[David Ober]

If you don't rake traps, doesn't the course get harder as the day goes?  i.e. don't the last groups play a tougher course than the earlier ones?  

YES!

[David Ober]

And let's keep in mind that bunkers and water hazards are completely different things.

You want a hazard to be extremely tough from which to extricate oneself? Then make it a small water hazard area.

Bunkers are to be raked. The best players in the world get up and down from sand only 45-55% of the time, whereas they get up and down from greenside about 65-75% of the time.

There's a penalty for hitting into a bunker, folks.

[John Kirk]

Exactly, David.  I get up and down from the rough two to three times as frequently, unless the grass is really long, which is not the case at most courses.

And it's still tougher to get up and down from bunkers in the late afternoon, because people generally take the time to rake bunkers properly.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Bunkers are to be raked. The best players in the world get up and down from sand only 45-55% of the time, whereas they get up and down from greenside about 65-75% of the time.

There's a penalty for hitting into a bunker, folks.

I get it. It's the masochistic side of your personality that has you (self admittedly) aiming to get into bunkers. Your claimed actions belie your alleged statistics. Care to provide a reference for your stats?

[Garland Bayley]

...I don't mind that in a  water hazard situation, but bunkers should be uniformly maintained IMHO.

Uh ... I think you conveniently missed the part where I mentioned that water hazards are different than bunkers.

It's a hazard! Next thing you will be asking for is the ability to ground your club in a bunker.

[Garland Bayley]

If you don't rake traps, doesn't the course get harder as the day goes?  i.e. don't the last groups play a tougher course than the earlier ones?  

Is the assumption here that the bunkers were raked before play began? If not, how is the course tougher for the last groups than the first?

Perhaps all tournaments will have to suspend play for any wind event. After all we wouldn't want the course to be tougher for those playing in the wind than for those who played before it came up!

This all begs the question, why is the golfer in the hazard (bunker) in the first place? The only reason the golfer should be in the hazard is by mistake! How many golfers aim to get in water hazards? IMHO, the same number should be aiming to get in bunker hazards.

[Brent Hutto]

This all begs the question, why is the golfer in the hazard (bunker) in the first place? The only reason the golfer should be in the hazard is by mistake! How many golfers aim to get in water hazards? IMHO, the same number should be aiming to get in bunker hazards.

Garland,

I think this thread started with you making a valid point and has progressed to where you're making unrealistic exaggerations. Sure it's possible to build an entirely penal golf course. That's not a very interesting GCA exercise, though.
In building an actual golf course, the idea is to give the architect as many different degrees of punitive features as possible.

It's a good thing when hitting the "wrong part" of a green costs you the chance at a makable birdie. That doesn't mean that it would be even better if being on the wrong side of the green means a five-putt.

It's also a good thing that bunkers exist so the architect can  make missing the green by a couple yards on the bunker side worse than missing by a couple yards on the short grass side. But it doesn't mean that every greenside bunker should cost a full stroke.

It's a good thing that water hazards exist. They cost anywhere from a full stroke to even stroke and distance depending on how they're arranged.

But here's the really good thing. You can mix and match all of these on the same course or even the same hole. You can have a green with a ridge down the middle making the wrong side of the ridge into a difficult two-putt and the correct side of the ridge a makable birdie putt. On the very same hole you could put a bunker on the front left where missing there costs a good player a half-stroke and a weak player a full stroke or more. On the very same hole you could put water behind the green making any shot hit over the green cost a full stroke.

What you can't do is start from the arguably correct position that bunkers need not be tooperfectly groomed and then immediately extend that to the idea that a bunker has to be as punitive as a water hazard. That's an nonsensical assertion that no decent player or decent architect is going to agree with. If they wanted a water hazard, they'd use a water hazard. Sand isn't just a cheaper form of water.

[Garland Bayley]

...
What you can't do is start from the arguably correct position that bunkers need not be tooperfectly groomed and then immediately extend that to the idea that a bunker has to be as punitive as a water hazard. That's an nonsensical assertion that no decent player or decent architect is going to agree with. If they wanted a water hazard, they'd use a water hazard. Sand isn't just a cheaper form of water.

At no point did I try to say that a bunker has to be as punitive as a water hazard. I thought my point was quite clear; that no one should be aiming their shot to get into the bunker.

[Brent Hutto]

At no point did I try to say that a bunker has to be as punitive as a water hazard. I thought my point was quite clear; that no one should be aiming their shot to get into the bunker.

Well, what if they're aiming at the bunker to avoid the water hazard?

At my former home course there's a peninsula-green Par 3 with water short, water long and water left. On a windy day it's darned hard for me (21-handicap) to judge the distance from the elevated tee and be sure not to go long or short. So I aim at the bunker that's long and right of the green. If I hit the shot perfectly and pick the correct club I'll end up in that bunker. If I misjudge the wind or mishit the shot I'll end up on the green or in the rough. But I'll hardly ever hit it in the water. According to your statement:

This all begs the question, why is the golfer in the hazard (bunker) in the first place? The only reason the golfer should be in the hazard is by mistake! How many golfers aim to get in water hazards? IMHO, the same number should be aiming to get in bunker hazards.

that's apparently a flaw in the course. If I'd rather be in the bunker instead of in the water hazard then the bunker must be too easy. That's silly. It's a well designed (although tough) challenging hole.

[Garland Bayley]

Brent,

Thanks for the clarification. I have no problem with aiming at a bunker to avoid a water hazard, or out of bounds. I have been advocating addition of a bunker at my home course to keep balls from going out of bounds.

The admitted bunker aimer, David Ober, aims at bunkers on par 5s. I presume he preferred the bunker to laying up in the fairway short of the green for a chip shot or some analogous scenario.  I.e. that the risk of the bunker was not high enough to force him to play the hole to reap the rewards the gca built into it for proper strategy.

[paul cowley]

...I'm with you Garland....bunkers should not be aimed at unless you want to avoid a greater penalty....if the better players do, well we might just want to consider making the bunker a tad bit deeper.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Go ahead Paul. Make them a LOT deeper. Make them good enough that three or four of them on the course have they're very own names!

[paul cowley]

Tommy....yea man!
you know there is something about being at the bottom of a 20' deep Raynor bunker that just takes your breath away...hell some of his deeper ones might even  have me aiming for water as a bailout area.

[David Ober]

Brent,

Thanks for the clarification. I have no problem with aiming at a bunker to avoid a water hazard, or out of bounds. I have been advocating addition of a bunker at my home course to keep balls from going out of bounds.

The admitted bunker aimer, David Ober, aims at bunkers on par 5s. I presume he preferred the bunker to laying up in the fairway short of the green for a chip shot or some analogous scenario.  I.e. that the risk of the bunker was not high enough to force him to play the hole to reap the rewards the gca built into it for proper strategy.

That stats are available via ShotLink, the PGA Tour's amazing new shot tracking system.

And yes, I aim for bunkers on a semi-regular basis, depending on the pin position. For instance. I would rather have a greenside bunker shot to a front pin, than a pitch OVER a greenside bunker to a front pin. So, in that case, I will do all I can to reach the green, knowing that if I end up in the bunker, it's actually PREFERABLE to being short of the bunker.

So instead of laying up from 262 to the front edge of a par 5 green with a bunker fronting it I will hit a full 3-wood, knowing that I have very little chance of carrying my 3-wood 262, but being very happy with the result of my ball being in the bunker rather than stopping short, or even laying up to 80, 90, or 100 yards.

Most of the time I would prefer to be pitching/chipping from light rough to being in a bunker, but not always. Definitely depends on the individual circumstance, pin position, and sand composition.

[Brent Hutto]

Most of the time I would prefer to be pitching/chipping from light rough to being in a bunker, but not always. Definitely depends on the individual circumstance, pin position, and sand composition.

One thing different about really good players and the rest of us is the number of things they take into consideration when choosing how to play a shot or how to attack a hole. I've taken a few minutes here and there over the years to quiz my teaching pro on how he would handle various situations that come up in a round and there are remarkably few hard and fast rules. He wouldn't say something like "I never try to put the ball in a bunker" but then again he also wouldn't say "I would rather be in a bunker than in the rough". The answers are always some form of "it depends on..." or similar.

At least on the Bermuda grass we play on around here, a big factor in these decisions is always the lie. Even on what looks like a straightforward shot from a fairway lie, there apparently can be differences in the shot that's best to play depending on whether the grain is with or against you. Things like "Well, I'd like to play a low, spinning 9-iron shot here but from this lie I'll play it safe with a higher cut shot" (I'm just making that up as an example) when the lie he's talking about just looks like a clean, tight fairway lie on short green grass.

So all that's a way of saying that I'm familiar with the point Mr. Ober is making even though it's far beyond the way I play my own game.

[Garland Bayley]

Ok, now David and Brent,

I'm the archie. There is a hazard in the center forcing the drive to the safe left side, or the narrow right side.  On the right, the reward is an open approach to the green and a ball turning left can get close to the back left pin. On the left the approach is over a bunker. David is left and plans to come in over the bunker or failing that get in the bunker. Fortunately a calvary troop stormed the course in the morning and David finds himself in the bunker with a lie he has no chance of getting close. As the Archie, I rejoice, because he should not be rewarded for not taking the risk.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Speaking of tournament golf, shouldn't the bunkers help separate the more-accurate players from those less accurate? Or, for those in the bunker, the best bunker players from the also-rans?

Wouldn't unraked bunkers do this better than raked ones?  Once, Pancho Gonzalez's serve was held to be the best in all of tennis.  His serve was so dominant that other players conspired to create a tournament where players were allowed only one serve.

Pancho's margin of victory was even greater in this tournament; unlike his competitors, he always played as though he got only one chance at the serve.  Making the service more difficult only served to distance the best service from the also-rans, just like length on a golf course separates the longest hitters from the rest.

[paul cowley]

...we need to remember that its all relative....if all bunkers are not maintained then the better player [i.e. the one who is more skilled at recovery from an unkempt bunker], will still have the advantage.....then soon, scrambling stat percentages from unkempt bunkers would come into being.

[Garland Bayley]

That stats are available via ShotLink, the PGA Tour's amazing new shot tracking system.
...

Since I am not that interested in the PGA Tour and jumping through the hoops they put up to get access to their stats, perhaps you can provide them for us, that is unless part of the agreement you agreed to said they were for members consumption and not to be distributed externally without their permission.

Anyway, I doubt there are detailed enough stats there for you to accurately support your assertion.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()