bunker depth: fairway and green side

[Tommy Williamsen]

I used to belong to Four Streams GC outside DC. When I would bring guests their biggest knock against the course was the deep fairway bunkering. On many shots from the fairway bunkers it was not possible to get to the green. Instead you have to figure out how far you can advance the ball without hitting the lip. The same could be said of a great many courses in the British Isles. Woodhall Spa, Ganton, and a great many links courses quickly come to mind. I think most folks would agree that deep green side bunkers make sense. How deep should fairway bunkers be? Is there a general formula that some architects use when designing fairway bunkers?

[Ben Hollerbach]

I think there is little limit to depth when the bunker in question fits into the slope of the land and ample playable space is afforded to the player away from the hazard.

[Jason Topp]

My contention - which I do not believe has ever convinced anyone - is that greenside bunkers should be more shallow than exists at the typical American course and fairway bunkers should be deeper. 

A deep greenside bunker is impossible for a high handicap golfer.  Often such a player will not finish the hole.  A shallow bunker, even one that allows one to putt out, is playable for the high handicap golfer.  Even when putting out of the bunker the player is unlikely to get the ball up and down but will finish the hole.

Most of the time, the expert is going to hit an explosion shot from a greenside bunker regardless of its depth.  One has much more control and a better chance of getting down in two shots with an explosion.

Shallow fairway bunkers, however, present the opposite situation.  The high handicapper is likely to hit the shot fat regardless of the depth of the bunker, which is the perfect way to get out but a terrible way to advance the ball.  The expert will find a shallow fairway bunker preferable to being in the rough because the lack of sand allows for more control over the ball.  I say make the fairway bunkers deep, reduce the number of them, but place them in spots that force interesting decisions on the player. 

[Tommy Williamsen]

Interesting. My wife hates bunkers. She used to putt out of them, as you suggest. It seems that green side bunkers have increasingly become deeper. Now, periodically, I hit the bunker shots for her. I tend to forget the higher handicap player in my evaluation of a course.

[Jon Wiggett]

It depends on the situation. If the hole is wide open, with little to no rough and a fairway bunker is the only difficulty then it would be reasonable were it deep. However, if the hole offers a severe degree of difficulty without the bunker then the bunker should not exist.


Jon

[Tom_Doak]

My contention - which I do not believe has ever convinced anyone - is that greenside bunkers should be more shallow than exists at the typical American course and fairway bunkers should be deeper. 

A deep greenside bunker is impossible for a high handicap golfer.  Often such a player will not finish the hole.  A shallow bunker, even one that allows one to putt out, is playable for the high handicap golfer.  Even when putting out of the bunker the player is unlikely to get the ball up and down but will finish the hole.

Most of the time, the expert is going to hit an explosion shot from a greenside bunker regardless of its depth.  One has much more control and a better chance of getting down in two shots with an explosion.

Shallow fairway bunkers, however, present the opposite situation.  The high handicapper is likely to hit the shot fat regardless of the depth of the bunker, which is the perfect way to get out but a terrible way to advance the ball.  The expert will find a shallow fairway bunker preferable to being in the rough because the lack of sand allows for more control over the ball.  I say make the fairway bunkers deep, reduce the number of them, but place them in spots that force interesting decisions on the player.

I shy away from formulas of any kind, but I like some of your logic here.


George Thomas pointed out that a shallow green side bunker was more of a hazard for people who missed wide of it [and had to pitch over it] than people who just barely missed the green and were in it ... as he thought it should be.  In general, Thomas's and MacKenzie's bunkers are much deeper now than they were when built, a sign of capture by conventional thinking.


As for fairway bunkers, the ones I like best give you some chance of a long recovery shot, but if you try for that and don't hit it pure, you risk leaving it in the bunker altogether.  Of course, such thinking makes them easier for a great player [who can hit an 8-iron to the green] than for guys like me who would need a 5-iron to get home but can't get it over the lip.  Which is why I shy away from formulas! 

[Mike_Young]

Sort of like TD I don't do formulas but I have recently decided IMHO that bunker depth is one way to protect from the long ball.  If a recovery to the green is not possible or extremely difficult then it will take the driver out of the hand of the longer hitter or if he chooses to use driver and misses the penalty will eventually prevail...  we may be at a point where the bunker should be more of a penalty than it is...when a bunker cannot make a player change his strategy simply because he does not fear the recovery then it may be time to put more fear in the shot at hand.

[Paul Carey]

Tom,  I think your point is good but a number of the holes with deep fairway bunkers at four streams reallly gave the player an option to get an advantage of taking on the bunkers to make for a much easier second shot.  Two and four are two holes which you gain great advantage by flying the sand and penalty by not.  I am ok with those two.  The cross bunkers on twelve are pretty severe with not a lot of option to avoid.



It may have been overdone on a couple holes but the excitement of taking on the bunkers, gaining a 30 yard advantage while risking a likely bogey is pretty exciting. 

[Sean_A]

My take is different.  All bunkers should be nasty and horrible, but deployed judiciously.  I despise the idea of spending money on shallow bunkers...just make the area a grass bunker if you want people to have the option of putting.   

Ciao

[jim_lewis]

 

I think the depth of bunkers should vary depending on the situation. Green side bunkers on short par 3’s should be deep enough to provide a penalty for missing the green with a short iron. The same should apply in other situations where the player is likely to have a short iron shot to the green, a long 3-shot par 5 for instance. Conversely, the bunkers should be more forgiving on a long par 3 or long par 4 where the player might hit a pretty decent shot that finds a greenside bunker.
 

The situation can also vary on fairway bunkers.On a reachable par 5, a bunker in the landing area should preclude reaching the green in two shots. On other fairway bunkers, I offer the following theory.
 The bunker should be shallow enough to tempt the player to try to reach the green, but deep enough to require an extraordinary shot to succeed. I like to tempt the player to try a shot that he might pull off but is not likely to. Fairway bunkers that eliminate any chance of going for the green remove the temptation for the “sucker play”, which most of us can’t resist.
 

[Mike_Trenham]

I'd like to hear why shallow green side bunkers are difficult.  I've found this too.  My best guess is that often there are two common factors.


1) The have flat bottoms so you are rarely on an upslope and can be on a downslope...
2) They are not that common and utilized when dictated by being on the highside of the green resulting in a green running away from you.

[BCrosby]

Isn't this an example of the "paradox of proportionality" that TD has talked about in the past?

It's an interesting insight. My understanding of the paradox is that one of the challenges of golf architecture is resisting the urge to always make punishments "proportional".  Put differently, when and how NOT to make punishments "proportional" is how good architects earn their keep.

Bob

[jeffwarne]

  All bunkers should be nasty and horrible, but deployed judiciously.   

Ciao

+1
A hazard should be at least considered

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tom,  I think your point is good but a number of the holes with deep fairway bunkers at four streams reallly gave the player an option to get an advantage of taking on the bunkers to make for a much easier second shot.  Two and four are two holes which you gain great advantage by flying the sand and penalty by not.  I am ok with those two.the bunkers on twelve are pretty severe with not a lot of option to avoid.


It may have been overdone on a couple holes but the excitement of taking on the bunkers, gaining a 30 yard advantage while risking a likely bogey is pretty exciting.

Paul, I agree that the bunkers on 2 begged you to take them on. The right side of the fairway gives you the best angle but you had to hit it over the bunkers yet stay left of the trees. That and 12 were two of the most fun tee shots on the course. I miss the place and haven't been back since 2014.

[Thomas Dai]

  All bunkers should be nasty and horrible, but deployed judiciously.   
Ciao

+1
A hazard should be at least considered

+2....they're supposed to be hazards (I would still like to see a drop-out under penalty rule to particularly aid beginners/novices/lessor players etc)
Atb

[Kyle Harris]

I'd like to hear why shallow green side bunkers are difficult.  I've found this too.  My best guess is that often there are two common factors.


1) The have flat bottoms so you are rarely on an upslope and can be on a downslope...
2) They are not that common and utilized when dictated by being on the highside of the green resulting in a green running away from you.

The deeper the bunker, the harder the swing.

It's a lot more difficult to commit to a properly fast swing in a shallow bunker.

[Tom_Doak]

(I would still like to see a drop-out under penalty rule to particularly aid beginners/novices/lessor players etc)

There is no reason beginners and novices should be compelled to play under the Rules, before they've learned to get out of bunkers.

[Jeff_Brauer]

My take is different.  All bunkers should be nasty and horrible, but deployed judiciously.  I despise the idea of spending money on shallow bunkers...just make the area a grass bunker if you want people to have the option of putting.   

Ciao

As a teenager, simply thinking deeply about gca, I had the same theory, partly based on the first course I ever played, Medinah No. 3 (neighbor was a member)


As a practicing golf course architect, the conventional wisdom of the day - design for visuals, speed of play, view from surrounding residential, etc. pretty well beat that idea out of me, in favor or more numerous sand bunkers for the reasons above, and to win awards, etc.


However,  I still like a few holes per course to have just one deep bunker you must avoid.  They are different kinds of mental challenges.....and one bunker you start thinking about on the first tee, or drive to course, is one of them.

[Tommy Williamsen]

My take is different.  All bunkers should be nasty and horrible, but deployed judiciously.  I despise the idea of spending money on shallow bunkers...just make the area a grass bunker if you want people to have the option of putting.   

Ciao

As a teenager, simply thinking deeply about gca, I had the same theory, partly based on the first course I ever played, Medinah No. 3 (neighbor was a member)


As a practicing golf course architect, the conventional wisdom of the day - design for visuals, speed of play, view from surrounding residential, etc. pretty well beat that idea out of me, in favor or more numerous sand bunkers for the reasons above, and to win awards, etc.


However,  I still like a few holes per course to have just one deep bunker you must avoid.  They are different kinds of mental challenges.....and one bunker you start thinking about on the first tee, or drive to course, is one of them.

Jeff, does designing public or private courses change your bunkering? Four Streams attracted more single digit handicappers than double digit players.

[Sean_A]

(I would still like to see a drop-out under penalty rule to particularly aid beginners/novices/lessor players etc)

There is no reason beginners and novices should be compelled to play under the Rules, before they've learned to get out of bunkers.

There is no reason beginners and novices should feel compelled to play under the rules full stop. I can make up shit just as easily as you can.

Jeff,  you probably aren't even envisioning max 25 bunkers as I am.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

(I would still like to see a drop-out under penalty rule to particularly aid beginners/novices/lessor players etc)

There is no reason beginners and novices should be compelled to play under the Rules, before they've learned to get out of bunkers.

There is no reason beginners and novices should feel compelled to play under the rules full stop. I can make up shit just as easily as you can.
Jeff,  you probably aren't even envisioning max 25 bunkers as I am.
Ciao

No worries with this approach when it comes to "novices/begineers".

My original post also deliberately contained the words "lessor players etc" for lessor players etc play in competitions and matches and events where formal scoring is required hence the need for a formal regulation.

There is also speed of play from the possible need for repeated shots plus damage to bunkers (say from 'whacking away close to the face') to consider if folks must play out of a difficult (fun?) bunker/hazard.

I would also suggest that playing by and understanding the rules is a key component of course management and judging when to attempt a shot from a bunker or when to take a penalty drop would be a nice addition to the game.
 
It would be nice to see occasional hazards like those in post 12 on this thread - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,64283.msg1532412.html#new - but with an alternative option for play contained within the rules -


atb