"That bunker's not in play."

[Jeff_Mingay]

Last week, we restored a bunker about 40 yards short of the green at a long par 4. It's incredible how many club golfers came by as this bunker was being excavated, saying: "That bunker won't be in play." Is there really anything on a golf course, anywhere, that's "not in play"?

One of the challenges of this particular hole is presented if your tee shot ends up too far right. There's an effective stand of large trees between the range of most tee shots and the green on the right side of this hole. A big cut from the right rough might get on the green, but the restored bunker short-left is a consideration when attempting this shot; the restored bunker's even more of a consideration if you don't have that big cut shot and are just trying to punch out, down the hill toward the hole 'cause the trees force that shot left.

Anyway, my point is ... it continues to amaze me how many golfers think about the game as if it's being play by robots who hit the same shots on the same holes every time they play. Any hazards that aren't tightening the "landing area" for tee shots or hugging the green surface left and right are often considered "out of play". It's a very strange perspective, but very common at the same time.

Where does this perspective stem from?

[Paul Gray]

Must be the same golfers that NEVER loose golf balls in knee high rough. Why do I never see these sub 60 rounds being shot at my club? And why are all these guys still playing off 23?

[Brad Treadwell]

Were those trees on the right you mention on the 2nd there when Macan laid it out?  Also, the rough on the right behind said trees....was that originally fairway?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have seen this debate since entering the biz in 1977.  I love the look of bunkers short of the green, but I think they fell out of favor around the time of Mac doing ANGC or Tillie doing his bunker removal tour.

Maybe its a percentage of play question, or related to the idea that you really don't need to punish either the average guy, or anyone who is recovering and laying up short with a punch shot out of trees.  Being short of the green is its own penalty, is it not?

If a player is already conceding not hitting the green in two by punching out, is it really necessary to possibly make that 3 shot hole a 4 shot hole with a long bunker shot?

If a player is attempting a large cut shot from the trees, is this enough of a challenge, or should we punish the shot that comes up 20 yards short, again risking adding a stroke.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff Mingay,

Speaking of robots, I once spoke to an ex IMG guy who had the opportunity to play a round of golf with Moe Norman. When I asked him what it was like, he replied by saying it was actually pretty boring to watch Moe because every shot was so perfect. No trouble. No recoveries. No drama.

And, no point in bunkers.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Were those trees on the right you mention on the 2nd there when Macan laid it out?  Also, the rough on the right behind said trees....was that originally fairway?

What's Macan got to do with this 

Answers to your questions: No, and yes 

[Jeff_Mingay]

I have seen this debate since entering the biz in 1977.  I love the look of bunkers short of the green, but I think they fell out of favor around the time of Mac doing ANGC or Tillie doing his bunker removal tour.

Maybe its a percentage of play question, or related to the idea that you really don't need to punish either the average guy, or anyone who is recovering and laying up short with a punch shot out of trees.  Being short of the green is its own penalty, is it not?

If a player is already conceding not hitting the green in two by punching out, is it really necessary to possibly make that 3 shot hole a 4 shot hole with a long bunker shot?

If a player is attempting a large cut shot from the trees, is this enough of a challenge, or should we punish the shot that comes up 20 yards short, again risking adding a stroke.

Jeff,

I often think that the spread of RTJ's post-World War II era design philosophy had something to do with this perception as well; interesting points about Tillinghast's "bunker removal tour" and the design of Augusta National though. Makes some sense, too.

Frankly, I think your other questions speak to formulaic design. I don't like that 

[BCowan]

Willie Park Jr is rolling his eyes right now.  Thankfully many of his designs haven't hosted major championships. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have seen this debate since entering the biz in 1977.  I love the look of bunkers short of the green, but I think they fell out of favor around the time of Mac doing ANGC or Tillie doing his bunker removal tour.

Maybe its a percentage of play question, or related to the idea that you really don't need to punish either the average guy, or anyone who is recovering and laying up short with a punch shot out of trees.  Being short of the green is its own penalty, is it not?

If a player is already conceding not hitting the green in two by punching out, is it really necessary to possibly make that 3 shot hole a 4 shot hole with a long bunker shot?

If a player is attempting a large cut shot from the trees, is this enough of a challenge, or should we punish the shot that comes up 20 yards short, again risking adding a stroke.

Jeff,

I often think that the spread of RTJ's post-World War II era design philosophy had something to do with this perception as well; interesting points about Tillinghast's "bunker removal tour" and the design of Augusta National though. Makes some sense, too.

Frankly, I think your other questions speak to formulaic design. I don't like that 

Jeff,

Well, maybe.  If it is a design principal to minimize bunkers to those that "really count", then its an extension of a design principal.  You and I might violate it 10% (pick your number) of the time on a new course design or total remodel and few would question it.

But, when you are renovating a select 1-4 holes, and do it once, for that project, it becomes 25, 33, 50, or 100% of the design "breaking the rules".  I can see why some members would have trouble accepting that kind of thinking in that case.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - before I actually got to work in the creative industry for a few years, an old TV veteran shared with me his rule for effective writing, i.e. "tell them what they're about to see, describe to them what they are seeing, and then explain to them what they just saw".  

(When I then worked in the industry for a decade, I came to believe that this wasn't actually what the audience needed, but it was indeed what producers needed -- they had the 'imagination' of fenceposts, and couldn't 'get' an new idea until it was actually a hit show!)

All of which to say, I think golfers tend to lack some imagination. They will 'get' that bunker only when they land smack dab in the middle of it during play, or, better, when their opponents land in the middle of it. I guess part of your job is to keep them out of the way until the work is done!

By the way, this was part of my thinking of my recent 'Call me Ismael' thread about the first hole setting the expectations/introducing the theme of the course. As with Tom D's Old Macdonald (albeit the exception and not the rule): golfers have some idea about 'what they are about to see' and then the names of the holes/inspirations 'describe to them what they are seeing'. All that's left is for the scorecard and their fellow golfers to help explain to them after the round what they just saw.

Peter  

[Sean_A]

Last week, we restored a bunker about 40 yards short of the green at a long par 4. It's incredible how many club golfers came by as this bunker was being excavated, saying: "That bunker won't be in play." Is there really anything on a golf course, anywhere, that's "not in play"?

One of the challenges of this particular hole is presented if your tee shot ends up too far right. There's an effective stand of large trees between the range of most tee shots and the green on the right side of this hole. A big cut from the right rough might get on the green, but the restored bunker short-left is a consideration when attempting this shot; the restored bunker's even more of a consideration if you don't have that big cut shot and are just trying to punch out, down the hill toward the hole 'cause the trees force that shot left.

Anyway, my point is ... it continues to amaze me how many golfers think about the game as if it's being play by robots who hit the same shots on the same holes every time they play. Any hazards that aren't tightening the "landing area" for tee shots or hugging the green surface left and right are often considered "out of play". It's a very strange perspective, but very common at the same time.

Where does this perspective stem from?

Jeff

Isn't it the case that at least 50% of bunkers are not really in play for any given player on any given day?  I can't see how or why golfers would think it good or reasonable for all bunkers to be in play for all golfers every day. 

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

In general, green side bunkers should be in play for everyone, every day, albeit maybe on the third shot for some of them.  FW bunkers, if placed by some rigid RTJ like "250 yards from the back tee" are only going to be in play for those who hit it 250 in total and/or 250 in the air, i.e., fw bunkers are in play far less, while rough treats everyone the same (mostly like a baby treats a diaper.....)

Jeff's short of the green bunkers would be closer to fairway bunkers in the amount they would affect play.  But, the members are using the RTJ mentality of placing bunkers only where they catch good players, in making that assessment.  In short, I wonder if a mantra of designing for the average guy might sell these a bit more?  Why design for the 1%?

[Ben Sims]

Saturday afternoon I'm cresting the ridge on #2, having been unavoidably paired with an 88-year old woman for a quick nice holes. She was immediately a delightful playing partner and really showed me the limitations of the short hitter (she never hit it further than 100yds). The women's tees on #2 are at least 100yds shorter than the men's, and affords ladies the ability to have their tee shots roll way down the hill to same area. Her 80 yd shot rolled another 60 to where my ball plugged in the fairway at 240. We both stand over our ball and note the new bunker that Jeff Mingay built. I hit large cut from just where Jeff mentions, whilst my aiming point was his new bunker.  My playing partner rolled one further down the hill, and in her third shot hit a nice running to where Jeff had removed the front right bunker. It rolled over the bare dirt and into the fringe of the green. She was ecstatic. It was the first time she had been on the green in three shots "since my husband died years ago."

I knew right then and there that what Jeff is doing at Fircrest is the right thing. The removal of those green side bunker that had morphed into a ridiculous shell of their former self was the smart thing. Adding a bunker that creates a visual hazard--as well as physical one to pulled shots--is a good play on his part.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Thanks Ben ... neat story.

[I didn't see ya last night, but it seems there were a lot of positive vibes in the room following my talk at the AGM.]

[Bill_McBride]

Saturday afternoon I'm cresting the ridge on #2, having been unavoidably paired with an 88-year old woman for a quick nice holes. She was immediately a delightful playing partner and really showed me the limitations of the short hitter (she never hit it further than 100yds). The women's tees on #2 are at least 100yds shorter than the men's, and affords ladies the ability to have their tee shots roll way down the hill to same area. Her 80 yd shot rolled another 60 to where my ball plugged in the fairway at 240. We both stand over our ball and note the new bunker that Jeff Mingay built. I hit large cut from just where Jeff mentions, whilst my aiming point was his new bunker.  My playing partner rolled one further down the hill, and in her third shot hit a nice running to where Jeff had removed the front right bunker. It rolled over the bare dirt and into the fringe of the green. She was ecstatic. It was the first time she had been on the green in three shots "since my husband died years ago."

I knew right then and there that what Jeff is doing at Fircrest is the right thing. The removal of those green side bunker that had morphed into a ridiculous shell of their former self was the smart thing. Adding a bunker that creates a visual hazard--as well as physical one to pulled shots--is a good play on his part.

Ben, glad you're playing Fircrest and enjoying the Macan.  I have really enjoyed every one of his courses I've played.   Have you played Lake Spanaway?   That's another.  I haven't played it in a very long time. 

[Thomas Dai]

Isn't it the case that at least 50% of bunkers are not really in play for any given player on any given day?  I can't see how or why golfers would think it good or reasonable for all bunkers to be in play for all golfers every day.  
Ciao

...and for a player with a decent or even semi-decent short game many bunkers that are in play arn't really that much of a hazard anymore either. How many times on TV have you heard the shout from a player "get in a bunker", even handicap amateurs have been known to utter the phrase. Modern bunkers are often more akin to 'friends' than 'foes'. More grass bunkers please.

atb

[Sean_A]

Isn't it the case that at least 50% of bunkers are not really in play for any given player on any given day?  I can't see how or why golfers would think it good or reasonable for all bunkers to be in play for all golfers every day.  
Ciao

...and for a player with a decent or even semi-decent short game many bunkers that are in play arn't really that much of a hazard anymore either. How many times on TV have you heard the shout from a player "get in a bunker", even handicap amateurs have been known to utter the phrase. Modern bunkers are often more akin to 'friends' than 'foes'. More grass bunkers please.

atb

atb

I don't say half of bunkers are in play as negative thing.  There should be some odd placements that only makes sense for certain players or in certain weather conditions.  But in general, absolutely, less bunkers, more effectively placed and more hazardous.  Nothing wrong with bumps n' hollows.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

More of this

and this



atb

[Paul Gray]

Isn't it the case that at least 50% of bunkers are not really in play for any given player on any given day?  I can't see how or why golfers would think it good or reasonable for all bunkers to be in play for all golfers every day.  
Ciao

...and for a player with a decent or even semi-decent short game many bunkers that are in play arn't really that much of a hazard anymore either. How many times on TV have you heard the shout from a player "get in a bunker", even handicap amateurs have been known to utter the phrase. Modern bunkers are often more akin to 'friends' than 'foes'. More grass bunkers please.

atb

atb

I don't say half of bunkers are in play as negative thing.  There should be some odd placements that only makes sense for certain players or in certain weather conditions.  But in general, absolutely, less bunkers, more effectively placed and more hazardous.  Nothing wrong with bumps n' hollows.

Ciao

Quite right, Mr Arble.

It never fails to amaze me that clubs born in the 80's which are now struggling never see how illogical it is to maintain 100 or so flat bunkers.

[Sean_A]

More of this



atb

Its funny, what is the one thing which looks out of place in this photo?

Ciao

[Wade Whitehead]

What they mean is "I can't hit my next shot far enough to make that bunker."  Otherwise, it's in play.

WW

[Joe Bausch]

Would you consider this bunker to be 'out of play'?   

[Philippe Binette]

The thruth of the matter is... most players think they hit the ball farther than they really do... and especially if you consider only the carry...

I think think a lot of people would be suprise if you ask the average player this:

there's a 5 foot high fence 360 yards away... you must fly it on your second shot... I doubt 10% of golfers would be able to achieve that on a regular basis, therefore a bunker 30 yards short of a green on a 400 yard hole is definitely in play....

People saying that a bunker is not in play are talking about the ball-striking they would dream they have... not their real ball-striking abilities...

[Tom ORourke]

For some of the golfers I have seen EVERY bunker is in play. The only ones possibly not in play are those way over the green. They might be in play for the bladed screaming skull out of the front bunker, but not much else. At my old course we took out some hazards that were within 120 yards of the tees figuring they were only really in play for weaker players who were already slowing up play. Why penalize them even more? There can be some degree of visual, not intimidation, but noticeability? I played True Blue this week and there are some number of bunkers there that really should not be in play, but just seeing them adds to the cluttering in your mind, so even if they are not near where you are hitting it they are kind of in play, at least in your head. I am okay with that.

[Frank M]

Jeff, some of my all-time favourite bunkers are 20-40 yards short of the green. If courses were built based on the feedback of the average golfer, they would be extremely boring IMO. Most simply can't perceive effective design elements conceptually and need to experience them in the course of play. I'm sure the golfer who spoke to you will get a better understanding soon enough when he/she finds his/her approach shot in that bunker.