Tour bunkers

[ssp]

anybody else getting tired of the pro's playing out of perfect bunkers and knocking it 3 inches all day long?

 

I know I am exaggerating a bit but I think they could offset all this length they have by making the green side bunkers much tougher.

 

Just an observation.

[MtlJeff]

Well, they are also awesome at golf, and someone really skilled in bunkers might say that bunkers are easier then the rough if the lie is OK. So part of it is they are just really good.

But I do agree that the quality of bunkers at least in my area, might be the biggest discrepancy in terms of course conditions. My course is in terrific shape, but some of the bunkers have been terrible. I'd love to have pro bunkers

[llamont]

I'd like to see' em play from the dirt/gravel/hard-packed drought-ridden SoCal muni bunks that I'm accustomed to playing from ;-)

[youngwaldo]

[quote name='llamont' timestamp='1438987238' post='12098042']
I'd like to see' em play from the dirt/gravel/hard-packed drought-ridden SoCal muni bunks that I'm accustomed to playing from ;-)
[/quote]

They will still knock it to 2"

Wk

[bruinsPATSirish]

[quote name='ssp' timestamp='1438986146' post='12097972']
anybody else getting tired of the pro's playing out of perfect bunkers and knocking it 3 inches all day long?

I know I am exaggerating a bit but I think they could offset all this length they have by making the green side bunkers much tougher.

Just an observation.
[/quote]

The Tour courses are almost always setup to enhance scoring.

Sexy greens, perfect fairways, and consistently manicured bunkers.

I have had the pleasure of playing tour conditions and it is extremely easy to play out of. Hitting into a bunker becomes an "aw shucks, oh well!" moment for these guys when they know the beautiful lie they will have. Most of us go "Ah S*$& what kind of crap lie do I have in that thing?!"

At the end of the day they still have to execute the shots, which most golfers wouldn't be able to do anyways.

[llamont]

[quote name='youngwaldo' timestamp='1438987407' post='12098054']
[quote name='llamont' timestamp='1438987238' post='12098042']
I'd like to see' em play from the dirt/gravel/hard-packed drought-ridden SoCal muni bunks that I'm accustomed to playing from ;-)
[/quote]

They will still knock it to 2"

Wk
[/quote]

Probably...

[ghoul31]

Jack Nicklaus said they don't make deep bunkers because it would be too hard for the local club players.

But if they can do it in Great Britain , they should do it here too.

[JBake]

Nothing better than that awesome white fluffy sand they get at every course. It gets so hot here, combined with the overspray from the sprinklers and it makes for some hard baked traps, or ones that they randomly fill up that are super fluffy. I just want consistency. I played Pebble right after the AT&T last year and it's so easy to hit perfect shots out of that stuff. My home course, it's pray you get a good lie, and pray there's sand underneath.

[granite45]

Pros don't have a chance from muni sand. You know this because of the amount of complaining you hear from them when their sand isn't perfect.

Any amateur who plays a pro set up course knows this.

Also, don't feel too guilty about not taking a perfect divot, because on pro set up, even with the most mediocre swing, you will.

[deh]

[quote name='llamont' timestamp='1438987238' post='12098042']I'd like to see' em play from the dirt/gravel/hard-packed drought-ridden SoCal muni bunks that I'm accustomed to playing from ;-)[/quote]

Yeah. Have them play "The Ditch" in San Clemente. Holy cr@p is that bad. It's a bar with a golfing problem.

[martinbns]

[quote name='MtlJeff' timestamp='1438987140' post='12098028']
Well, they are also awesome at golf, and someone really skilled in bunkers might say that bunkers are easier then the rough if the lie is OK. So part of it is they are just really good.

But I do agree that the quality of bunkers at least in my area, might be the biggest discrepancy in terms of course conditions. My course is in terrific shape, but some of the bunkers have been terrible. I'd love to have pro bunkers
[/quote]

Our course is the same, great greens, terrifically consistent thick rough, great mounding around the greens, fairways have come back great.

The only issue is some bunkers just don't have enough sand and some have too much.

[laguna79]

My personal pet pev, People who complain about bunkers not being consistent, "It's a hazard" !
Do we complain about the consistency of water hazards ? No

Bunkers are meant to be a hazard, if they don't cost a you shot more regularly than not what is there point ?

[buckeyefl]

[quote name='ghoul31' timestamp='1438987823' post='12098114']
Jack Nicklaus said they don't make deep bunkers because it would be too hard for the local club players.

But if they can do it in Great Britain , they should do it here too.
[/quote]
Funny he would say that given the bubeers he builds. Even funnier since there is no shortage of deep bunkers.

[buckeyefl]

[quote name='granite45' timestamp='1438990066' post='12098262']
Pros don't have a chance from muni sand. You know this because of the amount of complaining you hear from them when their sand isn't perfect.

Any amateur who plays a pro set up course knows this.

Also, don't feel too guilty about not taking a perfect divot, because on pro set up, even with the most mediocre swing, you will.
[/quote]

Lol.

[15th Club]

So I see a lot of misguided posts in this thread.
[list=1]
[*]Misguided notion Number One: we need more hazards, slower fairways, deeper rough, faster greens -- and now, lousier bunkers -- to combat technology-produced distance in tour golf. All of that is wrong. All of that -- shaggy fairways, superfast greens and pinched fairways -- just might combat the scoring issue but it all makes for boring golf. All of it denudes classic golf course architecture. It all practically eliminates golf strategy. You just need to hit it long and straight to the one place you can play from in a tiny fairway. And then hit it to a green that only has a few pin placements because it is so speedy you can't use most of the green. Boring, boring golf. No angles. No decisions. No freedom of play. Anyone steeped in the literature of golf course design knows this. [b]The one proper way to combat excessive technology-produced golf ball distance is to better regulate the equipment.[/b]
[*]Superfast greens eliminate some good pin positions. And, as we saw at St. Andrews this year, superfast greens can even delay play. Fast fairways, on the other hand, emphasize the ground game and the natural contours of the golf course. Fast fairways, while they exacerbate pure driver distance, they also increase the care that a player needs to employ in planning how he attacks and manages his line to the hole.
[*]Misguided notion Number Two: "Fluffy" American bunkers are the model, and are actually easy. Have any of you studied the sandbelt courses of Melbourne? They don't even rake the sides of bunkers. Balls don't get plugged in those sides. They all filter down to flat areas that are raked. One of the truly great courses in the history of golf is Royal Melbourne, and an American looking at it might think it a Muni, judging from the gray-tan grasses and the bunkers.
[*]Firm, fast closely-mown turf is the ideal condition for golf. If you have to trick that up because golf balls fly to far, you need to fix the golf balls. And maybe the drivers too.
[/list]

[cod4101]

Played at Tpc Scottsdale and I could swear the sand was fake that's how nice it was.

[ksgolfcoach]

[quote name='15th Club' timestamp='1438996041' post='12098770']
So I see a lot of misguided posts in this thread.
[list=1]
[*]Misguided notion Number One: we need more hazards, slower fairways, deeper rough, faster greens -- and now, lousier bunkers -- to combat technology-produced distance in tour golf. All of that is wrong. All of that -- shaggy fairways, superfast greens and pinched fairways -- just might combat the scoring issue but it all makes for boring golf. All of it denudes classic golf course architecture. It all practically eliminates golf strategy. You just need to hit it long and straight to the one place you can play from in a tiny fairway. And then hit it to a green that only has a few pin placements because it is so speedy you can't use most of the green. Boring, boring golf. No angles. No decisions. No freedom of play. Anyone steeped in the literature of golf course design knows this. [b]The one proper way to combat excessive technology-produced golf ball distance is to better regulate the equipment.[/b]
[*]Superfast greens eliminate some good pin positions. And, as we saw at St. Andrews this year, superfast greens can even delay play. Fast fairways, on the other hand, emphasize the ground game and the natural contours of the golf course. Fast fairways, while they exacerbate pure driver distance, they also increase the care that a player needs to employ in planning how he attacks and manages his line to the hole.
[*]Misguided notion Number Two: "Fluffy" American bunkers are the model, and are actually easy. Have any of you studied the sandbelt courses of Melbourne? They don't even rake the sides of bunkers. Balls don't get plugged in those sides. They all filter down to flat areas that are raked. One of the truly great courses in the history of golf is Royal Melbourne, and an American looking at it might think it a Muni, judging from the gray-tan grasses and the bunkers.
[*]Firm, fast closely-mown turf is the ideal condition for golf. If you have to trick that up because golf balls fly to far, you need to fix the golf balls. And maybe the drivers too.
[/list]
[/quote]

So many issues with this.

1. Tour players would much rather have slow fairways if the rough is up. They'd give up 10-15 yards all day long to make sure the ball doesn't bounce into the rough if the rough is high. If you want to make a course tougher you make the fairways firm and fast where every shot slightly off line goes into the rough

2. You talk about fast greens killing pin positions and then try and prove your point by bringing up a course who's greens were rolling at a 9.5 and were slower than any pga tour event has been in two decades. Super fast greens didn't delay the tournament, 40 mph wind did.

3. Tour bunkers are easier than most and are extremely consistent in sand depth and firmness. Balls rarely plug. Might be easier elsewhere but most people's argument is they mostly get great lies.

4. You can make the ball shorter, longer hitters will still have an advantage. Very very few truly great hitters were short. Hogan, Palmer, Nicklaus etc were very long in their generation. Pulling back technology will in no way take an advantage away from long hitters. Now if you want to argue the ball/clubs go too straight now with not enough distance loss on miss hits I would probably agree with you.

[BenHoganSlam1953]

[quote name='ghoul31' timestamp='1438987823' post='12098114']
Jack Nicklaus said they don't make deep bunkers because it would be too hard for the local club players.

But if they can do it in Great Britain , they should do it here too.
[/quote]

Visually I find deep bunkers a lot easier to hit out of than shallow bunkers. Then again one could always ram a putter in a shallow bunker and pop the ball out

[J - Mo]

Didn't Jack use special rakes for a tourney or two that made the sand much more of a hazard? Seems the ball would plug much more and the pros hated it if my memory is correct. I think they were only used during the tournament rounds.

[Guia]

I read some years ago that if a Pro Tournament were to be played at your club the green side bunkers had to have a certain type of sand and it was to be 4 inches of sand. I assume fairway bunkers also require certain depth, etc. They have other requirements also.

Wish we lesser players could experience consistent bunkers

[Buzzkill]

[quote name='llamont' timestamp='1438987238' post='12098042']
I'd like to see' em play from the dirt/gravel/hard-packed drought-ridden SoCal muni bunks that I'm accustomed to playing from ;-)
[/quote]
Sounds like my conditions here!

[carrier street]

I find that even the REALLY nice courses around here suffer from no sand in the bunkers. I get the whole "it's a hazard" argument, but I'm not looking for consistency from bunker to bunker, just from where my feet are to the ball. Imagine the melt down a tour player would have if they dug their feet in a couple inches and then there was less than 1/2" of sand under the ball.

[sbeduckman]

[quote name='15th Club' timestamp='1438996041' post='12098770']
So I see a lot of misguided posts in this thread.
[list=1]
[*]Misguided notion Number One: we need more hazards, slower fairways, deeper rough, faster greens -- and now, lousier bunkers -- to combat technology-produced distance in tour golf. All of that is wrong. All of that -- shaggy fairways, superfast greens and pinched fairways -- just might combat the scoring issue but it all makes for boring golf. All of it denudes classic golf course architecture. It all practically eliminates golf strategy. You just need to hit it long and straight to the one place you can play from in a tiny fairway. And then hit it to a green that only has a few pin placements because it is so speedy you can't use most of the green. Boring, boring golf. No angles. No decisions. No freedom of play. Anyone steeped in the literature of golf course design knows this. [b]The one proper way to combat excessive technology-produced golf ball distance is to better regulate the equipment.[/b]
[*]Superfast greens eliminate some good pin positions. And, as we saw at St. Andrews this year, superfast greens can even delay play. Fast fairways, on the other hand, emphasize the ground game and the natural contours of the golf course. Fast fairways, while they exacerbate pure driver distance, they also increase the care that a player needs to employ in planning how he attacks and manages his line to the hole.
[*]Misguided notion Number Two: "Fluffy" American bunkers are the model, and are actually easy. Have any of you studied the sandbelt courses of Melbourne? They don't even rake the sides of bunkers. Balls don't get plugged in those sides. They all filter down to flat areas that are raked. One of the truly great courses in the history of golf is Royal Melbourne, and an American looking at it might think it a Muni, judging from the gray-tan grasses and the bunkers.
[*]Firm, fast closely-mown turf is the ideal condition for golf. If you have to trick that up because golf balls fly to far, you need to fix the golf balls. And maybe the drivers too.
[/list]
[/quote]

Couldn't disagree less, but we are all entitled to our opinion. Dial back the ball, dial back the driver...and being long (if/and straight) will still be equally advantageous. Score related to par may be different, but being longer than the guy you're playing won't change. Guys (pros) who play on perfect(ish) courses have it pretty easy. I play most of my golf on a rural small town track where downright sketchy lies happen all over, even on perfect shots. Playing the ball down here is in no way the same as playing it down on a well manicured course. My handicap travels darn well when I find myself in tournaments on lush courses...amazing what can be done with grass under the ball and sand in the hazards.

As for the pros....I'm to the point now where I truly believe nothing should be done. Everyone plays the same course, the best player any given week comes out on top.

[KrazyTrain18]

I don't have any issues with the bunkers, but there needs to be a penalty for missing the fairway. Most weeks you can't tell the difference.

[ssp]

[quote name='KrazyTrain18' timestamp='1439014475' post='12099872']
I don't have any issues with the bunkers, but there needs to be a penalty for missing the fairway. Most weeks you can't tell the difference.
[/quote]I would contend that greenside bunkers that played as a hazard would accomplish this. I think the lack of fear of bunkers creates more of a bomb/gouge mentality.

[ssp]

[quote name='ksgolfcoach' timestamp='1439004940' post='12099502']
[quote name='15th Club' timestamp='1438996041' post='12098770']
So I see a lot of misguided posts in this thread.

[list=1]
[*]Misguided notion Number One: we need more hazards, slower fairways, deeper rough, faster greens -- and now, lousier bunkers -- to combat technology-produced distance in tour golf. All of that is wrong. All of that -- shaggy fairways, superfast greens and pinched fairways -- just might combat the scoring issue but it all makes for boring golf. All of it denudes classic golf course architecture. It all practically eliminates golf strategy. You just need to hit it long and straight to the one place you can play from in a tiny fairway. And then hit it to a green that only has a few pin placements because it is so speedy you can't use most of the green. Boring, boring golf. No angles. No decisions. No freedom of play. Anyone steeped in the literature of golf course design knows this. [b]The one proper way to combat excessive technology-produced golf ball distance is to better regulate the equipment.[/b]
[*]Superfast greens eliminate some good pin positions. And, as we saw at St. Andrews this year, superfast greens can even delay play. Fast fairways, on the other hand, emphasize the ground game and the natural contours of the golf course. Fast fairways, while they exacerbate pure driver distance, they also increase the care that a player needs to employ in planning how he attacks and manages his line to the hole.
[*]Misguided notion Number Two: "Fluffy" American bunkers are the model, and are actually easy. Have any of you studied the sandbelt courses of Melbourne? They don't even rake the sides of bunkers. Balls don't get plugged in those sides. They all filter down to flat areas that are raked. One of the truly great courses in the history of golf is Royal Melbourne, and an American looking at it might think it a Muni, judging from the gray-tan grasses and the bunkers.
[*]Firm, fast closely-mown turf is the ideal condition for golf. If you have to trick that up because golf balls fly to far, you need to fix the golf balls. And maybe the drivers too.
[/list]
[/quote]

So many issues with this.

1. Tour players would much rather have slow fairways if the rough is up. They'd give up 10-15 yards all day long to make sure the ball doesn't bounce into the rough if the rough is high. If you want to make a course tougher you make the fairways firm and fast where every shot slightly off line goes into the rough

2. You talk about fast greens killing pin positions and then try and prove your point by bringing up a course who's greens were rolling at a 9.5 and were slower than any pga tour event has been in two decades. Super fast greens didn't delay the tournament, 40 mph wind did.

3. Tour bunkers are easier than most and are extremely consistent in sand depth and firmness. Balls rarely plug. Might be easier elsewhere but most people's argument is they mostly get great lies.

4. You can make the ball shorter, longer hitters will still have an advantage. Very very few truly great hitters were short. Hogan, Palmer, Nicklaus etc were very long in their generation. Pulling back technology will in no way take an advantage away from long hitters. Now if you want to argue the ball/clubs go too straight now with not enough distance loss on miss hits I would probably agree with you.
[/quote]

agreed.

I was a member at a tour hosting course. The course played 5 shots harder under tourney conditions. The main defense was to make it play firm and grow the rough. Firm fairways and greens and long rough to capture the bounce.

[avrag]

[quote name='llamont' timestamp='1438987238' post='12098042']
I'd like to see' em play from the dirt/gravel/hard-packed drought-ridden SoCal muni bunks that I'm accustomed to playing from ;-)
[/quote]

I doubt that they would have too much trouble out of those. Newly filled bunkers like my home-course currently has, in which your feet disappear completely the moment you step into them, and every ball ends up in a poached-egg lie about 5 inches deep and a foot in diameter, now that is something completely different.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

[quote name='laguna79' timestamp='1438992488' post='12098470']
My personal pet pev, People who complain about bunkers not being consistent, "It's a hazard" !
Do we complain about the consistency of water hazards ? No

Bunkers are meant to be a hazard, if they don't cost a you shot more regularly than not what is there point ?
[/quote]

I guess the PGA tour didn't get your memo.

I remember one time, faldo I think, was saying it was unfortunate that some guys ball came to rest in the groove of a rake mark... I'm thinking really?? WTF!

Hazards are meant to be playable whereas a water hazard is generally not.

My league fixed this great social injustice and we have a local rule of: lift, rake and place. In the past there were just too many incidents of rock hard underlayment and stones, where people would hurt their hands or damage a club.

[Vindog]

Lets start by not raking them, and see where that takes us.

[Emthree]

Remember what you see on tv are the guys on their game that day and networks showing the best shots. Go to any tournament in person and youll see 10 fatted/clip the bank shots for every 1 perfect shot.