Where are golf balls usually lost and should design reflect this?

[Thomas Dai]

Where are golf balls usually lost and should design reflect this?

As was apparently said by Dr A MacK' - "Remember that golf is a game and that no player ever gets any fun in searching for lost balls."

atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

It probably should, at least for everyday type courses.  While I am pretty sure TD will snarkily say he doesn't use formulas like me, or maybe Ken Moun, who claims I don't understand the math very well, but I have reviewed the few studies out there about shot dispersion and try to get my play corridors shaped to where balls will miss at "acceptable" rates.


If you tell me what percentage of lost balls of the tee might be acceptable, probably somewhere between 2-25%, I could probably configure a turf line that would contain that many on an average year.   Obviously, we don't get it perfect because we also have to match sprinkler heads.  Also obviously, 180 yards off the tee to the right is pretty typical.   


I have told the story before, but we often leave natives in play from the back two tees, while leaving the front three tees a turf covered path to the fairways.  At Colbert Hills, we opted for a 200 yard carry.  One day, Mr. Colbert hit a test shot from a hole that usually played downwind, but was in a head wind that day (cold and near winter facing north)  We immediately reduced the forced carries to 180 yards after he couldn't clear the natives to find turf.


As to width, I have found when landing zones are about 70 yards wide, almost 1 in 4 tee balls will miss the play corridor.  It drops quickly thereafter, with an 80 yard corridor containing 95% of shots, depending on configuration (i.e., 42 yards right of center and 38 left, etc.)  Those are from memory, and might be slightly off, but you get the idea.


 

[Tom_Doak]

I don't know if I've ever seen a study on where golf balls are most often lost.


Water hazards are certainly one culprit and I try never to build one, although I'll certainly use one if it's natural.


My guess is that the majority of lost balls come on tee shots [the farther you hit it, the farther off line], which is why our courses are so wide off the tee.

[Cal Seifert]

I know a man who lives alongside a fairway ~225 from the tee.  He has so many golf balls slice out of bounds into his yard he makes his grandchildren wear hard hats to play outside. 

[Paul Carey]

I am not sure this is a design issue but a maintenance issue.  I am involved with the Club and a renovation in 2010 resulted in a lot of "natural" sandy areas along most fairways and an overplanting of ornamental grasses throughout out the not so "natural" areas.  I guess the concept was to make it look more finished at the end of construction.  Unfortunately shots a bit offline would go into the ornamental grasses and the ball would be lost or, at best, likely unplayable.  A god example was the first hole with water down the left side and a sandy dune area down the right side.  Unfortunately, the dune area was filled with ornamental grasses too may players started their round off hunting for balls down the right side.  It is not a bad hole but, despite the 50 yard wide fairway the penalty for a slice was severe.


Over the last few years we have taken out thousands of ornamental grasses and "cleaned up" the natural areas.  The concept is to take areas where balls are often hit and have fewer plants that  look natural but a ball can be found and played.  As the work is planned we try to think of areas in three categories: 1.)  Where many balls are hit (like the right side of the first hole) and we try to keep that a bit cleaner of plants and wispier type plants 2.) these are areas that occasionally will attract balls from a poor shot or areas around long holes where long shots not far off line may come to rest.  We are trying to make those areas where balls will be found but a bit heavier planting than area 1.  3.)  these areas are where it is rare to see a ball go from most golfers.  If you hit it in there it is a terrible shot and not a bad break so reload!


it is a multiyear process and we are attempting to eliminate non indigenous plants and replace with more native plants   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim Moore and the USGA have done studies of where golf carts go, using GPS tracking.  They recommend courses use that to determine where to irrigate turf, etc.

[Thomas Dai]

That’s an interesting comment about buggies and gps, assuming the buggies follow the balls.


For what it’s worth I reckon it’s very, very rare to suffer a lost ball in the fairway or in a bunker.
Where the grass is short, the finding is easier. Same with smooth sand.
In water or over a boundary, a ball is pretty likely to be a gonna.
From observations it seems like it’s in the rough, even manicured rough, where we spend time wondering around looking for balls. Same with areas of bushes, rough terrain and trees etc. Another significant area is where leaves are present.


Perhaps it’s all a bit too obvious, but more short grass with bunkers as the main hazards would seem to offer the way to suffer less lost balls, and the time it takes searching for them. Speed of play and all that. Expense as well.


A MacKenzie I play relatively frequently was once very much like this, alas not now. From old photos it would appear that you could have played the same ball for numerous rounds, assuming the ball stayed playable.


Any particular courses that fit this?


Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas,


I am pretty certain the mostly do.  And, the tracking map would make it pretty clear if a cart was short cutting to the rest room or something similar.


Agree short grass and non-water hazards reduce lost balls and lost ball searching (well, water reduces search time in most cases, and some speed of play experts recommend lots of water hazards, at least compared to long, native grasses for that reason)


The thing golf faces is the reduction in water use, which leads to converting more formerly turfed areas to long, native-ish areas.  At La Costa, for instance, we found an unirrigated area of paspalum that could have been left, and watered only once per week or less to keep.  However, the state of California was paying $XX per acre for NO irrigation, so we had to replant with another species.


Similarly, I find here in the south, that common Bermuda (sometimes it seems the oldest, worst turf variety you can find, like BlackJack Bermuda) establishes quickly and works good enough as unmown grass at 3-12", again perhaps watered a few times a year.


In typical golf fashion, the idea of creating a shorter, no water turf will probably be handled using more complexity, genetic research, etc.  Otherwise, we are stuck with the current trends to turf reduction.

[Rick Lane]

ANGL?   Even with their “first cut”now, it’s pretty hard to lose a ball there in heavy grass or water, which I agree are the two places most common.  Of course there is OB and the creek.....I’ve never played there, but have walked the grounds, and it’s either fairway, first cut, or pine straw.   

[Ian Mackenzie]

I'm just going to guess that one of the most common places for lost balls to occur is the first hole - no matter the design....;-)

[Ally Mcintosh]

Seems a simple thing to say but I like holes that are widest at the landing zone. I like the way they play, I like the way they look on the ground and I even like the way they look on paper when I'm drawing them.


Nature sometimes means you have to pinch holes in the middle. Ok for an occasional change. But I prefer a beer gut to a corset.

[Peter Pallotta]

Adjacent and/or shared fairways on treeless sites with strategically contoured greens would make everyone happy -- because as Jeff's stats suggest, the way the average golfer drives it you can't make any *single* fairway wide enough. Alas, safety issues (with much public play) constrain today's architects in a way that Dr Mac (at Augusta especially) never had to deal with. So I guess that's the trade-off: you want not to get hit in the head by a 90 yard slice? Then you have to accept losing a golf ball or two in the forest or fescue on occasion. Most golfers I know recognize and accept that trade off.

[Rich Goodale]

I inevitably lose my ball on the 18th at my local miniature golf course.  It is not fair!

[Thomas Dai]

To throw another aspect into the mix, are more balls likely to be lost to the right or to the left?
I have a suspect.
Any stats or studies undertaken>

atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

To throw another aspect into the mix, are more balls likely to be lost to the right or to the left?
I have a suspect.
Any stats or studies undertaken>

atb

More balls go right so I suspect more are list right

[BCrosby]

Rich -

Miniature golf is like life. When you finish playing, they take away your balls. 

Bob

[Jim Nugent]

Spectacular natural features -- canyons, oceans, etc -- probably produce lots of lost balls.  The more they come into play, the more balls lost, I imagine. 

I think blind shots might also yield lost balls, more so if the landing zone is not short grass. 

My guess is that #1 on the list is rough.  OB probably has a place there as well, especially if it designates course boundaries.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

To throw another aspect into the mix, are more balls likely to be lost to the right or to the left?
I have a suspect.
Any stats or studies undertaken>

atb

Thomas,


Check out Dr. Brodie (broadie?) of Virgina Tech.  He did a dispersion chart for 513 A and also D players in a pro am.  Also, in the late 1990's or early 2000's, the USGA did a one day study at an NJ public course of about 200 shots.  Funny, but that is all that I have found.  The annual PGA stats report includes a section on driving distances for average players, compiled in GBI, but not dispersion.


Oddly, balls missing anywhere left of centerline are just a smidge under balls missed right.  The balls missed right tend to go further off line, with the max D player dispersion about 16 degrees left and 23 degrees right, about a 50% increase.  These are all tee shot studies.  Brodie has a few charts on where golfers miss approach shots, and it also shows missing short and right, with, as TD predicted, a narrow range of misses, although, probably similar dispersion angles on shorter shots.

[A.G._Crockett]

As a twist on this, I will say that I have a deep belief (with a fair amount of evidence to support it) that cheaper golf balls are lost on the right side, and premium golf balls are typically lost on the left side.

Many years ago, I would take my son fishing at our club on Mondays when it was closed for golf, and while he fished, I would hunt balls.  I learned quickly to only look on the left sides of holes; that's where the good stuff was.  The right side was disproportionately populated by Topflites, Pinnacles, Noodles, and such.

Sorry; couldn't resist.

[Thomas Dai]

Nice analysis AGC. I imagine it would be the same kind of lower spec cheaper ball that inhabits forced-carry areas.
atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

So, more money lost on the left, more time lost on the right.


Only thing left to work out is which side loses their balls with more class.

[BCrosby]

AGC - Good stuff. One of those "why didn't I think of that?" insights. 


Bob

[Ken Moum]

As a twist on this, I will say that I have a deep belief (with a fair amount of evidence to support it) that cheaper golf balls are lost on the right side, and premium golf balls are typically lost on the left side.

In Oct. I was a volunteer at an AJGA event held on Karsten Creek, the Oklahoma State team's home course.  On of the days I worked as a timer behind the second green.  Looking around between groups, I found a couple dozen balls near the green, mostly on the left, but that was also the side farthest from the cart path, and since it's a Fazio, the path is hidden in the trees.


Walking in I decided to look for more balls, and quickly realized that:


A) the side opposite the cart path was best
B) the left side had better balls


and:


C) by walking 10-15 yards deep in the woods, where they players "knew" they weren't going to find them, I'd get really good balls


In all I picked up 85 golf balls, about a third of them like-new premium models.


I didn't need the balls, but I grew hunting ruffed grouse in woods like that and it was about as interesting.... except ruffed grouse are much better eating.


K

[Jeff_Brauer]

As a twist on this, I will say that I have a deep belief (with a fair amount of evidence to support it) that cheaper golf balls are lost on the right side, and premium golf balls are typically lost on the left side.

In Oct. I was a volunteer at an AJGA event held on Karsten Creek, the Oklahoma State team's home course.  On of the days I worked as a timer behind the second green.  Looking around between groups, I found a couple dozen balls near the green, mostly on the left, but that was also the side farthest from the cart path, and since it's a Fazio, the path is hidden in the trees.


Walking in I decided to look for more balls, and quickly realized that:


A) the side opposite the cart path was best
B) the left side had better balls


and:


C) by walking 10-15 yards deep in the woods, where they players "knew" they weren't going to find them, I'd get really good balls


In all I picked up 85 golf balls, about a third of them like-new premium models.


I didn't need the balls, but I grew hunting ruffed grouse in woods like that and it was about as interesting.... except ruffed grouse are much better eating.


K

Finally, on a site devoted to golf architecture, we are talking some real strategy here!

Happy Holidays to all!