<checks notes>
Sounds 'bout right.
I don't like having to sweep gravel out of my putting line.
If "most" is defined by 20%, yeah.Not to mention most pros are carrying five wedges each round and carry multiple replacements they can exchange each round.
And no offense, but I'm not buying the "they killed our club groves" as if it's having some crazy affect on their score. Groves are what catches the ball, helps them work the ball and such, I completely understand that and don't need an education on what they are for.
Depending on the course you'll see some top dress greens as frequently as once a week; most no less than once every four weeks. Anything less than that and you're playing on a below-par municipal track. So, dealing with sandy greens? If you play a lot, you'll see it a lot.I've played a many courses in Charleston and I know gravel or sand in your putting line isn't the biggest concern with what I've seen out there from a bunker. Out of curiosity, how often is sand from a bunker in your putting line?
You're stating how much the grooves affect ball flight and in the same breath you're stating you don't believe it has an effect on their score? I'm guessing your wording/phrasing here is off point.![]()
Doing the math it would require to find that average would require ... too much math for me to answer. There are too many variables. The PGA tracks Sand Save Percentages. In the top ten you'll find one guy who has only played 38 rounds, another with 78 rounds played, and they're ranked 9th and 10th.How many sand shots is a tour player making in one round on average? One, MAYBE two, if even the one?
Whether consciously or not you're going back to what I said in my original post mentioning the one advantage is they aren't using the bunkers as a landing area. "Worse case scenario, I'm in the trap." Hell, I think that. I've seen it happen a lot.They're supposed to be hazards, not landing spots as well I feel.
Here's where you're missing the point. The sand they were playing out of this past weekend is not like the sand you normally play from. It's hard to call it "sand." From Poulter:Clubs are made of materials so tough they can withstand an average of what, 120 mph club head speed, but a simple chip from the sand tears them up? Of course anything in between the club face and golf ball can cause issues, but we're talking something so tiny that those elements aren't causing winners and losers. Even funnier is when you hit from the sand you're technically not even hitting the ball you're punching the sand behind it and underneath it to lift the ball out, so the groves aren't even hitting the ball in 95% of proper sand shots.
The guy who won the tournament said it was the most challenging sand he's ever dealt with in golf. JT was four of seven in sand saves for the tournament. The PGA Tour pointed to a third of the sand save possibilities in round one were converted. The tour average is a little south of 60%.I have a text out to a tour instructor that had multiple guys at Southern Hills this past weekend. I'll let you know what he says on whether or not it was in fact a big deal to the players and if he felt it was hindering their scoring. I was curious so I thought I'd ask him.
Doing the math it would require to find that average would require ... too much math for me to answer. There are too many variables. The PGA tracks Sand Save Percentages. In the top ten you'll find one guy who has only played 38 rounds, another with 78 rounds played, and they're ranked 9th and 10th.
Coincidentally, Bud Cauley leads the PGA. 65 rounds, 109 bunkers, 69 saves, 66.99%.
Whether consciously or not you're going back to what I said in my original post mentioning the one advantage is they aren't using the bunkers as a landing area. "Worse case scenario, I'm in the trap." Hell, I think that. I've seen it happen a lot.
Here's where you're missing the point. The sand they were playing out of this past weekend is not like the sand you normally play from. It's hard to call it "sand." From Poulter:
View attachment 21186View attachment 21187
The guy who won the tournament said it was the most challenging sand he's ever dealt with in golf. JT was four of seven in sand saves for the tournament. The PGA Tour pointed to a third of the sand save possibilities in round one were converted. The tour average is a little south of 60%.
You mention playing in this area. The first time I saw that type of bunker was at a Holiday Inn Resorts training center whose course was also open to the public: north Mississippi. I do see it here, but it's course specific with the true links courses being the main culprits. (I will forever avoid the bunkers on the left, #10 Stone Ferry, because of what it did to the face(s) of two of my wedges. I lay up now...on a four par.)
Doing the math it would require to find that average would require ... too much math for me to answer. There are too many variables. The PGA tracks Sand Save Percentages. In the top ten you'll find one guy who has only played 38 rounds, another with 78 rounds played, and they're ranked 9th and 10th.
Coincidentally, Bud Cauley leads the PGA. 65 rounds, 109 bunkers, 69 saves, 66.99%.
Whether consciously or not you're going back to what I said in my original post mentioning the one advantage is they aren't using the bunkers as a landing area. "Worse case scenario, I'm in the trap." Hell, I think that. I've seen it happen a lot.
Here's where you're missing the point. The sand they were playing out of this past weekend is not like the sand you normally play from. It's hard to call it "sand." From Poulter:
View attachment 21186View attachment 21187
The guy who won the tournament said it was the most challenging sand he's ever dealt with in golf. JT was four of seven in sand saves for the tournament. The PGA Tour pointed to a third of the sand save possibilities in round one were converted. The tour average is a little south of 60%.
You mention playing in this area. The first time I saw that type of bunker was at a Holiday Inn Resorts training center whose course was also open to the public: north Mississippi. I do see it here, but it's course specific with the true links courses being the main culprits. (I will forever avoid the bunkers on the left, #10 Stone Ferry, because of what it did to the face(s) of two of my wedges. I lay up now...on a four par.)
I will need to chexk our course as it's a links style course. They try and keep as native as they can, so they mixed in some red clay to give the bunkers a reddish color, but I'll have to look at the substrate. Yes, it's been long enough where I don't recall. Terrible, considering the money being wasted. I stay out at all costs. I take tripleif I go in a bunker, nine out of ten times.
They do and often they're paying more. Southern Hills (Tulsa) has their sand shipped in from Ohio.I guess some courses avoid the expense of not using local sand to build out their bunkers
Ah yes.... those sandy shores of Lake Erie. Most prestigious stuff, when the lake's not on fire.They do and often they're paying more. Southern Hills (Tulsa) has their sand shipped in from Ohio.
Terry lays up on a par 4? I just lost a little admiration for your stick skills.
I lay up now...on a four par.)
Dog leg right, 270'ish to the left bunkers, 240'ish to the right, with a fairway that's sloped right and maybe 20 yards wide.Terry lays up on a par 4? I just lost a little admiration for your stick skills.![]()