Standing on the tee with your driver, direction seems to be the only concern,

[Jason Thurman]

Excellent David. That's a much more concise phrasing of what I've been trying to get at.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason & David,

Yes, it can be both.

It's location can make it strategic, it's configuration can make it penal.

[Sean_A]

Jason & David,

Yes, it can be both.

It's location can make it strategic, it's configuration can make it penal.

I wouldn't care to use the term "penal" to describe a bunker placed so as to entice the golfer to take on its challenge.  I know its an easy term to use in describing how difficult a bunker is to escape from, but its also a very confusing descriptor.  When I read "penal bunker" I immediately think of there being little choice other than to take it on.  I don't believe that accurately describes the Road Hole Bunker. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason & David,

Yes, it can be both.

It's location can make it strategic, it's configuration can make it penal.

I wouldn't care to use the term "penal" to describe a bunker placed so as to entice the golfer to take on its challenge. 

How would you describe the DA bunker at PV ?

I know its an easy term to use in describing how difficult a bunker is to escape from, but its also a very confusing descriptor. 

Why is it confusing ?
There are two elements, location and configuration.
Your confusion might be because you're blending the two.

When I read "penal bunker" I immediately think of there being little choice other than to take it on. 

Then you're confusing the two elements.

Can you list ten bunkers that you have to take on off the tee ?

By your definition every bunker that fronts a green would be a penal bunker.

I don't believe that accurately describes the Road Hole Bunker. 

So you believe that the "road hole" bunker isn't penal ?
Have you ever been in it ?
If you were in it, did you think it was benign or penal in nature ?

[Garland Bayley]

 

Are you familiar with "catch" bunkers ?
Often used to "catch" a ball before it goes into a hazard, OB, or hostile territory.

I don't call those catch bunkers. I call them too many bunkers.

You are putting in a hazard to keep someone from going into a hazard?
What a bunch of BS.

[Patrick_Mucci]

 

Are you familiar with "catch" bunkers ?
Often used to "catch" a ball before it goes into a hazard, OB, or hostile territory.

I don't call those catch bunkers. I call them too many bunkers.

You are putting in a hazard to keep someone from going into a hazard?
What a bunch of BS.

Evidently a good number of architects disagree with you.

If you've ever been to Florida it's not uncommon to find them on the inside of a dogleg, especially when a swamp or water hazard or OB are directly behind them.

Perhaps you should expand your horizons before calling BS.

Have you ever seen "catch" berms behind or flanking the steep banks of greens ?
They're used to prevent balls from running too far from the green and/or from going into hazards.
Ross, AWT and others used them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

 

Are you familiar with "catch" bunkers ?
Often used to "catch" a ball before it goes into a hazard, OB, or hostile territory.

I don't call those catch bunkers. I call them too many bunkers.

You are putting in a hazard to keep someone from going into a hazard?
What a bunch of BS.

Would you call the long bunker flanking the left side of the fairway on # 18 at Pebble Beach BS ?

THAT's a catch bunker.

You have so much to learn and my time is extremely limited.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The third hole at Mountain Ridge presents a distance dilemma, as does the 12th and 13th, although the dilemmas differ.

On # 3, a short par 4,with a creek flanking the right side, there's a semi-cross bunker complex that juts out about 1/3 into the left side of the fairway.  There's fairway behind the bunker, so challenging it has it's rewards.

The golfer can lay back to a wide fairway short of the bunkers,  leaving him 130-140

Or, the golfer can try to thread the right side of the fairway, risking the creek and the bunker, leaving him 110 or less, or, the golfer can try to fly the bunker leaving him about 90-80 or less.

The green is elevated, surrounded by fronting and flanking bunkers, with a peninsula wing to the right.

It's a great presentation, combining direction and distance considerations

[Sean_A]

Jason & David,

Yes, it can be both.

It's location can make it strategic, it's configuration can make it penal.

I wouldn't care to use the term "penal" to describe a bunker placed so as to entice the golfer to take on its challenge. 

How would you describe the DA bunker at PV ?

I know its an easy term to use in describing how difficult a bunker is to escape from, but its also a very confusing descriptor. 

Why is it confusing ?
There are two elements, location and configuration.
Your confusion might be because you're blending the two.

When I read "penal bunker" I immediately think of there being little choice other than to take it on. 

Then you're confusing the two elements.

Can you list ten bunkers that you have to take on off the tee ?

By your definition every bunker that fronts a green would be a penal bunker.

I don't believe that accurately describes the Road Hole Bunker. 

So you believe that the "road hole" bunker isn't penal ?
Have you ever been in it ?
If you were in it, did you think it was benign or penal in nature ?

Pat

I thought I made myself clear.  The Road Hole Bunker is not penal. - it is very strategically placed to tempt the player - just as most bunkers should be.  One doesn't have to take it on unless he is already in it - tee hee.  Yes, I have been in the RHB because I chose to take on its challenge and momentarily failed; I did get up and down.  If I can get up and down, many others can.  This strikes me as a bunker which does its job in tempting the player to go flag hunting.  Its pot luck if one will get a lie which enables a not overly difficult recovery toward the flag.  Once in the bunker it is usually wise to take what is offered.  Again, I thought I made myself clear, no, I wouldn't call the RHB penal because it is strategically placed.  Using the term penal to describe how difficult the bunker is to play from opposed to its placement uses one term to describe two issues - this doesn't make for clear writing.     

I have played countless bunkers which must be taken on - no need to name them because they exist by the thousands.  That is the nature of bunker left and bunker right and cross bunkers.  They have their place in architecture, but imo it should be a small place.   

Ciao 

[Ronald Montesano]

This has been quite entertaining for 1.5 pages of thread. Thank you for that life distraction.

My reaction to the thread title, which was as near to a complete sentence in a title as Patrick has ever used, was the following:

Oh, Patrick means that you have to hit the driver this far, but not that far.

As I read more, I wasn't certain this was the case. Folks wrote about threading this needle (that's direction, not distance) or avoiding that lateral bunker (that's direction, not distance, also.) I went back to my original notion.

Oh, Patrick means that you have to hit the driver this far, but not that far.

Except for this: when does golf demand that from you? If the minimum carry to reach safe ground is driver (and that's what varied tee decks offer us~250 or 235 or 220 or 205 or 190 yard carries to surpass a crevice or some other fronting devourer of souls), I hope it's not quite often in a round, unless that's your thing. If the option to play short exists, then some play short while others challenge the impediment. If we have to keep a tee ball between two vertical hazards (the first ending at 215, the second beginning at 250 and insurmountable) then we play a club that gets us that far.

My interpretation is that Patrick is suggesting par 4 and 5 holes that are really composites of a pair or trio of par threes, without intermediate putting surfaces. For me, that's fine, as long as it doesn't become redundant. I enjoy the occasional chess match with the architect; if the moves are all the same, my interest wanes.

[Mark Pearce]

Surely any hole where you have to choose your line based on your expected carry (and/or total distance) is a hole where direction is not the only concern.  This will be the case with sharp dog legs and diagonal hazards.  I think having to match line to distance is a great challenge off the tee and any hole that requires this has an advantage.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Surely any hole where you have to choose your line based on your expected carry (and/or total distance) is a hole where direction is not the only concern.  This will be the case with sharp dog legs and diagonal hazards.  I think having to match line to distance is a great challenge off the tee and any hole that requires this has an advantage.

Mark,

"matching line to distance" is a good phrase, one that captures the golfer's dilemma on the tee.

All too often the golfer can hit the ball anywhere in the fairway at any distance.

Having features within the fairway corridor that present carry dilemmas in the form of choices, choices usually associated with risk/reward would seem to make for far more interesting and far more challenging golf.

Having a straightaway fairway, irrespective of the flanking features, doesn't seem to present a thorough test of the golfer's ability to use his driver. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

This has been quite entertaining for 1.5 pages of thread. Thank you for that life distraction.

My reaction to the thread title, which was as near to a complete sentence in a title as Patrick has ever used, was the following:

Oh, Patrick means that you have to hit the driver this far, but not that far.

Incorrect

As I read more, I wasn't certain this was the case. Folks wrote about threading this needle (that's direction, not distance) or avoiding that lateral bunker (that's direction, not distance, also.) I went back to my original notion.

Think !   Why did they have a choice in threading the needle ?
What caused them to make that choice ?

Oh, Patrick means that you have to hit the driver this far, but not that far.

Incorrect

Except for this: when does golf demand that from you? If the minimum carry to reach safe ground is driver (and that's what varied tee decks offer us~250 or 235 or 220 or 205 or 190 yard carries to surpass a crevice or some other fronting devourer of souls), I hope it's not quite often in a round, unless that's your thing. If the option to play short exists, then some play short while others challenge the impediment. If we have to keep a tee ball between two vertical hazards (the first ending at 215, the second beginning at 250 and insurmountable) then we play a club that gets us that far.

It's not about minimum required carries.

It's about "choice" carries

My interpretation is that Patrick is suggesting par 4 and 5 holes that are really composites of a pair or trio of par threes, without intermediate putting surfaces. For me, that's fine, as long as it doesn't become redundant. I enjoy the occasional chess match with the architect; if the moves are all the same, my interest wanes.

Two or three would be sufficient rather than fourteen straightaway fairways where it doesn't matter which direction (within the fairway) and which distance you hit it.

[Jud_T]

Pat,

Kingsley #1 is an example.  Best line is over the right side of the centerline bunkers to catch the turbo boost down the hill,  but there's plenty of room right and left for those who can't make it.

[Garland Bayley]

 

Are you familiar with "catch" bunkers ?
Often used to "catch" a ball before it goes into a hazard, OB, or hostile territory.

I don't call those catch bunkers. I call them too many bunkers.

You are putting in a hazard to keep someone from going into a hazard?
What a bunch of BS.

Would you call the long bunker flanking the left side of the fairway on # 18 at Pebble Beach BS ?

THAT's a catch bunker.

You have so much to learn and my time is extremely limited.

You have so much to unlearn, and no one has the time for that.
Just because a GCA did it, doesn't make it right.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

When a number of great courses with noted architects introduce the feature I have to believe that they know what they're doing and that you don't