[Forrest Richardson]

I have two thoughts on this — well, three:

1.  It is one of the most encouraging PGA undertakings in recent times.

2.  Arthur Jack Snyder, who used (and fabricated) furrowed rakes while he was at Oakmont, often remarked "...once you get used to hitting out of furrowed traps, it becomes easy — in fact, you always have sand to cushion the shot with furrows." Jack heard this from Lew Worsham with whom he often spent time discussing Oakmont and changes which were made to the course — and the traps*.

3.  In response to J. McKenzie, who says, "I just don't think it should play a larger role than it does naturally.  Furrowed bunkers provide lies that are too random..."  Really? I think we need to go back to nature — nature is 100% random when it comes to pits, hollows and dunes. In nature we have areas which are compacted, others which are loose with sand and debris. If anything, a furrowed bunker (see Snyder's comments in "2" above) is a trump to randomness.


*Yes, "traps" — that is what they were called in Western Pennsylvania in early days.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Forrest,

It makes you wonder if the PGA Tour has any other ideas with respect to course conditions.

I'd like to know what their position is, with respect to distance.

A contributor to this site engaged in a recent conversation with a high ranking PGA Executive.
One of the focuses of the discussion was distance.
As I understand it, while the executive acknowledged the problem with driving distance, he indicated that few were focused on the distance problem with irons, where players were hitting 5 and 6 irons 220 yards, with trajectories associated with 5 and 6 irons.

I wonder if the furrowed bunkers are a trial balloon for other forays.

[Mark_Fine]

First of all, I did not mean to imply that luck and skill are equally weighted.  It makes no sense to put a percentage weighting on the two.  What I meant is that luck should play a role and the more we try to eliminate and/or mitigate it, the more "sterile" our playing fields become.  Soon we will be dropping our golf balls out of fairway divots because "it is not fair".  Balls that find a uneven lie in the "rough" will be allowed to be moved to a more "consistent" lie so everyone has the same type shot.  I could go on.

A bunker is meant to be a "hazard".  It is not supposed to be consistent (or fair).  It is supposed to be dangerous, ramdon, unpredictable, something to avoid.  Sometimes you luck out and draw a good lie and sometimes you don't.  As Mike DeVries once said, "It's a hazard.  Deal with it."  

Jack is trying to make bunkers hazards again.  

[J_McKenzie]

Forrest,

By random I mean chance, as in sometimes you may be on top of the furrow, playable, and sometimes at the bottom between two furrows, unplayable.  And furrows certainly don't seem to me to be natural, they are created, and can be spaced differently depending on the rake.

Please don't misunderstand my stance as all bunkers need to be of a uniformly spec'd sand that is perfectly manicured.  All I am saying is that  tournament golf should be set up to let skill determine the end result, without increasing the role that luck is always going to play anyway.  And I realize that bunkers are meant to be a hazard or a "trap", but they also weren't used as frequently in design as they are now.

John

[J_McKenzie]

Mark,

We both agree that it shouldn't be eliminated, I don't think it can be.  But I also don't believe it should be elevated to play a larger role than it already does, especially in tournament golf.  

John

[Mark_Fine]

John,
Not sure how many British Isles courses you have played but there are a lot of bunkers over there.  Play TOC a few times and you might gain a different perspective on bunkers and rub of the green.

[Forrest Richardson]

Pat — I don't know what the PGA Tour is doing...or not doing. Probably best that way!

McKenzie — It is an interesting discussion. As I mentioned, Lew Worsham thought hitting from a furrowed trap was, in some ways, easier because you always could count on loose sand being present to cushion the shot. Balls rarely come to rest on top of a furrow — you will nearly always find them between the ridges.

The aspect of furrows which is probably best "random" is the angle of the furrows to the target. Perpendicular is easiest. Hitting with the direction of furrows (or at a slight angle) can be difficult. Most furrows at Oakmont, as I recall, were raked perpendicular to the direction of the hole.

[Anthony Butler]

One thing not mentioned in this thread is that luck is something you need a lot more when you hit anything other than a good shot. i.e. Your ball usually doesn't hit the middle of the green and carom wildly into a bunker-if conditions make that a possibility it is something the player usually knows about before playing the shot.

Lots of trees are planted on golf courses. When you hit your ball in among them you can draw a crappy lie and you can be blocked from the correct path of play for your next shot... on the other hand your ball can finish up a couple feet away with a good lie and a clear shot. Should we take out the trees because it introduces an element of randomness? Any time a ball lands on uneven surface, luck comes into it. Hit a good shot and the chances of bad luck fall exponentially. Hit a bad shot and the reverse happens.

If we change this equation too much, we are in danger of turning golf into real-life video game.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()