They both look like fun to me....that is, unless I'm not getting rolled on that hole!

Is there a universal inverse relationship between the fun of the challenging a hazard and the fun of recovering from it?

I'd say no.  Sure, it is pretty blah to challenge a deep ravine for example and fail to execute and then have to actually climb down in the thing, hope to find your ball and then hope to find some way of hacking it back up into play or taking an unplayable or lost ball otherwise.  But part of the charm of challenging things like the Road Bunker and the road on TOC #17 is the fun of getting to play the recovery.

That's why I don't listen to the caddie's advice of laying out 25 yards to the right and trying to get up and down for a par, even though I know the chance of hitting a 7i out of the wispy left rough directly over the Road Bunker at a back left pin and holding the green is almost nil.  The fun and challenge of chipping it off the blacktop and killing it into the bank and the reward of a properly executed shot leaving me with a tap in par was every bit the equal of the fun and challenge of the approach shot itself.

IMO the potential of having to hit a recovery from such a spot is what makes the hole interesting/fun. I'd agree that hitting over a ravine where it is more likely that you would lose a ball is not as much fun because the risk is too great and it really takes options away from you.  

Getting up and down from that area would likely be much more memorable than three consecutive 2 putt pars.  That says fun to me!

PS--Michael.  We're your "crew" from the Lollipop League of Munchkinland, or is the bunker really that deep?

Richard,

As has been mentioned by FatBaldyDrummer a few times, the guy in the blue shirt is rather large.   Bob Huntley is in route to my apartment and will be able to verify the depth this afternoon.

Here is a different angle from Ran's review. Please note all the work done by Scott Ramsey.

I'm playing Yale today, been soooo looking forward to it

Michael Moore,

I think it's an interesting question.

One that has to be viewed in the context of the visual presented to the golfer as he addresses his approach shot as well as the visual presented by what he faces with the recovery.

The golfer's mind has adequate and immediate recall with respect to how he got to where he is, and as a result, there's an element of "why did I make that decision, or execute so poorly, combined with the prospect of the task that lies ahead.

All of these factors are related.

Now, the golfer must regroup, mentally and physically for the challenge that lies ahead.

Who isn't most proud of their miracle recovery from a dire location ?

It's one of the highlights of anyone's round.

And, who hasn't had their hopes and round dashed by a foolish mistake or poor execution, resulting in the need for a miraculous recovery.

So, yes, the recovery shot is certainly interesting and exciting.

As to fun, that's in the mind of the beholder.

I happen to like extracating myself from the jaws of doom.

I think that's hole 8 correct?  Left greenside bunker?

Mark

Had nearly the exact same shot at the Quarry up in Minnesota last week.  It is a shot you talk about in the bar afterwards, no doubt.  And it was fun to whack hard, and still see the ball just barely clear the slope to get on the green.  Of course, it hit at a low angle and bounded to the far fringe.

So, my take is, once per course, which might translate to once per year for the average golfer would be plenty to make a course memorable.  Used too often as a theme and it would go beyond the basic outlines of normal golf skill. Even PGA West only has this depth in a few locations, and its more than enough.

And, I would never go out of my way to build it, but if, like the Quarry, it exists naturally (or unnatural via mining in that case) I would leave the one or two examples, but strive to cut the green down or raise the bunker if it occurred too often.

Pat -

Armed with a pitching wedge, how much more complaining would a golfer in 1926 have to do in order to register roughly the same complaint as a golfer using a lob wedge in 2013?

Saw Seve on TV confronted with a bunker shot not dissimilar to this once. He didn't try to splash it out, he just hit a blade 9-iron off the back foot into the bank and one-bounced the ball to a few feet from the cup. Only took him a few seconds to work out what to do and then to execute it. His playing partners and their caddies all had broad smiles and were shaking their heads in amazement after he'd played the shot. Can't remember if he holed the putt, being Seve he probably did. Only one Seve though.
All the best.

Quote from: Michael Moore on August 20, 2013, 12:45:54 PM

Pat -

Armed with a pitching wedge, how much more complaining would a golfer in 1926 have to do in order to register roughly the same complaint as a golfer using a lob wedge in 2013?

Michael,

Obviously you wouldn't know, but golfers in 1926 didn't complain and they played far more penal courses with far less sophisticated equipment.

They were golfers, not whiners and morons

Patrick, yes they did. Haven't you reviewed any club minutes from back then? It isn't tough to find complaints about unfairness of features like deep bunkers, cross-bunkers, water hazards etc. and lots of features were wiped out back then.  Things may not have changed as much as you think.

I suppose that was before YouTube.  Damn. 

Tom,

Another Seve special, also alas way before the days of youtube, was when he was right up against the back lip of an admittedly relatively shallow bunker. He turned his old Ping Anser putter around in his hands so that the toe of the putter was pointed towards the ground. He then hit down hard right through the back lip of the bunker into the ball which proceeded to scuttle through the bunker, up the front lip and out onto the green! Again, he only took him a few seconds to work out what to do and then to execute it. Pure genius. As I said above, only one Seve though.

All the best.