Matt:

How did you feel about them taking all the broom bushes out of the bunkers at Merion?  That was the first example I ever saw.  And of course, there are lots at Pine Valley.

Tom D,

The broom bushes (I didn't know that's what they are) are currently in some of the bunkers at Merion.  They are in the bunkers fronting the greens on 10 and 13 as well as the bunker on the left fairway on 18.  Of course there are hazards galore in the quarry fronting 16 green.  At one time the quarry was mowed grass, at another time fully sanded and in its present state with bunkers, sandy waste areas, Scottish Broom (brilliant gold in Spring) and other vegetation.  This was probably done after Wilson and Flynn completed the final 4 holes at Pine Valley (12-15) in 1921 prior to the 1924 Amateur at Merion.  The influence of PV is evident in the way the quarry is maintained.

To take this a step further, what about if a golfer is in a bunker, and has a tree to contend with on the shot as well?  

JES II, one specific example you would know of would be the fairway bunker at HVCC-Toomey #2.  

When I played, I was in the bunker, and my wedge to the green nicked a branch coming out and came up short.  I shouldn't have been in the bunker in the first place, admittedly.  

What do you think?  

Brahms prolix

Matt,

Are you sure this Ken Kavanaugh fellow is related to that other guy?  

Wayne,

Some of the grasses have been re-added at Merion, albeit in a bit too hair-transplanted fashion for my taste, but I think Tom Doak is talking about the gorse that used to live in a number of bunkers, such as the ones that adjoined the 14th green, or some up around the right side of the 10th fairway.  I'm pretty sure those don't exist any more, although I'm hoping you can show me differently.    

Matt:

This is a good thread---eg "hazards within hazards" (broom and such planted in the sand surfaces of sand bunker hazards).

JES asks you why you don't just condemn the cleaning up and sanitizing of the sand surfaces of modern bunkers compared to the old days. I think I can probably answer that. It's because any campaign to make sand surfaces of bunkers today more penal, more iffy and less raked and maintained is just a lost cause these days to the mindset of consistency and fairness. The last great golf course in America to basically not rake the sand surfaces of their bunkering was Pine Valley and in the last 6-8 years unfortunately even that changed there.

I have no problem at all philosophically with broom or grass of that type within bunkering---it merely adds to the "iffiness" of the potential for recoverying from a bunker in the mind of any golfer, philosophically that's a good thing to put upon them, in my mind.

But I'm going to ask something and propose something here;

What is considered to be the sum total and the dimensions of a bunker? Is it only the sand surface or are the grass surrounds included too, particularly the grass faces?

The reason I ask that is there are a number of bunkers today that are forcing that question and perhaps the best examples are the new bunkers of Merion East.

What I mean by that is the grass surrounds, particularly the grass faces are now about ten times more potentially penal than the sand surfaces of those bunkers.

Is that acceptable?

In my mind it most certainly is, particularly since golf today seems to insist on fair and consistently maintained sand surfaces in bunkering.

"The troubles with hazards within hazards are twofold.
Firstly, by significantly increasing the risk of hitting the ball into the hazard (who wants to take an unplayable from some broom?)"

Ricardo the Magnifico:

I do and I have. Matter of fact by doing so it created one helluva Rules flap.

It was in one of the later matches of the Philly Amateur one time and I hit my tee shot on the 8th hole at Philly CC into one of those huge broom things in the middle of a bunker that the club affectionately called "Simpsons" (after Bart Simpson's hair).

My opponent was a guy from the Atlantic City CC that ironically used to have those things in their bunkers.

We'd just had a real Rules flap about two holes previous and things were sort of less than back-slapping cordial at that point.

I told him I was going to take an unplayable and drop my ball behind the bunker keeping the spot in the Simpson between me and the hole.

He said that I couldn't drop a ball BEHIND the bunker because my ball was in the bunker. I said it wasn't in the bunker because any grass covered area in a bunker is not considered to be part of the bunker.

He said of course it is becaue that Goddamned Simpson was right in the middle of the bunker.

I said I didn't give a damn where it was in the bunker because grass covered ground anywhere in a bunker is not considered to be in a bunker.

Well we weren't arriving at any consensus and another match was coming up behind us so he suggested I hit a second ball and we could resolve the issue later.

I said you can't hit a second ball in match play and he said of course you could and it was done all the time. I said I didn't give a damn if he or others he knew did it all the time it wasn't allowed in the Rules but he insisted it was.

And so to keep things going I said; "Look Ace, it's not allowed in the Rules but if you, my opponent, are asking me to do it to keep things going then fine I will hit a second ball", and I did.

When we came around to #10 we reported all those facts to the "committee" and they rolled their eyes in amazement and set about pow-wowing over all that. They told us to just keep going and they'd call the USGA and report the resolution later in the match.

I ended up beating that guy, but they really didn't do anything about that entire situation.

Of coruse I had every right to use the Unplayable Rule the way I did out of the Simpson in that bunker but the second ball things remained hazy and got just dropped.

I suppose the correct ruling should have been lose of hole to me for hitting a second ball in match play even if I did it only because my opponent insisted on it to keep things going or perhaps even the DQing of both of us since he asked me to hit that second ball and I agreed thereby both of us agreeing to waive a rule of golf which is DQ to both players.

They took those Simpsons out of the bunkers at PCC and I'm sorry they did because now players don't have the opportunity to go through all that crap that I did with that player from ACC in the Philly AM.  

Any  variation on the theme or variety is exemplary in my book. Not only gorse or broom but also old tree stumps or bedrock have also appeared in sand bunkers.

An interesting rules case and another great yarn from TEPaul.

What would the case be if the sand area is a « waste area » infrequently raked with a  few weeds growing now and then – would it officially NOT be a sand bunker according to the rules of golf.

John C-S:

And even more interestingly, why do you suppose all these clubs and courses put that "local" condition or designation known as the "waste bunker" or "waste area" on their scorecards, even if they all obviously know the Rules of Golf does not contemplate such a thing?

Well, obviously it's to let people know that there are areas (and generally some very very large ones) out there that look like bunkers, feel like bunkers, smell like bunkers, and probably play like bunkers too but they aren't really bunkers despite all that.

But why do they need to let golfers know all that? For the simple reason golfers need to know that they can ground their club in them because even though the R&A/USGA doesn't recognize or define them per se what they actually are in the Rules are "through the green" areas where one can ground one's club before a stroke.

And why do you suppose one can ground one's club in something that looks like a bunker, feels like a bunker and smells like a bunker, plays like a bunker and essentially is a bunker in everything other than name, definition or designation?

Well, obviously because all these clubs and courses that have them understand there is no way in hell they can rake those sand areas or afford to rake them daily and keep them perfectly maintained like actual bunkers. And we all know, at this point, that not raking bunker sand areas and also not allowing golfers to ground their clubs in them simply IS NOT DONE MY DEAR! That would be far too unfair, far too unstandardized and far too inconsistent.  

So you're saying it's better to have a freakin' scotch broom in your face when in a greenside bunker than to have an unmaintained sand surface? What's random about that? Do you have any idea what these things look like after 10 years or so?

JES II:

Get real partner -- when people go across the pond they are positively giddy about such bunkers but for some strage reason when they board the plane back to the States they want the bunkers to be as they are -- flat, ornamental designs which are generally meaningless to the better player as a consideration.

I simply said that variety is the key and that having such interior items within a bunker will give player pause. Where does it say ANYWHERE that landing in a bunker means clean raked sand with a completely level lie and stance.

Uncertainty is part and parcel of the mantra of bunkers. The people who created this game across the pond understand this -- bunkers for too many American courses is nothing more than periphery item for cosmetics -- not fear.

JES II:

Re-read what I wrote -- I played Bethpage Black before half or more of the people on this site knew it existed. The course was strong because of the feature I mentioned. Take a look at the land the 10th and 11th occupy on the far left side of each. It used to be imposing -- it's been cleaned-up now to be completely U-N-I-F-O-R-M.

Bunkers are about uncertainty -- I mentioned the gushing and wax poetic that takes place when people go across the pond about bunkers there, but for some strange reason develop permanent amnesia when they return to the States.

I'm just saying that periphery items -- like sage brush, gorse bushes, and the like -- can be adde to certain holes or kept in place if there already. The private clubs can do this much more so because of $$ and manpower -- but keep this in mind a Wyoming public course does it now and has no issue with it.