a trend i've been seeing

[Fourputt]

The point is that footprints can be smoothed out without rakes. You can do it to reasonable extent with your foot. And more quickly than looking for the nearest rake, fetching it, then raking. I can leave almost as good a surface just using my foot and my wedge as I can with a rake. And don't say that if there are no rakes that nobody will bother to cover their footprints. There are plenty of rakes on my home course, yet most of the time I still rake out the prints for a half dozen other golfers while I rake my own.

Players who have a sense of the game will do what they can to repair any damage they do to the course, replace divots, fix ball marks, or and smooth footprints, whether or not there are rakes. Players who don't have such a sense aren't going to to do it no matter what amenities the course provides for them.

A bunker is classified as a hazard for a reason... ...you don't get any guarantees.

[Bourbon and Coke]

redi630's proposition seems the most logical to me.

It would be utterly ridiculous to have the course change so drastically during the day that the last group to play the hole must absolutely avoid fairway bunkers (which are meant to be just an inconvience for shaping shots, unlike greenside bunkers which are meant to test your ability to play bunkers as a penalty.)

I agree that there is nothing more frustrating than having to walk around a long fairway bunker looking for the damn rake.

[Fourputt]

I have never played Pine Valley, but I don't believe the bunkers with out rakes are the same as the bunkers most of you are talking about. I played a course, The Dunes Club, where some sand had rakes and some did not. If the sand did not have a rake, than it was NOT considered a hazard and you were allowed to ground your club. If the trap had a rake, than it was considered a hazard and you could not ground your club. (Most greenside bunkers had rakes and thus were considered hazards)

What you refer to is a waste area, and it is not a hazard. But you are wrong in thinking that any bunker without a rake is not a bunker. Most golf courses don't have such waste areas, yet many still have bunkers with no rakes. In some urban areas they long ago gave up trying to put rakes in bunkers because they just get stolen as fast as they put them out. That still doesn't make those bunkers anything except unraked bunkers.

[Fourputt]

It would be utterly ridiculous to have the course change so drastically during the day that the last group to play the hole must absolutely avoid fairway bunkers

Just curious where you get this idea??? Fairway bunkers are only there so you can't hit a draw or a fade????

Gotta dispute that. That is the role that rough plays, not bunkers. It's rough that makes it harder to spin the ball. A good golfer can hit a better, more controlled shot from a fairway bunker than from medium rough. It's a cleaner lie and it's much easier to work the ball and to get backspin to stop the ball.

[iacas]

more and more course with bunkers (mostly fairway) intentionally without any rakes in them. I know Pine Valley has historically done this as well.

Waste bunkers are one thing (and they're not really "bunkers"). The layer of sand is so small you really can't dig your feet in. Thus, even if you're in a "footprint," you really rarely know it. It looks the same as the scrubby, sandy turf all around it. That's what Pine Valley's got.

Also, more places are putting rakes on the backs of the cart, so they don't have to buy 1000 rakes for the golf course. I haven't seen this trend at all, personally.

[redi630]

Fourputt, you need to read better before you post.

What you refer to is a waste area, and it is not a hazard.

Yes, which I explained in my post. These are NOT hazards.

But you are wrong in thinking that any bunker without a rake is not a bunker.

I didn't say every bunker without a rake is not a hazard. I said at this particuler course, a bunker with out a rake is not a hazard, and I believe that Pine Valley is the same way.

[redi630]

Yes it is, because all players have the same chance of landing in that footprint.

All players except for the player that made the footprint and all other players who played before the footprint was made. That is why I don't see this as equal. It only effects the players that follow the person who makes the footprint...IMO

[Fourputt]

All players except for the player that made the footprint and all other players who played before the footprint was made. That is why I don't see this as equal. It only effects the players that follow the person who makes the footprint...IMO

And it's going to be that way for as long as the game of golf exists. The fact that most courses

ARE well supplied with rakes seems to be lost on a lot of golfers. Just because there are rakes are there doesn't mean that anyone has to actually use them.... The other question that begs an answer is.... If they don't supply rakes, are they going to groom the bunkers at all? In other words, the first player out in the morning may simply be facing the footprints left by the last group yesterday. And that still doesn't count all of the deer, elk, coyote, and other wild animal footprints that are all over bunkers in Colorado. Such wildlife can be found on most of our courses (and in many other locales) at any time of the day or night. And they can and do make a worse mess out of a bunker than any golfer. Again.... there just aren't going to be any guarantees when you hit into a bunker.... not unless you play on the Tour.

[mgoofy24]

If there we no rakes, this would not make it fair to all players. The earlier in the day you went out, the less chance you have of landing in someone's footprint...

[MrSandman]

I have not noticed this trend. Even courses where their resources do not allow for a thousand rakes, I still think they want you to rake the bunkers.

There is a difference between a waste area and a fairway bunker. Waste areas do not have rakes, but you can ground your club, and they are a different consistency of sand than fairway bunkers.

I don't see a difference between failing to rake bunkers and leaving ball marks on the green or failing to replace a divot.


And 4putt, I don't understand your belief that this is equal for everybody. If I hit a shot into a fairway bunker, leave some nice footprints and such, and don't rake it, then players following me have a chance to hit into a situation that did not exist for me. This is not equal for all players, I had zero chance of landing in my footprints, while following players have a chance.

And yes, a bunker is supposed to be a penalty. And they are. What is your birdie or par% for holes which you hit in a fairway bunker versus holes where you do not hit in a fairway bunker? For myself, I have 30 holes below par on the season, and only one came from a fairway bunker. Plenty have come from the rough or the fairway. I don't know my par%, but I do not my birdie percentage is much lower than it is from the fairway or rough. (And I like fairway bunkers.)

[b-squared]

I haven't noticed this trend either, for the courses up here in canada anyway.
Besides, rake or no rake, I don't find it a big deal at all...

[kafka01]

If there we no rakes, this would not make it fair to all players. The earlier in the day you went out, the less chance you have of landing in someone's footprint...

I think it only would challenge the better players anyways since i dont see to many "casual" golfers going for the green from fairbunkers "efficently"