When is a bunker too deep?

[Jamie Barber]

Since you played they've "excavated" the greenside bunkers on 8th Dunes and 8th Shore. I'll try to get some pictures.

[Jason Topp]

Tony,

I photo to illustrate your reference!!

I am a big fan of Dye courses in general but this photo illustrates my biggest criticism.  Dye courses often have a lot of these types of shots. 

I have less problem with the original photo because, even if the ball ends up on the slope, it is straight uphill.

[Tim Gavrich]

I've played the Governors Club and unlike the slope on the side of the PGA West bunker, no ball could reasonable hang up on the slope above it.  Everything seems to filter towards the middle of the bunker.

The hole is a reachable par 5, and I feel like the bunker is fair.  The bottom of it slopes gently uphill, I believe, to help lift shots out of it.  It's doable out of there.

As for bunkers, I have yet to see a bunker that is unreasonably deep for its environment.  I love the boldness of the bunkers below the green on holes 2 and 8 there.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niall,

Generally speaking the gca specs the grasses but has little say in the maintenance. We communicate our ideas to the first superintendent but have little control after that.  As to safety, if someone got injured on that bank, I am sure everyone would get sued, and in reality, the safety of that kind of bunker might be reason one not to build it that deep.  Its not hard to see that sooner or later, someone will take a tumble down there.  Of course, had it been left as a natural bank, I don't think anyone would have a case.

[Ed Oden]

When I started this thread I wasn't thinking about fairness.  As mentioned above, I generally subscribe to the "no one to blame but yourself" doctrine.  So I do not view the Governors Club bunker as unfair.  But I see a difference between fairness and good design.  Or am I wrong and is fairness really the only point for judgment? 

As for this bunker at Governors Club, can someone with photoshop capability take it out?  I'd love to see what it would look like as grass.  For those who have been there, what would be the effect of replacing the bunker with grass? 

Ed

[Joe Hancock]

Ed,

With only the benefit of that picture, I can only speculate. But, here goes.

I see a yellow hazard stake. I see a steep incline/ elevation to the green surface. I see a bunker placed such that it keeps balls from rolling into existing hazard. Without the sand, is the penalty of the hazard better or worse, design-wise?

Joe

[Joe Bausch]

Ed, when I read the title of this thread I thought you were referring to deep bunkers as in a pot bunker.  But I'm assuming you are meaning is how far below a green a greenside bunker can be and still be fair?  Your picture reminded me of a couple of similar bunkers at No 9 at Huntingdon Valley:



I don't mind at all bunkers like this, but as someone earlier mentioned, for the bogey golfer these are darn near like the equivalent of a pond (or worse!).  As long as the face isn't too steep, I'm fine with them.

[Kalen Braley]

The only ones that come to mind are the bunkers fronting the green at # 18 at Pasatiempo.

The problem with those are, there is no place to play out to on either side or behind you because its surrounded by a hazard and big ball eating bushes.  So you'd have to intentionally hit one in the hazard, then walk back across the bridge to the other side of the barranca to play your next shot.

Here is a pic... those bunkers are a lot steeper than they appear in this photo:

[JWL]

Let me add a little clarity to the 13th hole bunker at Governor's Club.
Some have pointed out how the hole plays, but let me add:
The hole is a short par 5 with a wall of grass in front, down to the deep bunker 22' deep.  What isn't discussed is that below that bunker is a stream, and if the bunker wasn't there the ball landing short would come back down in the stream or at least within the hazard.
The bunker was installed WITHIN THE HAZARD, so if a player came up short, he would have the option of playing as a penalty stroke, like being in a water hazard, or testing his skills out of a deep bunker.   As noted, the bunker is purposefully pitched upward to "help" a bunker shot get high enough.   It isn't an easy shot, but it is definitely doable if you no how to play bunker shots.
Also, the bailout is over the green, as there is a fairway pad behind the green in a soft hollow, where a player could actually putt the ball back onto the green.
It is a real risk/reward hole.   I remember early on, that a collegiate tournament was played there and the same player made 3/13/3 on the hole in the tournament.   I call that interesting.
The main point I want to make, however, is that, just as Mr. Brauer suggested, there would be no discussion if the water hazard was in front of the green on a short par 5 with a bail out over the green.   The bunker just adds an additional option to recover from a shot that just fell short of reaching the green.
Hopes this adds some clarity.
cheers

[Sean_A]

Let me add a little clarity to the 13th hole bunker at Governor's Club.
Some have pointed out how the hole plays, but let me add:
The hole is a short par 5 with a wall of grass in front, down to the deep bunker 22' deep.  What isn't discussed is that below that bunker is a stream, and if the bunker wasn't there the ball landing short would come back down in the stream or at least within the hazard.
The bunker was installed WITHIN THE HAZARD, so if a player came up short, he would have the option of playing as a penalty stroke, like being in a water hazard, or testing his skills out of a deep bunker.   As noted, the bunker is purposefully pitched upward to "help" a bunker shot get high enough.   It isn't an easy shot, but it is definitely doable if you no how to play bunker shots.
Also, the bailout is over the green, as there is a fairway pad behind the green in a soft hollow, where a player could actually putt the ball back onto the green.
It is a real risk/reward hole.   I remember early on, that a collegiate tournament was played there and the same player made 3/13/3 on the hole in the tournament.   I call that interesting.
The main point I want to make, however, is that, just as Mr. Brauer suggested, there would be no discussion if the water hazard was in front of the green on a short par 5 with a bail out over the green.   The bunker just adds an additional option to recover from a shot that just fell short of reaching the green.
Hopes this adds some clarity.
cheers

JWL

I didn't realize the big bunker was within the hazard.  I thought the hazard stakes of the green side of the chasm were low (which btw was not an issue to go down and play a a shot from the day I was there) and high on the bank near the photographer.  Looking at the pic I can't see any hazard stake on the far side.  Is the small bunker within the hazard as well?

Ciao 

[JWL]

Sean

I haven't been to GC in some time, since the greens were renovated.   Therefore, I am unsure if the hazard line, which would not be  a stake but a red line should be roughly 1 foot above the highest bunker edge.
That is the way it was designed and explained to the supt at the time.   Things do change over time, so it might not be marked that way at this time.   Maybe the supt, if he reads this, would contact me to discuss.
The higher bunker on the right is out of the hazard.

[PCCraig]

When you step in and pop out in China.

Not sure there is a bunker that is too deep.

[ed_getka]

Let me add a little clarity to the 13th hole bunker at Governor's Club.
Some have pointed out how the hole plays, but let me add:
The hole is a short par 5 with a wall of grass in front, down to the deep bunker 22' deep.  What isn't discussed is that below that bunker is a stream, and if the bunker wasn't there the ball landing short would come back down in the stream or at least within the hazard.
The bunker was installed WITHIN THE HAZARD, so if a player came up short, he would have the option of playing as a penalty stroke, like being in a water hazard, or testing his skills out of a deep bunker.   As noted, the bunker is purposefully pitched upward to "help" a bunker shot get high enough.   It isn't an easy shot, but it is definitely doable if you no how to play bunker shots.
Also, the bailout is over the green, as there is a fairway pad behind the green in a soft hollow, where a player could actually putt the ball back onto the green.
It is a real risk/reward hole.   I remember early on, that a collegiate tournament was played there and the same player made 3/13/3 on the hole in the tournament.   I call that interesting.
The main point I want to make, however, is that, just as Mr. Brauer suggested, there would be no discussion if the water hazard was in front of the green on a short par 5 with a bail out over the green.   The bunker just adds an additional option to recover from a shot that just fell short of reaching the green.
Hopes this adds some clarity.
cheers

Very interesting. The bunker is within the hazard to keep balls from rolling down into the water, thus high hcp golfers don't have to waste a great number of shots trying to get out, they just take a penalty stroke. How close is the average golfer usually hitting their approach shot in from if they play it as a 3-shotter?
   Was the shaved grass to the left of the green there when the course opened?

[Sean_A]

Let me add a little clarity to the 13th hole bunker at Governor's Club.
Some have pointed out how the hole plays, but let me add:
The hole is a short par 5 with a wall of grass in front, down to the deep bunker 22' deep.  What isn't discussed is that below that bunker is a stream, and if the bunker wasn't there the ball landing short would come back down in the stream or at least within the hazard.
The bunker was installed WITHIN THE HAZARD, so if a player came up short, he would have the option of playing as a penalty stroke, like being in a water hazard, or testing his skills out of a deep bunker.   As noted, the bunker is purposefully pitched upward to "help" a bunker shot get high enough.   It isn't an easy shot, but it is definitely doable if you no how to play bunker shots.
Also, the bailout is over the green, as there is a fairway pad behind the green in a soft hollow, where a player could actually putt the ball back onto the green.
It is a real risk/reward hole.   I remember early on, that a collegiate tournament was played there and the same player made 3/13/3 on the hole in the tournament.   I call that interesting.
The main point I want to make, however, is that, just as Mr. Brauer suggested, there would be no discussion if the water hazard was in front of the green on a short par 5 with a bail out over the green.   The bunker just adds an additional option to recover from a shot that just fell short of reaching the green.
Hopes this adds some clarity.
cheers

Very interesting. The bunker is within the hazard to keep balls from rolling down into the water, thus high hcp golfers don't have to waste a great number of shots trying to get out, they just take a penalty stroke. How close is the average golfer usually hitting their approach shot in from if they play it as a 3-shotter?
   Was the shaved grass to the left of the green there when the course opened?

Ed

Its hard to relate to how far an average golfer would be away for the 3rd.  For many, the second is a layup to gain position.  I am thinking that a guy who hits it 200ish would have ~125 in if he plays the forwardish tees.  What is interesting about an approach from further back is that you don't have to go directly over the bunker - you sort of skirt it to the left.  I would have thought this is a decent place to approach from if the flag is right (or back from the 125 perspective).  I recall having about 90 yard after a layup just short of the hazard and on a downslope - it wasn't a clever place to be.  I would also like to point out that JWL believes the rear of the green is a bailout, but I question this.  The chip back to what is a downhill green from there seems like it would be very dicey.  Personally, I would rather be short left if I miss it hence the thinking that coming in from further back may not be so bad. 

Ciao 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul, for the most part, I agree with the "no one to blame but yourself" philosophy. 
 
But just because I accept the penalty for a poor shot or a poor decision doesn't mean the design itself is a good one. 

It also doesn't mean it's a bad design

I think there is a line that can be crossed, although I don't know where that line is. 

Otherwise, any poorly conceived feature could be categorically excused away as the golfer's problem. 

What would constitute a poorly conceived feature, especially a bunker ?

Certainly, not its location,....... according to Donald Ross.

Isn't bunker depth and the penalty it extracts, one of relativity rather than absolutes ?

Instead of a very deep bunker bordering a green, would a pond, lake or ocean be an unsuitable substitute ?

Which is more penal ?

Or, would OB be acceptable, but a very deep bunker unacceptable ?

Charles Banks made a living creating deep to very deep bunkers, yet, they seem to function very well on his courses, visually, strategically and practically/playability

[Ed Oden]

JWL, thanks for the explanation on Governors Club.  I can now see why its there even though it seems to me like an unusual solution to the problem.  Regardless, I never intended for this thread to turn into a referendum on this one bunker and apologize for contributing to that result.

Dave Schmidt, that bunker at Sand Hills is one of my all-time favorites.  Took me 3 swings to get out.  I love it.  But in fairness, isn't that bunker more the work of God than man? 

Patrick, are you saying all design features are created equal?  My point was merely that a feature should be judged on its own merit independent of whether an individual golfer succeeds or fails to negotiate it.

Ed

[Pat Burke]

Tony,

I photo to illustrate your reference!!

I am a big fan of Dye courses in general but this photo illustrates my biggest criticism.  Dye courses often have a lot of these types of shots. 

I have less problem with the original photo because, even if the ball ends up on the slope, it is straight uphill.

Funny thing is, a few years back, some pretty good players found that if you were in the bunker on 16 PGA West and things were relatively firm, you could rip a 2 or 3 iron right in to the hill and it would run right up and out, usually stopping closer than most "regular" bunker shots!

[Patrick_Mucci]

JWL, thanks for the explanation on Governors Club.  I can now see why its there even though it seems to me like an unusual solution to the problem.  Regardless, I never intended for this thread to turn into a referendum on this one bunker and apologize for contributing to that result.

Dave Schmidt, that bunker at Sand Hills is one of my all-time favorites.  Took me 3 swings to get out.  I love it.  But in fairness, isn't that bunker more the work of God than man? 

Patrick, are you saying all design features are created equal? 

No, not at all.

My point was merely that a feature should be judged on its own merit independent of whether an individual golfer succeeds or fails to negotiate it.

But, the severity of the feature, bunkers in particular, is relative, not absolute, as is OB.

Ed

[Lester George]

When you can't see the sun!!

Lester