Why Did Bunkers Become Such Benign Hazards for Top Players

[Phil Benedict]

Fairway and greenside bunkers aren't very daunting hazards for Tour players.  While I don't have the stats to back this up, I am willing to wager that percentage recoveries have risen pretty steadily in the past 25 years.  What is the primary cause of this improvement?

1. More highly skilled players and improved technique
2. Better equipment and the advent of the lob wedge
3. More consistent sand conditions

[Kalen Braley]

I would add another item to the list.

Lack of truly penal bunkers mostly in the American style courses as opposed to links style bunkers where you are often hitting out sideways.

[rjsimper]

#3

Pristine raking and perfect sand.  

#1 is going to help, but not the true reason for the lack of penalty of the sand shot.  

#2 - You could of course back it up to the advent of the Sand Wedge, but that's long long ago.

Besides, give an average tour player your everyday PW and he could still do quite well out of the bunkers the tour pros play in.

Which leaves us with #3.  Give a tour pro the best possible club with the best possible technique, but a ball in a compacted hollow in a waste bunker with a small mound of sand preventing a clean strike on the ball, and only a miracle can guarantee an up and down to a pin as difficult as the 14th at Torrey Pines this past Sunday.

It is, however, also clear that furrowing the bunkers doesn't statistically make the bunker more significant of a hazard.

[Pete Lavallee]

Phil,

My guess is that players of today are just as skilled as those of yester year; sure we build on accumulated knowledge, but to say Woods is more skilled than Jones is just false.

As to the lob wedge, clubs evolve due to the necessity of their use. Do you see rut irons being manufacteured today? If players in the 1920's needed a high lofted club they would have built one, but they didn't. So I would say that the lob wedge is a biproduct of today's course conditions: high rough, pins set ever closer to the edge of the green and a need for club that travels shorter that the 56* sand wedge of old.

That leaves us with conditions. Have you ever seen how the PGA Tour prepares bunkers before an event? There is a definite attempt to have bunkers paly consistantly from course to course and the Tour actually fluffs up the sand to a certain depth. Just how long that practice has been going on I don't know exactly, but a lot of effort is put into grooming bunkers on Tour.

I believe that the USGA has actually taken a different tact; fluffing the sand to a lower depth in order to put some of the teeth back into a bunker shot.

[paul cowley]

.....because of the despicable inclusion of the concept of 'fairness' in todays golf game......

[Joe Hancock]

In a word:

Predictability. (Especially on Tour)

Joe

[Phil Benedict]

I would add another item to the list.

Lack of truly penal bunkers mostly in the American style courses as opposed to links style bunkers where you are often hitting out sideways.

Kalen,

One of the things that I like about the Open Championship is that the bunkers are still hazards.  Bunkers still play a role in strategy in the Open Championship but really don't in most regular Tour events.  Remember what a big deal it was when Tiger didn't hit into 1 bunker at the TOC in 2000?

[David_Tepper]

Phil -

While I am tempted to agree with the premise of your post, you might want to check the stats before making your claim.

Last year, Luke Donald led the PGA Tour last year with a 63.6% conversion rate out of the sand. Geoff Ogilvy, ranked 20th on tour had a 56.6% conversion rate.

On the Champions Tour, Jerry Pate was the leader at 62.07% and Ben Crenshaw was in 10th place at 52.63%.

While it seems like the pros get up and down out of the sand the vast majority of the time, the reality is the very best players get up & down less than 2/3's of the time and the average pro is lucky to get up & down half the time.

Remember, most of the golf you see on TV are shots hit by the guys playing the very best that week. You don't see the 70 guys who missed the cut or the guys who finish way down the prize money list over the weekend.

All this being said, there is little doubt that more consistently groomed bunkers and truer rolling greens have made bunkers less formidable hazards.

DT      

[Kalen Braley]

I do remember that Phil, and that was an amazing accomplishment.

As someone who has yet to travel to the UK to take in a nice dosage of true links style courses, it can be shocking at times to see the kind of predicaments players get into during the Open.  In America, especially on your daily fees and munis, you just rarely see bunkers that are massively penal like that.

[David_Tepper]

It is also worth noting the sand save percentages last year for Jim Furyk and Phil Mickelson, two guys with highly regarded short games. Respectively, their conversion ratios were 47.6% and 40.4%!

[Phil Benedict]

It is also worth noting the sand save percentages last year for Jim Furyk and Phil Mickelson, two guys with highly regarded short games. Respectively, their conversion ratios were 47.6% and 40.4%!

This is really interesting and, frankly, surprising.  Are there stats about fairway bunkers?  It just seems that guys routinely get it on the green from fairway bunkers.

Maybe I should delete the thread.  On the other hand, I still think the more penal links course bunkers are more interesting strategically.

[Kalen Braley]

To Phils defense though,

Even if the average PGA tour guy only gets it up and down about half the time or slightly less, this would still be a massive improvement if several decades ago the average pro only did this 25% of the time.

I guess it would be interesting to look at the numbers.

[Mike Benham]

It is also worth noting the sand save percentages last year for Jim Furyk and Phil Mickelson, two guys with highly regarded short games. Respectively, their conversion ratios were 47.6% and 40.4%!

David -

Unfortunately, the other item in the save percentage calculation is the putting, and hard to compare one era to another in terms of putting and sand saves.

I agree with those who say #3, ever try practicing your bunker shots at the beach?  The quality and preparation of the sand is everything, if the pro's know what to expect, then it isn't a hazard (which is the same with rough, if they know they can get out of it, the penalty for going into it is reduced).

[David_Tepper]

Well boys, perverse as it sounds, I just happen to have the 1997 PGA Tour stats handy as well!

In 1997, Bob Estes led the Tour with a 70.3% conversion ratio. Dan Forsman was #19 with a 61.0% ratio.

On the Senior Tour, Isao Aoki led with 64.7% and and Bob Duval was #10 at 55.2%.

Guess what......the FACTS indicate the ratio of sand saves was LOWER in 2006 than in 1997! Has bunker play gotten harder than easier?

Who want to be the first to explain that???  

(PS - My explanation is that pin positions are way more severe than they were 10 years ago.)

[Phil Benedict]

Well boys, perverse as it sounds, I just happen to have the 1997 PGA Tour stats handy a well!

In 1997, Bob Estes led the Tour with a 70.3% conversion ratio. Dan Forsman was #19 with a 61.0% ratio.

On the Senior Tour, Isao Aoki led with 64.7% and and Bob Duval was #10 at 55.2%.

Guess what......the FACTS indicate the ratio of sand saves was LOWER in 2006 than in 1997! Has bunker play gotten harder than easier?

Who want to be the first to explain that???  

(PS - My explanation is that pin positions are way more severe than they were 10 years ago.)

I think your explanation is correct as between now and 10-years ago.  The other factor is that the standard tour set up calls for firm and fast greens more so than in the past - even 10-years ago.  The penalty for being short-sided is harsher.

My original post was comparing now to the more distant past - the 60's which is when I first became interested in golf.  Now of course if you come up with stats that show no improvement from those days, I remain convinced that bunker play today is better than in Harry Vardon's day?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think you have to differentiate between fairway bunkers and greenside bunkers.

With respect to fairway bunkers, I think the modern element of fairness is the culprit.

Bunkers with steep faces that present a clear impediment to the advancement of the ball have been softened, and, new bunkers are built without steep, deep vertical faces in the interest of the broad spectrum of golfers who may find themselves in those bunkers.

As to greenside bunkers, Gene Sarazen started it, but, I think Ping's LOB wedge is the modern day culprit, combined with maintainance practices that demand that superintendents groom the bunkers on a daily basis.

Add to that equation the benign design of modern day greens brought about by increased speeds.

No longer does the golfer have to, not only get out of the bunker,  but, carry a sharp ridge, spine or tier, and allow for the break and/or roll generated or prevented by those features.   Flat greens have made the task exponentially easier.

On PGA Tour course after course, it's hit it to point X and let the ball roll to point Y, or, hit it to point Z and have the ball stop there.

Sprecialty equipment, perfectly groomed bunkers, without fronting impediments and benign greens have all conspired to make what was supposed to be a penalty, a hazard, routine fare for the PGA Tour golfer.

[RSLivingston_III]

Phil,

My guess is that players of today are just as skilled as those of yester year; sure we build on accumulated knowledge, but to say Woods is more skilled than Jones is just false.

As to the lob wedge, clubs evolve due to the necessity of their use. Do you see rut irons being manufacteured today? If players in the 1920's needed a high lofted club they would have built one, but they didn't. So I would say that the lob wedge is a biproduct of today's course conditions: high rough, pins set ever closer to the edge of the green and a need for club that travels shorter that the 56* sand wedge of old.

That leaves us with conditions. Have you ever seen how the PGA Tour prepares bunkers before an event? There is a definite attempt to have bunkers paly consistantly from course to course and the Tour actually fluffs up the sand to a certain depth. Just how long that practice has been going on I don't know exactly, but a lot of effort is put into grooming bunkers on Tour.

I believe that the USGA has actually taken a different tact; fluffing the sand to a lower depth in order to put some of the teeth back into a bunker shot.

Actually, highly lofted clubs were made. I have had examples of Niblicks in the 60 degree range, but for bunker use the 55-56 degree Niblicks with a broad sole were the ticket. Watch the Jones video on bunker play. Most of the thinner soled Niblicks can be opened to 89 degrees and slide right under a ball and send it vertical in a way none of the current crop of wedges can do.
Did anyone here know that an Open Championship winner carried six Niblicks in his set, that according to Alister MacKenzie.

[Jim Sweeney]

We should add to this discussion the plethora of bunke sand options now available.

Back in the 60s when I was learning to play we had washed river sand in the bunkers- no compaction at all, therefore the conditions in the bunkers were tied more to weather. In the summer when it was dry the sand was soft and loose unless it rained.

Today there are dozens of sand chioices and the bunker material can be customized to the architects/developers/superintendents/committees choosing.

This all leads back, of course to conditioning and consistency.

In the past few years the USGA has been backing off the ultra maintained bunker in favor of more diversity in conditions thus returning an element of luck and adaptation to bunker play.

[Jim Nugent]

Some more stats on sand saves by the pro's:

Year        Leader         Median

1980         65.4%         42.6%
1985         60.8            47.7
1990         67.2            48.8
1995         68.6            52.3
2000         67.0            54.2
2006         63.6            48.7

The leaders have pretty much the same percentage all through those 26 years.  The average players, as given by the median, vary a bit more, though other than 1980 I doubt there's a lot of statistical significance there.  And in any year, conditions could affect the numbers.  I'm thinking especially of rain/wetness.

The main conclusion I take from these numbers is that bunkers are not benign.  Last year the best players in the world did not get up and down in two from them, on average.  Consider also that sometimes they took four or more strokes to hole out from greenside bunkers...and that birdies are nearly (though not quite) impossible from there.  I bet that on average bunkers cost pro's nearly a stroke, compared to hitting the green.  

[James Bennett]

I like the comments about improved greens surfaces enabling more sand saves (per Mike Benham) although the increased green speeds make getting it close more difficult unless it is an uphill approach on the green.

I also like the impact firmer greens and tighter pins are having.

Bunker shots are 'boring' when a good player can't demonstrate his skill and nerve compared to a lesser player.  Perhaps they are not as benign as we think they are.

James B

[TEPaul]

Highly consistent sand surfaces and vastly improved sand wedges.

With sand surfaces it's not just that they are always raked today, it's that they are done in such a way today that the sand is so much easier to recover from with its light top layer over a good base. A club could consistently rake a really hard packed top layer and bunkers would be pretty scary to recover from again---eg it would take a lot more skill even from the high-skill set.

[Jerry Kluger]

As far as fairway bunkers go, I just don't see that many players in them.  My recollection from last week is that there were plenty of fairway bunkers but very few shots wound up in a fairway bunker.  Perhaps there aren't enough risk/reward holes where fairway bunkers come into play. The holes don't seem to turn and create angles which challenge the player to execute a shot where failure results in your ball winding up in a fairway bunker.

[David_Tepper]

Jim Nugent -

Thanks for supplying the additional info and data. I agree with your conclusion - bunkers are no more or less "benign" than they were 20 or more years ago.

It is always interesting to see how some people on this board never seem to let the facts get in the way of their opinions!

DT

[Phil Benedict]

I started this thread and have to admit the data has proven me wrong. Bunkers are more hazardous to the top players than I imagined.

[redanman]

Bunkers are more hazardous to the top players than I imagined.

Watch out for those damned statistics.

A-Bunkers are benign hazards for the better players and they have indeed gotten easier in recent past.  

B-What statistics don't have is a way to reflect is the difficulty of the shots referenced for these sand saves to make fair and accurate comparisons (sort of like global warming data).

My support for such outlandish statements?

A-Better, more consistent and predictable sand is now available.  It is better maintained, bunkers are better designed to aid this maintenance and equipment is much more specialized.  You can get THE wedge you want.

B-Pins are being put in much more inaccessible spots over the last five years or more and progressively more so in tournament play.  Short-siding leads to a need for supreme skill for an up-and-down.  The mathematics to quantify this is way too complex for the PGA Tour to calculate meaningfully.

Place the pins 20 feet from the bunkers and away from downslopes out of them and you do have little to hold the good player back.  They are thinking of making the shot.  Make it 8-9 feet on a downhill-sloped stimp 11 green and take your 20 footer as you must!

Bunkers are overall easier, bunker shots probably are not.