Unraked Bunkers

[Matthew Lloyd]

Apologies if this has been covered at length already on this board, but I wasn't able to find anything on this.  It's a simple question -- how many of you would prefer that bunkers not be raked to make them more punitive? I'm personally in favor of this, but realize I may be part of a very small minority.

[Matthew Essig]

I am in favor of this as long as the person before briefly covers up the splash mark and dug in footprints. Other footprints are fine.

[jeffwarne]

I am in favor of this as long as the person before briefly covers up the splash mark and dug in footprints. Other footprints are fine.

i.e. he "rakes" it with an implement ill suited for the task

It always cracks me up when I hear stories of a developer who spends time "training" new members to kick in their footprints.
If you want the footprints smoothed, give them the proper tool-otherwise don't expect them to be  smooth

[Alex Miller]

Depends on the sand type and site IMO. Windy site or shallow/less-sandy bunkers, OK. Lots of sand, deep traps, and an inland course, maybe not.

[V. Kmetz]

My take is that a sand bunker hazard isn't supposed to be a "punishment" at all; but even if it is, the "punishment" is the "change of surface." and the fact you can't sole the club in it or within its confines and that brings the vagaries of one's skill and abilities. The sand surface itself is the "punishment"...but I prefer "risk" "chance" "variation."

The "bunker" part is the enclosed or dedicated shape, the real "hazard" is the sand surface and what you can and can't do with it, not a random footprint. By that measure, burrowing animal holes should be played as the ball finds them too.

This other ethos is fine by me, but I'm going to drop that course in my own personal esteem with a comparable one without such a policy.

And the development of the rules pertaining to this, from that original spartan 13 (?) laid out in antiquity, seem to capture what we justly want out of golf, a fair chance to demonstrate whatever ability we have...there's plenty of fortune built into such a game.

cheers

vk

[Wade Whitehead]

Generally, it seems to make sense that unraked bunkers play as waste areas.  It throws the player a bone, albeit a small one.

WW

[Carl Rogers]

In the NC Sandhills
-Dormie has no rakes in bunkers ... in my 1 round there, there was little play, so no issue
-Tobacco Road has a local rule of lift, rake and play .. if you want to or just play it as through the green
I have a feeling that the latter approach may become more prevalent

[Sean_A]

I don't mind if bunkers are unraked, but then I want to see far fewer bunkers and with less severe lips.  Or, the rules changed to allow a penalty drop outside the hazard (I think the rule should be changed regardless in the hope of treating all hazards the same).  Its all give and take so far as I am concerned.  Its not as if I watch guys routinely get up n' down from sand.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

See Robert Ranquist's white paper on bunkers that appears in another section of GCA.com

[Ben Hollerbach]

Removing rakes from bunkers would return some of the hazard back. Too much effort is spent grooming bunkers and I'd rather them be left to their own devices. But of course, this would probably lead to many courses reducing their count of sand bunkers. Which I can't say I'm opposed to the idea.

[Jason Thurman]

I never can understand why there are so many GCAers who are so damn lazy as to wish that they didn't have to maintain the course for their fellow player. Why don't we just stop fixing ballmarks and replacing divots while we're at it? It's bad enough that you all leave your True Linkswear waffle-tracks all over the green. Now I'm supposed to hit bunker shots out of them too?

[Jon Wiggett]

I never can understand why there are so many GCAers who are so damn lazy as to wish that they didn't have to maintain the course for their fellow player. Why don't we just stop fixing ballmarks and replacing divots while we're at it? It's bad enough that you all leave your True Linkswear waffle-tracks all over the green. Now I'm supposed to hit bunker shots out of them too?

Jason,

maybe it is not about laziness but about sporting challenge. I for one think that bunker maintenance has become OTT and that bunkers at many courses have lost their relevance as they are often easier to play from than if they weren't there.

Jon

[Ben Hollerbach]

Jason,

maybe it is not about laziness but about sporting challenge. I for one think that bunker maintenance has become OTT and that bunkers at many courses have lost their relevance as they are often easier to play from than if they weren't there.

Jon

I very much agree. Often it better to miss a green in a greenside bunker than in the rough. Odds are my lie in the bunker will be good and I'll be able to impart a substantial amount of spin on the recovery shot. That can't be said for the Bermuda greenside rough I commonly play.  If bunkers were not conditioned as frequently and not raked after every shot they would present a much higher potential as a hazard and would no longer become the preferred greenside miss.

[Josh Tarble]

If there are no rakes, there will always be footprints. 

[Jason Thurman]

Jon, aren't you a greenskeeper? I'm guessing you're paid salary, not hourly?

I guess I just don't live in this world where the sporting challenge of bunkers has disappeared. I see people struggling plenty with them at my club.

I give it three more posts before someone pulls out the MacDonald cavalry quote.

[Jordan Caron]

I'm not sure I'm ok with then being unraked but I'd like to see them more penal. I like what Jack did at the Memorial a few years back by eliminating every second tooth of the rake to make the lies less smooth.

But regardless, getting a clean lie in a hazard is something that shouldn't happen. Many times I'd rather hit it in the bunker then the rough surrounding the greens. I know I'm going to get a cleaner lie 90% of the time doing so.

[Patrick_Mucci]

maybe it is not about laziness but about sporting challenge.

I for one think that bunker maintenance has become OTT and that bunkers at many courses have lost their relevance as they are often easier to play from than if they weren't there.


Jon,

I'd agree.

I'd much prefer to be in a greenside bunker than greenside rough.

I've always advocated for grooming on a needs basis, not a daily basis.

I think Robert Ranquist's bunker treatise should be required reading.

The cost of daily bunker maintenance is significant.

And, I would add, what's the incremental benefit you get from daily maintenance ?
Is it worth the cost ?

A prudent needs basis would seem to be ideal.

A bunker is a hazard that to a great degree has lost a good deal of it's effectiveness, first with the sand wedge and then with the lob wedge.

[Thomas Dai]

More grass bunkers, less sand bunkers would be nice.

atb

[Frank Pont]

"I am strongly opposed to the frequent raking of sand bunkers”      Tom Simpson “Golf Architecture. The Game of Golf” 1931


He often used large bunkers and knew a thing or two about golf design......

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon, aren't you a greenskeeper? I'm guessing you're paid salary, not hourly?

I guess I just don't live in this world where the sporting challenge of bunkers has disappeared. I see people struggling plenty with them at my club.

I give it three more posts before someone pulls out the MacDonald cavalry quote.

Jason,

yes I am a greenkeeper and no I am not on either a salary or hourly wage. I am basing my opinion on personal experience and preference. It is sad that you think this would be a factor especially as you do not know me. I may be many things but I am not lazy. Oh, and maybe writing in white type on white background is not to smart either if you want people to read it.

Thomas, yes I think you are correct and I have tried to incorporate more grass bunkers on my course.

Jon

[Josh Stevens]

Does it not depend somewhat on the nature of the sand?

On a typical clay course, the bunker would have a hard base and a sand covering and so at worst, a footprint might be an inch deep and the sand quite dry that would by itself fall back in given time

On a sand based course, a footprint  could be huge.  In addition I have kangaroos on my course,  and they hop through the  bunkers with nary a thought for me.  THey are enough of a penalty without feet as well

[Jason Thurman]

Jon, to clarify, I don't think there's anything lazy about a greenskeeper who wishes he didn't have to maintain bunkers. If you're not paid hourly, I'm a big proponent of working smarter and not harder. I don't blame you for your attitude. I'm merely pointing out that you have a lot to gain if you could somehow talk the world into ignoring bunker maintenance. With the extra time in your day, you'd be able to watch a whole season of "Coronation Street" every week.

As for the white font, you obviously don't get it. The prediction turned out to be wrong when Frank quoted Tom Simpson instead of CBM anyways...

There are plenty of more practical answers than sending a gang of teenagers out to play Dance Dance Revolution in the bunkers every morning. Furrowed rakes, different sand, and more waste areas can all contribute to more randomness of lies and potentially lower maintenance costs without also abandoning the expectation that golfers should have the decency to leave the course better than they found it.

[Carl Rogers]

I have no issue with the unraked bunker if the bunker gives the golfer some kind of escape path in order to finish a hole and post a score.  The more severe (small, high lip, awkward stance, etc) the bunker, the more it should be maintained.  Of course the PGA Tour takes this an unsustainable extreme.

[BCowan]

More grass bunkers, less sand bunkers would be nice.

atb

+1, Huntercombe!!!

[Thomas Dai]

BC,

Yip, I really can't see that much need for sand bunkers on inland courses when you can have humps and hollows like these -

Huntercombe


Minchinhampton Old


and often made like this


atb