MikeY:

"Fair"? "Consistency"?

What are those things and those ideas and those goals really but an ongoing push toward some fixed standard that essentially removes as much as possible the effective "risk" from the risk/reward equation which is at the heart of all strategic golf?

MikeY:

"Fair"? "Consistency"?

What are those things and those ideas and those goals really but an ongoing push toward some fixed standard that essentially removes as much as possible the effective "risk" from the risk/reward equation which is at the heart of all strategic golf?

TE,
TE,
There is a point where you stop.....IMHO.....for example,I have seen the fairways and rough in some Latin american countries where the heat in the summer will allow the earth to crack open in slots that allow a golf ball to either fall in or sink part way.....I think it is a responsibility of the course to allow for a "fair" test of golf.....some of this is not....
JMO

Mike and TEP,

Happy New Year!

I suspect Mike is continuing the idea I started in my fw width thread and carrying it to bunkers.  Basically, I doubt anyone here would argue that the trend to fairness IS happening and that most golfers would agree with Mike that if they get in a bunker with NO chance of recovery (vs. perhaps a 50% chance) they don't like, it, AND it MAY actually contribute to LESS strategy and overall golf enjoyment.

How so?

If there is no penalty in a bunker, you will challenge it all day.  

If there is a virtually guaranteed penalty of two strokes through buried lies, or unplayable lies from being up a jagged (or other, but the jagged dramatically increases the chances of that, as do tall grasses around the top edge of the bunker) the smart golfer won't be tempted anywhere near that bunker.  

Rather than increase temptation, it takes it away - except for perhaps an unthinking and untalented golfer, who fires away.  Then, it reduces golf enjoyment for them, and everyone with a tee time after them, perhaps to the point of outweighing whatever strategic value a few people playing that day MIGHT understand!  (Seriously, playing a fast round does contribute more than a little to our enjoyment, no?)

That would make the ideal bunker somewhere in between, from a strategic standpoint.  

I believe Mike is saying that a little maintenance level reduction might go a long way to make bunkers more risky than they are now, but wholesale non raking, ragged edge, long grass bunkers may not be the answer, as he presumes some presume on this site. (Follow that?)  

He may also think that from a strategic variety standpoint, a mixture of bunkers you could categorize (generally, no formula necessary, but descriptive words are) from 0% (but more likely 50%) to 100% chance of full stroke or more penalty would be desireable on most coures.

As an example, my son's first approach shot at Sand Hills (from 140 yards after a 400 yard tee shot, downwind, catch the roll, etc, but still damn impressive!) found the right bunker, and he took three to get out.  Now, he didn't complain, because it is such a special course. But, who wants that no their everyday course?

I am with him, other than I don't think its limited to the tour pros.  Most club members live and die with their daily scores, from what I see.  I will add that no bunker philosophy needs to be in place everywhere.  The jagged edges at Sand Hills are perfect. Are they as perfect when built in Georgia, where Mike plays?  So perfect that (all things considered) they are the "formula bunker" we should all accept as the gold standard?

As with fw width, its a legitimate architectural theory type topic, not to be dismissed lightly and out of hand because you think the ragged edges have a better look.

Jeff,
Yea...you are getting there...thats sort of what I am trying to say.
 
Your theory of "bunker temptation" can also be this way...Is it better to design a deeper, steeper faced bunker with a consistent face that can be maintained with available practices than a jaged edge with bermda grass over 12 inches long from which you cannot play golf....
I guess my theory is that I can accept rub of the green as long as the intent is to allow the player to progress the ball thru shot creativity..when this is not present it is no different than water everywhere.....

I think most here agree that bunkers seemingly have trended to no penalty whatsoever, and that most golfers appear to like that idea.  But as I suggested, I don't think it would take a lot of downward maintenance from the "standard bunker" of today to get where many want to go - meaningful bunkers - instead of unraked,long grass, etc.  

Agree 100%

MikeY:

I certainly agree that these kinds of things probably should never be taken too far---to an extreme, let's say, where almost every ball in a bunker is in a bad lie.

But don't forget, it was less than ten years ago that the great Pine Valley didn't rake their sand areas, or only did it very occasionally. If they did it at all it was on a very limited basis. There were footprints everywhere and it was just something that everyone always dealt with without much thought or certainly without much complaint. It's just the way it always was an no one seemed to mind for that reason. You just dealt with it like everyone else.

Frankly, the entire concept of "fairness" in golf has been completely misconstrued into meaning there should be no more bad lies in bunkers for anyone at any time.

The original and far better concept of "fairness" in golf was that bad lies in bunkers was no less or no more fair or unfair for anyone since everyone had to deal with the same thing anyway.

Quote from: Mike_Young on January 01, 2007, 10:50:07 AM

Now I can understand "fried egg" lies and I can appreciate a bunker such as the road hole where being against the wall is much different than being two feet away.....no problem with that......

Mike,

if your up against the wall of the road hole bunker believe me it is unplayable in as far you have no chance of getting it on the green. My question is what is the difference between that, which you accept and a jagged edge bunker which you feel is unfair. Isn't it just a case of the first having a clean line/definition and the latter not.

Unplayable is dependent on the player and practically the only type of hazard that treats all players the same is water, which usually results in an unplayable lie.

Jon,

I think the unique hazard of the road hole bunker makes it acceptable, whereas a course with 18 straight holes would diminish the mental difficulty of that bunker, which like 17 TPC, you probably start thinking about early in the round.

TEPaul,

Mike is also asking about the fairness concept of missing a green by 5 feet and taking three to get out of foot high rough, vs. missing by 10 and finding a perfect lie rather than golfers having equal difficulties in a bunker.  Golfers tend to forget that that type of treatment evens out over time when they are the ones screwed by long grass/jagged edges.

Is there any merit to a bunker style that tries to treat misses proportionally, as many golfers think, in your opinion?

"Golfers tend to forget that that type of treatment evens out over time when they are the ones screwed by long grass/jagged edges."

JeffB;

They most certainly do tend to forget. Golfers seem to be forgetting that with greater rapidity every day.  

"Is there any merit to a bunker style that tries to treat misses proportionally, as many golfers think, in your opinion?"

I don't think so----not in my opinion.

In a sense to me it's sort of like Hogan's warning that if you decide to lay up---then really lay up and don't try to come too close to what you're trying to lay up in front of.  

Furthermore, are we really even in the realm of golf architecture here or are we more in the realm of maintenance practices?

But strickly in the realm of architecture one of the things that fascinates me most about Macdonald/Raynor bunkers, for instance, is the closer you come to some of those really steep faces the worse off you are.

"Second, the idea of "proportional" penalties is just wrong.  Tom Weiskopf explained to me once how he tried to do this ... if you got on the inside edge of a fairway bunker there would be a low lip, and the harder bunker shots would be from the outer edges of the hazards.  Terrific!  So the better player rarely has a difficult shot, and the more erratic player frequently faces shots which the better player deems "unfair" even for him.  Golf would not be popular if this were the rule of design."

Tom D:

The philosophy on bunkering you mentioned above from Weiskopf is actually identical to Donald Ross's. You can read it in the book "Golf Has Never Failed Me."

Personally, I don't really care if the randomness of bunkers is nearer to the (green/flag) or farther away or whatever. My only belief is that bunkering is a feature that architects have always used to set and determine strategy and if there is little or no risk involved with them then the entire concept of strategy begins to suffer exponentially.

The entire concept and philosophy of "proportional penalty" is also the fundamental of J.H. Taylor's concept and creation of Mid-Surrey mounding. You can read all about it on here in the "In My Opinion" article posted by Tommy Naccarato entitled "In Praise of the Ralph Miller Library".

Jeff:

I agree that bunkers as described are not a huge trend ... but if not, why are you or Mike worried about it?  You seem to think it's impractical, Mike that it's unfair.  We've only addressed the unfairness so far, but if the owner is okay with the practical aspects, why is it wrong?

Tom,

Mike's comments echo those of good players in that they like to be able to move the ball somehow, preferably somehow in the direction of the hole on the vast majority of shots.

Given that its a recreational game (even all but pro competitions are recreation in my book) is there any real purpose to building a golf course that prevents what golfers really want to do (and in fact, are there for) - to advance the ball to the hole?

Its still a good question, even if one of degrees rather rather than absolutes.  I like to discuss the theory of golf course architecture, but I know that if you judge a course by "what if I hit it here?" and deride it because there are spots where you can't move the ball forward, you will find very few courses to your liking.