Double Hazards

[JSPayne]

Is anyone else bothered by the "tree in front of a bunker" hazard in this picture of Stanford golf course?



The last course I worked at had a situation exactly like that and it drove me nuts. Basically, if your ball was flying that direction, the tree would catch it, then you'd have a bunker to deal with. The only way to hit into the bunker directly is if you already hit a bad shot, like a bladed shot, that is worm-burning along the ground under the tree. Stupid double hazard.....

Likewise, the course I worked at had a BUNKER in front of a TREE, so if you hit in the bunker, the tree was directly in line with the path to the green and most of the fairway, so your only choice was to flop out sideways.

Is it right to be penalized twice?

[Dan Moore]

Why is it any worse than a water hazard?  At least in the tee/bunker scenario you have some chance of a recovery.

[Sean_A]

JS

I am not a fan of this sort of stuff, but at least the bunker isn't on the tee side of the tree.  For me, the visuals in golf are very important to gain a sense of aesthetic satisfaction.  To me, this sort of thing is ugly, but I spose some may argue its case based on playing characteristics.  I don't really have an answer for that except that in this case the visual aspect of the tree/bunker is more important to me than the designer's intention concerning how the hole plays.  

Ciao

[Michael]

I might be missing something but why would they do this in the first place?

[Kalen Braley]

I don't see why a feature like this is deemed unacceptable, yet if one goes into a small pot bunker or riveted bunker where often times your only play is a chip out sideways, then its acceptable.

In either scenario, I would be trying like hell to avoid them, but if you get in that spot, your paying the piper...its as simple as that.

[Deucie Bies]

At least the tree is between the tee and the bunker and the player would have a shot to the green (unless their ball ended up directly behind the tree).  What is more bothersome to me is when the tree is between the bunker and the green.  Then you have to hit a fairway bunker shot and avoid the tree.  For example, it is extremely difficult to hit the left side of the green from the fairway bunkers to the left of #7 at Laurel Valley (unfortunately, I don't have a picture of this) because there are trees on that line. 

[Bill_McBride]

I might be missing something but why would they do this in the first place?

Stanford's a pretty old course.   Most likely the bunker was there and a hawk scared a squirrel racing across the fairway with an acorn it its mouth - or worse, snatched it up and the squirrel dropped the nut en route to oblivion.

Fifty years later, voila, a nice big oak tree.  

I agree with Sean Arble above, at least the tree is in front of the bunker and not between the fairway bunker and the green.  

[Mike Benham]

Considering that the fairway is the intended target, anything other then that should make achieving par more difficult. 

Doesn't rough before and around a bunker, or along the side of a water hazard, also imply a double hazard for the golfer?  Many times, one hazard prevents the ball from going into another hazard ...


Ironic that one of Stanford's symbols is a tree but it is Cal Berkeley who has been in the news about theirs ...

[JSPayne]

I agree that the "tree after the bunker" scenario is much worse.

But even in the above picture, I understand the point of the hazard....yeah, you should avoid it, don't go over there.....but what is the point of the bunker here? Doesn't the tree alone serve the purpose of intimidation and penalty for making a bad shot? What kind of shot is even going to find that bunker? It seems to me only a badly struck shot (i.e. low running tee shot that goes under the tree) or someone who is already stuck under the tree after their tee shot, trying to keep it low and punch out and catches a lip of the bunker. I don't see many shots clearing the tree and dropping into the bunker.

This is all I'm really getting at with the double hazard here. I guess my frusteration is even compounded because I work in maintenance. At the other course I worked at that had the same situation, maintaining the bunker was a waste of time. The tree knocked down every shot headed that direction. It was the best looking bunker on the course because no one was ever in it! But we still had to edge it, rake it, blah blah blah......I would have loved to fill it in and just make it a grass bunker!

Just like overbunkering a course......is there really a point? Overbunkering might even been seen as aesthetically pleasing in some cases.....but this tree and bunker combo?

[Michael]

I might be missing something but why would they do this in the first place?

Stanford's a pretty old course.   Most likely the bunker was there and a hawk scared a squirrel racing across the fairway with an acorn it its mouth - or worse, snatched it up and the squirrel dropped the nut en route to oblivion.

Fifty years later, voila, a nice big oak tree.  

I agree with Sean Arble above, at least the tree is in front of the bunker and not between the fairway bunker and the green.  

 I was wondering just  that...If the tree started growing and was just ignored for so long that it was just kind of "there" and just never removed.

[Bill_McBride]

I might be missing something but why would they do this in the first place?

Stanford's a pretty old course.   Most likely the bunker was there and a hawk scared a squirrel racing across the fairway with an acorn it its mouth - or worse, snatched it up and the squirrel dropped the nut en route to oblivion.

Fifty years later, voila, a nice big oak tree.  

I agree with Sean Arble above, at least the tree is in front of the bunker and not between the fairway bunker and the green.  

 I was wondering just  that...If the tree started growing and was just ignored for so long that it was just kind of "there" and just never removed.

Michael, let's give everybody the benefit of the doubt and say that tree could never have been planted on purpose, not even by the most myopic green committee chair!

[Ian_L]

Here are aerial shots from 2003 and 1930, just after the course opened.  Neither the bunker nor the tree were part of George Thomas' idea.  You can see the fairway has gotten slightly narrower, the short grass short and left has been grown in to prevent shots there from rolling onto the green, and the large tree near the greenside bunker has been taken out.  And, somebody reshaped all the bunkers on the course.

[Michael]

I might be missing something but why would they do this in the first place?

Stanford's a pretty old course.   Most likely the bunker was there and a hawk scared a squirrel racing across the fairway with an acorn it its mouth - or worse, snatched it up and the squirrel dropped the nut en route to oblivion.

Fifty years later, voila, a nice big oak tree.  

I agree with Sean Arble above, at least the tree is in front of the bunker and not between the fairway bunker and the green.  

 I was wondering just  that...If the tree started growing and was just ignored for so long that it was just kind of "there" and just never removed.

Michael, let's give everybody the benefit of the doubt and say that tree could never have been planted on purpose, not even by the most myopic green committee chair!

 Bill..

 I'd like to but if it was a "accidental" tree.... it sure was passed over by a lot of people between sapling and now...

[Ian_L]

Another interesting one is the 2nd hole at Stanford, where a shot to the green is blocked by the tree at the inside of the dogleg.  Personally,  I like it, because it's not as much up to chance since you KNOW if you hit into the bunker, you most likely will have to pitch out.  The hole plays pretty much the same way as it did in 1930, except for all the additional trees.

http://stanfordmensgolf.org/aerials/aerial2.htm

[Jon Spaulding]

Was the bunker on 9 a John Horribottle creation in the mid-90's? I only played there once before he came in there and can't remember.

I don't see it on the 1930 aerial.

[Carl Rogers]

I have played on a course that on the 14 th hole had the tree on the far side of the bunker which I was none too fond of my self.  Fortunately, in a later remodeling both the tree and the bunkers were removed, because there was (and is now) a much larger tree 50 yards farther ahead that blocks all approach shots anyway.

[Matt_Cohn]

http://stanfordmensgolf.org/aerials/aerial2.htm

You guys should check out this whole collection, it's pretty fascinating.

[BCrosby]

Matt -

The Stanford GC link above is terrific. Thanks for posting it. I urge everyone to take a look.

There is so much you can do on the web these days. I think the time is drawing near when publishing golf course histories in hardback makes little sense.

The Stanford site is a great example. Wonderfully clear graphics, a story line that can be continually updated and corrected. All at a minimal cost.

Stanford is not the first to do something like this. But I'd guess it is the way things will go in the future.

Pasatiempo also has a wonderful site with contrasting before and after pictures.

Not to threadjack, but could people post other good golf course sites that have this sort of architectural evolution presented through contrasting aerials and other photos?

Bob

[Mike McGuire]

Is there a golf hole somewhere here? Does it go left (+300) or right (-350) ? Remove a little clutter so we can tell. Overgrown holes like this make bad shots hard to find which leads to slow play and less fun.

[Ian_L]

Mike,

The right side plays as a lateral hazard, but as you can see from the aerials the ball used to be findable.  I agree with you that some thinning would make the course more fun.  I do like the hole, however, because of the awkward tee shot.  You can hit the ball as high up the hill as you want to avoid the hazard, but that leaves a VERY sidehill lie with an ominous bunker right of the green.  One of my favorite (and most intimidating) holes on the course.  I play a 3 wood to the right edge of the bunker to try to catch a level lie (the angle is more difficult from the tee, this was taken from just left of the tee box).

[Rich Goodale]

That tree is new, I think, and pretty much out of play on the hole.  My guess is they are trying to protect the cars on Alameda des Pulgas from snap hooks.  I might be there in a few weeks to check it out.

Rich

PS--those comparison aerials are great!  What is scary to me is that when I first played the course (1965) it was closer in time to the course opening than to today.  It's a shame they didn't include the 1930 aerial as to what 3 and 4 used to look like before they were butchered in the last 30 or so years....

[Michael]

Looking at the pictures side by side, the bunker outlines in the early days looks more ..ragged? then the newer shots.
 Would that be by design... or the equipment they used to construct them originally? And are pronounced, somewhat playable grass fingers in bunkers a more modern concept?

Michael.

[Sean_Tully]

That tree is new, I think, and pretty much out of play on the hole.  My guess is they are trying to protect the cars on Alameda des Pulgas from snap hooks.  I might be there in a few weeks to check it out.

Rich

PS--those comparison aerials are great!  What is scary to me is that when I first played the course (1965) it was closer in time to the course opening than to today.  It's a shame they didn't include the 1930 aerial as to what 3 and 4 used to look like before they were butchered in the last 30 or so years....

Rich

In my research I contacted Whitter College about some aerials and in discussing some aerials they mentioned that they had an aerial that was misslabled. I asked about some of the features in the photo and was able to say that it was Stanford. That was well over a year ago, so this was new to them. The historian there had been searching for the aerials for a number of years and was very happy to finally have them. I still need to go over there and see the course for the first time.

Tully

[Mike Benham]

I might be missing something but why would they do this in the first place?

If you question the tree/bunker double hazard, you should be more appalled about the right side of the fairway where there are numerous trees protecting the lateral water hazard.

[JSPayne]

I might be missing something but why would they do this in the first place?

If you question the tree/bunker double hazard, you should be more appalled about the right side of the fairway where there are numerous trees protecting the lateral water hazard.

Ah ha! My point exactly......I've never been to Stanford, so from the picture I can't even tell there's water over there. Yikes.....this tee shot is looking more difficult by the minute! Quick....somebody do some Photoshop work and remove all those trees and just leave the bunker and water.....that sounds like a cool hole.