Jump to content
Doug Sands

Sand Traps - That's Not Right!!

47 posts / 5440 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, DrMJG said:

I call them "flaws" in the course design that destroy my great round!

 

I think I played behind those three guys last weekend.

Share this post


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

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

Well, under "Hazards" they do list three types that are made up of sand. Those being green side bunkers, fairway bunkers, and waste bunkers. This from wikipedia. 

We all know there is only one "Sand Trap". 😀

Share this post


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

1 hour ago, Patch said:

Well, under "Hazards" they do list three types that are made up of sand. Those being green side bunkers, fairway bunkers, and waste bunkers. This from wikipedia. 

We all know there is only one "Sand Trap". 😀

WIkipedia has got it wrong then.   A bunker is just a bunker wherever it is situated and there is no such thing in the Rules as a "waste bunker".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ColinL said:

WIkipedia has got it wrong then.   A bunker is just a bunker wherever it is situated and there is no such thing in the Rules as a "waste bunker".

And regardless, I'm still trapped in the sand. :tumble:

Share this post


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

1 hour ago, ColinL said:

WIkipedia has got it wrong then.   A bunker is just a bunker wherever it is situated and there is no such thing in the Rules as a "waste bunker".

There is no such thing as a “fairway bunker” in the Rules, either. That doesn’t mean there aren’t a few different types (a “pot bunker” is still a thing that exists, whether defined in the Rules or not).

Share this post


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

6 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

There is no such thing as a “fairway bunker” in the Rules, either. That doesn’t mean there aren’t a few different types (a “pot bunker” is still a thing that exists, whether defined in the Rules or not).

The difference between a fairway bunker and waste bunker is that courses with what they call "waste bunkers" don't treat them as hazards.  You can move loose impediments, ground your club, etc., because it's no different from being in the rough.  A regular bunker that happens to be somewhere along the fairway is a true bunker and is a hazard.  

Share this post


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

2 hours ago, Fourputt said:

The difference between a fairway bunker and waste bunker is that courses with what they call "waste bunkers" don't treat them as hazards.

This is getting OT, but everywhere I’ve seen that they call them “waste areas”, for that exact reason. 

Share this post


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

On 10/5/2018 at 7:58 PM, iacas said:

honestly… if I had called the site "TheBunker.com" people might have thought it was about wars or something.

Or something... “underground” 🤪

 

On 10/6/2018 at 4:32 AM, Doug Sands said:

Just trying to enlighten your golfers 

We’re completely enlightened around here, maybe a bit too enlighten sometimes with respect to our horrible looking swings 😂

Share this post


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

4 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

This is getting OT, but everywhere I’ve seen that they call them “waste areas”, for that exact reason. 

The USGA strongly recommend that they are not called 'waste bunkers' but should be called 'waste areas'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had never heard the term "waste area" until meeting it on American forums. There weren't any on the links courses in Scotland I spent my early days of golfing on.  Plenty of sand dunes though. 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rulesman said:

The USGA strongly recommend that they are not called 'waste bunkers' but should be called 'waste areas'

The prefered term is "sandy areas through the green"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

The prefered term is "sandy areas through the green"

Yes. I had forgotten I had seen that somewhere on the USGA site.

However, some 'waste areas' are not sandy, simply bare natural ground (soil and/or stones).

One of the top courses in England has such an area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

The prefered term is "sandy areas through the green"

I prefer to call them 'mini Sahara that will cause me an early demise.":-P

 

Share this post


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

14 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

This is getting OT, but everywhere I’ve seen that they call them “waste areas”, for that exact reason. 

 

10 hours ago, Rulesman said:

The USGA strongly recommend that they are not called 'waste bunkers' but should be called 'waste areas'

I agree.  It's the dopes that do PGA tour broadcasts that never seem to get the message.

Share this post


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

Pot Bunker = Where golfers go to get high

Waste(d) Bunker = Where golfers go after they visit the Pot Bunker

Archie Bunker = don't go there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very informative thread

Locally we have "dirt holes." Don't know if that shows up in the rule book or not.

Share this post


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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2018 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
    More to come…
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • It's speculation that doesn't actually matter. GOAT is not the longest driver or we'd already be throwing Cameron Champ's or Jamie Sadlowski's names in the discussion.
    • How far would golf's legends drive the ball using modern equipment? At the 2016 Ryder Cup, the 6-foot-5 Thomas Pieters belted a drive 324...   An interesting article on how players way back would have driven the ball with today's ball and equipment.  I didn't realize that Jack had driven the ball 341 yards in a longest drive competition when he was 18.  
    • Oy. I don't give a shit about two top ten finishes in a decade. Nor am I comparing Jack to Vijay Singh, a guy whose putting stroke has been AWOL since roughly 2011. He wasn't. That's easily refuted. As for straighter you're not comparing like to like - you don't know what the fairway widths were, how far the ball bounced, etc. But we do KNOW that Tiger was longer than Jack. Tiger at 43 with a fused back is longer than Jack was when Jack was 40, 41, 42, or 43. Tiger @ 43: 297.8 Jack @ 40: 269.0 Jack @ 41: 264.3 Jack @ 42: 264.6 Jack @ 43: 266.1 Tiger was almost 30 yards longer at 43 than Jack was at 40, 41, 42, or 43. Now, several posts in, you're changing that up to say that, given modern equipment or whatever, Jack would probably have been as long as Tiger. But that's not what you said. Uhhhhh… He didn't do that. Neither did I. No they aren't. Furthermore, if all Tiger had to do was hit the ball 266 yards, he could probably hit 80% of the fairways. Fairways that are likely narrower, etc. So you lost the distance one, and if you want to measure "accuracy" by "fairway hit percentage" I again will point out you're not comparing like to like. They aren't playing the same golf courses, the same fairways, or hitting it the same distances. Furthermore, and more importantly, I don't care about stats like this when determining who the GOAT is. If you do, that's cool, but what I care about is wins, dominance, scoring averages, that sort of thing. I don't care who had a better short game (Tiger by far), who was a better putter (tie?), who hit a better 7-iron (almost surely Tiger), or whatever. I care about Ws. So not only are you provably wrong on distance, possibly off-base on accuracy, but you're arguing about things that most people don't even care about. Nobody considers Calvin Peete in the GOAT discussion because of how accurate he was off the tee. Huh? No. 🤦‍♂️ Uhhh, according to Jack, it was 118 MPH. I call bullshit on that. Oy. I don't give a shit about two top ten finishes in a decade. Nor am I comparing Jack to Vijay Singh, a guy whose putting stroke has been AWOL since roughly 2011. He wasn't. That's easily refuted. As for straighter you're not comparing like to like - you don't know what the fairway widths were, how far the ball bounced, etc. But we do KNOW that Tiger was longer than Jack. Tiger at 43 with a fused back is longer than Jack was when Jack was 40, 41, 42, or 43. Tiger @ 43: 297.8 Jack @ 40: 269.0 Jack @ 41: 264.3 Jack @ 42: 264.6 Jack @ 43: 266.1 Tiger was almost 30 yards longer at 43 than Jack was at 40, 41, 42, or 43. Now, several posts in, you're changing that up to say that, given modern equipment or whatever, Jack would probably have been as long as Tiger. But that's not what you said. Uhhhhh… He didn't do that. Neither did I. No they aren't. Furthermore, if all Tiger had to do was hit the ball 266 yards, he could probably hit 80% of the fairways. Fairways that are likely narrower, etc. So you lost the distance one, and if you want to measure "accuracy" by "fairway hit percentage" I again will point out you're not comparing like to like. They aren't playing the same golf courses, the same fairways, or hitting it the same distances. Furthermore, and more importantly, I don't care about stats like this when determining who the GOAT is. If you do, that's cool, but what I care about is wins, dominance, scoring averages, that sort of thing. I don't care who had a better short game (Tiger by far), who was a better putter (tie?), who hit a better 7-iron (almost surely Tiger), or whatever. I care about Ws. So not only are you provably wrong on distance, possibly off-base on accuracy, but you're arguing about things that most people don't even care about. Nobody considers Calvin Peete in the GOAT discussion because of how accurate he was off the tee. Huh? No. 🤦‍♂️ Uhhh, according to Jack, it was 118 MPH. I call bullshit on that. Ha ha ha.
    • I’ve never been one to sit on my donkey for too long. The past four and half decades have pretty much been work for me , as so I know, for many others as well.  Developing my golf game will (not) dominate my new found free time. It will though give me a new avenue of pursuits that I hope will keep my mind expanding. Thanks for the input and reply. 
    • That sort of extrapolation is not possible.  You are talking that he would be hitting the golf ball further than the average long drive competitor. I am not buying it. He would be one of the longer hitters on tour. Jack is not the physical freak like Dustin Johnson. I would put him probably a top 10 in distance yearly if he was in his prime competing today.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Dan42nepa
      Dan42nepa
      (63 years old)
    2. James Dalton
      James Dalton
      (78 years old)
    3. JMHARDING
      JMHARDING
      (29 years old)
    4. mwh1023
      mwh1023
      (52 years old)
    5. Skeesh
      Skeesh
      (47 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...