QC but no bunkers and PL

[clubchamp98]

I understand the point but the Hotchkin has a slope of 149 off the yellows and 151 off the whites - some of the highest values in the country. CR of 72.5 and 74.4, course length 6522 and 6869 respectively . Both these numbers reflect that a significant proportion of the difficulty of that course in particular is the bunkering, position, depth and the sheer number.
If you rated that courses and didn’t factor in the bunkers it would be considerably less, my assumption is that the CR would be slightly lower but the BR and therefore slope would be distinctly different.
In rating courses we spend a lot of time assessing bunker location to landing areas, depth, positioning, proportion of green surrounded by bunkers, whether they need to be carried etc. etc. Just saying that if they are all out of play and PCC will sort it seems to render a lot of effort as futile.

That was my thinking.
Take the old course at St Andrews how much easier would that be without bunkers ?
Especially the 17th.

 

[KenL]

Played today, all bunkers GUR and preferred lies on the fairway. My score has turned up on EG. I queried it and they said it is still a qualifier.

Is that correct? Has the ruling changed there?

I thought if all bunkers were GUR then they couldn't be

I don’t know the answer to your question but I am intrigued as to why all your bunkers were GUR?

 

[rulefan]

I don’t know the answer to your question but I am intrigued as to why all your bunkers were GUR?

Perhaps a large number affected by rain and easier for the head greenkeeper to close them all rather than marking the ones affected.

 

[KenL]

Perhaps a large number affected by rain and easier for the head greenkeeper to close them all rather than marking the ones affected.

What rain?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I don’t know the answer to your question but I am intrigued as to why all your bunkers were GUR?

Pretty much as @rulefan has posted. We have around 80 bunkers, many of them struggle when it rains as the sand is compacted and they do not drain. We do not have enough greenkeepers or money to resolve this quickly. Rather than go out and mark 25-40 bunkers, as being GUR, wasting a lot of time for the GK, it is easier just to rule them all out.

 

[KenL]

Pretty much as @rulefan has posted. We have around 80 bunkers, many of them struggle when it rains as the sand is compacted and they do not drain. We do not have enough greenkeepers or money to resolve this quickly. Rather than go out and mark 25-40 bunkers, as being GUR, wasting a lot of time for the GK, it is easier just to rule them all out.

But, the playing character of the course will be seriously affected.
Will the course be like this from now to spring?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

But, the playing character of the course will be seriously affected.
Will the course be like this from now to spring?

Depending on the weather, quite possibly. There are some bunkers that will be ponds for the duration, others will be claggy and useless. I don't think the members have an issue with them all being GUR, we understand the issue.

Edit - We have just received an update from the club advising that bunkers are back in play apart from those marked. It has been a lovely weekend and that has obviously allowed them to bring most back to an okay standard. Some will definitely be out until April though.

Totally agree with your first point, which is why I was very surprised that it could be classed as a qualifier. In previous years this would not have been the case, hence why I asked the question in the thread. Personally, I think it is a mistake. Removing the bunkers from play has to affect the course, how can it not?

 

[rulefan]

What rain?

We had 3.5cm one night last week.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

I think the point of the guidance was that specific bunkers could be taken out of play or specified areas (EG the greenside bunkers on hole x). I don't think you are just allowed to say "all" bunkers are out of play and the course be acceptable for qualifying scores.

 

[KenL]

If bunkers have to be out of action for half the year it might be better to just fill them in.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I think the point of the guidance was that specific bunkers could be taken out of play or specified areas (EG the greenside bunkers on hole x). I don't think you are just allowed to say "all" bunkers are out of play and the course be acceptable for qualifying scores.

Apparently our club captain asked someone at EG this question and that is exactly what happened on Saturday.

 

[D-S]

I think the point of the guidance was that specific bunkers could be taken out of play or specified areas (EG the greenside bunkers on hole x). I don't think you are just allowed to say "all" bunkers are out of play and the course be acceptable for qualifying scores.

You are right, it doesn’t mention a provision for all bunkers being taken out of play just specific named ones or those in certain areas. Frustratingly it doesn’t mention not say what to do if all bunkers are unplayable. This could be all 10 or all 120 dependent on the course. This could, again course dependent, have a minor or major effect on course difficulty.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

If bunkers have to be out of action for half the year it might be better to just fill them in.

We could fill in 30-40% of our bunkers and the course would be no worse off. It was over bunkered in the original design, mid 1990's. They are slowly filling in some, reducing the size of others, but in my view they could be much bolder. That would then leave them with more time and money to get the remaining bunkers up to scratch.

Proprietary course though, we have little say in what happens.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

If bunkers have to be out of action for half the year it might be better to just fill them in.

We have a lot of bunkers on our course - many of which suffer from lack of drainage. We apparently contacted the designed with a view to removing a dozen or so but after consultation the said that if we did it would no longer be a "XXXXXX designed course" so they decided to leave well alone.