Bunkers vs. Water Hazards

[MEfree]

Why are bunkers more penal than water hazards?

[cipher]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Why are bunkers more penal than water hazards?

Ahhhh, huh?

[David in FL]

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.

[geauxforbroke]

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.

[Shorty]

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.

[Ernest Jones]

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

Originally Posted by cipher

Ahhhh, huh?

[Ernest Jones]

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.

[Asheville]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Why are bunkers more penal than water hazards?

Because they're not.

[Slice of Life]

lol, penal...

[saevel25]

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.

[boogielicious]

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"?

[saevel25]

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.

[MEfree]

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.

[Asheville]

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.

[iacas]

Why are bunkers more penal than water hazards?

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

[David in FL]

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.

[Fourputt]

I"m not even touching this thread.

[iacas]

I"m not even touching this thread.

Just did sucker!