[jeffwarne]

At the few courses where rakes are not provided, you are still expected to "kick in" and smooth your footprints properly.
So why  not give the player a tool to do it properly and more quickly

[Michael Rossi]

Better I believe is "cleaning up behind myself". To me that includes raking foot prints out of the sand.

I used the ball mark and divot because I believe it is the same for repair by the player. Yes in the rules you may fix ball marks, however if you feel leaving a divot unrepaired after a shot is your prerogative.

I preferred that it was replaced, and I suggest that raking out foot prints is good etiquette, courteous to fellow competitors as well as it adds to the enjoyment of those that are playing behind me.

I do not find pleasure or enjoyment, nor do I find it fun to find my ball settled down in a foot print in a bunker.  

I say rake.

[Kyle Harris]

Michael,

I think there is a discord between the level of mental preparedness a player that is willing to accept a ball lying in a divot/bunker footprint and a player who is not.

I rarely find the shot from a divot of any size to be significantly more difficult than a "good" lie to merit a decry of unfair. Should they be replaced? Of course. But in the instances where they cannot be I don't have a problem with the gouge. You just adjust and make the most of it. Very few bogeys are the fault of a ball finding a divot.

The same goes for a bunker footprint. Are your options limited? Yes, of course - but that is the very essence of play from the hazard. Your skill is apt to be marginalized by preexisting conditions. I've hit some remarkably good bunker shots from footprints that have given me a putt to make for par. Was it a 3-footer? No, but being within 40 feet of the hole from a greenside bunker with a shot at the hole seems to me to be a "fair" and "equitable" penalty for being in an area specifically prepared to be a hazard.

One cannot view golf in terms of the individual shot. The primary argument of those in favor of the rake is that it creates an unnecessary hazard for *one* shot. In my mind, considering the golfer using 3-5 shots per hole is typically playing very well, focusing on one of those shots is missing the point when the golfer's currency is spent over the course of a series of shots. Make better decisions and the nature of the hazard does not come into play. You've got a few other shots to be worrying about to focus on that specific one.

[Jason Topp]

I think of the issue in terms of "does it make the game more fun or less fun."  From that perspective, I say they should be raked.

Unlike Kyle I see nothing fun about hitting a ball out of a footprint.  You just chunk the ball back in play.  I also see no normal player making less of an effort to avoid bunkers because they are raked.  Unraked bunkers add nothing to the enjoyment of the game. If you want a variety of interesting lies in a bunker, go the Australia route and have varying sand depths in different bunkers.  Make the player hit out of a variety of sand depths rather than footprints.

By the way, I bet 9999 out of 10,000 people not participating on this web site want their bunkers raked.

[Michael Rossi]

Kyle

You make some wonderful points. I believe the bunker should be challenging, not perfectly "tour smooth" and not completely full of foot prints.

The sand type and depth are going to dictate the depth of the foot print and and even if raked the options for the shot.

I believe the interest comes from the bunker placement with in the hole not from the foot printing or lack of.

Maintenance of the hazard should be considered in the design and the selection of the sand.

To coach college players not to rake bunkers I feel goes against proper golf etiquette.

I still say rake.

[mike_beene]

The best question is do you rake the practice bunker after you use it?

[Michael Rossi]

The best question is do you rake the practice bunker after you use it?

I do, I also rake foot prints of other anti rakering players on the course when playing.

Do you?

[Kyle Harris]

Jason/Michael,

I'm curious just how bad you think bunkers would get with standard maintenance performed 2-3 times per week, with an emphasis on weekend play (the third day being Saturday afternoon/Sunday Morning).

Standard maintenance would mean:
Hand raking or power raking as weather conditions dictate.
Edging and trimming grass not accessible by riding mowers.

This moves bunker maintenance toward the "as-needed" section and away from the daily section from the superintendent's end, and places the element of unpredictability back within the hazard.

Keep in mind there is nothing in the rules that says the player shouldn't "smooth" footprint gouges, etc. Give your mess a quick overage with the cleat and call it a day.

[Tom Yost]

I was taught to rake the bunker. I understood it to be a simple matter of etiquette.  While I understand the concept of the bunker being a hazard, I'm shocked to hear that some actually don't/won't rake the bunker.

 

[mike_beene]

Michael,yes I do.It feels right even if its dusk and the crew will be there the next morning.Sleeping well at night is the reward.

[Michael Rossi]

Kyle

Depending upon the sand 3 times per week is ample however depending upon the clientel it may not be enough.

I do not think that the bunkers would be unplayable, but if you are going to smooth them with your cleat why not use a rake for the quick once over?

Again not a tour smooth rake job. I still fail to see that if the bunker is unraked how this will get the player to try to execute his shot any less, or improve the game.

If you hit a shot at the flag, it strikes the flag and rolls off the green into a bunker and come to rest in a heel mark. From this lie you manage to get out as stated in an earlier post to say 40' then 2 putt. Are you happy? In another round same shot same hole same result with the exception of the heel mark in the bunker on a smoother sand lie do you think you could have a better chance to get up and down, and would you be happier?

I say raking could bring more enjoyment.

[Jason Topp]

Jason/Michael,

I'm curious just how bad you think bunkers would get with standard maintenance performed 2-3 times per week, with an emphasis on weekend play (the third day being Saturday afternoon/Sunday Morning).

Standard maintenance would mean:
Hand raking or power raking as weather conditions dictate.
Edging and trimming grass not accessible by riding mowers.

This moves bunker maintenance toward the "as-needed" section and away from the daily section from the superintendent's end, and places the element of unpredictability back within the hazard.

Keep in mind there is nothing in the rules that says the player shouldn't "smooth" footprint gouges, etc. Give your mess a quick overage with the cleat and call it a day.

Kyle:

I would guess the bunkers would be in rougher shape than they would be if tended to every day.  Raking is irrelevant to your proposed maintanence approach.  The bunkers on a course could be maintained as you suggest with an expectation that players rake them.  It would make the hazards marginally more hazardous but achieve the cost savings you espouse.

I would guess that not raking the bunkers would place more pressure on the staff to maintain them.

[Michael Rossi]

Michael,yes I do.It feels right even if its dusk and the crew will be there the next morning.Sleeping well at night is the reward.

Glad to hear that, I am the guy on that crew that will be out in the morning.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle

Depending upon the sand 3 times per week is ample however depending upon the clientel it may not be enough.

I do not think that the bunkers would be unplayable, but if you are going to smooth them with your cleat why not use a rake for the quick once over?

Again not a tour smooth rake job. I still fail to see that if the bunker is unraked how this will get the player to try to execute his shot any less, or improve the game.

If you hit a shot at the flag, it strikes the flag and rolls off the green into a bunker and come to rest in a heel mark. From this lie you manage to get out as stated in an earlier post to say 40' then 2 putt. Are you happy? In another round same shot same hole same result with the exception of the heel mark in the bunker on a smoother sand lie do you think you could have a better chance to get up and down, and would you be happier?

I say raking could bring more enjoyment.

Michael,

Come on. That's a one in a million shot, maybe even more. If that happens, I'd take my lumps and play the lottery that night. But really, you're talking about striking 2 inch diameter pole with a 4 inch ball...

Jason,

The next golfer I see that does enough to a bunker to subvert the cost to maintain it will be the first.

It seems this conversation is more about golfer responsibility than hazard maintenance.

[Michael Rossi]

Ok then Kyle you hit a shot and it trickles off the green and lands in the heel mark as opposed to the smoother lie.

As a superintendent at a public facility I see players daily make a mess that increases the cost of maintenance. If the players would rake out I would also hear far less complaints about the bunkers. Less complaints more enjoyment.

[Kyle Harris]

Ok then Kyle you hit a shot and it trickles off the green and lands in the heel mark as opposed to the smoother lie.

As a superintendent at a public facility I see players daily make a mess that increases the cost of maintenance. If the players would rake out I would also hear far less complaints about the bunkers. Less complaints more enjoyment.

Michael,

Please understand I work at probably THE course for firm conditioning, at least in the Philadelphia area. That sort of firmness is a near requirement for our members. If such fate befalls such shot - so be it. Landing on the green and staying on the green are two different things. 

[Michael Rossi]

Glad to hear you have such a great job, and I too believe that the shot should hold the green not the green holding the shot, but back to the question.

Ball lands in heel mark as opposed to smoother lie. Which is a more enjoyable experience?

[Scott Coan]

There's a key difference between not raking a bunker and neglecting a bunker. If the sand maintenance were to fall solely on the hands on the superintendent and on a 2-3 times per week basis - how bad do you believe bunkers would get? I, for one, am not advocating complete neglect, but only maintenance necessary for the preservation of the hazard (object).

One of the original rules of the game was to play the course as one finds it. Your slippery slope argument aside. The ethic here is not to make hazards more "penal" but instead more "unpredictable" and "rote." Encouraging creativity in both challenging a hazard and playing from the hazard.

Here's how bad the bunkers would get - they would become completely unplayable!  An unmaintained bunker becomes one thing; more and more unplayable as more and more hoof prints dig into it.  May as well make them water hazards...

[DMoriarty]

Geez, with these comments you'd think that golf would never have survived without those rakes.

From The American Golfer, October 1912:

EMASCULATING BUNKERS.
On all the Western courses they have a penchant for raking- bunkers. So much so that in nearly all cases the ball is practically teed. Which utterly defeats the purpose for which a bunker is intended—a penalty for a poor stroke.

At the Chicago Golf Club, just prior to the Olympic team match which preceded the national amateur championship, attention was drawn to this unfairness and accordingly the sand was so raked into small mounds and hollows as to make the playing- of the shot mean something. Of course this aroused considerable resentment. But the Olympic match was started under these new conditions. Before it was half over, however, orders were issued to smooth out all inequalities and restore the surface to its original lovely pristine state, and the novel sight was witnessed, during a medalplay competition, of some of the earlier players vigorously attacking the ball in these billowy surfaces—and just getting out—only to be followed by others playing from the same bunkers, freshly smoothed, and having no trouble at all getting out with ordinary irons, and in some cases wooden clubs, and securing the same distance as though the ball were teed up in the fairway. Which, strictly speaking, rendered the whole competition null and void.

When a bunker permits a player to use a wooden club, or anything except a niblick and by a skillful stroke with the latter only enabling him to get out, that bunker becomes a travesty and fails to accomplish its object.

[Kyle Harris]

Glad to hear you have such a great job, and I too believe that the shot should hold the green not the green holding the shot, but back to the question.

Ball lands in heel mark as opposed to smoother lie. Which is a more enjoyable experience?

For me, one is not more enjoyable over the other. When my balls lands in a bunker, I'm ready mentally for whatever fate my befall it.

Scott Coan,

They're getting raked every two days or so. Do bunkers really get THAT much play in 2 days?

[Scott Warren]

Ball lands in heel mark as opposed to smoother lie. Which is a more enjoyable experience?

Why are you so concerned with players having an "enjoyable experience" in a hazard. Do you dye the water blue so they can lose errant balls in pretty water?

IMO, when good amateurs and tour players are screaming "get in the bunker" when it's a case of finding bunker or rough, it is time to act.

So either get rid of the stupid rough around the greens and have bunkers surrounded by tight fairway lies, or throw away the rakes from any bunker shallower than three feet. I favour the former, but would settle for the latter.

From a 5ft-deep links pot bunker, I can understand that making a golfer play from a footprint is probably a bit silly, but from a shallow greenside or fairway trap, golfers have it too good, IMO. Bunkers are there to be avoided and add risk for some reward if a shot flirts but doesn't fall in.

But I fear US country clubs will keep doing what their wealthy clientele wants, and much of the golfing world will continue replicating whatever the wealthy country clubs do.

[Paul_Turner]

Alwoodley (1907) didn't rake its bunkers for years, Mark Rowlinson pinned down when the club started raking.   From looking at UK photos in the 1920s and 1930s most bunkers look raked, you rarely see a rake in the photo so I'm assuming either that the bunkers were infrequently (realtively) raked by the greenkeeper.

Were bunkers designed in the 1920s and 1930s with raking and better lies in mind?

I would like to see some movement to less maintenance on the British links.  The really deep pot with flat perfect sand has become boring.   I don't think the bunkers would necessarily become over the top penal, none of the bunkers below would have regularly taken 4 or 5 shots to get out of:

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Paul:

Is that first picture from Royal Dublin?

Dónal.

[Paul_Turner]

Donal

Yes it is Dublin.

[JMEvensky]

I'm all for keeping the maintenance crew out of daily raking--but that's more of a budget priority issue.

If you don't "insist" that players,at least, smooth bunkers after they've played a shot,how do you follow the Golden Rule that each of us learned early--"leave the golf course better than you found it"?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()