I played neighboring club not to long ago.  I mentioned to the pro where I belonged.  His response was that the fairway bunkers were too deep.  He said that it was not possible to reach the greens from them.   I was shocked.  It seems to me that there should be some penalty for hitting the ball in the wrong place.  I would rather have a fairway bunker than water.  At least in a bunker the next shot requires some thought.  How fast can i get the ball up?  Where should I land it so that I have the best shot into the green.  In the water you just drop the ball and have it.

There has to be some penalty for hitting it in the wrong place. I have no problem with deep fairway bunkers

Depth of sand is another issue.  I remember someone saying that Gary Player had complained at some British links that the sand in the bunkers was too deep.  'We'll start digging right away, Mr Player.  See you again when we come out in Australia.'

Tommy Williamsen,

If a bunker doesn't present an impediment to advancing the ball and reaching the green, it's failed in its function.

As to being formulaic, I find nothing wrong with that.

Is it formulaic to have bunkers around greens, elevated tees ?

All too often the "F" word is used to condemn, in blanket fashion, common sense feature patterns, or the consistent configuration of features in relation to one another.  

I believe bunker depth is and will become a more critical design element, drainage permitting.

New hybrid clubs allow for simple extracation from most fairway bunkers.

Where is it written that golfers are entitled to an unimpeded or easy extracation from a fairway or greenside bunker ?

That's the weak argument for "fairness"

A golfer's inability to extracate himself from a bunker is directly proportional to the strategic significance of the bunker.

Make the extracation a routine shot and the bunker becomes a vestigal feature.

Where bunkers can't be deepened, fronting berms (elevated banks) should be considered as an additive.

In addition to depth, the static location of bunkers should be reviewed with an eye toward returning them to play, as intended by the architect.  OR, leaving them in their current position and adding additional, similar bunkers in the current DZ.

Tommy,

Since you and I belong to one club in common (Four Streams) I know that you are used to fairway bunkers that are not only hazards but make you think about the how, where to play the second shot.   The severe bunker at the corner of the dogleg on #2; the bunkers to the right of #4 (miss them and take a shot at the green in two hit them and lay up short of the next set of cross bunkers); the deep cross bunkers at #12.  It makest you think and plan and a combination of deep bunkers and "not so deep bunkers"  creates solid strategic distinctions.

Paul

Pat,

Why have four or five bunkers close together when you could have one big bunker serving the same purpose?

Jordan,

One reason might be that the front edge lip would always be much closer to the golfer, necessitating a quickly rising escape which may or may not allow the player to reach their next hopeful target.  

His response was that the fairway bunkers were too deep.  He said that it was not possible to reach the greens from them.  

I have also had discussions with strong players that seem to want more chances to separate themselves from average players.  In a shallow bunker the average golfer isn't likely to hit a green from 150 yards.  A PGA pro?  I'm guessing he has little trouble.

One friend went on and on about how he nutted a 3-wood that knifed through a gale to the center of a green.  He three-putted for bogey.  I asked why he didn't lay up short of the green where he'd have an easy up and down and he couldn't comprehend that a golf hole would be played that way.  Very few people could hit that tee shot he did and he wanted to be rewarded for it.

We talk a lot about this in our hazards book.  It is a topic that comes up often at clubs.  Shallow bunkers are a pet peeve of mine.  At the one club we are working at in NJ, every bunker is shallow and has no depth or character and consequently offers little in the way of hazard value.  They dramatically weaken the quality of the golf course and they will all be changed.

By the way, not every bunker needs to be six feet deep either but they do need to at least be three dimensional  

Hugh Wilson believed that fairway bunkers should not be so deep that players of all classes were dictated to splash out and, in essence have a one stroke penalty.  Somewhat deep bunkers (not necessarily shallow pits) were better as he believed that the better player should have the ability to manifest his skill with a chance at recovery if he "rung the bell" with his shot.  Skill was to be tested and not constrained to a unity of shot dictation.  It is in his and his protoge's, Wm Flynn, writings and in their architecture.

I love this as a principle. Great stuff.

But I would hate it if it applied to 100 out of 100 bunkers.