[Connor Dougherty]

At Pasatiempo, a few of the fairway bunkers are very shallow. In some cases one would be able to hit a fairway wood, and, if he managed to strike it well, would be able to clear the lip. So I ask, is a shallow fairway bunker superior to a deep one? I'd like to hear what you guys have to say before I chime in.

Here's a photo of the fairway bunker on the right side of 9 at Pasatiempo:
[/url]

[David_Elvins]

Connor,

I think it depends on the land to a degree. The bunker you show is on very flat land, a deeper bunker would look out of place.  Conversely, a shallow bunker on an undulating fairway may look silly.

[Greg Krueger]

It can also depend on the length of the hole, the shorter the hole the more lofted the club the deeper the bunker.

[Sven Nilsen]

I'd also look at the purpose of the bunker.  If its a feature added to guard the optimal line (with plenty of room to play away from it), the risk should match the reward.

Sven

[Alex Miller]

Should a fairway bunker be shallow or deep?

Yes, in my opinion.  


I think generally, a fairway bunker should err on the side of depth in order to impose strategy upon the golfer, however there are still places for shallower bunkers like the one you show.

What would be gained if there were a higher lip on that bunker? The player would have to layup, but they would probably be able to get it to wedge-distance anyway. I think the only thing that would be different if this bunker had a more imposing lip would be that it takes fairway wood out of your hands, like you stated. As it is now, a player could boldly/stupidly pull out fairway wood and go for the green. It's a low percentage shot and adds a risk/reward element for the golfer.

All else equal,I think a rule for fairway bunker could be that a scratch golfer should have a 50-50 decision on going for the green from the center of the bunker. That said, if you make a bunker deeper or shallower then you can affect strategy in different ways. I wouldn't want every bunker to be the same depth, but at the same time a uniformity in style is also important. Very hard to articulate, sorry... Just my thoughts...  

[Tim Passalacqua]

I think it depends on how severe of a hazard you want.  The first place I actually dreaded being in a fairway bunker was at Muirfield Village.  They all seem to be 6 feet deep and the one on #10 is over 8 feet deep.  They are legitimate hazards that you try to avoid and are penalized for being in.  Does every course need fairway bunkers that deep?  No, but that course was built to test the pros.

[Nigel Islam]

There is nothing wrong with a high lipped fairway bunker. They are hazzards, but other factors play in as well such as drainage and the lay of the land.

[Sean_A]

I think all bunkers should be deep relative to the site.  I also think its fine to have deep bunkers on flat land - its done all the time on links.  Given that I don't think courses should in general have that many bunkers, there are none that can be wasted with shallow depth.

Ciao

[Mike Hendren]

I favor any hazard/architectural element that exacts a half stroke.  For all but the best players, a shallow fairway bunker accomplishes this just fine.  Perhaps bunker depth should increase as placement is moved farther from the tee?

The half-stroke penalty separates the golfer from the striker without wrecking the card by making recovery a real possibility.  

Bogey

[Joey Chase]

I like the way the bunker doesn't force itself into the hole, in that, it sits well in the terrain.  I do think the bunker could be deeper depending on how it is utilized.  I do agree with others that a bunker should be a proper penalty and not just a different playing surface from which to play one's ball.  Otherwise, what's the purpose of the fairway bunker if not to create a deterrent to the line which may be the optimal depending on ones playing ability? 

[Philippe Binette]

"It can also depend on the length of the hole, the shorter the hole the more lofted the club the deeper the bunker."

it's exactly the type of "false architectural rules" that needs to be avoided.

there's no rules, as long as you can drain the bunker you're fine. It really depends on the purpose of the bunker on the hole (Aesthetics can be a purpose) and the overall purpose of the hole.

If the first criteria is that you should be able to reach the green from the bunker.... you don't need a bunker.

[Tom_Doak]

No rules.

I don't mind having an occasional bunker that someone can try to hit a 4-wood out of.  That is a very hard shot to execute, and the golfer should be given a chance to try it -- knowing that sometimes he'll hit the lip and wind up with a stroke and a half penalty for thinking he was that good.

I also don't mind having an occasional bunker where you sometimes can't get it on the green (or get it to stay on the green) from a nasty greenside bunker.  Bottom line, you should have avoided that bunker at all costs.  But I would not likely surround a green with bunkers like that; if you're going to build a bunker that's impossible, you ought to give the golfer room to avoid it.

Re:  Pasatiempo in particular, the early pictures show that many of MacKenzie's original bunkers were quite shallow ... it looked like you could putt out of some of them.  We made some shallower to conform to the pics, but the club did not want us to go too far in that direction.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chinese Proverb,

Golfer who take wood in bunker, have wood in head.

Generally, I'd say that the deeper the bunker the more strategic the bunker and than in many cases fairway bunker depth may be related to the distance from the green

[Thomas Dai]

Providing the land/drainage is suitable I'd prefer deeper fairway bunkering, not head high in depth, but certainly deep enough to require a short iron recovery shot.

This is because I believe bunkers should be genuine hazards and standing on a tee and having to think out in a short space of time a game plan taking into consideration severity of hazards, wind direction, weather, fairway side slopes, dogleg angles, approach shot/lay-up angles, green alignment, hazard placement, best place to 'miss-'it', your playing ability level on the given day, the state of your score/the match, etc etc etc prior to teeing off is for me, one of the great pleasures of golf.

I would also like to put in a vote here for a long underused type of bunker - the grass bunker - such as is used extensively at classic older courses around the UK - Huntercombe comes to mind as do various courses on common land such as Kington and Minchinhampton Old. There are many splendid photos of grass bunkers in various GCA reviews of these courses.

Also grass bunkering, whether fairway or even greenside, and sometimes with grass trimmed to fairway length, sometimes with longer grass, can provide that half-a-shot penalty to the better player who is unwise enough to be overly ambitious or faulty in his shot selection whilst providing a more gentle punishment and easier method of extraction for the beginner/lessor player who finds themselves in such a position.

Grass bunkers are also a lot cheaper to maintain than sand bunkers.

One other point I'd like to make is bunker positioning - to my mind to many holes only have fairway bunkers at the sides of holes - what's wrong with a bunker in the middle of the fairway? - the 2nd at Carnoustie and the 16th at TOC have them, and they're very fine holes indeed.

[Paul Gray]

Tom,

Apologies for any misrepresentation but I seem to recall liking an idea in Anatomy whereby you suggested that the penality of a bunker
sould be inversely proportional to the penality of the hole.

[Connor Dougherty]

All,
Very interesting comments. I took the time to dissect a few of them below

Chinese Proverb,

Golfer who take wood in bunker, have wood in head.

Generally, I'd say that the deeper the bunker the more strategic the bunker and than in many cases fairway bunker depth may be related to the distance from the green

Pat, I think your Chinese Proverb explains why I am so fond of the bunker on the right of 9. Twice I have ended up in it, and both times I have taken a fairway wood to try to get out. One time I was successful, the other, not so much. What I think is interesting about placing a bunker like this on a par 5 that is reachable is that it still makes for an interesting decision for the top golfer, while the weaker golfer will have an easier time getting out. It does open up the tee shot a bit more (I don't have too much fear taking on that bunker on the right to get the angle for the second shot) but it certainly leaves some decisions for the top golfer if he finds himself in it, rather than mindlessly hitting a short iron out.

I would also like to put in a vote here for a long underused type of bunker - the grass bunker - such as is used extensively at classic older courses around the UK - Huntercombe comes to mind as do various courses on common land such as Kington and Minchinhampton Old. There are many splendid photos of grass bunkers in various GCA reviews of these courses.

One other point I'd like to make is bunker positioning - to my mind to many holes only have fairway bunkers at the sides of holes - what's wrong with a bunker in the middle of the fairway? - the 2nd at Carnoustie and the 16th at TOC have them, and they're very fine holes indeed.

Thomas, first off, welcome to the site!
I have been a huge advocate for grass bunkers, particularly because I think it's a way to make courses more difficult for the pros. Most of them are as good out of the bunkers, and when tournaments roll through, they can grow the rough out. Could you imagine a US Open were they had deep grass bunkers surrounding several of the greens? I certainly can.

At Pebble Beach's, 3rd hole, they threw three bunkers into the slope on the right to try to make the hole more difficult, but what they didn't realize was that the slope, combined with the long rough, took the spin off the ball and made the shot into that green devilish. With the bunkers in place it's a lot easier to put spin on the ball and hold that green.

I think you'll find a lot of us here that are fans of central bunkers. Just to add to your examples, Pacific Dunes has a few central hazards, and St. Andrews Beach had several of them.

[JWL]

While I generally agree with TD's comment that there are no rules due to the variables associated with the land, the strategy, the hole length, etc....I do agree with Jack that there is one rule that should be followed.   
That rule is that if  player A drives into a fairway bunker and player B drives in the fairway , say 10 yds away from the bunker, both approximately the same distance off the tee, the rule is that Player A should not be able to hit the same club to reach the green as player B.   If player A can devise some other shot other than just a standard shot, so be it, but do not allow player A to basically have the same shot as player B, even if it is out of the sand.   Many may disagree, but I thought it might be of interest to know what Jack's rule is on that situation.

[Jeff_Mingay]

That is interesting, Jim. Thanks for posting.

I'm not trying to start an argument by any means, but Jack's rule seems a bit convoluted to me. All situations can't be controlled, as you know. And, as has been stated above, when you start implementing such rules course after course, things could get repetitive.

[archie_struthers]

 

Absolutely no rules

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think we all - whether golfers or architects - have mental rules/guidelines etc. about "good and bad" fw bunkers, among other things. Even TD hints at that, while saying no rules.  

Maybe there are no rules, just corrolaries, like the premise of fewer bunkers if you have a deep one....or shallower bunkers on narrower fw, longer holes, holes with more fw bunkers and in cross winds.  Of course, some fw bunkers could be deep and still help the golfer - deep to discourage going for the green if its well guarded, for example.  Maybe par 5's have deeper bunkers than par 4, since you can still reach the green in three shots (7 iron - 7 iron rather than 3W wedge)

So, put me in the general rules camp.  Most bunkers should fall within certain guidelines that you find fun to play.

The trick is to describe "fun to play".  For me, its a chance, but not a guantee of a shot towards the green.  It's more fun to recover than chip out backwards, no?  Thus, generally shallow fw bunkers for me, ones just deep enough to allow a 2/3 chance (or so) of still reaching the green.  But, its also fun (once in a while) to notice that a fw bunker is really, really deep, and to allow to be sure to miss it.

That said, the problem comes if you violate the rules too often or not enough.  For instance, no real problem with a deep fw bunker, but if all 14 long holes had them?  Probably too much.  On the other hand, if every fw bunker was manipulated to be a certain prescribed depth, yah, probably too bland.

[Philippe Binette]

" For instance, no real problem with a deep fw bunker, but if all 14 long holes had them? " .... then it's called Carnoustie.

As we walked the course me and kyle franz a few years back  the terms : zone defense and / or double cover formation came to mind while looking at the fairway bunkers at Carnoustie

[Lester George]

It depends on what it is being asked to do.

Lester

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phillipe,

Like the US Football analogy.....as Lester says, it depends on what the bunker is being asked to do, and to a degree, what kind of course is it?  A Carnoustie like course wouldn't be appropriate for your next muni commission......

Following up on Lester's comment, yes, a fw bunker may also be at any location for a variety of reasons, including directional, aesthetics, separation, save bunker, etc.  No reason for any of those to be real deep, although, I guess a hazard is a hazard and should give some consideration to its hazard values.

I thought about this one over lunch a bit.  Looking back at 36 years of doing this, only on a few courses did I consciously think about fw bunker depth (and those were flat, like my course in Davis CA).  If there is any topo, the over riding factor is fitting it in there, regardless of depth.  Then, at that point, you have sort of a random bunker in terms of any particular philosophy - such as a deeper bunker on a long par 4, or shallow one on a short par 4.  It is what it is, and I then start instituting the "corrolary" principles of more room if its deep, etc. as mentioned above. 

After opening, the golfer needs to figure that in the playing of the hole.  And, its okay if one hole has a scary bunker, and the other has a benign one.  Again, it might be too much if all the fw bunkers were scary, or maybe not.  But, I suspect for most coruses, it would in fact be too much.

[JMEvensky]

Following up on Lester's comment, yes, a fw bunker may also be at any location for a variety of reasons, including directional, aesthetics, separation, save bunker, etc.  No reason for any of those to be real deep, although, I guess a hazard is a hazard and should give some consideration to its hazard values.

Just from what I've read and seen,my understanding was that most players,in general,have trouble with sand traps.The deeper the bunker,the more trouble--but any bunker is going to be a problem.

So,if true,aren't shallow fairway bunkers just an advantage for the good player while penalizing most others?

[Lester George]

Concur with JB.  

For me, a primary aspect of bunker depth is just what I said, what do I want to accomplish .  If, for example I have a short, driveable par four, I will usually have one treacherously deep fairway bunker to dictate a live-or-die aspect to it's defense of the hole like number 11 at Ballyhack Golf Club.    A shallow bunker my be used to dictate direction or angle.  It may be shallow to allow for recovery, but with a half-shot risk.

Lester

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()