Ban rakes in bunkers for the good of the game

[John_Cullum]

What would you think of a golf course that had 60 lateral water hazards? That's practically what the anti-rakers are advocating. If courses only had 7 or 8 bunkers, then avoidance is more of a strategy, but when there are multiple bunkers on every hole, you have to give the player a chance. Bunker play is still very difficult for all but the top .001 percent of golfers.

[Jim Thompson]

I disagree.  The game doesn't need to be made any harder for the average player.

This would be one way to get the average player to start managing the golf course instad of blasting away though.  It could single handidly return the game to its roots and natural state of playing through obstacles.

[A.G._Crockett]

The ability to play to the green out of a bunker (as opposed to just pitching out to the fairway) is one of the skills that separates better players from lesser players.  To the extent that you eliminate that shot, say through bunkers that ONLY allow pitch outs because of condition, you penalize the skilled player, and blunt the importance of practice and improvement.  I can't see how this would be good for the game.

That doesn't mean that bunkers need to be perfect, as they are on TV for tour events.  There is a middle ground that most of us live on daily in our golfing lives.  The bunkers at my club don't remotely resemble those at a tour event, or even at a top resort.  They don't need to be unraked to be difficult, or to discriminate between better and lesser players.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Cowley,

There's a trend and an element that wants to remove chance from the game and from determining outcomes.

And, as such, until those forces (TV and Tournaments) change their position, I don't think it will happen.

Even at the local level, golfers, committees and boards are constantly trying to make the game "more fair".

I'd like to see rakes removed, but, other then at a few courses, I don't see it happening.

[Sean Leary]

I disagree.  The game doesn't need to be made any harder for the average player.

This would be one way to get the average player to start managing the golf course instad of blasting away though.  It could single handidly return the game to its roots and natural state of playing through obstacles.

I think average players are trying hard not to hit it in bunkers when they are perfectly raked.  Non raked bunkers would be fine for the good to great player because they could at least extricate the ball from the bunker.  Average players hitting out of footprints are going to take 3 to get it out.

I think bunkers can be made to be plenty penal without the raking issue.  One way is bigger faces and deeper bunkers and another is with softer sand.

[tonyt]

As Tim Morghan said to the members of the ASGCA at a meeting "if we ignored the top 1% of all players we would all be better off"

Again, don't take this as a vote for no rakes.

My points have nothing to do with bunkers being "easy" or less challenging for the elite.

My points are to do with what courses do now in the age of prepared playing surfaces in a bunker that they didn't have to do so often in the age when bunkers were more random and potentially lethal. Modern bunkers don't assist the average player because they have added the necessity of replacement elements of equal or greater mischief than the unraked bunker.

In other words, stop looking at the simple raked versus unraked on existing courses with existing design ideals, which WOULD make the game unnecessarily harder for the average Joe.

Most courses with tough bunkers 70-80 years ago had little or no water. The most challenging of bunkers played this role, and allowed the golfer the luxury of completing the hole with the ball he began with.


John Cullum,

I don't buy into the argument that golfers try to avoid bunkers now. In fact never a falser word was spoken. I know plenty of golfers who through poor bunker play, are as likely to leave a ball in a bunker as they are to extricate it, and yet they first think of this AFTER they hit into it. I've NEVER met a golfer with a handicap under 25 who tries hard to miss bunkers. I've never seen a sigh from any of our weekly corporate mob rolling into a bunker, unless missing the bunker would have meant a great result. And there isn't a single digit player amongst us. I do however know of golfers who are very cautious when hitting over or close to water. An unkept bunker may turn a fairway mid iron to the green into a wedge advanced 40 yards, or not even that far out, which is still a more lenient penalty than a lateral hazard, and another part of the water's penalty on top of this is the failure to return your ball. This last point is a strong part of the water penalty, and no bunker woes can change the fact that you at least get your pill back.

If one course in my area had unkept bunkers and we came to know this course well, then for the first time in my life, I would see the act of average golfers playing a golf course who actually try to avoid bunkers, or at least play with the more stark risk/reward thrill such as which is offered by some water hazards.

I'm not a fan of no rakes for many reasons, and I'm not against the prepared bunker surfaces, but I am all too aware of what influence the easing of bunker penalties has had on other aspects of design, and their effect on the average player. Ideally, I'd love it if most major cities with plenty of golfing choices had just one or two courses with unkept and very challenging bunkers, and enjoy the difference in mindset when playing there. Of course, the point of the exercise would be defeated if the remainder of such a course was set up for raked bunkers, and treated them as a minor problem only and had other features more severe as well.

[Jim Nugent]

...banning rakes from all bunkers would really add such a needed dimension to the game that is overcome with high standards of maintenance and fairness.....and the the sand wedge would be of increased value....I'm beginning to feel like we are playing a game fit for velvet and thongs.

What is the needed dimension your ban would add?  

Banning rakes would make bunkers harder.  But they already are hard.  They penalize everyone who hits into them.  

Wedges already are so important that players carry, what, 3 of them?  You want to make them more important still?  

I played almost entirely muni courses my whole life.  Always raked traps.  Never felt I was playing a velvet and thong game.  

[Paul Payne]

I think that the fact that bunkers are hard to hit out of is not just related to the rake. I AM in favor of eliminating rakes.

I really don't accept the argument in favor of rakes when you say "why make it harder for the average player". The reality is that it will be harder for the average player in spite of rakes or skill level.

When you compare a high end or very good private course to a mere average or public course there are huge differences in the bunkers. The quality of the sand alone makes an enormous difference in level of difficulty. Then  you add to that the grooming that goes into a high end bunker and the drainage, it is like night and day. I play on a great course and all of a sudden I think my sand play has finally come around? I am just being fooled.  

I think most average players are playing out of bunkers with sand quality that is poor and varies from one bunker to the next. No wonder it is hard. I'm not sure raking makes a significant improvement.

On the other hand, why should the tour player be afforded the best quality sand, the best grooming techniques, and perfect constant raking, merely to show us viewers at home how easy bunker play can be.

I think it is a charade that benefits the top players not the average player.

My humble opinion.

[A.G._Crockett]

A question for the no-rake contingent:

IF rakes were banned, would a club ever do routine maintenance on the bunkers?  

It would seem the answer would have to be no, because if the club DID rake/smooth at all, then there would be a few fortunate players early in the day/week who would play in relatively easier conditions, while others were relatively more penalized for the exact same mistake as time passed.

On the other hand, if the club does NO routine maintenance, then the bunker would quickly become virtually completely penal, with no (or very little) chance for the highly skilled player to benefit from those skills, as all players would simply hope to burn a stroke escaping the pit.

I'm not sure that I see how either of these choices improve the quality of competition and/or enjoyment of the game versus the current expectation that players will rake the bunker after their shots.  

Perhaps, once again, we are a bit too focused here on the pristine conditions that tour players find themselves enjoying, in which most bunkers are preferable to the rough.  In "real" life, even raked bunkers are not uniform (much less pristine) and players do NOT prefer bunkers to rough in the vast majority of cases.

[Paul Payne]

 "as all players would simply hope to burn a stroke escaping the pit."

Now that's what I'm talking about. It's just like when you hit into the brush or the woods. You have some serious decisions to make. Even still, sometimes you are afforded a chance, and sometimes you will pull off the shot. Sometimes you might even get lucky.

I just don't believe that escaping from a bunker should be a "right" or a foregone conclusion.

I think it takes away from the challenge of a course when you can aim towards a green and blast away with only a small concern over whether you hit a bunker or not. Hitting a bunker should be potentially devestating. I think a player should really be thinking about his shot alternatives before hitting towards the green because of the looming hazards of the bunkers.

[A.G._Crockett]

"as all players would simply hope to burn a stroke escaping the pit."

Now that's what I'm talking about. It's just like when you hit into the brush or the woods. You have some serious decisions to make. Even still, sometimes you are afforded a chance, and sometimes you will pull off the shot. Sometimes you might even get lucky.

I just don't believe that escaping from a bunker should be a "right" or a foregone conclusion.

I think it takes away from the challenge of a course when you can aim towards a green and blast away with only a small concern over whether you hit a bunker or not. Hitting a bunker should be potentially devestating. I think a player should really be thinking about his shot alternatives before hitting towards the green because of the looming hazards of the bunkers.

Paul,
What you are describing PERFECTLY is a water hazard.  Bunkers are supposed to be different, aren't they, in that there is a hope for recovery by a more skilled player.

But back to my question:  Would the club ever maintain the bunkers?

[Jim Nugent]

Paul, what exactly does "potentially devastating" mean?  I'm hoping you can tell me precisely how many strokes hitting a bunker should cost you.

[Paul Payne]

A.G.

I would expect that a course would still maintain the bunkers in regard to drainage, keeping them filled with sand etc. They are a part of the design and what makes them a bunker is what differentiates them from other hazards. I just don't think it is necessary to rake or tend the bunkers daily.

Jim,

I understand the point of your question and here is the way I'd answer it. I think the reason we all struggle with the concept of a potentially penal bunker is that we have an expectation to escape reatively unharmed. We therfore are more often then not, advancing towards the green.

If you were in the woods you would have a different thought process, you would simply want to get back into play. If you apply that thinking to a greenside bunker, there are probably very few situations that you could absolutely not get out of in one stroke. The problem is that it may not be in the direction you prefer.

That is what I mean. You could take a huge gamble going for the green and flail away for a few strokes, or you could wisely go backwards to escape in one.

I honestly think that would add a more difficult mental aspect to bunker play.

[Jim Nugent]

Paul, I don't feel bunkers should be as penal as that.  Usually to hit in the woods you must go way offline.  To hit in bunkers -- greenside or fairway -- you may only have gone offline by a few inches.  Equal penalties?  

Wouldn't high greenside rough do the same thing you're looking for?  

[Rick Shefchik]

These days I play most of my rounds with my wife and the singles or duos we are paired with. The bunker sand at my club is far from tour quality, but even when we play other courses, I know I am in for a scene of anguish almost any time one of my playing companions lands in a bunker.

It doesn't matter how many times a pro does an instructional video or article about how easy bunker shots are; they're not easy. It takes years, or at least hours and hours of practice, to get the proper feel for how hard to swing and where the clubhead should enter the sand. The vast majority of players don't practice sand shots, and just don't get it. These are the players you're really going to punish by taking away the rakes. You're also going to add another 5-10 minutes to the average round. At least in a water hazard, you know your ball is gone.

That said, by all means remove the rakes from pro events. Let the pros smooth the sand with their feet after they hit their shot, and then play on. They'll be fine.

[ForkaB]

That said, by all means remove the rakes from pro events. Let the pros smooth the sand with their feet after they hit their shot, and then play on. They'll be fine.

Rick et. al.

You might as well give them a loaded gun......

I can just see Vijay meticulously smoothing the sand for Tiger and Phil (who are playing behind) just after he has taken double trying to hit out of Ernie's size 14 Footjoy impression......

[BCrosby]

Am I the only one old enough to remember a time before rakes? I grew up on courses that didn't have them. You cleaned up your mess with your feet as best you could. It worked fine. Rub of the green and all that.

The first time I saw rakes was at a fancy Florida resort. It's embarrassing to admit now, but it took me a while to figure out that they were there for players to use and not just for the grounds crew.

To this day rakes look out of place to me. No less than carts and cartpaths.  

Bob

P.S. - Wayne - Please. The thong stuff. Way too much information.

[Frank Pont]

Virtually al the top architects from the golden age (Simpson, MacDonald, Colt) are quoted to be strongly against the frequent raking of bunkers... these guys were not in the habit of forgetting about the average player, so what are we missing?

[Paul Payne]

Jim,

I think you and I look at the role of a bunker in different ways. I think of it this way;

Imagine a large flat plaza of tightly mown grass with a tee at one end and a green at the other. This could be called a hole but could become dull to play after a while. Next you add some shape to the terrain, some trees along the sides, and maybe a bend, now it's getting better. Next you can narrow the fairway more buy adding a cut of rough. For extra challenge you can place some hazards that come into play. Water can work well but a sand bunker is much more flexible as far as placement.

In the end the bunker is not as penal as the water, and is not as bad as the woods because you don't have shrubs and branches to deal with, but it still IS supposed to be avoided. If you hit a bunker there should be a penalty. My opinion is that the penalty should rise above that of being in the rough, otherwise, what would be the point of creating a bunker?


 

[paul cowley]

BCrosby.....I remember also, although the muni I grew up on might not have had enough money for rakes......the maintenance crew was responsible for the periodic raking, like after it rained or at least once a week.

Then one day we had these little short rakes left by the bunkers....it was probably a way for the owner to save on costs by recruiting us players to help mqaitain them   [he was a real beaut].

I would be curious to hear of Pat Muccis recollections from his earliest times.......

[Jason Topp]

I never have understood the line of thought underlying this thread.  What is fun about hitting out of a footprint?  I've done it many times and it simply involves swinging as hard as you can and hoping to get out.

By contrast, a shot from a reasonable lie in the bunker is great fun and 85% of players cannot do it.  

Tour players do far worse from a bunker than they do with a greenside pitch.  Even with the very stringent standards for bunker maintenence on tour, 60% is a very good save percentage.

If you want bunkers to be more challenging, I prefer the Kingston Heath approach with almost no sand or variable sand conditions.  It adds a dimension to bunker shots that is disappearing from the game.

[Jim Nugent]

Jason is right.  Sand penalizes even the best players.  On average, tour players get up and down less than half the time from greenside bunkers.  

How much of a price should a player pay for hitting into a bunker?  Right now, even on tour, it's nearly a stroke, compared to hitting the green.  IMO that's enough.  

[Pete Lavallee]

Jim,

If half the Tour players get up and down from the bunker then the penalty would be 1/2 stroke.

[Jim Nugent]

Jim,

If half the Tour players get up and down from the bunker then the penalty would be 1/2 stroke.

Not quite.  When they hit the green, they average less than two putts.  I think around 1.75 or so.  So take off another .25 strokes.  You are now at .75 strokes.  And players may take more than 3 strokes out of bunkers, too.  Sometimes they leave their shot in the bunker.  Sometimes they catch the ball clean, ala Arnie at the 1961 Masters.  Sometimes they 3-putt.  Occasionaly they sink a sand shot, but that seems to me pretty rare.  

I don't know the average score out of a bunker when they don't get up and down, but I'm guessing at least 3.1 strokes.  If so, you now add another 0.05 strokes to the bunker penalty.

I come up with .8 extra strokes compared to hitting the green.  I had to make one guess, but that plays a small part in the final number.  

[mike_beene]

If the USGA hadn't gone overboard with greenside rough would this discussion be happening?