Have we minimised hazards in seeking Strategic over Penal

[Melvyn Morrow]

First let me define hazard or what it means to me. They can be Natural or manmade and are there to  test the golfer and make him think,  a simple example  is placing The Tee in front of a Dune (Westward Ho). They can be blind, or totally visible yet I feel no hazard can be described as unfair if there is a potential alternative route. I believe I share this opinion with many past designers and a certainly a Gentleman call Mr John Low who made  a similar comment in his book titled ‘Concerning Golf’ published in  1903.

On a recent topic by Ally Mcintosh titled “What makes a good ’ground game’ course? – Asides from turf/firmness” I lead with the Designer, however was surprised that very few commented. The design IMHO starts and finishes with the designer, is he not responsible for the course design (routing) which encompasses all aspects of golf. Perhaps we need to again re look at how hazards are defined. To clear up any potential misunderstandings lets me give you my list. Dunes/Sandhills, streams/burns/ponds, sand traps/bunkers, grassy hollows/contours, turf dykes,  hedges, roads/fences, dry ditches, whin, heather, trees, and pits/quarries. I could list more, but feel certain you get my drift.

So for me it’s the designers responsibility to provide the hazards in whatever form he wishes, preferring where possible to mimic Nature and natural as long as there are alternative ways to navigate around the potential hazards. Options on strategic state that the conventional way will give you Par, Risk a shot may give you a Birdie if your skill level is good enough. But then the fool hardy/brave(?) player will inevitable drives straight into the face of the hazard, killing his game for that round. The Penal element has controlled the golfer and the hole even though the player took the softer of the three options.

I fear we have come to consider Penal as a nasty word which mean hard work, gambling and all things bad, yet in truth the word Penal when discussing Golf is to test and try to improve the skill of the player, to raise awareness and hopefully promote a  challenge that the golfer will meet not head on but with a certain degree of thought to overcome the problem. That is for me what golf is all about.

There is no such thing as strategic golf unless there is some penal input and that is introduced by the designers. The problem is we do not like to use Penal so we wash it down until it is more or less ineffective and then throw in the word strategic making the golfer feel that he has navigated the course under his own supervision and steam, when in point of fact he has succumbed to the designers wishes leaving that hole unconquered - possibly not even noticing and believing a Par was his best option.

I believe we must uprate the penal input to improve the playability of our courses. This I feel if far more important that hitting a long ball or drive off the Tee.  Distance vs. Penal, if we want a real game that challenges a golfer that makes him think we must go back to Penal, IMHO.

Melvyn 

[Tom_Doak]

Melvyn:

There are two different interpretations of the word "penal" as applied to golf course design.

The first is as you say.  The second, though, is more about whether the bunkers are placed very near spots where you would ideally like to drive the ball [strategic design], or whether they are placed to either side of the ideal line to directly punish those who can't shoot straight enough [or, in the line of play to punish short / topped shots].

Because the first is about the nature and difficulty of the hazards, and the second is only about the placement of them, this conversation always leads to some confusion.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

Yes but my point was Hazards not just bunkers which seem to be breeding on courses these days. Hazards are far more than just bunkers and I would certrainly include the contours, etc.


Melvyn

[Sean_A]

Melvyn

I definitely think the difficulty of hazards has diminished over time.  When one sees old photos of open, rough, sandy country as a hazard then I know we have it easy today if in one.  But I am not sure run of the mill good courses are any more or less penal than the old days.  There always seemed to be mix of hazard placement.  On championship courses I definitely think the placement of hazards has become more penal as well as the use of rough or likely more accurate, the narrowing of fairways.  I don't like the trend as I would rather see more difficult hazards, but less of them strategically (and intelligently) placed in combination with other ground features which take the place of hazards.  I can understand some dumbing down of difficulty if there is an issue of sand containment or getting players around quicker to make more money, but sometimes the depth of bunkers is pathetic to the point where folks putt or hit woods etc out of them.  What a bloody waste of maintenance money. 

Ciao     

[Mac Plumart]

Melvyn...

I agree with you.  I'd really like to see some hazards with some teeth, but yet interesting risk/rewards shots to challenge these hazards and reap the rewards or fail miserably and face a ball busting recovery or something like a backwards shot out of a bunker just to get back in play.  I think this kind of stuff is fun.

And I suppose the hazard itself doesn't need to be menacing in and of itself.  For instance, I was long on Ballyneal 8 and was in the bunker behind the green.  I had to hit out of the sand into a green that was so ridiculously hard to hold, given the pin placement that day, that I was hoping and praying to simply get my ball to stop rolling in an area where I had a chance for a two putt...forget the up and down.  That was fun!  I missed the approach shot and paid the price, but the recovery shot I had before my was of such a high degree of challenge I'll never forget it. 

Others that I thought were really unique and interesting are...The Big Bertha bunker at Rivermont, the Alps at NGLA, many of the HUGE bunkers at Sand Hills, the entire 2nd hole at Kiawah Ocean, in fact the Pete Dye diagonal carry concept is generally pretty awesome, the bunker on the 13th hole at Harbour Town, the entire quarry at Black Diamond Ranch, the massive bunker on 17 at Longshadow...I think I'll stop now. 

Others with interesting hazards that I'd like to try include; The Road Hole at St. Andrews; Pine Valley and the Devil's a-hole, the bunker in the green at 6 at Riviera, Barnbougle Dunes "Sitwell Park" green, the clashing rocks at Stone Harbor (just kidding).

Anyway, I am with you Melvyn.  But like Tom mentioned, sometimes these definitions of strategic and penal through me for a loop.

[DMoriarty]

Melvyn,  I am not so sure that it is "hazard" which needs defining.    "Penal" architecture has come to represent a certain style of architecture which emphases immediate just desert commensurate with the quality of the golf shot.  Bob Crosby wrote an In My Opinion piece trying to reform the understanding of this school of thought, and although I disagree with some of it, it does provide some worthwhile information.   

[Brett_Morrissy]

Melvyn,
I can't believe your least favorite and modern, it has wheels and they build hazards for them called car paths

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

I have made this distinction before, but will make it again.  As with Tom Doak I agree there are both placement and difficulty definitions of penal.  As to placement, you are correct that this is what the gca does.

I also agree hazards have become less difficult, but not by accident or neglect.  Rather, they have morphed due to hundreds of years of experience in playing golf courses by average golfers in typical matches.  Even discounting the fast play issues of really severe hazards, there is still a philosophical question to ask, especially as match play has given way to stroke play.....

If you find a hazard, how much penalty should there be to instill risk-reward?  In stroke play, on all but perhaps the 16th to 18th hole in a do or die situation in your match, would you consider a possible birdie if the risk was quadruple bogey?  I believe most golfers answered no, and hazards were reduced to a point where golfers risking them had a 50-50 or 2 out of 3 chance of overcoming their mistake. 

If hitting the hazard would result in more than a bogey 2 out of 3 times, the risk isn't worth it to most.  In that way, ultra tough hazards are sort of anti strategic.  While there is that thrill of challenging a hazard, anyone playing for score mentally calculates the odds.  In modern design, it means avoiding OB and Water at all costs.  If those are present, it doesn't make much sense to have other built hazards being particularly difficult, or the entire course becomes too much of a slog.

Put another way, I think the 4th at Royal St. Georges is great.  If it were really hard to carry (its too short now) I would carry it if going to Scotland once every five years (as I do) but if I was playing it every day, I may not, probably having learned the hard way that it leads to high scores.

Just my thoughts, and I recall the old quote about the right of eternal punishment being left to higher powers!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sean

To fire off a shot on the Tee in front of a Dune (as I mentioned Westward Ho) or over a hill (1st at  Windermere), is most enjoyable, it kick starts the round with a boost and anticipation of what other wonders let alone surprises are awaiting you.  The hope that as you scale the Dune or Hill that your ball as not fallen victim to ones vanity but travelled straight and true. With distance not coming into the equation in the belief that the ball is in a good position in the middle of the fairway.  

Penal start, yes but rewarding, because that is what it’s all about. That element has been watered down, the modern word is Strategic which is meant to encompass penal but it rarely does. You mentioned shallow bunkers, another pet hate of mine, they are just launch pads to aid the golfer.

I understand Tom’s comment but courses have become more player friendly but golfer boring over the years. Paying for a bad shot is no longer PC so we minimise the real hazards and supplement them with more larger bunkers. What about the protection of the rear of the modern Greens, why place bunkers to the rear or side, if the ball has not been controlled correctly then let it run its legs off. Or have we increased the courses so much that we have the Tees for the next hole relocated to the rear of the Green to compensate for the long hitters of the ball. Whatever reason, the thinking man’s game is being side tracked with shallow bunkers, and other non-effective hazards. It’s not really strategic,  it’ tragic, sometimes mimics a wet and weak handshake which is of no satisfaction to golfer or player.

Bobbing up the fairway in one or two long shots, while not being tested let alone really challenged is not my idea of golf. In fact I would like to know why the golfer has not even been tested by a simple hazard or see one from the Tee, come on at least place a stone wall across the fairway, make the golfer think his shots to get passed that wall with some well place hazards the others side just out of sight to catch out the over confident player. After all is it not just as much fun escaping a trap with the minimum amount of strokes as getting a Birdie for the Hole? I must say that I would not be surprised to see a yellow AA Rescue Van driving up and down the fairways, not to repair any carts but to assist the modern golfer out of hazards. That’s how weak I feel the word Strategic has diminished the golfing experience. Perhaps I am over reacting but I guess you may understand my concerns.

Come on let’s put some lead back into the pencil of golf, at least it might give us a lift but in the right direction – enjoyment, fun and satisfaction.

Melvyn    

PS Brett nothing wrong with carts, if you need one you, you need one, but it does rob you of playing Golf

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

I thought that GCA.com were "The Higher Power" - Are you telling me I am not part of the elite of golf 

Melvyn     

[Patrick_Mucci]

Melvyn,

I think Sean hit the nail on the head.

Old photos, and I mean old photos seem to reveal a much harsher golfing landscape, which was even harsher when you consider the implements and balls used to negotiate that landscape.

Defanging hazards has become almost universal

[David_Tepper]

While they are an anathema to some, I am surprised no one has mentioned the rise in the usage of water hazards over the past 75-100 years. If my understanding is correct, the use of water hazards (aside from the occasional "wee burn") was minimal 100 years ago. Now water hazards are widely used on many courses around the world, especially those in the southeastern U.S.

Aren't water hazards the most penal hazards of all? Is this one facet of GCA where the use of hazards has, in fact, not been "minimized?"
 

     

[Melvyn Morrow]

Pat (M)

I agree, in fact that is my point. Not only have we been slowly destroying (at the very least, greatly watering them down)  the original courses, we have added insult to injury by improving equipment (clubs/ball), never once considering standardising the clubs or ball for that matter to offer  the poor old golfer some consistency.

Let’s not forget the time and money spent on maintaining the modern course to offering the golfer the least possible resistance if they stay on target for the Hole (well manicured  and watered Fast Greens and Fairways).

I have seen the old photos of the courses and most certainly what stands out is the severity of the hazards which clearly the early Designers or Golfers were not afraid of and took them as yet another challenge.

I would dearly love to see the best of the 19th Century playing the best of today using both old and modern sets of equipment  (clubs/balls).  I had believed that it may be a close run thing with the modern guys coming out on top, but I now feel our modern guys have been so pampered and life so easy that perhaps the 19th Century guys to a man would come out on top. Don’t agree, then just look at the facts, their equipment was totally inferior as was their ball, add to the state of the courses and the Green. Then finally throw in the severity of the 19th Century hazards and you will see the modern guys facing bewildered and shocked at the unequal quality of their game which was so easy mastered by past Masters.

I am not saying that the modern courses are not challenging, what I am saying is that they are challenging to the modern player but not necessary to the 19th Century golfers once you add into the mix how clubs/ball/course quality has greatly improved while the hazards have been eroded to an annoyance rather than hazard.

Yet let’s not seek who is to blame but lament in the knowledge that we have for a 100 years watched great courses tamed not by the endeavours of the golfer but by improved equipment, course modification (to accommodate the new equipment) that has little bearing on the skill of the Golfer

Next time you watch a Major, ask yourself are these really the best golfers the world has ever seen or have the improvement in course and equipment technology in conjunction with the erosion of hazards overshadowed the real game of golf.

Perhaps our Architects and Designers need to start looking back at the game of Golf and re-introduce  the real hazards that actually test and challenge the golfer, not wait a century until a tree may interfere with play. After all its not as if we do not have talented designers, but do we have any brave ones?

Melvyn

[TEPaul]

Melvyn:

I will admit right up front I have not read this thread before making this post.

Nevertheless, I would like to mention a perhaps worthwhile distinction-----eg that the definition of a "hazard" in golf (in the Rules of Golf) is only a bunker and a water hazard!

Of course that in no way or wise should mean that other things in golf that are considered to be "through the green" (in the definitions of the Rules of Golf) such as rough or even uneven lies should not also be considered effective or practical hazards or in some way somehow penal or actually even in some other ways conceptually strategic.

I will note here and now, that I think the idea of "strategic" golf or "strategic" golf architecture is, has perhaps always been, and perhaps may always be, a very difficult thing to define or to reach a consensus opinion about amongst golfers.

Therefore, to me, my own working definition of "strategic" golf or "strategic" golf architecture has essentially come to mean an arrangement of choices or options that any golfer can identify and try to use, and with even each and every stroke, as his own best or worst way or any degree in between to make his own way to his ultimate goal of getting his golf ball from the tee into the hole in the most economical way and in the fewest strokes, or the opposite thereof, given all he finds before him on any particular golf hole.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom P

This post is not about the Rules, in fact it underlines the fact that no one has really been in charge of golf for the best part of 120 years. The result is that golf courses have become easier by depleting the hazards while letting technology in club/ball manufacture run nearly uncontrolled. Our great old courses are modified and traps changed to accommodate this extra length, but no compensation for weakening the old course or reinstating the once penal challenge it once offered.

Golf and the Golfer are the ultimate losers, all for the pretence that a long drive is skilful. Yet reinstating hazards, traps, contours etc would counter the long drive making all the older courses more than viable in their current length.

Why are we pampering these long hitters, why are we not combating them with traps, forcing a real strategic navigation of the course, persuading by penal traps that caution is wise or forcing the golfer to reach deep into his reserves and pull out that challenging skill shot that makes the game so interesting. But alas we seem happy enough to watch the ball boringly travel one 100M after another – this unskilled practice is hurting golf and certainly our old courses. But then who is there to do anything about it – no one as it is not consider a problem but we must make our courses challenging or soon we will be getting out the bowls while selling the fairways for more homes.

The game needs no more crap strategic without its more than fair share of penal. After all it makes for a good game and improves the golfer in mind and spirit. We might even see architects or designers proud enough of their work to sign it off as their design

Melvyn

[TEPaul]

"Tom P
This post is not about the Rules, in fact it underlines the fact that no one has really been in charge of golf for the best part of 120 years."



Melvyn:

In that case I'm sorry I brought up that point. Please excuse me.

Carry on.