Does Augusta Really Need Any Bunkers?

[Tim_Weiman]

Thomas,

I certainly didn't mean to suggest removing the bunkers at RM or anywhere else I mentioned.

Instead, I was really trying to examine how good a course might be even without bunkers. As I said, Augusta seems like a course that wouldn't lose much. A place like Winged Foot is a different story, I believe.

[MClutterbuck]

In my mind, the biggest reason to have few bunkers is that the average pro is much better from a bunker than from a fast and firm green surround with good countours, whilst the average amateur is much better from outside the bunker than from inside.

Is that true?  Median up and down from greenside bunkers last year on the PGA tour was 50.66%.  Barely half the time.  A fair number of players only got up and down in the 30's, and one player was in the 20's.   

PGA Tour also has a stat called "scrambling from other locations."  It shows "The percent of time that a player misses the green in regulation, but still makes par or better when the birdie stroke is taken from a location other than the greenside bunker, rough, or fringe."  The median there last year was 58.59%.  Only one player was in the 30s, and no one in the 20s. 

How many places at ANGC would a pro rather be in sand, instead of putting/chipping off short grass? 

It is all relative. A 15 handicap would probably have a much lower percentage from bunkers than chipping. Just think about how many stay in the trap or blade it over the green.

[Sean_A]

Well, I disagree and agree.  Sure, practically any course could have its bunkers removed if other features were used more prominently.  On the other hand, 15-20 well placed bunkers (or even less) can really enhance the strategy and variety of a design.  The issue is often bunkers are used as a crutch by archies I spose because it is expected and they can't be bothered to buck expectations unless its a matter of economics. 

I have my new go to course for bunkers; Cleeve Cloud.  Bring in an archie with the remit of designing a new bunker scheme of not more than 20ish bunkers and that course could be transformed.  The site is so expansive that huge bunkers could be employed and I think would make the course much better.  The bunkers (maybe 15) in place are wishy washy waste of time things for the most part.  They could literally be 3-4x the size in many places and gathering.  Combine the bunker aesthetic/placement with the hills and great views and I think Cleeve Cloud would easily be top 100 England if not GB&I.

Ciao

Sean,

I don't know that I would be prepared to say practically any course could have all it's bunkers removed and remain a very high quality course. Some yes. Some probably not. Augusta is pretty blessed in terms of topography and, IMO, contributes a lot to not really needing bunkers. Obviously the greens help a lot also.

But, let's consider another great course with great greens. Could you really remove all the bunkers at Winged Foot and have as minimal an impact as doing so at Augusta would?

Another great course to debate would be Oakmont. The bunkers are a big part of the design, but again the topography offers a pretty darn good course without them, IMO.

Tim

My thought was most courses could do without bunkers if that was the initial plan.  

I have no idea about WF or Oakmont, never played them em.  But to start off, the impact is lesser at August because there are far fewer bunkers   - so I am not sure your comparison works very well.  In any case, I will go to my grave thinking there is no good reason on God's green earth to have 100 bunkers on a course.  That doesn't mean a course can't be good or great with that many, but there is no way they can all be "justified".  In other words, could the course be just as good with 70 or 50?  I guess it depends what "just as good" means, but if we are talkin' handicap play...I still think it would be awesome if archies used a justification for each bunker and once they used the same reason 3-4 times, that was it, no more bunkers for that reason - time to find another solution to challenge and interest the golfer.  Just like Dye said with keeping golfers thinking applies for archies as well.  

Ciao

[Tim_Weiman]

Sean,

I mentioned WF and Oakmont because they are two very different properties, but both use a lot of bunkers. To me WF is by far the inferior property (I always liked nearby Quaker Ridge much more) and it depends on bunkers far more, IMO, than Oakmont despite having superb greens.

Oakmont and Augusta both have a lot of topography, but the design intent and deployment of bunkers is obviously world's apart. Yes, Augusta would suffer less from removing all the bunkers because it starts with far less, but I still think Oakmont could be damn good absent bunkers as well.

Bottom line for me is that the more interesting the land, the less bunkers are needed.

[Jim Nugent]

In my mind, the biggest reason to have few bunkers is that the average pro is much better from a bunker than from a fast and firm green surround with good countours, whilst the average amateur is much better from outside the bunker than from inside.

Is that true?  Median up and down from greenside bunkers last year on the PGA tour was 50.66%.  Barely half the time.  A fair number of players only got up and down in the 30's, and one player was in the 20's.   

PGA Tour also has a stat called "scrambling from other locations."  It shows "The percent of time that a player misses the green in regulation, but still makes par or better when the birdie stroke is taken from a location other than the greenside bunker, rough, or fringe."  The median there last year was 58.59%.  Only one player was in the 30s, and no one in the 20s. 

How many places at ANGC would a pro rather be in sand, instead of putting/chipping off short grass? 

It is all relative. A 15 handicap would probably have a much lower percentage from bunkers than chipping. Just think about how many stay in the trap or blade it over the green.

I agree with you about 15 handicappers.  Sand is their nemesis.  But I also think the world's top players do better chipping, compared to a bunker shot from the same position.  i.e. sand imposes a penalty on everyone, even if it's much bigger on average golfers. 

That's why I'm curious if there are any parts of ANGC where sand is easier for the pro's than the same shot would be without the sand. 

[jeffwarne]

In my mind, the biggest reason to have few bunkers is that the average pro is much better from a bunker than from a fast and firm green surround with good countours, whilst the average amateur is much better from outside the bunker than from inside.

Is that true?  Median up and down from greenside bunkers last year on the PGA tour was 50.66%.  Barely half the time.  A fair number of players only got up and down in the 30's, and one player was in the 20's.    

PGA Tour also has a stat called "scrambling from other locations."  It shows "The percent of time that a player misses the green in regulation, but still makes par or better when the birdie stroke is taken from a location other than the greenside bunker, rough, or fringe."  The median there last year was 58.59%.  Only one player was in the 30s, and no one in the 20s.  

How many places at ANGC would a pro rather be in sand, instead of putting/chipping off short grass?  

It is all relative. A 15 handicap would probably have a much lower percentage from bunkers than chipping. Just think about how many stay in the trap or blade it over the green.

I agree with you about 15 handicappers.  Sand is their nemesis.  But I also think the world's top players do better chipping, compared to a bunker shot from the same position.  i.e. sand imposes a penalty on everyone, even if it's much bigger on average golfers.  

That's why I'm curious if there are any parts of ANGC where sand is easier for the pro's than the same shot would be without the sand.  

Jim,
I'd say there at least several places where sand makes it easier.
12-it'd be in the water otherwise
7 -it would roll back a long way
short left of 1 would be dicey and roll away a lot.

on 6, during The Masters, I saw a player I teach hit the pin with his tee shot, not go in a bunker, and make a 7.

and probably several other holes depending on pin etc.
The one green,#8. with NO bunkers presents some of the most difficult recoveries

The greens are quite elevated and the lies are quite tight, so a ball short would roll away quite a bit with little ability to get "under" the ball, thus forcing a dicey running type recovery to a green well above the player, as opposed to a mint lie out of a really deep bunker, which is easier to elevate

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff,

Absent bunkers I can see 7 becoming like #10 at Shinnecock. Didn't Norman even struggle once with that?

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

Absent bunkers I can see 7 becoming like #10 at Shinnecock. Didn't Norman even struggle once with that?

I think his struggles were on 9 at Augusta, but he probably struggled on 7 too

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff,

Absent bunkers I can see 7 becoming like #10 at Shinnecock. Didn't Norman even struggle once with that?

I think his struggles were on 9 at Augusta, but he probably struggled on 7 too

Jeff,

My memory may be failing, but I think during the 1995 Open Norman had a shot on #10 at Shinnecock that landed on the front of the green and came back all the down the hill. I played the course in 1994 with a fellow who caddied there for years and he strongly advised against landing on the front part of the green.

I took his advice, but the putt downhill I left myself sure wasn't easy.

[jeffwarne]

sorry thought you were talking about 7 at Augusta-I do remember a Norman struggle at 10
He was leading there after 3 rounds in 86

[Patrick_Mucci]

The relatively small number of bunkers gives a clue, IMO.

Tim,

I'd bifurcate the question.
I'd differentiate between fairway and greenside bunkers

Wouldn't Augusta be nearly as good a course if every single bunker were removed?

Absolutely NOT

For members play?



NO

For play during the Masters?

NO

[Tim_Weiman]

The relatively small number of bunkers gives a clue, IMO.

Tim,

I'd bifurcate the question.
I'd differentiate between fairway and greenside bunkers

Wouldn't Augusta be nearly as good a course if every single bunker were removed?

Absolutely NOT

For members play?



NO

For play during the Masters?

NO

Pat,

Just to repeat: I am not suggesting all or even any of the bunkers be removed. What I am arguing is that Augusta is so blessed from a topography point of view that if you did remove them you would still be left with an excellent course, certainly for Members and maybe even for Masters.

Assuming you disagree, walk me through the back nine and share your view hole by hole.

Here would be my take for the 15 HCP:

#10 - with or without bunkers, our 15 can't reach the green in two. Plays for a five. Downhill drive goes about 225. Decides to play right or left of famous fairway bunker. Has a pretty good chance of succeeding, but yes the shot would be easier without the bunker. In any case, the third shot won't be that easy. Debate able whether right side green side bunker has much impact especially if third shot is hit from left.

#11 - the lone bunker doesn't have much impact on our 15. He has to aim to the right on his second shot. Third is little bump and run where bunker doesn't matter.

#12 - ok, removing the back bunkers eliminates a terrifying shot for our 15, but the target is still very small and a damn hard hole

#13 - it is a three shot hole. Bunkers not an issue for 1 & 2 unless you want to argue certain locations make a thin third shot more likely and that sand shot back is no bargain either. Still it is going to be an excellent hole after the bunkers are removed

#14 - nothing needs to be said

#15 - see other thread. Still a very hard hole for our 15 HCP.

#16 - I am sure this will be debated, but IMO the size and slope of the green presents lots of challenge. Making par is still pretty tough.

#17 - removing bunkers doesn't impact tee shot, but will impact approach, I will concede. Still, the green itself presents a pretty good defense.

#18 - the fairway bunkers, IMO, don't have much impact. Our 15 still has to hit a big tee shot. Also, removing the front left bunker won't make the hole any piece of cake. Still very difficult for our 15 to get a second shot on the green much less getting it close. Still a great hole.

[cary lichtenstein]

Great Thread:

I think removing the bunkers adds to the difficulty of the golf course. The greens are elevated, grass is clipped short, sand play is much easier. Add a couple of stokes to the winning score, plus a lot of drama of balls rolling down fairways like #9

[Tim_Weiman]

Great Thread:

I think removing the bunkers adds to the difficulty of the golf course. The greens are elevated, grass is clipped short, sand play is much easier. Add a couple of stokes to the winning score, plus a lot of drama of balls rolling down fairways like #9

Cary,

Would you care to assess the back nine hole by hole for the Masters?

[Patrick_Mucci]

The relatively small number of bunkers gives a clue, IMO.

Tim,

I'd bifurcate the question.
I'd differentiate between fairway and greenside bunkers

Wouldn't Augusta be nearly as good a course if every single bunker were removed?

Absolutely NOT

For members play?



NO

For play during the Masters?

NO

Pat,

Just to repeat: I am not suggesting all or even any of the bunkers be removed. What I am arguing is that Augusta is so blessed from a topography point of view that if you did remove them you would still be left with an excellent course, certainly for Members and maybe even for Masters.

I agree with you regarding the "blessed topography", but, I think you have to view that in the context of the genius of the routing.

I'm sure that a lesser golf course could have been designed on that land.

Assuming you disagree, walk me through the back nine and share your view hole by hole.

Here would be my take for the 15 HCP:

#10 - with or without bunkers, our 15 can't reach the green in two. Plays for a five. Downhill drive goes about 225. Decides to play right or left of famous fairway bunker. Has a pretty good chance of succeeding, but yes the shot would be easier without the bunker. In any case, the third shot won't be that easy. Debate able whether right side green side bunker has much impact especially if third shot is hit from left.

The elevated, sloped green presents a significant challenge for anyone who can't hit it in two.

#11 - the lone bunker doesn't have much impact on our 15. He has to aim to the right on his second shot. Third is little bump and run where bunker doesn't matter.  

Agree

#12 - ok, removing the back bunkers eliminates a terrifying shot for our 15, but the target is still very small and a damn hard hole

The bunkers play a substantive role on this hole.

#13 - it is a three shot hole. Bunkers not an issue for 1 & 2 unless you want to argue certain locations make a thin third shot more likely and that sand shot back is no bargain either. Still it is going to be an excellent hole after the bunkers are removed

I disagree on this.
Those back bunkers create a problem for anyone hitting into them, and plenty would because the main object on the third shot for a 15 would be to carry the creek.   Being in those bunkers and having to hit back to the green, which slopes away from you and toward the creek is a terrifying shot.

#14 - nothing needs to be said

Agreed

#15 - see other thread. Still a very hard hole for our 15 HCP.

Except that the cant of the green makes you want to favor the right side of the green.
And, should the 15 find it, it's another terrifying bunker shot

#16 - I am sure this will be debated, but IMO the size and slope of the green presents lots of challenge. Making par is still pretty tough.


I think the left side bunker aids in the play of the hole.
The right side bunker presents another very difficult recovery, especially to an upper hole location or any hole location down by the right edge of the green.

#17 - removing bunkers doesn't impact tee shot, but will impact approach, I will concede. Still, the green itself presents a pretty good defense.
Agree

#18 - the fairway bunkers, IMO, don't have much impact.

I'm not so sure about that.
Some 15's hit it far enough to reach them.

Our 15 still has to hit a big tee shot. Also, removing the front left bunker won't make the hole any piece of cake. Still very difficult for our 15 to get a second shot on the green much less getting it close. Still a great hole.

The fronting bunker is a critical bunker.
Without it, the approach is exponentially easier.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat:

Altogether, it does not appear from your feedback that you strongly disagree for the 15 HCP. Yes, with the bunkers the course is harder and probably better, but much of the challenge and fun remains if we did experiment and remove the bunkers.

I do agree. The routing and not just the topography contributes a great deal.

As for specific shots, where we might disagree the most is the approach to 18. Our 15 is very likely to misjudge the length of the hole and hit well short. So, eliminating the bunker still leaves quite a shot for him.

It would be great for someone to do the back nine analysis for the Masters level player.

[cary lichtenstein]

Pat:

Altogether, it does not appear from your feedback that you strongly disagree for the 15 HCP. Yes, with the bunkers the course is harder and probably better, but much of the challenge and fun remains if we did experiment and remove the bunkers.

I do agree. The routing and not just the topography contributes a great deal.

As for specific shots, where we might disagree the most is the approach to 18. Our 15 is very likely to misjudge the length of the hole and hit well short. So, eliminating the bunker still leaves quite a shot for him.

It would be great for someone to do the back nine analysis for the Masters level player.

The green side bunkers aid the Master level player, simple as that.  Even for a 4 handicap like me, I'd 10 x rather be in a green side bunker than hit it hole high left on 10 and have the ball go virtually anywhere. The green side bunkers catch way word shots. As for your mythical 15, it's a completely different story.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat:

Altogether, it does not appear from your feedback that you strongly disagree for the 15 HCP. Yes, with the bunkers the course is harder and probably better, but much of the challenge and fun remains if we did experiment and remove the bunkers.

I do agree. The routing and not just the topography contributes a great deal.

As for specific shots, where we might disagree the most is the approach to 18. Our 15 is very likely to misjudge the length of the hole and hit well short. So, eliminating the bunker still leaves quite a shot for him.

It would be great for someone to do the back nine analysis for the Masters level player.

The green side bunkers aid the Master level player, simple as that.  Even for a 4 handicap like me, I'd 10 x rather be in a green side bunker than hit it hole high left on 10 and have the ball go virtually anywhere. The green side bunkers catch way word shots. As for your mythical 15, it's a completely different story.

Cary,

On #10, my belief is the bunker on the right brings the slope on the left into play much more for our 15 HCP whose bunker play skills are limited.

Take away the bunker and our guy aims further right. With the bunker our guy has a lot more fear of having to hit across that green from the bunker and have the ball run all the way down the hill. So, he aims more at the middle and a slight pull brings that area on the left more into play.

Feels like the green side bunker doesn't impact the expert player nearly as much.