Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Tom_Doak on November 27, 2019, 01:21:12 PM
-
As most of you know, I don't often start theoretical topics here, because I don't like to be tied down to anything when I am out building a golf course.
But I promised last week I might post this, and I have officially tired from discussing rankings, so, here it is: my theory of bunkering.
Years ago, when the Slope System for course rating was just being introduced, Pete Dye had me spend a day with the main statistician behind it, Dean Knuth, to see if he had learned something from the data that should alter how we design golf holes.
Mostly, it’s a gross oversimplification. In fact, strategic design seemed to be mostly omitted from the numbers, as if people’s misses were entirely at random, instead of in predictable patterns. The difficulty rating for green side bunkering, for example, references what percentage of the green is surrounded by bunkers — but it doesn’t matter what side they are on! And the difficulty rating for fairway bunkers is all based on how many bunkers are in play 250 yards or 200 yards off the given tee — other distances are ignored.
Last year, when we started working on the design for Memorial Park, at the suggestion of a couple of other GCA posters, I dug into Mark Broadie’s book, which outlines how the pros attack a course. Those concepts were mostly reinforced by my conversations with Brooks Koepka, and with Butch and Claude Harmon. Tour pros decide their aim points based on water hazards, boundaries, or obstacles [trees] that would cost them a shot if they get tangled up. Today's perfectly groomed bunkers [unless of the revetted variety] just don’t rise to that level of hazard. If Brooks is in the sand 150 yards from the green, it’s better than being in the rough; if he’s in a bunker by the green, he’s “trying to hole it.” That was the rationale for not building many bunkers at Memorial Park.
However, if you extend Mark Broadie’s logic to the average golfer, bunkers for them are a real menace, and strategic bunker positioning should have a huge impact on the lines of play — more and more so for the bad bunker player. Women golfers seem to understand this — they aim away from bunkers like the plague. But most men do not give bunkers near enough leeway, and pay the price.
Of course, if you surround the green with bunkers - or just put one to either side - then for the “C” player who struggles with bunker play, you are only offering two options: either aim to the center of the green, or lay up short of the bunkers. A course which kept presenting those two choices would get boring pretty quickly.
All of this dovetails nicely with my own lifelong preference in bunkering, which is to *almost* always try to make the bunkers next to a green look imbalanced and asymmetrical.
There are three reasons for this approach:
1. Asymmetrical positioning looks more natural. [Nature is not formal: that’s why I hate the Biarritz hole.]
2. As Mr. Dye taught me, even the professionals tend to hedge toward safety when they see it, and the only thing you can really do to make the approach shot harder for them is to try and get them to aim away from the hole. So the question is whether they really do not think about the bunkers at all. If they think about them even a tiny bit, then a bunker hard up against one side of the green will get them aiming to the other side.
3. For the average player, I am always giving them a safer side to bail out to, if they are not up to the challenge. Occasionally, that bailout might be “long”, but I would guess that I’ve only built one or two holes per course [if not less] that really gave you no miss but to lay up. This also tends to deliver a very low Slope Rating to my courses, not that I really care. Opting out of taking on the trouble is not going to produce a very low score, but I'm okay if it's easier for the average guy to break 100.
As to fairway bunkering, following the same logic, it’s pretty rare for me to bunker both sides of a fairway. I will do it occasionally, just for variety, or where the landforms are compelling, or because I’m trying to make you hit away from something.
When we did pinch the landing area on the 9th hole at Sebonack, left and right, I was startled to find out that Jack Nicklaus objected quite strongly to that. He said he NEVER pinches a fairway like that; instead, he will stagger bunkers up the fairway - left at 220 yards, right at 265, left at 300 - to make the player choose a side. [I did not ask him, but there was a quote from Jack a long time ago how he used to play exhibitions on new RTJ courses back in the 1960’s and how much he hated the un-strategic bunkering in the landing areas - I’m guessing he vowed never to do that.]
I admire Jack’s idea, in theory, but any theory does start to become repetitive after a while, and more importantly, the landforms do not often set up at the perfect distances for you to follow his approach. I tend to place fairway bunkers where the landforms suggest them, and design the rest of the hole around that. [Of course, I have set myself up for that by routing a hole seeing where the potential bunkers might be.]
I do love seeing cross bunkers and interrupted fairways, on older courses, but it is very hard to incorporate them into modern designs because they inevitably don’t work well for one tee or another. I know that Gil Hanse likes to build a “great hazard” into his courses, so apparently I did not do a good enough job of drilling into him what Alice Dye drilled into me about how debilitating such features can be for women golfers. [If you have never had to chip up to the edge of a hazard so you could try to carry it with your next shot, you’re in no position to @ me.] I get a lot of compliments from women golfers about our work, and most of the credit for that should go to Pete and Alice [and to my mom, who was one of those players Alice was concerned about].
So, those are my tendencies in bunkering. If I had an intern handy, I’d have him sketch out a few of my holes as illustrations, but if you look at Google Earth you will see how rarely Pacific Dunes has fairway bunkers on both sides of holes, or bunkers even 1/4 of the way around the greens. As George Thomas observed, even if the bunker is shallow and not much penalty for those in it, it poses a significant challenge to all the players who miss wide of it and have to pitch over it to the green, so I tend to be sparing with my greenside bunkers.
I have realized over the years this is why a lot of people think my par-3 holes are not up to snuff — because a lot of famous par-3 holes are virtually surrounded by trouble, and mine nearly always give you an out. [Even the 7th at Barnbougle.] And I have started bunkering my par-3’s more tightly, since it’s easier to rationalize that you have more control over where various golfers are approaching from. But there are still lots of golfers who can’t fly the ball 140 yards to a target and make it stop, and they tend to be the same people who really struggle out of bunkers, so, I’ll take the heat for giving them a way to play the hole.
Please note that these are my strong tendencies, not absolute rules of design. I make exceptions wherever I see fit, and my associates sometimes get a bit carried away when I’m gone [especially the younger ones]. But the rationale behind my approach is pretty strong, and I feel that it’s one of the things that sets my work apart, that no one has ever pointed out in print.
Just for fun, I looked at the three courses at Streamsong, to see if we were all different in our approach to green side bunkering. I was surprised to find that the Red course was pretty similar to the Blue - Bill does tend to put bunkers front-and-center more than I do, but most of his greens have an open side, as I described. The Black course, also, has a lot of short grass around the greens, which are already ginormous because some of what was planned as chipping area is mowed at green height. So I guess, in that sense at least, we are all minimalists at heart, and don’t feel like it is always necessary to introduce a bunker to make the hole interesting.
-
"3. For the average player, I am always giving them a safer side to bail out to, if they are not up to the challenge. Occasionally, that bailout might be “long”, but I would guess that I’ve only built one or two holes per course [if not less] that really gave you no miss but to lay up. This also tends to deliver a very low Slope Rating to my courses, not that I really care. Opting out of taking on the trouble is not going to produce a very low score, but I'm okay if it's easier for the average guy to break 100."
Tom - this was most interesting to me. For the card-and-pencil types, the truth [or at least the 'truth' as I experience it in myself and the majority of average-to-decent golfers with whom I've played] is that our 'scores' are usually the kindest and most generous way to analyze our rounds. We always know, in our heart of hearts, how we actually 'played' on a given day -- and that metric, more often then not, paints a less rosy picture of where we're at with our games than do our scores. And it often tells us [though we don't share it with others, or sometimes even with ourselves] that the bogey we walked off the green with on a hole like the one you describe was not in fact caused by a 'slightly yanked putt' or a 'less than our best chip' or by a 'very tough green to read' or an 'almost unfair pin placement', but instead by the choice -- or accident -- of bailing out long, a choice we made because we don't have the confidence and/or may not have the skill to take on and challenge the 'less safe' side. But as I say, we don't often admit that to ourselves, opting to blame a momentary lapse in talent and then to (almost happily) 'mark down a 5' or 'take a 6' rather than to recognize that the architecture itself, the design, presented us with a 'problem' we were unable and/or unwilling to successfully 'solve'. And why is that? Because that recognition, coupled with the course's low Slope Rating, would show us much too clearly for our tastes how good -- i.e. not so good -- we are at the game of golf.
All of which is to say: I think the complaints by some decent golfers about courses having a low Slope Rating are usually & merely the last refuge of the delusional, and of the intentionally self-deluded! Present company excluded :)
-
The pros really are ridiculous out of the sand. In that area, the gulf between them and even a scratch amateur tournament player is massive. I attribute it to the modern perfect sand. It is so good that a pro can nearly master it through practice because the lies are always the same.
I've seen many courses switch sand from the old fluffy brown stuff to the best sand and the courses have become easier due to it.
The one course where I still fear the bunkers and actively avoid them is Lawsonia. Part of it is that the lies are unpredictable due to their conditioning, but the flat lies with the big grass walls are just a difficult combination. On most courses, in a tournament setting, I do game plan around fairway bunkers, but not really greenside. The reason is that you can select difference distances to hit it off the tee with a certain degree of reliability. On approach shots, it is more whether you hit it well or have a random miss.
-
Tom:
Excellent post, so much to unpack and chew on. A few thoughts from a high capper who fits the description of your average player, especially with how poorly i recover from fairway bunkers:
1) While I agree that bunkers are certainly something that we avoid,(speaking for myself only), I don't avoid them in the same ways. For example a straight forward green-side bunker with a relatively easy recovery to a flattish green is barely something I even factor on the approach shot, especially if it won't leave me short sided. But a big nasty steep bunker where the top of the flagstick is barely visible is an entirely different animal all together. Sometimes I avoid these even more than a water hazard, (which i knows sounds illogical).
2) It seems you build "more difficult than average" bunkers for the weekend joe and they certainly get my attention. And I don't have a problem with this, if you're gonna put a hazard in place, may as well be such. The most difficult of these as I recall were at Pac Dunes, especially the green side bunkers above the green where you're left with a downhill shot to a green running away from you. For a high capper these are just brutal like the one at 16 PD where it ended as a ESC pickup. :) In general thou, your bunkers certainly seem to defend par better than most, but perhaps that's just due to most of my rounds being played on DS 2-4 public courses.
3) I think where a lot of high cappers get in trouble with green side bunkers is wanting to make that perfect recovery to save par, which is often a fools errand. I almost always just try to make sure i'm out, somewhere on the green within 20 feet or so, and taking double out of the equation.
P.S. Not trying to throw shade, but you have built at least two Biarritz greens that I know of, which seems odd give your disdain of them. ;)
-
Fascinating subject. One of the great puzzles within golf, the interface between options, temptation, course management, visuals and upkeep.
What's shown in the photo below might make a few tour pros (and others) approach the game in a different way although I believe something similar was tried at the Memorial Tournament some time ago and it didn't go down well with the pampered ones.
And of course there's always the situation where the bunker isn't the worst hazard ... the worst hazard being on the opposite side of the fairway/green, the side where the players thinks it's safer to go.
atb
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-iMAPjWkAARspN.jpg)
-
Questions:
1. What landforms are sufficiently compelling to site a bunker?
2. Do you believe that it is possible to design a course that challenges the Tour pro while still being fun for the 15 handicapper? (i.e. that the winning score for the former will be south of -20 (-10 to -19) and that the latter can shoot <100 from the daily tees under similar conditions.)
3. Will Memorial be an example of this? Can you cite others?
4. Are bunkers in heavy soil sites even necessary? Because of tradition, expectations, or as genuine design features that add challenge, variety and interest?
-
Wonderful post Tom.
One of the holes on the course I grew up on is much like this at the greensite. Left of the green is a bunker. Right of it is open. From the fairway it looks like the obvious place to miss it is to the right. But to the right are mounds and the green slopes from right to left, so the ball is running away from you from a potentially awkward lie. I have a suspicion that the average score on the hole is higher than it would be if the bunker were on both sides of the green. Ever since then I've thought it particularly clever of the architect to entice someone away from the green, but putting them in a bad spot when they do.
An extreme version of this is 13 at Pine Valley. You stand in that fairway with a longish iron and you're got all of New Jersey to the right and the end of the world to the left. I played that hole three times and I couldn't get myself to hit it anywhere other than 10 yards right of the green. Then you've got just an awful shot from up there with the green sharply sloping away from you. Such a difficult hole, but again I think it would be easier if the green was surrounded by the bunkers (like say 7 is).
-
2) It seems you build "more difficult than average" bunkers for the weekend joe and they certainly get my attention. And I don't have a problem with this, if you're gonna put a hazard in place, may as well be such. The most difficult of these as I recall were at Pac Dunes, especially the green side bunkers above the green where you're left with a downhill shot to a green running away from you. For a high capper these are just brutal like the one at 16 PD where it ended as a ESC pickup.
I agree that the downhill shot out of a bunker is particularly difficult for poorer golfers -- and for me, personally. For that reason I have usually minimized building them. Pacific Dunes probably has the most of any of my courses, because I was going for the full MacKenzie look, and he loved those bunkers behind the green.
-
Lou:
Answers in red.
Questions:
1. What landforms are sufficiently compelling to site a bunker?
It depends on the hole, but for the most part I prefer to build bunkers into an abrupt natural rise or shoulder.
2. Do you believe that it is possible to design a course that challenges the Tour pro while still being fun for the 15 handicapper? (i.e. that the winning score for the former will be south of -20 (-10 to -19) and that the latter can shoot <100 from the daily tees under similar conditions.)
Scoring is SO dependent on weather [ie wind and firm surfaces] that it's difficult to answer this question. Most GCA posters who have played The Renaissance Club would attest that it is a pretty hard course by my standards, yet when they had soft conditions and little wind, there were several guys at -20 or better. I don't really care if they shoot those scores, as long as the players have to grind on some holes, but there wasn't much of that at the Scottish Open this summer.
3. Will Memorial be an example of this? Can you cite others?
Our focus for Memorial Park was to have an exciting finish. The 13th and 17th are both potentially drivable par-4 holes; the 14th a short par-5, and the 16th a dangerous but reachable 5; and the 15th is a 140-yard par-3 with lots of trouble around it. All of those holes could see three-shot lead swings, but they aren't going to "defend par" that well, and that does not bother us.
Memorial Park DID have some trees for us to work with, but the corridors were wide enough that the pros can play away from them. The main courses that deliver what you have asked are parkland courses like Riviera or those in the northeast, where a wayward drive will cost the Tour pro. But most sites for new courses don't have big trees like that to work with. Achieving what you asked for on an open site is getting almost impossible any more: you've got to dry the place out and get lucky with some wind, or somebody's going to shoot -20.
4. Are bunkers in heavy soil sites even necessary? Because of tradition, expectations, or as genuine design features that add challenge, variety and interest?
They are not necessary, but at Memorial we started with 56 bunkers, and we thought people would have a fit if we took it to zero. So we wound up at nineteen.
I do think you can have plenty of GOLFING challenge, variety and interest using other features besides bunkers. But I question whether most sites would provide enough VISUAL variety and interest without some amount of bunkering: I think the feedback would be, "all the holes look the same". This is particularly true of golf holes that are lined both sides by trees [or homes!] . . . indeed I got started on my bunker-happy days at Black Forest, because we thought that the course would just feel dark without some beautiful white sand for contrast.
I can't help but think how many people have told me that the 16th at Crystal Downs is their least favorite hole because there is "no strategy" to it, when they really just mean it's a par-5 with no fairway bunkers.
I am working on a project in California now that has all sorts of other features to provide interest: rock outcroppings, cliffs, streams, big oaks, little oaks, tawny native roughs, vineyards, etc. If ever there was a site that didn't really need bunkers, it's the one. But I'm not sure if the client will be comfortable with that, and there are a few places where a bunker would make a better transition from the green to the stream than a "buffer zone" of long grass they won't let us mow. So I doubt we will wind up at zero bunkers there. I bet we have less than nineteen.
-
Tom,
Streamsong Blue 17 and 18 have a version of a great hazard. On 17 it provides a difficult but reasonable dilemma for all but perhaps the longest hitters regardless of tee selection. On 18 though, unless a man or strong woman player is playing from the incorrect tees, the bunkers seem to affect primarily the average woman player. I believe my wife navigated to the left. It is a fitting finish to the course precisely because it is different from much of the rest (same reason I liked number 9), but I do wonder about the bunkers as they relate to women in light of your OP.
Ira
-
Wonderful stuff Tom. Theories of bunker placement aren't written about much these days. Most talk today is about the 'look' of bunkers: the shape of their brows, the artistry of their caps and bays, their filigree edges, the whiteness of the sand and so forth. So it's good to hear someone spend time on his thinking about why he puts bunkers where he does. It is, after all, the only attribute of a bunker that affects how you play a hole.
Your post is reminder that theories of how bunkers should be located were central to early debates about strategic golf architecture. Starting about 1901 (Low, Colt) and over the next couple of decades clashes over different theories of how bunkers should be placed was one of the key fights in golf architecture. There were relatively few references in those fights to the 'look' of bunkers. I have always assumed that was because bunker aesthetics was not seen as an important issue. There were bigger fish to fry. I note with pleasure that you also have relatively little to say about bunker aesthetics.
Peter - The below is wonderful. It reminds me of a Bernard Darwin essay (forget the title) in which he confesses that he should be negotiating bunkers like a "timid rabbit", but also confesses that he is doesn't do so because of how embarrassing it would be to be seen laying up or playing safe. My read of his essay is that for all the talk about strategic choices, it is often concerns over getting razed by your buddies that wins out.
"3. For the average player, I am always giving them a safer side to bail out to, if they are not up to the challenge. Occasionally, that bailout might be “long”, but I would guess that I’ve only built one or two holes per course [if not less] that really gave you no miss but to lay up. This also tends to deliver a very low Slope Rating to my courses, not that I really care. Opting out of taking on the trouble is not going to produce a very low score, but I'm okay if it's easier for the average guy to break 100."
... We always know, in our heart of hearts, how we actually 'played' on a given day -- and that metric, more often then not, paints a less rosy picture of where we're at with our games than do our scores. And it often tells us [though we don't share it with others, or sometimes even with ourselves] that the bogey we walked off the green with on a hole like the one you describe was not in fact caused by a 'slightly yanked putt' or a 'less than our best chip' or by a 'very tough green to read' or an 'almost unfair pin placement', but instead by the choice -- or accident -- of bailing out long, a choice we made because we don't have the confidence and/or may not have the skill to take on and challenge the 'less safe' side. But as I say, we don't often admit that to ourselves, opting to blame a momentary lapse in talent and then to (almost happily) 'mark down a 5' or 'take a 6' rather than to recognize that the architecture itself, the design, presented us with a 'problem' we were unable and/or unwilling to successfully 'solve'. And why is that? Because that recognition, coupled with the course's low Slope Rating, would show us much too clearly for our tastes how good -- i.e. not so good -- we are at the game of golf. All of which is to say: I think the complaints by some decent golfers about courses having a low Slope Rating are usually & merely the last refuge of the delusional, and of the intentionally self-deluded! Present company excluded :)
-
Great stuff Tom!! Thanks for sharing your insights. I am just off a job site myself. I might even share your post/thoughts when I go back with some of the course's management. When all finished, we will end up with around 30 bunkers vs the 40 the course had before the renovation. Every bunker that remains will have been either added/rebuilt/reshaped/repositioned,..., impacted in some way. It was an old Gordon course and very formulaic (greenside bunkers right and left on almost every hole) which I really don't care for. Frankly your thought process with bunkers is similar to what I have employed.
-
Tom,
Streamsong Blue 16 and 18 have a version of a great hazard. On 16, it provides a difficult but reasonable dilemma for all but perhaps the longest hitters regardless of tee selection. On 18 though, unless a man or strong woman player is playing from the incorrect tees, the bunkers seem to affect primarily the average woman player. I believe my wife navigated to the left. It is a fitting finish to the course precisely because it is different from much of the rest (same reason I liked number 9), but I do wonder about the bunkers as they relate to women in light of your OP.
Ira
Ira:
I think you mean 17 and 18. Yes, they are exceptions to my rule of thumb. The 18th is probably excessive, but if you can't carry the bunker you are not going to get home in two, anyway, and it's only 100 yards if you lay up and take your medicine. In that sense, it's kind of a scaled-down version of the 17th, where you and I have to lay up pretty close to the fairway bunkers with our second if we want to get home in three.
-
I'd be interested in folks thoughts on this - the bunker on the 2nd hole at Cleeve Cloud in relation to the hole, which is circa 360 yds uphill and usually into the wind, the green surrounds, the contours of the putting surface, the general slope and the overall terrain.
Bunker above green. No bunker below.
Options, temptation, course management, up-n-down potential/challenge, rainwater runoff, visuals, construction, upkeep etc.
The hole plays-in diagonally up the hill from the left in the first photo.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7847/31571012587_d9d053e82a_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4867/31571013107_48b0d68030_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4428/36571441641_8b5a07bae8_b.jpg)
atb
-
Much of this discussion should occur within the context of bunker maintenance. If Tour Pros had to play out non-maintained bunkers, like many us, they would be aim away.from them.
-
I'd be interested in folks thoughts on this - the bunker on the 2nd hole at Cleeve Cloud in relation to the hole, which is circa 360 yds uphill and usually into the wind, the green surrounds, the contours of the putting surface, the general slope and the overall terrain.
Bunker above green. No bunker below.
Options, temptation, course management, up-n-down potential/challenge, rainwater runoff, visuals, construction, upkeep etc.
The hole plays-in diagonally up the hill from the left in the first photo.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7847/31571012587_d9d053e82a_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4867/31571013107_48b0d68030_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4428/36571441641_8b5a07bae8_b.jpg)
atb
ATB
Lets put it this way. In its current form I would rather the bunker was removed. I don't know how the bunker could be visually improved while being meaningful and easy to maintain, but I am confident good archies can pull it off. That said, I am not sure that is the place for sand. I could see a Kington like earthwork serving the green better.
Generally, Cleeve Cloud should remove greenside bunkers and add fairway bunkers. I have said it before, but a new bunker scheme at Cleeve Cloud would work wonders.
Happy Thanksgiving
-
As most of you know, I don't often start theoretical topics here, because I don't like to be tied down to anything when I am out building a golf course.
But I promised last week I might post this, and I have officially tired from discussing rankings, so, here it is: my theory of bunkering.
Years ago, when the Slope System for course rating was just being introduced, Pete Dye had me spend a day with the main statistician behind it, Dean Knuth, to see if he had learned something from the data that should alter how we design golf holes.
Mostly, it’s a gross oversimplification. In fact, strategic design seemed to be mostly omitted from the numbers, as if people’s misses were entirely at random, instead of in predictable patterns. The difficulty rating for green side bunkering, for example, references what percentage of the green is surrounded by bunkers — but it doesn’t matter what side they are on! And the difficulty rating for fairway bunkers is all based on how many bunkers are in play 250 yards or 200 yards off the given tee — other distances are ignored.
Last year, when we started working on the design for Memorial Park, at the suggestion of a couple of other GCA posters, I dug into Mark Broadie’s book, which outlines how the pros attack a course. Those concepts were mostly reinforced by my conversations with Brooks Koepka, and with Butch and Claude Harmon. Tour pros decide their aim points based on water hazards, boundaries, or obstacles [trees] that would cost them a shot if they get tangled up. Today's perfectly groomed bunkers [unless of the revetted variety] just don’t rise to that level of hazard. If Brooks is in the sand 150 yards from the green, it’s better than being in the rough; if he’s in a bunker by the green, he’s “trying to hole it.” That was the rationale for not building many bunkers at Memorial Park.
However, if you extend Mark Broadie’s logic to the average golfer, bunkers for them are a real menace, and strategic bunker positioning should have a huge impact on the lines of play — more and more so for the bad bunker player. Women golfers seem to understand this — they aim away from bunkers like the plague. But most men do not give bunkers near enough leeway, and pay the price.
Of course, if you surround the green with bunkers - or just put one to either side - then for the “C” player who struggles with bunker play, you are only offering two options: either aim to the center of the green, or lay up short of the bunkers. A course which kept presenting those two choices would get boring pretty quickly.
All of this dovetails nicely with my own lifelong preference in bunkering, which is to *almost* always try to make the bunkers next to a green look imbalanced and asymmetrical.
There are three reasons for this approach:
1. Asymmetrical positioning looks more natural. [Nature is not formal: that’s why I hate the Biarritz hole.]
2. As Mr. Dye taught me, even the professionals tend to hedge toward safety when they see it, and the only thing you can really do to make the approach shot harder for them is to try and get them to aim away from the hole. So the question is whether they really do not think about the bunkers at all. If they think about them even a tiny bit, then a bunker hard up against one side of the green will get them aiming to the other side.
3. For the average player, I am always giving them a safer side to bail out to, if they are not up to the challenge. Occasionally, that bailout might be “long”, but I would guess that I’ve only built one or two holes per course [if not less] that really gave you no miss but to lay up. This also tends to deliver a very low Slope Rating to my courses, not that I really care. Opting out of taking on the trouble is not going to produce a very low score, but I'm okay if it's easier for the average guy to break 100.
As to fairway bunkering, following the same logic, it’s pretty rare for me to bunker both sides of a fairway. I will do it occasionally, just for variety, or where the landforms are compelling, or because I’m trying to make you hit away from something.
When we did pinch the landing area on the 9th hole at Sebonack, left and right, I was startled to find out that Jack Nicklaus objected quite strongly to that. He said he NEVER pinches a fairway like that; instead, he will stagger bunkers up the fairway - left at 220 yards, right at 265, left at 300 - to make the player choose a side. [I did not ask him, but there was a quote from Jack a long time ago how he used to play exhibitions on new RTJ courses back in the 1960’s and how much he hated the un-strategic bunkering in the landing areas - I’m guessing he vowed never to do that.]
I admire Jack’s idea, in theory, but any theory does start to become repetitive after a while, and more importantly, the landforms do not often set up at the perfect distances for you to follow his approach. I tend to place fairway bunkers where the landforms suggest them, and design the rest of the hole around that. [Of course, I have set myself up for that by routing a hole seeing where the potential bunkers might be.]
I do love seeing cross bunkers and interrupted fairways, on older courses, but it is very hard to incorporate them into modern designs because they inevitably don’t work well for one tee or another. I know that Gil Hanse likes to build a “great hazard” into his courses, so apparently I did not do a good enough job of drilling into him what Alice Dye drilled into me about how debilitating such features can be for women golfers. [If you have never had to chip up to the edge of a hazard so you could try to carry it with your next shot, you’re in no position to @ me.] I get a lot of compliments from women golfers about our work, and most of the credit for that should go to Pete and Alice [and to my mom, who was one of those players Alice was concerned about].
So, those are my tendencies in bunkering. If I had an intern handy, I’d have him sketch out a few of my holes as illustrations, but if you look at Google Earth you will see how rarely Pacific Dunes has fairway bunkers on both sides of holes, or bunkers even 1/4 of the way around the greens. As George Thomas observed, even if the bunker is shallow and not much penalty for those in it, it poses a significant challenge to all the players who miss wide of it and have to pitch over it to the green, so I tend to be sparing with my greenside bunkers.
I have realized over the years this is why a lot of people think my par-3 holes are not up to snuff — because a lot of famous par-3 holes are virtually surrounded by trouble, and mine nearly always give you an out. [Even the 7th at Barnbougle.] And I have started bunkering my par-3’s more tightly, since it’s easier to rationalize that you have more control over where various golfers are approaching from. But there are still lots of golfers who can’t fly the ball 140 yards to a target and make it stop, and they tend to be the same people who really struggle out of bunkers, so, I’ll take the heat for giving them a way to play the hole.
Please note that these are my strong tendencies, not absolute rules of design. I make exceptions wherever I see fit, and my associates sometimes get a bit carried away when I’m gone [especially the younger ones]. But the rationale behind my approach is pretty strong, and I feel that it’s one of the things that sets my work apart, that no one has ever pointed out in print.
Just for fun, I looked at the three courses at Streamsong, to see if we were all different in our approach to green side bunkering. I was surprised to find that the Red course was pretty similar to the Blue - Bill does tend to put bunkers front-and-center more than I do, but most of his greens have an open side, as I described. The Black course, also, has a lot of short grass around the greens, which are already ginormous because some of what was planned as chipping area is mowed at green height. So I guess, in that sense at least, we are all minimalists at heart, and don’t feel like it is always necessary to introduce a bunker to make the hole interesting.
Tom,
You do not directly cover centerline bunkers. There are several at Streamsong Blue (particularly appreciated the one on number 8 and a few at Pacific Dunes. Do you have a philosophy or tendency about them? Are Par 4s and Par 5s different?
Thanks,
Ira
-
Tom,
You do not directly cover centerline bunkers. There are several at Streamsong Blue (particularly appreciated the one on number 8) and a few at Pacific Dunes. Do you have a philosophy or tendency about them? Are Par 4s and Par 5s different?
Centerline bunkers seem appropriate to me in settings where you have plenty of width, but much less so when the golf corridors are narrowed by trees or dunes, where they effectively become cross bunkers.
I prefer to use them on shorter par-4's [where laying up does not put you out of range of the green], or on the second shots of par-5's [same reason, plus on the second shot you are not as obviously punishing a player of a certain length].
I have occasionally used them in the drive zone for longer holes, but when you do that you have to choose who you are messing with and who you are giving a pass: the guy who hits it 240, or 270, or 300? I'd rather not be that proscriptive.
-
Tom,
You do not directly cover centerline bunkers. There are several at Streamsong Blue (particularly appreciated the one on number 8) and a few at Pacific Dunes. Do you have a philosophy or tendency about them? Are Par 4s and Par 5s different?
Centerline bunkers seem appropriate to me in settings where you have plenty of width, but much less so when the golf corridors are narrowed by trees or dunes, where they effectively become cross bunkers.
I prefer to use them on shorter par-4's [where laying up does not put you out of range of the green], or on the second shots of par-5's [same reason, plus on the second shot you are not as obviously punishing a player of a certain length].
I have occasionally used them in the drive zone for longer holes, but when you do that you have to choose who you are messing with and who you are giving a pass: the guy who hits it 240, or 270, or 300? I'd rather not be that proscriptive.
I like centre line bunkers as distinct from 90* crossing bunkers which I pretty much detest. However, it's interesting how the classic centre line bunkers at the Principal's Nose on the 16th at TOC get (rightly imo) a lot a praise and seem to have been regularly copied but the centre line bunkers on the par-5 6th at Carnoustie don't seem to particularly attract praise (or be copied).
Both nastily penal if you get in them and both have a narrow alley between them and the OB and lots of space on the other more open side.
Is it because the 16th at TOC is a par-4, and it's a kind of a golfing convention, one I happen to disagree with, that it's okay to lay-up or carefully position a tee shot on a par-4 whereas on a par-5 it's more conventional that players should 'wack it' rather play more positionally?
atb
-
it's interesting how the classic centre line bunkers at the Principal's Nose on the 16th at TOC get (rightly imo) a lot a praise and seem to have been regularly copied but the centre line bunkers on the par-5 6th at Carnoustie don't seem to particularly attract praise (or be copied).
Both nastily penal if you get in them and both have a narrow alley between them and the OB and lots of space on the other more open side.
Is it because the 16th at TOC is a par-4, and it's a kind of a golfing convention, one I happen to disagree with, that it's okay to lay-up or carefully position a tee shot on a par-4 whereas on a par-5 it's more conventional that players should 'wack it' rather play more positionally?
I did build a couple of par-5 holes early in my career with a Principal's Nose-type feature -- if you laid up short of it, you had no chance to get home in two. I thought it was a great idea, because if you did go in the bunker, being able to hit the bunker shot a little farther was massively important to getting home in three. No one I know ever told me they liked those holes, though. :(
-
it's interesting how the classic centre line bunkers at the Principal's Nose on the 16th at TOC get (rightly imo) a lot a praise and seem to have been regularly copied but the centre line bunkers on the par-5 6th at Carnoustie don't seem to particularly attract praise (or be copied).
Both nastily penal if you get in them and both have a narrow alley between them and the OB and lots of space on the other more open side.
Is it because the 16th at TOC is a par-4, and it's a kind of a golfing convention, one I happen to disagree with, that it's okay to lay-up or carefully position a tee shot on a par-4 whereas on a par-5 it's more conventional that players should 'wack it' rather play more positionally?
I did build a couple of par-5 holes early in my career with a Principal's Nose-type feature -- if you laid up short of it, you had no chance to get home in two. I thought it was a great idea, because if you did go in the bunker, being able to hit the bunker shot a little farther was massively important to getting home in three. No one I know ever told me they liked those holes, though. :(
Rather sad. And somewhat of an indicement of players expectations and thought processes. :(
Atb
-
Today's perfectly groomed bunkers [unless of the revetted variety] just don’t rise to that level of hazard. If Brooks is in the sand 150 yards from the green, it’s better than being in the rough; if he’s in a bunker by the green, he’s “trying to hole it.” That was the rationale for not building many bunkers at Memorial Park.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EKlAhdpWsAArGxm?format=png&name=900x900)
150 yards out and:
FWY: 76.1% GIR, 25'3" average proximity.
RGH: 46.6%, 52'10"
BNK: 45.2%, 67'9"
From greenside, he might be thinking of holing it, but odds are he's going to make as many threes from there as pars, and will almost never hole it.
-
Today's perfectly groomed bunkers [unless of the revetted variety] just don’t rise to that level of hazard. If Brooks is in the sand 150 yards from the green, it’s better than pretty much the same as being in the rough; if he’s in a bunker by the green, he’s “trying to hole it.” That was the rationale for not building many bunkers at Memorial Park.
150 yards out and:
FWY: 76.1% GIR, 25'3" average proximity.
RGH: 46.6%, 52'10"
BNK: 45.2%, 67'9"
From greenside, he might be thinking of holing it, but odds are he's going to make as many threes from there as pars, and will almost never hole it.
My statement is amended above. Also, those stats are for the "average bunker", if they average in a few revetted bunkers, then the numbers might actually favor a "regular bunker" over rough.
-
My statement is amended above. Also, those stats are for the "average bunker", if they average in a few revetted bunkers, then the numbers might actually favor a "regular bunker" over rough.
How many revetted bunkers are there on the PGA Tour?
I get your point, Tom… of course, mine is just that, at the end of the day, the rough and bunkers are still fairly penal to PGA Tour players. They're equivalent to a drive in the fairway that's about 60-70 yards further back. Often, for the long hitters, they're only missing two more fairways per round, but still… there are others who miss 4 more per round, and have to rely on weeks (Cameron Champ?) when the driver is hot or the course is VERY wide or a bunch of things going right that week.
-
How many revetted bunkers are there on the PGA Tour?
I get your point, Tom… of course, mine is just that, at the end of the day, the rough and bunkers are still fairly penal to PGA Tour players. They're equivalent to a drive in the fairway that's about 60-70 yards further back. Often, for the long hitters, they're only missing two more fairways per round, but still… there are others who miss 4 more per round, and have to rely on weeks (Cameron Champ?) when the driver is hot or the course is VERY wide or a bunch of things going right that week.
Sorry, the source of the statistics was not identified, just that it was Tour players.
If the stat you gave is correct, then geez, it seems like it would matter quite a bit to strategy if the ball were rolled back just far enough that players were left with 150 yard approach shots on long par-4's, instead of 100-125. If you add 60 to 150, it would make their scoring average go up enough that they would think more about the fairway.
-
;) 8)
I've got a good one for you armchair architects that fits right into the bunker vs rough analysis.
Philadelphia Country Club in is a beauty of a Flynn, even though its got a lot of competition in Philly to make his top three. The 14th hole has bugged me for years and I've postulated on it more than a few times here. Its a good par four that plays downhill to a fairway that is canted left to right. Now i'm a huge Flynn fan but I hate the elbow bunker on the left side of the fairway in the driving zone. Its big and fairly benign, no lip to speak of and I'd much rather be there than in the rough surrounding it.
More to the point its ugly, breaking the line of charm that runs down the left side all the way to the green. So, its not strategic and its not pretty but it might be original. Once upon a time I thought that the powers that be might listen to my logic as to why it must go! Despite multiple entreaties in various states of sobriety there has been no change to date. Oh well, you are never a prophet in your own land :-X
-
Archie,
You mention the “line of charm” in your post and that the bunker you don’t like is in that line of charm. It has been a while since I played that hole, but maybe that bunker is really in the "line of play" or as Max Behr would say, the “line of instinct”. He said that “the direct line to the hole is the line of instinct and to make a good hole you must break up that line in order to create the line of charm. Maybe the bunker is placed well but has been changed in shape or depth or evolved poorly? Maybe the grassing lines are also wrong. Hard to know for sure without studying the hole and its evolution.
-
;D
Mark, I'm of the opinion that this could be one of the beat holes on the golf course with a few little tweaks and one major one, that being bulldozing that bunker. Perhaps one of our guys here can post a photo or google earth image. The beauty of the hole is that it tempts you to play it down the left side if that bunker wasn't there.
This bunker really bugs me for some reason. Again I love Flynn's work, the hole has a fantastic green and the view from the tee would be so much better IMHO if they pulled this one out. Of course this might open up another can of worms as to whether you can pull anything out that the original architect of this quality thought was of value. I even researched old pix of the hole hoping someone other than Flynn had stuck it in there.
-
While I haven't played any of his courses, how do DMKs hairy bumps play for various skill levels? I know some think they're ugly, but I kind of like the look of them and it seems they would be less maintenance than bunkers...
(https://golfadvisor.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/fcdcb2e/2147483647/strip/true/crop/640x360+0+60/resize/900x506!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgolfadvisor.brightspotcdn.com%2F67%2F5e%2F95fa54c9ce478198bbeecdb50b8b%2Fp.php)
-
While I haven't played any of his courses, how do DMKs hairy bumps play for various skill levels? I know some think they're ugly, but I kind of like the look of them and it seems they would be less maintenance than bunkers...
(https://golfadvisor.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/fcdcb2e/2147483647/strip/true/crop/640x360+0+60/resize/900x506!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgolfadvisor.brightspotcdn.com%2F67%2F5e%2F95fa54c9ce478198bbeecdb50b8b%2Fp.php)
I think pretty much all of those were eliminated / mowed down after a year or two of play.
Also, not the sort of feature I would want named after me, as a designer.
-
Not a big fan of eyebrows as a player, though the rustic look is appealing when not overdone. I don't like the double whamy of weeds and natives in bunkers (e.g. the yucca at Prairie Dunes #5) or trees in or on the greenside of fairway bunkers (e.g. Cog Hill 4).
My first exposure to eyebrows was at Texas Star, a wonderful upscale muni designed by Keith Foster. I played the course in the first weeks of opening with a local architect, years ago when we could still hit the ball. On the first hole he hits a big drive down the right side of the fairway, clearing a flanking bunker that pinched into the fairway. Unfortunately, it didn't carry the natives growing outside the greenside lip and though we searched in and all around for five minutes, the ball was lost. The brows were repeated frequently throughout the course and apparently they caused so much trouble that they NLE.
With my apologies to Bill Vostinak (Redanman) if he happens to look in, I appreciate directional and framing bunkers. I also like cross bunkers on rises that I can see and easily carry with a good shot- they typically catch my eye and serve to distract, sow doubt, and play tricks on perception (typically making the green or target area closer). I don't like blind bunkers, especially behind high ground just short of the green (Pete Dye at Long Cove and Stonebridge Ranch).
-
It’ll be interesting to hear the feedback once you guys get out to Sheep Ranch next year.
-
Joe - haven't you been out there? Did I miss it (on here), i.e. a description of the work you've been doing?
I don't think I've ever seen that photo/those bunkers. I like them. I know that the right and proper view is that bunker placement is much more important than bunker appearances, and that's true. But I think anything that enhances in any way the visual impact/intimidation of a bunker is a very good thing -- always, but especially when the architect gives plenty of room to play safe.
-
Peter,
I have been out there recently, and, no, I didn’t have anything to do with Sheep Ranch.
I think the place is spectacular, as much of the character of its original form has been retained. But, the “bunker” will garner some attention. Some look like abandoned bunkers that have been grassed through, while others are what I describe as “faultline” bunkers....they look like there was a shift in the earth that raised portions of ground that the grass grew over. I like them, but the trick will be to keep the grass from getting too thick and penal. They’ll work great if people can find their golf balls and hit recovery shots. They’re not a lot different than the eyebrows posted, but smaller in scale, generally.
Just as in this thread and some reactions to eyebrows, I suspect the empty shells of bunkers and the faultline bunkers will get mixed reactions because they’re different.
-
2) It seems you build "more difficult than average" bunkers for the weekend joe and they certainly get my attention. And I don't have a problem with this, if you're gonna put a hazard in place, may as well be such. The most difficult of these as I recall were at Pac Dunes, especially the green side bunkers above the green where you're left with a downhill shot to a green running away from you. For a high capper these are just brutal like the one at 16 PD where it ended as a ESC pickup.
Had a few of these before the renovation, interesting all par 3s and you had to carry water in front so I was in these bunkers a lot. Because there was minimal lip and no rough between the bunker and green I got pretty good at putting out of them. Guess I should have practiced the “proper” shot but I enjoyed the other challenge.
Post- renovation, big lips and rough so no more putter. Sigh.
I agree that the downhill shot out of a bunker is particularly difficult for poorer golfers -- and for me, personally. For that reason I have usually minimized building them. Pacific Dunes probably has the most of any of my courses, because I was going for the full MacKenzie look, and he loved those bunkers behind the green.
-
Bunker maintenance today makes it where the main reason for bunkers is contrast in color. If sand were green we would all see bunkering in a different light...short grass allows a short side shot to run out, a bunker stops it...JMO
-
Bunker maintenance today makes it where the main reason for bunkers is contrast in color. If sand were green we would all see bunkering in a different light...short grass allows a short side shot to run out, a bunker stops it...JMO
The game seems to be more and more about ‘the look’ and less and less about ‘the golf’ these days. Makes rural and rustic courses ever more appealing (at least to some of us).
Atb
-
ATB
The look of bunkers is important, but not a deal breaker.
My general theory of bunkering is short and sharp
1. FEW bunkers
2. FORCEFULLY placed
3. FIERCE in terms of difficulty and looks
Happy Hockey
-
ATB
The look of bunkers is important, but not a deal breaker.
My general theory of bunkering is short and sharp
1. FEW bunkers
2. FORCEFULLY placed
3. FIERCE in terms of difficulty and looks
Happy Hockey
I’ll go with the first two on the proviso on No.1 that you still provide the “right” amount of bunkers to assist the hole’s strategy.
Not so gone on No.3 though. I like fierce in difficulty (to make people avoid them) although I like variety in difficulty and you have to consider that some members really cannot get out of them at all - end of round in stroke play.
Fierce in terms of looks certainly sometimes. But again, I prefer them not forced in to your face and am quite fond of the difficult bunker that sits subtly - sometimes innocuously - on to the landscape.
But I’m guessing you would agree?
-
Ally
Sure, it's just a general guideline and there is always room for exceptions...check that, exceptions are necessary.
I guess my angle is if the bunker isn't attractive and difficult, there may well be a better alternative. Living in GB&I with nearly all the best courses on good soils and turf, it's easy to forget how awkward sand can for the vast majority sites. Of course, these days, with maintenance costs unnecessarily ramped up in pursuit of playing perfection and attractiveness, even bunkers on sensible sites has to be questioned. It doesn't look as though costly maintenance trend will soon end. The obvious alternatives are artificial solutions which hold up better over time, accept less pristine bunkers or employ fewer bunkers. I personally would opt for fewer and more fierce (less maintained) bunkers. But then I find the less maintained bunkers far more attractive than the ultimate counterpart if Muirfield bunkers. In fact, in a very real way, Muirfield is the opposite of where I think courses should be heading. In that regard it isn't too different from Augusta.
Happy Hockey
-
The rule changes introduced last year could have had a considerable effect on all aspects of bunkering. However, the rule authorities decided to introduce a 2-shot penalty should a player wish to drop out of bunker.
With a 2-shot penalty players are more likely to give a shot a go, whereas only a 1-shot penalty ought to change a players thinking, which then has other implications for bunkering in general.
If they had made this a 1-stroke penalty, ie the same penalty as dropping out of other hazards, then a variety of possibilities would exist with regard to bunkering - possibilities with regard to maintenance, cost, playability, strategy, speed of play, excitement, temptation, options, scoring etc. A poor show and a flunked opportunity by the authorities imo, one that they should amend.
Atb
-
8)
Thomas that's a great point about the penalty being two shots was silly. If it was one you are correct that it would have a much greater impact !
-
The rule changes introduced last year could have had a considerable effect on all aspects of bunkering. However, the rule authorities decided to introduce a 2-shot penalty should a player wish to drop out of bunker.
With a 2-shot penalty players are more likely to give a shot a go, whereas only a 1-shot penalty ought to change a players thinking, which then has other implications for bunkering in general.
If they had made this a 1-stroke penalty, ie the same penalty as dropping out of other hazards, then a variety of possibilities would exist with regard to bunkering - possibilities with regard to maintenance, cost, playability, strategy, speed of play, excitement, temptation, options, scoring etc. A poor show and a flunked opportunity by the authorities imo, one that they should amend.
Atb
Disagree.
A bunkered ball and a ball within a penalty area are not like situations.
- “The question of bunkers is a big one and the very best school for study we have found is along the seacoast among the dunes. Here one may study the different formations and obtain many ideas for bunkers. We have tried to make them natural and fit them into the landscape. The criticism had been made that we have made them too easy, that the banks are too sloping and that a man may often play a mid-iron shot out of the bunker where he should be forced to use a niblick. This opens a pretty big subject and we know that the tendency is to make bunkers more difficult. In the bunkers abroad on the seaside courses, the majority of them were formed by nature and the slopes are easy; the only exception being where on account of the shifting sand, they have been forced to put in railroad ties or similar substance to keep the same from blowing. This had made a perfectly straight wall but was not done with the intention of making it difficult to get out but merely to retain the bunker as it exists. If we make the banks of every bunker so steep that the very best player is forced to use a niblick to get out and the only hope he has when he gets in is to be able to get his ball on the fairway again, why should we not make a rule as we have at present with water hazards, when a man may, if he so desires, drop back with the loss of a stroke. I thoroughly believe that for the good of Golf, that we should not make our bunkers so difficult, that there is no choice left in playing out of them and that the best and worst must use a niblick.”
-
Nice quote from 103 years ago.
If a ball is lodged under the lip of a bunker and a player has several attempts at extracting the ball striking simultaneously the sand, the ball and the bunker face is it a good or bad thing?
atb
-
Nice quote from 103 years ago.
If a ball is lodged under the lip of a bunker and a player has several attempts at extracting the ball striking simultaneously the sand, the ball and the bunker face is it a good or bad thing?
atb
One may take an unplayable lie in that situation but in doing so must remain in the bunker. This is a like situation being treated alike without removing the condition of the bunker.
If the embedded ball is above the margin of the bunker, the player is not in the bunker.
-
:P :-\ :-[
Kyle has a point re: taking a drop within the bunker. My thought remains that two shots will be too much penalty. Better to have left the rule unchanged.
-
???
Kyle you must know the 14th hole at Philly CC. Whats your thought on that bunker on the left side in the driving area. It's an itch that won't go away lol
-
Nice quote from 103 years ago.
If a ball is lodged under the lip of a bunker and a player has several attempts at extracting the ball striking simultaneously the sand, the ball and the bunker face is it a good or bad thing?
atb
If the embedded ball is above the margin of the bunker, the player is not in the bunker.
Wait - I had that situation this year, playing at Tara Iti (17th hole).
Once the ball embeds under & above the lip, what are my options?
Also, technically there are no bunkers at Tara Iti anyway- all the sand is through the green (or whatever it's called now - sigh).
-
Not convinced. Embedded ball is of course a different matter.
What about a physically weak or less skilled player who doesn’t have the strength or skill to extract the ball and thus has repeated efforts at doing so whilst holding up his/her playing partners and the group behind and also becoming frustrated with golf? A good or bad aspect of the game?
Atb
-
I agree with David. A 1shot penalty drop situation makes it a reasonable and fun risk should one fail to carry some horrible pit of doom. A rule such as this would, I believe, give more archies a free hand at designing harsher bunkers. Plus, treating all penalty areas the same makes sense and rightly simplifies rules. As the rules are now, it is difficult to understand why a bunker dishes out a worse penalty than a lost or OOB ball.
Happy Hockey
-
Reading this thread, I realized that as an average golfer playing with many other average golfers I'd say: Thank God for bunkers, and difficult ones at that.
Without them, it's only our own many miscues and myriad of poor shots and wide variety of missed chips and misplayed recoveries that get us in trouble and that send our scores soaring. But with them, we are in a sense redeemed -- we can truthfully and without self-delusion/embarrassment point to the architect-created hazard for our woes instead of to ourselves.
It's the difference between dying by the sword in a fierce battle against the Orcs (while in service to our King) and breaking our necks slipping on a banana peel (while in a bathrobe getting the Sunday flyer from the mailbox).
-
Nice quote from 103 years ago.
If a ball is lodged under the lip of a bunker and a player has several attempts at extracting the ball striking simultaneously the sand, the ball and the bunker face is it a good or bad thing?
atb
If the embedded ball is above the margin of the bunker, the player is not in the bunker.
Wait - I had that situation this year, playing at Tara Iti (17th hole).
Once the ball embeds under & above the lip, what are my options?
Also, technically there are no bunkers at Tara Iti anyway- all the sand is through the green (or whatever it's called now - sigh).
Per definition of bunker:
A specially prepared area of sand, which is often a hollow from which turf or soil was removed.
[/size]These are not part of a bunker (https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/definitions.html#_48799f00-3458-47e7-8d74-63a79607e3fb)[/i][/url]:[/size][/size]A lip, wall or face at the edge of a prepared area and consisting of soil, grass, stacked turf or artificial materials,
[/color]- Soil or any growing or attached natural object inside the edge of a prepared area (such as grass, bushes or trees),
- Sand that has spilled over or is outside the edge of a prepared area, and
- All other areas of sand on the course (https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/definitions.html#_19dea94e-2caf-4569-bbe5-38e082845c2c)[/i][/url] that are not inside the edge of a prepared area (such as deserts and other natural sand areas or areas sometimes referred to as waste areas).[/size][/font]
The old definition of the bunker had a key phrase I don't see in the current one, namely that the margin of the hazard/bunker extends below but not above the place where the sand meets the turf or the soil.
If Tara-iti is defining everything as the general area (through the green) then you get to proceed under the embedded ball rule unless it's sand, see the video below - the location of which may look familiar to you.
https://www.usga.org/videos/2016/05/25/160524-uswafb_rules-bunkers-mp4-4911537928001.html (https://www.usga.org/videos/2016/05/25/160524-uswafb_rules-bunkers-mp4-4911537928001.html)
Thomas Dai,
Your answer supposes and assumes that every golf course needs to be for every golfer.
I can't dunk, but I don't demand that every basketball rim be lowered to accommodate my lack of athleticism in that regard. I either don't play basketball (I don't) or I find a league and location that has a setup to accommodate my skill level.
Golf courses serve the rules - not the other way around. If a golf course is overly penal in terms of bunkers and that is so prohibitive to influence your game I would suggest that it's either not a good golf course for you or perhaps you need to practice so much that you're not in so many bunkers that it causes a problem.
Same goes for OB and Water Hazards - if there are so many that it becomes impossible or not fun to play the problem is with the golf course, not the rule!
That was Hugh Wilson's whole point. And it lead to the "white faces of Merion!"
-
Still far from convinced Kyle, quite the opposite in fact.
Atb
-
Still far from convinced Kyle, quite the opposite in fact.
Atb
As embedded in opinion as the balls you espouse to be a problem? :D
Perhaps the fundamental question is whether or not extracting one's self from a bunker is a fundamental aspect of golf? The rules, after all, do not allow us to pardon ourselves from tee shots we find overly difficult.
-
I wouldn't say golf courses serve the rules. I would say the rules and golf courses serve golfers.
Happy Hockey
-
Still far from convinced Kyle, quite the opposite in fact.
Atb
As embedded in opinion as the balls you espouse to be a problem? :D
Perhaps the fundamental question is whether or not extracting one's self from a bunker is a fundamental aspect of golf? The rules, after all, do not allow us to pardon ourselves from tee shots we find overly difficult.
Takes two to tango! :)
... but the rules do allow us to pardon ourselves from all sorts of sins, and hazards.
If administered properly however, the rules, the golf course and the game in general should fit and work together and in doing so enhance and opportunitise the game for all.
Atb
-
Still far from convinced Kyle, quite the opposite in fact.
Atb
As embedded in opinion as the balls you espouse to be a problem? :D
Perhaps the fundamental question is whether or not extracting one's self from a bunker is a fundamental aspect of golf? The rules, after all, do not allow us to pardon ourselves from tee shots we find overly difficult.
Takes two to tango! :)
... but the rules do allow us to pardon ourselves from all sorts of sins, and hazards.
If administered properly however, the rules, the golf course and the game in general should fit and work together and in doing so enhance and opportunitise the game for all.
Atb
Agreed. One thing I like about the recent rules ermmm updating is that it does finally distinguish that a bunker is a thing on to itself and not a "penalty area."
"The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" proposes that like situations on the golf course should be treated alike. That's my problem with the dropping OUT of the bunker rule. It is not a situation that is alike to a water hazard - now penalty area. I much prefer the game when you must overcome the bunker. I feel it is a fundamental shot.
-
That's my problem with the dropping OUT of the bunker rule. It is not a situation that is alike to a water hazard - now penalty area. I much prefer the game when you must overcome the bunker. I feel it is a fundamental shot.
I’m appreciative of where your coming from but I see them as interlinked and inconsistently so.
For example, a player hits their ball into a bunker and the bunker is full of water, so full of water that the ball can’t be played at all. The player can drop a ball outside the bunker at the cost of 1-shot penalty.
Now if an physically weak person or a unskilled player hits a ball into a bunker, a dry bunker this time, but they are physically unable or lack the skill to extract the ball they must incur a 2-stroke penalty to take an outside drop.
This seems highly inconsistent and not to the overall benefit of the game which in my eye we should be encouraging more to play and less to give up.
An example. A gentleman I know uses a walking stick to get around the course. I recall a situation where he hit a shot into a bunker but with his physical limitation he physically couldn’t step/climb down into the bunker to play his next shot. This meant, after a playing partner had thrown his ball out to him, that he had to take a 2-shot penalty drop. If however the exact same bunker had been full of water he’d only have incurred a 1-stroke penalty.
Atb
-
An example. A gentleman I know uses a walking stick to get around the course. I recall a situation where he hit a shot into a bunker but with his physical limitation he physically couldn’t step/climb down into the bunker to play his next shot. This meant, after a playing partner had thrown his ball out to him, that he had to take a 2-shot penalty drop. If however the exact same bunker had been full of water he’d only have incurred a 1-stroke penalty.
Atb
Had it happened in America, he could sue the course [and its architect!] under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
I don't think he would get a settlement, but I cannot be sure.
-
David T,
I think under the rules, the committee (or golf pro) can declare a submerged bunker as AGC and part of the general area, allowing a free drop.
Maximum score is also allowed for regular play by committee approval, allowing the elderly gent to have someone toss his ball back and take his two-stroke medicine. As golf must accommodate a wide range of players, are you suggesting that courses should be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, say the golfer who can't get the ball airborne?
-
Dumbing down to the lowest common denominator Lou? No, although I recollect there have been threads written herein on GCA about how courses should be playable with just a putter! :)
Atb
-
If the stat you gave is correct, then geez, it seems like it would matter quite a bit to strategy if the ball were rolled back just far enough that players were left with 150 yard approach shots on long par-4's, instead of 100-125. If you add 60 to 150, it would make their scoring average go up enough that they would think more about the fairway.
I'm just saying that a shot from the fairway at 200 will score about the same as a shot from the rough at 130 on the PGA Tour. Good long drivers are also pretty accurate: they're not missing a lot more fairways than the shorter hitter, and so the one or two extra drives they hit in the rough and lose expected scoring are more than made up for the by the 7 or whatever drives they hit 20 yards past the shorter hitters that also find the fairway.
In other words:
Furyk: 275.0 yards, 80.95% (11.3 fairways), -.072 SG Driving
Rory: 313.5 yards, 61.11% (8.5 fairways), 1.195 SG Driving
That's the most extreme case, of course, but for Rory, gaining nearly 40 yards over Jim 8.5 + 2.7 (Jim is in the rough 2.7 times per round, too) or 11.2 times per round is more than enough to offset the 2.8 times he's maybe 30 yards past Jim but in the rough when Jim isn't.
But it isn't like Rory isn't trying to hit fairways. They're a 60-70 yard penalty from a Strokes Gained perspective, and fairway bunkers are slightly worse: maybe 70-80.
The rule changes introduced last year could have had a considerable effect on all aspects of bunkering. However, the rule authorities decided to introduce a 2-shot penalty should a player wish to drop out of bunker.With a 2-shot penalty players are more likely to give a shot a go, whereas only a 1-shot penalty ought to change a players thinking, which then has other implications for bunkering in general.
I don't quite agree that it will have much impact.
Guy hits his approach shot into a green side bunker trying to "go for" something. Decides to take a two-stroke penalty to drop behind it. He lay four and is playing five.
Before the 2019 Rules… the guy could have just taken stroke and distance, dropped three, and hit four. It's almost the same thing as dropping out of the bunker for two strokes.
Plus… most of the people who will take the two strokes are the poorer players, anyway. I don't foresee many good or even average players willingly taking two strokes to escape a bunker.
Do you?
One may take an unplayable lie in that situation but in doing so must remain in the bunker. This is a like situation being treated alike without removing the condition of the bunker.
That's not true. He can take stroke and distance, too.
I agree with David. A 1shot penalty drop situation makes it a reasonable and fun risk should one fail to carry some horrible pit of doom. A rule such as this would, I believe, give more archies a free hand at designing harsher bunkers. Plus, treating all penalty areas the same makes sense and rightly simplifies rules. As the rules are now, it is difficult to understand why a bunker dishes out a worse penalty than a lost or OOB ball.
Because for the vast majority of the time… it doesn't. Good players can get out of a bunker. And even if they play backward, their next shot likely won't be from 180 or whatever their previous shot (stroke and distance) would have come from.
"The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" proposes that like situations on the golf course should be treated alike. That's my problem with the dropping OUT of the bunker rule. It is not a situation that is alike to a water hazard - now penalty area. I much prefer the game when you must overcome the bunker. I feel it is a fundamental shot.
You're perverting the Principles just because both situations have penalty strokes associated with escaping them. Golfers are welcome to, for a penalty, remove their ball from a divot hole, too, if they like: that doesn't mean the Rules treat divot holes as "like situations" to penalty areas or bunkers. (Edited this paragraph for clarity.)
And, you must drop behind the bunker, so you must still "overcome" it, either by playing over it or, if available, around it.
As for the player who is too weak to get out of a bunker… the two-stroke penalty lets him turn in a score, rather than being left to die of starvation or exposure in a bunker, or to declare it unplayable and have to walk back under stroke and distance.
-
Guy hits his approach shot into a green side bunker trying to "go for" something. Decides to take a two-stroke penalty to drop behind it. He lay four and is playing five.
Before the 2019 Rules… the guy could have just taken stroke and distance, dropped three, and hit four. It's almost the same thing as dropping out of the bunker for two strokes.
Plus… most of the people who will take the two strokes are the poorer players, anyway. I don't foresee many good or even average players willingly taking two strokes to escape a bunker.
Do you?
With regard to your first point, a player taking the stoke and distance option has an adverse impact on pace of play and pace of play is slow enough already.
As to your second point, nail on head time, not many will take the 2-shot penalty, that's why it should only be a 1-shot penalty, then more may be inclined to take it.
atb
-
With regard to your first point, a player taking the stoke and distance option has an adverse impact on pace of play and pace of play is slow enough already.
That's really neither here nor there wrt the Rules, "Principles," etc.
As to your second point, nail on head time, not many will take the 2-shot penalty, that's why it should only be a 1-shot penalty, then more may be inclined to take it.
I don't think you should be able to escape a bunker for a one-stroke penalty (that doesn't involve stroke and distance). This isn't really the topic of the thread, so I'll be brief and am happy to move the discussion to a new topic or PMs, but I disagree: I think the one- and two-stroke options that exist now are good. They don't need to be given the same options as penalty areas, because they're different than penalty areas. Even before when they were both "hazards" you couldn't escape a bunker for a one-stroke penalty.
-
And there was me thinking that some of the reasons that the RoG were updated a little while ago now were speed of play and simplification, but we’ve been down these rabbit holes before. :)
Atb
-
A couple of the reasons that the RoG were updated a little while ago now were speed of play and simplification, but we’ve been down these rabbit holes before. :)
If a player hits into a bunker from which they know they can't escape, they can immediately drop another ball and not waste time. Stroke and distance doesn't always mean the player walks forward and then has to walk back.
To the topic… Off the top of my head I can imagine that there are a few reasons to have a bunker. In no order:
- Visual interest
- Penalize a shot/strategy
- Soften a shot (keeping a shot on the golf course that is headed OB/into water, etc.).
- Trick a player (strategic, in a sense, where the player assumes that he wants to play near the bunker, when in reality the best play is away from it for the better approach angle or something).
Are there others? Is my list crap?
-
Your list isn’t as you reverse-suggest at all Erik. Some bunkers though do occur or have evolved or been formalised over time for other reasons, for example from tidal/watery areas (Westward Ho!) or spots where seashells were collected (TOC) or paths across to the beach (North Berwick).
Ian wrote an very fine piece about bunkering that’s within this website here - http://golfclubatlas.com/best-of-golf/on-bunkers-by-ian-andrew/ (http://golfclubatlas.com/best-of-golf/on-bunkers-by-ian-andrew/)
As to knowing whether or not you can escape from a bunker before you even reach the bunker let alone the ball, well not all folks are blessed with such vision nor such foresight.
Atb
-
Been busy, and thus, late to this party, but wanted to say I appreciate the topic, especially coming from TD. He has always been reluctant to put any theory in writing, as it might dampen his image as an iconoclast. I gather he has been asked enough, he sort of had to come up with something. :)
I have often put my basic philosophy in writing, not fearing being trapped so much. If I want to ignore my own philosophies, I figure I could just say, "It's an architects prerogative to change their minds" or say its a special case and the site doesn't allow it, or that I am giving the client a unique (at least for me) hole. It's hard for me to understand beginning design without some basic philosophy to guide it, even if I decide to ignore it a few times. Of course, you ignore it too often, and pretty soon you just get goofy golf.
A few things stand out to me. First, Eric's use of stats to dispel some myths about how easy bunkers are for even top players. Approximately doubling the distance to flag and halving the % of greens hit in regulation seems like a pretty tough penalty for those guys.
Another is Tom's admission that players probably hit away from fw bunkers, at the top and bottom of the spectrum, with the middle handicap men not realizing what they should do, perhaps letting ego take over. I have always wondered if the Golden Age philosophy of making them challenge a fw hazard was ever statistically a good idea or played as designed. With more stats now, intuitively it seems not. Although, it seems it still works for what was the presumed target audience of design back then, so maybe the ideas were perfect for the times. And maybe other ideas are better for these times.
Lastly, TD's bunker philosophy is far more main steam than most here would think. Like football coaches, and other gca's, I think the tendency for all of us is to get more conservative with age. As with the center bunker idea - you build a few, get no positive reaction (except on this website) and a few negative grumblings, and voila, center bunkers are not on your hip pocket list of design ideas.
I eagerly await Tom's philosophical discussions on green contours, fw width, etc. :)
-
Local rule at my public Doak 2.5, where there are a lot of senior and or women players.
Anyone may lift ball from sand bunker and drop on a line away from the pin any distance back with a penalty of one stroke.
-
Local rule at my public Doak 2.5, where there are a lot of senior and or women players.
Anyone may lift ball from sand bunker and drop on a line away from the pin any distance back with a penalty of one stroke.
Unfortunately, that's not a legitimate Local Rule.
Just make it two and it's fine.
-
I appreciate the discussion.
I think most of the ideas related to bunker placement have been covered. My biggest preference is that fairway bunker placement vary so that all levels of player face temptation once in awhile.
I often have thought that as a general rule fairway bunkers should be deeper. Deeper fairway bunkers present more of a dilemma to the player regarding whether to aim away and, once in the bunker, whether to wedge out or risk the lip to get it on or close to the green. For the lesser player, a conservative wedge out might yield better results than trying to be a hero.
I think green-side bunkers could be less deep. For the better player, I believe judging the sand is the biggest challenge for a green-side bunker shot. There is a bit of randomness regarding whether a ball checks or runs out and that randomness exists regardless of the depth of the bunker. For the lesser player, a shallow bunker can present the option of putting - which is a great way to get down in three but a difficult way to get down in two.
Crystal Downs had a number of shallow bunkers that appeared to be scabs in the ground - shallow but sloping in the same way as the surrounding turf. Those struck me as interesting hazards that I do not recall seeing very often.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGJVFWeUEAAXiv-.jpg)
Thoughts?
atb
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGJVFWeUEAAXiv-.jpg)
Thoughts?
atb
What happens to the sand on a windy day?
-
I appreciate the discussion.
I often have thought that as a general rule fairway bunkers should be deeper. Deeper fairway bunkers present more of a dilemma to the player regarding whether to aim away and, once in the bunker, whether to wedge out or risk the lip to get it on or close to the green. For the lesser player, a conservative wedge out might yield better results than trying to be a hero.
I think green-side bunkers could be less deep. For the better player, I believe judging the sand is the biggest challenge for a green-side bunker shot. There is a bit of randomness regarding whether a ball checks or runs out and that randomness exists regardless of the depth of the bunker. For the lesser player, a shallow bunker can present the option of putting - which is a great way to get down in three but a difficult way to get down in two.
Jason,
I once lost a job (i.e. the minute I said it, the room went cold) by my answer to the question, "Mr. Brauer, don't you think it should be just as easy to reach a par 5 in 2 shots from the fw bunker as from the middle of the fairway?" My answer of "no" was apparently a shock to them, as was my follow up explanation that I usually make tee shot fw bunkers on par 5 holes deeper, figuring that even with a short iron out, they can still reach the green in 3, thus, there is no real penalty for hitting the bunker. Apparently, the penalty of "only" reaching a par 5 green in regulation figures was very real to those golfers. :D
Very few golfers I know think that putting out of a green side bunker is a viable way to play and avoid those.
As to the volcano bunker, I agree it is a problem in the wind. Plus, ancient sheep huddled in hollows, not on top of mounds to get out of the wind. ;)
-
Hi Thomas:
The feature in question is from the restored 12th hole at Garden City Golf Club.
Originally, there were two sand mounds to either side of the green. I struggled to imagine how they would be maintained in a modern restoration . . . they would get footprinted up on a regular basis, the sand would get depleted by wind erosion, etc. But, they were part of the hole for a long time, back in the days when maintenance was not so fussy.
To restore them, Jim Urbina basically built the mounds out of gravel, and put a few inches of bunker sand over the top. Most approach shots that hit the mounds will bounce off, so there isn't as much foot traffic on them as we anticipated, and I don't think they've been a big pain to maintain.
Playing-wise, though, the mounds are an obstacle for those whose shots finished wide of the target.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGJVFWeUEAAXiv-.jpg)
Thoughts?
atb
-
Hi Thomas:
The feature in question is from the restored 12th hole at Garden City Golf Club.
Originally, there were two sand mounds to either side of the green. I struggled to imagine how they would be maintained in a modern restoration . . . they would get footprinted up on a regular basis, the sand would get depleted by wind erosion, etc. But, they were part of the hole for a long time, back in the days when maintenance was not so fussy.
To restore them, Jim Urbina basically built the mounds out of gravel, and put a few inches of bunker sand over the top. Most approach shots that hit the mounds will bounce off, so there isn't as much foot traffic on them as we anticipated, and I don't think they've been a big pain to maintain.
Playing-wise, though, the mounds are an obstacle for those whose shots finished wide of the target.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGJVFWeUEAAXiv-.jpg)
Thoughts?
atb
I played there this summer and my host's ball came to rest on the downhill side of the mound closer to the green. He just asked for his putter and putted it onto the surface like there was no thought to it. It was on a downhill lie and perhaps he didn't want to skull a wedge? I remember thinking why is he putting that ball from the sand, but I guess there isn't deep sand there as I didn't sample it.
-
Thank you Tom.
I was aware that the restoration work was undertaken by you and your team so it’s nice to hear from source a bit about the history and how the restored version was constructed.
Once upon a time seeing two such features from certain angles, or these days from a drone, might have been visually rather suggestive particularly at an all male club.
In many ways an inverted bunker doesn’t seem much different to an area of sand on a links course that happens to slope upwards instead of being more pit like. More likely to be seen on a rural and rustic links course where to use your nice wording “maintenance was not so fussy” though than on some of the more manicured links courses prevalent these days. And as you intimate, potentially changing shape over time as erosion etc takes place.
Atb
-
I appreciate the discussion.
I often have thought that as a general rule fairway bunkers should be deeper. Deeper fairway bunkers present more of a dilemma to the player regarding whether to aim away and, once in the bunker, whether to wedge out or risk the lip to get it on or close to the green. For the lesser player, a conservative wedge out might yield better results than trying to be a hero.
I think green-side bunkers could be less deep. For the better player, I believe judging the sand is the biggest challenge for a green-side bunker shot. There is a bit of randomness regarding whether a ball checks or runs out and that randomness exists regardless of the depth of the bunker. For the lesser player, a shallow bunker can present the option of putting - which is a great way to get down in three but a difficult way to get down in two.
Jason,
I once lost a job (i.e. the minute I said it, the room went cold) by my answer to the question, "Mr. Brauer, don't you think it should be just as easy to reach a par 5 in 2 shots from the fw bunker as from the middle of the fairway?" My answer of "no" was apparently a shock to them, as was my follow up explanation that I usually make tee shot fw bunkers on par 5 holes deeper, figuring that even with a short iron out, they can still reach the green in 3, thus, there is no real penalty for hitting the bunker. Apparently, the penalty of "only" reaching a par 5 green in regulation figures was very real to those golfers. :D
Very few golfers I know think that putting out of a green side bunker is a viable way to play and avoid those.
As to the volcano bunker, I agree it is a problem in the wind. Plus, ancient sheep huddled in hollows, not on top of mounds to get out of the wind. ;)
Speaking as a player, I will pay a fair amount of heed to fairway bunkers when I'm planning out how to play a hole, but on par fives, if they're not really deep, I basically ignore them. I figure I can lay up to them, but then I won't be able to get to the green in 2 and will have to lay up with my second shot also. If I take them on and miss them, then I might be able to get home in 2. If I take them on and hit them, then I'm most likely laying up unless they're very shallow. So there's not really any risk in taking them on.
That's a very different equation on a course where the bunkers are very deep. The specific hole I'm thinking of is 7 at Royal St. Georges. There are a couple of tiny little bunkers on the outside corner of the dogleg. They're about 200-220 from the green I think, so they're right where you might be hitting it if you're thinking of getting there. The lay of the land helps you get to them and also pushes the ball out towards them. If you go in them, your third shot is going to be from 180-200. 20 yards is as much as you can get out of them. They're virtually little penalty areas. RSG is littered with bunkers like that. If you lay back from bunkers like that, your gaining shots over the ones that go in there.
I actually think the sweet spot is somewhere in between the two extremes. There should be some penalty for going in them. A third shot from 160 instead of 80 perhaps. But some fairway bunkers you can't get home in 3 if you go in them. That seems a little harsh to me. Being able to go for the green virtually by right (it sounds like) is way too far the other way though. If you're good enough and brave (stupid) enough to hit a high cut with a long iron out of a relatively nasty bunker, then yes, you can get it on the green, but for all and sundry to be able to do it? What's the point of having the bunker at all?