 |
| Stensballegaard Golf Klub Horsens, Jutland, Denmark |
At Stensballegaard Golf Club (opened May 2010) we implemented:
"The sand bunkers at Stensballegaard Golf Club are an important part of the tactical challenge. The bunkers will be minimally maintained. This means: only enough grooming to limit plant growth, and sustain the “sandy” aspect. The sand bunkers are designed to impose a penalty*.
Upon leaving a sand bunker, players may smooth their footprints and depressions as a courtesy to following players. However, rakes or other implements to smooth the sand will not be provided by the golf course.
In recent times, excessive maintenance practices have caused sand bunkers to lose their meaning in the game of golf. Golfers have come to expect a perfect lie, allowing the golf ball to be easily played and easily extracted from the hazard. This compromises the purpose of the sand bunker.
Bunkers are hazards, as defined by the rules of golf. As such, bunkers represent an important element in defining tactical challenge. In order for a hazard to effectively define strategy, there must be sufficient reason for a player to avoid the hazard.
At Stensballegaard Golf Club, the fairways and roughs are designed with significant width, providing players with a variety of options to approach the green. Sand bunkers are used sparingly and primarily exist to define the strategy of each golf hole. The sand bunkers are located at strategic points within the golf course and it may be advantageous to challenge the bunkers by playing close to them. But, sufficient width has been provided to play safely around these hazards as well. This option, whether to challenge the bunkers by playing close to them or playing safely away from them, is a basic tenet in golf strategy.
The decision to incorporate this challenge, by reinstating bunkers as a true penalty,* is a choice to celebrate and uphold the heritage of golf. It is our deepest hope the members of Stensballegaard Golf Club will embrace this approach and challenge.
*penalty - is a relative term. There is not a specific penalty (for example; one stroke) intended for each hazard. The intent is for the hazards, if entered, to have a negative effect on a player’s score."
The decision to implement this policy has been controversial and has spawned important discussion about the role of bunkers. The process has also been illuminating for me and it has been interesting how my perspective of bunkers has changed.
It is clear, there is a "perception" of how bunkers "should" be maintained. And, this has evolved (or devolved) to a point of absolute absurdity.
I can still remember how golf courses were maintained when I started playing golf 40 plus years ago. Sand bunkers were places to be avoided. If your ball entered a bunker, your recovery expectations were nominal. But, this was normal. After all, you did hit your ball into a hazard.
As golf maintanance standards have improved, so did our expectations concerning bunker maintenance.
Today, bunkers can be the second most costly item in golf course maintenance, often representing as much as 20-25% of the maintenance budget (putting greens being the most costly). Can you believe it? Hazards are the second most costly item to maintain!
Ask any golf course operator, “What do your golfers complain about most?” The #1 or #2 complaint will be condition or maintenance of the bunkers (greens will be the other answer).
A couple points;
1) Golfers will say, “The sand in the bunkers is wrong or bad”. (In fact, there are only general guidelines for bunker sand. Any “sandy” material can be used in bunkers. There truly is no right or wrong sand.)
2) Golfers will say, “The bunkers aren’t well maintained”. (In fact, there is no standard for bunker maintenance. )
The most compelling part of this entire "Stensballegaard Bunker Policy" process has been the discussions with golfers. Once you acknowledge bunkers are really hazards, it becomes impossible to accept there should be "maintenance standards” in the bunkers.
A hazard should be maintained to an “acceptable” standard. Why? What standard? For what purpose?
Perhaps the most compelling issue, related to 'over maintained' bunkers is: Bunkers have lost their value as a strategic element in the game of golf. This is a well known fact in the golf industry. Good players aim for bunkers, often using them as safe haven. When better golfers use hazards as a form of relief from problem or penalty, we know they have lost their intended value to the game.
So, how has the golf industry compensated for dumbing down bunkers to the point where they are not longer a factor? One solution has been to lengthen golf courses, to 're-instill' challenge! But, we forgot, adding length to golf courses; 1) makes the sport more difficult for the other 98% of golfers, 2) increases the time necessary to play golf and, 3) increases the cost of maintenance. Not good.
So, maintaining bunkers as HAZARDS makes perfect sense. We won't need to lengthen golf courses. This will help reduce costs, reduce the time required to play golf and make the game more interesting for beginners.
Stensballegaard Golf Klub has taken a very brave and honorable stance in this regard and it is an honor to join the club in this extremely worthy campaign!
Bunkers are hazards.
Bunkers are hazards.
No comments:
Post a Comment