[Rob Marshall]

I’ve played a few courses where you are in a fairway bunker and are faced with a shot where you need to hit the bunker shot either over, under, or around a tree. This just makes no sense to me. Good design or bad?

[Tom_Doak]

I am happy to play Devil's Advocate on this one.


When we were building the 16th hole at Sebonack, Jack Nicklaus was absolutely against having a fairway bunker shot partly obstructed by a tree, as you describe . . . but once we eliminated the fairway bunker and just left it an area of open sand, he was fine with it.


I failed to see any difference between the two.  Can you explain the difference to me?


Bunkers and trees are not "penalties", they are obstacles.  I understand that most golfers are not that great and don't need obstacles piled on top of each other, but I don't think it should be illegal.  If you're in a fairway bunker behind a tree, you have to decide whether to go for the green or not, like always . . . it's just harder, and you are less likely to go for it. 


[There were some birch trees bordering a bunker at Crystal Downs which sometimes required you to play a low recovery shot, and I was very upset when they trimmed those trees up in the name of "fairness".  That shallow bunker was the most severe thing on the course and I thought it rewarded the player who knew to steer well clear of it.  However, by the same token, I was aghast at the cork tree between an approach bunker and the green on the first hole at Valderrama, so apparently even I have my limits.]

[Matt Schoolfield]

I might wonder what the hole was like before I passed judgement. While I think Tom provides real guidance in the obstacle-penalty distinction, I do understand the frustration people can have when their situation goes from bad to worse when they arrive at their next shot.

I can see how a "double penalty" situation can be of strategic merit, but I can also see how a purely penal "double penalty" can be deeply frustrating and unfun.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

If the trees are there to protect a safety distance from a border and serve as an obstruction, sometimes a bunker maybe put in front of the trees to catch the the ball and avoid it running into the rough under the trees, where it could find a difficult lie.
At least the shot from the bunker is playable, albeit sideways on to the fairway.
So the bunker is in fact an aid to the player. 😃

[Michael Felton]

I think of this situation and I think of the 7th hole at Bethpage Black. If you hit your drive in the far right end of the fairway bunker (easily done if it's into the wind), you're about as dead as it's possible to be. The trees on the green side of that bunker are huge and right there. You can't go through them (reliably anyway). Pretty much your only shot is to play out to the left of them, away from the hole.


But, if you want to get your tee shot into a spot where you can reach the green, you have to hit it on that line. You can avoid it and you'll be likely in the fairway, but 280-300 yards away from the hole, from whence I at least can't get there. I actually think it's a pretty good use of the double penalty. The slope of shots to hole out by distance is pretty steep in the range of where your ball will finish after that tee shot (so 10 yards closer to the hole from 250 to 240 is worth more shots than from 150 to 140 for example. So the benefit of taking on that carry is higher. But the penalty is severe. It kind of has to be. If the trees weren't there, then there'd be no reason not to go that way, since from the bunker you'd be laying up to a similar spot to where you'd be hitting it to if you played it safely. Similarly if it was just trees and no bunker, then again you'd play that way. Getting through the trees from grass is doable (you can hit it low - can't do that from the bunker, because the lip necessitates hitting it up).


Tom - I haven't played Sebonack, so I'm not familiar with the hole you describe, but I wonder if Jack was thinking of a bunker with a lip that makes you hit it higher into the branches of the tree, where from the open sand area, you can drill one under the tree limbs. I could see that being a difference. It does sound to me like he's thinking like a player rather than an architect there though. If I'm right, he's thinking that he should be able to have a shot at the green from there. A less generous person than myself might say he shouldn't hit it in there in the first place. That said, most anyone can play a shot from the bunker to the fairway. Hitting it on the green from the bunker (or avoiding the tree from a waste area) is what separates. He probably wants to be able to separate himself from the crowd.

[Sean_A]

I am happy to play Devil's Advocate on this one.

When we were building the 16th hole at Sebonack, Jack Nicklaus was absolutely against having a fairway bunker shot partly obstructed by a tree, as you describe . . . but once we eliminated the fairway bunker and just left it an area of open sand, he was fine with it.


I failed to see any difference between the two.  Can you explain the difference to me?


Bunkers and trees are not "penalties", they are obstacles.  I understand that most golfers are not that great and don't need obstacles piled on top of each other, but I don't think it should be illegal.  If you're in a fairway bunker behind a tree, you have to decide whether to go for the green or not, like always . . . it's just harder, and you are less likely to go for it. 


[There were some birch trees bordering a bunker at Crystal Downs which sometimes required you to play a low recovery shot, and I was very upset when they trimmed those trees up in the name of "fairness".  That shallow bunker was the most severe thing on the course and I thought it rewarded the player who knew to steer well clear of it.  However, by the same token, I was aghast at the cork tree between an approach bunker and the green on the first hole at Valderrama, so apparently even I have my limits.]

Perhaps a bunker lip which dictates a high ball recovery shot? Why spend money on a feature that is covered by a tree?


I am not sure why an archie would want a bunker behind a tree. I don’t even like a tree in front of a bunker for visual reasons.


Ciao

[Ian Mackenzie]

The architectural merits can be debated on all sides, but ceding to Tom is usually wise...


However, justify double hazards as you must, they are not fun. And, while golf may not always be fair, it should be fun.
Double penalties arent fun.


One may be an aberration, two may be serendipity, but three may be a pattern and a pattern of dick-punching double penalties makes a golfer finish his round and ponder the punishment, not the amusement and that might not wear well over time.

[Michael Felton]

The architectural merits can be debated on all sides, but ceding to Tom is usually wise...


However, justify double hazards as you must, they are not fun. And, while golf may not always be fair, it should be fun.
Double penalties arent fun.


One may be an aberration, two may be serendipity, but three may be a pattern and a pattern of dick-punching double penalties makes a golfer finish his round and ponder the punishment, not the amusement and that might not wear well over time.

I would not be on board with something like this every hole, or even more than once on a course, but I think every now and again it's not that bad to have some bad spots you could hit it into. I agree it's not fun when you do, but I do think it is fun when you get past that and don't. It's not fun hitting it in water hazards or OB either, but the game would be more boring without those things.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Maybe avoid them generally, but occasionally… why not?

One of the best golf shots I've ever hit was at Sewanee. The seventh has a fairway bunker on the right, a swale before the green… with trees in between both.



It was about 135 yards as shown, and I had to get the ball up quickly enough to get over the elevated little island of grass as well as the far lip of the bunker, but stay under the trees (they were quite tall). I chose a 6I and hit it exactly as intended, landing it into the upslope in front of the green and watching the ball bounce up and onto the green about 20' past the front pin. Tapped in for par after being in trouble off the tee.

Sometimes, tough conditions and a big ask of the golfer leads to memorable shots.

P.S. I could have tried to hit a cut, I suppose, but it wasn't really an option IMO given the OB left.

[mike_malone]

Moselem Springs had a tree in a bunker on a back nine hole which was trimmed up enough to allow an open shot unless you were right behind it. It was an interesting tree.


I have seen many courses where trees sit in waste bunkers. They are interesting.


We left a small tree at Rolling Green which I call Brian’s Tree that is ten yards before the left green side bunker on the second hole. It stands out on a course that did massive tree removal as a symbol of the previous tree situation. Brian Chapin was our superintendent for a few years during the tree work.

[Jeff_Brauer]

[There were some birch trees bordering a bunker at Crystal Downs which sometimes required you to play a low recovery shot, and I was very upset when they trimmed those trees up in the name of "fairness".  That shallow bunker was the most severe thing on the course and I thought it rewarded the player who knew to steer well clear of it.  However, by the same token, I was aghast at the cork tree between an approach bunker and the green on the first hole at Valderrama, so apparently even I have my limits.]

I remember you discussing that the day we played Crystal Downs so many years ago.  They must have been in discussions to remove it then, because you were against it, but seemed resigned to the fact that they were coming down or out......

[Rob Marshall]

The architectural merits can be debated on all sides, but ceding to Tom is usually wise...


However, justify double hazards as you must, they are not fun. And, while golf may not always be fair, it should be fun.
Double penalties arent fun.


One may be an aberration, two may be serendipity, but three may be a pattern and a pattern of dick-punching double penalties makes a golfer finish his round and ponder the punishment, not the amusement and that might not wear well over time.

To me there is nothing worse than being dead stymied by a tree. Nothing to do just chip it out. No risk reward shot, just take your lumps and move on. I see where Tom is coming from. Suck it up. But Ian you are right, they aren’t fun.

[Phil Young]

Michael, as one who has played the 7th hole on the Black more times than I can count, I believe that I can safely say that hitting it into the end of the monster waste bunker and having the tree line blocking you from being able to reach this par 5 in two isn't a double penalty, rather its a poor tee shot that put one there. Whether you are in the end of the bunker or in the rough behind trees there, one can still safely punch out and play into the fairway on the left side and further down it to a spot that one can reach the green in 3. Hole that putt and you have a birdie...So why is being unable to make an eagle because one hits a poor tee shot the fault of the hole and an unfair punishment in any amount?
      By the way, where was the tee shot hit from, the original championship tee box at the beginning of the trees pointing out to the far left side of the beginning of the fairway? When the course opened for play in 1936 it measured 595 yards from there. The first person to reach it in two was Jimmy Hines who, in September 1937, hit driver and two-iron that ended up OVER the green.

[Mark_Fine]

Most of the ”double penalties” or “double hazards” we don’t love are those with trees in front of bunkers.  It’s unfortunately, as Tom Doak pointed out, a “fairness” concern for some.  I personally don’t like many of them not because of fairness, but because when a tree is in front of a bunker, it usually (not always) all but eliminates the chance for a recovery shot and recovery shots are some of the most exciting shots in golf. 


Furthermore, most people don’t complain when a bunker is in front of a tree (it is “double hazard”) but that‘s because the bunker usually doesn’t hinder a recovery if you happen to end up behind the tree.  We also encounter double hazards when we have a bunker in front of another bunker or a bunker in front of a grass hollow.  These are less complained about but encountered often. Same thing with an island of grass and/or turf inside a bunker. When your ball rolls up against this hazard and you are in the bunker it is another double penalty but it is usually accepted.


Another one I don’t always love is a formal bunker next to a lake. It’s a double hazard but the bunker is also a saving hazard from the worse fate which is the water.  We see this double hazard design feature all the time.  I do like a beach bunker which looks more natural to me and can act in the same manner. 


Again, most think of double hazards or double penalties when there is a “tree” is involved and an aerial recovery is hindered. Most say it should be one or the other.  But what about a cluster of trees planted together or one in front of the other? You get past one tree but you hit into another one.  These are “double hazards” as well and they tend to be more acceptable because they are the same feature (some don’t like trees period). Something to think about.


Just to summarize, I don’t love trees planted right in front of bunkers as rarely do you find situations where together they are anything but penal and a place to avoid. They don’t usually create temptation and just tell the golfer to stay away. In certain situations they might make sense especially if found together naturally, but usually one or the other will suffice.

[Michael Felton]

Michael, as one who has played the 7th hole on the Black more times than I can count, I believe that I can safely say that hitting it into the end of the monster waste bunker and having the tree line blocking you from being able to reach this par 5 in two isn't a double penalty, rather its a poor tee shot that put one there. Whether you are in the end of the bunker or in the rough behind trees there, one can still safely punch out and play into the fairway on the left side and further down it to a spot that one can reach the green in 3. Hole that putt and you have a birdie...So why is being unable to make an eagle because one hits a poor tee shot the fault of the hole and an unfair punishment in any amount?
      By the way, where was the tee shot hit from, the original championship tee box at the beginning of the trees pointing out to the far left side of the beginning of the fairway? When the course opened for play in 1936 it measured 595 yards from there. The first person to reach it in two was Jimmy Hines who, in September 1937, hit driver and two-iron that ended up OVER the green.

If you're in that last bit of the bunker and play back out sideways to the fairway, that leaves you 240 yards from the middle of the green. If that wind is into and from the left, there are not going to be many birdie putts. Compare that with if the trees weren't there - you'd hit it to a spot about 100 yards closer to the green. The trees turn the bunker from being a forced lay up to basically a stroke penalty. I agree it's a poor tee shot that puts you there, but it's so much worse than just being in the rough by those trees. At least in my experience.


Separately here is something pretty cool that we got to see as a result of a tree in front of a bunker - [size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl_oUUQlk24[/size]

[Ryan Van Culin]

We've had this discussion about 17 at Cypress, I think. My opinion is "all things in moderation." I don't mind if it is not repetitive.


Also, I would say a "double hazard" is still better than water or OB. Nobody gets really upset about water or OB, but they are more penal. Carrying the hypothetical of it being a water hazard, you would have to take a drop, then play your next shot, likely (not always) unobstructed. You always have the option to take an unplayable and proceed in similar fashion for any hazard.


People just seem to hate being punished for bad shots, and say it isn't fair or fun. Well, I've always found the fairway to be quite fun and usually fair!

[Michael Felton]

We've had this discussion about 17 at Cypress, I think. My opinion is "all things in moderation." I don't mind if it is not repetitive.


Also, I would say a "double hazard" is still better than water or OB. Nobody gets really upset about water or OB, but they are more penal. Carrying the hypothetical of it being a water hazard, you would have to take a drop, then play your next shot, likely (not always) unobstructed. You always have the option to take an unplayable and proceed in similar fashion for any hazard.


People just seem to hate being punished for bad shots, and say it isn't fair or fun. Well, I've always found the fairway to be quite fun and usually fair!

This is a good point. When you hit a ball in a lake, you know it's just gone and you have to take your medicine. When you hit a ball in a bunker, you can see it right there and you can get a club on it and you feel like you should be able to hit a shot forwards. When there's something in the way of that, I think it's kind of natural to think about what if it wasn't there. That said, there are also plenty of fairway bunkers on the links courses in the UK that you have pretty much no choice but to play out sideways or at least only advance it a few yards. That huge bunker on 4 at Royal St George's is way more punishing than any regular bunker with a tree in front of it, but people who go in there are generally thinking why on earth did I go in there, not that it's unfair they can't advance it because of the height of the face.

[Tim Martin]

We've had this discussion about 17 at Cypress, I think. My opinion is "all things in moderation." I don't mind if it is not repetitive.


Also, I would say a "double hazard" is still better than water or OB. Nobody gets really upset about water or OB, but they are more penal. Carrying the hypothetical of it being a water hazard, you would have to take a drop, then play your next shot, likely (not always) unobstructed. You always have the option to take an unplayable and proceed in similar fashion for any hazard.


People just seem to hate being punished for bad shots, and say it isn't fair or fun. Well, I've always found the fairway to be quite fun and usually fair!

I’ve also seen the “double hazard” in the form of a tree and creek where the tree was not part of the original design.

[Matt Schoolfield]

The trees turn the bunker from being a forced lay up to basically a stroke penalty. I agree it's a poor tee shot that puts you there, but it's so much worse than just being in the rough by those trees. At least in my experience.


Separately here is something pretty cool that we got to see as a result of a tree in front of a bunker - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl_oUUQlk24

This is a good entry on how the 'double penalty' can have strategic merit. The compounding nature of the obstacles assures a strong penal result unless the player his exceptionally gifted. The question is how can this be used strategically, and I think there are more than a few places:

• Don't get greedy: one could place a 'double penalty' in the standard miss location for the ideal reachable position on a reachable par five with a friendly green. If you reach there you've easily got a putt for eagle, but if you're an inch right, you'll be playing for par when the less aggressive players are playing for birdie
• Left or right: let's say you have a columnar tree in front of a bunker that leaves an angle to each side of the green, but not directly at it. This forces a strategic decision on which side to bail out to, and pin position will make that decision more interesting.
• Get up: a tree blocking a bunker can call for a skillful shot if it the right height and in the right position. A bunker about 90 yards out, with a tall tree halfway to the hole asks the player to hit clean, full wedge as hard as they can, and they should be able to get over the tree. This shot is extremely difficult, especially when the ball isn't sitting perfectly, but it's certainly doable.

I don't like the Fair Police, think we need a Wambulance for some players who want the course to help them lower their scores, but I still think that there needs to be merit to any obstacle. I think that the shape and nature of the obstacles here can serve the strategic nature of a hole, but I could see how they can be positioned poorly as well, and just be seen as dumb.

[Rob Marshall]

Michael, as one who has played the 7th hole on the Black more times than I can count, I believe that I can safely say that hitting it into the end of the monster waste bunker and having the tree line blocking you from being able to reach this par 5 in two isn't a double penalty, rather its a poor tee shot that put one there. Whether you are in the end of the bunker or in the rough behind trees there, one can still safely punch out and play into the fairway on the left side and further down it to a spot that one can reach the green in 3. Hole that putt and you have a birdie...So why is being unable to make an eagle because one hits a poor tee shot the fault of the hole and an unfair punishment in any amount?
      By the way, where was the tee shot hit from, the original championship tee box at the beginning of the trees pointing out to the far left side of the beginning of the fairway? When the course opened for play in 1936 it measured 595 yards from there. The first person to reach it in two was Jimmy Hines who, in September 1937, hit driver and two-iron that ended up OVER the green.

If you're in that last bit of the bunker and play back out sideways to the fairway, that leaves you 240 yards from the middle of the green. If that wind is into and from the left, there are not going to be many birdie putts. Compare that with if the trees weren't there - you'd hit it to a spot about 100 yards closer to the green. The trees turn the bunker from being a forced lay up to basically a stroke penalty. I agree it's a poor tee shot that puts you there, but it's so much worse than just being in the rough by those trees. At least in my experience.


Separately here is something pretty cool that we got to see as a result of a tree in front of a bunker - [size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl_oUUQlk24[/size]

Eliminate the tree and that round would have been a half hour shorter………..

[archie_struthers]

 


I've become more of a fan of quirk and less worried about "fairness" over the last twenty years. There are more than a few trees around bunkers in Fla. where I get to play that are difficult to navigate but as Tom said you know to steer clear of. The palm trees are less bothersome in they tend to be skinny and the roots aren't a maintenance issue over time as they don't spread.

Water hazards tend to be more obtrusive to "playing" golf and limiting lesser players chances to score and navigate the course. For this reason I've never been a fan of overuse water as a forced carry in design.[size=78%] [/size]

[Niall C]

I'm not sure I see it as a double penalty. Surely it's at most the full one shot penalty in that it doesn't provide a recovery shot ? In that regard it is more akin to a water hazard I'd have thought.


Niall

[Mark_Fine]

In the case of a tree directly in front of a bunker, you usually have to ask why?  In most cases the bunker is superfluous and simply adds more maintenance or eye candy.  A bunker in front of a tree makes at least some sense as the bunker likely has much more value in its own right.  As for the tree, it is what it is, an aerial hazard. 

[Steve Wilson]

Bel Meadows, a course near Clarksburg WV was a Trent Jones design which fell upon hard times that maintenance was at a minimum.  So minimum in fact that trees actually grew in a bunker or two.  The most memorable occurrence was on the tenth, a genuine three shot part five as the green was elevated above a stream with the approach flanked by trees.  Even in the days before the tree in the right green side trap the hole was challenging but once the tree took root in the trap it was absolute death to be there.  Of course the tree kept growing.  It's been years since I played there but I also seem to recall that if you played to the front of the green from the right hand bunker your shot was apt to roll off the front of the green into yet another bunker.  Not fun at all.


The story goes that after Sam Snead played there in its early and well maintained days he advised people to play the front nine twice and avoid the back nine. 
Another story says that word reached Jones about how bad the maintenance was and he wanted his name taken off the design.  I'm not sure how that would work.  I would think it was a wish and not a demand that could be enforced.


In the late 80s and early 90s I used to go there in the summer and tee off at dawn so I would have the rest of the day for family.  On one of those occasions I bogeyed each and every hole on the front and then doubled the 10th (perhaps because of the the tree in the bunker?) and thought to myself I hope this isn't the start of nine straight double bogeys.  Instead I rode a hot putter for two under on the last eight holes.  45+36+81.  Maybe the best round I ever shot there.

[Tom_Doak]

Bel Meadows, a course near Clarksburg WV was a Trent Jones design which fell upon hard times that maintenance was at a minimum.  So minimum in fact that trees actually grew in a bunker or two.

One odd thing I noticed about High Pointe when we started rebuilding it was that there were little pine trees growing in almost every old bunker out there. All I could figure is that they held water a little better and gave the tree more chance to get started.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()