[Jim Franklin]

I just played Oakmont a few times in early October and those fairway bunkers are by far the most punitive I have played. They are much deeper than they were 6-7 years ago. Sideways or high lofted club is your only option. Pat, when was the last time you played Oakmont? If Wilshire's are harder than Oakmont, count me out.

Jim,

Two years ago.

Wilshire's are more difficult to get out of because they're so narrow and they're shaped like a u/v making one's ability to take a level stance very difficult.
In addition,  the capes and bays make it difficult to swing freely.

The ball almost always rolls into a position that doesn't lend itself to extraction.

And, all of Oakmont's bunkers don't feed the ball into a face or vertical bank.

Oakmont is narrower than the back nine at Wilshire and the bunkers are generally larger in terms of scale, but, Wilshire's FAIRWAY bunkers, systemically, present a very, very difficult challenge.

They don't look ferocious, but, their bite is worse than their appearance.

My host was telling me about the history of Hogan's walks (the short cut of grass from tee to fairway originated at Oakmont) and I suggested Franklin's walks from tee to each fairway bunker since I was in most of them.

Thanks Pat. I need to see Wilshire one day.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rather than reference vague generalities in the entire UK, why don't the three Marks cite specific courses.
Start with TOC if you'd like.

Are the bunkers systemically penal?

Here's a few of Muirfield from our very own Philip Gawith.  I haven't played there, but they look suitably venomous.







And one from Royal County Down. I'll tell you what it is like in a few weeks.

Speaking of "winds",  I wonder if the "Marks" are familiar with the Santa Ana winds?

I have no doubt when you are in California Patrick, there is a lot more hot air about. 

Mark,

When I'm in California the average intelligence in that state is increased while the average intelligence in NJ is decreased.

You've illustrated a FEW bunkers from different courses.

Is every fairway bunker at each course configured as pictured ?

I think not.

I guess the word "systemic" is a difficult word to understand if your name is "Mark"
Maybe it's some sort of birth anomaly.
Evidently, "Marks" on several continents are having comprehension difficulties.

We can all find examples of punitive fairway bunkers, many far more severe than every fairway bunker at Wilshire.
But, as a collective, "systemically" the fairway bunkers at Wilshire are amongst the most penal I've encountered in quite some time.

Personally, I find it to be a bit of a design flaw where the dimensions and configuration conspire to make them too penal for the membership and guests.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

Generally speaking, links fairway bunkers exact a 1 shot penalty. 

I didn't find that to be the case.
Ball location in the bunker often allowed for easy extraction.

Even very good players are not going to advance the ball very far most of the time. 

That's largely dependent upon the ball's location in the bunker.
At Wilshire, due to the configuration of the fairway bunkers, balls invariably end up against the face of the bunker or in such a position where it's almost impossible to take a normal stance.

Whether or not this is more severe than Wilshire's bunkers strikes me as irrelevant.

No, it's not, it's the focus of the topic being discussed, you just don't understand the entire scope of the discussion.

The most consistently difficult bunkering in terms of recovery I have ever encountered was the greenside bunkers at Yeamans Hall.  I could get out fine with decent results, but the guys I played with could not.  Nothing wrong with that sort of bunkering if one doesn't mind standing around watching Three Stooges type stuff.  I would also say that the real difficulty with the bunkering was only partly due to depth.  The hard packed sand (big difference on links with soft sand) was at least as problematic.  With soft sand, those bunkers would not be anywhere near as difficult.  Even so, I don't mind this sort of thing so long as the quantity of bunkers is tempered. 

This thread isn't about greenside bunkers.
Feel free to initiate a thread on that topic if you like.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Muirfield does seems like a good place to start.

Yes, the bunkers at Muirfield are penal.  I'm not sure what Pat means by "systematically" penal but  many holes (3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17 and 18) have fairway bunkers from which there is no prospect of playing for the green.

"Playing for the green" ?
That's not the issue, it's getting out and not leaving yourself an even more difficult shot should you fail to do so.

 That's not to say the fairway bunkering on the other holes is easy (anyone who has driven it into the LHS fairway bunker on 1 knows that, just not quite as impossible.

As to the winds, no I haven't been to Santa Ana. 
Perhaps Patrick (who I assume is entirely familiar with the Gullane winds) can explain how the winds in Santa Ana are that much worse than East Lothian. 

It's not a question of worse, whether one is 5 mph stronger or cooler than the other.

Mark Ferguson mentioned the wind in the UK, and I merely pointed out that Wilshire is also subject to wind.

But, being the dork that you are, you now want to nit pick about the "winds"

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Perhaps you are using the word "systemic" in a confusing way.  The definition from Merriam Webster:

"Definition of SYSTEMIC

: of, relating to, or common to a system: as
a : affecting the body generally
b : supplying those parts of the body that receive blood through the aorta rather than through the pulmonary artery
c : of, relating to, or being a pesticide that as used is harmless to the plant or higher animal but when absorbed into its sap or bloodstream makes the entire organism toxic to pests (as an insect or fungus) "

If you were considering the fairway bunkers a "system" then the use of systemic might have been appropriate.  Perhaps it would have been more clear if you had used "universally" or "collectively' or "without exception" to describe your premise.  Sorry for the English lesson.   

Re the bunkers, could you expand on the description of them as being U/V shaped.  Wouldn't that lead to balls going the bottom middle of the U or V and away from the walls?  My course has bunkers with many capes and bays and they do indeed often impede back-swings or follow-throughs and can be deadly when the ball gets up against the edging, but they aren't U/V shaped, so it happens with some regularity. 


Others,

Pat's original premise was:

The most punitive fairway bunkers I've ever encountered were at Wilshire CC in Los Angeles.

He has now allowed that (added bolding is mine):

But, as a collective, "systemically" the fairway bunkers at Wilshire are amongst the most penal I've encountered in quite some time.

Going from the absolute position to a more reasonable "amongst" position is likely the greatest concession you're going to get out of Patrick.   

[David Bartman]

Wilshire's new fairway bunkers are really really really difficult.  They are small narrow and EVERYWHERE, which is why they are more difficult than the fairway bunkers in Europe.

Generally, you can strategize around the bunkers in Europe, which I think is terrific! 

The front nine at Wilshire CC doesn't really lend itself to playing short or long or one side or the other, these bunkers are everywhere, on both sides of most holes.  They are, in my opinion, too small for what they are trying to accomplish.  They have the pot bunker effect without being a pot bunker.  Mind you , the course, especially the front nine, is on a small parcel of land and the holes are scrunched together, not allowing for large fairway bunkers that are seen at the best courses in the United States.   I think that they should have penal bunkers given the length of the holes, but also should have them strategically placed to mostly effect the top players and not the average player. 

I have from a very good source that the members are extremely unhappy with the bunkers and have already began the process to hire someone to redesign them. 

To Pat's point, they are really really difficult because of their lack of size in combination with the multiple cut outs in each bunker effectively making mini pot bunkers in each bunker, creating significant stance issues more than anything else. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Perhaps you are using the word "systemic" in a confusing way

Those who don't understand the use of the word "systemic" in the context of the fairway bunkers at Wilshire, should have their access privileges revoked by Ran.
If they still don't understand the use of the word "systemic" after I tried to assist them by using the word, "collective", then they belong on another site, discussing finger painting. . 

 The definition from Merriam Webster:

"Definition of SYSTEMIC

: of, relating to, or common to a system: as
a : affecting the body generally
b : supplying those parts of the body that receive blood through the aorta rather than through the pulmonary artery
c : of, relating to, or being a pesticide that as used is harmless to the plant or higher animal but when absorbed into its sap or bloodstream makes the entire organism toxic to pests (as an insect or fungus) "

If you were considering the fairway bunkers a "system" then the use of systemic might have been appropriate.  Perhaps it would have been more clear if you had used "universally" or "collectively' or "without exception" to describe your premise.  Sorry for the English lesson.   

If I have to dumb down architectural references for those tuning in, maybe Tommy Naccarato is right.

Re the bunkers, could you expand on the description of them as being U/V shaped.  Wouldn't that lead to balls going the bottom middle of the U or V and away from the walls? 

You have to understand the narrow configuration of the bunkers, their perimeters, the capes and bays along with the vertical profile, and probably most important of all, the angle at which the bunkers sit, relative to the incoming lines of play, all of which conspire to feed balls into the walls of the bunkers.  They tend to be very narrow and it's that narrowness, combined with the angle of the bunker, the vertical profile and the configuration of the perimeter with its many capes and bays that make them so difficult.

Based on the "Marks" response and your response, I'm begining to think that I'm wasting my time trying to create interesting topics for discussion.

I've played alot of golf at alot of courses, I also have rather keen powers of observation, hence, I know what I encounter on a golf course.

For you and the "Marks" to tell me what I've encountered, especially when none of you have played Wilshire, seems rather arrogant and ignorant on your part.

My course has bunkers with many capes and bays and they do indeed often impede back-swings or follow-throughs and can be deadly when the ball gets up against the edging, but they aren't U/V shaped, so it happens with some regularity. 

I would think that bunker size, lack of bunker width, bunker angle, bunker profile and configuration have a great deal to do with impeded back-swings.

One question would be, were these bunkers intended to be so penal in order to thwart scoring on a fairly short course ?

Others,

Pat's original premise was:

The most punitive fairway bunkers I've ever encountered were at Wilshire CC in Los Angeles.

He has now allowed that (added bolding is mine):

But, as a collective, "systemically" the fairway bunkers at Wilshire are amongst the most penal I've encountered in quite some time.

Going from the absolute position to a more reasonable "amongst" position is likely the greatest concession you're going to get out of Patrick.   

Not really.

Being the most punitive fairway bunkers, and then including them amongst the most penal bunkers I've encountered, doesn't change the initial assessment.
I was just factoring in Oakmont and a few other courses with penal bunkers.

I think this kind of nit picking, as evidenced by the "Marks" and to a lesser degree, yourself, is one of the reasons this site has gone down hill, intellectually.

Rather than discuss the bunkers, their configuration, effect on play, interaction with the membership in terms of satisfaction or dissatisfaction, some dolts chose to cite single bunkers as more penal, completely missing the global reference, which was focused on all of the fairway bunkers on the golf course and not any single or select number of bunkers.

[Brian Colbert]

Pat,

I have never played Wilshire, but I have played Oakmont, and I remember the bunkers being the most penal I had ever seen in exactly the way you are describing those at Wilshire.

My real question is, have you ever been to Ballyneal? I thought that Oakmont's fairway bunkers were the most penal I had ever seen until I was fortunate enough to play out there this summer. The way the bunkers at Ballyneal are configured does not make it a sure thing that the player will even be able to chip out sideways. There are thousands of pictures floating around this site and other parts of the internet but none of them are mine so I will not post them on here, but I don't know how anyone who has played Ballyneal could say that the fairway bunkers at any other golf course are more penal.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I have never played Wilshire, but I have played Oakmont, and I remember the bunkers being the most penal I had ever seen in exactly the way you are describing those at Wilshire.

My real question is, have you ever been to Ballyneal?

Brian, No, I haven't played Ballyneal, it's one of the courses on my list to play.

I've heard great things about it, including that it might be Tom Doak's best effort to date.

 I thought that Oakmont's fairway bunkers were the most penal I had ever seen until I was fortunate enough to play out there this summer. The way the bunkers at Ballyneal are configured does not make it a sure thing that the player will even be able to chip out sideways. There are thousands of pictures floating around this site and other parts of the internet but none of them are mine so I will not post them on here, but I don't know how anyone who has played Ballyneal could say that the fairway bunkers at any other golf course are more penal.

How generous are the fairways at Ballyneal ?

The fairways at Wilshire are not very wide on the front nine.
The back nine has a little more width, hence, the bunkers on the front nine are more in play.

I'd be curious as to the membership's perception of the bunkers.
Do they find them difficult or do they accept them as a method for defending par ?

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

I have from a very good source that the members are extremely unhappy with the bunkers and have already began the process to hire someone to redesign them.

From the aerials it looks like every bunker on the course has been totally renovated and restyled over the last two years to the new frilly style.  It must have cost a fair penny to do that.  Would the membership really want to do it all over again so soon?  Did they not understand what they were going to get with the recent bunker renovation?

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

I still don't get how balls will roll to the edge of the bunkers if they are u or v shaped in the bottom.  Does the sand not angle up in a v on all the edges whether they are in bays or not?  Or, do balls roll up and get stuck?

Is it your premise that there should always be a full recovery from a fairway bunker, i.e. a full shot at the green? 

At my home course, we had the same issue with balls running up to edges in small bays.  Our new superintendent's solution (since there was a downslope, some large and some small, away from the edges was to roll the edges of the sand so that the ball would always roll down into the bottom of the bunker, at least  a couple of feet away from the edges.  It has generally worked out for the better.

Re your musings about creating interesting posts and generating good discussion on them, it might help if you posted about places that more people have been and didn't attack people who have opinions but haven't played the course in question.  It might also help if you didn't attack people who have different opinions than yours - in a lot of this stuff there is no absolute right or wrong, just different opinions.

 

[Sean_A]

Pat

Generally speaking, links fairway bunkers exact a 1 shot penalty.  

I didn't find that to be the case.
Ball location in the bunker often allowed for easy extraction.

Even very good players are not going to advance the ball very far most of the time.

That's largely dependent upon the ball's location in the bunker.
At Wilshire, due to the configuration of the fairway bunkers, balls invariably end up against the face of the bunker or in such a position where it's almost impossible to take a normal stance.

Whether or not this is more severe than Wilshire's bunkers strikes me as irrelevant.

No, it's not, it's the focus of the topic being discussed, you just don't understand the entire scope of the discussion.

The most consistently difficult bunkering in terms of recovery I have ever encountered was the greenside bunkers at Yeamans Hall.  I could get out fine with decent results, but the guys I played with could not.  Nothing wrong with that sort of bunkering if one doesn't mind standing around watching Three Stooges type stuff.  I would also say that the real difficulty with the bunkering was only partly due to depth.  The hard packed sand (big difference on links with soft sand) was at least as problematic.  With soft sand, those bunkers would not be anywhere near as difficult.  Even so, I don't mind this sort of thing so long as the quantity of bunkers is tempered.  

This thread isn't about greenside bunkers.
Feel free to initiate a thread on that topic if you like.

Ciao

Pat

We all know you are on some sort of Notre Dame high, but lets come back to earth for a bit.  Are you telling me that most golfers aren't penalized ~1 shot for hitting links fairway bunkers?  Meaning, their bunker shot result will be similar as if they were in the fairway?  In my experience, most of the time players get out and are now left with a shot not all that different than if their tee shot had been played safely to the fairway - that equates to 1 shot penalty in my book.  I know my many years of playing links golf will naturally pale in comparison to your experience, but its strange that our takes are so different - don't you think?

Ciao

[Mark Chaplin]

Pat I'm sure the bunkers are tough at Wilshire or where ever it is you are talking about. But you are losing the argument, you started off talking about "full recoveries" and "reaching the green" and now as usual the goal posts are moving.

I just hope on your last trip to Scotland your mind became confused after too much Kummel rather than stamping your feet and refusing to notice everything because the clubs allow anyone to play rather than a few invited guests 

[Mark Pearce]

Muirfield does seems like a good place to start.

Yes, the bunkers at Muirfield are penal.  I'm not sure what Pat means by "systematically" penal but  many holes (3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17 and 18) have fairway bunkers from which there is no prospect of playing for the green.

"Playing for the green" ?
That's not the issue, it's getting out and not leaving yourself an even more difficult shot should you fail to do so.

Pat,
I think you’re confusing everyone.  Yourself especially.  By systematically penal are we to understand that you mean that, on the whole, it is difficult for the golfer to even extract himself from the fairway bunkers at Wilshire?  There are bunkers at Muirfield (since that’s the example I used above) where a bad lie can make escape difficult but that’s rare and that, I think, is no bad thing.  Are we to understand your position to be that bunkers from which simply escaping is a difficult thing to do are a positive architectural feature?

 That's not to say the fairway bunkering on the other holes is easy (anyone who has driven it into the LHS fairway bunker on 1 knows that, just not quite as impossible.

As to the winds, no I haven't been to Santa Ana.  
Perhaps Patrick (who I assume is entirely familiar with the Gullane winds) can explain how the winds in Santa Ana are that much worse than East Lothian.

It's not a question of worse, whether one is 5 mph stronger or cooler than the other.

Mark Ferguson mentioned the wind in the UK, and I merely pointed out that Wilshire is also subject to wind.

But, being the dork that you are, you now want to nit pick about the "winds"

[/quote]My understanding, when you asked if we (as a collective of Marks) were familiar with the Santa Ana winds was that you were suggesting that there was something special about those winds.   It’s pretty clear I wasn’t alone in reading your words that way.  Perhaps if, when typing, you concentrated on quality of words, rather than quantity, we’d not only be able to focus on the more interesting questions, rather than wasting time having you chastise us for failing to cut through the crap.

[Brian Colbert]

Pat,

I have never played Wilshire, but I have played Oakmont, and I remember the bunkers being the most penal I had ever seen in exactly the way you are describing those at Wilshire.

My real question is, have you ever been to Ballyneal?

Brian, No, I haven't played Ballyneal, it's one of the courses on my list to play.

I've heard great things about it, including that it might be Tom Doak's best effort to date.

 I thought that Oakmont's fairway bunkers were the most penal I had ever seen until I was fortunate enough to play out there this summer. The way the bunkers at Ballyneal are configured does not make it a sure thing that the player will even be able to chip out sideways. There are thousands of pictures floating around this site and other parts of the internet but none of them are mine so I will not post them on here, but I don't know how anyone who has played Ballyneal could say that the fairway bunkers at any other golf course are more penal.

How generous are the fairways at Ballyneal ?

The fairways at Wilshire are not very wide on the front nine.
The back nine has a little more width, hence, the bunkers on the front nine are more in play.

I'd be curious as to the membership's perception of the bunkers.
Do they find them difficult or do they accept them as a method for defending par ?

Pat,

The fairways at Ballyneal are certainly wide. They had essentially infinite land to work with and Doak did a wonderful job maximizing the property. That said, the rolling hills along the property which highlight the middle of the fairways keep the player thinking about an unfortunate bounce into one. They effectively make the fairways only half the size sometimes. I think just the possibility that the player may end up in one of those bunkers is enough of a reason to aim slightly away from them. For what it's worth, A friend of mine and I went out there and didn't hit into one, but we were both driving over after missing the cut in the U.S. Amateur so I don't know that we're a good barometer. There are also multiple holes which contain these bunkers in the middle of the fairway, and they aren't any more forgiving. Wilshire more than likely has a greater chance of a player ending up in one of their fairway bunkers, but despite not having seen it, I can pretty much guarantee Ballyneal's have a higher you're F'ed factor once you do end up in one. It's up to you to judge for yourself which situation is more intimidating and penal.

As far as the member's opinions on the bunkers, I played unaccompanied so I wouldn't know. But I do know that there is at least one member on this board and if he sees this he is likely to identify himself and chime in.

[Mark McKeever]

A "your'e F'd factor" when rating how penal the bunkering is.   I like it.  What are your top 5?


Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

Wilshire and Oakmont pop into mind, as does GCGC and PV.

I'll have to think about the other.

[Mark Pearce]

In the UK Muirfield, Ganton and Woodall Spa spring to mind.

[Patrick_Mucci]

In the UK Muirfield, Ganton and Woodall Spa spring to mind.

Mark,

Relatively speaking, how does Carnoustie compare to the above courses ?

[Mark Pearce]

Pat,

It's too long since I have been to Carnoustie to say for sure, which is why I didn't list it.  My recollection is of a course on a similar level of punitive bunkering.

[Mark McKeever]

Mark,

Wilshire and Oakmont pop into mind, as does GCGC and PV.

I'll have to think about the other.

Having not played any that are being discussed in the thread I will go with my top 5:

Pine Valley
Boston Golf
Yale
Bethpage Black
Aronimink-could be swapped out probably..

Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

I've never seen bunkers on the scale of the bunkers at BPB

[David Bartman]

David,

I have from a very good source that the members are extremely unhappy with the bunkers and have already began the process to hire someone to redesign them.

From the aerials it looks like every bunker on the course has been totally renovated and restyled over the last two years to the new frilly style.  It must have cost a fair penny to do that.  Would the membership really want to do it all over again so soon?  Did they not understand what they were going to get with the recent bunker renovation?

I wish I had an answer for you on this, I do know that there has been quite a backlash from the membership and they are beginning to see what options are available to them and at what price. 

[Brian Colbert]

I think Butler National's fairway bunkers have a tremendous "you're Effed factor." They are incredibly deep and at the same time you are so far away from the hole. Depending on the hole, there are many that you can hit into where it will be unlikely that you can make it to the green on your next shot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()