News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« on: February 06, 2019, 04:49:18 PM »
Funny and fascinating.


Find it.


I'd post it but I'm not familiar with the new rules, at all.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2019, 07:36:11 PM »
Funny and fascinating.
Find it.
I'd post it but I'm not familiar with the new rules, at all.
Huh? I typed the title into Google in various ways and came up empty. So what are you trying to say?
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2019, 07:18:16 AM »
I couldn't find anything either.

Niall

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2019, 12:16:54 PM »
Golfweek sent out it's first correspondence through it's new platform. Accompanying it was this article.






Did anyone know that the word "hazard" is no longer in the rule book?


If the powers that be remove the word, how long before it's importance in GCA will follow?
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2019, 02:03:22 PM »
I think it's gonna be awhile before we stop using the word "hazard," though how much is it used now? Don't most people say "bunker" or "pond" or something?
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Neil Regan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2019, 02:11:09 PM »
And “Through the green” is replaced by “general area.”


Maybe soon we won’t have eagle and double bogey.
Instead, double-plus-good, double-plus-bad.
Grass speed  <>  Green Speed

Kyle Harris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2019, 04:09:01 PM »
This can be a good thing.


Hazards, as far as the rules were concerned, were a nebulous concept which included two inherently different things: water hazards and bunkers.


You could drop from one but not the other. They were never the same.


The word has now been liberated. Hazards can be hazardous, again. And not tied to any sort of rules.
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

Thank you for changing the font of your posts. It makes them easier to scroll past.

Colin Macqueen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2019, 05:48:13 PM »
Gentlemen,


The loss of "..through the green.." heralds the final unravelling of of golf traditions as I knew it!
There's no mashies, there's no spoons, no jiggers, the stymie is long gone, no more penalties for hitting the pin whilst putting, debris allowed to be removed from bunkers ....where will it all end I ask you? Suffering nostalgia! Darwin will be turning in his grave!


Cheers Colin
"Golf, thou art a gentle sprite, I owe thee much"
The Hielander

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2019, 09:15:42 PM »
And “Through the green” is replaced by “general area.”



General area?  That’s awful.  Sounds like a crime scene.

Pete_Pittock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2019, 10:07:22 PM »
And “Through the green” is replaced by “general area.”



General area?  That’s awful.  Sounds like a crime scene.

Not as awful as a private area.

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2019, 11:58:38 PM »
I don't play tournament golf like some of you, just club and social play, but I've been playing for 40+ years and I have never once heard the phrase "through the green" uttered by anyone while playing with me, and almost never heard "hazard' to describe anything while on the course.  "Red stakes", "yellow stakes" or "lateral" are the only words I've heard. 


Needless to say, no one ever described an area as  a "closely mown area" while playing with me.



The change in terminology is not a big loss, IMO.  Not every change in golf has to be treated like a tragedy.
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

Colin Macqueen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2019, 01:21:18 AM »
Kevin me old mate,


When one is a golf tragic the demise of "through the green" is an absolute tragedy of epic proportions!


I am surprised that you have never heard anyone use the phrase itself but if those honeyed words had been dribbled into your ear in bygone days, by Gad, you'ld be missing them awfully. Not being steeped in the olden, golden golf days vernacular might just have left a wee hole in yer golfing soul!


Cheers Col



"Golf, thou art a gentle sprite, I owe thee much"
The Hielander

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2019, 01:49:46 AM »
Well said, Colin.  Cheers.
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2019, 10:43:41 AM »
This can be a good thing.


Hazards, as far as the rules were concerned, were a nebulous concept which included two inherently different things: water hazards and bunkers.


You could drop from one but not the other. They were never the same.


The word has now been liberated. Hazards can be hazardous, again. And not tied to any sort of rules.


Water and bunkers are two inherently different type of hazards in that finding the water attaches a penalty stroke whereas playing from a bunker does not.

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2019, 03:25:34 PM »
I think it's gonna be awhile before we stop using the word "hazard," though how much is it used now? Don't most people say "bunker" or "pond" or something?



I just use animal scrape and casual water Erik  ;D

Jay Mickle

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2019, 03:39:52 PM »



Posted with permission the author who feels that the article would best be debated if read. Apologizing in advance for all of the font notes.

See Erik's post below for a readable version.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2019, 08:09:39 AM by Jay Mickle »
@MickleStix on Instagram
MickleStix.com

Mark Mammel

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2019, 05:57:33 PM »
Jay-There were quite a few hazards, excuse me, penalty areas, in that post, what with all the odd notations! But well stated. As has often been said, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." What was broken with the term "hazard"? And as far as "the general area" goes, gag me.

Golf is a game ruled by lawyers and played by optimists. It should come as no surprise that the "prose" reads like a legal brief. Would that Herbert Warren Wind- or Bernard Darwin- were around to comment.
PS the Monterey Peninsula courses today are like one big hazard this afternoon!
So much golf to play, so little time....

Mark

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2019, 06:29:14 PM »
Here it is without the font stuff:

The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By, David Normoyle

Looking back on the first month of the new year, everyone in golf circles has had something to say about the far-reaching changes to the Rules of Golf for 2019 and beyond. So why not discuss amongst ourselves as Golfweek Raters something about these new rules that has to do with architecture and design, yet which nobody seems to be talking about?

The modernization efforts by the USGA and R&A have been rightly lauded and criticized, depending on whom you ask, but very little attention has been paid to the fact that on Jan. 1, for the first time since the original rules were put in play on April 2, 1744 by The Gentlemen Golfers at Leith Links near Edinburgh, Scotland,, the word “hazard” no longer appears in golf’s rulebook. By the way, that was both Rules 5 and 13 of the original Thirteen Articles, with which I won’t trouble you other than to say it had something to do with “wattery filth” and “Scholar’s Holes or the Soldier’s Lines.”

The noble and ancient hazard has an undeniably romantic and literary ring to it yet finds itself cast out in favor of the rather anodyne and bureaucratic sounding “penalty area.” But fear not, these new penalty areas come in both red and yellow.

Personal bias aside, I’m not looking forward this April to the first time a player takes on the corner of the 13th hole at Augusta National, with its famous tributary lying in wait to capture the carelessly played shot, only to have the television commentator suggest the fate of the Masters may hinge on whether the ball finds the meandering “penalty area” to the left of the fairway or not.

What would Herbert Warren Wind say about his beloved Amen Corner being defined each year not by the players who fell victim to the confounding hazard that is Rae’s Creek but rather those who successfully negotiated the yellow penalty areas on their way to victory?

“Hazards – how well chosen the name!” wrote Robert Hunter in “The Links” in 1926, a book that clearly influenced his role in the development of Cypress Point and its world-famous penalty area to the right of the 15th, 16th and 17th holes. “Without well-placed hazards, golf would fail to arouse and to satisfy man’s sporting instincts,” wrote Hunter, adding, “They are risks; and penalties must come to those who take risks and fail.”

Perhaps the industrious committees in St. Andrews and Liberty Corner, N.J., could have called these newly designated zones “failure areas” instead? (Full disclosure: Here’s where I say hello to any friends in both places who have read thus far and thank them for their sense of humor and efforts on our behalf. Except for the hazard part.)

The rules have far-reaching and unintended consequences when it comes to the architecture and design of courses. The irregular shapes of natural bunkers from years past too often have been formalized and reshaped by tournament committees in an attempt to make it easier to determine whether the ball was in the bunker or not. At least “bunker” survived this rules change intact.

I worry if the banishment of one of golf’s greatest literary contributions will have an effect unforeseen by administrators seeking to make golf a game “more easily understood and applied by all” and one that is “more consistent, simple, and fair.” Are these objectives at odds, in reality, with “reinforcing the game’s longstanding principles and character?” By the way, all of the above quoted concepts come directly from the USGA and R&A’s three key principles for the rules modernization project.

Let me share another old-fashioned idea for you to chew on: “The spirit of golf is to dare a hazard, and by negotiating it reap a reward, while he who fears or declines the issue of carry, has a longer or harder shot for his next play.” At least this was the case for George C. Thomas Jr. in his designs of Riviera, Bel-Air, and Los Angeles (North), among others.

Those of us who grew up in golf over the last 275 years, which would be all of us (the 275th anniversary of golf’s first competition happens this April, and not in Georgia), were introduced to a sport where the risk presented by a hazard constitutes the fundamental challenge of the game. Yet anybody who comes to golf for the first time in 2019 or later will encounter a game defined by penalty areas to avoid, not hazards to dare.

Within a generation or two the language and concept of the hazard as something central to the spirit of the game will become as dated as the stymie or gutta-percha, notwithstanding the semantic implication that if you hit your ball in a penalty area you will automatically get a penalty – not true! Does this Orwellian application of Newspeak really make golf a better game and reinforce its longstanding principles and character?

Furthermore, the new rules take it a step further and aim to define the purpose of a bunker as “a specially prepared area designed to test your ability to play a ball from the sand.”

I think if you asked the designers of the world’s most compelling courses, alive or dead, they would say that the purpose of a bunker is to test your ability to avoid playing from the sand. There’s a reason why Tiger Woods’ victory at St. Andrews in the 2000 British Open is celebrated not for his record winning score (do you remember?) or that he won the career Grand Slam (was he the youngest?), but because he played all 72 holes and never once went in a bunker. Try doing that with just a putter, let alone all 14 clubs.

Just prior to that millennial British Open, Hugh Campbell, then chairman of the R&A championship committee, said of the bunkers, “They're meant to be real hazards. If you don't have the fear of putting the ball in a bunker at St. Andrews it would take a lot of teeth out of the course."

In any event the word hazard has had a long and distinguished history – basically it has defined the spirit of the game itself – and to see it come to an inglorious end without a shot fired is a bit sad.

It reminds me for the second time in this little letter of Herb Wind, who wrote in 1956, “One of the commanding frustrations in life is that all too often the things one likes best and respects the most somehow get mis-developed or lost through a lack of appreciation of their worth, or some supposedly progressive trend popularizes all the charm and pleasure out of them.”

Imagine a world in which Aleck Bauer wrote a classic book of golf architecture in 1913 called “Penalty Areas: Those Essential Elements in a Golf Course Without Which The Game Would Be Tame and Uninteresting.”

Of course he didn’t. His book was called “Hazards.” You can look it up.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2019, 08:51:38 PM »
A rose by any other name

Gib_Papazian

Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #19 on: February 11, 2019, 01:15:02 AM »
David,


(If you are reading this)


We "stand athwart (golf) history yelling stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so or to have much patience with those who so urge it."   


[/size][/color]


Colin Macqueen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #20 on: February 11, 2019, 08:04:19 AM »
And Gib... as they say Down Under ......"You have Buckley's and none" when you have no chance!


This references William Buckley an escaped convict who is said to have survived with the Aborigines for many years whilst most would have assumed he had no chance to survive in the Australian bush.




Cheers Colin
"Golf, thou art a gentle sprite, I owe thee much"
The Hielander

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #21 on: February 11, 2019, 01:45:39 PM »
Erik

Thanks for posting the piece. Very well written and very enjoyable. For those saying the change of name is just semantics, consider his comment below;

"The rules have far-reaching and unintended consequences when it comes to the architecture and design of courses. The irregular shapes of natural bunkers from years past too often have been formalized and reshaped by tournament committees in an attempt to make it easier to determine whether the ball was in the bunker or not."

I won't pretend to know what's in the new rule changes but anything that looks to make things more simple sounds like dumbing down to me and will I suspect have unexpected consequences as above.

Niall

Brett Hochstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2019, 02:09:11 PM »


Furthermore, the new rules take it a step further and aim to define the purpose of a bunker as “a specially prepared area designed to test your ability to play a ball from the sand.”




This here may be the part that rankles and affects me the most--the further attempt to formalize of one of golf's great, unique, and (originally) naturally occurring features.  Golf's greatest bunkers are those that not only challenge the player to take on the risk to gain an advantage, they are those that look like they have always been there (or actually always have been there--see: Sand Hills hole 18). When it looks natural, you feel like you are taking on nature, not man.  And if you don't automatically see the difference between the two, ask yourself if it would be the same thrill playing an exact replica of the 16th at Cypress Point, only instead of the Ocean and rocky cliffs the hole was bordered by a man-made pond just below the grass level.


Going back to sand specifically, it naturally moves around and often blends into its surrounds, rarely having a hard line at all sides and corners.  On the contrary, golf's rules dictate that sand bunkers do have a hard line at all sides and corners, and that limits us from having the most beautiful and believable hazards, the ones the Golden Age writers and architects wax poetically about. For example, how would you handle the bunkers bleeding into the dunes at Cypress Point, the scrub on the Melbourne Sandbelt, the gravelly sands of the London Heathland (such as at the original Sunningdale), or the Nebraska Sand Hills (or the Carolina Sand Hills, for that matter).  What about when the bunkers once beautifully spilled over the edge on the 8th at Pebble Beach?  Should we really stop striving to utilize or create these striking features?  Is the original spirit of the game not about daring and engaging the natural landscape?


Furthermore, the use of "specially prepared" is problematic word usage not just for wistful designers and shapers like myself but also for the greenkeeping community at large.  For golfers who expect perfect and consistent bunker conditions, this phrase is validation for that expectation.  For golfers who don't yet have that expectation, defining bunkers in that manner will move them toward it, whether subconsciously or not.


It feels like this statement undoes a lot of the groundwork the USGA Green Section was starting to make with their articles and education on bunkers and bunker preparedness.  Whether it was their intention or not (which I should say I do not think it was), this is ultimately a disservice to a huge number of greenkeepers and superintendents who already have to deal with unreasonable or impossible bunker expectations at their courses. 


---


David, if you are reading this--eloquently stated as always and well-supported by beautiful quotes by some of our game's greats.  Thanks for brining this more to our attention.
"From now on, ask yourself, after every round, if you have more energy than before you began.  'Tis much more important than the score, Michael, much more important than the score."     --John Stark - 'To the Linksland'

http://www.hochsteindesign.com

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2019, 03:24:26 PM »
Going back to sand specifically, it naturally moves around and often blends into its surrounds, rarely having a hard line at all sides and corners.  On the contrary, golf's rules dictate that sand bunkers do have a hard line at all sides and corners, and that limits us from having the most beautiful and believable hazards, the ones the Golden Age writers and architects wax poetically about. For example, how would you handle the bunkers bleeding into the dunes at Cypress Point, the scrub on the Melbourne Sandbelt, the gravelly sands of the London Heathland (such as at the original Sunningdale), or the Nebraska Sand Hills (or the Carolina Sand Hills, for that matter).  What about when the bunkers once beautifully spilled over the edge on the 8th at Pebble Beach?  Should we really stop striving to utilize or create these striking features?  Is the original spirit of the game not about daring and engaging the natural landscape?
I think the changes to the Rules for 2019 actually encourage this more now, because you can move loose impediments and do a lot of things in bunkers, so like Pinehurst's scrubby areas, you can now have more of what people often call "waste areas" which may be sandy, but which are in the "general area" and you're only really giving up that you can't ground your club near the ball (but if it's loose sand, you still can't improve your lie).

In other words, because what you can do in "bunkers" is now so much closer to what you can do in the "general area," that actually frees up architects to design more casual bunkers with loosely defined edges, because the distinction is not as important in 2019 as it was in 2018.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Brett Hochstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Death of the Hazard, 1744-2018, R.I.P By David Normoyle
« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2019, 04:14:19 PM »
Going back to sand specifically, it naturally moves around and often blends into its surrounds, rarely having a hard line at all sides and corners.  On the contrary, golf's rules dictate that sand bunkers do have a hard line at all sides and corners, and that limits us from having the most beautiful and believable hazards, the ones the Golden Age writers and architects wax poetically about. For example, how would you handle the bunkers bleeding into the dunes at Cypress Point, the scrub on the Melbourne Sandbelt, the gravelly sands of the London Heathland (such as at the original Sunningdale), or the Nebraska Sand Hills (or the Carolina Sand Hills, for that matter).  What about when the bunkers once beautifully spilled over the edge on the 8th at Pebble Beach?  Should we really stop striving to utilize or create these striking features?  Is the original spirit of the game not about daring and engaging the natural landscape?
I think the changes to the Rules for 2019 actually encourage this more now, because you can move loose impediments and do a lot of things in bunkers, so like Pinehurst's scrubby areas, you can now have more of what people often call "waste areas" which may be sandy, but which are in the "general area" and you're only really giving up that you can't ground your club near the ball (but if it's loose sand, you still can't improve your lie).

In other words, because what you can do in "bunkers" is now so much closer to what you can do in the "general area," that actually frees up architects to design more casual bunkers with loosely defined edges, because the distinction is not as important in 2019 as it was in 2018.


There still seems to be a formal distinction though between "bunker" and "penalty area" though.  In a penalty area, you can fully ground your club and take practice swings.  In a bunker, you still may not.  When you have a bunker that joins up to a sandy/scrub zone (whether it is penalty or general area), there is still a distinction somewhere that will have to be made because of the different rules for grounding the club.  There isn't a perfect solution for this, unfortunately, because allowing grounding and practice swings in sand allows for opportunities to improve your lie.  Maybe just allow grounding and practice swings everywhere with an overarching rule about lie improvement.


That is all starting to get away from my main point though, which is a concern for the over-formalization of a game played out in the elements.
"From now on, ask yourself, after every round, if you have more energy than before you began.  'Tis much more important than the score, Michael, much more important than the score."     --John Stark - 'To the Linksland'

http://www.hochsteindesign.com