Should bunkers be raked?

[b.helts]

 

 

 

Players are "rewarded" by playing into bunkers?

 

No. Maybe occasionally they *choose* to try to hit into a bunker. But in reality, not all that often.

 

The myth that bunkers are easier than other shots is just that, a myth. ESPECIALLY in the real world where bunkers aren't perfect like they usually are on tour.

Yes, rewarded very much, actually, when alternatives are considered. And it is absolutely not a myth that bunker shots are nearly equally as difficult as other greenside options. Look at the saves percentages described above for clarification on your opinion.

 

lol it's demonstrable that getting up and down from a bunker is harder than not for the best players in the world. Undeniable.

 

Take into account that a vast majority of golfers are worse out bunkers relative to the best players in the world and a bunker can't be logically called a reward for anyone.

[SeaOfGreen10]

 

 

Players are "rewarded" by playing into bunkers?

 

No. Maybe occasionally they *choose* to try to hit into a bunker. But in reality, not all that often.

 

The myth that bunkers are easier than other shots is just that, a myth. ESPECIALLY in the real world where bunkers aren't perfect like they usually are on tour.

Yes, rewarded very much, actually, when alternatives are considered. And it is absolutely not a myth that bunker shots are nearly equally as difficult as other greenside options. Look at the saves percentages described above for clarification on your opinion.

 

But the tour is the extreme example, and even there, the save percentages are slightly better from the rough. I have to imagine the vast majority of golfers will virtually never aim for a bunker or view it as a reward.

[jslane57]

One thing not in the stat. Are the players extremely short sided as a rule when they bail out into a bunker? There are holes at this weeks tournament where players were certainly willing to go in bunkers to get over water and not have to be chipping out of rough toward water. The bunkers that the tour visits are also much deeper and generally softer than many at regular courses, this does make them very difficult for sure. Nice and manicured makes them consistent yes, easy no...

[williamsnrb]

 

 

 

Players are "rewarded" by playing into bunkers?

 

No. Maybe occasionally they *choose* to try to hit into a bunker. But in reality, not all that often.

 

The myth that bunkers are easier than other shots is just that, a myth. ESPECIALLY in the real world where bunkers aren't perfect like they usually are on tour.

Yes, rewarded very much, actually, when alternatives are considered. And it is absolutely not a myth that bunker shots are nearly equally as difficult as other greenside options. Look at the saves percentages described above for clarification on your opinion.

 

lol it's demonstrable that getting up and down from a bunker is harder than not for the best players in the world. Undeniable.

 

Take into account that a vast majority of golfers are worse out bunkers relative to the best players in the world and a bunker can't be logically called a reward for anyone.

 

Undeniable? The fact that they get up and down more than 50% of the time shows the it is not "harder than not" for the best players in the world to play from bunkers. Compared to thick rough, sometimes bunkers offer a clear advantage on Tour. I agree that most players are not great out of bunkers, but that is not the discussion.

[williamsnrb]

 

 

Players are "rewarded" by playing into bunkers?

 

No. Maybe occasionally they *choose* to try to hit into a bunker. But in reality, not all that often.

 

The myth that bunkers are easier than other shots is just that, a myth. ESPECIALLY in the real world where bunkers aren't perfect like they usually are on tour.

Yes, rewarded very much, actually, when alternatives are considered. And it is absolutely not a myth that bunker shots are nearly equally as difficult as other greenside options. Look at the saves percentages described above for clarification on your opinion.

 

But the tour is the extreme example, and even there, the save percentages are slightly better from the rough. I have to imagine the vast majority of golfers will virtually never aim for a bunker or view it as a reward.

I agree with that.

[williamsnrb]

One thing not in the stat. Are the players extremely short sided as a rule when they bail out into a bunker? There are holes at this weeks tournament where players were certainly willing to go in bunkers to get over water and not have to be chipping out of rough toward water. The bunkers that the tour visits are also much deeper and generally softer than many at regular courses, this does make them very difficult for sure. Nice and manicured makes them consistent yes, easy no...

 

Tour bunkers are certainly not always easy, I agree. But players can typically expect the ball to be flat and have a great lie in the sand. If bunkers are supposed to be hazards, though, should they be that predictable?

[b.helts]

 

 

 

Players are "rewarded" by playing into bunkers?

 

No. Maybe occasionally they *choose* to try to hit into a bunker. But in reality, not all that often.

 

The myth that bunkers are easier than other shots is just that, a myth. ESPECIALLY in the real world where bunkers aren't perfect like they usually are on tour.

Yes, rewarded very much, actually, when alternatives are considered. And it is absolutely not a myth that bunker shots are nearly equally as difficult as other greenside options. Look at the saves percentages described above for clarification on your opinion.

 

lol it's demonstrable that getting up and down from a bunker is harder than not for the best players in the world. Undeniable.

 

Take into account that a vast majority of golfers are worse out bunkers relative to the best players in the world and a bunker can't be logically called a reward for anyone.

 

Undeniable? The fact that they get up and down more than 50% of the time shows the it is not "harder than not" for the best players in the world to play from bunkers. Compared to thick rough, sometimes bunkers offer a clear advantage on Tour. I agree that most players are not great out of bunkers, but that is not the discussion.

 

You're not thinking straight. I know you're smart. I can tell. A percentage greater than 50 does not show that it's "not harder than not"

 

The statistics clearly state that getting up and down out of a bunker is harder than getting up and down from anywhere not in a bunker. THAT is undeniable.

 

And while it is also undeniably true that getting up and down from a bunker CAN be easier than the rough in certain instances, it simply is not the norm.

[One_Putt_Blunder]

 

 

Players are "rewarded" by playing into bunkers?

 

No. Maybe occasionally they *choose* to try to hit into a bunker. But in reality, not all that often.

 

The myth that bunkers are easier than other shots is just that, a myth. ESPECIALLY in the real world where bunkers aren't perfect like they usually are on tour.

Yes, rewarded very much, actually, when alternatives are considered. And it is absolutely not a myth that bunker shots are nearly equally as difficult as other greenside options. Look at the saves percentages described above for clarification on your opinion.

 

But the tour is the extreme example, and even there, the save percentages are slightly better from the rough. I have to imagine the vast majority of golfers will virtually never aim for a bunker or view it as a reward.

 

A lot depends on the course set up. Even then I would not say I am likely to play with the intention of hitting into a bunker. If I am playing a course with tour quality sand. I will certainly be a lot more aggressive at which pins I go after. TPC Scottsdale a prime example. If a pin is tucked over a bunker Im going to take the more aggressive club there and go at the pin knowing that if I miss it a little and come up short in the bunker it is not all that bad. Compared to say my home track Wekopa while one of the best layouts in the state the bunkers are notoriously thin and hardpacked, near impossible to hit a good recovery. There I am aiming away from bunkers a lot.

 

From the pro side I sat on 17 green at Pebble during the final round of the 2010 US Open, Everyone was hitting into that front bunker, many on purpose coming up a full 2-3 clubs short of the pin. The rough around the green was nasty and no one wanted that downhill pitch shot. Hitting into the bunker where they could blast out into an upslope on the green seemed to be the preferred play that day. Only saw one birdie all day there and it was a chip in from just left of the green.

[AdamSecrest]

 

 

Players are "rewarded" by playing into bunkers?

 

No. Maybe occasionally they *choose* to try to hit into a bunker. But in reality, not all that often.

 

The myth that bunkers are easier than other shots is just that, a myth. ESPECIALLY in the real world where bunkers aren't perfect like they usually are on tour.

Yes, rewarded very much, actually, when alternatives are considered. And it is absolutely not a myth that bunker shots are nearly equally as difficult as other greenside options. Look at the saves percentages described above for clarification on your opinion.

 

But the tour is the extreme example, and even there, the save percentages are slightly better from the rough. I have to imagine the vast majority of golfers will virtually never aim for a bunker or view it as a reward.

 

A lot depends on the course set up. Even then I would not say I am likely to play with the intention of hitting into a bunker. If I am playing a course with tour quality sand. I will certainly be a lot more aggressive at which pins I go after. TPC Scottsdale a prime example. If a pin is tucked over a bunker Im going to take the more aggressive club there and go at the pin knowing that if I miss it a little and come up short in the bunker it is not all that bad. Compared to say my home track Wekopa while one of the best layouts in the state the bunkers are notoriously thin and hardpacked, near impossible to hit a good recovery. There I am aiming away from bunkers a lot.

 

From the pro side I sat on 17 green at Pebble during the final round of the 2010 US Open, Everyone was hitting into that front bunker, many on purpose coming up a full 2-3 clubs short of the pin. The rough around the green was nasty and no one wanted that downhill pitch shot. Hitting into the bunker where they could blast out into an upslope on the green seemed to be the preferred play that day. Only saw one birdie all day there and it was a chip in from just left of the green.

 

If it was bunker long and rough short do you think they would have still tried to hit it in the bunker? Downhill sand shot versus uphill shot out of the rough?

 

 

[One_Putt_Blunder]

 

 

If it was bunker long and rough short do you think they would have still tried to hit it in the bunker? Downhill sand shot versus uphill shot out of the rough?

 

On that green to Sunday flag doubtful being above the hole was death very very few pars on shots hit long. Problem really was that section of the green is tiny, the huge ridge splitting the green essentially in two takes away the traditional bailout right. The players effectively had a 2 yard window to land the ball that would hold the green.

[joeshmo]

We have fluffy bunkers. 3" to 4" of sand.

If the bunkers were left alone, except for weeding, over time they would become

hard packed from rain and people tromping around in there.

Once they became firm then footprints wouldn't be an issue.

 

I think...hehehe

[AdamSecrest]

One thing not in the stat. Are the players extremely short sided as a rule when they bail out into a bunker? There are holes at this weeks tournament where players were certainly willing to go in bunkers to get over water and not have to be chipping out of rough toward water. The bunkers that the tour visits are also much deeper and generally softer than many at regular courses, this does make them very difficult for sure. Nice and manicured makes them consistent yes, easy no...

 

This is all speculation.

 

I think it's equally likely to be short-sided in rough versus bunker, however: if hitting into a bunker is more likely to leave one short sided, it wouldn't matter statistically because that would be an inherent characteristic of playing from the sand. Give a tour pro plenty of green to work with and maybe he gets it up and down as frequently or more from the sand as from the rough. That would be irrelevant if because of bunker and pin position he mostly would be short-sided when in a bunker. In play, saving par from the sand would require doing so mostly from the short side. Thus in play, this would contribute to the relative difficulty of saving par between the two surfaces.

[nsxguy]

I am sure someone already mentioned this, but years ago bunkers were not raked as they were deemed a hazard. Today, many golfers would rather be in a nicely raked bunker than some heavy rough.

 

Would you ?

[fredstar]

Should greens be mowed? FFS

[Lancj1]

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.

 

I think the following rule changes should be needed

 

If you land in a divot anywhere in the fairway you get a 1 club length drop

 

If you land in a footprint in the bunker, you get to rake and place

 

Always felt any other result is completely unfair

[Vindog]

Should greens be mowed? FFS

 

Another can of worms!

[mallrat]

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.

 

This is where you lose me. I thought bunker's were meant to be punitive but not a true hazard. I think of a hazard as water or somewhere you generally can't or aren't allowed to play your ball. Especially at courses that have truly soft beach sand where you can get 4" deep footprints.

 

Yes bunkers should be raked, if you are too lazy maybe take up something else

[Vindog]

 

 

I think the following rule changes should be needed

 

If you land in a divot anywhere in the fairway you get a 1 club length drop

 

If you land in a footprint in the bunker, you get to rake and place

 

Always felt any other result is completely unfair

 

Can't be serious. What exactly is fair about those changes to the rest of the field or to your opponent?

[Vindog]

Fair point. But if it is supposed to be a hazard, that might be punitive but not a true hazard. I think of a hazard as water or somewhere you generally can't or aren't allowed to play your ball. Especially at courses that have truly soft beach sand where you can get 4" deep footprints.

 

Yes bunkers should be raked, if you are too lazy maybe take up something else

 

You are ALWAYS allowed to play out of a water hazard. They are actually defined as part of the course, which differentiates them from OOB, justifying the stroke and distance penalty.

 

Cans of worms everywhere.

[jslane57]

One thing not in the stat. Are the players extremely short sided as a rule when they bail out into a bunker? There are holes at this weeks tournament where players were certainly willing to go in bunkers to get over water and not have to be chipping out of rough toward water. The bunkers that the tour visits are also much deeper and generally softer than many at regular courses, this does make them very difficult for sure. Nice and manicured makes them consistent yes, easy no...

 

This is all speculation.

 

I think it's equally likely to be short-sided in rough versus bunker, however: if hitting into a bunker is more likely to leave one short sided, it wouldn't matter statistically because that would be an inherent characteristic of playing from the sand. Give a tour pro plenty of green to work with and maybe he gets it up and down as frequently or more from the sand as from the rough. That would be irrelevant if because of bunker and pin position he mostly would be short-sided when in a bunker. In play, saving par from the sand would require doing so mostly from the short side. Thus in play, this would contribute to the relative difficulty of saving par between the two surfaces.

Of course it's speculation. All blanket stats are. I will say that a few of the courses I've played over the years have had bunkers redone to support a major event. And what a change! Flatter and deeper. If playing these courses, you literally need a LW to get out of the sand much of the time. Anyhow, this thread is about bunkers being raked or not. And are they a hazard. What makes them a hazard? That they are defined as one. And as a result, one can not ground their club in the bunker. If it ever becomes OK to ground your club in a bunker, they would no longer be hazards.

 

The day they get rid of all rakes and change the etiquette to "roughly smoothing the bunker with your foot or club upon leaving", is the day I will no longer argue that divots should be ground under repair. Keeping bunkers pristine and allowing divots as rub of the green in the middle of the fairway is absurd IMO...

[WidespreadPanic]

Considering the caddy does the raking on tour I don't see how not taking would speed up play. Most players read their own putts so they don't need the caddy once they're out of the bunker.

[williamsnrb]

 

Yes, rewarded very much, actually, when alternatives are considered. And it is absolutely not a myth that bunker shots are nearly equally as difficult as other greenside options. Look at the saves percentages described above for clarification on your opinion.

 

lol it's demonstrable that getting up and down from a bunker is harder than not for the best players in the world. Undeniable.

 

Take into account that a vast majority of golfers are worse out bunkers relative to the best players in the world and a bunker can't be logically called a reward for anyone.

 

Undeniable? The fact that they get up and down more than 50% of the time shows the it is not "harder than not" for the best players in the world to play from bunkers. Compared to thick rough, sometimes bunkers offer a clear advantage on Tour. I agree that most players are not great out of bunkers, but that is not the discussion.

 

You're not thinking straight. I know you're smart. I can tell. A percentage greater than 50 does not show that it's "not harder than not"

 

The statistics clearly state that getting up and down out of a bunker is harder than getting up and down from anywhere not in a bunker. THAT is undeniable.

 

And while it is also undeniably true that getting up and down from a bunker CAN be easier than the rough in certain instances, it simply is not the norm.

 

Actually, the exact definition of difficulty is based on the saves percentage. If the saves percentage is below 50% (meaning players, on average, get up and down from a bunker less than half of the time), then it can be said that getting up and down from a bunker is "harder than not".

 

The statistics indeed do show that the saves percentage is a little lower from the sand than the rough (5ish %). But that is my point. Should playing from a hazard (which bunkers are designated to be) be as easy as the greenside rough?

 

FWIW, a more appropriate comparison for this discussion would be saves percentages between bunkers and lateral hazards.

[slocagolfer]

"Since they are technically supposed to be punitive,"

 

Your premise is flawed. Who says you're to be punished if you're in a bunker? What's the punishment - one stroke, two? The rules define them as hazards, not punishment. Maybe we should just make a golfer who ends up in one sit in a corner for five minutes.

 

What you are is challenged. Do you have the skill to make a good recovery. Shoot, high cap golfers are happy just to get out.

 

Rake the damned bunkers and do a good job of it!

[williamsnrb]

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.

 

This is where you lose me. I thought bunker's were meant to be punitive but not a true hazard. I think of a hazard as water or somewhere you generally can't or aren't allowed to play your ball. Especially at courses that have truly soft beach sand where you can get 4" deep footprints.

 

Yes bunkers should be raked, if you are too lazy maybe take up something else

 

This was discussed earlier. Bunkers are not described as "hazards, but not true hazards" by the rules. They are described simply as "hazards". So this isn't as much about what tends to be, but about what should be.

[williamsnrb]

Considering the caddy does the raking on tour I don't see how not taking would speed up play. Most players read their own putts so they don't need the caddy once they're out of the bunker.

 

To your point (this is off-topic, but it's funny):

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/nolayingup/status/830892837675864064

[williamsnrb]

"Since they are technically supposed to be punitive,"

 

Your premise is flawed. Who says you're to be punished if you're in a bunker. What's the punishment - one stroke, two? The rules define them as hazards, not punishment. Maybe we should just make a golfer who ends up in one sit in a corner for five minutes.

 

What your are is challenged. Do you have the skill to make a good recovery. Shoot, high cap golfers are happy just to get out.

 

Rake the damned bunkers and do a good job of it!

 

Well, if we begin mandatory timeouts of grown men, the punishment needs to be enforced after the round in order to avoid slow play. Good idea!

 

:)

[Vindog]

Didn't Jack want his bunkers raked in a certain way for the Memorial a while back to make them harder to recover from? Folks got bent out of shape I think.

 

Someone refresh my memory. Some deep groove rake or something.

[jslane57]

Didn't Jack want his bunkers raked in a certain way for the Memorial a while back to make them harder to recover from? Folks got bent out of shape I think.

 

Someone refresh my memory. Some deep groove rake or something.

You're correct. Soft sand and a deep wide grooves. I thought it was pretty cool myself...

[Hawkeye77]

Should greens be mowed? FFS

 

A little trimming just above the furrow - but unmowed is nice and retro, I'd call it an Old Tom Morris look but that would be awkward.

[gvogel]

Didn't Jack want his bunkers raked in a certain way for the Memorial a while back to make them harder to recover from? Folks got bent out of shape I think.

 

Someone refresh my memory. Some deep groove rake or something.

You're correct. Soft sand and a deep wide grooves. I thought it was pretty cool myself...

 

He got the idea from Oakmont, where they use a rake with wider spacing and deeper prongs.