[ed_getka]

I finished reading Mike Clayton's book today, a refreshingly candid and insightful read. The subject of fairway bunker depth came up and apparently the Russell/Morcom thought on the subject was to give the player a chance to escape, albeit a risky chance, with only 1-2" clearance for a good shot. That way a golfer might still be tempted to challenge the bunker off the tee, knowing he might have a chance to escape. Whereas, if the bunker was going to be deep/penal enough to extract an automatic stroke, the golfer would be more inclined to play safely.
   I have previously been of the opinion that the bunkers should be DEEP, but the above slant on the topic I found interesting.
   What do you guys think about the concept of the risky escape tempting golfers to challenge the bunkers?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ed Getka,

I was about to start a similar thread.

I think bunker depth must be viewed in the context of the overall bunker size and scale.

I played a course about ten days ago that had some fairway bunkers which seemed about 10-15 feet deep.  One bunker, which my partner drove into, clearly prevented him from reaching the green, but it didn't prevent him from advancing his ball.  His dilema was the conflict between extracation and getting as close as possible to the green.  The closer he wanted to hit the ball, the more difficult the shot.  Like most of us, his game plan was beyond his ability to execute, and he hit the top of the bunker, only to end up in an adjacent bunker.  The bunker he was in was very large, which made it look closer than it really was from the tee.  It reminded me of Bethpage Black where the bunkers are huge.

The tee shot on this hole favored keeping the ball as close to the bunker as possible, or for those with real power, trying to fly the bunkers.

The green was not visible from this bunker, which adds to the challenge of trying to get to the green, or in the ideal position for the final approach shot.

Other bunkers were relatively deep, with the fairway bunkers on par 5's appearing to be shallower then the fairway bunkers on par 4's.

With the new high tech trouble clubs, rough and bunkers are less of an impediment to the golfer.  Hence, to counter the high tech clubs, bunkers should be deeper, and present a physical and/or mental hazard to the golfer.

But, bunkers can only go as deep as the drainage will permit.
So, wanting a deep bunker and actually designing and constructing a deep bunker may be two different things.

I'm reminded of my friend Terry McBride's two rules for the left side fairway bunker off the tee at # 18 at NGLA.
Rule # 1,  do not, under any circumstances drive it in that
              bunker.
Rule # 2   Go back and re-read rule # 1.

While a par is possible, it's substantially more difficult should one's ball end up in that bunker, and extremely difficult if the ball is close to the facing wall.

The fairway bunkers at # 8 and # 12 are also difficult as are the fairway bunkers at # 4, 6, 10, 11, 15, and 16 at GCGC.

In an earlier thread I observed that depth on fairway bunkers tended to be a function of the length of the remaining approach shot.

I like the tactical signal that deep fairway bunkers send to the golfer.  And I like they challenge they present should you find them.

[TEPaul]

Ed:

My feeling about this kind of thing is that the best courses and the best overall architecure should do nothing at all regarding bunker depth or recoverability that's formulaic or standardized. In this way the golfer has to pay more attention to what he's doing, what the course is and isn't going to give him, to his strategies and such and much of the fundamental requirement of a golfer's strategies is simply looking out there and estimating in one's own mind what the penality and recoverability of some feature or hazard is. In this way the challenge and interest and potential satisfaction can be somewhat like trying to drive a car at the limit (temptation) of tire adhession to the road (risk and reward). You have to sort of feel these things (not be simply told it's impossible to go through this corner at more than 90 miles an hour!!) to have them be as good as they can be!

Some may call this type of thing "the experience factor", and some will say this type of non-formulaic or non-standard thing can't work on public courses and such because golfers won't know what to do on the first playing of the course.

Fine!---don't do this type of thing on public courses then if the one-time golfer feels that strong about it!  

But do it on really good courses where the hazards and such can be non-formulaic in recoverablity! Whenever I think of RCD I think of that great bunker on the right of #3 fairway I got in the first time I played the course. I never went anywhere near it again and I never will unless I become a fugitive and need to hide from the world up under its overhanging lip!  

[Mike_Young]

IMHO each golfer has a different trajectory to his shots and therefore there cannot be a standard 1" to 2" clearance thery.  Just MO.
However, I do think they should bbe deep enough to provoke much thought before bringing them into play on a shot.  I also don't think the grass surrounding the bunker should be more penal than the bunker.  Watch EAstlake this week and how they try to miss toward the bunkers.  

[Andrew Summerell]

I like the idea of being allow a shot at the green from any REASONABLE part of the course. Yes, I believe it changes the options off the tee when fairway bunkers allow hope.

Alot depends on the strategy of the course & how much room there is. Some of the fairway bunkers on TOC are penal, but look how much room you have & how many options you have from the tee.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Could you cite five (5) examples of golf courses with formulaic fairway bunkering ?  

Thanks

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Could you cite five (5) examples of golf courses with formulaic fairway bunkering?"

Patrick:

No, and hopefully it will stay that way if everyone continues to use their heads and never listen to you!  

[ed_getka]

I know it would not be possible to control how much clearance there is in trying to reach the green from a given fairway bunker, but if you know you MIGHT have a shot at getting home, do you take a more aggressive line? As opposed to a really deep penal bunker where you know there is no way to get to the green.
   I agree with David that the ideal would be different possiblities depending on where you ended up in the bunker.
   My query is based upon playing your local/home course where you know what the possibilities are, and how that would effect the line you choose.
   Tom gives a good example of the bunker on #3 at RCD where he will avoid it at all costs, due to its penal nature. I haven't played RCD, so I don't know if there is a line of charm that brings that bunker into play.

[Mike Benham]

I played a course about ten days ago that had some fairway bunkers which seemed about 10-15 feet deep.  One bunker, which my partner drove into, clearly prevented him from reaching the green, but it didn't prevent him from advancing his ball.[/i]  

The closer he wanted to hit the ball, the more difficult the shot.  Like most of us, his game plan was beyond his ability to execute,[/i] and he hit the top of the bunker, only to end up in an adjacent bunker.  

Patrick -

This is the exact issue that I was thinking in the "Love and Hate" topic in regards to fairway bunkers at Troon, TOC, etc.

The depth of the bunkers at these courses makes them more penal immediately, you pitch out with a lofted iron (forward, backwards or sideways ...) and then continue you with your approach shot to the green.  

For the flatter bunkers more common in the US, like you state, do most golfers even have the skill to hit from a fairway bunker and hit the green?   If they don't, they should be pitching out with a lofted iron, then hit their approach to the green, so the end result, number of shots to reach the green is the same then the more penal UK bunkers.

Mike

[wsmorrison]

Bill Dow and I scratch our heads regarding changes to Flynn bunkers at the rear of greens.  The reworking of rear greenside bunkers where the green slopes back to front often involves deepening the bunkers.  In our opinion, this strays from the original design intent.  These rear bunkers were designed and built level to the green or, more often than not, they would be shallow bunkers elevated above the green in mounds.

The playability out of these bunkers is far more interesting than deep bunkers behind such greens.  It is far more of a test to come out of a shallow bunker level or above the green with the green sloping away from you.  There is no upslope to increase loft and the ball will tend to run farther from the back of the green.  Also, long shots that hit into the back of these bunkers aren't on a steep downslope and there is a chance of recovery or at least advancing the ball.

Some of the recent reworkings of Flynn bunkers behind greens changed the design intent of placing a bunker back there.  Flynn didn't put bunkers behind greens all that often. When he did, his preference was for them to be shallow and at or above green level.  This seems to be no longer in favor.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Benham,

I've seen golfers go into fairway bunkers in the U.S. with metal trouble clubs and get the ball to the green.

I've rarely, if ever, seen that happen in Scotland.

A friend that I was playing Troon with, drove it up against the front wall of every bunker on the front nine.  He never had the chance to advance his ball, having to play out, sideways and backwards.

After the round, when I indicated that I was playing another 18, he told me that he would see me back at the hotel, he'd had enough for the day.

Wayne Morrison,

At a course that I'm very familiar with, bunkers behind greens come into play at a good number of holes, especially when the hole location is at the back of the green, and the greens are firm and fast.

Some are deep, some are shallow, some recovery shots play back to greens that fall away from the rear bunker, and they are extremely difficult to get close to the pin when the pin is toward the rear of the green.  They are marvelous features and extemely challenging.  I often think they were designed to test the golfers touch when shots were played along the ground, on either approach or recovery shots.

You'll not be surprised to know that at least one consulting architect wanted to remove them.

Ask yourself WHY.

Fortunately, disruptive forces prevailed and their plans were not adopted.

The difficulty with the shallow, rear, elevated or ground level bunker immediately adjacent to the back of a green that slopes away from the bunker, with the pin nearby, is as follows:  
You can't take a full swing
You can't get spin on the ball
You can't get elevation on the ball
And, if you get cute, you could leave the ball in the bunker.
If you get bold, you could be off the front of the green.

The deeper the rear bunker in the above situation, the more you can take a full swing, get spin and elevation.

The shallow bunker trades off it's visibility for its difficulty in recovering, whereas, the hidden, deeper bunker, provides the opposite trade.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()