Should bunkers be raked?

With all of the rules changes currently being debated, at work today, we discussed whether or not bunkers should be raked. Since they are technically supposed to be punitive, it seems like they should be left natural (including debris, footprints, etc.). The point was made that leaving them natural would likely hurt pace of play, but it would also keep players from intentionally playing for bunkers when other options seemed less appealing. So, what say you?

With all of the rules changes currently being debated, at work today, we discussed whether or not bunkers should be raked. Since they are technically supposed to be punitive, it seems like they should be left natural (including debris, footprints, etc.). The point was made that leaving them natural would likely hurt pace of play, but it would also keep players from intentionally playing for bunkers when other options seemed less appealing. So, what say you?

That would turn into the same argument as divots. Why should a player whose played better to get a later tee time have to deal with a footprint or impact in the bunker that wasn't there for players before him.

They don't rake the bunkers out at Friar's Head and the caddies recommended just to brush over a "divot" with your shoes and to try and tread lightly on the way out. I personally prefer the raking but it wasn't all that bad. I think that no raking would invite further laziness from those who already do not rake bunkers properly and you would end up in a shoe print or depression more often than not. Just my $.02.

With all of the rules changes currently being debated, at work today, we discussed whether or not bunkers should be raked. Since they are technically supposed to be punitive, it seems like they should be left natural (including debris, footprints, etc.). The point was made that leaving them natural would likely hurt pace of play, but it would also keep players from intentionally playing for bunkers when other options seemed less appealing. So, what say you?

 

That would turn into the same argument as divots. Why should a player whose played better to get a later tee time have to deal with a footprint or impact in the bunker that wasn't there for players before him.

That's true if the bunkers were raked after each round. But if they were never raked, footprints would be equally present for the first group out as they would be for the last group.

Last thing I want to see is 72nd hole of a major come down to 18 and have a guy hit one in a bunker needing par to win only to be stuck in a footprint that wasn't there earlier costing him the tourney.

For us normal Joe's all of the sudden a twilight time at a course that gets 200 rounds+ a day doesn't sound so appealing.

They don't rake the bunkers out at Friar's Head and the caddies recommended just to brush over a "divot" with your shoes and to try and tread lightly on the way out. I personally prefer the raking but it wasn't all that bad. I think that no raking would invite further laziness from those who already do not rake bunkers properly and you would end up in a shoe print or depression more often than not. Just my $.02.

That's the point, though. The chances of ending up in a depression/footprint would be high for everyone, making it more of a hazard than a stock splash shot.

Last thing I want to see is 72nd hole of a major come down to 18 and have a guy hit one in a bunker needing par to win only to be stuck in a footprint that wasn't there earlier costing him the tourney.

 

For us normal Joe's all of the sudden a twilight time at a course that gets 200 rounds+ a day doesn't sound so appealing.

Fair point. But if it is supposed to be a hazard, that might be more incentive to avoid the bunker altogether. It would be closer to a lateral hazard without raking. You might get a good lie or you might get screwed. The best idea would be to not hit it in the bunker to begin.

Bunkers raked.... tho most don't take extra 15 seconds to accomplish. Fairway divots... should be sand/seed filled.

Last thing I want to see is 72nd hole of a major come down to 18 and have a guy hit one in a bunker needing par to win only to be stuck in a footprint that wasn't there earlier costing him the tourney.

 

For us normal Joe's all of the sudden a twilight time at a course that gets 200 rounds+ a day doesn't sound so appealing.

Fair point. But if it is supposed to be a hazard, that might be more incentive to avoid the bunker altogether. It would be closer to a lateral hazard without raking. You might get a good lie or you might get screwed. The best idea would be to not hit it in the bunker to begin.

The don't hit it there augment is a weak one here. It's like saying well you should have just holed out then you wouldn't have that impossible downhill slider for birdie.

While i agree bunkers should be hazards and don't think we all deserve nice fluffy lies on a slight up slope. I don't think it equals having to hit one out of Frankenstein's freaking footprint either. Bunkers are a more integral part of a golf course with a reasonable expectancy to be hit into on a slight miss whereas laterals and water hazards are generally only in play for much bigger misses.

Being a good bunker player even in tour quality sand is a skill and good bunker play should be rewarded. Having to hit out of a bunker that looks like Omaha beach would boil down to pure luck not skill. I'd also argue more people would end up having to hit 2nd and 3rd shots and slow play even more than raking would.

 

 

Last thing I want to see is 72nd hole of a major come down to 18 and have a guy hit one in a bunker needing par to win only to be stuck in a footprint that wasn't there earlier costing him the tourney.

 

For us normal Joe's all of the sudden a twilight time at a course that gets 200 rounds+ a day doesn't sound so appealing.

Fair point. But if it is supposed to be a hazard, that might be more incentive to avoid the bunker altogether. It would be closer to a lateral hazard without raking. You might get a good lie or you might get screwed. The best idea would be to not hit it in the bunker to begin.

 

The don't hit it there augment is a weak one here. It's like saying well you should have just holed out then you wouldn't have that impossible downhill slider for birdie.

 

While i agree bunkers should be hazards and don't think we all deserve nice fluffy lies on a slight up slope. I don't think it equals having to hit one out of Frankenstein's freaking footprint either. Bunkers are a more integral part of a golf course with a reasonable expectancy to be hit into on a slight miss whereas laterals and water hazards are generally only in play for much bigger misses.

 

Being a good bunker player even in tour quality sand is a skill and good bunker play should be rewarded. Having to hit out of a bunker that looks like Omaha beach would boil down to pure luck not skill. I'd also argue more people would end up having to hit 2nd and 3rd shots and slow play even more than raking would.

:) Your analogy of Omaha Beach made me legitimately chuckle. At work, I argued that it would likely slow play down due to worse shots out of said bunkers, so I agree with you there. I'm not arguing for or against it - I can actually see both sides of the argument equally. On our home course, lies in bunkers are mostly good, but can sometimes be poor depending on the amount of play. The comment that was made that started this whole debate at work was that if a green is heavily guarded by water and penalizing rough, playing for the bunker is a viable option because it's much easier to play out of vs. thick rough or water. That's when it was asked, "should it be easier, though, since it is technically supposed to be a hazard?"

Should every shot that doesn't hit the fairway or green incur the stroke and distance penalty? Of course not. There should be penalty for a bad shot that is proportional. So I think it's appropriate for bunkers to be relatively easier to recover from since often a shot that ends up in a bunker is not as bad of a miss.

I have to go with the USGA/PGA on this one in the sense that(minus ever changing weather conditions) all players play the same course under the most exact conditions as possible. Yes, bunkers are a hazard, and yes the best players in the world are rarely ever afraid of them,,,,,but, most amateur's are still scared to death of them.

If the average golfer was shooting 75 then I could kind of see the OP's argument but since most actually struggle breaking 100 to 90, your idea is only going to slow play and make the game exponentially less fun and undesirable.

Bottom line is there's already enough "Rub of the Green" out there in a normal everyday round. Adding to it is beyond asinine!!!!!

Last thing I want to see is 72nd hole of a major come down to 18 and have a guy hit one in a bunker needing par to win only to be stuck in a footprint that wasn't there earlier costing him the tourney.

That's why I hate the divot rule.

That's why I hate the divot rule.

What is the divot rule?

I quite liked the premise behind the grooves at Memorial when year when the pros had a meltdown. They need their uniformly angular sand particles (no I'm not joking, the tour specs some nonsense called G-Angle sand at times)

That's why I hate the divot rule.

 

What is the divot rule?

I see what you did there,,,,,,,, :taunt:

I have to go with the USGA/PGA on this one in the sense that(minus ever changing weather conditions) all players play the same course under the most exact conditions as possible. Yes, bunkers are a hazard, and yes the best players in the world are rarely ever afraid of them,,,,,but, most amateur's are still scared to death of them.

 

If the average golfer was shooting 75 then I could kind of see the OP's argument but since most actually struggle breaking 100 to 90, your idea is only going to slow play and make the game exponentially less fun and undesirable.

 

Bottom line is there's already enough "Rub of the Green" out there in a normal everyday round. Adding to it is beyond asinine!!!!!

THIS !!!

If it was up to me every football, and baseball for that matter, game would be played indoors in 60* weather. No wind, no rain, no snow, etc.

I realize that's not possible in golf but at least the bunkers, as well as the rest of the course, can be as close to the "same" as possible for each participant.

I want the game to be about the player(s) with the most SKILL,,,,,,,,,, and have luck play as little part as possible in the outcome.

But maybe that's just me. :dntknw:

Bunkers are not true hazards (despite what most posters in this thread seem to think) as you are forced to play from them. If you don't rake them then they should be treated as a true hazard and entitle you to be able to take a drop outside the bunker at the cost of a shot like other hazards. Personally I like things as they are now, being able to play well from the sand is a skill that should be rewarded.

Bunkers are not true hazards (despite what most posters in this thread seem to think) as you are forced to play from them.

You can always take stroke and distance. But yeah, you have to drop the ball back in the bunker if you intend on moving the ball with a penalty stroke.

No.. Just no. What is next. Fill the bunkers with water?

I have to go with the USGA/PGA on this one in the sense that(minus ever changing weather conditions) all players play the same course under the most exact conditions as possible. Yes, bunkers are a hazard, and yes the best players in the world are rarely ever afraid of them,,,,,but, most amateur's are still scared to death of them.

 

If the average golfer was shooting 75 then I could kind of see the OP's argument but since most actually struggle breaking 100 to 90, your idea is only going to slow play and make the game exponentially less fun and undesirable.

 

Bottom line is there's already enough "Rub of the Green" out there in a normal everyday round. Adding to it is beyond asinine!!!!!

I agree with you on that. Maybe only a Tour change or maybe playing one tournament a year (or something) might be interesting.

There are a bunch of CFO/Controlers are nice clubs and courses that would love for bunkers to not be raked/maintained.

The man hours that go into bunker maintenance are ridiculous.

I quite liked the premise behind the grooves at Memorial when year when the pros had a meltdown. They need their uniformly angular sand particles (no I'm not joking, the tour specs some nonsense called G-Angle sand at times)

Exactly! One aspect of competition that I hold in high esteem is adaptability. Can a person adapt to changing surroundings and continue to preform at a high level? I played this game at pretty high levels and it was most impressive to watch the guys score well regardless of conditions, elements, etc.

I have to go with the USGA/PGA on this one in the sense that(minus ever changing weather conditions) all players play the same course under the most exact conditions as possible. Yes, bunkers are a hazard, and yes the best players in the world are rarely ever afraid of them,,,,,but, most amateur's are still scared to death of them.

 

If the average golfer was shooting 75 then I could kind of see the OP's argument but since most actually struggle breaking 100 to 90, your idea is only going to slow play and make the game exponentially less fun and undesirable.

 

Bottom line is there's already enough "Rub of the Green" out there in a normal everyday round. Adding to it is beyond asinine!!!!!

 

THIS !!!

 

If it was up to me every football, and baseball for that matter, game would be played indoors in 60* weather. No wind, no rain, no snow, etc.

 

I realize that's not possible in golf but at least the bunkers, as well as the rest of the course, can be as close to the "same" as possible for each participant.

 

I want the game to be about the player(s) with the most SKILL,,,,,,,,,, and have luck play as little part as possible in the outcome.

 

But maybe that's just me. :dntknw:

We certainly differ on that one. One of the things that I relish about competition is handling the elements - the more demanding, the better.

Rakes with large triangular teeth like they used at the Memorial once many years age. Two inch furrows make most fairway bunkers a 1/2 shot "penalty" Same with a short side green side bunker.

If you're going to have sand bunkers then they should be maintained. If you're not going to maintain them, then just make them grass bunkers and make the grass long enough that it's penal.

Bunkers are not true hazards (despite what most posters in this thread seem to think) as you are forced to play from them. If you don't rake them then they should be treated as a true hazard and entitle you to be able to take a drop outside the bunker at the cost of a shot like other hazards. Personally I like things as they are now, being able to play well from the sand is a skill that should be rewarded.

Regardless of the playing options, bunkers are designated hazards by the rules. There are different types of hazards designated by the rules, but the rule book does not say that bunkers are 'not true hazards'. I do agree that biunker play requires a tremendous amount of skill as it is.

Basic definitions from the USGA / R&A:

Bunker

is a hazard consisting of a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like.

Grass-covered ground bordering or within a bunker, including a stacked turf face (whether grass-covered or earthen), is not part of the bunker. A wall or lip of the bunker not covered with grass is part of the bunker. The margin of a bunker extends vertically downwards, but not upwards.

A ball is in a bunker when it lies in or any part of it touches the bunker.

Hazard

is any bunker or water hazard.

No.. Just no. What is next. Fill the bunkers with water?

I haven't thought of that one, but that's a great idea! I'll start a new thread to debate your suggestion.

?

There are a bunch of CFO/Controlers are nice clubs and courses that would love for bunkers to not be raked/maintained.

 

The man hours that go into bunker maintenance are ridiculous.

Great point.