The fallacy of bunkers at Valhalla

[Jaeger Kovich]

At the PGA Championship, was there a single case where being in the bunker was worse then being in the grass near a bunker? I wasn't there and I didn't watch it all, but those bunkers seemed to always feed the ball right to a center flat lie and the sand quality resulted in what looked like perfect lies.

I bet the guys who installed the drainage and spec'ed the sand would be very proud of that statement! ... I know a few clubs that would pay big $$ for that!!


I think the answer to why the bunkers were (tend to be) easier than grass (turf, rough, whatever) is simply: Wet Sand > Wet Clay + Top Soil  ... It felt like I saw a lot of drainage grates in fairways = extra unplayable

[Joe Hancock]

I get what you're saying Don. I made the comment in another thread that the bunkers at Royal Melbourne get an eye candy treatment that feeds all golf balls to the bottom, but it gets a pass because of it's greatness. I personally don't understand all the bunker grooming and expense. It used to be the smart player was able to figure out the bunkers down in the valley were going to be firmer than the ones up on the bluff, but tournament golf doesn't cater to the thinker, it caters to the skilled.

Valhalla did have rain, but I doubt it made a difference as to whether the ball rolled to the bottom or not. The setup and the Tour standards are already ahead of Mother Nature.

Joe

[ward peyronnin]

Did you see the stats for 18 yesterday? Something like 40 plus birdies.

Because the fronting bunker is way too easy for the pros and not that difficult for good amateurs and absolutely no deterrant.

If it was made into a true blue sky bunker and lowered a couple more feet I ask would that be tough enough for the pros? It really ruins a finish when the last hole is such a pussy birdie hole

[Brent Hutto]

They could move the tees up 30 yards and make it a man-sized Par 4.

[ward peyronnin]

Brent

That still doesn't change the way they play the hole or what the relative score is.

13 at Augusta has real consequences for missing the green

[Andrew Buck]

I get what you're saying Don. I made the comment in another thread that the bunkers at Royal Melbourne get an eye candy treatment that feeds all golf balls to the bottom, but it gets a pass because of it's greatness. I personally don't understand all the bunker grooming and expense. It used to be the smart player was able to figure out the bunkers down in the valley were going to be firmer than the ones up on the bluff, but tournament golf doesn't cater to the thinker, it caters to the skilled.

Valhalla did have rain, but I doubt it made a difference as to whether the ball rolled to the bottom or not. The setup and the Tour standards are already ahead of Mother Nature.

Joe

There are thousands of posts on this site opining that we shouldn't be lengthening courses to accommodate the 1% at expense of the 99%.  For the 99%, bunkers are harder than rough (under 3 inches), even when the ball rolls to the bottom.

Why do we care that if the pros got up and down regularly from Valhalla's bunkers?  Do we have the sand save stats from this week yet?

[Andrew Buck]

Brent

That still doesn't change the way they play the hole or what the relative score is.

13 at Augusta has real consequences for missing the green

57% of the field made birdie or better in the final round of the Masters.  65% of the field made birdie or better Sunday at the PGA.  There were zero doubles in either round. 

I guess you could make 18 at Valhalla a small island green and that would force more people to lay up, but it doesn't make it a better hole, IMO. 

[Tom_Doak]

Easier for pros, harder for the rest of us...and why exactly do we build so many?

Because they are visual, and make the golf course look like it has more "strategy".  Raters love lots of bunkers!

[BCrosby]

Also, to pick up a theme on another thread, bunkers photograph well.

Bob

[John Kavanaugh]

My sand save percentage isn't that much worse than my general scrambling percentage.  I miss a green, I make bogey.  I think if you look at how often a pro gets up and down when next to a green you might see that his bunker percentage is much lower.

A case could be made that bunkers do more harm to a pros game than to ours.  We just need to have enough sense to not turn our bogies into doubles just cause we are in a bunker.

Look at it this way.  I miss a green and am in the grass surrounding I make par 50% of the time.  I am perfectly comfortable stating that I make par from a bunker 25% of the time.  I therefore incur an added stroke 1 in 4 times I find a bunker, not 3 out of 4.

Few pros have a sand save percentage of 75%.  See, bunkers harm them more than me.

[Andrew Buck]

My sand save percentage isn't that much worse than my general scrambling percentage.  I miss a green, I make bogey.  I think if you look at how often a pro gets up and down when next to a green you might see that his bunker percentage is much lower.

A case could be made that bunkers do more harm to a pros game than to ours.  We just need to have enough sense to not turn our bogies into doubles just cause we are in a bunker.

Look at it this way.  I miss a green and am in the grass surrounding I make par 50% of the time.  I am perfectly comfortable stating that I make par from a bunker 25% of the time.  I therefore incur an added stroke 1 in 4 times I find a bunker, not 3 out of 4.

Few pros have a sand save percentage of 75%.  See, bunkers harm them more than me.

It looks like pro's make par 53% of the time when they are in a bunker from 10 - 20 yards.  It looks like they make par 70% of the time when they miss a green from 10 - 20 yards.

[Amol Yajnik]

My sand save percentage isn't that much worse than my general scrambling percentage.  I miss a green, I make bogey.  I think if you look at how often a pro gets up and down when next to a green you might see that his bunker percentage is much lower.

A case could be made that bunkers do more harm to a pros game than to ours.  We just need to have enough sense to not turn our bogies into doubles just cause we are in a bunker.

Look at it this way.  I miss a green and am in the grass surrounding I make par 50% of the time.  I am perfectly comfortable stating that I make par from a bunker 25% of the time.  I therefore incur an added stroke 1 in 4 times I find a bunker, not 3 out of 4.

Few pros have a sand save percentage of 75%.  See, bunkers harm them more than me.

It looks like pro's make par 53% of the time when they are in a bunker from 10 - 20 yards.  It looks like they make par 70% of the time when they miss a green from 10 - 20 yards.

You can find all of this data at the PGA Tour's website.  To take the yardage out of the equation, here are the 2013 stats for scrambling from bunkers and scrambling from rough.
Bunkers: http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.111.2013.html
Rough: http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.363.2013.html

There are 180 players listed, and the guys in the middle (90th) averaged 50% in sand saves and 56% saving par from the rough.  These guys might be yelling "get in the bunker" but they're more likely to save par from the rough than the bunker.

[jeffwarne]

Easier for pros, harder for the rest of us...and why exactly do we build so many?

Because they are visual, and make the golf course look like it has more "strategy".  Raters love lots of bunkers!

Hairy "chipping areas" don't photograph as well....

[Mark Pearce]

Paul, tell me more about all the uneven lies you've encountered in revetted bunkers. All the ones I've ever been in had a base just as flat as the ones we saw this week at the PGA Championship.

Last time I played at Muirfield I was in the first greenside bunker on the right of the 13th.  That bunker is about 6 feet deep.  My ball was on a slight upslope, about one foot from the base of the face of the bunker.  Not an uneven lie but rather more challenging than any bunker shot I saw at Valhalla.  That's one of the things about revetted bunkers, relatively flat bases all the way to the walls.  A flattish lie near the bottom of the wall is a very tough position to be in.

[Jim Nugent]

I wonder what the actual stats were this year out of the sand at Valhalla.  That would establish how much of a price they extracted from the players.  I bet it was higher than the theme of this thread suggests. 

[Pete Lavallee]

I would agree that the statistics will show that players on the whole took more strokkes from the bunkers that a similar greenside shot. We tend to see only the leaders, who are all putting exceptionaly well that week. This makes bunkers look easier because they are converting those 8-12 footers that the rest of the field is missing.

[David_Tepper]

I have to laugh every time the notion that "bunkers are too easy" surfaces on this chatboard. PGA Tour stats going back almost 20 years show that no more than a dozen or two of the best players (and putters) in the world get up & down more than 50% of the time over the course of a season. 

These are the best players, playing from the best groomed bunkers and putting on the smoothest greens. If the majority of them are not converting more than 50% of the time, how often does a 5-handicap convert?

[George Pazin]

I have to laugh every time the notion that "bunkers are too easy" surfaces on this chatboard. PGA Tour stats going back almost 20 years show that no more than a dozen or two of the best players (and putters) in the world get up & down more than 50% of the time over the course of a season. 

These are the best players, playing from the best groomed bunkers and putting on the smoothest greens. If the majority of them are not converting more than 50% of the time, how often does a 5-handicap convert?

It's not that bunkers are too easy, it's that they are easier than the alternative. At least, that's the feeling of many, on here and in the actual tournaments. Perhaps Pete's stats would suggest otherwise, but until pros stop hoping for bunker shots, the sentiment will prevail.

How often do you see someone rooting for the ball to get in a bunker on a links course? Ummm, never? The bases may appear to be flat, but it sure looks like they tend to push shots toward the edges, while US bunkers seem to guide the ball to the middle.

That subtle distinction seems to make all the difference in the world.

[Matthew Petersen]

I have to laugh every time the notion that "bunkers are too easy" surfaces on this chatboard. PGA Tour stats going back almost 20 years show that no more than a dozen or two of the best players (and putters) in the world get up & down more than 50% of the time over the course of a season. 

These are the best players, playing from the best groomed bunkers and putting on the smoothest greens. If the majority of them are not converting more than 50% of the time, how often does a 5-handicap convert?

I suppose it's borne of two things. First, small sample bias, as described by Pete. If you watch on TV, you see the leaders, who are playing and putting better, and more likely to be successfully converting their saves. Second, is this anecdotal notion of pros yelling "get in the bunker," which is certainly something I have heard, but not often. And what's the context of such a statement? I'd often rather be in a bunker than on the far side of a bunker, having to flop over the sand. Certainly I'd rather be in the sand than in an adjacent hazard. And I'd often rather be actually in the sand than on a very awkward slope around the bunker with the ball in thick rough. It's likely that those times (how often is it really?) that we've heard a pro ask his ball to get in the sand, it was as an alternative to something like those scenarios, and not because he thinks he's better from the sand than from a nice flat lie green side.

[JMEvensky]

It's not that bunkers are too easy, it's that they are easier than the alternative. At least, that's the feeling of many, on here and in the actual tournaments. Perhaps Pete's stats would suggest otherwise, but until pros stop hoping for bunker shots, the sentiment will prevail.

How often do you see someone rooting for the ball to get in a bunker on a links course? Ummm, never? The bases may appear to be flat, but it sure looks like they tend to push shots toward the edges, while US bunkers seem to guide the ball to the middle.

That subtle distinction seems to make all the difference in the world.

+1--the bunker shot is a "known" and everything else greenside is a variable.

Links courses seem to flip that equation--the bunker shot is the variable v. a lot of short grass greenside.

[Brent Hutto]

David,

I'd imagine the "too easy" contingent are not buying your 50% up and down argument. They want bunkers that make the best players in the world take two or three shots to get out of frequently.

The same guys tend to opine that being on the green should not mean necessarily being able to two-putt. And missing the green should mean not being able to get up and down with anything short of a miracle. And being in the rough should be even more penal. Then of course being in a bunker should be more penal still than the rough.

But then they also think there are too many water hazards in play. Those are penal, you know.

You gotta love a forum where the prevailing wisdom is that all courses have 80 yard wide fairways, inch and half rough and few water hazards but professional tournaments should be played on courses where the best players in the world can't get a ball out of a bunker and onto the green.

[George Pazin]

You gotta love a forum where the prevailing wisdom is that all courses have 80 yard wide fairways, inch and half rough and few water hazards but professional tournaments should be played on courses where the best players in the world can't get a ball out of a bunker and onto the green.

 

Wonderful post.

Bit 'o difference between not being able to get out and onto the green and a fairly automatic up and down, but then I'm a Kool Aid drinker, what do I know?

[Garland Bayley]

...
You gotta love a forum where the prevailing wisdom is that all courses have 80 yard wide fairways, inch and half rough and few water hazards but professional tournaments should be played on courses where the best players in the world can't get a ball out of a bunker and onto the green.

Yes, something like TOC.

[Josh Tarble]

...
You gotta love a forum where the prevailing wisdom is that all courses have 80 yard wide fairways, inch and half rough and few water hazards but professional tournaments should be played on courses where the best players in the world can't get a ball out of a bunker and onto the green.

Yes, something like TOC.

Yes, because the Old Course was so difficult for the pros.  Last 3 tournaments:  -19, -14, -16

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Course_at_St_Andrews

[Adam Warren]

Did anyone actually pay attention to what was going on?  There was a ton of rain, which hard packs bunkers.  When the sand gets packed down like that and balls hit in them, they roll around until they can stop.  Do balls stop on hills?  Or do they stop when they get to a flat area?  If the sand were softer they would have stopped in some more difficult spots.  You guys are smarter than this...

Also, even though the PGA owns this course, we do know it wasn't built for professionals right?  They don't even have a regular tour stop, so 99.5% of the play at this course is for their membership.  I imagine they don't want to have their membership be completely unable to play from bunkers.  You guys cry for playable golf courses, then when the pros play on one you cry its too easy...