"Why do we have bunkers at all?"
Reader David Foster brings up the next logical question in the post Dustin Johnson club grounding debate: "Why do we have bunkers at all? Let's get rid of them all together."
Not fill them in mind you, he says, but "remove the definition and every other mention of them from the rules. They (physically) can remain and we will just play them as through the green."
Naturally, I'm for this and anything else that makes the rules of golf a little less ridiculous.
So what would change? David lays out the case:
1. You could ground your club in the area formerly known as a bunker. Even practice swings. Lots of em. And no, Bobby Jones would not rise out of his grave and tell us we were all cheating. Yes, you would be able to test the surface and change your shot selection accordingly, just as we do in the rough and the fairway. No one complains if you take 10 practice swings in the fairway to test the firmness or lack thereof of the turf.
But wouldn't this leaded to a widespread "testing the surface" debate?
You would not be able to smash your club down behind the ball to improve the lie, because that would be improving your lie, just as it would be in the rough or fairway. In long rough, good players don't press their club down into the grass because they are afraid of either the ball moving, or being accused of trying to improve the lie.
Well, except Kenny Perry. Sorry, go on.
The same would hold in the sand. If the sand was hard packed you could set your club down without fear, but in soft sand would be more careful, just like in the fairway or rough. Judgment and skill would continue to be important.
2. No more "digging in" in the sand to build a stance. And don't give me the "moving your feet back and forth is not building a stance" line. If you can't do it in the fairway, you can't do it in the sand.
3. No more rules officials standing around trying to figure out what is or is not a bunker, or spillover, or attempting to define the margin of the hazard. Guys playing in their regular Saturday game would be able to apply the rule as effectively as if they had their own personal rules official.
They used to call this: PLAY IT AS IT LIES!
4. The embedded ball rule could remain the same. As long as you only allow a drop for balls embedded in the "closely mown area" nothing would change in regard to balls plugged in sand.
5. Casual water situations in the sand would be easier to deal with. Just take the closest relief, regardless if in the sand or not. Sometimes dropping out of the sand would be an advantage, other times it would not.
6. The architectural significance or the strategic implementation of sand would not be diminished, as players would still prefer to be in the fairway. And by the way, rake it or don't rake it, I don't care. Maybe some clubs would choose to rake their sand and others would not.
The question is, would courses ramp up their bunker maintenance even more if bunkers are played through the green, or would the opposite effect occur? Is much of the capital poured into bunkers done so because golfers can't ground their clubs and therefore expect perfection to compensate for the inability to place their club down?
Either way, David concludes...
It makes the rules easier to understand, easier to follow and enforce, and easier to explain to new golfers. It does not reduce the importance of skill, in fact, it makes skill more important. You know how I know that it could be accepted? I have never heard anyone say that the 91 Ryder Cup at Kiawah was not a legitimate tournament or the outcome was adversely affected by players grounding their clubs. No one even remembers that element of the tournament. If I remember correctly, it was Larry Startzel that was the head rules official that week. I wonder what he would say about this?
We must track Larry down!
Okay, why do we need "bunkers" at all?
Tuesday, August 17, 2010 at 08:51 AM 32 Comments | in 2010 PGA Championship, Architecture, State of the Game
Reader Comments (32)
And for the younger ones - see Roberto DiVicenzo
jb
I'll play devil's advocate. In most/many bunkers with any depth to them, the ball tends to settle in a very small area, ie, the bottom. All those practice swings means a large amount of degradation in maybe 5% of the bunker. The late tee timers get clay or hard pan, even with raking?
Green side, you get 10 times the amount of sand thrown on the green from those bunkers.
I think the 'bunker mentality' would have to be completely rethought. They'd become shallower, more feral (mix of grasses and sand) and probably bigger. A lot like the original 17th at Pebble. Geoff posted a pic of it during the US Open.
As for removing the word bunker from the rules book? Interesting idea, but I'd guess it would be accepted about the same as the 'role the ball' back argument.
It certainly allows you to test the consistency of the sand, to determine where the hard-packed wet sand (if any) is, etc.
I do appreciate the thinking of David Foster, but at the same time, disposing of bunkers as identified hazards would be one of the most severe forks in the Rules of Golf in a very long time. Just one mistake at a horrible time doesn't mean that it's time to toss the rule.
Bad idea.
I think this is the best time possible to open a debate about something that has become a very strange component of the modern game: the bunker and delineating it from elsewhere. Somehow the game got along fine before we started making the ball lie a certain way, and if you think about the number of things that could change from this rule change, it's a worth discussion.
I would also argue that what people who know little about golf saw was a ridiculous offense to them, and it's issues like this that impact both the perception and accessibility of the game. But just like all other issues, golfers don't seem open to any kind of change, unless it's one that will give them an extra ten yards. And it's why the game is in a slowdown, headed for a minor and unhealthy existence.
Jeff,
Ground under repair? I don't see how that's the case. Surely courses would still rake bunkers from time to time and clean up any burrowing animal holes or other oddities. It's not as if they'll become littered with ground under areas.
08.17.2010 | JG
THIS WOULD BE AWESOME.
I do think initially the pressure would be greater on superintendents to maintain bunkers, but if there was an event where bunkers were not raked daily, that would send a great message to most country club types. Plus, being able to ground your club does seem to take some of the pressure off of having a perfect rake job. I'm not sure exactly why though.
Stop raking bunkers, they are hazards, they should not be maintained/manicured. If you end up in a footprint, bad luck. Don't hit it there.
It would scare the crap out of the players, trust me, I was nearly tarred and feathered at a early 90's players meeting when I suggested it.
It will make scoring higher (mainly because players will take different lines off the tees and into the greens).
Proximity to the hole will skyrocket
Because I have been in a few bunkers, where I chipped to the side, and then still had to hit the more difficult shot out of the bunker.
Whistling Straits is a Pete Dye course. Enough said.
For good players, a bunker shot is an easier shot than a greenside shot out of the rough.
Playing everything 'through the green' and eliminating the rake and the deep rough will bring the concept of an actual 'hazard' back to the bunker and strategy will increase.
When Tiger whined that he 'caught a rock' between the club and ball on the 17th at Oakmont a few years ago - when the greenside bunker is the 'right miss' on a par five - when i wait 5 min in the fairway while an amatuer rakes a bunker.....
This is all a massive over-reaction to a situation where a pro lost his composure in the heat of battle on a course designed by Walt Disney's useless twin brother.
I quite like the idea of doing away with rakes-there weren't any at Lytham when I first took up the game.I for one know however that I would leave the 'bunker'(for want of a better name)in a much worse state than I found it!Anybody want to play after my 15 stone and size nines have highland flung all over the through the green sand area?Fancy being last out in a tournament anyone?Fancy playing out of Justin's divot for that matter?!
Excellent points, and all too true. I thought I was a bit of a lone wolf on Saturday afternoon thinking of WS as another Pete Dye monstrosity that has visually stunning vistas but ingloriously empty shot values. I actually started referring to it as a "transvestite of a course" in my Sunday morning foursome, a feeling that I was certainly nor disavowed of during play in the final round. Some folks didn't like that metaphor when I blogged it, but I stand by what I said.
Compare and contrast it to the ongoing restoration of Pinehurst #2 to reflect Donald Ross's original design values and it is clear which of the two courses -- WS or #2 -- is the truly great championship venue. Hint: it's in NC.
Hard cases (Dustin J.) do not make good law. For every genuine "exemption" granted to a rule, there would be a thousand unnoticed or rationalized ("but you allowed it for x at y") improvements of lies.
Today's version of the rules are what they are because they try codify the anti-cheating experience of the ages.
1. a case, like with DJ, where the sand was so packed down that the grounding of his club probably did not improve his lie; or
2. someone just touches the sand with his/her club away from where the ball is.
Penalties in those situations probably aren't justified, but the alternative is having the gray-area issues and the potential for unfairness in those cases.
I'd agree with a return to simpler rules, not because it's perfect, but because it's more in keeping with the spirit and sportsmanship of the game, although with millions at stake perhaps technical, legalistic rules are necessary in pro tournaments.
All the hard core golfers/bettors/rules mavens probably don't care. They know the rules, and probably use them to their best advantage.
But the complexity of the rules -- like in Dustin Johnson's situation -- turns off potential and casual golfers. It makes them not want to take up or enjoy the game. They want competitors and golfers to win or lose based on their shots, not lawyerly dissections of "intended and built to be a bunker."
So many golfers work to improve their swing to shave a stroke here or there, losing strokes to complex rules when there was no intent to cheat is discouraging. All that money spent at the range and on lessons seems a waste when you lose more strokes to a gust of wind wiggling the ball on the green as you do a slice into water.
Or, if you're like me, you wait a year or two to play in a golf league because you're intimidated by knowing all the rules. And then in your first tee shot at your first tournament in front of 25 people, some old guy with a later tee time starts yelling that your drive went into the woods and you have to re-tee. Except the trees are marked with red stakes. The guy is insistent on the re-tee and an argument ensues. Even through the guy was wrong and you dropped where the ball entered, you're rattled, shoot 20 strokes above your average. After 2 or 3 more incidents throughout the season with incorrect "rules experts," you decide you'd rather play golf on your own.
The late Phil Kosin, publisher of Chicagoland Golf and fourputt in these comments, was a vocal advocate for simpler rules (that most golfers already play by -- like OB is played as lateral hazard). Maybe it's an impossible subject here because most readers and posters are of the hard core golfer variety.