[Tommy Williamsen]

One of the nice things about travelling to course in different parts of the country is seeing the varying ways bunkers are maintained and the sand that is used.  For instance many courses in western Michigan use sand that is natural to the area.  It is not as firm as sand that we have out east nor is it as white.  But, no matter where I go courses work very hard at making sure that all the bunkers on the course play the same.  It is done under the guise of "fair."  With the new snad wedges and the sameness of every bunker I even get up and down half of the time.  I have to admit that I enjoy that aspect of having the bunkers uniformly maintained.  But in one sense my bunker skills have diminished over the years because I very seldom have to vary my shots except for distance, and sometimes height.  When someone gets in a plaace where sand has washed away and the wedge bounces ond the ball is skulled they cry," foul."  I don't want furrows as Oakmont did years ago, but wouldn't it requiire  more thought, skill, and practice if the bunkers varried a little?  What is your thinking?

[Donnie Beck]

Bunkers are hazards!!! They should not be maintained at all.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tommyw- The same could be said for greens, but you won't ever see them varied in grass height or other tests of the golfer.

The game mind is too dominate.

[Dan Herrmann]

An interesting topic...   We just discussed a CB MacDonald line that reminded golfers that bunkers are hazards in our last green committee meeting.

I think the PGA TOUR has done more to diminish the penal nature of a bunker than any other force. 

Should bunkers be left as is?  Are bunker liners bad for golf? 

Granted - this is a controversial point of view, but the economics of today's maint. budgets seem to tell me, "scale back on bunker maintenance"...

[BCrosby]

I've found over the years that the bigger variation in how bunkers are maintained by different courses is not how they are raked but how they are drained.

Some courses keep sand dry several inches down. Others not so much. My unscientific sense is that the difference is sometimes an issue of club preference and sometimes just a matter of bunkers that drain poorly.

Bob   

[Jim_Kennedy]

Poorly!

Dan,
Before there was a Tour there were disgruntled members who disliked the penal nature of their bunkers.

 

[Jud_T]

Everyone complains about escalating costs and obsolete courses. Making 'em hazards again seems like the obvious solution

[Patrick_Sisk,_CGCS]

As golf course superintendents we've become pretty darned good at producing good to excellent turf conditions on a daily basis.  Sure we can argue/discuss what constitutes fast and firm and what would be considered "ideal" playing conditions but, as a general statement, we produce some pretty good turf day in and day out.

So, what's the "New Frontier" in golf course maintenance?  Not surprising it's bunker maintenance.  The trend in bunker maintenance and construction for at least the last 15 years has been to produce surfaces that are consistent throughout the entire golf course.  Crazy drainage, obscenely priced sand and high input maintenance have all proven to be ineffective in obtaining the Holy Grail of sand hazard perfection. 

Think about the location of many of the bunkers on the courses you play, especially in relation to the location, or should I say the environment, of the putting greens.  We make every attempt to keep the putting green environment as free of adverse outside influences (shade and storm water intrusion) as possible.  Often times the location of adjacent bunkers or fairway bunkers are not as free from these influences which leads to inconsistent drainage patterns throughout the area in spite of additional drainage tile and high perk rate sand. 

When I first heard a professional golfer shout "Get in the bunker!" during a US Open I knew my professional life was about to change. I'm with Donnie on this one, although his course is one of only a handful in the world that could get away with no maintenance.  Here's an interesting statistic and I know it's not unique to Milwaukee Country Club;  We spend 3X more man hours maintaining sand hazards compared to maintaining putting surfaces.

Now to answer the question;  I feel bunkers should be maintained as the hazards they are intended to be.  Keep them as free of debris (sticks, rocks, etc.) as possible, keep a distinguishable margin (grass-sand interface) so the rules can be quickly and easily applied and rake them smooth (by the maintenance staff) on occasion.  Unfortunately I don't see how, as an industry, we can go back to "hazard maintenance" unless there is a big philosophical shift by all golfers.

Pat Sisk

[Sean Leary]

Devils Advocate position.

99 percent of the people on this site would rather be in the rough than in a perfectly manicured bunker. I have never heard anyone yell "get in the bunker". 100 % are pissed when their ball plugs.

As far as costs go, not mowing the rough saves money too. Why is there no calling for that?

[Cliff Hamm]

My solution to bunker  maintenance/cost is the opposite of penal.  Rake where your ball landed and then drop - not too high if sand is soft.  Voila!  Bunker costs are greatly reduced and most, emphasize most, golfers are happy.

[Kyle Harris]

Now to answer the question;  I feel bunkers should be maintained as the hazards they are intended to be.  Keep them as free of debris (sticks, rocks, etc.) as possible, keep a distinguishable margin (grass-sand interface) so the rules can be quickly and easily applied and rake them smooth (by the maintenance staff) on occasion.  Unfortunately I don't see how, as an industry, we can go back to "hazard maintenance" unless there is a big philosophical shift by all golfers.

Pat Sisk

Double no.

Wait..

TRIPLE NO.

It's this "defintion" thing that kills me.

A gentleman's game does not need definitions.

Do nothing to improve you lie. Simple as that.

[Patrick_Sisk,_CGCS]

Kyle,
I certainly did not advocate improving one's lie.  By "definition" are you referencing my comment regarding the margin of the hazard and turf?  In a gentleman's game such a margin shouldn't be needed, however, for championship play, and without a doubt that is the standard we as superintendents are held to, a clear margin is necessary whenever possible.

Sean,
I'm none to happy when my ball plugs either but dramatically plugged balls in a bunker are not the norm.  I would rather play from today's "consistent" sand  than from 3+" rough all day long. 

Why aren't we held to maintaining water hazards, the area of land just above the water line that is included within the margin, consistently?  I've never heard a request for that funny enough.  A hazard is a hazard and should be avoided.


Pat

[Dan Herrmann]

Amazing fact - Bruce, our Head Greenkeeper told us that the most significant factor in getting the best sand today is the cost to transport the product to the club.   

I think the days of wholesale sand replacements just because it's lost its color are over.

Actually, I don't mind inconsistent bunker conditions.  So what if I have 1/2" of sand in one bunker and 3" in another?

[Gary_K]

The one thing I notice about bunkers from course to course is how they are edged and how far the sand is rake up to the rim of the bunker.  The greens keeper and players at my home course always rake the sand up to the rim and most of the time out over the edge.  They never leave the sand down and leave a 2-3" lip, 'what if a ball ends up against the lip' is the common complaint. 

The problem I have with this is the sand is raked onto the grass, looks bad, plays bad and the same people that complain about leaving a lip complain about having to play out of a half-grass/half-sand lie.   I helped edge the bunkers several years ago, they haven't been edged since.  Frustrating.

[Ron Farris]

Bunkers are hazards!!! They should not be maintained at all.

How are you going to incorporate this mentality into the USGA and R&A?
Oh yeah, how many people are involved in raking bunkers at the Masters?
Do they rake bunkers at Pebble?

I have noticed on a few golf courses that had a lot of bunkers and quit maintaining them.  First they turn to weed patches.
Weed patches have not been to good for membership and candy bar sales in the past.  It is a tough question to answer, but in today's world LESS bunkers may be the answer, but the bunkers you do have to be more strategically located and not so much eye candy.

Played a hole with my kids today.  On the first hole we all hit our tee shots into bunkers -- different bunkers. I thought to myself, yeah the wind is blowing 30 mph and it is early in the season, so hitting into a bunker was not an issue - - staying warm was the issue. 

 
The making of a bunker at The Prairie Club #15

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

On a parkland course, just keep them consistant. They do need regular attention from staff. I think plugging balls and buried balls in bunkers upset players most of all.

[V. Kmetz]

Ron Farris said "It is a tough question to answer, but in today's world LESS bunkers may be the answer, but the bunkers you do have to be more strategically located and not so much eye candy."

I so very much agree...I truly believe that if you let me have a 100 yard wide fairway but put a small irrecoverable pot bunker 240-260 out in any third that represents the best approach angle, it would govern my play as convincingly as ankle high rough or massive aesthetic bunkers or a pond or O.B stakes or dunes do bordering a 30-50 yard wide fairway on many courses that we play today.

I realize that it wouldn't challenge the crack player or have the same effect on their scoring as mine (probably very little for me, massive for them), but I'm really not concerned with them and most of the TV courses they play on.

As to the topical point of "conditioning" my only problem with the literalist, "hazards are supposed to be hazardous" argument is that also as true as that extrapolation is another that says, "yes, hazards ARE indeed hazardous, but they are supposed to be avoidable, like a true 'hazard' is in daily life."  Hazards by nature are exceptional things, not a regular condition (perhaps for the mentally ill or those who perform dangerous career functions).  They are often notorious and as such, avoidable by design and execution.  You may not take the shorter - but hillier and unsalted route - if the roads are icy.  You know not to touch and to steer clear of a downed power line.  Restaurant menus warn you of shellfish and rare meat...

I'll tone down this metaphor of literalism to silly Golf, if those who believe hazards should be "whatever" would acknowledge when sand hazards routinely pock the greensides and driving zones of even the great classic courses there has to be a greater level of equanimity in general bunker conditions.  If the bunkers are to be unraked they ought to be sparse and hard-pannnish to start with.  And generally consistent, raked bunkers do not steal fortune from its rightful place in golf if they are going to be numerous near the target areas.

To me this is the nihlism of 17th Sawgrass...the shot has one result that doesn't bear any good fortune, just bad.  Those who would point to Tiger's ball hanging on the right fringe in the 94 Amateur to refute my theory, I ask two things:

1.  Was the shot a well-played shot or an indifferent poor shot? (Remember it came to rest less than 15 feet from the hole in the crucial moment of the championship which neither teen comeptitor had won yet)

2.  Would your view of Question 1 change if it checked further and went into the water?

Anyways, that was more than solicited...

cheers

vk

[Carl Rogers]

Bunkers should not be so impossible as to prevent escape in any manner and thus allow the player to finish the hole and the round and record a score.  I have faced this terrible issue more than once and I am a mid single digit handicapper better at the bottom of the bag than at the top.

More severe bunkers need better maintenance to prevent this problem  Less severe bunkers require less maintenace.
That's the dynamic in my mind.

[Craig Sweet]

We eliminated several bunkers last fall and enlarged most of our bunkers to accommodate a sand pro....the days of hand raking every bunker at our course is over...for now. We sand pro the bunkers everyday and finish them off with a hand rake around the edges....we have added a broom to the sand pro as well....we have no more than a 1 inch lip in front, a two inch lip in back.

Our members like the consistency, and "fluffiness" that the sand pro is giving them.  They tell us they don't want us to do anything to make the course harder, but they want us to make the course easier.  And that is all you need to know about bunkers in a nutshell....don't do anything to make the course harder, don't make it easier.  Personally, I like them too!

Our sand comes from Idaho and is pretty expensive....but in a "taste test" our members preferred it two 4 alternatives. In the past it tended to compact and get "crusty"....that is no problem now thanks to the sand pro....the time it takes to do bunkers is about 6 hours for one person...that is blowing debris, sand pro, and finishing with a hand rake of the edges.

[Jason Topp]

My favorite bunkers to play out of were those in Australia - rock hard on the flashings and highly variable at the bottoms.  It added the skill of reading the lie to bunker play and you were required to hit a different shot every time.  Despite the variability you did almost always have some sort of shot available to you, which I think is preferable to unmaintained bunkers.

[Tim Nugent]

Not all Hazards are meant to be equal nor extract the same amount of Penalty.  Before you can get into this delemma, one must first decide what amount of penalty is to be extracted, a partial stroke, one stroke?  In fact, even all bunkers should not be expected to carry the same amount of penalty, as all bunkers do not have the same "reason for being".  Some challenge re: Risk/Reward, others are for definition and still others are to save one from a worse fate.

I think bunker maintenance as gone overboard - as witnessed by Craig's post, Broom-finishing? Really? Come on.  Bunkers weren't raked to afford players consistancy, rather to prevent vegitation from gaining a foothold.  Ego-centric players just assumed it was for their benefit and the ret is history.  Don't blame the super's - they're just trying to make their players happy.

As far as just eliminating "eye-candy" bunkers (whatever that means, all my bunkers have a purpose -whether every golfer can or does understand it) and just concentrating on "strategic" bunkers? we've been don that road before and it lead to the design mentality of the 60's/70's.  Sorry, but dumbing down the design isn't the answer.

[Craig Sweet]

Tim...we are giving the members what they want. If the members said they wanted  little to no maintenance of bunkers I am sure most supers would jump for joy!

[Patrick_Mucci]

My theory is that modern irrigation systems probably did more to accelerate the need for grooming bunkers than almost any other factor.

Before the early automated irrigation systems, which were crude, general application systems, hand watering was more restricted to the putting surfaces.  Once irrigation systems became common it wasn't uncommon for bunkers to be saturated, eroded, etc.,etc..

This caused clubs to groom their bunkers every morning to offset the prior evenings effects.

In addition, algae began to take hold, tainting and discoloring the sand, again, causing additional maintainance practices to be instigated.

Wet bunkers tend to be more difficult for the mid to high handicapper, thus, even more grooming occured.

This process led to more uniform bunkers.

When coupled with the televising of PGA Tour, where bunkers were almost pristine in nature, it led to the "headset" at local clubs that bunkers had to be perfectly conditioned.

This process, taking about a half a century, won't be easy to reverse.

How many times do you hear golfers complain that someone forgot to rake the bunker and now they have to suffer with a less than desirable lie.

Bunkers have transitioned from HAZARDS to simply sanded areas.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Mike_Young]

Tim...we are giving the members what they want. If the members said they wanted  little to no maintenance of bunkers I am sure most supers would jump for joy!

Craig,
With all due respect for supts....I don't know that all would jump for joy.  I see more and more supts that use the excuse of "reputation" when  they are asked to cut back or reduce maintenance.  And I understand where they are coming from....but I have seen several use the "reputation" reasoning to not reduce maintenance of particular features....I don't know how we will overcome that one....

[Tim Nugent]

Tim...we are giving the members what they want. If the members said they wanted  little to no maintenance of bunkers I am sure most supers would jump for joy!
[/quote

Craig, like I said said ... "don't blame the supers".  It's not their fault the inmates are running the aslyum.]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()