Suggest a bunker to be eliminated

« **on:** December 31, 2006, 05:39:50 PM »

Anyone can suggest another bunker to "add strategy", they do so almost by definition. But then again, many don't.

Let's take some famous courses and think about bunkers which are unnecessary.

I'll start: Pacific Dunes. I've never seen anybody in the bunker at the very back of the fourth green, along the cliff edge ... they don't put the pin way back there much. And I've only seen a very bad player in the bunker about 40 yards short and wide right of the sixth green.

There are probably a couple more which are superfluous, but if you want to pick an individual I'll try to explain its purpose. If not, we can move on to another course, say Pebble Beach.

« **Reply #1 on:** December 31, 2006, 05:57:57 PM »

Tom,
Sorry, you are going to have to keep the one behind #4 green. I have seen a ball in there (not mine). I would rather have that bunker there to play a shot out of, than to try to hack out of whatever would be growing back there in its place. It is suprisingly difficult to keep a ball from rolling deeper into #4 green than you plan on.
I would nominate the bunker on the left front of #6 green. It would probably make the hole look easier, but play even harder, as the ball would end up further away from the hole rolling off the steep slope on that side of the green. It is challenging enough to get up onto that green from the proper angle. At least for my game, such that it is.

« **Reply #2 on:** December 31, 2006, 06:27:33 PM »

Tom, I suggest a nix or fix on the faux MacKenzie bunker short on the 10th at Augusta? It doesn't present strategy risk or peril to any golfer, Augusta member or Augusta contestant. To create any visual deception it needs to be positioned with a higher lip as to blend into the front edge of the putting surface or moved closer to the green.

« **Reply #3 on:** December 31, 2006, 06:32:48 PM »

Stuart:

If based purely on strategic reasons, perhaps the MacKenzie bunker could go, although another thread mentioned it's likely in play for Augusta members.

But aesthetically, I think it's one of the most beautiful bunkers I've seen (either on TV or in person). The long, downsloping terrain of the 10th is enhanced visually by the presence of such a beautiful bunker.

Would the 16th at Cypress be enhanced if we could fill it in with sand -- something we could play out of? Perhaps not a fair comparison, but some architectural features -- in my book, anyway -- can be visually as well as strategically enhancing to a course.

« **Reply #4 on:** December 31, 2006, 06:39:26 PM »

Tom Doak,

I'd have to agree with Ed Getka.

I too have seen a ball in that bunker.
To me, it seems like a nice safety net for a mishit recovery.

But, you raise an interesting question in relation to the other thread on adding bunkers.

Are courses becoming more "lightly" bunkered due to the broader spectrum of golfers who play the game today ?

Hasn't the trend for the last 100 years or so been the removal of bunkers ?

Hasn't almost every club, for a variety of reasons, defanged their golf course through bunker removal over the last 100 years ?

Over the last 100 years, how many clubs have systematically added bunkers ?

« **Reply #5 on:** December 31, 2006, 06:42:50 PM »

The right fairway bunker on the second hole at Huntingdon Valley ought to be eliminated. It directs the player away from the line of instinct and places the drives in the ideal landing zone. If that bunker were removed there would be some indecision as to where to hit the ball and the bunkering and green complex would reward a thoughtful golfer rather than one that follows orders so to speak.

« **Reply #6 on:** December 31, 2006, 06:42:56 PM »

Quote from: Stuart Smith on December 31, 2006, 06:27:33 PM

Tom, I suggest a nix or fix on the faux MacKenzie bunker short on the 10th at Augusta? It doesn't present strategy risk or peril to any golfer, Augusta member or Augusta contestant.

That's ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE.

If you're familiar with the hole and the play of the hole from the Masters and the Members tees, it presents a good deal of strategic thinking and execution.[/color]

To create any visual deception it needs to be positioned with a higher lip as to blend into the front edge of the putting surface or moved closer to the green. [size=4x]
Stuart,

Stick to your daytime job....... please[/color][/size]

« **Reply #7 on:** December 31, 2006, 06:44:16 PM »

If we're talking about Augusta National, what about the following bunkers:

The one behind the fifth green.

The bunker right of the 11th green. The hole is plenty tough enough for members, and even for the pros at 505 or whatever it plays for the Masters. Especially being back right, how often is it in play? Unless it's a good sight line for the bail out right?

Never been to Augusta, so haven't seen the holes in person.

« **Reply #8 on:** December 31, 2006, 06:59:45 PM »

I know it's a bit of a sacred cow, but I hate bunkers like the one on 10 at ANGC. It doesn't come into play for strong players, but it can be a real ball-buster for lesser players who have the misfortune of ending up there. (I am assuming this bunker comes into play for someone.) As a general matter, I believe that any bunker that penalizes weaker players only ought to be eliminated. We have a bunker on a par 3 on our course that's a killer for the seniors (who refuse to take advantage of the forwards tees!). What's the point? To remind them that life is unfair?

« **Reply #9 on:** December 31, 2006, 07:01:12 PM »

Quote from: JAL on December 31, 2006, 06:44:16 PM

If we're talking about Augusta National, what about the following bunkers:

The one behind the fifth green.

Some golfers approach that green with a low running shot, thus that bunker comes into play. It also comes into play on recovery shots, especially when approaches sail right and short.

Viewing a bunkers location in the sole context of the PGA Golfer might not tell the hole story or justify its relevance.

The bunker right of the 11th green. The hole is plenty tough enough for members, and even for the pros at 505 or whatever it plays for the Masters. Especially being back right, how often is it in play? Unless it's a good sight line for the bail out right?

It's a great safety net for daring approaches and recoveries.

Absent that bunker, many shots would find a watery grave and present the golfer with a more difficult decision.

I'm not saying that recovery from that bunker isn't nerve racking, but, I've always found that a "dry" ball is a good ball.

Without that bunker, the logical choice for a golfer who's hit it in the water is to repeat the shot, which isn't always the most appealing prospect.

Think of # 15 if the water was immediately behind the green and how much more difficult the approach would be.

Never been to Augusta, so haven't seen the holes in person.

Hope the above helps

« **Reply #10 on:** December 31, 2006, 07:07:22 PM »

Pat, with respect to the fifth hole, are you saying that the back bunker is more in play for members than for the Masters? Your comments about the low running shot would lead me to believe so (knowing how pros play the game) but on a longish par 4s I wouldn't think a back bunker would be a big concern for amateurs...although is that a front to back green?

On 11, I'm assuming you mean it keeps balls from running all the way back to Rae's Creek...does the wonderful 'first cut' address this as well? I'm not sure if they've grown it in back there. I'm also not sure if the first cut is present for member play.

« **Reply #11 on:** December 31, 2006, 07:15:19 PM »

Quote from: Phil Benedict on December 31, 2006, 06:59:45 PM

I know it's a bit of a sacred cow, but I hate bunkers like the one on 10 at ANGC.

It doesn't come into play for strong players, [size=4x]

Why does everybody make the same mistake ?
It does come into play for strong players.[/size]

And why does everyone assume that ANGC plays the same in October, November, December, January and February as it does in early or mid April ? When conditions are dramatically different.

It won't come into play if you execute a perfect drive and a perfect second shot, but, what hazard does come into play on a perfect drive and perfect second shot?

But, a mishit drive left or right, or on the severe downslope, brings that bunker into play.

A misplayed drive leaves the golfer with a choice.
Try to get as close to the green as possible, which often means carrying that bunker, or laying up short of it, which leaves a longer shot into the elevated, pitched green.

And, should you hit into the bunker, it requires a very good shot to reach the appropriate area of the green.

And, the bunker provides some nice visual deception even to those playing with laser devices.

The hole plays 495 from the Masters tees and 450 from the Members tees. It wasn't meant to be a pushover from any tee

but it can be a real ball-buster for lesser players who have the misfortune of ending up there. (I am assuming this bunker comes into play for someone.) As a general matter, I believe that any bunker that penalizes weaker players only ought to be eliminated.

Donald Ross didn't agree with you, nor did CBM.

If there's nothing to penalize a weaker player, what will incentivize him to play better ?

We have a bunker on a par 3 on our course that's a killer for the seniors (who refuse to take advantage of the forwards tees!). What's the point? To remind them that life is unfair?

No, to remind them to use their brains. And, more importantly,
To punish bad decisions.

« **Reply #12 on:** December 31, 2006, 07:26:49 PM »

Quote from: JAL on December 31, 2006, 07:07:22 PM

Pat, with respect to the fifth hole, are you saying that the back bunker is more in play for members than for the Masters?

That would be "hole location" dependent, but, generally, yes.

Your comments about the low running shot would lead me to believe so (knowing how pros play the game) but on a longish par 4s I wouldn't think a back bunker would be a big concern for amateurs...although is that a front to back green?

It's an unusuallly contoured green.
The front, like # 14 sits down, well below the upper tiered putting surface.
I asked the caddies if the hole is ever cut on the lower level on # 5 and # 14 and none of them could recall same.

# 5 from the Members tees is 400 yards, although the tee shot is uphill, there are HUGE, DEEP bunkers guarding the left side of the fairway, so the tendency is to go further right, which brings the bunker more into play on the approach.

It too can serve as a safety net.
There's not a lot of room behind the 5th green, which is elevated, which means that balls running off it will gather speed and find more trouble

On 11, I'm assuming you mean it keeps balls from running all the way back to Rae's Creek...does the wonderful 'first cut' address this as well?

No, it doesn't.
And, remember, the fairway slopes downhill toward the green, with steep slopes about 20-40 yards short of the green, thus second shots that fall short of the green have a very, very dicey recovery to a back hole location.

That bunker can serve a vital purpose, that of a safety net.
Plus, it looks good from the DZ

I'm not sure if they've grown it in back there. I'm also not sure if the first cut is present for member play.

In that location, which slopes into Rae's Creek, the rough isn't effective at stopping the ball.

« **Reply #13 on:** December 31, 2006, 07:33:28 PM »

10th hole Bethpage Black right-side fairway bunker.

Anyone in it can't reach the green and will always lay-up anyway. If it were an area of rough, more would consider the gamble and the area would then become far more of a risk/reward decision.

« **Reply #14 on:** December 31, 2006, 07:38:38 PM »

The two left fairway bunkers on the 5th hole at Merion which had been "restored" after 15 minutes of fame sometime around 1930 are the most obvious of any that come to mind.

The bunkers, both a visual and a strategic blight on one of the best holes in golf serve to stop balls from going into the famed creek, which is the primary defense of the hole.

I can think of a couple of others, but I'll stop there.

Happy New Year to everyone.

« **Reply #15 on:** December 31, 2006, 07:46:49 PM »

Patrick,

If that bunker on 10 comes into play for stronger players, then I stand corrected.

As far as CBM and Donald Ross, who designed my course BTW, if they put in certain hazards that only penalize weaker players, it just proves what incredible ball-busters they were! I realize that even weaker players can play better by consciously avoiding bunkers that are 30 yards short of the green and only in play for them, but the game is hard enough without gratuitous insults such as this.

« **Reply #16 on:** December 31, 2006, 07:48:28 PM »

Some time in the past few years I believe Mickelson went into that back bunker at #5 (ANGC) and faced a nerve-wracking out. In fact, did he maybe take 2 in that thing? I seem to recall that he hit way under the ball and barely moved it.

« **Reply #17 on:** December 31, 2006, 07:48:49 PM »

The 11th hole at Kingston Heath - the fairway bunker in the middle of the fairway that was put there in the late 1990's. Completely unnecessary and a blight on an otherwise excellent strategic golf hole.

« **Reply #18 on:** December 31, 2006, 07:55:11 PM »

Phil,

I don't see a random bunker as a gratuitous insult.

All too often, away from the green, the higher handicap isn't confronted with a feature that initiates the decision making process.

Inserting a feature that forces the issue should be stimulating and challenging.
The avoidance of that feature is a choice that can produce risky or conservative play, with commensurate rewards.

Isn't one of the lures of golf, being tempted to try shots that may be beyond our ability to execute on a routine basis ?

Shouldn't every level of golfer be presented that challenge ?

« **Reply #19 on:** December 31, 2006, 08:29:31 PM »

Patrick,

I think there are plenty of hazards on a typical golf course that are in play for everyone without adding some that only affect high handicap players. The greenside bunker the scratch player has to consider on his second shot is in play for the high handicapper on his third shot. Why does the high handicapper need his own special hazards, especially those that leave him with long bunker shots, the so-called hardest shot in golf?

« **Reply #20 on:** December 31, 2006, 08:30:53 PM »

Pat, sorry to get you so agitated about a silly golf hole. By the way I do have that day job you referenced, how about you? I have played and watched play numerous times on the 10th at Augusta and have never seen a strong player challenenged by the bunker off the tee or a weaker player challenenged with his second shot. The hole is downhill even in the winter months you mentioned so it plays considerably shorter that the yardage on the card. This bunker has visual appeal, but doesn't come into play.

« **Reply #21 on:** December 31, 2006, 08:41:31 PM »

Quote from: Stuart Smith on December 31, 2006, 08:30:53 PM

Pat, sorry to get you so agitated about a silly golf hole.

Stuart, I"m not agitated.

By the way I do have that day job you referenced, how about you?

Yep

I have played and watched play numerous times on the 10th at Augusta and have never seen a strong player challenenged by the bunker off the tee

I don't believe anyone has been challenged by that bunker from the tee. ........ yet.

or a weaker player challenenged with his second shot.

I have, and on numerous occassions.
At 450 from the Members tees almost every ball coming to rest on the slope is challenged by that bunker.

The hole is downhill even in the winter months you mentioned so it plays considerably shorter that the yardage on the card.

It plays shorter, but, I wouldn't categorize it as "considerably" shorter, and, with damp to wet fairways, a high dirve won't get much roll and mishit shots will be left with a long approach, and, drives that end up on the slope will have the fairway bunker to contend with.

This bunker has visual appeal, but doesn't come into play.

Then why did two of the fellows in my foursome, who hit the ball pretty long, end up in that bunker during my last round there ?

« **Reply #22 on:** December 31, 2006, 08:42:25 PM »

Since it is New years Eve and only old partyless guys are logged on I will suggest two that I will probably take some heat for. In fact my thoughts may border on the sacreligious.
I would fill in the DA at 10 on PV. I would probaly keep it sloped so that a shot that is going off the green would land in some waste area. The DA us famous but as far as I am concerned it should go. And Know I have yet to be in it. I avoid it like the plague.
I would reconfigure the church pews on three and four at Oakmont. I'm not sure they should be eliminated but reconstructed.

« **Reply #23 on:** December 31, 2006, 08:44:20 PM »

Sean, I don't understand your dislike of bunkers. I much prefer them to water, where you take a drop because there is no possibility of hitting a shot, or four inch rough that makes you just chop out the ball.

« **Reply #24 on:** December 31, 2006, 08:49:05 PM »

Shucks, Pat I don't know, let me think

.... they must have hit it too far, that's it!!!

News:

Tom_Doak

ed_getka

Stuart Smith

Phil McDade

Patrick_Mucci

wsmorrison

Patrick_Mucci

JLahrman

Phil Benedict

Patrick_Mucci

JLahrman

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Phil_the_Author

Mike_Cirba

Phil Benedict

Gary Daughters

Shane Gurnett

Patrick_Mucci

Phil Benedict

Stuart Smith

Patrick_Mucci

Tommy Williamsen

Tommy Williamsen

Stuart Smith