The most exciting shots in golf

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

The "many of us" you cite that call features informal hazards isn't apparent to me.  I'd say the consensus on here is that your definition is so broad that there is no distinction at all and the term becomes irrelevant.  The only thing not a hazard by your definition is the hole.  

I think you are trying too hard here to make a point that doesn't need to be made...it is that obvious.  Hazards and topographical features create interest.  Maintenance practices can enhance or stymie the effects of them.  Nothing new there.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
Just remember that the only reason formal hazards are defined as hazards is because of "rules".  It wasn't always that way.  

In that photo Sean posted, if your ball comes to rest behind that building ruin, are you behind a hazard?  If your ball ends up in one of those grassy hollows on the right, are you in a hazard?  If you get behind one of those hummocks and don't have a clear shot to the green as a result, do you have a hazard in your way?  The USGA would answer no to all of these.  Some of us (maybe only me) would feel otherwise.

In your post below, you said "maintenance practices can enhance or stymie the effects of them." How does it impact the situations (which you would say are not hazards) that I described above?  

[Paul Stephenson]

Main Entry: 1haz·ard  
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French hasard, from Old Spanish azar, from Arabic al-zahr the die
Date: 14th century
1: a game of chance like craps played with two dice
2: a source of danger
3  a: chance, risk b: a chance event : accident
4  obsolete : stake 3a
5: a golf-course obstacle

Quote from Mark:
In that photo Sean posted, if your ball comes to rest behind that building ruin, are you behind a hazard?  If your ball ends up in one of those grassy hollows on the right, are you in a hazard?  If you get behind one of those hummocks and don't have a clear shot to the green as a result, do you have a hazard in your way?

Yes.
No.
Could go either way.

I agree that the USGA definition of a hazard may be too narrow.  If the definition of a hazard is something that involves a penalty as mentioned above, would chipping out from behind a tree at the cost of a shot be a hazard?  I would say yes.

I would also deem your definition too broad.  I guess the purpose of this post is to find a happy medium.

Sorry about the format.  I haven't figured out where the "quote" button is on the forum yet.

[wsmorrison]

Here is my complete quote:

"Hazards and topographical features create interest.  Maintenance practices can enhance or stymie the effects of them."

I say that the maintenance practices of topographical features and hazards can enhance or stymie the effects.  I did not limit my statement to hazards alone.


Thank you for the reminder, Mark.  The USGA defines hazards and we play by their rules.  Hence it makes sense to consider hazards as they are defined by our ruling body.  What purpose is served for expanding that definition beyond practical use?  Why not call mounds, hollows, ruins, rough, etc. features and classify them as architectural and natural?  I don't see the point of making a definition so all-inclusive that it loses any and all meaning.

So, to answer your other questions, I would not call grassy hollows or hummocks a hazard.  These are topographical features--whether man-made or natural.  I do not think of ruins as a hazard either.

[JESII]

JES II,
You just like to argue no matter what I say.  Did you read any of the comments from some of the other architects, etc in my post.  Probably not.  

Mark,

I've read every post on this thread, twice now. To be honest I am not sure who the architects are and who are not. Can I print out some business cards with GCA on them to gain more credibility? Is that the trick?

Here's the issue...you come on here make statements that I don't believe you can substantiate if pressed.

This set...

"the most exciting shots in golf are in some way defined by a hazard...I include all those 'informal' hazards that help make the game so intriguing and exciting."

Topography/contour is a great "informal" hazard

A bunkerless hole with no water features can be loaded with other types of challenge, interest, and peril, e.g. "hazardous conditions impacting your golf score".  

Short grass indeed can be a "hazard".  

anything that can add to the interest and challenge of a golf hole.

And so you ask in the middle of all this...

Again I go back to my question about the most exciting shots in golf.  Can you name any that are not defined by some kind of hazard?  [/i]

And I have asked you twice, three times now, can you point me to any specific shot that does not fit within your definition of being effected by some form of hazard, either "formal" or "informal"?

If we are to determine whether or not our most exciting shots have anything to do with a hazard, we better know what is included.

[Mark Pearce]

I participate in a number of internet discussion groups on subjects as diverse as fine wine, Tottenham Hotspur FC, Newcastle Falcons RUFC and England's rugby union team.  One thing I've learnt is that any discussion of a subject is in trouble when the participants use the same language to mean different things (the use of the word "elegant"to describe a wine, for instance).  It's clearly going to create problems discussing GCA if we can't agree a meaning for the word hazard.  Nonetheless, Mark would have us adopt a meaning of the word hazard that, as Wayne pointed out, includes everything on the course bar the actual holes themselves.  All that would lead to is confusion.

The vast majority of golfers would not accept a description of a piece of fairway (let alone part of the green) as a hazard.  That really ought to be enough.  The English language is surely rich enough for us to find words to say what we want to without butchering the meaning of ones that we already use.

[JESII]

Sean,

Clearly, but to then tell me that the most exciting shots in golf are influenced by something within that definition of hazard is a bit like telling me the most exciting NASCAR races are those filled with left turns...

[Brad Tufts]

Tom D. took mine.

It is by far the most satisfying to aim at one point in order to end up at another.  Many courses have drop-shot par 3s, and great hazards to carry, but I feel like there aren't too many (in golf design as a whole) where you legitimately need to land a ball at point A to reach point B when the ball has stopped rolling.

[JESII]

Brad, and I guess Tom D as well,

Is that more a function of maintenance than it is architecture?

Any examples where it is primarily architecture driven?




p.s. I agree with you, and it supports my belief that maintenance and architecture are very, very dependent on each other for a course to be successful.

[Mark_Fine]

Thought I would make the mistake of pulling back this older thread.  I'm doing some research for a new Ross course project and came across this quote that Ross wrote in the 1936 program for the PGA Championship:

"this contouring around a green makes possible an infinite variety in the requirements for short shots that no other form of hazard can call for."  

Was Ross calling short grass and contouring a form of a hazard?  Maybe, but what does he know  

[Bradley Anderson]

The redan and baritz holes are exciting for me probably because I don't have the long high lofted shot with back spin on it. My best shot on either of these holes is to play the ground contours and then watch the ball perfom after it lands.

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

It is clear to me that he is referring to contouring as the defining feature and not the length of the grass; it is not mentioned in the quote you cite, though perhaps the drawings, photos or other information would indicate that short grass was a tacit understanding.  If so, or unless there is more to the quote, he does not mention short grass as a component.  Do you know that the contours he is speaking of were intended to be kept as short grass?

[Bruce Katona]

The driveable Par 4 (from all tees) with a real opportunity to hit and hold the green......what could be better (for the avergae hacker like me) than having the opportunity to putt for eagle.....

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
Remember, Ross was talking about Pinehurst #2.  Maybe that was not clear in my post.  As you probably know, Ross designed the course to play firm and fast with NO ROUGH around any of the greens.  Though Ross never envisioned the heavily doomed greens, he wanted balls to run out off the humps and contours into the hollows and swales, etc. creating all sorts of testing recovery shots.  His original vision has simply been magnified by the doomed putting surfaces.
Mark

[wsmorrison]

No, it was not at all clear that the quote you cited was referring to a specific course, let alone Pinehurst #2.  Even still, it is the contours that he is referring to as impacting shot variety.  

Again, I think you are looking to broaden the definition of hazards so far that it doesn't signify anything.  To extrapolate that Ross agrees with you that short grass can be a hazard is unfounded--at least as far as the quote is concerned.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
Where was the 1936 PGA Championship held?  That should have told you something  

Those Ross contours around those greens would hold much less strategy and thought provoking "hazard value" if circled in rough grass.  

I am NOT trying to redefine the definition of formal hazards.  If anything we are trying to get recognition for other "hazardous" features that we happen to classify as non-formal hazards.  

Read into it what you want, but I think Ross agreed - contours maintained as short grass makes a great form of hazard.  Reread his quote.  

[JESII]

Mark,

You've given yourself another chance to answer...can you name a single shot that does not fit into your definition of "being influenced in some way by a hazard"?

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

Your post is unclear that the quote was anything specific but rather indicated that it was a Ross generalization; even if it was found in a guide for the PGA Championship and it was at Pinehurst.  Excuse me for not knowing (or caring) where the 1936 PGA Championship was held.  Maybe if I was a golf architect...  

The contours around Ross's greens at Pinehurst or elsewhere do not have hazard values.  Why would they?  They aren't hazards.  They are interesting architectural features that influence play on or over them.  There would be less variety if they were maintained as rough, but they still aren't hazards if closely mown or in rough.

You may not be trying to redefine hazards, but you are when to you hazards include formal and informal varieties and your informal hazards are so broad that they are all-encompassing.  I don't understand the need to extend the definition of hazards.  I'll go with the USGA definition if you don't mind.  Hazards are defined by rules.  The items you expand on are features that influence play.  Why call them hazards, unless of course you wrote a book on hazards and expanded the scope of the definition?  You discuss natural and architectural features that may be presented in various maintained ways which effect the way they can be played.  That is of real interest, but why call them hazards when they are not?

[Mark_Fine]

Does it matter to anyone that before the USGA defined what a "hazard" was (for the sole purpose of rules I might add), a hazard was simply a "hazardous" condition a golfer got themselves into.  Golf used to be a much more simple game before we ended up with a inch thick rule book.  

Let me ask a question, is a waste bunker a hazard?  
Mark

[wsmorrison]

"Does it matter to anyone that before the USGA defined what a "hazard" was (for the sole purpose of rules I might add), a hazard was simply a "hazardous" condition a golfer got themselves into."

No, it does not matter.  The USGA and R&A have since defined the terrm.  Today, we live under their rules and that is how the sport is governed. Their definitions are precisely worded for a reason.  Let's all work within the same conventions, why complicate it with expanded definitions that don't work under the rules of golf?

"Let me ask a question, is a waste bunker a hazard?"

Why would you ask a question if you know the answer to it?  You should simply make your case, and of course, that is to tell us that it is an informal hazard.  

Of course, a waste bunker is not a hazard and is thus poorly named by some.    The rules for playing a ball in a bunker (a hazard) versus what you call a "waste bunker" are different.  Therefore, it is not a hazard and as a result I refer to these features as "waste areas".

[RJ_Daley]

I haven't fully thought this out, but just a trial balloon stream of conciousness to see if this makes any sense...

Anything that effects the progress of the ball's intended result of playing the next shot or into the hole is a potential hazard on the golf course.  Anything that is desired to be avoided 'while the ball is in motion' is a hazard.  ONce the ball is at rest, it becomes a challenge or condition of play.  If it is resting in a pond, it becomes a next shot challenge or condition.  Only when the ball is in motion and there is a potential for an unfavorable result to come to rest within or upon, is the pond or bunker or waste a hazard.  A small stone that effects the desired course of a putt or chip, is a hazard of impediment while the ball is rolling.  The carry of the ball by wind to an undesired location is a hazard of wind.  

The other tact of identifying a hazard as noted above is the hazard of mentality or psychology.  Those are the situational things that happen before the shot is made.  The tee box right next to the members dining room, the green next to the club house where everyone is watching as the golfers finish.  The audience of your 4some or observers where you allow some form of peer or playing pressure or anxiety to effect execution.   Could that huge amphitheater at the Phoenix par 3 where thousands are watching and cheering be a hazard of psychology?  Could the tee box anxiety, as noted above, of a longly anticipated famous shot on a legendary course be a hazard of sorts?

But, I love John Kirk's ideas, no matter if it is explaining a hazard, or just offering a measure of golf's ultimate excitement and great design.  The longer time span the player is focused on execution and result, the greater the design.  When the tour players hit their tee shot, and don't even bother to look where it went, that is rote, unexciting and uninspiring design.  When they follow it with anxiety in there eyes, even when they hit is solid, and watch it all the way to the result, or don't see the result, but stare and wonder, that is excitement.  I loved playing BallyNeal when shots were hit that felt good, but the whole group watches intently to see or not see the result, with Adam calling, "show your face" to the ball that goes out of sight on undulating FW or near a green platform.  

The ball in motion and how it got there is the game.  Whatever is undesired and can effect the result while in motion is the hazard.

[Mark_Fine]

R.J. Daley,
Nice post!!   Let's see what others say about it.  Probably very little  
Mark

[Mark Pearce]

So we end up again with Mark's preferred definition of Hazard, which appears to be everything on the golf course except the hole itself.  Which means that the word hazard is incapable of identifying any feature of a course from another, so it is, as a word, deprived of any useful meaning.  

Madness.

[Mark_Fine]

Mark,
Formal hazards vs. Informal hazards - It's a tough concept to comprehend!  Sometimes it is hard to think outside the box and RJ's post is such.  Maybe you should just stay in the box defined by the USGA (which are formal hazards) and save yourself some stress trying to understand the other one

 

[Mark Pearce]

Mark,
Formal hazards vs. Informal hazards - It's a tough concept to comprehend!  Sometimes it is hard to think outside the box and RJ's post is such.  Maybe you should just stay in the box defined by the USGA (which are formal hazards) and save yourself some stress trying to understand the other one

 

OK.  So an informal hazard is anything that isn't a formal hazard?