Bunker Depth

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

That bunker sounds like it cries out for an RTJ/Baltusrol moment where the senior member could simply demonstrate that the bunker is recoverable.  If a short hitter (short enough to require a utility club from 170 rather than a mid iron) can recover, who couldn't"

Its an interesting point that its easier to get irons and woods airborne these days, which might lead to more depth.  However, it would more likely lead to fewer fw bunkers on long par 4 holes where it would be difficult to hit a long iron to the green rather than just a shallow bunker.  In fact, I was instructed to remove a fw bunker this year because it would require a long iron/hybrid to recover from and it was felt golfers couldn't reach the green from the bunker.  Of course, they probably couldn't reach the green from the rough that replaced it either, but that point often gets lost.

[TEPaul]

"Maybe it's too early in the morning, but, I don't understand Thomas's comment."


Patrick:

The morning or too early in the morning has nothing to do with it. For you it would be the same at noon, mid-afternoon, during cocktail hour, dinner, or during after-dinner musings before beddy-by.

The fact is George Thomas, like Behr, was quite the deep thinker and architectural intellectual like me, and people of this caliber swim in deeper waters of thought than you do.

You have proved sufficiently for all to understand that you should not be allowed to venture into these intellectual depths with your little intellectually light-weight swim-trunks on without running a dire risk of drowning!

[Andy Hughes]

Our own Mr Doak recently mentioned something along the lines of GB architects seem to have forgotten how to construct a bunker.

Melvyn, actually Doak said they had forgotten how to construct natural looking bunkers. That was during out dustup on the Road Hole bunker and whether it was natural looking.

I believe it was George Thomas who pointed out that sometimes a shallow greenside bunker has great value, as it penalizes the player who misses wide of it, far more than the player who misses in the bunker itself.  I can't improve upon that, so I won't try.[/color=green]
Maybe it's too early in the morning, but, I don't understand Thomas's comment.
Or, perhaps his comment wasn't in the context of a comparison between a shallow bunker and a deep bunker.  Perhaps it was within the context of a shallow bunker and no bunker at all.  Certainly, a deep bunker would enforce Thomas's desired penalty more than a shallow bunker.

Pat, I believe the point was that if the greenside bunker was not deep then the penalty may not be as severe as for someone who missed much wider of the green and found worse trouble  i.e. conversely, if you missed the green by only a few feet into a deep, penal bunker the penalty is much greater than if you miss by 10 yards and avoid the horribly deep, penal bunker. Or I may have totally misread that quote.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

That bunker sounds like it cries out for an RTJ/Baltusrol moment where the senior member could simply demonstrate that the bunker is recoverable.  If a short hitter (short enough to require a utility club from 170 rather than a mid iron) can recover, who couldn't"

Its an interesting point that its easier to get irons and woods airborne these days, which might lead to more depth.  However, it would more likely lead to fewer fw bunkers on long par 4 holes where it would be difficult to hit a long iron to the green rather than just a shallow bunker. 

In fact, I was instructed to remove a fw bunker this year because it would require a long iron/hybrid to recover from and it was felt golfers couldn't reach the green from the bunker.  Of course, they probably couldn't reach the green from the rough that replaced it either, but that point often gets lost.

Jeff,

Why is there a sense of entitlement in terms of reaching the green from the bunker ?

That would seem to indicate that the bunker had lost its function.

If you can reach the green from the bunker, what's its purpose ?

[Tim Gavrich]

Should putting be an allowable play from a greenside bunker?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Can you identify any shallow greenside bunkers at Pine Valley?"


Pat:

Basically only on #14, and obviously there's a good reason for that. 


"Should putting be an allowable play from a greenside bunker?"

TimG:

Should putting be an allowable play from a greenside bunker? What do you mean by that? Perhaps you mean it should be discouraged via architecture and not illegal via the Rules. I remember watching Jay Sigel try to putt out of the right front greenside bunker on #14 at Pine Valley in the Crump Cup. It didn't work out well for him and he failed to get the ball out of the bunker. I also remember him try to putt the ball out of the left greenside bunker on #9 Merion (which really did seem to be a most odd play) during the US Amateur. That didn't work out well for him either and he also failed to get the ball out of the bunker! 

[Sean_A]

Patrick,

That bunker sounds like it cries out for an RTJ/Baltusrol moment where the senior member could simply demonstrate that the bunker is recoverable.  If a short hitter (short enough to require a utility club from 170 rather than a mid iron) can recover, who couldn't"

Its an interesting point that its easier to get irons and woods airborne these days, which might lead to more depth.  However, it would more likely lead to fewer fw bunkers on long par 4 holes where it would be difficult to hit a long iron to the green rather than just a shallow bunker. 

In fact, I was instructed to remove a fw bunker this year because it would require a long iron/hybrid to recover from and it was felt golfers couldn't reach the green from the bunker.  Of course, they probably couldn't reach the green from the rough that replaced it either, but that point often gets lost.

Jeff,

Why is there a sense of entitlement in terms of reaching the green from the bunker ?

That would seem to indicate that the bunker had lost its function.

If you can reach the green from the bunker, what's its purpose ?

Patrick

While I agree to a point with your PoV becasue I like the idea of nasty bunkers (but not ion large numbers), I am not sure I like the implication that it should be impossible to recover heroically from a bunker.  Are you indeed saying it should be impossible to reach the green from a fairway bunker?

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

I believe it was George Thomas who pointed out that sometimes a shallow greenside bunker has great value, as it penalizes the player who misses wide of it, far more than the player who misses in the bunker itself.  I can't improve upon that, so I won't try.[/color=green]

Maybe it's too early in the morning, but, I don't understand Thomas's comment.
Or, perhaps his comment wasn't in the context of a comparison between a shallow bunker and a deep bunker.  Perhaps it was within the context of a shallow bunker and no bunker at all.  Certainly, a deep bunker would enforce Thomas's desired penalty more than a shallow bunker.

Pat, I believe the point was that if the greenside bunker was not deep then the penalty may not be as severe as for someone who missed much wider of the green and found worse trouble  i.e. conversely, if you missed the green by only a few feet into a deep, penal bunker the penalty is much greater than if you miss by 10 yards and avoid the horribly deep, penal bunker. Or I may have totally misread that quote.

Andy,

I understand that, and it's a relevant point.

However, the golfer who misses the green by a wide target would still have to confront the deep bunker between himself and the green.

I also believe that bunker depth should be a function of the length/difficulty of the approach.

In general, if a golfer has an L-wedge for their approach, surely the penalty for failure to plan or execute should be more severe than the golfer who is approaching another green with a 3-iron, who fails to plan or execute properly.

Sean Arble,

Impossible ...... NO.

Difficult to very difficult ....... YES

The more difficult, the more strategic the bunker becomes

[Sean_A]

I believe it was George Thomas who pointed out that sometimes a shallow greenside bunker has great value, as it penalizes the player who misses wide of it, far more than the player who misses in the bunker itself.  I can't improve upon that, so I won't try.[/color=green]

Maybe it's too early in the morning, but, I don't understand Thomas's comment.
Or, perhaps his comment wasn't in the context of a comparison between a shallow bunker and a deep bunker.  Perhaps it was within the context of a shallow bunker and no bunker at all.  Certainly, a deep bunker would enforce Thomas's desired penalty more than a shallow bunker.

Pat, I believe the point was that if the greenside bunker was not deep then the penalty may not be as severe as for someone who missed much wider of the green and found worse trouble  i.e. conversely, if you missed the green by only a few feet into a deep, penal bunker the penalty is much greater than if you miss by 10 yards and avoid the horribly deep, penal bunker. Or I may have totally misread that quote.

Andy,

I understand that, and it's a relevant point.

However, the golfer who misses the green by a wide target would still have to confront the deep bunker between himself and the green.

I also believe that bunker depth should be a function of the length/difficulty of the approach.

In general, if a golfer has an L-wedge for their approach, surely the penalty for failure to plan or execute should be more severe than the golfer who is approaching another green with a 3-iron, who fails to plan or execute properly.

Sean Arble,

Impossible ...... NO.

Difficult to very difficult ....... YES

The more difficult, the more strategic the bunker becomes

Pat

I think we are on the same page.  As I stated previously, I think the grass areas should be the main areas for great recoveries so really harsh rough should be sparingly used.  Of course, this presumes the course is somewhat keen, which as we all know is not a safe presumption.

Ciao

[Andy Hughes]

Andy,

I understand that, and it's a relevant point.

However, the golfer who misses the green by a wide target would still have to confront the deep bunker between himself and the green.

I am sure that is true, and I should mention it was Doak quoting Thomas, not me. I am not sure I agree with Doak or Thomas as I am not a huge fan of proportional error. However, in the situation above, while the golfer may have to hit over a deep bunker it is possibly an easier shot than the one from within the deep bunker which may have a restricted swing or a ball very near a steep side of the bunker etc.

I also believe that bunker depth should be a function of the length/difficulty of the approach.
In general, if a golfer has an L-wedge for their approach, surely the penalty for failure to plan or execute should be more severe than the golfer who is approaching another green with a 3-iron, who fails to plan or execute properly.

I am not sure I would like a steady diet of your approach, though I note you did say 'in general'. The Road Hole would have an issue with that view I believe.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

That bunker sounds like it cries out for an RTJ/Baltusrol moment where the senior member could simply demonstrate that the bunker is recoverable.  If a short hitter (short enough to require a utility club from 170 rather than a mid iron) can recover, who couldn't"

Its an interesting point that its easier to get irons and woods airborne these days, which might lead to more depth.  However, it would more likely lead to fewer fw bunkers on long par 4 holes where it would be difficult to hit a long iron to the green rather than just a shallow bunker. 

In fact, I was instructed to remove a fw bunker this year because it would require a long iron/hybrid to recover from and it was felt golfers couldn't reach the green from the bunker.  Of course, they probably couldn't reach the green from the rough that replaced it either, but that point often gets lost.

Jeff,

Why is there a sense of entitlement in terms of reaching the green from the bunker ?

That would seem to indicate that the bunker had lost its function.

If you can reach the green from the bunker, what's its purpose ?

Pat,

I can't survey 25 million golfers, of whom probably 1/3 might feel entitled to reach the green from a bunker no matter what.  I do agree that this sentiment is out there.  As I have stated, I think its more exciting to have fw bunkers that might allow you to reach the green, but certainly don't guarantee it, unless you catch it perfectly.  It also creates strategy and temptation moreso than a 20' deep bunker requiring the backward play.  The one sense of "entitlement" that really bugs me are golfers who think they should reach a par 5 green in 2 just as easily from fw bunkers as if in the fw.  If reaching a green in regulation figures after missing the fw is too strict a punishment then I am in the wrong business.

BTW, bunker depth is only part of the equation.  I have heard - and understand the argument, that fw bunkers are fairer if simply shaped. I agree on the fw side. Two shots could be just yards apart and one be on a cape and the other in the sand.  On the outer edge, capes and bays create lots of little pockets where recovery is not possible, but that can be thought of as fairer since the tee shot has gone further off line.  And, as mentioned before, if we are tuning the bunker to possible recovery clubs, smaller little bays all tend to end up steep.

Lastly, I have also postulated that greenside bunkers should be deeper on short approaches.  (My old 9' deep for a 9 iron rule of thumb) I find most golfers prefer bunkers not so deep as to not be able to see out of them, saying anything deeper becomes more luck than skill.  While I can understand not having blind shots, not being able to walk up on the green and pick a landing spot before going down into the bunker doesn't really seem like a lucky, blind shot to me.

[Dan Herrmann]

"If reaching a green in regulation figures after missing the fw is too strict a punishment then I am in the wrong business."
Bravo, Jeff.  Bravo!

[John Burzynski]

I think that a bunker should be sufficiently penal to cost a golfer a stroke for a wayward shot, but also offer the occasional chance for a great recovery shot.  One of the great thrills of landing in a bunker, sand trap, whatever you want to call it, is that you can occasionally make that great recovery shot that allows for the memorable round or retelling at the 19th hole.

Well placed and well built bunkers offer penalty for a wayward shot, while also offering hope for that rare great recovery shot.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

Score one for sound bites!  And before my morning coffee, no less!

The other thing that hasn't been mentioned re bunker depth is that on a hole with multiple bunkers, they could all be different depths, whether fw or green side.  If either has a deeper bunker on one side and shallower bunkers on the other side, that creates strategy of where to miss.

[Kirk Gill]

My only complaint in regards to deep bunkers has nothing to do with the fact that I might have to play sideways, or even backwards, to continue play. Bottom line, if I hit into it, I deserve what I get.

The thing that bugs me is that sometimes there's no way to climb into or out of them, particularly if there's mounding or the like around them. Is this something that designers consider in building a bunker, that folks have to be able to get in and out of them? Even old folks?

[Tim Gavrich]

"TEPaul,
Can you identify any shallow greenside bunkers at Pine Valley?"


Pat:

Basically only on #14, and obviously there's a good reason for that. 


"Should putting be an allowable play from a greenside bunker?"

TimG:

Should putting be an allowable play from a greenside bunker? What do you mean by that? Perhaps you mean it should be discouraged via architecture and not illegal via the Rules. I remember watching Jay Sigel try to putt out of the right front greenside bunker on #14 at Pine Valley in the Crump Cup. It didn't work out well for him and he failed to get the ball out of the bunker. I also remember him try to putt the ball out of the left greenside bunker on #9 Merion (which really did seem to be a most odd play) during the US Amateur. That didn't work out well for him either and he also failed to get the ball out of the bunker! 

TEPaul--

I ought to have been more specific.  I meant to ask if putting out of a greenside bunker should ideally be allowable by the architect.  That is to say, could a green complex be considered great if it includes a bunker (or bunkers) that are shallow enough such that putting is a viable option?

[Lyne Morrison]

Kirk,

You are not alone with your frustration re poor access into bunkers. I few of the remodelling jobs that I have done to address bunker design, drainage and maintenance requirements have also had the added issue of poor (or dangerous) access.

When you are able bodied this is not something that readily comes to mind - however when you do see seniors (typically) and the struggle they can be presented with – I feel one can’t help but be struck by how unreasonable this predicament can be.

My feeling is that the game is for all. Often these people have played golf for many, many years and it may be their primary social outlet. We can encourage their continued full participation in the game - by building bunkers that not only address the required shot making challenge but also provide reasonable means of access -- and yes – they can still be deep..

Cheers,  L

[Melvyn Morrow]

I think it’s time I chipped back into this thread.

I still think we should define exactly what we believe bunkers are there for. My belief is that they are hazards and therefore should be avoided. If the golfer is confident and accepts the challenge laid down by the designer by approaching the Green via a hazard but fails then he/she should pay the price.

Let’s not forget the game is all about challenges. If it was simply the quickest route to the hole with minimal hazards, golf IMHO would not have flourished as it has over the last 150 years. When are we going to understand the word CHALLENGE and stop giving the golfers of today easy options? It maybe becoming the norm for our society/culture but that does not need to be mirrored on a golf course. But lets be honest it will b, because in all things we now more than in the past seek the easy option. Easy in to days terms may translate into more revenue for the courses.

You wonder why I lament for the passing of walking. Of not using ones own built-in ability to judge distance, of the ever increasing length of the modern course. All this to make it easier for the modern golfer. Well if that is what it takes to be regarded as a modern Golfer, then by all means call me a purist, a traditionalist even a follower of the true faith if you will. But ask yourselves the question – what have YOU lost in going with these new un-thought out ways.

Bunkers are hazards and therefore should be treated as so, fall into the trap you must pay the penalty – Anthony, if that means side or rear evacuation of a bunker, I see no humiliation in that, but I do see it if the golfer takes two or three shots to get out. It perhaps proves that the thought process has evaded the golfer and it’s a shoot first and think later policy – why would you believe that your fellow countrymen and women would follow this practice. Translated it appears to say that American golf is just brute force with no actual planning to work out the challenge ahead – that from what I have seen of American golfers is not really true.

Perhaps we should go back to the beginning of a golfer’s introduction to the game. Are we actually teaching the concept of golf or just portraying that they could be the next Tiger Wood or perhaps part of that very elusive collection of 0.001% of golfers. Alas for the majority of over 99% of golfers they will never reach those heights.

I am for the most part in agreement with Sean, but believe that shallow bunkers are not of any real value. If these bunkers are left to their own devises then the sand will compact and the bunkers will offer no real or serious deterrent, questioning the reason why the designer made them so easy and unchallenging. I will not quote any voices from the past, but put forward my thoughts based upon my experiences for the most part in GB & Ireland.

We need to re introduce the real proper hazards (as I do not believe golf is about being let off with a caution – you are required to pay for your mistakes). Bunkers being the most mobile of all the major hazards should be deep or have a deep face to the approach to the Green.

Designers as I has mentioned before are the last line in defence of our courses, yet on this thread alone there appears to be varied opinions. Regrettable this is one of the few topics that I do not seem to agree with Tom Doak. The 11 Commandment should be written in stone with the words “Thou shall have no shallow bunkers on my courses” – well that’s my very humble opinion. Also perhaps we should consider deduction some points on the Doak Scale for Shallow Bunkers to reintroduce the challenge or encourage the thinking golfer.

Tom no disrespect intended, just that IMHO a shallow bunker is like a limp handshake or to put it into real perspective as useful and as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit – expect you get the drift!   

Melvyn

[Dan Herrmann]

Melvyn - What a metaphor.  It stinks!

I think what you're saying is right on the money - that bunkers are HAZARDS.

But I think we treehouse-types are in a small minority here. 

[Mark_Fine]

Dan,
It is an education thing - getting more people/those who care for and maintain golf courses, to understand the role/s of hazards (like bunkers) on golf courses.  It is an area where I personally spend much of my time when meeting with club owners/grounds committees, etc.  I'm sure others do as well.
Mark

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

It would still be interesting to me to hear you answer my question to you - just what do you consider a deep bunker and a shallow bunker?  Would a bunker that allowed you to advance the ball forward, but not all the way to the green, and thus costing you a stroke be deep enough?  Your responses sure make it sound like you favor backwards recovery and a full stroke, or more penalty.

I will say again that its more interesting if the bunker is the "half stroke" type that may or may not cost a  stroke, depending on your skill.  If all players get punished the same, there is no way to distinguish a player who is great at bunker play, for example, since no one is substantially better at chipping out backwards.....

I will also note that I have company in my arguments - all the Golden Age guys wrote that bunkers are to make golf more interesting, and not necessarily just to be hazards as you suggest.  Again, automatically losing a hole at match play or falling behind by a few more strokes in stroke play is not as interesting as those kinds of holes that allow the occaisional spectacular recovery.  Please note I do not say easy recovery, as I am not in that "entitlement" school that Pat brought up.

But, there is room on every course for some of those deep bunkers and there is room in the world for courses of all types, including a course full of deep bunkers.  And those who like that can play there, while those who don't - the entitlement set - can play where bunkers are shallow.  Hey, in this economy, I wouldn't bet against some course just painting the turf white to replicate the look of bunkers without the actual expense of building and maintaining bunkers.  For some golfers, that would be perfect - all looks and no hazard!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

I think we differ in perhaps just one point, albeit a major point – Hazards including bunkers are there to test and challenge the golfer otherwise what is the point. A weak slap on the wrist has never been a good deterrent. By including shallow bunkers the course IMHO becomes as exciting as a field or the long car park along the West Sands at St Andrews, I just might as well retire and go and play at a target range.  The whole point is challenge, make an error from being over confident, you pay the Piper – you take your punishment because you are not as good as you think you are and the best way to learn is by understanding your mistakes.

As for deep bunkers, my thoughts start at a min. of 3ft front edge upwards to include the blind shot out – the golfer must decide to again gamble on his skills to clear the front wall or take the safe shot to side/rear and attack again. Throw in a very windy day and the golfer has to seriously consider his shot as well as his overall game. Sorry I don’t want to play on a snooker table course, I want to challenge my self, the course, the weather conditions and of course the designer. Somewhere within that is the reason why golf is so much fun and worth the effort.

I hear most saying nothing will change, why fight it, well nothing will ever change if that is the attitude, I may not be right nor my approach but I am rattling the railings trying to make people aware that there is more to golf than a ride in the country with your sat nav. The only effort in modern golf is to get your backside off the cart to walk a few yards to your ball – you do not even have to think, a machine will give you the information that your brain/eyes has the ability to do and I expect it will be quicker that these electronic. But hey why bother, its only golf, this is how the modern golfer sees & plays it knowing that in many places only the Pros these days walk the courses with caddies. The Golden Age Guys did not have the cart and distance to contend with, but I fear they help generate this attitude. So please deep bunker, we need to reignite the thrill and challenge of the course.

Well I believe I may have answered your question and anyway that's my opinion for what its worth.

Melvyn     

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
I trust you would agree that a hazard (in the case of a bunker) is not a hazard if there are no consequences to the golfer of being in it.  What the consequence is (or the penalty) is of course subjective but that is the case with almost everything in golf course architecture.  Furthermore, bunkers that we sometimes call "eye candy" can have a purpose as well.  The key is balance with all these things and a presentation that fits the intent of the design.
Mark

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mark

That may be well and good but what is the point of an expensive bunker if it is just for balance and eye candy. If it is purely for aesthetics, then more care should be taken in the first place selecting the site and location of the course to minimise construction costs. There should be a purpose to all things (I expect that I’m here to keep you guys as close to the straight and narrow as possible although I am failing badly) and now that money is very tight its even more important.

A Bunkers MUST be a hazard/trap and effective as well otherwise why spend the money, a small flower bed with plants will be more of a problem that some of our shallow bunkers, perhaps that’s the answer let the ball hide below a petal.

In this age we need to equate value for money not just in construction but on going maintenance costs. If it is not of real value why have them?

Melvyn

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

I haven't built many fw bunkers less than 3' deep at the front lip.  And, we both seem to agree that some temptation to play fw is a good thing. 

I think that playing forward, but perhaps not all the way to the green (ie. use a more lofted iron to clear the lip) is plenty of penalty without hitting out sideways, at least in most cases.  Assuming the golfer could hit the green from the lz next to the bunker the difference in penalty would be approaching with a short iron vs. approaching with the same iron as they might have used had they landed in the fw or rough vs. a bunker, plus a stroke.  If you can advance the ball somewhat, then you have two chances to save the hole - a great wedge or a great putt.  Granted, the same is true if hitting a longer iron, but the % of success goes down with the greater distance. 

The penalty goes from half stroke to maybe 0.9 strokes.  Still less than water!  But I agree that unless the penalty of the bunker is more than is expected from the typical rough around the bunker, then there is not really a strategic need for that bunker.  Just let it be rough.