Hazards as the optimal line

[Tim Gallant]

Looking at photos from the new Sand Valley course, I was struck...by how much sand there is around the fairways (shocker, I know!), and how although a golfer is likely to get unpredictable lies / obstructions one their shots occassionally, that it could possibly present the best line of play into the green.


That then got me thinking - can hitting into hazards ever be the ideal line and is that good design? The one that came to my mind first was the 2nd hole at North Berwick. Often, if the tide is out, I get much more aggressive on my tee shot because actually, in all the times I have then over cut the shot onto the beach, I have received a) a lot of roll and b) great lines into the green which take the bunkers out of play. Of course, there will always be the chance that I get snagged on a stone or seaweed, but in general, I would say that being in the hazard is a great line into the green.


So my question is twofold: because we the golfers automatically associate hazard = bad, can designers use this to their advantage to mask the ideal line? And are there good examples where being in a hazard is a benefit?


Caveats: I appreciate that using the word 'hazard' and 'optimal' in the same sentence is a bit of an oxymoron. I am thinking more of un-maintained sand surfaces (those at Sand Valley), or staked hazards like the one at NB that could potentially be playable for golfers of most abilities.

[Mac Plumart]

So my question is twofold: because we the golfers automatically associate hazard = bad, can designers use this to their advantage to mask the ideal line? And are there good examples where being in a hazard is a benefit?

Great questions!
I think the first one is YES!!  I see it all the time on great courses.  The nasty, gnarly and intimidating hazard guards the ideal line into the green.  This goes hand-in-hand with the terms strategic bunkering to me.  Tackle that fierce hazard and, on a well designed hole, you will receive a huge reward.

On the second one, I'd say YES again...but people have made fun of me for this answer (SEAN LEARY I'm looking right at you!!)  The 5th hole at Rivermont has a fairway bunker on the right side of the fairway.  The ideal line is to carry that bunker or lay up just short of it, especially if the pin is back left.  If your ball is on the right side of the fairway, the green opens up and lengthens...AND the green slants left to right, which will repeal the ball away from a back left pin...ESPECIALLY if you are coming in from the LEFT

So, I would rather be in that bunker than be on the left side of of the fairway, if I have a back left pin.  The aforementioned green will not allow a ball to stop anywhere near the hole if approaching from the left AND trees creep out on the left and block a direct line to the pin.

So, again, on 5 at Rivermont...challenging the bunker of the right side of the fairway is THE play, especially with a back left pin.  Even if I get in the bunker, I prefer that to being up the left...with a back left pin. 

[Thomas Dai]

The story of James Braid telling a course not to immediately install bunkers but to wait a year, see where the majority of divots are and place the bunkers in the heavily divotted areas comes to mind. True story or not there seems some method to the idea.
And there's a Lee Trevino story about him sometimes aiming at fairway bunkers at The Open but staying just short of them as this gives the best line into some links greens.

Atb

[Tim Gallant]

The story of James Braid telling a course not to immediately install bunkers but to wait a year, see where the majority of divots are and place the bunkers in the heavily divotted areas comes to mind. True story or not there seems some method to the idea.
And there's a Lee Trevino story about him sometimes aiming at fairway bunkers at The Open but staying just short of them as this gives the best line into some links greens.

Atb

Thomas,


I suppose my question takes Braid's premise and extends it. JB supposes that you put a hazard on the ideal line. If the player challenges that hazard and comes up short / slides past the bunker, then they are rewarded and left with the ideal line in. This is basic strategic design. However! The difference in my thinking is that Braid put the hazard there as a penalty. But I want to know if a hazard can be on the ideal line and NOT be a penalty.


I guess I am trying to challenge the theory that hazard = bad, fairway = good. Are there cases where being in the hazard on the ideal line is actually of benefit, so that being short / long / left / right of that hazard actually takes you off the ideal line by nth degree.


For the theory to work, the hazard would need to be big enough where you couldn't pull up a yard short or 2 yards long and be on the ideal line. That's why looking at Sand Valley I started thinking: What if on a dog leg left, the green and opening to the green was slanted in such a way that being in the non-grassed area was actually the best line in, and while being on the right edge of the fairway will give you a better line into the green than the left side of the green, in reality, the ideal line is still in the hazard. If this is the case, is it bad design or innovative?

[Kalen Braley]

I've only really seen this done in unintended fashion.


A course I used to play had a par 5 that dog legged to the right, with a big bunker right in the spot where you wanted to hit your tee ball.  So the "shortcut" would be to hit it even further right of that into the fairway of the next hole coming back the other direction, which would shorten the hole even more and be left with a fairway lie.


They eventually made it one directional OB to put the kybosh on that.

[Thomas Dai]

Tim,
Points noted. If the 'hazard' area is reasonably open and is raked and maintained, thus increasing the likelihood of a decent lie, stance etc this would contribute significantly in the decision as to whether or not to deliberately play into it the 'hazard' to take advantage of a better angle of further play etc.
Atb

[Sean_A]

Looking at photos from the new Sand Valley course, I was struck...by how much sand there is around the fairways (shocker, I know!), and how although a golfer is likely to get unpredictable lies / obstructions one their shots occassionally, that it could possibly present the best line of play into the green.


That then got me thinking - can hitting into hazards ever be the ideal line and is that good design? The one that came to my mind first was the 2nd hole at North Berwick. Often, if the tide is out, I get much more aggressive on my tee shot because actually, in all the times I have then over cut the shot onto the beach, I have received a) a lot of roll and b) great lines into the green which take the bunkers out of play. Of course, there will always be the chance that I get snagged on a stone or seaweed, but in general, I would say that being in the hazard is a great line into the green.


So my question is twofold: because we the golfers automatically associate hazard = bad, can designers use this to their advantage to mask the ideal line? And are there good examples where being in a hazard is a benefit?


Caveats: I appreciate that using the word 'hazard' and 'optimal' in the same sentence is a bit of an oxymoron. I am thinking more of un-maintained sand surfaces (those at Sand Valley), or staked hazards like the one at NB that could potentially be playable for golfers of most abilities.

Tim


I would often prefer to be in a greenside bunker than greenside rough and sometimes greenside short grass. 


I think hazards should protect the best line yet tempt players to challenge the hazard for that best line.  At the very least, there should be some punishment for being in the hazard...usually, beiing in sand is punishment enough if bunkers are done well...especially fairway bunkers.  That said, if a green is open enough I spose being in the hazard is actually a better line, but then there is the negative aspect of sand.  Your example of West Links does leave a blind shot.  I would prefer to be in the fairway with a bad line (though there is always a line to the green if not the hole) than have a blind shot there, plus the risk of a bad lie.


Ciao

[Matt_Cohn]

It seemed like everyone here thought it was absolutely terrible during the 2013 US Open at Merion when rough was grown into what had previously been the ideal places to hit teeshots on several holes. Just in general, I've seen frequent complaints on this site when "the best line into the green is from the rough." Surely that same logic would apply to sand as well. I'd be surprised if many folks were okay with the best angle of approach being from sand.

[Thomas Dai]

As to hitting away from the usual line to get better angles [size=78%]some examples come to mind, although not necessarily in relation to hitting deliberately into 'hazards' -[/size]


A) Seve playing into the rough at Lytham, at the suggestion of Roberto de Vincenzo I believe, as the rough was sparse that year
B) Lon Hinkle and the Hinkle tree
C) not totally sure of this one, but I believe I've read somewhere about Walter Hagen playing the 8th at Muirfield via the bottom of the practice ground


I'm sure there ate many, many more.


Atb

[Mark_Fine]

Max Behr once stated, "The direct line to the hole is the line of instinct and to make a good hole you must break up that line in order to create the line of charm.” This “line of charm” concept was and is used by almost every architect out there.  It is the line of greatest risk for the greatest reward.  It is usually fraught with hazard/s and provides the temptation to drive the ball a little bit closer to or over or around the hazard for the better line to the green.

A "hazard" by definition is something that offers a hazardous situation.  If a golfer hits their ball into a "hazard" and there is nothing hazardous about where they are, then is it really a hazard for that golfer?  Some golfers prefer to be in a bunker than in a chipping area.  In that case, what is hazardous for one is not hazardous for the other.  Sometimes we would all prefer to be in one type of hazard vs the other such as in the small pot bunker on #17 at the TPC at Sawgrass vs in the water hazard right in front of it.

The bottom-line, however, is that NO architect designs a hole so that the best place to end up is in a hazard!  They just don't.  The hazard might “save you” from a worse fate or at times, with some luck, offer a shorter shot or maybe even an easier shot (rub of the green), but it is not a place where you are supposed to be if played ideally as the architect intended.  Yes architects like Leeds and Flynn and Fownes and many others would add bunkers later on in the locations where golfers were hitting many of their shots but that was to further "break up" that line of charm and make that location no longer ideal.  By adding that bunker or other type of hazard, one would now have to play short of it or go around or over it because that location had now been made hazardous and not a place you were supposed to be. 
 

[Mac Plumart]

I can't remember the exact hole #, but it was the uphill par 5 at Pebble Beach.  Before the green was "fixed", the pros were purposefully laying up into the fronting greenside bunker in order to be able to hold the green on their next shot.

[Bob Montle]

The uphille par 5 15th at Quail Hollow has a bunker directly in front of and below the green.
Whenever the pin is in front, the longer hitters all seem to aim for that bunker. 
If successful, they have an easy 25 ft up and down for their birdie.

[Mark_Fine]

Architects cringe when they hear announcers on TV say, “get in the bunker”.  This is because bunkers are almost non-hazards for tour/top players as the bunkers are perfectly maintained (almost to a spec) and don’t always offer an unpredictable or “hazardous” situation.  They were not put there by the architect as "the ideal place to be”.  That said, it is possible that there are other more hazardous situations near that bunker that are to also be avoided.  If, for example, you are right of the greenside bunker on #16 at Cypress Point you are either in the Ocean or in the Ice Plant and trust me, you prefer to be in the bunker.  But it is still not the ideal or optimal place to be. 

[Tom_Doak]

Years ago Vijay Singh reported to Pete Dye that there were 2-3 holes at the TPC at Sawgrass where it was actually easier to approach the green from the waste bunker than from the fairway.  Which is not all that surprising, since these "S" holes were designed to reward the angle CLOSE to the bunker and the angle from IN the bunker is even better ... so if the waste bunkers are maintained nicely and you get clean lies, they are in fact the place to be.


I doubt that Mr. Dye was fazed by this observation, as the very first year of the tournament, when Tom Weiskopf was complaining about #11, he asked Tom why he didn't just play for the waste bunker with his second shot where he could pretty easily get up and down for 4 most times.


However, it isn't that easy at the TPC to actually aim for the waste bunkers off the tee ... they are narrower than the fairways, and often there's a narrow canal on the outside of the bunker which might catch you.  Also, if you hit the bank between the bunker and the fairway, I've seen shots scoot all the way through the waste bunker and into the water.

[Tom_Doak]

As for my own work, I know that one hole where being in the fairway bunker is not a bad thing is the 6th at Pacific Dunes.  It's a great angle from there and only 100-110 yards to the green, so it's very doable as long as you don't wind up against the lip; I made three from that bunker twice in the course's early days.


Did I design it that way on purpose?  No. 


Do I mind that it works that way?  No!  I'm totally okay with players finding their own best way to the hole.  That's what the game is supposed to be about.  If someone can make that strategy work for them, I think they're pretty clever.


The idea that the "hazard" is always supposed to be the worst place and the "fairway" is always supposed to be the best place is a bit too obvious for my tastes.  I'm not at all afraid of turning that on its ear on occasion.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
We all agree that there are times when being in the “fairway” (at least maybe a certain side or part of the fairway) is not always ideal.  It could depend on the hole location, an over hanging tree, a mound that causes blindness, or just a poor angle of attack.  Ross was big on that as his wide fairways sometimes presented a false sense of security.  You needed to be in the correct side or location on his fairways to have the best line into certain parts of his greens.  But he did expect his hazards (bunkers) to be hazards.  That didn’t mean you couldn't get a great lie in them from time to time or play a good recovery shot, but he didn’t design them as the ideal place to be. 


As you also know, a “waste bunker” it technically not a hazard, but then again short grass around a green isn’t technically a hazard but it can present a hazardous situation when the runoff is severe and a ball finding that short grass can run a distance from the green into a precarious location for the next shot. 


The point of this thread was do architects purposely design “hazards” as the ideal place to be and my answer is NO despite the fact that sometimes (rub of the green) it might work out that way. 

[Tim Gallant]

As for my own work, I know that one hole where being in the fairway bunker is not a bad thing is the 6th at Pacific Dunes.  It's a great angle from there and only 100-110 yards to the green, so it's very doable as long as you don't wind up against the lip; I made three from that bunker twice in the course's early days.


Did I design it that way on purpose?  No. 


Do I mind that it works that way?  No!  I'm totally okay with players finding their own best way to the hole.  That's what the game is supposed to be about.  If someone can make that strategy work for them, I think they're pretty clever.


The idea that the "hazard" is always supposed to be the worst place and the "fairway" is always supposed to be the best place is a bit too obvious for my tastes.  I'm not at all afraid of turning that on its ear on occasion.

I suppose that is what I am getting at - is it ok for a hole to have a hazard where it is advantageous some of the time (depending on how your ball lies) to be approaching the green from that position, as opposed to the fairway? In my mind, by doing this sparingly, you could potentially create MORE options! 'Would I rather play from the right side of the fairway and open up some of the green, or from the hazard way right to open up all of the green?' 'And what are the odds that I will get a decent lie to be able to take advantage of that line, or am I going to end up in a footprint/seaweed/bush?' To me, that is what presents more excitement some of the time. In the case of North Berwick, as Sean pointed out, you do have the blindness to deal with, and the % that you could end up in a real spot of bother. That means I don't intentionally aim for the beach, but the line is attractive enough that I don't mind cutting the margins finer.


Also, I wonder how this would psychologically impact on golfers. After aiming for fairways all day long, could they take the advice of the caddie / strokesaver and actually aim for a bunker? Does this challenge their preconception of what a good golf hole is? Variety is the spice of life as we say!


Mark,


I take your point that I am potentially using 'hazard' liberally. In Matt's example, I like the thought of pro's weighing up being in the rough for a better angle vs. fairway where they can get more spin, but appreciate that rough isn't a 'hazard' in the truest sense. Now, is that a better option than mowing the fairways out wider but protecting that line with a truly 1-stroke penalty hazard? I would probably say no, so I do see your point, but I do like the idea of something that could be a different way to look at things.

[Mac Plumart]

6th at Pacific Dunes.

What an awesome hole!  This thread kind of brings to life the idea that the beauty of the game is to figure out a way to get that damn ball in the hole as efficiently as possible...whatever it takes.