Bunkers: Should they be maintained to "perfect" standards?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean- I agree with you. Appeasing all standards on all holes is a no-no...I said this a few hundred posts back and got ripped. Golf has changed so much in 30 years.... then i was the longest hitter in the club but hit it about 10 yards past most, now i am a shorty and some hit it 100 yards past me.... there never used to be "that gap" and quite honestly courses' did work for all then, these days if i play with the seniors I enjoy it but many of my friends are still low, I cant enjoy golf off the whites playing with my friends and the tees they want to play off, equally they dont enjoy it off the yellows.

[David Druzisky]

I'm with you Sean on these last points.

I do not see myself from this point on designing too many courses any more over 7,000 yards. In many markets, marketing and promotion pushed too many of our designs in the "championship" direction so those selling the course would have an easier job - similar to the tour player signature design branding BS.   We were also designing courses on land that we didn't need to form fit nor could with all the other pieces of the development dictating much of what we came up with.  That in turn allowed us to stretch out the courses through moving the dirt and making it whatever length we wanted.

If new designs need to go shorter and with a lesser par sobeit.  It will be up to me to show my client the light in this regard but with land and development costs cross referenced with water and resource savings plus reduced maintenance costs I do not think it will be a hard sell.  Using bunkers wisely can also apply as it has in general on all my previous efforts.  I was recently at the MacKenzie designed Claremont CC in Oakland.  At under 5,500 yards it was one hell of a fun golf course and something I would play over and over.  We all just need to make good shorter courses.

Why do we continue to let the ball dictate our designs?  We wouldn't be doing all these crazy dimensions if the ball companies didn't prduce longer and longer balls.  While they make more and more money we just keep spending more and for no good reason!

As for bunker maintenance.  I say they get maintained to the level the members desire or the market dictates.  It is as simple as that.  And, as professionals we GC Architects better do something that compliments that. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Whitaker,

Bunkers serve a tactical purpose and the more benign they are, the less their tactical purpose.

I'd like to see golf clubs embark on a "maintainance free" month.

I'd like to see them leave the bunkers alone for one month.

I believe the process of neglect would cause a huge jump in their tactical/strategic importance.

They would take on a more important role in the golfers attempt to navigate his way around the golf course.

And, it would save the club money.

I wonder how much the course rating would change ?

[Lester George]

In a word: NO!  They ARE hazards and should play as hazards.  I thought the article was lacking alot.

Lester

[Michael Whitaker]

Patrick_Mucci - You always seem to have a good handle on the private club side of golf... have you observed an unhealthy level of competition between private club members centering around the conditioning and presentation of their courses (including bunkers)?

The reason I ask is that I recently played a round with a couple of well-heeled friends who are members at 2 or 3 of the top clubs in the USA. All they could talk about was how Course A compared to Course B, and how Course C was losing ground to the others because the super could not maintain the course to the exacting standards of A & B. When I pointed out that Course C was a different style than A & B and that its presentation should not match those two, but be somewhat more rough around the edges, they balked at accepting that explanation. It was a bit sad actually because I could imagine the super at Course C being hammered by his members due to this artificial standard.

You know the old adage "youth is wasted on the young?" Well, I wonder if great golf courses are not often wasted on the wealthy.

[Mike_Young]

No.....too many elements come into play for the standards to be perfect....one of the biggest is the bunker rake and if it gets used...before rakes when the golfer just smoothed the sand before leaving with foot or club...the expectations of fairness/perfection were not the same....now a bad rake job, a footprint, thin sand and guys are bitching.....of course one has to maintain the bunker itself but the day to day conditions can be much less....
Todays bunkers would be much more difficult for most with 4 inch bermuda grass taking the place of the sand....BUT then the truth would be known .....many bunkers just provide contrast.....what if sand was the color of grass.....I am convinced a course can become more difficult if most bunkers were replaced with grass of 2" to 3"  especially in fairways.....and maintenance cost would drop.....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick_Mucci - You always seem to have a good handle on the private club side of golf... have you observed an unhealthy level of competition between private club members centering around the conditioning and presentation of their courses (including bunkers)?

Absolutely.
And, it's not just confined to conditioning.

One only has to look at the extent clubs go to in terms of course maintainance when it comes to hosting their member guests.
The level of conditioning/presentation jumps up a notch or two or three.
Each club wants to showcase their product.
Today, this has taken on increased significance since clubs are vying for prospective members and want to show that their course benefits from superior conditioning.

There seems to be a combination of forces at play, "competition" and "keeping up with the Jones's"

This puts pressure on Superintendents and the budget.

Don't get me wrong, given the choice, I like a course with tight lies, firm and fast conditions.
But, some of the practices, including mowing patterns are downright wasteful.

However, lately I see more clubs mowing half the fairway in one direction and the other half in the other direction, just like they did in the days of the huge tractor pulled gang mowers.  So maybe the high cost of pristine conditions is begining to get someone's attention.

The reason I ask is that I recently played a round with a couple of well-heeled friends who are members at 2 or 3 of the top clubs in the USA. All they could talk about was how Course A compared to Course B, and how Course C was losing ground to the others because the super could not maintain the course to the exacting standards of A & B. When I pointed out that Course C was a different style than A & B and that its presentation should not match those two, but be somewhat more rough around the edges, they balked at accepting that explanation. It was a bit sad actually because I could imagine the super at Course C being hammered by his members due to this artificial standard.

I would tend to attribute a portion of the response to the weekly PGA Tour telecasts.
Week after week viewers see almost perfectly manicured courses.

The biggest fight I have is convincing people that lush green appearances don't make for better golf, that brownish/yellowish/greenish fairways and greens make for better golf.

However, we've been so indoctrinated by the "green is great" syndrome that it's difficult to educate people otherwise.

Not to generalize, but, I think the better golfer understands this.
The problem is, the better golfer is in the vast minority at private clubs and thus has little influence at the Committee and Board level where his vote is swept aside by the majority vote, usually from higher handicap golfers.
Golfers tend to view golf as it affects THEIR game.
That's why you have buffers of rough fronting bunkers and water hazards in America.

You know the old adage "youth is wasted on the young?" Well, I wonder if great golf courses are not often wasted on the wealthy.

I don't know that it's a rich vs poor issue.
All of them seem to have TV sets and watch PGA Tour golf.
Even Public Course golfers speak to the condition of their home course as compared to other Public courses, so, it doesn't appear to be a wealth issue, rather, a possession and perspective issue.

Even in public high school I remember discussions about which town's gym (basketball court) was better.
Everyone felt that their gym had its advantages, and so it is with golf courses.
Golfers tend to be possessive, protective and defensive when it comes to their course.
God forbid someone criticize their golf course.
It's like saying that your Mother wears Army Boots

The current economic climate may change much of that as courses begin to realize what's really important.

From my perspective, I'd prefer to see bunkers go unraked for a month at a time.
I certainly don't want to have weeds/grass growing in them, but, I think we spend far too much time grooming bunkers and making them less of a hazard and therefore less significant from a tactical/strategic perspective.

I consider myself an above average greenside bunker player and a below average fairway bunker player, so I have no vested interest in allowing bunkers to go ungroomed, but, I feel that bunkers were meant to be HAZARDS and that they've become less so due to pristine grooming practices.

I want bunkers returned to their architectural purpose.

End of rant.

[Scott Warren]

I can see the argument of fewer bunkers and ones that are there are substantial hazards but one of the problems with modern golf is Golfer A hits it 320 yards off the tee, golfer B 270 yards golfer C 230 yards and golfer D 200 yards. Even saying you can have 60 yards difference in front to back tees, you still need 60 yards length of effective hazards.

In theory, I can see the argument, but in reality most of us don't hit our irons - let alone our driver - an exact distance like that. In your example above, it's probably more realistic that A carries it 260-290, B = 225-255, C = 200-230 and D = 170-200. That's just variation in the quality of their strike and consistency of their swing speed. Wind then has to be added to the equation...

All that being so, one bunker at 180 and another at 260 would provide something for all four golfers to consider. And that's without considering the use of other hazards, undulation and angles to challenge them.

And if that bunker is a festy, unkempt hazard - you can be sure they will be thinking about the value of carrying it, even if they should be able to.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott,

There's a fairway bunker on a hole that I play fairly frequently, that I look to avoid at all costs.

The bunker is about 2-3 feet below the level of the fairway, but, it has an elevated fronting berm that makes extrication even more difficult.

I know that if I get in that bunker, my chances of a birdie and par are almost certainly shot to hell.

It's a rather short par 5, albeit uphill with a tricky green, but, a tee shot in the fairway, at a distance I'm capbable of, puts me in position to make a birdie or even an eagle.

But, if I get in that bunker, bogey or worse becomes a distinct possibility.

Now the dumb part.
The more I aim right to avoid it, the more I pull my tee shot back into it.

It presents a real and substantial tactical dilema.

If the bunker is unkept, and it sometimes is due to its configuration, it exacerbates my dilema.

I'd like to see bunkers go unmaintained for a month.

I'd like bunkers to go back to being hazards, not scoring opportunities versus the alternative.

End of rant.

[Scott Warren]

Well said, and by the sounds of it, very similar to a running battle I have with a bunker at my home course (I'm 0-4)

[Andy Hodson]

Scott, Patrick

For years I've felt that, in light of all the technological advances in golf, to maintain the "challenge" in golf (as if the game ever got easier), instead of falling in love with lengthening the course....just take the damn rakes out of the bunkers.

Mission accomplished. And at a cost savings.

BTW, didn't Jack furrow his bunkers at the Memorial one year? And does he still?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott, Patrick

For years I've felt that, in light of all the technological advances in golf, to maintain the "challenge" in golf (as if the game ever got easier), instead of falling in love with lengthening the course....just take the damn rakes out of the bunkers.

Mission accomplished. And at a cost savings.

BTW, didn't Jack furrow his bunkers at the Memorial one year? And does he still?

Andy,

Kenny Bakst removed the rakes from the bunkers at Friar's Head.

I believe that's one of his contributions in trying to change the culture of golf in America.

I agree with the practice, but, getting local clubs to buy into it is very, very, very difficult.

[Andy Hodson]

Patrick,

What has the feedback been at Friars? And, if you have played there, what were the ramifications to your game?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

What has the feedback been at Friars?

Andy, the feedback I've gotten and heard about is extremely positive.

And, if you have played there, what were the ramifications to your game?

It's a wonderful golf course combining terrific architecture with golf's great catalyst, the WIND.
You're certainly aware of the bunkers, their design sends the obvious tactical signals to your eye.
However, armed with the knowledge that they're not in perfect condition makes you more aware of the hazard they present.

As I stated, I consider my greenside bunker game to be above average and my fairway bunker game to be below average, thus, I plan on giving fairway bunkers an extra wide pass since getting in them presents increased difficulty for me.

I like what Ken Bakst has done at Friar's Head and I especially admire his attempt to alter the culture of the game in America as it pertains to "bunkers".

More clubs should follow his lead.

Unfortunately, the great majority of Boards don't have his sense of golf, foresight and courage. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

I don't believe that there is more than 1 person out of 1,000 who would rather be in a bunker, or who yells 'get in the bunker' when their ball is headed towards one.

Having said that, I have asked our super to try a simple maintenance practice that adds a bit of teeth to our bunkers, i.e., don't use the finishing blade on the Sand Pro. Not doing so leaves small but manageable furrows, adds some contrast to the surface, gives them a more rustic look, and shortens the time needed to maintain them.

Players who notice have liked it, others don't even see the difference, and no one has complained. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

When you talk to other Superintendents, what's the consensus on moving away from pristine bunker conditions, as you've started to do ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
I can't say that I get out and talk to a lot of Superintendents, but I would think that practices which can save time and money while adding a dimension to the playing areas stand a good chance of gaining acceptance in some situations. What I suggested at our course is a small step, and it hardly gets a notice. I think that's a good way to proceed for us, as our Super doesn't have the budget to strive for 'perfect' and there are no committees looking over his shoulder. On the flip side, I find it hard to envision a scenario in which a club that has been been trying to achieve an Augusta-like standard for their property is going to accept anything less than perfectly manicured sand. Even if they adopt the 'shaggy' look to the surrounds they still want consistency, a smooth surface of perfectly screened, pebble free, and properly colored sand in every one of the hazards.

If there is any consensus among Superintendents I think it's to do the job that the club requires of them. It's probably a rare club that lets them take the initiative, but if they could I think we'd probably see quite a few of them setting up their courses to more realistic standards. 

I feel for Superintendents, their position is one of the most precarious in the business.

[Carl Nichols]

How are the bunkers maintained at Pine Valley?  What about the waste areas?

[Peter Pallotta]

Just to say: any bunker, every bunker, all bunkers, shallow or deep, manicured or not, are hazards, i.e. harder to hit a good shot from than fairways or (modest) rough.  They are also disproportionate hazards; unlike water hazards, that penallize equally the good golfer and the bad, bunkers will always prove more of a penality for the less-skilled player than for the scratch (with the "penalty gap" widening exponentially as the "skill gap" widens).  I don't know when it started, but the (undue) attention that developers/owners and designers and top-flight golfers pay to bunkers -- what they look like, how they're maintained, how they should or shouldn't be restored -- has got to be amongst the least helpful developments of all, in the context of the overall health of the game.  It's an example of some kind of tranny of the elite, or worse, the wanna-be elites.  

Peter

[Mark_Fine]

I finally got to this thread and article.  I agree with Forrest in that the title is misleading (but the content is good).  Bunkers are hazards and should be maintained as such (so the answer is obviously NO).  The high maintenance numbers cited in the article further validate what we found in our book survey - bunkers are often over maintained and upwards of 25% of a super's budget can be spent grooming them 

I'm giving a seminar at a club up in MA this month and the super has asked me to put most of my focus on the topic of hazards.  The objective will be to get the group to think a little differently about hazards on the golf courses they see and/or work on and maintenace will be part of it.  Bunkers are hazards!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Just to say: any bunker, every bunker, all bunkers, shallow or deep, manicured or not, are hazards, i.e. harder to hit a good shot from than fairways or (modest) rough. 

They are also disproportionate hazards; unlike water hazards, that penallize equally the good golfer and the bad, bunkers will always prove more of a penality for the less-skilled player than for the scratch (with the "penalty gap" widening exponentially as the "skill gap" widens). 

Peter, that's not true with fairway bunkers since the location of the bunker is intended to interface with the better golfer.
On greenside bunkers I'd agree, but then again, that's what handicaps are for.  They equalize the disparity in ability.

If high handicappers "up and downed" it all the time, they wouldn't be high handicappers, getting all those strokes.


I don't know when it started, but the (undue) attention that developers/owners and designers and top-flight golfers pay to bunkers -- what they look like, how they're maintained, how they should or shouldn't be restored -- has got to be amongst the least helpful developments of all, in the context of the overall health of the game. 

I'm afraid that I don't unerstand the above paragraph.

Unless,  you're a poor bunker player 

It's an example of some kind of tranny of the elite, or worse, the wanna-be elites.  

Again, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[Scott Warren]

Just to say: any bunker, every bunker, all bunkers, shallow or deep, manicured or not, are hazards, i.e. harder to hit a good shot from than fairways or (modest) rough. 

So why is it I keep hearing the pros, and some good amateurs I play with, calling for the ball to "get in the bunker" when it is bound to miss the green?

They have become more reliable and manageable as a playing surface than rough at many courses.

The furore when Jack grooved the traps at Muirfield Village a couple of years back was enough to tell me the attitude towards bunkers has gone arse over tit.

[John Moore II]

One thing this tells me Mike is that the bunkers on that course cited in the article are far too big, or the labourers are far too slow.   200 man hours/week comes out to 15-25 minutes preparation per bunker per day.  That is mind boggling, at least to me.

I can buy 200 man hours or labor. You have to factor in time moving from one bunker to the next, and if they are all being raked by hand, it will certainly take that long. Plus, if they rake them everyday, again, I can certainly see it taking a total of 200 hours per week.


To the main question, no bunkers do not need to be maintained to perfect standards, they are hazards by definition.

I think this number is way high.

That's 5 40 hour per week employees. Every course I've worked at has crewed bunkers such that they were finished (if they were being maintained) within 4 hours. Whether or not they are "touched up" or done "complete" is the decision, but even a complete hand raking shouldn't take that long.

Well, not to go back to this, but if the course has 100 bunkers, then 200 man-hours equates to 2 man hours per bunker, per week. If they are maintained 7 days a week (high end club) then it works out to about 17 minutes per bunker, total. Now, a course that has less than 100 (that number was used only for simplicity of math) then it may take less time, assuming that the bunkers are not huge like some of the waste type bunkers seen at Tobacco Road. But for a course with a large amount of sand, I can see it taking 200 man-hours to maintain them, if they are maintained every day.

[Carl Rogers]

The fair lie has become the necessity to create the perfect lie ... anywhere.

Many preach the mantra of relaxed bunker maintenance until you get in one.

[Kyle Harris]

The game has reached a state where the nature of the penalty is based in some arbitrary determination of the difficulty of the shot. A more difficult shot is considering a harsher penalty.

This alone has lead to the rigid determination and distinctions between fairway, rough, putting green, bunkers, etc.

It has also lead to the movement and demand for consistently difficult conditioning of all the above.

Through out all of this, the game has taken away what really is the chief penalty of being in a hazard:

UNPREDICTABILITY

When hazards are maintained to some consistent standard, the golfer is able to make concrete decisions. A player may accept a lie in the bunker as adequate risk to playing a more aggressive shot if that player is aware of the conditioning of the bunker and is well-practiced in that shot.

Take away the consistency, and suddenly the risk factor jumps several orders of magnitude. No longer can the play accurately predict the type of lie for various transgressions, but is instead subject to serendipity and luck. Golf in these conditions becomes a game of managing and maneuvering the golf ball, using the player's skill sets and tools, to the areas where the lies are most predictable - thereby offering the path of least resistance to the hole.

Yes, a inconsistently conditioned bunker may give one player a better lie than another player. But again,
UNPREDICTABILITY is the hazard, NOT the difficulty of the shot or lie.

The key to restoring some of the strategic challenge to the game is to present a golf course that offers unpredictable hazards for which the player may not fully prepare and account.