[Jon Wiggett]

So with no rakes are you also going to make a rule that players must not smooth over their footprints after playing their shot?

Or better yet a rule that even the players who don't hit into a bunker should walk through it to keep the sand sufficiently stirred up to randomize the lies.

Haha Brent, to answer your quip, back of the club or the foot but its a hazard for goodness sake not a manicured boudoir

Jon

[Paul Gray]

Without a doubt, there too perfect. Its very to difficult to educate the decisión makers to the contrary. There minds are posoined by TV golf week in and week out. There definition of what is right and good comes from the USGA and PGA tours telecast. Bunkers should produce different skill level shots by alternating the stance and how the ball lies and neither should ever be consistent. I am ok with consistent sand and consistent depths. Our Jobs of educating clients would be so much easier if the USGA and PGA would lead by setting examples. Everybody seems to want a flat cosnsitent lie and requires perfecting that one particular shot and nothing more. Tom Doak mentioned in the thread about Yale that he doubts there is an archtiect alive that could present such a bold course today. He is right, no there is not but not because we don´t have the balls, the problem is finding a client and membership that will, GET IT and support it and not change it. In the current decreasing market for jobs, it´s not the time to build something controversial that goes over everybodies head. So, if anybody can pull it off, it will be one of the five architects that are currently growing in the current crappy market!

A very understandable position Randy but I've yet to meet the golfer that didn't 'get it' when faced with small pot bunkers.

The sand can be as well manicured as you like but a sheer lip two foot in front of the ball isn't easy for anyone.

Less sand is less expense and so on and so forth.......

Believe me they are out there! I have a course not even opened for a year, I had a par three where the Green was built into the slope of a hill. the easiest way to catch the wáter coming off the hill was with two large grass depressions or grass bowls. Wanted a Par three without sand and so created two other grass bunkers, one left and one right of the green. Lots of movement in the Green. The owner recently changed three of these depressions or bowls to sand and filled in the remaining grass depression. He has also filled in three other depressions on other holes. In another instance at a re-do, had a skyline Green and the back half of the Green sloped away towards the back. I made the Green slope back left in that part carrying surface wáter and poorly struck shots to a minor grass depression. Plans were given approval by some forty memebers before and then also approved by everybody before seeding. Month after it opened they filled in the depression.

It's hard to picture without seeing your work but you have my deepest of sympathies. I'm not sure what game these people want to play but it doesn't sound as if they're too keen on golf!

Only a thought, but could you still, rather than playing with the grass bunker idea, simply go in for those small pot bunkers I mentioned? How about presenting two plans - one with less expense and smaller traps and one with big shallow bunkers which cost more? The penny, so to speak, might just drop when cost differentials were waved under their noses.

Like I said, it's just one thought from this one amateur.

[Richard Choi]

Here is the problem as I see it.

The problem is relativity. Getting a par when you hit the green should be easy. Getting a par when you miss the green, but still on short grass should be tougher, par from rough should be tougher still, and sand save should be the toughest.

The problem is that, that is hardly true in regular tournaments and reverses during major tournaments. At that point, it is kinda pointless to have bunkers. They become merely window dressings, which they are already with most courses, at least for accomplished players.

It would be ideal if the difficulties got harder with all variety of hazards at the same degree, even for accomplished players. Frustrating part is that is readily achievable with less bunker maintenance, which should be a win win for all involved.

[Andrew Buck]

Jeff,

the question is what is a greenside bunker? Often you are left with 20+ yards to the flag from a bunker which is a distance where I suspect the 3 putt stats are probably also about 50% so the bunker does not add any significant penalty.

I agree with this.  You want the bunker to be enough of a penalty that players actually think about trying to avoid it.  If they don't, then it's not really adding any strategy at all, it's just punishing misses.

However the bunker penalty can be twofold

1)  It's marginally tougher than a recover from rough (on most courses, in most conditions)

2)  It can prevent a shot from favorable bouncing on a green.  Obviously, collection areas or other features could be used to do this as well.

It looks like a putt from 60 feet will result in a 2.2 average to get in the hole.  

I can't quite find the stats on strokes to complete a hole on a 20 yard bunker shot, but with a sand save % of just under 50% from that distance, I'd also be willing to bet players make a double more often than they hole a shot.  I would suspect the average shots to get in the hole is about 2.55 - 2.6.  However, I'd guess the number of strokes from the rough is much closer to the bunker shot average, probably in the 2. 45 range.

[Thomas Dai]

Sand bunkers should be hazards.

So how about -

1) no raking of sand bunkers at all. Let them be pits of doom and gloom to be avoided, ie a real hazard, although you can play out if you wish (no grounding the club though)

but....

2) if you wish you can take a drop out of them within 2 clubs of the rear of the bunker lip but at penalty of a 1 shot.

Just a couple of thoughts.

All the best

PS - many, many, many years ago I believe if you were in a sand bunker you could go back to the site of your previous shot and play your shot again under no penalty, ie, if on a par-3 it would be become 2 off the tee, if you get what I mean.

[Brent Hutto]

Less bunker grooming is no more or less desirable than less rough mowing, less perfect greens, less fairway maintenance. You could let any of those things get scraggly and the game becomes more difficult. The golfer cares not for abstractions like "supposed to be a hazard". Providing a consistent, groomed playing surface is all of a piece to the "retail golfer".

The ultimate hazard is OB, right? Certainly it's the ultimate penalty. How is an unraked bunker more desirable than moving in the OB stakes to reduce the amount of golf course you have to maintain and make the course play more difficult?

There's no reason to provide raked, clean, consistent bunkers. Except the fact that golfers have come to expect it. Same reason as providing nigh perfect, fast-rolling putting greens with as little grain as humanly possible. Or any other, often taken to extreme, way of providing a more idealized playing field for golfers. You'll get no traction outside of the "purist" community for the idea that since bunkers are treated as "hazards" in the Rules of Golf then they ought to look scruffy and inconsistent even on an otherwise impeccably maintained golf course. Nobody's gonna buy it.

[Mike Nuzzo]

In my opinion the best point so far is that you don't really need bunkers at all around the greens.
If the pro plays the rough the same as a bunker who cares what surrounds a green?
Get rid of most of the greenside bunkers, keep them on the pro sides on balance, and rough them up a little.
Don't bring in Arkansas white, unless you are in Arkansas.  

Look at the aerial of Wolf Point you'll see about 6 green side bunkers and I don't want to be in any of them - especially since the greens run away from most of them.  the sand is far from PGA tour ideal.  It is bought from a local quarry for about 1/7th the price of a fancier brand - the increased cost is mostly fuel for delivery anyway.

Peace

[Jud_T]

The answer seems pretty simple.  Fewer, more penal bunkers, in terms of design and/or maintenance.  Take the example of a really penal bunker, the Road Hole bunker at The Old Course.  It's a real penalty for the strong player who gets too aggressive or doesn't execute precisely, while Mr. and Mrs. Havencamp can lay up short and right of it, chip and putt their way to 4, 5 or 6 and move on.  Essentially the perfect hole (at least it was before they decided to improve upon perfection....).

[Grant Saunders]

Regarding the attitude of the tour pros and the concept of them wanting to miss in the bunkers:

Is this solely because the bunkers are so well maintained or could it also be that most venues they play have 4 inch rough within 6 feet of the putting surface? Not just rough but juicy thick watered and fertilised rough.

While Im not a fan of over the top maintenance practices (for any area of a course), I think these guys are picking to miss where they have the best chance of an up and down. If that best opportunity is found by missing the green in an area that might occupy 25% max of the surrounding area that means the other 75% (being rough) is in fact more difficult. If the bunkers were considered more difficult than the rough, than the opposite would apply and the easier shot would be 75% off the surrounding area.

Personally I wouldn't be focused on just the bunkers as the target for criticism and would look at the overall and consider the other factors as well.

[Brent Hutto]

Grant said it right. If the rough is worse than being in a "hazard" then the problem is with the rough.

[Randy Thompson]

Without a doubt, there too perfect. Its very to difficult to educate the decisión makers to the contrary. There minds are posoined by TV golf week in and week out. There definition of what is right and good comes from the USGA and PGA tours telecast. Bunkers should produce different skill level shots by alternating the stance and how the ball lies and neither should ever be consistent. I am ok with consistent sand and consistent depths. Our Jobs of educating clients would be so much easier if the USGA and PGA would lead by setting examples. Everybody seems to want a flat cosnsitent lie and requires perfecting that one particular shot and nothing more. Tom Doak mentioned in the thread about Yale that he doubts there is an archtiect alive that could present such a bold course today. He is right, no there is not but not because we don´t have the balls, the problem is finding a client and membership that will, GET IT and support it and not change it. In the current decreasing market for jobs, it´s not the time to build something controversial that goes over everybodies head. So, if anybody can pull it off, it will be one of the five architects that are currently growing in the current crappy market!

A very understandable position Randy but I've yet to meet the golfer that didn't 'get it' when faced with small pot bunkers.

The sand can be as well manicured as you like but a sheer lip two foot in front of the ball isn't easy for anyone.

Less sand is less expense and so on and so forth.......

Believe me they are out there! I have a course not even opened for a year, I had a par three where the Green was built into the slope of a hill. the easiest way to catch the wáter coming off the hill was with two large grass depressions or grass bowls. Wanted a Par three without sand and so created two other grass bunkers, one left and one right of the green. Lots of movement in the Green. The owner recently changed three of these depressions or bowls to sand and filled in the remaining grass depression. He has also filled in three other depressions on other holes. In another instance at a re-do, had a skyline Green and the back half of the Green sloped away towards the back. I made the Green slope back left in that part carrying surface wáter and poorly struck shots to a minor grass depression. Plans were given approval by some forty memebers before and then also approved by everybody before seeding. Month after it opened they filled in the depression.

It's hard to picture without seeing your work but you have my deepest of sympathies. I'm not sure what game these people want to play but it doesn't sound as if they're too keen on golf!

Only a thought, but could you still, rather than playing with the grass bunker idea, simply go in for those small pot bunkers I mentioned? How about presenting two plans - one with less expense and smaller traps and one with big shallow bunkers which cost more? The penny, so to speak, might just drop when cost differentials were waved under their noses.

Like I said, it's just one thought from this one amateur.

Paul,
I don´t like to get caught up with one particular bunker style, I créate some shallow pot bunkers and some deep ones, big flat waste bunkers, small flat, sometime take the sand up the slope and I also like some different type of grass bunkers thus striving for creativity in the recovery department. There are just a lot of uneducated-dumbass golfers down here. I once got complimented about a false front and I almost fainted because it was the first time I came across anyone in more then 20 years in South America, that actually knew what a false front was.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

In my opinion the best point so far is that you don't really need bunkers at all around the greens.
If the pro plays the rough the same as a bunker who cares what surrounds a green?
Get rid of most of the greenside bunkers, keep them on the pro sides on balance, and rough them up a little.
Don't bring in Arkansas white, unless you are in Arkansas.  

Mike,

I think you're forgetting about one thing.

A ball hit on the approach, into the greenside rough, can bounce up onto the green, leaving the golfer with a putt to birdie the hole.

A bunker prevents that luck from happening and makes the approach more strategic.

Look at the aerial of Wolf Point you'll see about 6 green side bunkers and I don't want to be in any of them - especially since the greens run away from most of them.  the sand is far from PGA tour ideal.  It is bought from a local quarry for about 1/7th the price of a fancier brand - the increased cost is mostly fuel for delivery anyway.

Peace

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

That goes back to whether we are concerned about tour pros or average joes.  The tour pros I know don't really focus on the bunkers or a miss very often.  Yeah, Pete supposedly got them thinking with his real deep bunkers, but in most cases, they think in positive terms of where on the green to hit it, how close, etc.  Average Joe still thinks in terms of the basic choice of aiming at the fat part of the green, or shading it closer to the pin.

So maybe the real design choice is all tournaments at TPC courses and leave the rest of them alone.  Sort of like little league fields vs. a major league ball park.  But, we keep insisting on playing in the big league parks......

No one argues much that rough, bunkers, etc depending on maintenance are about the same hazard, or can vary.  At least, I would tend to agree with Andrew's post on the relative ACTUAL stats, not this group's perceptions. Personally, if bunkers are about 2.5 strokes to get down, and rough 2.6 or even more, bunkers still have their place because they look good, might stop a roller, and are traditional.  I don't think this visual world is ready for bunkerless courses.

[Jim Nugent]

Here is the problem as I see it.

The problem is relativity. Getting a par when you hit the green should be easy. Getting a par when you miss the green, but still on short grass should be tougher, par from rough should be tougher still, and sand save should be the toughest.

I think that's exactly how it is right now, at least for pro's.  The pro's rarely 3-putt, i.e. they almost always make at least par when hit the green in regulation.  They almost always get up and down from the fringe in two: median is nearly 90%.  Scrambling from rough falls off quite a bit, and scrambling from sand is worst of all. 

If the rough is worse than being in a "hazard" then the problem is with the rough.

  On average, for the pro's, rough is not worse than sand.  Sand is tougher than rough. 

While we can't control all the variables, the numbers make it pretty clear that for the best players in the world:

a) Sand costs them over a half stroke on average, and maybe closer to 0.6 to 0.7 strokes, compared to a GIR;

b) They get up and down more often out of the rough;

c) They putt from 20 yards WAY better than they play out of the rough or sand.

Sand is hard for everyone.  Even the best.  Maybe you want to make it harder still.  But as it stands, sand traps take a heavy toll on the very best golfers. 

[Wayne_Kozun]

Is this solely because the bunkers are so well maintained or could it also be that most venues they play have 4 inch rough within 6 feet of the putting surface? Not just rough but juicy thick watered and fertilised rough.

I think we are being overly dramatic here.  Very few, perhaps even no, PGA tour events have 6 inch rough.  We often see that at the US Open and this year at the PGA.  But this is not the case at your average PGA tour event as the rough they have is usually quite modest.

[Jeff_Brauer]

In regards to the "get in the bunker" shout, do we hear that at regular tour stops, or just the US Open and PGA that tend to have really, really, penal rough?

Whoops crossed over with Wayne's post, but both serve to show that there are no blanket statements about whether rough, sand, or fw chipping areas are the toughest. It depends on maintenance and course set up.

For that matter, even if they were the same relative hazard (and frankly, for each layer, the difficulty might rank 1,2,3 or 2,3,1 depending on their skill set) isn't it good to have a variety of hazards in a variety of locations so the typical hooker will eventually wind up in a variety of hazard types, as will the slicer?

As much as Pete got them thinking with deep bunkers, we know that if there are deep bunkers on both sides of the green (or deep woods on both sides of a fw) that the choice goes away and they just have to hit it.  On the other hand, pairing a sand bunker on one side, and chipping area on the other really starts to get players thinking about where to miss.  Whereas, sand and rough might not.  Water and fairway chipping might be the most dramatic combo to get players to start aiming for the far side of the green or bail out area away from the water.  A very deep sand bunker and fw chipping area would be similar....

So, its not just the hazard itself, its the combo of hazards that make them effective.

Besides, I am often at odds with the so called tastemakers here on gca.com.  I kinda figure that through consensus, golf courses in general have sort of gotten to where golfers seem to like them, just like I kinda figure that the Beatles were probably better than the Pink Flamingos by virtue of selling bazillions of LP's vs tens of hundreds.......

Now, I understand the arguments of how visionaries come to change the world.  On the other hand, I also understand that you have to pick your battles and given the argument that bunkers are too easy is based on a skewed TV vision (of only the weeks tour leaders, not even the whole field) I am not quite ready to go to battle for harder bunkers.

Now, in the name of cost, I would easily go to battle over the cost of bunker maintenance, and often have.  If that results in a little more difficulty in your typical sand bunker to avoid that mega expense of raking, edge trimming, etc. all seven days of the week, then I am all for it.

But, that is not exactly the issue as it was framed in the OP.

BTW, in the real world as I battle it, a typical scenario is deciding between Best or Arkansas White and some slightly off white, slightly prone to burying or fried egg lies at $50 per ton vs $100 per ton for "perfection."  I don't know about the other architects here, but I direct my clients to the $50 per ton sand far more often, because its not just the initial cost, but the cost of replacing 10% or so of your sand every year that gets really tiring, really fast.

A typical course might use 1000-1200 CY of bunker sand (or 1400-1675 tons) so even initial construction stands to save $70-$80K with cheaper sand, so its not inconsequential on the typical $4M budget (about 2% with the swipe of a pen to change the sand contract).

[Jud_T]

The best tour players today have a sand save percentage of close to 70%.  I'd love to see that stat for Bobby Jones, Gene Sarazen, Walter Hagen or for that matter Hogan, Snead, Palmer and Nicklaus.

[Jeff_Brauer]

But Jud, even if you are correct, the average tour stat is still slightly better or worse than 50%. 

Are you really suggesting a maintenance paradigm to cause higher scores for the top 1% of the top 1% of players?  I don't think ANY design, even tour event courses, ought to be aimed at that level.

As to the second part, I would like to see it, too.  However, some of the stats posted here go back about 25 years don't they?  Seems like a good sample size.  All we know is Bobby Jones/Sarazen and others of that era were worried about sand performance, or the sand wedge wouldn't have been invented.  But then, golfers wanting to shoot lower scores any legal way they can is nothing new.....

[Jud_T]

Jeff,

It's more your local tony country club members wanting to have the same perfectly manicured imported white sand they see on TV so they don't have to overly exert themselves on the way to shooting a 95 and can brag to their guests while implementing the huevos hair dryer technique in the men's locker room.  Yet another sad example of the trickle-down economics of golf.

[Grant Saunders]

Is this solely because the bunkers are so well maintained or could it also be that most venues they play have 4 inch rough within 6 feet of the putting surface? Not just rough but juicy thick watered and fertilised rough.

I think we are being overly dramatic here.  Very few, perhaps even no, PGA tour events have 6 inch rough.  We often see that at the US Open and this year at the PGA.  But this is not the case at your average PGA tour event as the rough they have is usually quite modest.

Wanye

Not sure where you get 6 inch from, I said 4 inch which would be fairly common.

[Carl Johnson]

[Ian Andrew: I thought we needed a good philosophical discussion...]

Here's where I come down, philosophically speaking.

(1) There are no rules about bunkers (contrast, the water hazard on running track steeple chase course).

(2) Bunkers are defined in the rules as "hazards," but the rules don't say how "hazardous" they must actually be.

(3) Bring back the 19th century Scotts golfers and show them the bunkers on our typical American course today and ask their impression.  Imagine the answer.

(4) Golf has changed in many ways to suit the desires of the times' contemporary players.

(5) Personally, I'd like to see the bunkers be rough, no rakes at all.  Let the players smooth over blemishes with their feet or a wedge, or leave as is.  Make them real hazards rather than the safe bail out.  From time to time the greenkeeper's crew would clean things up.

(6) I'd go for this style for everyday play and for the professional golf entertainers.  For everyday play, it's just a game and you and the other members of your four-ball are all playing the same course - it's the match, not the "score."  For the entertainers, more train wrecks in bunkers and more interest for fans.  Also, more reward for superior shot making.  No right or wrong answer here - just a matter of preference, and this would be mine.

(7) The market will continue to drive bunker maintenance, and my guess is that my personal view will remain in the minority, more or less forever.

. . . .

(9)  Next step: uniform manufactured sand (e.g., such as used at Augusta National, I am told) will become the expectation and then the norm, so that everyone will be playing under uniform conditions at all courses, in the interest of "fairness".  We've had the Augustafication of fairways and the "look," and the next step will surely be bunker uniformity and the blinding white ground quartz of Augusta.  

[David Harshbarger]

The 17th at Cherry Valley Club in Garden City, NJ is fresh to mind, and their Emmet fanned 3 bunkers away to the left of the Short.  These bunkers were like feathers, with the lips running from Green's edge out and away.  Unlike most green side bunkers, this meant that right hangers generally end up playing their bunker recovery from (well) below the feet, a challenging shot.

Emmet's design was artful, but also instructive, in that changing the orientation of the bunker relative to the green creates more interest, and hazard.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here is the problem as I see it.

The problem is relativity. Getting a par when you hit the green should be easy. Getting a par when you miss the green, but still on short grass should be tougher, par from rough should be tougher still, and sand save should be the toughest.

You're correct, but, the flaw in your argument is that the bunker is meticulously groomed, and the rough isn't.

The problem is that, that is hardly true in regular tournaments and reverses during major tournaments. At that point, it is kinda pointless to have bunkers. They become merely window dressings, which they are already with most courses, at least for accomplished players.

You and others are completely forgetting about their tactical significance on the approach and recovery.

Pointless to have this bunker ?



It would be ideal if the difficulties got harder with all variety of hazards at the same degree, even for accomplished players.
Frustrating part is that is readily achievable with less bunker maintenance, which should be a win win for all involved.

[Matt Osborne]

[Ian Andrew: I thought we needed a good philosophical discussion...]
(5) Personally, I'd like to see the bunkers be rough, no rakes at all.  Let the players smooth over blemishes with their feet or a wedge, or leave as is.  Make them real hazards rather than the safe bail out.  From time to time the greenkeeper's crew would clean things up.

(6) I'd go for this style for everyday play and for the professional golf entertainers.  For everyday play, it's just a game and you and the other members of your four-ball are all playing the same course - it's the match, not the "score."  For the entertainers, more train wrecks in bunkers and more interest for fans.  Also, more reward for superior shot making.  No right or wrong answer here - just a matter of preference, and this would be mine.

Carl,

I think these are pretty much in line with my thoughts.  As I said earlier, a less manicured bunker would not really matter to a higher handicapper as they struggle out of sand regardless of their lie, while at the same time may result in more random lies for the better players, requiring them to play a more skilled shot to get out in good position.  

Bunkers will always hold strategic value for a high handicapper (the majority of golfers) but a less manicured, no raking style bunker would keep them (or make them more) strategic for the better player and pro (the minority).  Its a win-win situation.

The reduction in maintenance time and costs would be pretty valuable, which would help drive the argument for a move to this style. (a win-win-win situation?)

Hypothetically, it should be easier to incorporate (and convince the owner/operator) this idea into the rugged, natural look golf courses of today's architect's (and golden age arch's), but for the modern age designs it would be a tough sell.

In reality, it is a tough sell to any owner/operator, as most players/people equate "manicured" with better quality.  Which really, is the case for most things in life.

[Sean_A]

You want the bunker to be enough of a penalty that players actually think about trying to avoid it.  If they don't, then it's not really adding any strategy at all, it's just punishing misses.

Yes, but enough of a penalty for who? Which type of player is the baseline?  If its the pro, forget it.  Then there is the issue of all sorts of bunkers not really being used as hazards.  Often times its the rabbit who catches these things on maybe the second shot or at least one shot more than "regulation".  I think by far the bigger issue is the number of bunkers and of course that means a radical rethink of how archies treat bunkers.  But if there were half or 1/3 the number of bunkers as usual then I expect golfers would be okay with junk bunkers because it may mean a pick-up - in others words, not that different than rough should be - hit and miss.  This idea that penalties in golf should be graded in difficulty from

OOB
water
bunker
rough

is daft.  Sure, not much we can do about the OOB penalty, but at least they are fairly rare on the best courses - hence one reason why housing courses rarely work well.  Not much we can do about water except like OOB, control the number of water hazards.  Who wants to play a course with water directly in play on 15 holes?  Why then do we think its okay to run rampant with 100 bunkers where a significant percentage of golfers may have to pick up - is that golf folks want?  Same for rough.  The rough, why should it be easier to play from then bunkers?  Shouldn't rough, like bunkers be varied (read luck involved)?  Sometimes a guy has a great lie and sometimes he is stuffed.  

A much better approach to design is to balance the frequency of hazards (which would include rough, hollows, humps and trees) far better than is currently the case.  

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()