You'd think the club would figure it out, or that the complaints wouldn't fall

[Patrick_Mucci]

on deaf ears.

How many times have you played a course, on a nice day, when it hasn't rained in a week, and the greenside bunker sand is wet and hard ?

Sometimes to the point where you can see green algae/mold growing ?

Sometimes half the bunker is dry and the other half wet.

Now, the golfer should observe same and adjust, but, shouldn't there be an attempt to keep the bunkers consistent, and dry (caveat:  heavy winds may make damp bunkers desirable)

Is this an indication of improper irrigation heads, poor locations or ill conceived architecture ?  
Or all of the above ?

Shouldn't the location and proper type of irrigation head be part of the architectural plan ?

[Anthony_Nysse]

Were dealing with some algae in the new bunkers, currently. Many members want the bunkers firm, meaning we actually broom then, effecting the surface just enough to smooth our prints. The problem with that is .5" down, that sand sits, never dries out and creates algae. We tend to be more aggressive with our cultivation on Mondays, so that that Tuesday/Wednesday, the surface is back to normal. Our new, G-Angle sand seems to get algae very quickly, even with the little amounts of water. The sand being so white also shows the algae much more than the brown sand of previous years.
  Our main algae problems tend to be on the faces. In an effort to keep them firm, we do not rake the faces but every 7-10 days. We had the same issues at Colonial with the white sand. Leading into the tournament, we pumped at lot of fertigation to push the bermudgrass to fill in for the tournament. This created some algae from the water and fertilizer.

[V. Kmetz]

Pat,

Though I'm in the "camp" that believes a bunkers primary test should be "a change of surface," I agree with your concluding premise that "irrigation" location should be part of an architectural plan.

In this facet of your topic, I also think not enough heed is paid (in renovation/irrigation work) to how much sun a particular bunker gets, when it gets it, and where that bunker/hole is in the sequence of the round.

Ironically enough, the greenside bunkers at the place I make 3/4 of my seasonal loops (not WF) the irrigation surplus has an improved effect on the consistency and "playability" of many, many bunkers and is sort of a blessing to settle those bunkers into a "consistent" surface....kind of like making two "wrongs" into a "right."

cheers

vk

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

I'm guessing from your example that irrigation is probably playing a part due to the fact that it's inconsistent throughout one bunker. Irrigation can help as you mentioned, as dry sand isn't always ideal as the ball can sink in.

As for algae, Anthony pretty much covered it but there's one more thing to add. The sand depth can play a part also. The hydraulic head needed to push water through a sand depends on the particle size of the sand. If a sand is not deep enough for the water to build up enough head to drain, the sand stays damp and over time you'll notice the algae forming on top. It could have happened in your example, ie the sand got moved and was deeper on one side, but since the sand depth issue is more of a uniform thing, I'd suspect irrigation overage.

[Jason Topp]

Pat -with respect to your suggestion that bunkers should be consistent, I disagree. 

One of my favorite things about the bunkers in Australia is how inconsistent they are.  It forces you to read the lie and makes every shot a different challenge. 

[Chris DeToro]

Pat, I think it's probably a combination of all the above, though architecture may have played a role.  I can think of an example on our 6th hole at BCCC where back many years ago, one thought it would be a good idea to add bunkers around the 6th green, which is also the lowest lying point on the golf course.  These bunkers were a bitch to play out of as they were consistently variable to the rest of the bunkers and balls had a tendency to plug even in the wet sand.  

Willie Park did not intend these bunkers to be there and they've since been removed in the past year, leading to a much more playable hole around the greens and no more maintenance issues with these bunkers.

[Bruce Katona]

The problems with algae/half wet/half dry sand conditions could be as simple as a misaimed irrigation head, which reuires adjustment.  When doing the irrigation layout, the designers are pretty careful about how they lay the haeds out and the coverage patterns.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat -with respect to your suggestion that bunkers should be consistent, I disagree. 

So you favor bunkers that are half dry and half wet ?

Or, bunkers that seem dry on the surface, but are wet underneath the surface ?

One of my favorite things about the bunkers in Australia is how inconsistent they are. 

It forces you to read the lie and makes every shot a different challenge. 

I'm not that astute, so explain to me how inconsistent bunkers make you "read the lie" more than consistent bunkers make you read the lie ?

[Jon Wiggett]

So it has rained lightly across part of the course meaning that the top 1 inch of sand bunkers on some holes is wet but the sand is dry underneath. That is except those bunkers where a tree is overhanging meaning certain areas of them have been sheltered and so it is a half/half in the same bunker.

What should the greenstaff do. Hair dryer the wet bunkers or damp down the dry bunkers? If damp down then just the half inch or all bunkers making sure the entire sand is wet? and what happens when the top bit of sand is dry but it is wet underneath?

Why should bunker sand be consistent when the bunkers themselves are different depths, angle, sizes? They are a hazard after all


Jon

[Richard Hetzel]

I agree that they are a hazard and can be inconsistent, however if you have them on the golf course then they should be maintained to some (agreed to) level of maintenance. It's not a water hazard that does not to be maintained at all. My expectation would be for them to actually have sand (not rocks), a proper drainage system, and be "fairly well raked", yet not perfect at all. I always wonder why golf courses even have sand bunkers when they are continually neglected. Grow them over with crazy grasses and be done with them.

[Jon Wiggett]

I agree that they are a hazard, however if you have them on the golf course then they should be maintained to some (agreed to) level of maintenance. It's not a water hazard that does not to be maintained.

WOW Richard,

you have obviously never worked on a golf course with a water hazard if you think they are maintenance free. The only good thing about a water hazard is you don't need to mow them.

I do agree with most of your post though.

Jon

[Richard Hetzel]

Oh I know water hazards require work, but not like sand bunkers. I have NEVER seen anyone, on any course working on a pond. I do believe they require some attention. I did work on a grounds crew (I hated it) hand mowing greens, so that is the extent of my low level of expertise.

I will say that I am not one to really complain about course conditions as I am just happy to be out playing golf.

[Jason Topp]

Pat -with respect to your suggestion that bunkers should be consistent, I disagree. 
So you favor bunkers that are half dry and half wet ?
Or, bunkers that seem dry on the surface, but are wet underneath the surface ?
I am not sure I have encountered the situation you identify but find it is usally possible to judge the condition of the bunker simply by walking to hit your shot.  That being said, the specific situation you are describing seems like a maintenence problem based on the comments of others.
One of my favorite things about the bunkers in Australia is how inconsistent they are. 
It forces you to read the lie and makes every shot a different challenge. 
I'm not that astute, so explain to me how inconsistent bunkers make you "read the lie" more than consistent bunkers make you read the lie ?
On some shots you have no sand, on others you have a small amount and on others it is quite deep.  You must understand the challenge you are facing and hit a wider variety of shots depending on the condition.  A perfectly manicured and consistent bunker imposes quite similar requirements for every shot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So it has rained lightly across part of the course meaning that the top 1 inch of sand bunkers on some holes is wet but the sand is dry underneath.
That's systemic and clearly understood by the golfer.

That is except those bunkers where a tree is overhanging meaning certain areas of them have been sheltered and so it is a half/half in the same bunker.

If the branches of the tree hang over the bunker, that means that the drip line and roots are into the bunker.
Would you cite five examples of where tree branches are overhanging half of the bunker and the roots are invading half of the bunkers ?

It addition, it means that the leaves on the trees are falling into the bunker, hiding/covering up the ball so that the golfer can't find or see it when he wants to execute his shot.  Would you cite five courses where this condition exists

What should the greenstaff do. Hair dryer the wet bunkers or damp down the dry bunkers? If damp down then just the half inch or all bunkers making sure the entire sand is wet? and what happens when the top bit of sand is dry but it is wet underneath?

One can't always offset the impact of Mother Nature, but, one can offset the impact of improperly located or improperly used irrigation heads.
Surely, even you understand the difference.

Why should bunker sand be consistent when the bunkers themselves are different depths, angle, sizes? They are a hazard after all

Is it your contention that architects create different depths to the sand when they construct a bunker ?
That one bunker will have but one inch of sand and another will have ten inches of sand.
I've been around alot of architects and course construction and have never seen the situation you allude to.
Would you identify the course and holes where the architect and contractor built the bunkers to these specifications ?

Thanks

[Dane Hawker]

Hit it on the green. Nothing worse than a golfer complaining about hazard.  

Some courses only have one set of sprinklers around the green. These water the green and the rough. Sometimes the bunkers get in the way.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat -with respect to your suggestion that bunkers should be consistent, I disagree. 
So you favor bunkers that are half dry and half wet ?
Or, bunkers that seem dry on the surface, but are wet underneath the surface ?

I am not sure I have encountered the situation you identify but find it is usally possible to judge the condition of the bunker simply by walking to hit your shot.  That being said, the specific situation you are describing seems like a maintenence problem based on the comments of others.


How would you determine that if, when you walked into the bunker, where you walked was dry but where your ball was, was wet just beneath the surface ?  Or vice versa ?



One of my favorite things about the bunkers in Australia is how inconsistent they are. 
It forces you to read the lie and makes every shot a different challenge. 

I'm not that astute, so explain to me how inconsistent bunkers make you "read the lie" more than consistent bunkers make you read the lie ?

On some shots you have no sand, on others you have a small amount and on others it is quite deep.  You must understand the challenge you are facing and hit a wider variety of shots depending on the condition.  A perfectly manicured and consistent bunker imposes quite similar requirements for every shot.

But, how do you know how deep the sand is from viewing the surface.

The rules permit you to "take your stance" but, not to dig in and "build a stance".
The definition of a stance, coupled with 13-2 and 13-3 prevent a player from digging in to determine the depth of the sand.
So, again, I'm curious, how do you "read your lie" in a bunker ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hit it on the green. Nothing worse than a golfer complaining about hazard.  

Some courses only have one set of sprinklers around the green. These water the green and the rough. Sometimes the bunkers get in the way.

Dane,

So when they get in the way to the extend that the bunker "puddles" that's okay with you ?

Or that the bunker has so much water that algae is rampant, that's okay with you.

Since the best golfers in the world hit less than 75 % of the greens, what percentage do you think good, mediocre and poor amateurs hit ?

Should we make the game more difficult for them ?

[David_Elvins]

But, how do you know how deep the sand is from viewing the surface.

The rules permit you to "take your stance" but, not to dig in and "build a stance".
The definition of a stance, coupled with 13-2 and 13-3 prevent a player from digging in to determine the depth of the sand.
So, again, I'm curious, how do you "read your lie" in a bunker ?[/size][/color]

Pat,  

Some of the sandbelt bunkers are natural sand and some have varying amounts of imported sand on the natural sand.  In areas of some courses where sand is naturally less compacted, ie on top of hills and dunes, the natural bunker sand can be quite 'fluffy' and loose.   On areas where the sands are more compacted and possibly cemented, the sand is not loose or there is a small spread of loose sand disturbed by raking or imported (less than 1 inch) over dense sand.

Visual inspection goes along way to identifiying loose sand or dense sand, local knowledge and taking a normal stance can also help.  

Jason is right that it advantages the golfer who can play a range of shots.  It is also more natural than consistent bunkers.  

[Dane Hawker]

So when they get in the way to the extend that the bunker "puddles" that's okay with you ?

Jeepers, if they are puddling from irrigation I think there are bigger issues.
What is the sand depth? Sounds like there isn't enough sand.

[Jon Wiggett]

So it has rained lightly across part of the course meaning that the top 1 inch of sand bunkers on some holes is wet but the sand is dry underneath.
That's systemic and clearly understood by the golfer.

That is except those bunkers where a tree is overhanging meaning certain areas of them have been sheltered and so it is a half/half in the same bunker.

If the branches of the tree hang over the bunker, that means that the drip line and roots are into the bunker.
Would you cite five examples of where tree branches are overhanging half of the bunker and the roots are invading half of the bunkers ?

It addition, it means that the leaves on the trees are falling into the bunker, hiding/covering up the ball so that the golfer can't find or see it when he wants to execute his shot.  Would you cite five courses where this condition exists

Patrick, there are dozens of courses which have bunkers with overhanging trees over parts of them

What should the greenstaff do. Hair dryer the wet bunkers or damp down the dry bunkers? If damp down then just the half inch or all bunkers making sure the entire sand is wet? and what happens when the top bit of sand is dry but it is wet underneath?

One can't always offset the impact of Mother Nature, but, one can offset the impact of improperly located or improperly used irrigation heads.
Surely, even you understand the difference.

I agree but the irrigation should be designed to avoid this as much as possible and not the course designed around the irrigation. There is off course windblow and no I am not going to cite 5 courses which have their irrigation water affected by windblow

Why should bunker sand be consistent when the bunkers themselves are different depths, angle, sizes? They are a hazard after all

Is it your contention that architects create different depths to the sand when they construct a bunker ? No, you have brought this up. I never mentioned it
That one bunker will have but one inch of sand and another will have ten inches of sand.
I've been around alot of architects and course construction and have never seen the situation you allude to.
Would you identify the course and holes where the architect and contractor built the bunkers to these specifications ?
You are the one going on about sand depth so you answer your own question

Thanks

[Patrick_Mucci]

So when they get in the way to the extend that the bunker "puddles" that's okay with you ?

Jeepers, if they are puddling from irrigation I think there are bigger issues.
What is the sand depth? Sounds like there isn't enough sand.

If a bunker is "puddling" the depth of the sand is irrelevant

[Patrick_Mucci]

But, how do you know how deep the sand is from viewing the surface.

The rules permit you to "take your stance" but, not to dig in and "build a stance".
The definition of a stance, coupled with 13-2 and 13-3 prevent a player from digging in to determine the depth of the sand.
So, again, I'm curious, how do you "read your lie" in a bunker ?[/size][/color]

Pat,  

Some of the sandbelt bunkers are natural sand and some have varying amounts of imported sand on the natural sand.  


Why wouldn't the imported sand and the natural sand homogenize ?

In areas of some courses where sand is naturally less compacted, ie on top of hills and dunes, the natural bunker sand can be quite 'fluffy' and loose.

On areas where the sands are more compacted and possibly cemented, the sand is not loose or there is a small spread of loose sand disturbed by raking or imported (less than 1 inch) over dense sand.



Are the above two conditions strictly a function of moisture ?

Visual inspection goes along way to identifiying loose sand or dense sand, local knowledge and taking a normal stance can also help.  

Jason is right that it advantages the golfer who can play a range of shots.  

It is also more natural than consistent bunkers.  

Doesn't rain, wind and gravity conspire to make all bunkers "consistent" ?

[Dane Hawker]

So when they get in the way to the extend that the bunker "puddles" that's okay with you ?

Jeepers, if they are puddling from irrigation I think there are bigger issues.
What is the sand depth? Sounds like there isn't enough sand.

If a bunker is "puddling" the depth of the sand is irrelevant

Some sands need to be a certain depth for there to be enough force to push the water downwards and sideways to the drains.

[Randy Thompson]

But, how do you know how deep the sand is from viewing the surface.

The rules permit you to "take your stance" but, not to dig in and "build a stance".
The definition of a stance, coupled with 13-2 and 13-3 prevent a player from digging in to determine the depth of the sand.
So, again, I'm curious, how do you "read your lie" in a bunker ?[/size][/color]

Pat,  

Some of the sandbelt bunkers are natural sand and some have varying amounts of imported sand on the natural sand.  


Why wouldn't the imported sand and the natural sand homogenize ?

In areas of some courses where sand is naturally less compacted, ie on top of hills and dunes, the natural bunker sand can be quite 'fluffy' and loose.

On areas where the sands are more compacted and possibly cemented, the sand is not loose or there is a small spread of loose sand disturbed by raking or imported (less than 1 inch) over dense sand.



Are the above two conditions strictly a function of moisture ?

Visual inspection goes along way to identifiying loose sand or dense sand, local knowledge and taking a normal stance can also help.  

Jason is right that it advantages the golfer who can play a range of shots.  

It is also more natural than consistent bunkers.  

Doesn't rain, wind and gravity conspire to make all bunkers "consistent" ?

Patrick,
I have some 900 post and have avoided contributing to any of your post, what I am trying to say is I am a Virgin, fresh meat..so go easy on me! In relation to why the natural sand and the imported sand don´t homogenize is because when you have two different sands that come together you créate a pearched wáter table which is the fundamental component of a USGA Green. A two inch coarse sand layer is installed beneath the 12 médium sand layer. This interface causes the wáter to be trapped in the twelve inch sand layer until it reaches 100% saturation, when it reaches this point its like a magical door is opened and the wáter can now begin to drain and make it way down through the coarse sand layers and into and through the gravel and eventually into the drain pipes installed in the base of the Green. So two different sands layered in a bunker will do the same thing, keeping moisture in the top layer until reaching 100% saturation, then and only then will the wáter work it way down to the next sand layer and eventually into the drain pipes. I agree with you, bunkers should be consistent as posible. Many times I find early in the round wet compacted sand which is difficult and by the eighteenth hole I am finding fried eggs and sugar sand, I don´t like it and feel inconsistency is directly proportional to tricking up the course or making it over diffcult for the majority. However, I also agree its a freaking hazard, so its something I can live with, we have to choose our battles with owners and this a battle not worth fighting in my opinión. I don´t think its the responsibility of the architect directly, indirectly yes, we should recommend to the owner that two speed heads be involved or two seperate sprinklers be added, one next to the other that allows for partial coverage with one sprinkler and partial coverage with another or one of the two being different speeds and different nozzles that throw less distance or less wáter, ect. There are solution but there costly and the owners cut the cake and when presented with the cost differce most will go back to...its a freaking hazard, so what if its inconsistent. There are a few exceptions where they say, yes I want it perfect and my clients(future members) want it perfect so I will pass the cost onto them and they will pay a higher initiation fee and they deserve perfection. I have not found one yet willing to do so and doubt that I ever will, irrigation cost have gone through the roof, something like 700% in 20 years. Normally the scenario is when the irrigation plans arrive there is a big meeting with all those involved and the owner wants to know where can he reduce and what are the consequences of the reduction and when it is explained its, bye-bye sophisticated designs around the greens.
There, I have lost my virginity! Let it rip!
oh and before somebody rips me a new one, let me clarify these sophisticated costly designs, lessen the problem but 100% elimination of the problem is close to imposible.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So when they get in the way to the extend that the bunker "puddles" that's okay with you ?

Jeepers, if they are puddling from irrigation I think there are bigger issues.
What is the sand depth? Sounds like there isn't enough sand.

If a bunker is "puddling" the depth of the sand is irrelevant

Some sands need to be a certain depth for there to be enough force to push the water downwards and sideways to the drains.

Dane,

I'm afraid that you lost me on the above statement.

I don't understand what the depth of the sand has to do with creating "force to push water downwards and sideways"

I thought gravity and water flowing to the lowest point provided that function.