An indictment of modern golf ethic...

[Kyle Harris]

Some have also taken umbrage with the new narrow bunker left of the green. This is necessary and actually makes the new hole more fair for players of all skill levels. Consider how hard  a pitch shot someone is faced with from deep rough just a few yards left of the green. At least a shot from the bunker allows for a chance of recovery.

Phil Young on the Colt and Alison thread re: Bethpage's new 14th hole.

This is not to call Phil out, as I think most would agree that the bunker does allow for more of a recovery option than deep rough, especially in that portion of the green.

But wow, with the ease at which he wrote that it seems like bunkers are now, more than ever, considered safe havens.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Kyle,
Bunkers are not considered 'safe havens' by a vast majority of golfers.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,
Bunkers are not considered 'safe havens' by a vast majority of golfers.

Jim,

Perhaps, but if you read how Phil worded the sentence - it seems that the decision to place that bunker was for the sake of making it easier for the vast majority of golfers.

That's actually why the quote piqued my interest.

[Phil_the_Author]

Kyle, yes, by extending the front left of the green forward into a narrow tongue, any hole location there becomes very difficult to get close to unless a perfect shot is hit.  

Is it even 12-15 feet wide? If the left side was left as rough then many shots played, especially by the lesser skilled players would bring out very high scores and a slowing of play.

Please understand that a shot played from this bunker shot isn't an easy one, but it allows for a greater chance at potential recovery for shots from left of the putting surface especially with that front left hole location.

The end result is a relatively easy par-three now having many more options of set-up and shot options and a greater challenge for all.

The bunker is in place because of the design ethic of fair and challenging rather than make it easier.

[Kyle Harris]

Phil,

I am inclined to agree with you, but wouldn't you think that if the bunker were maintained less fequently (no rakes, sand pro every Monday morning, let golfers smooth the prints out with their feet, etc.) your statement would be moot?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Kyle,
I don't know the hole but, if as Phil says it's only 12' -15' wide then I'd guess whatever's on the right side is going to get a lot of action.
There is no 'safe haven' that could be created for the average player when you're asking him to hit it into such a narrow area.    

[Phil_the_Author]

Jim, there is a wonderful photograph of the hole in the "Courses by Country" section. This was taken just a few weeks ago by Ben Dewar.

Kyle, if the bunker was maintained that poorly then more than likely the rough would be even worse... The point is that even with footprints and stone, sand is much easier for the average player to hit a short distance from with control than very thick rough.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Phil,
That's such a nice photo I had to bring it over:


Just my opinion, put an average player in the l. side bunker and more times than not it becomes a game of Gnip-Gnop,  he'll shortly be in the r. side bunker. I don't know if the bunker addition makes this hole any more 'fair and challenging' than it was without it, but that's just an observation from afar.  

[Kyle Harris]

Hmmm... I'm glad that picture is there. I remember the bunker and front left portion of the green being FAR more offensive and out of place looking. Same goes for the back ridge - though I still think that back slope is far too uniform to mesh with Tillie's ideals for blending slopes.

I really need to get back there next time I'm back in Philadelphia in September. Perhaps I had overstated my disdain for the new green.

[Kyle Harris]

Jim, there is a wonderful photograph of the hole in the "Courses by Country" section. This was taken just a few weeks ago by Ben Dewar.

Kyle, if the bunker was maintained that poorly then more than likely the rough would be even worse... The point is that even with footprints and stone, sand is much easier for the average player to hit a short distance from with control than very thick rough.

Phil,

I tend to believe that if bunkers were manicured less, that rough would be shorter and more of a "half shot" penalty than a full shot penalty. We'd have bunkers that were to be avoided at all costs, with rough around them to provide less of a penalty.

The reason I picked you statement out was not because I felt you were wrong, but because it just goes to show that even architectural decisions are being based on bunkers being a safer haven than rough when I'd imagine that initially it was quite the other way around.

The modern golf ethic assumes deep rough and well-manicured bunkers. I don't like that assumption, because when we assume, we make a ewe out of me and the ass.