This is a repost of an article written by golf course architect Jim Urbina - The 5 Myths About Sand Bunkers. He says we no longer understand their true purpose. What do you think?
1) Bunkers are there to penalize golfers
Nothing could be further from the truth. The great old-time architects said a hazard isn’t just for punishment but to make the game more interesting. Golfers take bunkers personally: Those of us in the design business see them in the exact opposite way. Robert Hunter wrote, “Without hazards, golf would be a dull sport.”
2) You should be able to advance the ball from a bunker
Why? Sometimes golf, like life, isn’t fair. The original bunkers were totally natural, which meant sometimes it was impossible to move the ball forward from them. We’ve since made our own rules and now demand the ability to hit out of a bunker all the way to the green. But that wasn’t always the original purpose.
3) Maintaining them is important
We spend too much time and money maintaining bunkers. Due to expensive sands and labor costs, what should be among the cheapest parts of a course to maintain are the most expensive. They’re hazards, not gardens, and don’t need to be beautiful let alone neat and tidy.
4) They should not be in the middle of a fairway
If you hit a great shot down the middle and it finds a bunker then it wasn’t a great shot. A hazard is often placed for strategy, and one in the fairway is telling you that’s not the best place for hitting to the green. The game requires thought and skill, and sometimes the right play isn’t the obvious one. Same with bunker placement.
5) What you see is what you get
C.B. Macdonald said it can take years to discover and appreciate the hidden qualities of a bunker. Take the time to study the bunker—where it is, how it’s shaped and looks—over and over again. A good bunker makes you think and, as all the greats said, makes a course more interesting.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe original post was removed as requested by the author.
DeleteI love it when commenters don't sign their names while providing, at best, opinion when challenging a historically and economically considerate superintendent of a public golf course. Weak. Your concerns/complaints about bunker maintenance (at Keller I presume) are largely misguided as even when the crew rakes the bunkers in the morning, the quality of bunker conditions is up to your "average amateurs" for the rest of the day. If you're accustomed to perfectly manicured bunkers, supported for 10-14 a day by professional bunker-raking caddies/members in each and every group, maybe a public course isn't for you. The Master's kicks off tomorrow, perhaps an Augusta membership, and it's costs, are more in line with your expectations. If Augusta is out of your reach then maybe just roll with it, be thankful that you get to play the game, and understand that your repetitive insistence upon "raked and manicured" bunkers is more dependent on 100's of other average amateurs playing that day than it is on a superintendent and crew.
ReplyDeleteTo the individual responsible for the "Seriously" post: You do realize I did not write the post you commented on? The piece was written by a fairly well-respected golf course architect, Jim Urbina. I simply posted the piece as a thought-provoking, interesting look at the role of sand bunkers in modern golf. It is a fact that the cost of maintaining sand bunkers is in the realm of putting green maintenance costs. Often, high-end golf facilities report spending more on bunker maintenance than putting green maintenance - believe it or not.
ReplyDeleteLastly, as Mr. Frigaard pointed out, you should sign your name to lend a certain level of credibility to your comments.