[Mike_Young]

Seems I see more and more examples of "flat sand" bunkers creating more problems than "flashed sand" bunkers.....as we create the more vertical grassed faces balls can plug and stances can become impossible.....agronomics and irrigation have allowed the bunker surrounds to become so lush that many are much more of a hazard than the sand itself....and it seems that many of the "ragged edge" bunkers are creating many unplayable lies within the surrounds.......
Understanding that golf is not fair.....should a ball that reaches the green and spins into a "hairy" green bunker face be more of a penalty than the guy who comes up 10 yard short in the sand?  IMHO many of our bunkers have quit working......

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike, "IMHO many of our bunkers have quit working......"

That's a heck of a statement. Have they stopped working because the design is defective? Then redesign them. If this is because long-existing grass faces have caught up to the times technologically, than either embrace the difficulty, redesign them or cut the grass shorter.

If this is in newly-designed work then better communication between the architect and the client must occur. A person buying a new car gets more than a manual... they are personally shown how all of the "gadgets" work. Likewise the architect must aid the client to understand the purpose behind the individual aspects of his design if it is to appreciated, protected and preserved.

An educated green committee is a beautiful thing...

[Greg Cameron]

Mike,as a high hncp both are a curse to me,but i think the pros don't worry so much about their penalty for entering a ultra groomed bunker so much anymore.Shaggy edges are probably more penal to them than the sand,yet to me ,it don't matter,I'm just gonna go whack it again,shaggy edge,sand, rough ,it dont matter..
...Greg

[wsmorrison]

I for one dislike the design style of flat sand bottoms with varying degrees of vertical grass faces often associated with Macdonald and his protoges.   They are unnatural in appearance and, as Mike suggests, do not work very well under most maintenance practices.  Elderly players find it almost impossible to play off the slopes when balls are stopped on the grass faces.  It is one thing to retort that they shouldn't be in there, but it is another matter altogether when recovery is impossible or nearly so.  Sand flashed higher looks better to some but more importantly is psychologically intimidating and funcitions better.  

The vertical faces that were done at Fox Chapel and elsewhere have proved to be difficult to maintain and unpopular with many members.  

Perfectly flat sand bottoms are rarely found in nature are plain looking and plain boring.  They offer no variety of stances and recovery options, relying merely on depth to present difficulty.  Balls that land at the bottom of vertical faces may have the strategic result of steep pot bunkers in the UK but the trade-off is they look terrible (unnaturally geometric) and balls can get caught up in the grass faces.

I overwhelmingly prefer undulating sand floors and higher sand on the faces of bunkers for shot testing demands as well as functional, psychological and aesthetic reasons.

I would enjoy seeing early photos of Fox Chapel, Mountain Lake and other courses to see what was intended and how that relates to the modern presentations.  Perhaps the geometric look that functions rather poorly is not of the original design but the result of an evolutionary process with some flaws.

Mike,

I know you played in some particularly hairy bunkers lately.  It can be hard to find the ball and difficult to chop out of the fine fescue.  When you are in the bunkers, they are functionally deeper because you have to recover above the grass surrounds to avoid being caught by the long and strong grasses.  I like this on a true championship course, especially one presented that way on a daily basis.  However, it would get tiring to most on a members' club or a club without a second course with a different demand.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
What's the difference in playability of a flashed bunker that allows a ball to roll back to the bottom vs. one with a relatively flat bottom to begin with?  Doesn't the flashed one with soft sand, where the ball can plug at the top, present as much of a problem as one with a steep grass face?

 

[Mike_Young]

Phillip,
I am saying thay have quit working a a strategic element of the golf course as they were intended.....IMHO the face was never meant to be more penal than the sand.....

Wayne,
I have no problem with hairy bunkers on a championship golf course.....as you suggest...the flat sand is creating some problems....I was discussing this with someone that had just had a "Ross redo" lately and the sand was left flat with a vertical grass wall coming down to the sand.....when the ball rolls next to the wall...you have an unplayable...IMHO one should not have an abundance of unplayables in a bunker or set of bunkers due to this....

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
What's the difference in playability of a flashed bunker that allows a ball to roll back to the bottom vs. one with a relatively flat bottom to begin with?  Doesn't the flashed one with soft sand, where the ball can plug at the top, present as much of a problem as one with a steep grass face?

 

Jim,
I don't think so IMO.....lately I hae seen balls lost in the steep grass faces where they plugged from a long iron etc....hopeflly the flashed has a little less sand in the flashed areas but I agree that it canbe a problem just don't think as much of a problem.
Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

One of the features I liked about some of the fairly flat bottomed greenside bunkers at Seminole was there closely mown surrounds, surrounds that fed balls into the bunkers rather than retain them.

While this required special care, it worked well with the convex nature of some green perimeters.  The concave surrounds accepted balls from the greens or from near misses and fed the balls to the bunkers.

One of the things I didn't like about the "very hairy" surrounds of the bunkers at Pine Tree was the excessive penalty that  a relatively good shot encountered.

I'd agree with you that the faces have become excessively difficult, ESPECIALLY, at clubs where spikes are no longer permited.  That makes it extremely difficult for the golfer since they can't get anchored.

 

[Matt_Cohn]

Bob Ford of Oakmont made a great point in a video tour of #17 at Oakmont.

If a guy hits his drive into Big Mouth, he's fine. He'll play out and have some kind of birdie putt.

But if, instead, his drive gets caught in the rough 2 yards in front of the bunker, he's beyond screwed. He has to play from a severe downhill lie in 6-inch rough, over a deep bunker, to a shallow, hard green. It's impossible.

In that case, and probably a few more around Oakmont, the bunker surrounds are much, much worse than the sand itself.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
How rare is it to see a steep grass face in a position where that long iron shot can plug?

We have a couple of steep drop offs that face the golfer, at an angle and at the sides, at a couple greens here at Hotchkiss, but our guys mow them close, spray them so they stay that way, and their surfaces stay firm.  


p.s. I'm not generally a fan of hairy bunkers

[C. Squier]

No different than when you pull your drive and your feet are 6 inches deep in a water hazard, yet your ball is on the "fair" side of the red stakes....you missed the hazard, but still SOL.  A good hazard (to me) says "beware, you don't want to be here".....but that doesn't mean 2 feet away should automatically be free and clear.  The only person who can hit a ball within 1 yard of their target on purpose is Johnny Miller when he's not waxing poetic about his round at Oakmont.  Best course of action is to give the hazard its space and steer clear.  I have no problem with a sand hazard being immediately surrounded by a grassy hazard.  Maybe I'm just being too simplistic.

CPS

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
I think we are on the same page.....if one can afford to feed a bunker from around the greens it is a much better strategic element than the hairy stuff....

Jim K,
I might not be expalining myself.....but I am seeing almost vertical grass slopes that meet the sand at almost a 90 degree angle and a ball can enter the bunker and roll or hit right next to the grass edge and be unplayable....if only the "flat" bunker had a slight upward curve around the perimeter of maybe 18 inches befor the graas began then the ball could roll back and allow a shot.....JMO

Clint,
I think it is different.....JMO
Mike

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
Then are you saying that you don't like a bunker that is similar in appearance to an almost vertical sod-faced one, say like the one guarding the 17th at TOC?

[Chris Cupit]

Seems I see more and more examples of "flat sand" bunkers creating more problems than "flashed sand" bunkers.....as we create the more vertical grassed faces balls can plug and stances can become impossible.....agronomics and irrigation have allowed the bunker surrounds to become so lush that many are much more of a hazard than the sand itself....and it seems that many of the "ragged edge" bunkers are creating many unplayable lies within the surrounds.......
Understanding that golf is not fair.....should a ball that reaches the green and spins into a "hairy" green bunker face be more of a penalty than the guy who comes up 10 yard short in the sand?  IMHO many of our bunkers have quit working......

I think that your example may show how well the bunkers are working!  If a player knows that the area of the fairway or green is "protected" by a bunker that has a very severe slope or nasty fescue that may result in an actual penalty (and I understand in those cases it's not the actual bunker (the sand area) but the bunker "surround") that is inflicting the penalty, isn't that a good thing?

If a particular side of a fairway or green can be protected by a "bunker area" how is that more unfair than say a pond or laking protecting that area?  At least with the bunker area you have a chance to play it---if a bunker area can give a player a little scare as to whether or not he has a shot (and most of the time he will) I say great

I think it is plain "American" style bunkers (relatively shallow for fairway bunkers and perfectly raked and firm for greenside bunkers) that became less and less hazardous over the years--I say bring back a little bite to thoses hazards even if it means "unfair steep slopes or nasty, scraggly tall grass"

[Mike_Young]

Seems I see more and more examples of "flat sand" bunkers creating more problems than "flashed sand" bunkers.....as we create the more vertical grassed faces balls can plug and stances can become impossible.....agronomics and irrigation have allowed the bunker surrounds to become so lush that many are much more of a hazard than the sand itself....and it seems that many of the "ragged edge" bunkers are creating many unplayable lies within the surrounds.......
Understanding that golf is not fair.....should a ball that reaches the green and spins into a "hairy" green bunker face be more of a penalty than the guy who comes up 10 yard short in the sand?  IMHO many of our bunkers have quit working......

I think that your example may show how well the bunkers are working!  If a player knows that the area of the fairway or green is "protected" by a bunker that has a very severe slope or nasty fescue that may result in an actual penalty (and I understand in those cases it's not the actual bunker (the sand area) but the bunker "surround") that is inflicting the penalty, isn't that a good thing?

If a particular side of a fairway or green can be protected by a "bunker area" how is that more unfair than say a pond or laking protecting that area?  At least with the bunker area you have a chance to play it---if a bunker area can give a player a little scare as to whether or not he has a shot (and most of the time he will) I say great

I think it is plain "American" style bunkers (relatively shallow for fairway bunkers and perfectly raked and firm for greenside bunkers) that became less and less hazardous over the years--I say bring back a little bite to thoses hazards even if it means "unfair steep slopes or nasty, scraggly tall grass"

I am not in favor of raked or perfectly manicured bunkers either.....the situation I am speaking of is more like the guy that misses the fairway by 10 feet at an open and has a lie in 8 inch rough yet if he missed 20 yards he would be in an area trampled by the traffic......same relation as the middle of a bunker and the edge....the edge doesn't bother me as much if one can play from it........BUT I am not of the school that thinks high grass is more of a hazard than short stuff......IMHO if bunker faces are short then they will collect and that is much more penal than high shaggy grass....just like a short sided shot with rough around a green is much less penal than if the slopes are shaved and one has to worry of a short side running away.....

[Chris Cupit]

Mike,

I hear you.  I was one of those guys that missed big versus barely missing so maybe that's why I like the edges being a disaster

Life's not fair--I just like it more when it's unfair FOR me!

[TEPaul]

I believe the fact that the grass bunker surrounds of so many bunkers have become so penal is in a sense a form of poetic justice.

The sand surfaces of bunkers were once a dangerous place to be to recover from, and purposefully so simply because they were not supposed to be immaculately maintained. Now they all are and I don't see any willingness generally to go back to the way they once were.

Therefore, I view it as poetic justice that the grass surrounds have inherited the inherent "penality" of the sand surfaces of the old fashioned sand bunkers.

The primary purpose of "bunkering" in golf and architecture is to set strategies. And for that the primary idea and strategy is to avoid them more than how or how well one recovers from them.

[JR Potts]

One must merely play Butler National and observe Fazio's new bunkers to see that his bunker surrounds are signiciantly more penal than the sand itself.  His little inlets and fingers have wreaked havoc on numerous quality rounds of mine.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
Then are you saying that you don't like a bunker that is similar in appearance to an almost vertical sod-faced one, say like the one guarding the 17th at TOC?

Jim,
A bunker such as the road hole bunker has a straight sand line that is about a foot above the flat sand bottom allowing the ball to fall back from the edge in most cases...I am talking about bunkers where the sand has no upward slope at the junction.....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()