Drop zones in ridiculously generous places

[wjemather]

Agreed, but before that I read it that he was agreeing with D-S that “too often clubs are declaring all their bunkers GUR rather than identifying individually or by location?” by starting his reply with “Yes”.
I was attempting to clarify the wording or statement that a club should use when all bunkers are deemed GUR.

"All bunkers are GUR" is acceptable wording.
The issue is that some clubs are putting all bunkers as GUR when it is not warranted, perhaps because it is simpler than identifying the bunkers (or holes) where it is actually needed.

 

[woofers]

"All bunkers are GUR" is acceptable wording.
The issue is that some clubs are putting all bunkers as GUR when it is not warranted, perhaps because it is simpler than identifying the bunkers (or holes) where it is actually needed.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[rulie]

"All bunkers are GUR" is acceptable wording.
The issue is that some clubs are putting all bunkers as GUR when it is not warranted, perhaps because it is simpler than identifying the bunkers (or holes) where it is actually needed.

Technically, "All bunkers are GUR and part of the general area" is the correct wording. This allows relief to be taken outside the bunkers.

 

[clubchamp98]

It should be “ All bunkers are GUR so it’s not a qualifier “

 

[wjemather]

Technically, "All bunkers are GUR and part of the general area" is the correct wording. This allows relief to be taken outside the bunkers.

I do not believe this is necessary, as it would be nonsensical for relief to not be outside the bunker if the entire bunker is GUR.
"When a bunker is being repaired and the Committee defines the entire bunker as ground under repair, it is treated as part of the general area."

 

[rulie]

I do not believe this is necessary, as it would be nonsensical for relief to not be outside the bunker if the entire bunker is GUR.
"When a bunker is being repaired and the Committee defines the entire bunker as ground under repair, it is treated as part of the general area."

Clarity in the Local Rules is essential to make it easy for players to understand and follow. It's not hard to do. Some local rules posted by clubs/committees are nonsensical.

 

[jim8flog]

I know of clubs declaring all bunkers GUR and still accepting scores for handicap purposes.
The guidance from EG is that, ideally, bunkers should be individually marked as GUR.
Where multiple bunkers are affected it is acceptable to say “all bunkers on hole 4”, for example.
The guidance also states that there is no limit to the number of bunkers that can be treated as GUR for scores to be acceptable for handicap purposes.
If it’s not acceptable to say “all bunkers are GUR”, what’s the alternative, for example at my course would we say “all bunkers on holes 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17 and 18 are GUR” and that would be acceptable?

We make no distinction. We do not have enough green staff for someone to go round and identify individual bunkers.
Early mornings are for grass cutting where I play. Work schedule only allows for bunkers to be done twice a week.

 

[jim8flog]

It should be “ All bunkers are GUR so it’s not a qualifier “

All bunkers GUR no longer makes a score not suitable for handicap purposes (WHS change).

 

[Lord Tyrion]

All bunkers GUR no longer makes a score not suitable for handicap purposes (WHS change).

I think that is why he said 'it should be'. I agree with @clubchamp98 , I think it is a poor change.

 

[jim8flog]

I think that is why he said 'it should be'. I agree with @clubchamp98 , I think it is a poor change.

There are quite a few at our club that would agree with but it would have meant a long period of non qualifiers this summer plus the last few weeks where I play. One period where the bunkers were so compacted due to a lack of rain and the other too many flooded bunkers.

Always worth remembering GUR does not mean you have to drop out of them. With this long dry summer there are a few where I would play out of the bunker rather than take a drop on to areas of worn out grass.

 

[D-S]

All depends on the course, The Old Course and The Hotchkin for example are significantly different challenges with the bunkers out of play, with quite a few others this isn't the case.

 

[rulefan]

There are quite a few at our club that would agree with but it would have meant a long period of non qualifiers this summer plus the last few weeks where I play. One period where the bunkers were so compacted due to a lack of rain and the other too many flooded bunkers.

Always worth remembering GUR does not mean you have to drop out of them. With this long dry summer there are a few where I would play out of the bunker rather than take a drop on to areas of worn out grass.

And of course it doesn't mean that the whole bunker is flooded, only that there isn't anywhere that legitimate relief is not available.
A lot of courses/clubs deem them out of play just because there is some water in them.

 

[clubchamp98]

All bunkers GUR no longer makes a score not suitable for handicap purposes (WHS change).

I know it dosnt but it should.

A golf course without bunkers that the designer put in strategic places is not fit for handicap scores imo.
Other opinions are avaliable.

 

[D-S]

I know it dosnt but it should.

A golf course without bunkers that the designer put in strategic places is not fit for handicap scores imo.
Other opinions are avaliable.

It seems contrary to the stipulation that if one tee 15 yards forward of the permanent market then all scores are unacceptable however all 75 bunkers out? Crack on.

 

[wjemather]

It seems contrary to the stipulation that if one tee 15 yards forward of the permanent market then all scores are unacceptable however all 75 bunkers out? Crack on.

Length has far more influence on scoring than bunkering. And bunkers being GUR doesn't entirely eliminate their effect or reduce the difficulty presented.

Also, one tee being 15 yards forward/back doesn't automatically make scores unacceptable (tees should be within 10 yards, but it isn't a red line). However, a total variance of over 100 yards does.

 

[IanMcC]

Length has far more influence on scoring than bunkering.

This is patently not true for people that struggle with bunkers. Which is the majority of women at our club, and about 20% of seniors.

 

[D-S]

.

Also, one tee being 15 yards forward/back doesn't automatically make scores unacceptable (tees should be within 10 yards, but it isn't a red line). However, a total variance of over 100 yards does.

If you look at the 20th October Adverse weather it looks as if they have changed the should to a must which is a red line.

 

[wjemather]

If you look at the 20th October Adverse weather it looks as if they have changed the should to a must which is a red line.
View attachment 59845

Sadly not the only error in that document.

 

[wjemather]

This is patently not true for people that struggle with bunkers. Which is the majority of women at our club, and about 20% of seniors.

Sorry, but it is true for almost every golfer on almost every course.

 

[rulie]

Sadly not the only error in that document.

That's a sad comment and a situation that needs resolving!