If the bunker rake never existed...

[Mark Fedeli]

If using anything but your feet to smooth bunker sand was outlawed, how much different would the modern golfer be? Would he have a completely different sense of fairness if he had spent his life dealing with the unpredictability of bunker lies? How would he play differently? How would modern courses have evolved differently as a result, particularly in America?

[John Kavanaugh]

Leaders would tee off first as opposed to last.

[Joe Hancock]

It’s a societal question that I’m not smart enough to answer. I do, however, believe the game of golf would be far better off with less of everything; fuss, clutter, heights of cut, inputs, money, opinions.....

[Thomas Dai]

I’d be delighted!

Once upon a time you could take a penalty drop out of a sand bunker like you could out of any other hazard. Then they stopped that rule for sand bunkers. Now they’ve re-introduced it once again but with a 2-shot penalty.

Sand bunkers are hazards. Hazards or obstructions should be avoided or the consequences suffered. If your daft enough to go into a sand bunker then tough on you.

If you can’t play it out then take a penalty drop outside just like with other hazards (“penalty zones” in new terminology). It should be a 1 shot penalty though, not a 2.

The games gone soft - Ben Sayers, Redan hole bunker, North Berwick.

Atb

[Bill Charles]

I really like when bunkers are groomed nicely and my ball sits right on top so I can scoop it out. The game would be much harder otherwise and lose fun factor.

[Jeff Schley]

Thomas love the picture!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I really like when bunkers are groomed nicely and my ball sits right on top so I can scoop it out. The game would be much harder otherwise and lose fun factor.

I’d assume that’s sarcasm but given all of your other posts it likely isn’t.

I wish Jack had stuck with his mildly furrowed rake. I really wish he’d stood up to the Tour and that the Tour had come around on that. But they’re in the entertainment business and are a member-run organization.

Fun for me does not always mean easy. Often fun involves making decisions. Or overcoming some obstacle or inventing a stroke for the situation.

[Forrest Richardson]

The fundamental difference between "bunker life" in the current era and 200 years ago is that today we can appreciate the reaction: "Not so bad, he can get up and down from there...", whereas 200 years ago the reaction would have been" "Arrrrrrggggggggg!!!!! Bloody hell!"

[Thomas Dai]

Perfect!
atb

[Tom_Doak]

If bunkers were not raked, I think architects would not feel the need to build so many bunkers.

[David_Tepper]

We seem to have this discussion here once or twice a year (EVERY year!). Anyone who thinks we are going back to "the good old days" is kidding themselves.


It is hard enough to get people to do a halfway decent job of raking a bunker after they have thrashed around in it for a stroke or two. If you think people will smooth out their heel prints and gouges in the sand just using the soles of their golf shoes, you are kidding yourself.   

[Nick Ribeiro]

You can still have an aesthetically pleasing bunker and maintain the challenge / penalty which was originally intended. For modern designs making the bunkers bigger, deeper, and designed to roll to the center of the bunker leaving players with 30-50 yard bunker shots. For classics I agree with CP (twice in one day!) with using a furrowed rake.


Pros look to miss shots in the bunkers as opposed to rough as bunkers are no longer penal for them. Once amateurs learn to hit bunker shots and a little practice they aren't intimidated either. Todays green side bunkers are simply not what they were once intended to be.


Suggesting they be groomed nicely so they sit up and you can scoop your ball out of them is...... I mean really?

[John Emerson]

It’s a societal question that I’m not smart enough to answer. I do, however, believe the game of golf would be far better off with less of everything; fuss, clutter, heights of cut, inputs, money, opinions.....

I nominate for quote of the year!

[Carl Rogers]

Have played Dormie 5 or 6 times ..... no bunker rakes, but not a lot of play either.  Can't recall having a bad lie.

[jeffwarne]

If bunkers were not raked, I think architects would not feel the need to build so many bunkers.

Mic drop

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It is hard enough to get people to do a halfway decent job of raking a bunker after they have thrashed around in it for a stroke or two. If you think people will smooth out their heel prints and gouges in the sand just using the soles of their golf shoes, you are kidding yourself.

I think that's the point… people wouldn't completely smooth the sand, and bunkers would be more hazardous than they are now.

[Sean_A]

If bunkers were not raked, I think architects would not feel the need to build so many bunkers.

+1..I also think bunkers would be far nastier and better placed if there were far less of the things.  Sounds good to me as its time archies found a new crutch.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

My honest opinion (if incorrect answer): it wouldn't be much different at all.
I play a rota of courses all with 'terrible' bunkers -- one bunker is very wet and mushy, the next one is like hardpan, the third must be under repair, the fourth sees a lot of play 'cause it's all churned up, the fifth is 40% standing water, the 6th they must've just backed the dump truck up the day before 'cause there's mounds and mounds of dry fluffy sand, the 7th is hardpan and pebbles etc etc.
I'm not a great bunker player and never practice, but I adapt, hole by hole and bunker by bunker, trying one technique here and another one there, a sand wedge out of this bunker and low bounce 52 degree out of that one, sometimes hitting a good couple of inches behind the ball and sometimes trying to nip it clean etc etc.
And if I can do that anyone can - top amateurs and pros especially.
They would've adapted very very quickly to a rakeless world.
Now, if there was nothing but 8 foot deep and 10 foot around sodfaced pot bunkers, well that's a different story! Plop those down and next to the greens at a regular PGA Tour stop and you'd see strategies and playing styles change very quickly.

[Stewart Abramson]

If bunkers were not raked, I think architects would not feel the need to build so many bunkers.

Not everywhere. Pine Valley has no rakes and they've added  new bunkers and enlarged even more over the past several years, so someone "feels the need". They seem to be doing quite well with the absence of rakes. The pace of play is fast for a pretty difficult course and using feet to smooth over the worst foot prints seems to limit the worst of lies.



Pine Valley #2  approach





Pine Valley #5 par 3 220 yards



Pine Valley #6 from middle tee



Pine Valley #12 from tee

[Colin Sheehan]

I've looked at hundreds of scorecards that pre-date WWII and there is never a single mention of the word rake on any of them. However, the cards very frequently implored players to "smooth" the bunkers. I always presumed that meant golfers (or the caddies) used their feet.


I bet if we did the same today, there wouldn't be that much of a difference in the lies we get.

[Thomas Dai]

Sliding the feet was indeed frequent.
So was using the back of the club in a sweeping/scything motion.
Atb

[Sean_A]

I've looked at hundreds of scorecards that pre-date WWII and there is never a single mention of the word rake on any of them. However, the cards very frequently implored players to "smooth" the bunkers. I always presumed that meant golfers (or the caddies) used their feet.

I bet if we did the same today, there wouldn't be that much of a difference in the lies we get.

I assume we are talking about player rakes rather than maintenance raking.  Wouldn't bunkers retain water easier without some form of raking once in a while? 

So far as player raking goes, if a smooth foot can do practically the same job as a rake, why not use a rake?  The one downside I can think of is there being rakes laying about the course which can influence play.  On courses without cart paths I can see this as a possible element to eliminate.  If there are cart paths influencing play, what the hell difference to do rakes make?  In for 90p may as well be in for pound.

An argument for rakes is later players will most likley be at a disadvantage...maybe purposely so if rakes aren't used.  I often wonder about guys who don't replace divots...is there sometimes a motive to make things more difficult for those behind?  I spose it could also be argued that golf is hard enough.  Even for the very best players in the world 50% up and down from sand is very good...of course, much depends on the bunker. 

Ciao

[Tommy Williamsen]

I’d be delighted!


Atb

Love the way the sleepers are repaired.

[Mark Fedeli]

I've looked at hundreds of scorecards that pre-date WWII and there is never a single mention of the word rake on any of them. However, the cards very frequently implored players to "smooth" the bunkers. I always presumed that meant golfers (or the caddies) used their feet.


I bet if we did the same today, there wouldn't be that much of a difference in the lies we get.

Colin, was great meeting you at Quaker Ridge last month. Thanks for tagging along with our group. You brought some great energy to the proceedings.


I think what you say is true for smaller, shallower bunkers. But for those that are wide and deep, specifically those that require climbing into and out of, foot smoothing wouldn’t always do the trick. And I wonder if, to Tom’s point, there’d be fewer bunkers but they’d be made much more hazardous, and much harder to keep smooth.


That all said, even if it were relatively easy to smooth a bunker, there’d still be an expected amount of inconsistency that the player would be used to dealing with during every bunker visit. Just having that slight expectation of inconvenience would be a hugely different attitude from what players have today, which is to be pissed if their lie isn’t perfect, as opposed to thankful when it is.

[MCirba]

Think about how silly it is that we groom hazards.