Do Bunkers Represent the Same Strategic Value They Once Did?

[Ian Andrew]

I watched a presentation on bunker maintenance this week. In the presentation the speaker talked about the cost of maintaining “tournament” quality bunkers for every day play. His talk covered sand selection, bunker preparation and included the use of custom tools and techniques designed to get the ball away from the faces of the bunkers. He shared with us that 25% of the club’s maintenance budget is being used on maintaining the bunkers.

In his presentation he touched on two key points and both got me thinking about how much bunker maintenance is undermining strategy.

While talking about the techniques they use he said “the player expects the ball roll down the faces of the bunker and end up in the middle.”

Being in this position provides a player with a flat lie with enough room to comfortably get over almost any face even in fairway bunkers. If the ball has rolled to this position the ball will sit almost completely on top of the sand and allow for a cleaner contact than the rough. In fact in many instances this lie will allow the player to control the shot through the additional spin they can place on the ball.

Throw in the improvements in the ball and the use of patterning on the face designed to add spin and the players are in a much better position to score from the bunkers than in the past.

The bunker (in theory) is supposed to be a lost stroke unless an exceptional shot is played to save that stroke. I’m not sure if that is the case anymore. Apparently the average tour player is just shy of 50% around greens for sand saves and the best professionals are close to 60%. That’s not much of hazard when you compare that to rough and even some short grass situations.

The speaker continued with “The players expect every bunker shot to be played from consistent conditions.”

What he might as well of said is the player expects the ball to sit up in a perfect lie every time. We spend an enormous amount of money in construction techniques, in maintenance and on “creating” specialized sand designed to provide the perfect combination of firmness and moisture content. Essentially a lie in a hazard is being designed to be perfect every time.

A bunker is supposed to provide a consequence for making either a poor decision or failing to execute a shot. Strategy is created through the balance of risk and opportunity and the decisions that come with assessing what lies between you and the hole. If there is no consequence there is no risk and therefore the strategies are weakened by this fact. A perfect lie in the bunker every time removes a large portion of the risk.

Are we maintaining bunkers to the point of reducing their strategic value.

[jeffwarne]

 He shared with us that 25% of the club’s maintenance budget is being used on maintaining the bunkers.
[/i]

It probably wouldn't matter what he said after that.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ian

Simple answer to your question is No.

Reasons hard sand, shallow bunkers, gives no deterrent or equates to a sand trap.
Modern course are raked against the old idea of leaving them alone, so you not only get caught in a bunker but also in a foot print to add that little extra spice.
How many course have fairway bunkers (I mean on the fairway not on the cusp of the rough) or a pair of pot bunkers guarding the approach to a Green

No IMHO modern bunkers are pussycats

[Peter Pallotta]

It seems to me Ian that there's been some kind of give-and-take at work over the years, i.e. the more bunkers that architects litter throughout a golf hole the less each individual bunker represents a challenge/penalty/choice.  It is as if architects periodically decide to use the number of bunkers instead of the severity of bunkers for strategic purposes -- and this of course drives up maintenance costs, since not only are there more bunkers to take care of but also those bunkers have to be regularly de-clawed, since they can't been seen as being as severe as a single bunker on a hole is expected to be.

Peter

  

[Tim_Weiman]

Ian,

When Sand Ridge opened in Cleveland about fifteen years ago, a number of the bunkers were definitely strategic thanks to the very fine, fluffy sand that came out of adjacent Fairmont Minerals quarry. I remember being told the USGA was very interested in the type of sand used as a means to make bunkers a real hazard.

Don't know how the years have treated these bunkers or how the USGA now thinks about such sand.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian,

My guess is that the great RR was the speaker.
I played his course on Friday

He's a very special human being and the consummate superintendent.

I believe that grooming combined with equipment have diminished their effectiveness.

Bunkers are more consistent, less numerous,  shallower, configured more regularly, perfectly maintained and when you factor in the introduction of the Lob wedge, less penal, ergo less strategic.

Where is "Steamshovel" Banks when you need him ?

Golfers today are not as hardy as golfers a generation or two removed

[Mike_Young]

Ian,
I think you are correct.  But I don't think it is the maintenance level as much as the knowledge that they will all be maintained to a specific level.  IMHO if the golfer has no idea as to what a lie in a bunker will give him before the shot then he is much more likely to play to the "inside of the pin" than if he is not worried about the penalty of being in the bunker.  So I think lack of consistency is the key to adding strategic value .  JMO

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

I believe that modern day bunkers have reversed tactical play.

In the past one would avoid being short sided in a bunker, whereas today, I think that's the preferred location

[Mike_Young]

Mike Young,

I believe that modern day bunkers have reversed tactical play.

In the past one would avoid being short sided in a bunker, whereas today, I think that's the preferred location

Pat,
That's what I'm trying to say.  If the modern player didn't know what conditions he would have when he got to a specific bunker his head would be messed up before the approach.  I think we are saying the same thing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I think so, in addition, given a green side bunker or gnarly green side rough, I'd prefer the green side bunker.

[Mark Saltzman]

Pros aside, what % of golfers prefer to be in bunkers? Especially fairway bunkers.

Also keep in mind that at the vast majority of golf courses (anecdotally) the rough is very short and a non-issue. 

I believe that the vast majority of golfers still work hard to avoid finding bunkers, probably because they refuse to work at all to learn how to get out of them!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pros aside, what % of golfers prefer to be in bunkers? Especially fairway bunkers.

Mark,

WHY would anyone prefer to be in a fairway bunker ?

Also keep in mind that at the vast majority of golf courses (anecdotally) the rough is very short and a non-issue. 

That's not true in the NY MET area.

I believe that the vast majority of golfers still work hard to avoid finding bunkers, probably because they refuse to work at all to learn how to get out of them!

I don't believe that most golfers seek to avoid them as a target preference.  I think most golfers attempt to hit their target, and a small percentage focus on the bunkers near their target
Avoidance is situational.
Everyone would prefer to avoid them in favor of a better alternative, but that's not how the game is played when the alternative is not more favorable (gnarly green side rough) or a hazard or OB on the other side

[mike_beene]

We get lulled into thinking they are no problem because half the time a pro gets up and down.They are even then serving their function and extracting a reasonable nonautomatic penalty of more than half a shot.If 1.7 putts is average per green in regulation,then not only is a bogey happening half the time the pro bunkers,but the lost birdie opportunity must be factored.

[Sean_A]

If we are talking strictly strategic value, it could be argued that a chance for a par saving recovery makes the bunkers even more important and more in play if guys are willing to flirt with them.  If a player wants to avoid a bunker at all costs it is much more like a penal feature. 

Although, I would much rather see far less bunkering, more on the scale of Augusta, and have what is there better placed and very nasty.  However, so long as 75-100 bunkers is the goal (and it seems to be due to lazy architecture), I don't think it is wise to make them (as a whole) very nasty.   

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

I think they do if they limit the distance the distance the player can hit the ball from them. This means smaller and deeper. Also, I only rake my bunkers about once a month. There are rakes but I let the golfer know it is their responsibility to clean up after themselves. I do only have 6 on my 9 holes

Jon

[Jeff_Brauer]

I still say yes, they are strategic, maybe moreso. 

At the very least, if maintenance has evolved enough to make them "easy" to play out of, then design can evolve to restore some of the required difficulty, i.e., depth.  BTW, its also an equipment issue, although one would presume that when "all" bunkers become perfectly smooth, then the sand wedge will be eliminated (for thoes courses anyway) giving the golfers another option for a more useful club, too.

That said, I also fall in the camp of the possibility that old time bunkers were too difficult, not that today's are too easy.  Certainly, Bobby Jones thought so when he built Augusta.  Any thinking golfer will most likely just avoid multi stroke penalty bunkers like they avoid the water or OB.  I believe that to challenge any bunker, players need a sense that they have a 66% chance of clearing/skirting it, and a similar chance of recovery, or they just play wide.

Not to say a hole with just one really well placed bunker cannot have that one deeper.

Lastly, why is it we always bring the Tour Pros into it, and think of design in terms of what stops them?  They constitute about 0.000001% of play.  Is it worth designing just for them, anywhere except on a TPC course?

[BCrosby]

Finding a greenside bunker does not wiegh on the scales as heavily as it once did. I don't think there is much question about that. As dawn follows the night, that also reduces their strategic value.

Bob

[Tyler Kearns]

Pros aside, what % of golfers prefer to be in bunkers? Especially fairway bunkers.

Also keep in mind that at the vast majority of golf courses (anecdotally) the rough is very short and a non-issue. 

I believe that the vast majority of golfers still work hard to avoid finding bunkers, probably because they refuse to work at all to learn how to get out of them!

I agree with Mark, the vast majority of golfers fear greenside bunkers, and they do serve their strategic function. For better amateurs and professionals, the bunkers are more like a half-stroke penalty, which to me, doesn't seem out of balance. If they were maintained less and offered a wider range of lies, it probably wouldn't make much difference to those who already fear bunkers, and would add some challenge and uncertainty for the better players. You never know how your ball will lie in the rough, and therefore, a similar situation should present itself in bunkers.

TK

[Adam Lawrence]

I wonder if this is another example of the gap between top and ordinary golfers getting wider? For sure, for good golfers, bunkers, especially greenside ones, are less of a challenge than they used to be. But I am not seeing much evidence that 14-20 handicappers have suddenly got a lot better at getting out of them.

[Niall C]

Interesting discussion. As to Ian's initial question I suppose the answer is no in so much as they aren't as penal as they used to be but on the other hand I would still prefer to have a chip across a green than to be shortsided in a bunker if I was looking to score. However as to which shot I would prefer to play, I have to say there is a lot of satisfaction in playing a good bunker shot. Especially a fairway bunker. Playing mostly links courses as I do, I don't get the chance to hit long bunker shots out of fairway bunkers. More often than not I'm looking to hit out sideways.

I still recall with clarity a couple of shots from fairway bunkers at San Lorenzo and Victoria a number of years back (I won't bore you with the details) but can hardly recall with any detail let alone affection a sideways shot out of a pot bunker.

Niall

[JMEvensky]

I wonder if this is another example of the gap between top and ordinary golfers getting wider? For sure, for good golfers, bunkers, especially greenside ones, are less of a challenge than they used to be. But I am not seeing much evidence that 14-20 handicappers have suddenly got a lot better at getting out of them.

Agreed.For a good player,a bunker is usually a haven.For a bad player,a bunker is always hell.

The saddest part is that clubs spend 20%-25% of their entire maintenance budgets on making hazards easier for a small handful of players.The overwhelming majority of members receive no benefit from one of the budget's biggest line items.

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

To the guy who said he was spending 25% of the maintenance budget on the bunkers, did anyone say, "Stop it!" ?

There is no question that bunkers have less strategic relevance than before, because the penalty is less.  What Adam says is true, that 18-handicappers aren't much better at getting out of bunkers than they ever were; but I still don't think they fear the bunkers as much as those players used to.

Indeed, I would guess it's a relatively small percentage of players who even think about bunkers strategically at all.  The majority of players grab driver off the tee no matter where the fairway bunkers are, and they aim for the flag (or the middle of the green) on any approach shot inside 200 yards, without regard to where the greenside bunkers are.  I love to build green sites that are heavily defended on one side and more or less open on another side, but I don't know that the bunkers on the one side see much less action as a result.

[Chris Kane]

Indeed, I would guess it's a relatively small percentage of players who even think about bunkers strategically at all.  The majority of players grab driver off the tee no matter where the fairway bunkers are, and they aim for the flag (or the middle of the green) on any approach shot inside 200 yards, without regard to where the greenside bunkers are.  I love to build green sites that are heavily defended on one side and more or less open on another side, but I don't know that the bunkers on the one side see much less action as a result.

I agree with this. That being the case, does it impact your thought process when designing strategic features for the majority of players who don't engage with the strategy? Or do you simply design for the small number who do think about what they're doing, and let them enjoy the advantage of this?

[JMEvensky]

To the guy who said he was spending 25% of the maintenance budget on the bunkers, did anyone say, "Stop it!" ?

Within the last couple of years,the USGA published,or posted on its website, a paper using 20%-25% as the "average". It's a staggering waste of budget money that could be better used elsewhere.I'll bet a lot of clubs are now coming to this realization.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

I believe that twin deep pot bunkers (Old Scottish style – soft sand - penal) based say upon twinning the Road Hole Bunker to guard the approach of the Greens may be an answer, but who is willing to be penal in front of a Green these days?