If bunkers were less pristine and predictable...

[Joe Hancock]

...since y'all will run a thread on and on speculating about golfers physiques, why not speculate about this:


If the Tour and all the courses preparing to host them agreed to utilize local, as native as possible sands in the bunkers week to week, would it affect future golf course design?


While watching the WGC- Mexico, I'm seeing players struggle with the bunkers...lack of precision, plugged lies, etc....I'm enjoying the anguish on their face as they walk up to a bunker and survey the "bad" lie they got after hitting into a hazard.....


If the weekend televised presentation is what sets the standard for the rest of us, how much would change(for better, or worse?) if bunkers were actually presented as hazards? Would future designs have less bunkers, figuring the ones actually built would be a bad place to be?


Look, I know it will never happen...that's why it will rely on speculation to discuss......

[BCowan]

Joe,

    First I wanna thank you for posting a topic in regards to Golf Course Architecture.  To answer your question would be like asking why did most kids in 5th grade (not I) have Air Jordan's?  Some never grow up, it's not the tour IMO as much, its other courses on the block have it, so we have to.   

[Ira Fishman]

A truly fascinating set of issues.  I find it an indictment of a lot of architecture that the pros will play to end up in a bunker (other than at The Open and a few US venues), and I was disappointed when Oakmont forwent the wide grooved rakes.  On the other hand, for the average golfer, any bunker shot is a challenge. On the other, other hand, average golfers are less intimidated by a pitch from grass even if it is a harder shot. On balance, make the pros face tougher bunker shots.  If that leads to less bunkers (which I doubt it will as the OP mentions) or more thoughtfully placed and constructed bunkers, that would be a great development. 


As a PS, I often wonder whether the folks on this board from the UK and Ireland find some of the US-oriented topics amusing given that the criticisms we have of courses do not apply nearly as much on their "turf".

[Pete Lavallee]

Actually it does happen occasionally. While vacationing in South Africa we watched the EPGA Tour struggle from the bunkers at Glendower in the SA Open. We played there the next week and they where very difficult, not a preparation issue, more of the texture of the sand that made it difficult. Not surprising that a course that plays 7,200 yards from the regular tees chooses to make bunkers tough!

[David_Tepper]

At the risk of confusing anyone with the facts, be aware that the average PGA Tour pro converts a sand save barely more than 1 in 2 attempts. The number of pro's that convert 2 of 3 attempts over the course of a season you can usually count on the fingers of two hands, with a finger or two to spare.

And don't forget, these guys are the best putters in the world, putting on greens in great condition.

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.111.html
 

[Joe Hancock]

At the risk of confusing anyone with the facts, be aware that the average PGA Tour pro converts a sand save barely more than 1 in 2 attempts. The number of pro's that convert 2 of 3 attempts over the course of a season you can usually count on the fingers of two hands, with a finger or two to spare.

And don't forget, these guys are the best putters in the world, putting on greens in great condition.

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.111.html
 

In the spirit in which the thread was started, you'll now have to speculate what the save percentage would be if the sand was not a standardized product maintained similarly from venue to venue.....and speculate what the save percentage would be from deep rough if the save percentage from standardized sand wasn't so predictable to the point that they beg their mis-hits to get in the sand......

[Ira Fishman]

David, I take your point, but are there are any stats on whether a pro would prefer a predictable play from a pristine greenside bunker versus an unpredictable one from somewhere else whether deeper grass or a short-mowed runoff area.  Possible birdie 50%+ of time and certain par almost 100% of the time versus possible difficult par or worse. The facts are the facts so will defer to them.

[David_Tepper]

Ira -

Here are the stats for par saves "from the fringe" -

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.364.html

Here are the stats for par saves from grass 10-20 yards away:

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.368.html

As you can see, the conversion rates are much higher than from the sand.

While there is certainly a case to be made that the odds of saving par from a well groomed bunker are greater than from shaggy US Open-style rough that is 3"+ long, I would caution against thinking that the pro's routinely save par from well-groomed  bunkers. They don't.

By the way, don't most of us here regularly condemn shaggy, deep greenside rough even more often than we claim bunkers are too easy for the pro's?

DT   

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe - I'd speculate that it would have the opposite effect of the one you suggest. The power and, to many both inside the media and outside of it, the appeal of the "best golfers in the world" brand is such that anything that provides genuine challenge to tour pros is almost immediately criticized either subtly or overtly as inappropriate for and not befitting the game of golf as played at its highest level. In other words, and just as with greens that aren't bikini-waxed smooth, the underlying narrative especially via the tv media would be that the pros "deserve better" -- and inevitably there'd soon be clubs/members all across the land saying *we* deserve better. Money and power and prestige have never talked louder, and tour pros like Jimmy Demaret -- who could quip that if they'd used Oakmont's furrowed rakes during WWII Rommel would never had gotten out of North Africa, and then go right out and deal with Oakmont's bunkers without complaint -- are sadly never coming back.
Peter

[David_Tepper]

Here is a link to PGA Tour stats in 14 "around the green" categories. Knock yourself out.

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/categories.RARG_INQ.html

[BCowan]

Ira -

Here are the stats for par saves "from the fringe" -

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.364.html

Here are the stats for par saves from grass 10-20 yards away:

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.368.html

As you can see, the conversion rates are much higher than from the sand.

While there is certainly a case to be made that the odds of saving par from a well groomed bunker are greater than from shaggy US Open-style rough that is 3"+ long, I would caution against thinking that the pro's routinely save par from bunkers. They don't.

By the way, don't most of us here regularly condemn shaggy, deep green-side rough even more often than we claim bunkers are too easy for the pro's?

DT   

David,

    This is the problem with stats, they aren't exact and are rather misleading.  Fringe, why did you include the fringe?  That is the green collar and a no brainier.  10-20 yards away could mean 50% are from the fairway grass short of the green.  There is too much grey era. 

[Steve Lang]

   Joe,

I'd speculate that some forms of bunkers and sand shaping could really get them going.. perhaps sandy alps or himalayas?





One thing's for sure, clubs wouldn't be going for the visuals..

[Brent Gremillion]

I started playing in the mid 80's. The vast majority of courses I have played had bunkers that funned the balls to the bottom with relatively consistent sand allowing players to control spin. This always seemed to be easier than the intent of the "hazard".
I've also played my fair share of courses following players that don't know what a rake is; and, I strongly believe that unmaintained bunkers can present plenty of "hazard".  I like the idea of the wide rake teeth. Seems like a good compromise from perfect grooming and totally unmaintained.

[Carl Rogers]

I would guess, that the less predictable bunker conditions are the way in which most of us play all the time.  It makes me feel  a bit better about my own indifferent bunker play.

[Greg Chambers]

I used native sand in the bunkers I maintained...it was consistantly inconsistent.  Golfers bitched about it endlessly.  Golfers bitch about everything.

[Jason Topp]

Joe

I speculate it would not make much of a difference in architecture.

Links courses have heavy, inconsistent sand.  The bunkers are real hazards.  That example does not seem to provide much optimism for architecture associated with tournament golf.  It seems to me the R&A regularly adds penal ankles on both sides of the fairway when it prepares a course for an event. 

On the local level there are plenty of courses with poorly maintained bunkers using local sand.  Many munis and low end public courses have terrible bunkers. 

Australian courses provide some hope.  While those bunkers are beautiful the sand is very inconsistent. The courses are terrific and Australians have the reputation of being the best bunker players.  I found it very interesting to try and read the lie and adjust the shot based on the conditions. 

[Sean_A]

If the weekend televised presentation is what sets the standard for the rest of us, how much would change(for better, or worse?) if bunkers were actually presented as hazards? Would future designs have less bunkers, figuring the ones actually built would be a bad place to be?

Joe


If fewer bunkers were the outcome I would be all in favour less prepared sand and deeper pits.  Of course, I would also be in favour of all hazards being treated the same and one could take a 1 shot penalty drop from bunkers to escape the misery...just as we do with water. I would like to see pros play from crap sand, but I also recognize that sand is a hazard now and that we do want to see guys get up and down not just thrashing from sand like we see for US Open rough.


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

I would also be in favour of all hazards being treated the same and one could take a 1 shot penalty drop from bunkers to escape the misery...just as we do with water.
Ciao

Very much agree. Would most likely speed up play in the amateur game as well. Ought to be in the recently highlighted revisions to the rules.
Atb

[Don Jordan]

Can the condition of bunkers be evaluated in isolation from firmness, slopes and speeds of greens? Average lies and a chunk and run to a relatively flat green with slower speeds is fine, the same into a green at Royal Melbourne and even a good shot would end up 40 yards away some times. 

The questions asked of modern golfers are different today then they were before, I would imagine Mickleson would hit more high speed swings from inside 20 yards in a week then Hogan and Jones would have in a year on tour.

[David_Tepper]

"This is the problem with stats, they aren't exact and are rather misleading."

Ben C. -

Now you are making me laugh. Stats are not exact? What is a better way of determining what is really happening on the golf course, those PGA Tour stats or what someone sees sitting on their couch watching an hour or two of golf on TV, where you might get to see a handful of bunker shots in the course of an hour or two of viewing?

On average, hitting a ball into a bunker costs a PGA Tour player half a stroke. That is a fact. You are welcome to attempt to prove otherwise.

DT 

[BCowan]

"This is the problem with stats, they aren't exact and are rather misleading."

Ben C. -

Now you are making me laugh. Stats are not exact? What is a better way of determining what is really happening on the golf course, those PGA Tour stats or what someone sees sitting on their couch watching an hour or two of golf on TV, where you might get to see a handful of bunker shots in the course of an hour or two of viewing?

On average, hitting a ball into a bunker costs a PGA Tour player half a stroke. That is a fact. You are welcome to attempt to prove otherwise.

DT

David,

    Unlike you I've actually caddied in Professional Golf tournaments.  You were unable to rebuke my great point, 10-20 yards from the green, WHERE?  Fairway, in the Rough?  The stat is not exact, its too broad.  We don't know what the stroke costs are for hitting it out of the rough 10-20 yards from the green.  So it isn't a fact jack!   

[Joe Hancock]

Ben,


David's stat isn't too broad, it's too narrow. It doesn't account for all the variable conditions surrounding a green excluding the bunkers. He hasn't posted what the save percentage is for areas other than bunkers. And, I would bet, that from week to week the turf varieties, heights, grains, etc. are much more difficult to standardize which would make that stat much more of a moving target.


Besides, there are no stats that SPECULATE what would happen if bunkers were less pristine and predictable...because, on Tour, week after week, the sand is likely as predictable as green speeds/ uniformity.

[David_Tepper]

"I've actually caddied in Professional Golf tournaments"

Ben C. -

I can't decided if you are trying to impress me or intimidate me. If nothing else, you continue to amuse me.

Joe H. -

The PGA Tour "Around the Green" Stats present data in 14 different categories. In fact, there are "Scrambling from the Rough" and "Scrambling from the Sand" categories.

As I read the data, 186 players are currently able to scramble from the rough successfully 50% of the time, but only 122 players are able to scramble from the sand 50% of the time. That implies scrambling from the rough is easier than from the sand. Would you agree with that conclusion?

It is also worth noting that 22 players currently convert from the rough at least 70% of the time, while only 12 players convert from the sand at least 70% of the time. That implies the same thing.

But it is early in the season and the sample size is relatively small. Let's check back in September.

In your mind, what average PGA Tour sand save stat would satisfy you that bunkers are presenting enough challenge? 20%? 30%? 40?

DT   

 

[BCowan]

"I've actually caddied in Professional Golf tournaments"

Ben C. -

I can't decided if you are trying to impress me or intimidate me. If nothing else, you continue to amuse me.

Joe H. -

The PGA Tour "Around the Green" Stats present data in 14 different categories. In fact, there are "Scrambling from the Rough" and "Scrambling from the Sand" categories.

As I read the data, 186 players are currently able to scramble from the rough successfully 50% of the time, but only 122 players are able to scramble from the sand 50% of the time. That implies scrambling from the rough is easier than from the sand. Would you agree with that conclusion?

It is also worth noting that 22 players currently convert from the rough at least 70% of the time, while only 12 players convert from the sand at least 70% of the time. That implies the same thing.

But it is early in the season and the sample size is relatively small. Let's check back in September.

In your mind, what average PGA Tour sand save stat would satisfy you that bunkers are presenting enough challenge? 20%? 30%? 40?

DT   

 

David,


Neither, you implied that I got my info from viewing on the couch.  Boots on the ground.  You didn't post those stats in prior post. 

[David_Tepper]

Ben C. -

I posted a link to the PGA Stats website and noted there was data for 14 categories. I didn't think I had to do all the research around here.

By the way, what sand save percentage for tour pros would satisfy you that bunkers presented enough challenge?
 
DT