The Effect of Spotters on Architecture

[Wade Whitehead]

At the US Open at Merion a couple of years ago, my son and I sat on the second tee and watched player after player go left into heavy rough.  As soon as the ball landed, a fleet of spotters went to work, scouring the grass and almost always finding the ball before the player and caddy arrived.  In spite of heavy grass, there was virtually no risk of losing the shot.  It was obvious that no one was worried about not finding the ball.

In fact, most players didn't even seem to watch their shots land.  They knew that they wouldn't be responsible for finding it and that the volunteer fleet would take care of it.

I haven't visited Erin Hills, but it sounds like players will reap massive benefits from the spotter and marshall crew, especially on holes like #8.  Unless it carries into the high fescue, losing a ball seems just about impossible (which is true at every one of these tournaments).

This isn't the case, however, for every recreational (i.e.g "real") round I've ever played, however.  Architects rely on the threat of a lost ball to force decisions from players.  Line of play, especially on blind shots, becomes more important when you know a poorly struck shot might never be located.

At Ballyhack, holes like #4, #6, #12, and #15 cause tension because tee shots played offline (and/or not followed visually) can be lost.  Tracking the ball and making an educated guess about its resting spot are really, really important.

On a Ross course during a Virginia State Open qualifier last week, my group looked for a ball more than thirty yards from where it was eventually found by a passing spectator.  It hadn't been watched carefully enough and, apparently, it hit a mound and shot sideways.  In a major event, its location would never have been in doubt.

What notable holes lose some luster or teeth when a dozen spotters are plopped in place?

What holes (and/or courses) utilize the threat in the most effective way under everyday conditions?

Imagine a US Open at Erin Hills with no stands, no spectators, and no marshalls.  Top ten or twenty finishers would shoot the same score, but, for a good number of players, it would make the place vastly more difficult.

WW

[Scott Weersing]

You forgot about the rough on 18 at Ballyhack, Yeah you can see it from the tee but you could still lose a ball in it.

I am not sure that rough or the threat of a lost ball would impact a pro. But it does impact how I would play.


"What holes (and/or courses) utilize the threat in the most effective way under everyday conditions?"

I think Pacific Dunes no. 4 has a cliff all down the right side. Also no. 16 at Bandon Dunes is a great risk and reward hole where you can go long into rough and not find it. There used to be intimidating gorse on no. 4 at Bandon Dunes but they removed it.


Public courses that had the threat had to remove it. For example, Teatherow in Bend OR and the Castle Course in Scotland.


I have not played Bethpage but there is rough there.


What about Oakmont and its ditches? Would that be a good example of a threat?

[Bill Shamleffer]

I would hope an architect would NOT use the potential of a lost ball as an aspect of good design.

[Joe Hancock]

I would hope an architect would NOT use the potential of a lost ball as an aspect of good design.

Contrarily, I tend to believe that, for the masses, good architecture does purposely reduce the number of times a golfer can lose a ball.

[Duncan Cheslett]

While researching my reply I chanced upon this blog posting which sums it up perfectly;


http://www.ispygolf.com/blog/guest-author/2014/12/learning-mackenzies-design-principles/

[Sean_A]

I would hope an architect would NOT use the potential of a lost ball as an aspect of good design.

I would hope an architect would take advantage of natural features to offer a few thrilling opportunities which may or may not involve a lost ball.  Its ok if architecture sometimes creates a win/lose situation.  Its all in how that situation is presented and how many times in a round. Penal architecture isn't poor design, it is an important aspect of design which is necessary for variety.  Imagine par 3s without penal design...not pretty.

To the original post...if a course needs spotters the rough is usually too long.

Ciao

[Mike Hendren]

I've been thinking about starting a treat titled "To Hell With Hay" but this is a good opportunity to piggyback on this thread.

Let's stipulate that an entire golf course cannot be maintained.  That said, there is plenty of very deep rough, some native - some not on many of America's great golf courses.  I know - don't hit it there.   I wish it was that easy.

We've discussed Erin Hills, but I could come up with numerous examples.  The first that comes to mind is Crystal Downs.  Foolishly (in hindsight) I played my tee ball down the middle of the 4th fairway with a slight draw - as good a tee ball as I can hit.  It took 3 sand wedges to extricate my ball from the left hand rough.  I'm sure running a bush-hog through that stuff would ugly up the course, but it sure is disappointing to put the ball in your pocket on such a marvelous golf hole.  I'd be scared to death to tee it up at the likes of Prairie Dunes.  Should a player like me merely declare defeat and eschew such courses - after all who says architecture must accommodate or appeal to the masses?  I don't think it should.

This seems to be a uniquely American feature as the tall grass that I've experienced in England and Scotland is generally wispy and punishes only a half-stroke at a time. 

Your thoughts?

[Thomas Dai]

Some courses, Rosses Point/County Sligo comes to mind, have poles abouts 5ft tall, either all white or black and white hoops, stuck in the ground in the thick rough to give some visual guidance on where a wayward ball may or may not have landed.
Atb

[John Kavanaugh]

It all depends on your priorities. To mow a course fence to fence is going to require a dues increase equal to the cost of replacing any and all lost balls you may incur. I choose beauty over balls...not that there is anything wrong with that.

[JJShanley]

Some courses, Rosses Point/County Sligo comes to mind, have poles abouts 5ft tall, either all white or black and white hoops, stuck in the ground in the thick rough to give some visual guidance on where a wayward ball may or may not have landed.
Atb

Gullane had this as well in 2000.  White stakes, which I wrongly assumed during a junior open there were OB between the two courses. 

[Matthew Petersen]

There are a lot of benefits to playing a course under a tournament setup. Wayward approaches that find grandstands and thus get a nice free drop as opposed to going who knows where are another example.


But I doubt--even at Erin Hills, where the goal was an Open all along--that the high fescue was given the OK because they knew spotters would help find balls. As others have noted, high grass is sort of an inevitability in a lot of places--mowing such areas is cost prohibitive and kind of ugly.


Then again there's a whole other issue when such features are added where they do not naturally grow (I can think of several Arizona courses that feature high grass roughs and clearly that's nothing natural).

[Dave McCollum]

Wade mentioned the second hole of the US Open at Merion.  I was walking the course with my son, who plays but isn’t really a golfer.  He asked me why Merion was considered a great course when we happened to be on second hole.  I told him to forget about that ribbon of fairway up the right side next to the road and imagine a 40 yard wide fairway with little rough.  All of the options presented instead of being told hit it here or suffer.  Yes, the right side was clearly the preferred place to place your drive, but why make everywhere else unplayable?  We spent the remainder of the day imagining a golf course not tricked up for the event.  I have no idea how they set up the course on a daily basis, but the course we imagined was great.   

I have no problem making golf difficult for the pros:  unplayable rough, water everywhere, and so on.  I just don’t think most golfers would enjoy the same.