[Garland Bayley]

No, I admit that I like it when I get into a bunker on a shot that was designed to avoid the bunker. We high handicappers don't always hit it where we intend.

[Andrew Buck]

No, I admit that I like it when I get into a bunker on a shot that was designed to avoid the bunker. We high handicappers don't always hit it where we intend.

We all miss shots.

You seemed to imply the pitch (from behind the bunker) is more difficult because you need to avoid the bunker.  The existence of the maintained bunker strategically alters your pitch shot.

I understand you'd rather play a 10 yard bunker shot than a 20 yard pitch over a bunker.  I suspect you'd rather have that 20 yard pitch over the bunker from grass than from a second bunker short of the green side one.

Would you rather play a 20 yard shot from grass if there was no bunker in play than a 10 yard bunker shot?

[Matthew Essig]

As a guy who works every morning on fixing bunkers to be PERFECT, the answer to the question is YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

I made a thread concerning this same issue a while ago and I wholeheartedly believe that bunkers should be less perfect and more hazardous.

[Garland Bayley]

Actually Andrew, since I have been suffering the pitching yips of late, the bunker shot is currently preferred, especially after Matthew has raked them so nice.


My bunker plays has gotten better over the years, so a few years ago I would have preferred the pitch.

[Jon Wiggett]

Andrew,

how is a water hazard a 1.5 shot penalty?

I suspect the reason you avoid a strategically placed fairway bunker is when it makes it very difficult to reach the green from in it as apposed to being in the fairway. Obviously greenside bunkers are a different as they don't have the obvious penalty of not being able to reach the green. I am not advocating no maintenance of the sand but think once a week with the rake by the green keeper and the rest of the time with your foot or back of the club is preferable. If the pot luck nature of such bunkers make you think twice about going into them then the style maintenance would have achieved making them a more daunting hazard.



Jon

[Jud_T]

The fairway bunker is the perfect case in point.  If you can't get on in reg if you're in it anyway then why rake it at all?  If you can easily make par after being in it then why the hell is it there in the first place?  Perhaps to bury Mrs. Havencamp in?

[Thomas Dai]

A couple of scenarios.

There's a dog-leg par-4 with a sand bunker on the corner. With your Sunday best tee-shot you can carry it but a lessor quality ball-strike will find you in the sand bunker. The sand bunker is raked each day by the maintenance crew and rakes are provided for players to use as well. The bunker has low lips. Do you go for the carry or lay-up? For me it's a 100% go-for-it under normal weather conditions. Even if my tee shot comes up short in the sand bunker I've still a chance of going for the green or at least advancing the ball somewhere near the green.

Second scenario. Same exact hole, but this time the sand bunker on the corner of the dog-leg is smaller, has deeper lips, is only raked once per month by the maintenance crew and no rakes are provided for player raking. The sand bunker surface is thus usually uneven, has footmarks and sand splash scars. Do you go for the carry over the sand bunker or do you lay-up?

Just as quality ball striking, a deft touch with a putter or a great short game are admired, so strategy and pre-shot thinking are also important aspects of golf. Sand bunkers that are too perfect diminish strategy and pre-shot thinking, which IMO detracts from important aspects from the game.

I would, though, in the second scenario, like to see a rule in place, as used to be the case, and I believe it can be a 'local rule', which allows a player to drop out of a sand bunker under a penalty. This would give players, especially lessor player or begineers/novices, more options.

All the best

[Sean_A]

Thomas

The problem I have with dropping out of bunkers with penalty is what is the incentive to play from a bunker if they are all of the nasty sort?  Yes, decent players can go for a better angle of approach with their recovery, but is that often times enough of a reward for getting stuck in the bunker for more than one shot?  I think we would see a plethora of dropping going on, thus making nasty bunkers rather pointless.  As is the case now with proper bunkers, a player knows he is risking a high score by flirting with sand. Okay, most of the time its not a bad pitch out for the one shot penalty, but there is always the chance that the one greedy shot could cause a kiss on the card.  Which, btw, is why I prefer Stableford to Medal and why nasty bunkers fit that format wonderfully.

Ciao  

[archie_struthers]

 

Sean , I'm ok with the penalty drop out , with one caveat . Play it as a yellow staked hazard , without the stakes. the player needing to recross bunker on following shot.  

I think with the optional penalty the greater good prevails , allowing nasty pits and less costs to promote perfection and fairness (ugh)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas,

Your scenarios are exactly why I argue that more benign bunkers increase strategy.  If there is zero chance of recovering from a strategically placed bunker,  it effectively limits the options to playing as far away as possible.  Even in a "perfect" bunker of some depth, you have a chance of being up against the lip, etc., reducing the chances of recovery to 90-80-70%, depending.

With any normal fairway bunker of 2-4 foot depth, even with perfect sand, there is a chance of not getting to the green in regulation.  To me, the trick is to make the depth of that bunker such that even from the typical location, you can just clear the lip with the club you might use, creating something close to a 2/3-1/3 ratio of probable success.  What thinking golfer would challenge a bunker if the probability of recovery success was much less than that, other than in some do or die situation, such as on the last two holes of an important match where they had to take unreasonable chances to catch up?

Of course, that is an inexact science, but as noted in the proportionality thread, it doesn't matter over 18 holes if some bunkers are easier, others are harder, and the golfer figures all that into his strategy.  You can get a headache trying to overthink these kinds of issues, because no matter how hard we try to eliminate the rub of the green, it will still exist.

(I am not imagining a perfectly flat bunker of perfect sand in your scenario number one, nor do many of those exist on professionally designed courses)

[Jud_T]

Jeff,

While your logic makes sense, isn't that a bit too formulaic as a rote process?  Have you ever built a FU bunker?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jud,

I have a more than a few at the Quarry in MN, and managed to F myself last week!  And yes, I blamed the architect (one way or another....) for my predicament.   Firekeeper has a 20+ foot deep fw bunker on the 4th hole, and Brookstone has one on its 8th.  Both are par 5's and I always felt like those were fine there, since an 8 iron out still leaves a chance to reach in reg.  I am sure there are others I cannot recall right now.  

Of course, the funny thing about this whole bunker discussion is that most golfers are fine with difficult bunkers in theory.....for the other guy.  When they get against a lip or whatever, they start to howl.  And, that is what drives the whole movement to ever fairer bunkers.  Like equipment improvements, there are simply many who say we are now taking it too far, even if the arguments were exactly the same 60 years ago when bunker raking became common. (or balls improved)

My thoughts on formula are well documented.  You sure need to break the mold every once in a while, but if you ignore the basics too often, pretty soon your golf course goes from something good to something goofy.  The trick is to know when to say when.

[Lou_Duran]

"My thoughts on formula are well documented.  You sure need to break the mold every once in a while, but if you ignore the basics too often, pretty soon your golf course goes from something good to something goofy." Jeff Brauer

..... to more work for a renovation architect, to NLE.

Archie,

I came to your method on my own some 10 years ago.  Wait until some 20 handicap purist starts a new thread "Are Our Fairways Too Perfect?".  I have a lot of fodder for that one too.

This just came to mind.  Maybe this is all part of the evolving trend toward mediocrity and egalitarianism; regression to the mean.

[Jason Thurman]

I agree totally with Jeff.

Thomas, your scenario implies that the bunker extracts no penalty from you when raked and with a low lip, and that you'll just hit the same shot you would from the fairway and likely find the same result. Is that actually true though? I don't know anyone who can hit the ball as consistently solid from sand, even manicured, as they can from fairway. Have you ever collected any data on how you perform when you hit the shot you're tempted to hit by a less severe bunker?

That's the essence of strategy, after all - to present options to the player that require different levels of risk for different levels of reward. If the hazard is so severe that you're never tempted to risk anything, it's not nearly as strategic as a hazard you perceive to be "easy" and challenge without even realizing the penalty it extracts from you.

I'm not afraid of most fairway bunkers when I'm standing on the tee, and I often feel very confident that I can reach the green while standing over my shot from within one. But in truth, I rarely pull it off as well as I plan. That's pretty much a perfect hazard - one that seems benign enough for me to challenge but still penalizes me when I find it.

[Brent Hutto]

When I see a greenside bunker at my home course (90% of them anyway) I do not aim away/overclub/layup/whatever to avoid that bunker at all costs. Unlike a water hazard, there is a pretty good chance that I can play a shot to the general vicinity of the hole if I do happen to go into the bunker.

But conversely there is a definite non-zero chance that I'd either get a plugged lie, be too close to the lip or just misplay the shot badly and post a big number. So while I don't treat a greenside bunker with the same respect (fear?) as a water hazard I do try my best within reason to avoid it.

Without varying degrees of penalty, there is little meaningful strategy. Some of you lot seem to be arguing that a bunker ought to be the strategic (penal, actually) equivalent of a yellow-staked hazard. Avoid it or post a big number.  Why on earth would you think it's an improvement in "strategic" design to flatten out the risk side of the risk-reward equation. OB? Big number. Water? Big Number. Sand? Big number. It's much too hit-it-or-else for my taste.

Then to add to the WTF-ness of it all you want to turn around and change the Rules of Golf to give hackers some way of gaining relief from your buggered-up, penal, ugly bunkers. So instead of just asking golfers to rake the damned sand when they leave the bunker and having a somewhat uncertain but typically one-stroke penalty for being in one, you want to make it penal as hell but make a special Rule to lower the penalty back to one stroke. Again, sounds like you want bunkers to be as much like water hazards as possible. Hit it in there, unless you're extremely lucky to be able to play it out just take your penalty drop. BORING!

If you're really worried about budget implications just replace the bunkers with wire grass or a patch or dirt and put white OB markers around it. That's the cheapest and most penal option of all!

[Andrew Buck]

Andrew,

Jon,  I've enjoyed the discussion

how is a water hazard a 1.5 shot penalty?

Generally speaking, when someone hits in a water hazard, they not only lose a stroke, but some distance or position.  If there is water in front of a green, a safe shot to the back of the green likely yields par, a shot just short likely yields double.  I would guess my scoring average on holes where I avoid hazards are just over par, while it's closer to double bogey on holes where I do hit in the hazard.

I suspect the reason you avoid a strategically placed fairway bunker is when it makes it very difficult to reach the green from in it as apposed to being in the fairway.

It certainly makes it a more difficult par and the slightly flat or thin shot much more in play.

Obviously greenside bunkers are a different as they don't have the obvious penalty of not being able to reach the green. I am not advocating no maintenance of the sand but think once a week with the rake by the green keeper and the rest of the time with your foot or back of the club is preferable.

Overall, we aren't *that* far apart, and many courses probably don't maintain much more than what you propose anyway.  I personally would want maintenance to rake bunkers a few times a week, and want rakes left for players.  Rakes should both speed play, and provide more consistency throughout the day, which I believe is offers value.  Rakes also aren't a heavy investment.  If they are too expensive for *most* courses budget, than that course probably has too many traps for the style of course in the first place (with a few exceptions, like Pine Valley).  I would guess my "sand save" percentage is about 25% out of a perfectly maintained bunker.  Playing frequently in unmaintained bunkers, I would guess it dips to about 15%.  In any regard, the difference isn't enough to impact my strategy on approach shots, and I suspect it has the larger impact on higher handicap players.

If the pot luck nature of such bunkers make you think twice about going into them then the style maintenance would have achieved making them a more daunting hazard.

It probably shouldn't impact the decision in *most* circumstances for most players if it's maintained as you propose.  I don't think it would impact strategy a lot for me.  It's OK we disagree, as I'm sure it's guided by our own experiences.



Jon

[Andrew Buck]

A couple of scenarios.

There's a dog-leg par-4 with a sand bunker on the corner. With your Sunday best tee-shot you can carry it but a lessor quality ball-strike will find you in the sand bunker. The sand bunker is raked each day by the maintenance crew and rakes are provided for players to use as well. The bunker has low lips. Do you go for the carry or lay-up? For me it's a 100% go-for-it under normal weather conditions. Even if my tee shot comes up short in the sand bunker I've still a chance of going for the green or at least advancing the ball somewhere near the green.

I think this is a great scenario.  Having tracked a similar situation for myself a few years back, I'd suspect you'd find that going for the 50/50% shot costs you more strokes than playing safe even with a manicured bunker.  I used to challenge these situations always, now I rarely do, because the numbers said I scored better with almost all my shots from 135 in the fairway, than 50% from 85 in the fairway and 50% from 105 in a bunker.  Of course, match situations can dictate that it's still worth the risk.

Second scenario. Same exact hole, but this time the sand bunker on the corner of the dog-leg is smaller, has deeper lips, is only raked once per month by the maintenance crew and no rakes are provided for player raking. The sand bunker surface is thus usually uneven, has footmarks and sand splash scars. Do you go for the carry over the sand bunker or do you lay-up?

You've changed a lot of variables, and some have little to do with maintenance vs the nature of the hazard.  If it's a minefield, it will take driver out of everyone's hand and less strategy is involved, IMO.  If you look at a tour event, many are already choosing to take bunkers out of play, and if bunkers received next to no maintenance, everyone would take them out of play.  The fact that people take them out of play means everyone on tour understands that a longer shot from the fairway is already easier than a shorter shot from the bunker.  I like that it's just hard enough that *some* of the field will choose to challenge them, like Dufner did in the PGA.  His ability to find the fairway with driver, while others laid up was properly rewarded.

Just as quality ball striking, a deft touch with a putter or a great short game are admired, so strategy and pre-shot thinking are also important aspects of golf. Sand bunkers that are too perfect diminish strategy and pre-shot thinking, which IMO detracts from important aspects from the game.

Agreed it's an important part.  Agree it's crazy to spend nearly $1M a year maintaining bunkers and agree that you shouldn't expect perfect lies in bunkers.  (Oddly, just this morning i was in a footprint in a fairway bunker, it happens).  I can think of very few scenarios where the maintenance of a bunker would impact my decision making on an approach (as I already respect them as I have a poor save percentage), and if they were in awful shape it may reduce strategy on tee shots.  I just don't think every bunker needs to be "avoid at all cost" to impact strategy.

I would, though, in the second scenario, like to see a rule in place, as used to be the case, and I believe it can be a 'local rule', which allows a player to drop out of a sand bunker under a penalty. This would give players, especially lessor player or begineers/novices, more options.

All the best

[Andrew Buck]

Thomas,

Your scenarios are exactly why I argue that more benign bunkers increase strategy.  If there is zero chance of recovering from a strategically placed bunker,  it effectively limits the options to playing as far away as possible.  Even in a "perfect" bunker of some depth, you have a chance of being up against the lip, etc., reducing the chances of recovery to 90-80-70%, depending.

I'd love to see stats of GIR % for even a scratch golfer, or better yet a 10 handicap for a 125 yard sand shot vs a 140 yard fairway shot.  I would bet the scratch golfer hits the green at least 30% less, and the 10 handicap at least 50% less from the bunker.  

[Jon Wiggett]

Andrew,

thanks for the considered response (food for thought ) and as you say I do not think we are to far apart on this matter.

Sean,

Generally a low maintenance bunker will only reach a certain point of footprints and splash marks. I also think it would lead to less sand and more hardpan adding to the interest.

Jon

[Andrew Buck]

Another thought is if bunker maintenance is "too infrequent", it will lead to weeds growing in bunkers in many climates, unless we want to increase chemical budgets. 

[Jon Wiggett]

Another thought is if bunker maintenance is "too infrequent", it will lead to weeds growing in bunkers in many climates, unless we want to increase chemical budgets. 

Well maybe golfers could bend down and pull the weeds or is that doomed to fail like repairing pitchmarks

Raking once a week should be enough and if not what about Junior chores or the odd artisan? In the end if it 'weeds' over then it becomes a grass bunker As an alternative to spraying a blowtorch or heat gun will also work.

Jon

[Matt Osborne]

I am not advocating no maintenance of the sand but think once a week with the rake by the green keeper and the rest of the time with your foot or back of the club is preferable.

Bingo!

I think many of you who are generally pro-maintenance are over exaggerating the look and playability of the low-maintenance bunker option (either to strengthen your argument or we low-maintenance guys are not explaining it well).  As Jon stated above, the idea would be "low" maintenance, not "no" maintenance.  They would still be lightly maintained and players would still smooth over their mess with their foot/club, it just wouldn't be a perfectly grooved raked surface.  I have been told by a lot of older guys I've discussed this with that this was how it used to be (in the good ol' days   ).

This would not really effect the overall look of a golf course (from most distances you would hardly notice it), and I'm sure any weekly weeds could be removed by the maintenance staff  

And the reduction in time (and money) for maintenance crews would be pretty substantial and could perhaps be put to better use in other areas of the golf course.  







 

[Matthew Essig]

Why not have a course with extremely rugged bunkers like the tops of the dunes in the picture on the front page?

Just smooth the large troughs that may form once a week and pull some of the smaller weeds/clumps of grass out once every three weeks. That would save so much money and, IMO, would be more fun to play from.

[Paul Gray]

Why not have a course with extremely rugged bunkers like the tops of the dunes in the picture on the front page?

Just smooth the large troughs that may form once a week and pull some of the smaller weeds/clumps of grass out once every three weeks. That would save so much money and, IMO, would be more fun to play from.

It's called traditional links golf.  

Tacking back to just how costly a shot from sand should be, I seem to recall a very sensible rule of thumb in Anatomy of a Golf Course where TD proposed that the more penal the hole the less penal the bunker should be. Always struck me as the sort of common sense you might associate with Harry Colt.
 

[Sean_A]

Sean , I'm ok with the penalty drop out , with one caveat . Play it as a yellow staked hazard , without the stakes. the player needing to recross bunker on following shot.  

I think with the optional penalty the greater good prevails , allowing nasty pits and less costs to promote perfection and fairness (ugh)

Just so its clear, I am advocating maintaining bunkers reasonably well.  I want golfers to rake bunkers and the crew to do their thing as and when needed.  The cost effectiveness is in reducing the number of bunkers - sometimes dramatically, but the remaining bunkers are very difficult - I am imagining pot-like difficulty not 20 foot deep jobbies like Raynor has on the side of greens.  Given that scenario, I can't really get behind a get out of jail cheaply card with penalty drop.  Otherwise, as Brent states, what is the point of a difficult bunker?  

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()