Do Fairway Hazards "Date" a Golf Course?

[Grant Saunders]

Does the introduction or utilisation of fairway hazards ultimately lock a course into a specific era or time?

As technology changes and balls travel further (or maybe shorter in the future) fairway hazards are subject to losing relevancy. Lengthening holes, by adding new tees, can bring some areas of a hole back into play but isn't really an option that can be continued to be considered. A greenside hazard on the other hand will be encountered by players as the shot to the green will always remain an integral part of a hole.

Would it then be fair to theorise that a hole or course heavily reliant on fairway based challenges will tend to reflect when it was laid out? In terms of creating a course that retains its relevance, would it be better to place emphasis on greens and surrounds to generate the main character of the hole in an area that will always be encountered by all level of players?

[Tyler Kearns]

Grant,


One of the interesting things we discovered when preparing a restorative master plan for an old Donald Ross course was that many of the original bunkers that were intended to challenge second shots of club members are now relevant for modern drives.  They were filled in during the 40's, 50's and 60's when I'm sure a lot of people wondered why they were there, and to your point, would have dated the course during those decades.


TK

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think general style might also date them a bit, but maybe its just more by architect. In the 50's, for instance, you had RTJ and Wilson doing the puzzle piece bunkers, but Robert Bruce Harris was doing the clamshells.  But, in general, bunkers started getting "tuned" to maintenance machinery on the market and edges got softer for all but the top architects and most expensive projects.

Another thing that dates projects like your post suggests - how far does the fairway dogleg from the tee?  In Ross' day, it might have been 200, and by RTJ it was up to 250, then 265 by the 1980's and 285-300 now (all back tees, of course)

[Mark_Fine]

Do the fairway hazards "date" The Old Course?  I don't think so.  Style, shape and sometimes placement can point to certain architects but they don't really "date" a golf course. 

[Grant Saunders]

Jeff and Mark

Style will always be a large contributer to the era of construction and a marker of trends. I believe it is more easily altered compared to structural factors such as placement.

Good point from Jeff regarding the turning point of doglegs as a function of distance and therefore also a strong signal of date of implementation.

In this respect, are par 3's or one shotters more universal and ageless? The intent of the hole is retained in the face of distances the ball is hit even if the club used from the tee changes. A greenside bunker is still largely applicable whether you hit a 5 iron or a 7 iron.

[Thomas Dai]

....many of the original bunkers that were intended to challenge second shots of club members are now relevant for modern drives.

That's a good observation. I often play a couple of Dr MacK' courses from the late 20's and the same situation is noticeable on some of their holes as well.....and that's with the holes now being played from tees pushed back from their original positions.
atb

[Sean_A]

One of the interesting things we discovered when preparing a restorative master plan for an old Donald Ross course was that many of the original bunkers that were intended to challenge second shots of club members are now relevant for modern drives.

I also find that hazards originally intended to harass second shots do, but for lesser players or for decent players who are trying to recover from a poor drive.  IMO, eliminating all those old fashion cross bunkers was a big mistake because of this.
Ciao

[Chris DeNigris]

Is this true for the 99%?

When I revisit the course I grew up on- built early/mid 70s- all the fairway bunkers seem to be in play for me in the same way they were 40 years ago.

[Tom_Doak]

Another thing that dates projects like your post suggests - how far does the fairway dogleg from the tee?  In Ross' day, it might have been 200, and by RTJ it was up to 250, then 265 by the 1980's and 285-300 now (all back tees, of course)

One of the cool things about our Forest Dunes project is that because of the reversible nature, there are several holes where the doglegs turn at odd distances off the tee.  On several holes, a long hitter will need to steer his ball around the corner or carry it.  It feels like an older course because of that.

[Doug Siebert]

Another thing that dates projects like your post suggests - how far does the fairway dogleg from the tee?  In Ross' day, it might have been 200, and by RTJ it was up to 250, then 265 by the 1980's and 285-300 now (all back tees, of course)

One of the cool things about our Forest Dunes project is that because of the reversible nature, there are several holes where the doglegs turn at odd distances off the tee.  On several holes, a long hitter will need to steer his ball around the corner or carry it.  It feels like an older course because of that.

This is a very overlooked feature.  Too many courses have the turning point at the same distance, and the only variation possible is in the tees (often little variation from the tips with the typical small teebox) or the wind.  A stiff breeze can effectively change a steady diet of 280 yard turning points into 240 and 320 yarders, but it would be nice to see that done deliberately more often.  It adds to the interest and the challenge.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Doug and Tom,

Interesting concept of varying doglegs.  One downside for Colonial in Ft. Worth was that it caused some long hitters, like Tiger, to announce skipping their tournament.  I think his deal with AMEX when the event was titled the Master Card Colonial Invitational had a lot to do with it, too.  Medinah was off the Open rotation for a while, because JN complained about the short dogleg on 13 (now 16) and Palmer didn't like the snap slice 18th, and the 9th had some complaints too.

There is probably some limit to how far you would ask a player to bend a ball. No one is going to play a snap hook or slice.  On the other hand, a real old hole with a dogleg at 200 yards might work out to fit the parabola of ball path (max apex at about 70% of ball flight) for 300 yard drivers, if bending less than 10 degrees or so.

All of this reminds me of Dick Nugent's memorable saying on sharp doglegs: "There are only two instances where I won't design a sharp dogleg......1) where there are a lot of trees, and 2) where there aren't."

[Steve Lang]

   Jeff,


Does this date a course, when Giants tread...?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Steve,
I think there is a bit of whimsy in every era.......but this is actually a good example of softening a sharp dogleg, as the alternate fairway takes the trees at the dogleg out.  Would have been a terrible hole, as a 520 par 5 with layup to less than full drive, not allowing you to get home in two.  Big weakness, IMHO, is the clean rough left of the bunker, which looks a bit odd, and does allow some weak shots to end up better than safe ones.

You have probably heard this story, but that bunker was a long deep sand excavation.  Not sure why, but this exact area was the US Olympic Triathlon training site, so I think they dug it out to build a course.  I considered just leaving it, but thought of the foot idea (this one predates my Colbert Hills wildcat paw, but came after my Clemson paw in Myrtle Beach).

 The client argued for a while, let me do it, and then thanked me after that logo sold so many golf shirts, perhaps because of its resemblance to the NC State logo, not sure.  I will also admit to wanting to carve two more along the hole to suggest the Giant's movement across the landscape, but that is where the project rep drew the line, and we probably didn't have a big enough sand budget.

[Paul Gray]

One of the interesting things we discovered when preparing a restorative master plan for an old Donald Ross course was that many of the original bunkers that were intended to challenge second shots of club members are now relevant for modern drives.

I also find that hazards originally intended to harass second shots do, but for lesser players or for decent players who are trying to recover from a poor drive.  IMO, eliminating all those old fashion cross bunkers was a big mistake because of this.
Ciao

As is a frequent occurance, Sean got to the punchline first.


This very thing happened at my club, fortunately only on one hole, all done under the instruction of an overrated architect or two who might or might not have carried out work on a few Open Championship courses in recent years.


I would say this then: if fairway bunkers do date a course, it is because not enough modern designs utilise them and, if they ever do, they do not mix the formula up enough to provide challenges for all sorts of different levels of player.