[Mark McKeever]

Jeff, I think you and Archie are both right; that WE have to spend much more time there! (I just love including myself, the golf course whore that I am!)

Tommy, you need to fly out east to do that!   

[jeffwarne]

If Rees designed one he'd be crucified

Jeff, This is a question, because I don't know. Has Rees ever designed a HHA?  

Plenty.
They are between green and next tee.

[Mark_Fine]

Jason,
I beg to differ with you on many of your examples.  I watched Nicklaus fail to get out of Hell Bunker multiple times and take a 10 on the hole.  I have watched golfer pick up on #11 because they simply could not finish the hole.  I have watched golfers give up and hand wedge it out of the road bunker or just take a drop on the other side of the cliff on #8 at Pebble because they were afraid of running out of golf balls!

You need better examples if there are any
Mark

[Jason Topp]

Jason,
I beg to differ with you on many of your examples.  I watched Nicklaus fail to get out of Hell Bunker multiple times and take a 10 on the hole.  I have watched golfer pick up on #11 because they simply could not finish the hole.  I have watched golfers give up and hand wedge it out of the road bunker or just take a drop on the other side of the cliff on #8 at Pebble because they were afraid of running out of golf balls!

You need better examples if there are any
Mark

Mark. - the difference is that everyone has a chance on each of those holes. 

[Mark Pearce]

Jason,
I beg to differ with you on many of your examples.  I watched Nicklaus fail to get out of Hell Bunker multiple times and take a 10 on the hole.  I have watched golfer pick up on #11 because they simply could not finish the hole.  I have watched golfers give up and hand wedge it out of the road bunker or just take a drop on the other side of the cliff on #8 at Pebble because they were afraid of running out of golf balls!

You need better examples if there are any
Mark

And I have seen mid teens handicappers escape from Hell first time and get up and down from the Road Hole bunker.  So yes, those hazards work for both the world's best and the teen handicapper.  In fact, your example proves that Jason was absolutely correct.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't think selecting and designing the best hazards at accommodating all levels of players necessarily equates to reduced drama in the hands of a creative designer.

Jeff,

Can you think of a single example of a hazard that "accomodates" all levels of players that also includes any drama?

Forget all levels...give me a range from 0 to 18 handicaps.

Obviously, my opinion is that for a hazard to accomodate an 18 it must be nuetered in the eyes of the scratch...and that a dramatic hazard for the scratch is likely death for the 18...

Jim - the examples are countless:

- Almost every hole at the Old Course but particularly the stream on 1, the 11th, the 12th, the 14th (hell bunker), 16th, 17th and 18th.
- Pebble Beach 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18
- Augusta National - almost every hole.  15 is an exception.  12 may be an exception but I do not think so.  An 18 handicap has hope on that tee
- TPC Sawgrass - nearly every hole
- Royal Dornoch - every hole
- Sand Hills - I cannot think of a single hole that does not give the 18 handicapper a good chance
- Royal Melboune West - the entire course
- pretty much every CB Macdonald/Raynor Template
- Crystal Downs - Every single hole

Need I continue? 

Jason,

Thanks for making the answer for me.  Obviously, Jim doesn't have what it takes to be a "creative designer" because, among other things, he makes snap judgments and eliminates possibilities too quickly.

Funny but all the courses you mention are considered great courses, to boot.

Mark Fine

It is not a black and white question, and design rarely ever is.  You could certainly pass up certain holes and features and have a duller course than might otherwise be possible on some sites. 

However, I acknowledged you could use a HHA if found naturally and damn the torpedo's, as it were.  I never said the word always accommodate, or accommodate all players every hole, did I?  The great thing about architecture is the variability in every situation and how different architects might handle them.

Of the world's 30,000 golf courses, I am sure many have passed up dramatic opportunities to better cater to the average guys who would play them.  And, we have to acknowledge, that while it might be in almost any architects' best interest to create a memorable hole that plays hard, in the end, the clients interest may or may not align.  In other words, passing it up might be the right choice, even at the expense of a possibly higher ranking.

I think Jason's examples are more than enough that it is possible to create a great course without any given "pet feature" you might personally like.  There are just so many good architectural concepts to use, that I hesitate to use HHA, because its not one of the best.  Again, if I found it, I would use it (look at the tee shot on the Quarry at Giants Ridge No. 6, for instance). But that is one of nearly 1000 golf holes I have designed.  (there are probably a few more, with environmental ponds out there that I have been forced into)

[Chris DeNigris]

Has anyone ever seen a HHA complex bisected with a friendly strip of fairway- say maybe 10 yards wide- that would allow some targeted relief options for the shorter carry folks?  Sort of a centerline fairway, or "split hazard"  It might not be aesthetically pleasing enough to try but it might solve some of the issues.  It would also be a convenient walkway 

[Mark_Fine]

If all the examples that Jason used are fine for the average player (women included) I am not sure why we are even debating about HHA because it is simply a big area of sand and ALL players can eventually recover from sand!  What is the problem?  If they can't fly over it in one shot, they just go find it in the sand and hit it again till they are out!  At least they won't lose a golf ball like they will on #17 at Sawgrass.  There they absolutely have to carry it 80 or so yards in the air (even from the drop area) and stop it on the green.  It can be a very expensive hole for the average player. 

[JESII]

I would quote your post #80 Jeff but the quote function seems to just muddy the message...unless you start a rainbow dialogue like Pat which is worse...

So, in response to both Jeff and Jason; the specific line from Jeff which initially grabbed my attention was "selecting and designing the best hazards at accommodating all levels". Simply saying Royal Melbourne doesn't address Jeff's comment which seemed to focus on the specific hazard.

Jason's examples are all holes/courses. I have only played Pebble Beach and Sawgrass on his list and would be happy to discuss any specific hazard at them and feel at least comfortable talking about Augusta based on plenty of TV time.

My interest is the hazard itself and its ability to accommodate the 18 and inspire the scratch.

18 at Pebble is probably the best example and I have no frame of reference for how the 18 handicappers play the hole. Do any average less than 7 on the hole if they play it a handful of times?

[JESII]

If Mark Pearce's answer in #79 is the position you guys are coming from ie: the 18 handicapper isn't confiscated of his equipment and escorted off the property, then fine, there's not much to discuss.

Maybe it goes back to understanding what is meant by "accommodating" in a golf course...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Many seem to object to an HHA feature, yet, in essence, they're in abundance on your tee shot.

Granted, you have a perfect lie on the tee, but, then again HHA at Pine Valley is barely 90 yards long.

The existance of HHA on # 7 places a premium on the golfer's drive, more so than his second shot, which is largely determined by his drive.

Shouldn't an architect, at some point in the round, demand higher forms of planning and execution ?

An HHA seems to do just that.

[Jason Topp]

18 at Pebble is probably the best example and I have no frame of reference for how the 18 handicappers play the hole. Do any average less than 7 on the hole if they play it a handful of times?

JIm:

I thought I had posted a response to this a couple of days ago but apparently I did not hit the submit button.  18 at Pebble Beach is a perfect example.  The 18 handicapper probably averages at least 7 on the hole but nonetheless has the ability to make a five or six.  At 200 yards off the tee he has a 48 yard wide fairway to attempt to hit.  A 180 yard shot from there is aimed at a 40 yard wide fairway.  From that point it is a 140 yard shot.  On each shot there is some advantage to be gained by hitting it close to the danger on the left. 

If you want to measure it out - here is the link:  http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/pebblebeach/aerial.htm

I don't think a HHH hazard creates the same interest for such a player.

[Jason Topp]

Many seem to object to an HHA feature, yet, in essence, they're in abundance on your tee shot.

Granted, you have a perfect lie on the tee, but, then again HHA at Pine Valley is barely 90 yards long.

The existance of HHA on # 7 places a premium on the golfer's drive, more so than his second shot, which is largely determined by his drive.

Shouldn't an architect, at some point in the round, demand higher forms of planning and execution ?

An HHA seems to do just that.

Patrick:

If you were building a course for a club with members of varying playing abilities, would you prefer to build a HHH similar to #7 at Pine Valley or a cross bunker similar to 17 at Streamsong Blue? 

To my mind, 17 at Streamsong Blue poses similar questions of the player but presents challenges that are interesting for a wider variety of player. 

[Mark_Fine]

Jason,
Tom Doak designed a HHA at Riverfront (#18 hole!!) and it far tougher and more penal than HHA at Pine Valley.  No recovery is possible if you end up in the hazard and it is farther off the tee so the carry is even longer!  Plus this is a public golf course. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Many seem to object to an HHA feature, yet, in essence, they're in abundance on your tee shot.

Granted, you have a perfect lie on the tee, but, then again HHA at Pine Valley is barely 90 yards long.

The existance of HHA on # 7 places a premium on the golfer's drive, more so than his second shot, which is largely determined by his drive.

Shouldn't an architect, at some point in the round, demand higher forms of planning and execution ?

An HHA seems to do just that.

Patrick:

If you were building a course for a club with members of varying playing abilities, would you prefer to build a HHH similar to #7 at Pine Valley or a cross bunker similar to 17 at Streamsong Blue? 

To my mind, 17 at Streamsong Blue poses similar questions of the player but presents challenges that are interesting for a wider variety of player.
Jason,

So much would depend on the topography.

And I see no reason to exclude or include both.

Have you ever seen old aerial photos of Hollywood or Nassau ?

Consider the equipment the members used to navigate those courses.

And, what's the harm of hitting into an HHA ?
Is it better or worse than hitting into a water hazard ? 

[Jason Topp]

Jason,
Tom Doak designed a HHA at Riverfront (#18 hole!!) and it far tougher and more penal than HHA at Pine Valley.  No recovery is possible if you end up in the hazard and it is farther off the tee so the carry is even longer!  Plus this is a public golf course. 

Well - I guess he screwed up that course.  I haven't played it.

I have enjoyed the conversation in this thread.  Thanks for chiming in Mark!

[Bill_McBride]

I would quote your post #80 Jeff but the quote function seems to just muddy the message...unless you start a rainbow dialogue like Pat which is worse...

So, in response to both Jeff and Jason; the specific line from Jeff which initially grabbed my attention was "selecting and designing the best hazards at accommodating all levels". Simply saying Royal Melbourne doesn't address Jeff's comment which seemed to focus on the specific hazard.

Jason's examples are all holes/courses. I have only played Pebble Beach and Sawgrass on his list and would be happy to discuss any specific hazard at them and feel at least comfortable talking about Augusta based on plenty of TV time.

My interest is the hazard itself and its ability to accommodate the 18 and inspire the scratch.

18 at Pebble is probably the best example and I have no frame of reference for how the 18 handicappers play the hole. Do any average less than 7 on the hole if they play it a handful of times?

Pebble 18 is an easy 6 for the 18 handicapper.   It all goes back to Clint's admonition:  "A man has got to know his limitations."

[JESII]

Yeah...no doubt Bill.


Jason,

Appreciate the response. I didn't think you were ignoring me.

You certainly lay out a doable task, but I wonder how a hole that likely pulls an average of double bogey or more is seen as accommodating.

I read your post earlier and thought about it while driving and thought through a question. Take the 18 that's aiming for the center of the 48 yards wide fairway. In 20 drives, how many end up in the ocean? How many end up out of bounds? Certainly 1 in 4 requires a new pellet, right? Similar number for the second shot if the first is good? Is it possible that the 18 can lose 8 or 10 golf balls on this hole in 20 rounds?

I will say this...the ocean absolutely inspires the scratch! Not so sure it accommodates the 18...although it does not force him to hit it in the air for 100 yards.

[Mark_Fine]

Jason, you right (at least about that particular hole at Riverfront).  It is pretty bad.  The rest of the course is actually very good (some trememdous holes and green sites).   However, IF that hazard on #18 was primarily a sand hazard like HHA at Pine Valley, it would have worked much much better.  Unfortunately, that was NOT a design option as the area of the hazard is an environmentally protected wetland.  That still doesn’t excuse what is an EXTREMELY PENAL almost unplayable finishing hole.  It’s not good!

[Jason Topp]

Yeah...no doubt Bill.


Jason,

Appreciate the response. I didn't think you were ignoring me.

You certainly lay out a doable task, but I wonder how a hole that likely pulls an average of double bogey or more is seen as accommodating.

I read your post earlier and thought about it while driving and thought through a question. Take the 18 that's aiming for the center of the 48 yards wide fairway. In 20 drives, how many end up in the ocean? How many end up out of bounds? Certainly 1 in 4 requires a new pellet, right? Similar number for the second shot if the first is good? Is it possible that the 18 can lose 8 or 10 golf balls on this hole in 20 rounds?

I will say this...the ocean absolutely inspires the scratch! Not so sure it accommodates the 18...although it does not force him to hit it in the air for 100 yards.

Jim - the difference is he has hope before he hits the shot.  The results might not be materially different but that hope and temptation makes the game more interesting for any of us.

[John Percival]

Interesting points involving PB 18, and 5 pars in general, for the 18 hdcper.
The greatest problem for most average players is the driver. Yet they just bang away with little regard for how the hole sets up.

Take the 5 par, specifically PB 18. Assume a 500 yard length. They are not reaching in two, so the next best thing is three. Sounds obvious.
if you back out a 120 yard approach, that leaves 380 yards. Divvy that by two and you have two plays of 190 yards. For many players, that is a 3 or 4 wood. Shorter shafts and more loft create less spray and more playability.

Of course, that is one rational for the HHA-type hazard. And in those cases, differing strategies might be in order to deal with the brute. However, and thankfully, they are (IMO a delicious) rarity.

IF YOU'RE AN AVERAGE PLAYER, NEXT TIME UR OUT JUST CRAPPING AROUND, PLAY A FULL ROUND WITHOUT UR DRIVER. AND IF U DO, INCREASE UR WAGERS, CAUSE UR GONNA PLAY BETTER AND SHOOT LOWER SCORES.

[JESII]

Jim - the difference is he has hope before he hits the shot.  The results might not be materially different but that hope and temptation makes the game more interesting for any of us.

Jason, you may be debating something I'm not disagreeing with. The ocean at Pebble certainly gives the 18 handicapper more options (and hope) than does HHA. No Question!

But does options equal accommodation? How does the road hole bunker accommodate the 18? By simply letting him avoid it with an extra stroke or two? I think that's where we're headed but just want to make sure we're on the same page.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

If the natural terrian and land permit I dont see any problem with the concept.
I understand that it certainly does eliminate the ground game and as such perhpas a portion of players, but sometimes that can be the result of attractive architecture.
Davis Love and co at Diamante used three areas that could be described as Hells Half Acre like.
The secong shot into number nine dictated by the natural rojas is a firced carry over flat  natural desert area and a smaller area used to be carried over on number 15 now unfortunatelyy removed.
The tee shot on #17 is more like Hells half mile but is a beautiful looking area to carry.

So I think there is a place for such features if natural and not forced into the design.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Many seem to object to an HHA feature, yet, in essence, they're in abundance on your tee shot.

Granted, you have a perfect lie on the tee, but, then again HHA at Pine Valley is barely 90 yards long.

The existance of HHA on # 7 places a premium on the golfer's drive, more so than his second shot, which is largely determined by his drive.

Shouldn't an architect, at some point in the round, demand higher forms of planning and execution ?

An HHA seems to do just that.

Patrick,

I agree most architects use a forced carry on tee shots far more than second shots, but it makes sense.  Ball on tee AND you can control the distance via multiple tees for all length drivers (providing they cooperate and play the "right" tee. We use it even more on par 3 holes, with controlled distance, ball on tee and shorter than driver club in the golfers hand.

It gets problematic for average golfers on second shots. Not only do all hit different distances, so many hit different distances on their tee shots, as I pointed out on another thread.  Many 230 yard tee shots are from guys who slightly miss but could hit it 260 with full contact.  This leads to a problem that no, there is no such thing as "only a 90 yard carry."  That is only with a perfect tee shot, while others might have to carry 2x or more of that.  And, the forced layup after a missed shot is not fun. (as a better player, how would you feel about a forced layup? 

Really, no one likes those any more than a forced carry, and the HHA forces many players into one or the other (or both) of some of the least interesting shots in golf.

Well, I think you get the idea that I wouldn't go out of my way to build one, but I am certainly not advocating removal of any that still exist.  I agree with MWP above, with the possible caveat that you wouldn't build on in any case on courses aimed at mid level public play, even if found naturally (unless natural and really spectacular, which reminds me of Terri Hatcher and the last Seinfeld episode.....but that is another story.....)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Many seem to object to an HHA feature, yet, in essence, they're in abundance on your tee shot.

Granted, you have a perfect lie on the tee, but, then again HHA at Pine Valley is barely 90 yards long.

The existance of HHA on # 7 places a premium on the golfer's drive, more so than his second shot, which is largely determined by his drive.

Shouldn't an architect, at some point in the round, demand higher forms of planning and execution ?

An HHA seems to do just that.

Patrick,

I agree most architects use a forced carry on tee shots far more than second shots, but it makes sense.  Ball on tee AND you can control the distance via multiple tees for all length drivers (providing they cooperate and play the "right" tee. We use it even more on par 3 holes, with controlled distance, ball on tee and shorter than driver club in the golfers hand.

It gets problematic for average golfers on second shots. Not only do all hit different distances, so many hit different distances on their tee shots, as I pointed out on another thread.  Many 230 yard tee shots are from guys who slightly miss but could hit it 260 with full contact.  This leads to a problem that no, there is no such thing as "only a 90 yard carry."  That is only with a perfect tee shot, while others might have to carry 2x or more of that.  And, the forced layup after a missed shot is not fun. (as a better player, how would you feel about a forced layup? 

Jeff, the problem you and other are having is that you're equating the games and scores of the good golfers with the games and scores of the mediocre to poor golfer.

9, 14, 19 and 25 handicaps aren't supposed to par the 7th hole at PV with any degree of regularity.
They're not supposed to routinely hit the green in regulation.

For them,  a drive, followed by a lay up, followed by a third shot over HHA, then an approach to the green.
One putt for a par, two putt for a bogey.

HHA is more of an impediment for the better golfer because it places an enormous premium on the tee shot., since the 0, 3 and 6 handicap should par the 7th with a degree of regularity.

Really, no one likes those any more than a forced carry, and the HHA forces many players into one or the other (or both) of some of the least interesting shots in golf.

HHA's require the golfer to "THINK", something that seems to be a lost art with the advent of high tech.

Well, I think you get the idea that I wouldn't go out of my way to build one, but I am certainly not advocating removal of any that still exist.  I agree with MWP above, with the possible caveat that you wouldn't build on in any case on courses aimed at mid level public play, even if found naturally (unless natural and really spectacular, which reminds me of Terri Hatcher and the last Seinfeld episode.....but that is another story.....)

And yet, we see an abundance of ponds and creeks fronting greens.

At what point do you cease catering to the LCD ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()