Plus, ancient sheep huddled in hollows, not on top of mounds to get out of the wind.

Speaking as a player, I will pay a fair amount of heed to fairway bunkers when I'm planning out how to play a hole, but on par fives, if they're not really deep, I basically ignore them. I figure I can lay up to them, but then I won't be able to get to the green in 2 and will have to lay up with my second shot also. If I take them on and miss them, then I might be able to get home in 2. If I take them on and hit them, then I'm most likely laying up unless they're very shallow. So there's not really any risk in taking them on.


That's a very different equation on a course where the bunkers are very deep. The specific hole I'm thinking of is 7 at Royal St. Georges. There are a couple of tiny little bunkers on the outside corner of the dogleg. They're about 200-220 from the green I think, so they're right where you might be hitting it if you're thinking of getting there. The lay of the land helps you get to them and also pushes the ball out towards them. If you go in them, your third shot is going to be from 180-200. 20 yards is as much as you can get out of them. They're virtually little penalty areas. RSG is littered with bunkers like that. If you lay back from bunkers like that, your gaining shots over the ones that go in there.


I actually think the sweet spot is somewhere in between the two extremes. There should be some penalty for going in them. A third shot from 160 instead of 80 perhaps. But some fairway bunkers you can't get home in 3 if you go in them. That seems a little harsh to me. Being able to go for the green virtually by right (it sounds like) is way too far the other way though. If you're good enough and brave (stupid) enough to hit a high cut with a long iron out of a relatively nasty bunker, then yes, you can get it on the green, but for all and sundry to be able to do it? What's the point of having the bunker at all?