Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
MEfree

Bunkers vs. Water Hazards

30 posts in this topic

Why are bunkers more penal than water hazards?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

Originally Posted by MEfree

Why are bunkers more penal than water hazards?

Ahhhh, huh?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Why are bunkers more penal than water hazards?

Oh God. I'm gonna hate myself for asking, but penal in what way? Personally, I find it much easier to play out most bunkers than from most water hazards, but maybe that's just me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by MEfree

Why are bunkers more penal than water hazards?

Gonna need to know what your definition of penal is. I see where this thread is headed, so I'm hoping we can get this question answered and move on.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by MEfree

Why are bunkers more penal than water hazards?

The relationship of swing path and acceleration with aquatic versus granular materials is affetyed negatively despite the axpectation that causal effect will influence ball flight and spike marks.

In other words, WTF is your question?

Also, bunkers aren't more penal than water hazards.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refrain from posting my initial response and just second Cipher's.

Originally Posted by cipher

Ahhhh, huh?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I'll second this one as well.

Originally Posted by Shorty

The relationship of swing path and acceleration with aquatic versus granular materials is affetyed negatively despite the axpectation that causal effect will influence ball flight and spike marks.

In other words, WTF is your question?

Also, bunkers aren't more penal than water hazards.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by MEfree

Why are bunkers more penal than water hazards?

Because they're not.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Shorty

The relationship of swing path and acceleration with aquatic versus granular materials is affetyed negatively despite the axpectation that causal effect will influence ball flight and spike marks.

In other words, WTF is your question?

Also, bunkers aren't more penal than water hazards.

HAHA

how about this,

Though it is known that water hazards are given a +1 to stroke, for those who suffer from inadequate technique to overcome the adverse conditions of granular materials, bunkers can in fact carry a penalty equal to the number of strokes it takes before the golfer storms off the course or breaks his wedge.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by Shorty

The relationship of swing path and acceleration with aquatic versus granular materials is affetyed negatively despite the axpectation that causal effect will influence ball flight and spike marks.

In other words, WTF is your question?

Also, bunkers aren't more penal than water hazards.

But what if the golfer's name was, "Aquaman"?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

though of course this has to be re-examined if the person has tin-cup-itus, in which case the stroke penalty for water is now equal to the number of golf balls the person has in there bag, or until they sink the ball into the hole.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I realize that most bunkers are easier to play out of than most water hazards and that many course designers intend that landing in a bunker hurts your score less than landing in a water hazard which is why I posted this in the rules section of the forum- From a rules perspective, why are you given more options if your ball comes to rest in a water hazard than in a bunker ?

Water Hazard Options-

1.  Play the ball as it lies, but not ground your club

2.  Stroke and distance under 27-1

3.  Drop OUTSIDE (behind) the hazard with a stroke penalty under 26-1a

4.  For Lateral WH, drop 2 club lengths OUTSIDE the point the ball entered the hazard or opposite margin of the hazard under 26-1b

Sand Hazard (Bunker) Options-

1.  Play the ball as it lies, but not ground your club

2.  Stroke and distance under 27-1

3.  Drop INSIDE the hazard with a stroke penalty under 28b OR 28c

Looking at the way some of the pros took multiple shots to get out of a bunker or played bunker shots going backwards or sideways into long grass at the Open Championship, it sure seemed to me that they would have been better off had the bunker been considered a Water Hazard, thus giving them the option of taking a penalty stroke and dropping outside the hazard (without having to go back to where they played their original shot).

Also, what happens if you are virtually certain that your ball is lost in a bunker, but can't find it?  I know that if you are virtually certain it is lost in a WH, that you can assume it is lost in the hazard and take a drop outside the hazard without going back to where you played the original shot from.  Pretty sure you don't have this option with a bunker.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to regret this, I know. (Judge Lewis imposed the sentence.) There are several more relief options in a bunker. A player has relief options from abnormal ground conditions and immovable obstructions if his ball lies in a bunker. These are not available in a water hazard. So, see, a player has more relief options for a ball in a bunker than he does for a ball in a water hazard.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are bunkers more penal than water hazards?

They aren't, and I don't appreciate your attempts at sensationalism by burying the lede.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I realize that most bunkers are easier to play out of than most water hazards and that many course designers intend that landing in a bunker hurts your score less than landing in a water hazard which is why I posted this in the rules section of the forum- From a rules perspective, why are you given more options if your ball comes to rest in a water hazard than in a bunker ? Water Hazard Options- 1.  Play the ball as it lies, but not ground your club 2.  Stroke and distance under 27-1 3.  Drop OUTSIDE (behind) the hazard with a stroke penalty under 26-1a 4.  For Lateral WH, drop 2 club lengths OUTSIDE the point the ball entered the hazard or opposite margin of the hazard under 26-1b Sand Hazard (Bunker) Options- 1.  Play the ball as it lies, but not ground your club 2.  Stroke and distance under 27-1 3.  Drop INSIDE the hazard with a stroke penalty under 28b OR 28c Looking at the way some of the pros took multiple shots to get out of a bunker or played bunker shots going backwards or sideways into long grass at the Open Championship, it sure seemed to me that they would have been better off had the bunker been considered a Water Hazard, thus giving them the option of taking a penalty stroke and dropping outside the hazard (without having to go back to where they played their original shot). Also, what happens if you are virtually certain that your ball is lost in a bunker, but can't find it?  I know that if you are virtually certain it is lost in a WH, that you can assume it is lost in the hazard and take a drop outside the hazard without going back to where you played the original shot from.  Pretty sure you don't have this option with a bunker.

Maybe you're given more options having hit into a water hazard BECAUSE IT'S MORE FREAKING PENAL to be in the hazard in the first place...... :-\ Ahem..... Sorry all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I"m not even touching this thread.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I"m not even touching this thread. z7_no.gif

Just did sucker!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • Scientific Studies
      Oh, good Lord! I can't believe that you entered such a completely off the mark reply! I thought you had some smarts. Valuable eyeballs? There are no such things! There are only eyeballs. Advertising rates are established on "number of impressions", in other words the number of people who see your ad. The only "value" established for those "eyeballs" is what age they are, what demographic they belong to. If you're seeking to market to a particular demographic, you might pay more to place an ad on "this" show rather than "that" show. And who said anything about "left and right"? You did! You used the phrase "industry supported research", which is a code phrase of the left to indicate research that is suspect! When have you ever heard "Entertainment Industry supported research", or "Actor supported research" in reply! And please don't try to tell me that government sponsored research is as pure as the wind driven snow. I've just realized that you may be confining your remarks to the field of physics. In that realm, they might be valid. Besides you, me, and a couple of guys behind the tree, who the hell cares? I'm referring more to "agendized" science, like climatology, nutrition, and prescription drugs. As for blind funding, that doesn't mean throwing money at any bunch of yahoos who cook up some hare brained scheme. All it means is that the people who are doing the research don't know where the money is.coming from. So they don't know who is buttering their bread! Let's face it, scientists are people, and they need to make a living. There was a line from "The Big Bang Theory" that, while fictional, makes real world sense. In one episode another physicist, Barry Kripke, is asked why he's still studying string theory. He says, "Hey, I study a theory that can't be proven, I apply for grants, and I spend the money on booze and broads!"
    • "Swing Machine Golf" by Paul Wilson
      I will apologize in advance if this post winds up being long. I went out for my first round of golf in 2015, shot a 110, went home, put my clubs on Craigslist, sold them within a day and decided to quit the game. I had been playing for 25 years but only felt I was getting worse. Then, while planning a summer trip to Las Vegas I stumbled upon Paul Wilson's golf videos. I watched a few and couldn't believe how simple he made the golf swing look. I picked up an extra driver from my garage, started trying to swing free and easy and went to the range 2-3 times a week to see if this method would really work. My first time out I shot 97. The second was a 92. The next was an 85. Then, I booked a pair of lessons with Wilson during my vacation. Long story short, Paul Wilson's teaching methods kept me from quitting the game. My handicap is down to an 11, and I am scheduled for two more lessons with him in July so I can confirm somebody who reads this forum is a Wilson disciple. While he can get pretty technical when describing his approach for me it's pretty simple - turn to the top, start the downswing with the lower body and let my arms swing loosely. I expect to break 80 for the first time in my life by the end of the year.               One more thing, which has been noted previously in this thread - if I get off track I immediately go to YouTube, que up a couple of Paul's videos and know exactly what I'm doing wrong. His web site is an incredible resource for me, and I assume it's the same for many others.
    • Muirfield Out of Open Rota, Denies Women Membership
      I was under the impression that Cypress Point had been removed from the "Crosby Clambake" simply because the membership at that course didn't like the idea of the general public trampling on their hallowed turf.  Part of that reasoning might be based simply upon the notion of exclusivity and status; on the other hand, the environment around the course is somewhat fragile and having thousands of golf fans moving around that delicate seaside plant life and sand dunes would not be good for it. You can't tell me that most of the pros who play in the AT&T ProAm don't try and pull whatever strings they have at their disposal to play a round at Cypress during the weekend or weekdays before the AT&T event given the spectacular design and the chance to play a relatively well-preserved MacKenzie design. So even now that Cypress Point has female members I don't believe we can expect that we will ever see it on the AT&T course rota again.
    • Carry-on one Driver golf club in airplane? US and to Eurpoe?
      Thanks, Iacas. I will carry on one Driver with me without  any packaging.  I will have to pass through security check and X-ray scanning. By the way, my flight will be from Toronto Pearson airport to EU, so I hope Canada will have the same regulation as US since they are part of NA (North America). I will let you know if I will get into any trouble.  (I will not do practice swing inside the plane, but I may try while I wait around boarding area. ) Thanks!      
    • 2016 Mets World Championship Thread
      This kind of makes me laugh. I heard the Cleveland Indians GM interviewed on radio before a series with KC. Turns out he's a big friend of the Royals GM. He said the Royals Gm told him that his players were joking with him about how full of themselves the NY media was. They would ask the Royals players "Have you ever seen a pitching staff like the Mets?" The Royals players would answer, "Yes! Every time we play the Indians, Tigers, White Sox, or Twins! We're used to seeing good pitching!"
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

  • Blog Entries