[Thomas Dai]

Many very good points above, and perhaps an element of agree to disagree is appropriate. There also seems to be a slight divide depending on where one is posting from.
It's not the time for daily maintenance, the cost of materials or a wish to give myself an easy way out (actually quite the opposite) that makes me favour players being allowed to drop out of a sand bunker under penalty.
There are other factors involved too. For example, giving those who are physically infirm or have weak hands/wrists etc an option when they're up against a bunker lip. Or a beginner/novice thrashing away - I've seen bunker faces pretty messed up, semi-destroyed even, by a player hacking away numerous times in an endeavour to extract their ball. There is also medal play to consider, for an 18-hole medal card you need to complete ever hole, no pick-ups, no mulligans, so the formal option of extraction under penalty, and no nearer obviously, is one I'm in favour of as it gives players of all standards an option, and it's only an option, it's not compulsory, you don't have to take it. Of course if the sand bunker is full of water, you already get to drop it out, under penalty.
Good debate though.
To move off on a slight tangent, should 'waste areas' be raked, and when designing new courses is any consideration given to the positioning of hazards from the rules point of view or does that tend to come afterwards?
All the best.

[Jud_T]

Thomas,

MATCH PLAY!!!!-  why is grandma grinding to hack 6 times to get a ball out of a bunker?  So she can post a proper USGA adjusted 115? Hand wedge it out and move on already...your proposal sounds like another attempt to make the game "fair". Ugh...

[Thomas Dai]

Thomas,
MATCH PLAY!!!!-  why is grandma grinding to hack 6 times to get a ball out of a bunker?  So she can post a proper USGA adjusted 115? Hand wedge it out and move on already...your proposal sounds like another attempt to make the game "fair". Ugh...

Perhaps it wasn't meant as such, but this post is a deeply offensive one bordering on downright misogyny, and I would kindly ask the poster to reflect on his words and either significantly edit the post or delete it entirely.

[archie_struthers]

 

I guess I don"t ever recall a lay it out of the bunker rule for one shot, short of declaring it unplayable and returning to the spot you hit it from.  However , when I thought of it , it made some sense, particularly if you have to play it over the hazard.

Like I said , I'm on board with that , as it shouldn't be worse than a water hazard penalty , and it would allow bunkers to have some bite without it being a round killer. Lots of people would take a swing at it rather than take the penalty. If you made it one shot anywhere in the bunker, no closer , I'm cool with that too.

[Sean_A]

I guess I don"t ever recall a lay it out of the bunker rule for one shot, short of declaring it unplayable and returning to the spot you hit it from.  However , when I thought of it , it made some sense, particularly if you have to play it over the hazard.

Like I said , I'm on board with that , as it shouldn't be worse than a water hazard penalty , and it would allow bunkers to have some bite without it being a round killer. Lots of people would take a swing at it rather than take the penalty. If you made it one shot anywhere in the bunker, no closer , I'm cool with that too.

Archie

Why can't a bunker be worse than a water hazard?  For that matter, why can't rough be worse than a water hazard?

Ciao

[Lou_Duran]

Archie,

Why don't you experiment with that at your course.  Announce to your customers a new local rule (optional drop out of the bunker under a one stroke penalty), that all rakes have been removed from the course, and that except for a once or twice a month pass with a Sand Pro, each golfer is to be responsible for their own bunker maintenance (with their club or foot).  Place an extra-large suggestion box by the door, and, in six months or so, if you're still operating, please report the results to the DG.

Again, I don't know where the majority of the respondents here play, but I just don't see the perfection (and effort on the part of the maintenance staff OR the customers) at the places I play.  Perhaps my sample of 50 courses year-to-date, most of them private or high-end resort, is not representative.

Me, I would be getting the best sand I can afford, an ample number of quality rakes, and would try to develop a stronger bond with my employees and customers with the objective that they feel less entitled (good luck with that!) and more responsible.  I know, easier said than done, but seemingly a far superior option than the removal of rakes and modified UL rule.  Being that I love bunkers, my last resort if budget is a problem, would be identifying the importance of each bunker and eliminating them in reverse order until the magic number is reached.

Sean,

Because that is the tradition which has survived the test of time.  There are pros and cons for changing a great number of rules.  I wouldn't mind seeing the rules for treating OB and other hazards unified under the lateral hazard rule, but if I had a seat on the rules committee of the USGA, I wouldn't even bring it up to a vote.  If a wholesale revision would take place, the very thing that makes golf special to many of us- tradition- would be lost.  Youthful exuberance typically gives way to the lessons of time.  It is called maturity.  Of course, that doesn't prevent you or anyone else from playing however you please- many do anyways- but please, rake the bunker after you've retrieved your ball.  

[Sean_A]

Lou

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?  I don't mind bunkers being raked.

Ciao

[Jason Thurman]

Thomas, are you sure you know the meaning of the word "deep", as in "deeply"? I'm wondering if this entire thread is just a big misunderstanding. If you found Jud's post deeply offensive, I must wonder what you consider to be a shallow bunker. Is it convex?

Some are advocating that the maintenance staff rake bunkers once a week, and players use their foot or club to smooth after hitting a shot. Can someone explain what's gained by using this method as opposed to keeping the same maintenance schedule but having players use rakes?

I can't help thinking some of you are just lazy and have poor etiquette and would rather not do a modicum of cleanup after yourselves to keep the course playable for those behind you. Personally, I'm happy to fix a ballmark, replace a divot, and run a rake through the sand to keep the playing field level for the guys behind me.

This thread has gone on for a long time and thus the arguments have become multi-dimensional in both directions. I don't know if we're talking about maintenance costs, strategy, or rub of the green anymore. Regardless though, I don't see any downside to raking a bunker as a player. In fact, my preference to not do chores on the golf course actually contributes to the strategic thinking that makes me want to avoid hitting into the sand. Get rid of rakes, and you're getting rid of strategy on multiple levels.

[archie_struthers]

 

Hey Lou , I didnt' suggest letting the bunkers go to seed or putting furrows in them , just that this notion of perfection isn't attainable by most clubs. Never  suggested not raking them either.

I"m not in charge of our bunkers , and they aren't very good. My suggestion would be to work them hard Monday , let them settle out for a couple days and give the best possible playing conditions on Thursday , Friday and Saturday. Note it's a game of concession realtive to big budget clubs that can have perfect sand and build macadam drainage underneath for hundreds of thousand $$$$'s per hole.

I've always respected your posts and opinions , and was merely joking about the bunker swing matching your driver swing, although I'm a bad driver and a great (self acknowledged ) bunker player!

[Lou_Duran]

I guess I don"t ever recall a lay it out of the bunker rule for one shot, short of declaring it unplayable and returning to the spot you hit it from.  However , when I thought of it , it made some sense, particularly if you have to play it over the hazard.

Like I said , I'm on board with that , as it shouldn't be worse than a water hazard penalty , and it would allow bunkers to have some bite without it being a round killer. Lots of people would take a swing at it rather than take the penalty. If you made it one shot anywhere in the bunker, no closer , I'm cool with that too.

Archie

Why can't a bunker be worse than a water hazard?  For that matter, why can't rough be worse than a water hazard?

Ciao

Though Ian may have suggested that bunker construction IN ADDITION TO bunker maintenance (quality of the sand included) are at the root of "the problem" ("too perfect"), maintenance has been the focus thus far.  The only way for an existing bunker to be worse than water is through a lack of maintenance; ditto for rough, though it could be made worse by fertilizing and irrigating, leading to lost balls or ULs.

Golf has developed over the centuries.  Its rules and the forms of the playing fields are today because the changes haven't been wholesale, and what has survived is effectively a set of best practices distilled over very long periods of time.  They may be far less than perfect, particularly in the perspective of those who lack experience, but perfection exists only in the fertile minds of the untried.

Though some wish to argue that there should be no design rules or even basic principles, the world has form and so does golf.  There are priorities to hazards, not uniform for sure, but bunkers and rough have not typically provided the same penalty as water or OB.  To the best of my knowledge, golf is not becoming easier for the vast majority of us, and unlike Richard Choi and others, it has not been my experience that "the balance" has been lost vis-à-vis better sand, maintenance, and/or bunker construction.

It would be impossible for me to confuse the great Sean A with someone else, though I could learn to communicate quite a bit better.

Cheers!    

[Sean_A]

Lou

I have been in some bunkers where it was worse than water.  It never occurred to me to think it was unfair and that a bunker shouldn't be worse than water.  Stuff happens, golf IS a bit random and better for it.  I would never promote a bunker design where it was nearly impossible for them to be worse than water.  First off, some guys just can't cope with bunkers.  That doesn't mean we dumb bunkers down, but it does add to the ledger of balanced hazards which for many courses would mean less bunkering.  Second, bunkers can be very difficult to recover from even when in very good nick.  Much depends on the lie and that too is at least somewhat random...and some bunkers can be deep as hell.  I don't advocate deep, harsh bunkers and footprints, but on the other hand I don't advocate shallow bunkers.  I think if bunkers are too many in number and/or too easy to recover from, they are a waste of resources.

Ciao  

[Lou_Duran]

Archie,

I know you were joking.  So was I.  As a course owner (former?) and an operator, I know you have a far superior understanding of how things work out there (serious smiley here).

Perhaps we are having a Clintonian misunderstanding on what the meaning of ("is") "perfect" is.  When footprints, bunker liner, metal ties, rocks, little sand on a greenside bunker, and debris are part of the playing experience, I think that falls somewhere below perfect.  What we see on TV during a PGA event is perfect.  What I experience on a regular basis at much better than average courses falls much closer to the former than the latter.

My beef is much less with the operators than it is with my fellow golfers.  For whatever reason, the goal that one should leave the golf course in better condition than you found it has been lost.  To the extent that the customer doesn't do his part, it seems to me that it is in the best interest of the operator to double down on his as opposed to tossing the towel in and falling back on the "after all, bunkers are supposed to be hazards" excuse.  But maybe I am wrong and I am way too long on this one anyways.

[JMEvensky]

My beef is much less with the operators than it is with my fellow golfers.  For whatever reason, the goal that one should leave the golf course in better condition than you found it has been lost.  To the extent that the customer doesn't do his part, it seems to me that it is in the best interest of the operator to double down on his as opposed to tossing the towel in and falling back on the "after all, bunkers are supposed to be hazards" excuse.  But maybe I am wrong and I am way too long on this one anyways.

+100

Why is it so difficult for clubs to insist that members "leave the golf course better than they found it"? With how-to videos being available all over the internet,there's no excuse for an uneducated membership.All it takes is a Green Chairman with the will to defend the golf course.

[Jud_T]

Thomas,
MATCH PLAY!!!!-  why is grandma grinding to hack 6 times to get a ball out of a bunker?  So she can post a proper USGA adjusted 115? Hand wedge it out and move on already...your proposal sounds like another attempt to make the game "fair". Ugh...

Perhaps it wasn't meant as such, but this post is a deeply offensive one bordering on downright misogyny, and I would kindly ask the poster to reflect on his words and either significantly edit the post or delete it entirely.

Deeply offensive?  To whom?  Grandmas?  I think you need to add a double dose of skin thickener to your ASDA shopping list dude.  Misogeny?!! You've got to be kidding.  If it would make you sleep better, substitute grandpa or junior.  Oh, that's ageism right?  Political correctness on this site has just officially reached a new low.  Congrats!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie

Why can't a bunker be worse than a water hazard? 

For that matter, why can't rough be worse than a water hazard?

Because there's no curative provision, vis a vis play or relief, once you've hit your ball in an attempt to recover from extremely difficult rough.

The same isn't true in a water hazard.

Ciao

[Matthew Essig]

Another reason I would not like to have rakes and just have players fix the sand with their feet is because I would much rather play from a cover up job then some of the HORRENDOUS rake jobs that players do. 

[John Percival]

Richard,

But you are ignoring the obvious that the recovery rates from clean bunkers and longer rough seems to be about the same, so what is the real problem, even in tournament golf?

And where is it written that bunkers need to be the hardest hazard?  They already aren't, after OB and water.  They were probably in fourth place after rough anyway, at least based on the fact that there are 100 acres of rough, and maybe 2 acres of sand bunkers.

If rough were lighter, then I can understand bunkers being harder, and they definitely would be more strategic in that case.  

Another random question, but while we have heard "get in the bunker" why do we imagine that a pro would aim there, or if a 6000 foot green is too small to hit, that a 1500 SF bunker would be an easier target?

Jeff,
Sometimes an approach will release (downwind or from rough) to the rear of the green and leave a longish, downhill recovery. A ball in the bunker would be hit into a slope and likely be below the cup on a putt.

[archie_struthers]

  8)u  


Sean , I guess  think of water as the worst penalty in golf,and a real danger to fun if overused. More so than out of bounds, used incorrectly by the architect. Many people can't carry water hazards, but can avoid OB and bunkers by judicious play.  Personally a, I rather like a nasty bunker once in a while , but saw some merit in Thomas Dai's point about  difficulty  for many of our participants.

At the expert level , to me almost anything goes. As  golfing population ages , and  participation is hard to develop we need to keep open minds regarding playability.  As a practical matter , removing bunkers is often an excellent solution , as pitches and chips remain more difficult for the expert than sand shots.  Lots of good imput guys!

[Jeff_Brauer]

I guess I get confused what the group think here wishes for overall.  You hate water because its a multi stroke penalty, and yet you would bring back bunkers the cavalry troops have run through to increase their penalty to something closer to multi stroke penalty.  This presumes that the footprints would cause the recovery rates out of bunker (not even considering up and down) to something over 1, maybe 1.5?

I hope we are at least arguing for some middle ground of raking when we leave, but simply not obsessing over the edges and every little flaw several times a day by maintenance staff in order to keep every possible play perfect. Or, in my view, to keep it about as it is right now at 99% of golf courses......

[Jud_T]

Jeff,

If there were a lot fewer, but more severe, bunkers do you think there'd still be the same obsession with perfect sand and conditioning?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jud,

Don't see them as related, but who knows.  I only play Carnak for comedy purposes, I cannot really predict anything!

[archie_struthers]

 


Just to be clear , I'm all for raking and basic maintenance!

[Brent Hutto]

In an ideal world, bunkers would range from nigh unplayable to bog simple depending on the particular course and particular bunker and its intended degree of hazardness.

And in an ideal world, golfers would take 30 seconds to rake or smooth them after playing a shot.

In this ideal world, some players would be far, far better than others at playing the required shots. Bunker play would be a specific skill that can be practiced and developed, thereby changing the relative penalty of landing in a bunker and thereby allowing the player to choose how much risk he wants to take on basic on his knowledge of the particular bunker, the situation of the next shot, his skill, etc.

Well what do you know? The only way in which today's world differs from my ideal world is that some people with more money than they know what to do with send people around daily to smooth out every grain of sand and form perfect surfaces in every bunker. So what? There will always be people blowing their money on prettifying their golf course. I don't care about that at all.

[JMEvensky]

Just to be clear , I'm all for raking and basic maintenance!

The problem is defining "basic"--and then convincing every member to accept the same definition.

[Jon Wiggett]

I guess I get confused what the group think here wishes for overall.  You hate water because its a multi stroke penalty, and yet you would bring back bunkers the cavalry troops have run through to increase their penalty to something closer to multi stroke penalty.  This presumes that the footprints would cause the recovery rates out of bunker (not even considering up and down) to something over 1, maybe 1.5?

I hope we are at least arguing for some middle ground of raking when we leave, but simply not obsessing over the edges and every little flaw several times a day by maintenance staff in order to keep every possible play perfect. Or, in my view, to keep it about as it is right now at 99% of golf courses......

Jeff,

I do not believe that most of the people advocating a reduced maintenance regime are proposing having 'the cavalry troops have run through' the bunkers.

As for being less fond of water hazards compared with bunkers. If you ask me I dislike the use of water hazards in cases where they are not natural. Also the weakness of most water hazards is that they offer no chance of recovery where as a bunker does. Finally, although many GCAs purport to using water hazards in a strategic way most have confused strategic with penal.

Jon

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()