The fallacy of bunkers at Valhalla

[Brent Hutto]

That's always my point in these discussions, Adam. Yes I realize that some masochists on this forum would love to play every day on a course wiith dozens of tiny, deep, unraked, inconsistent pot bunkers. But I personally would just as soon see four or five water hazards per hole as have to avoid that many bunkers that are f'ed up enough to render the best players in the world unable to play shots up toward the hole the vast majority of the time. In fact, given the kinds of bunkers advocated around here I would probably end up just hitting again from the spot of the previous shot, just like a water hazard.

Same with the complaints about the greens being "dart boards" during a week in which they received the better part of a foot of rain. Even with Sub-Air (tm) I'm trying to imagine what sort of tricked up putting surfaces it would take in those conditions to keep Rory McIlroy or Phil Mickelson from shooting right at the flag from 180 yards.

As for the supposedly oft-heard "Get in the bunker" admonishion, I'd suggest that it's just possible a Tour player might want one particular shot to end up some particular bunker while also hoping fervently that some OTHER shot might avoid some OTHER bunker and end up in rough instead. I do not think there's a single Tour player out there who would prefer being in sand rather than grass in every single occasion. Surely all of us have hit a shot and while it's in the air we're hoping it stop short of the green rather than landing pin high and ending up putting from 15 feet above the hole. Same with Tour pros and bunkers, just because a hard-packed bunker today might be preferable to the adjacent wet rough it doesn't mean they would want a ball to avoid that same bunker under different circumstances.

[Nigel Islam]

+1

[Don Mahaffey]

Unfortunately, like most discussions on this board anymore, this has morphed into people basically calling others stupid and all of that.

My point was, with modern bunker construction methods and maintenance expectations, are we reaching a point where we can design something different to achieve the goal of making courses playable for all of us and still challenge the pros. I guess the answer is no.

As for all the rain and all that, of course the course was going to be soft, but for those of you who think they didn't want the bunkers to play like that, IMO, you are dead wrong. I work on projects like this and the sand and drainage specs are such that those bunkers will be firm and as dry as possible no matter how much it rains. The sand is specified to drain super fast, yet also pack firm, using super high perc sand (last samples I reviewed perc 48 ins/hr) yet the sand is angular so it will pack and avoid fried egg lies.

Construction methods like billy bunker and other methods are specifically used to assure the bunkers play as we saw at the PGA. And it is not going the other way anytime soon. Bunkers are NOT supposed to be hazards, In today's golf world they are supposed to offer perfect lies and be perfectly consistent. And, more and more courses are going to a broom finish as we saw at the PGA. Not raked, broom perfectly smooth.

When I saw Rory miss a fwy and end up with a much better lie in the bunker than even if he had been if the fwy, I realized that maybe things are starting to get a little insane. I'm all for rub of the green, sometimes a good lie, sometimes bad, but when we present hazards that are so perfect they are the preferred place to be, then what exactly are we doing.

It is a broader question then just what happened at the PGA.

[Jeff_Brauer]

If we are really worried about PGA Tour level players having harder shots in the bunkers, why can't they continue to use the Memorial/Oakmont furrowed look that they tried a few years back, then go back to smooth for regular play?  Anyone recall why that got dropped?

Don,

I have taken to installing bunker liners of various types, but it is usually to keep rocks from surfacing, keep sand white (or whitish) and make sure the drainage holds up, so we don't have to rebuild them in 3-4 years, as has nearly always happened in the past (at least here in TX)  I can't recall the discussion of "making them play like the pro tour" coming up, but it may be "the elephant in the room" that no one dares talk about?

If its a broader question than the PGA, it seems it can't be broader than the PGA Tour, which is a pretty narrow band of golf in America. 

Also, it still seems to me that they might just have it right, all complaining aside.  What if Rory had to take two or three shots out of that bunker on 18, and couldn't finish?  What if PGA Tour play was even slower?  There are a lot of components to course set up, and embarrassing pros isn't near the top of the list for those who do it, compared to us in the peanut gallery.

[Don Mahaffey]

Jeff,
you always over react to my posts and try to put words in my mouth. Who the f$#k said anything about embarrassing anyone?

Here is what I believe, ask a very good player if he'd rather be in a perfectly groomed and packed fwy bunker that isn't too deep with a short iron, or be the same distance in 1.25" - 1.50" grass with the possibility of a flyer, and he'll take the bunker lie every time. Yet ask a recreational player the same question and he'll take the grass lie every time. maybe there are exceptions, but in general that is the answer you will get.

That is my point. There are better ways of presenting courses to everyone than spending millions building hazards that good players love and normal players try to avoid. Why do we need to design courses that are all about making it easy for good players and hard for the rest of us and that is what drives the bus and to say the PGA Tour doesn't have influence is just being argumentative.

[Brent Hutto]

As has been covered previously in this thread, the answer to "why do we build" bunkers is simple. It's what people want to see. Owners like them, raters like them, golfers notice them, TV people talk about them. A bunkerless course unless it's on a spectacular piece of property will be seen as bland, boring or featureless. So lots and lots of bunkers get built.

I agree with Don that a Tour player prefers a perfectly groomed bunker to an inch and a half of lush rough almost every time. And yes a lot of us hackers might take our chances with the rough unless the bunker has like zero lip, a flat bottom and we don't need to hit the ball very far.

So what? A lot of hackers would rather be in an inch of rough than on a tightly cut fairway. Just for some cushion under the ball. Every Tour player in the world would rather play off any fairway, no matter how tight, that have a bit of uncertainty about that inch of rough getting between club and ball. Hell the Tour player would rather play of a cart path than an inch of rough, generally speaking.

Tour players and weekend hacks have different relative strengths and weaknesses and therefore different preferences. If all you care about is "challenging" Tour player, forget bunkers. Put in water hazards. Unless the rough can be counted on to be ankle deep and very thick they don't even fear rough. They fear yellow staked hazards though. If all you care about is handicap golfers, you might want to consider a mix of rough and bunkers but again that's for eye candy reasons as much as playing preferences.

In my ideal world, bunkers are "hazards" that offer a different playing surface (requiring different technique to play the shots) and slightly different treatment under the Rules. Variety is good. I don't like bunker-choked courses but I don't like bunker-less ones either. As for maintenance, that comes down to how much money the course operator is willing to spend and in my experience perfect bunkers are found on perfectly-groomed courses and goat-ranch bunkers are found on goat-ranch courses. It's nonsense to expect some tournament venue where virtually every blade of grass is perfectly groomed to have bunkers that look like hardpan on a cattle ranch in Wyoming.

[Don Mahaffey]

Brent,
Are you sure owners want them?
I'm not so sure about that statement as much as owners feel they are "required" to have them.
I've sat in more than a few meetings in the last couple of years where owners were trying to reduce bunker sq ft on a new or renovated course. I think owners are very receptive to alternatives design ideas that reduce the number of bunkers.

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

Don't think I over reacted to anything.....you on the other hand.....

However, setting up the course to be reasonable for the lower end of any field is always an issue we often overlook as we focus on the top ten players shown on TV every week seemingly doing everything with ease.  Not sure what you/the tour/we would target as the ideal recovery rate from bunkers at a tournament, but I know its lower on average than the top guys.  And no tournament (especially the PGA with its club pro contingent) wants a set up so hard it has them shooting 85, not getting out of bunkers, etc., just to keep the top scores lower.  (Even more an issue at section events, NCAA tourneys, etc.)

That said, I am not sure the PGA Tour is quite the driver you seem to think it is.  In general (at least my mid level clients) might discuss $100 ton sand, different liners, etc. but sooner or later most back off/compromise in the name of money.

I agree about reducing bunker sizes.  Almost posted a thread on that.  Quickly, my old target for sand bunkers was 100K.  My new target is 50-75K.  When we redid La Costa in the Dick Wilson style, they actually had about 140K SF.  That is too much, and really hard on average players.

And I have been called to reduce bunkers on half dozen of my own courses, and am reinstating more grass bunkers, chocolate drops, chipping areas, as well as downsizing the scale of my bunkers.  Haven't really missed them in the results, so we agree generally that the 50's style turf panel and sand bunkers based design has some failings.  But, I am with Brent, I don't see any wholesale move to eliminate bunkers almost completely.  Maybe its the visuals, history, or something else.  Probably will see golf embrace the 15" cup before bunkerless golf courses, but we all know how likely that is.....

[Charlie_Bell]

They're pros;  we're not.  In a better world, bunkers would be untouched -- no raking or other maintenance -- throughout a pro tournament, and perfectly manicured for us amateurs.

But I like the chocolate-drop idea as an alternative -- nice lumps with, say, 3" scruff grass all over.  Hacking it out, weak amateurs would lose a stroke but not several.

[Brent Hutto]

Brent,
Are you sure owners want them?
I'm not so sure about that statement as much as owners feel they are "required" to have them.
I've sat in more than a few meetings in the last couple of years where owners were trying to reduce bunker sq ft on a new or renovated course. I think owners are very receptive to alternatives design ideas that reduce the number of bunkers.

I really wouldn't have any insight into the thought process going on. But if they don't "want" them they certainly seem to consistently accede to whoever they think is doing the "wanting". Which at some point becomes a distinction without a difference when EVERY owner ends up slathering expensive bunkers on virtually ever hole!

[Brent Hutto]

At the very low end, the $15, $20, $25 type public courses around here do seem to have accumulated disused bunkers. Some of them are just weedy hardpan in which the sand was never replaced after it gradually disappeared and others have seen the Bermuda gradually enroach and turn them into de facto "grass hollow" type bunker replacements.

I know it was a *considerable* labor-cost savings when my own club dropped their longstanding "every bunker raked every day the course is open" practice. I can only imagine the additional savings if you'd build, say, half as many bunkers of roughly half the size apiece when building the course in the first place.

[Richard Choi]

I really don't care about GCA and PGA Tour players. Bunkers are plenty hard enough for regular players. If they are easy for 0.01% of the players, so be it.

What really bugs me about bunkers is how broadcasters and on-course commentators make it sound like it is a disaster when the player hits it into a bunker, and worse yet, a minor miracle to hit a bunker shot close to the flag from a perfect lie. A little less hyperbole there would be nice.

[Garland Bayley]

... Unless the rough can be counted on to be ankle deep and very thick they don't even fear rough. ...

I think this is wrong. The bomb and gouge types don't fear rough, because they have achieved a position for using a very high lofted club. However, the shorter hitters fear missing the fairway and leaving themselves in the rough. E.g., It think Zack Johnson and David Toms would take exception to your statement.

[Andrew Buck]

So we're primarily talking about maintenance practices for elite players.

I agree that we don't need to broom bunkers anywhere, but particularly at majors, and that for tournament golf, softer sand would be preferable.

BTW,  Does anyone have sand save stats for Scottish Open/British Open vs PGA Championship.  I would love to know just how different it is.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

At the very low end, the $15, $20, $25 type public courses around here do seem to have accumulated disused bunkers. Some of them are just weedy hardpan in which the sand was never replaced after it gradually disappeared and others have seen the Bermuda gradually enroach and turn them into de facto "grass hollow" type bunker replacements.

I know it was a *considerable* labor-cost savings when my own club dropped their longstanding "every bunker raked every day the course is open" practice. I can only imagine the additional savings if you'd build, say, half as many bunkers of roughly half the size apiece when building the course in the first place.

Brent, I have shared this before but working at both a club and high end muni in the same area, I was struck by one spending $250K a year and the other only $50K a year on bunkers.  The biggest difference was raking (and hand clipping the edge) every day vs. 4 days a week, hand raking for less fluff vs. machine raking, etc.. 

The private club's goal was to have every guest never - and apparently they meant NEVER - have a less than perfect lie of even see a grass out of place.  My take is that this kind of cost has been weeded out at all but 10% of clubs, or less. And as you mention, weeded in, so to say, at the lowest 10% of public courses.

I recall starting in the biz in 1977, right after the 1974 oil embargo, and a similarly depressing state of affairs for golf (CC tax breaks were reduced, which caused predictions of the end of golf).  I loved bunkers out in front of greens, carry bunkers, fore bunkers, etc., but was told we needed to minimize bunkers for cost reasons.  Seems like we forgot those lessons in the 80-2005 era, and a new generation has to relearn them a bit.