[Mark_Fine]

or at least some feature/s of interest that makes the hole interesting, challenging, thought provoking, captivating, ... or all of the above. 


Do we have unanimous consent 😊

[Niall C]

Mark


I can't think of an example to counter your assertion, so you have my vote.


Niall

[Mark_Fine]

Maybe this one is too obvious and it won’t lead to debate.  Maybe I should have said every great hole needs to present a problem to be solved.  I actually believe every great hole needs some kind of hazard or feature that makes it memorable. 

[Ira Fishman]

Maybe this one is too obvious and it won’t lead to debate.  Maybe I should have said every great hole needs to present a problem to be solved.  I actually believe every great hole needs some kind of hazard or feature that makes it memorable.

Feature? Probably given the broad definition of that term. Hazard? No. There are quite a few great holes that have neither bunkers nor water. And there are several threads on here about them.


Ira

[Niall C]

Maybe this one is too obvious and it won’t lead to debate.  Maybe I should have said every great hole needs to present a problem to be solved.  I actually believe every great hole needs some kind of hazard or feature that makes it memorable.

Ah, now I've got something to argue about - "memorable" - noticeable perhaps but memorable gets you into wow factor territory and all that and that's not the same thing. IMO of course.


Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

Feature yes, Hazard no... unless you want to extend the definition of hazard to every feature or potential penalty.

[SL_Solow]

Hazard, no.  Foxy is just one

[Tom_Doak]

Well, I guess, if you redefine things like the Valley of sin (a five foot deep hollow of short grass) or the 13th green at Barnbougle as a "Great Hazard," which very few people would do.  But there are some great holes where nothing other than contour sets the challenge, and others where it's bunkers but none of them are iconic.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I agree with you.

Ally,
How would you define a "hazard"?  Forrest and I define them in our book on hazards as both "Formal and Informal" but either way they are hazards.  A old rock wall, broken ground, a tree, a road, a mound, a sandy waste area,.., in an interview for our book, Tom Doak called "short grass" one of the best "hazards" if used properly.  I very much agree with him. 


When the game of golf was first played, a hazard was not an actual thing or object.  It was a concept, a situation a player got himself into.  A problem not avoided caused your ball to be in trouble and the outcome was not known until you preformed.  Only as time progressed did such perilous situations become known as "hazards".   


Donald Ross might have said it best about great holes and great courses:


"The ideal course is one that presents a test of golf for the everyday player and the first-class player.  A properly designed course can take care of every class player.  My aim is to bring out of the player the best golf that is in him.  It will be difficult to negotiate some holes, but that is what golf is for.  It is a mental test and and eye test.  The hazards and bunkers are placed so as to force a player to use judgment and to exercise mental control in making the correct shot."



We should all forget how the USGA defines hazards - the point is every great course/hole has cool or unique or memorable (hazards) and that is what makes it great.  If there is nothing "hazardous" about a hole then there are no problems to solve.  How can it be great? 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Mark,


I agree with the extended definition of hazard... but with that, I’m struggling to see how it differs from any feature that affects play. Same thing.

[Mark_Fine]

Ally,
I think you hit the nail on the head - great holes have great features that influence play (I believe most of those distinctive features are hazards).  If there is nothing hazardous about a hole (no challenges or problems to solve) how can it be great? 


Think about your favorite holes that you have ever played and I would bet 99% of them have some kind of hazard that is special on each one.  I highly doubt anyone has a favorite hole the is flat and bland (unless they made a hole in one on it) or spent a special evening alone out there with a date 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I would add to the definition that really, really great hazards usually get their own unique name.....

[Adam Clayman]

Even trying to fit "great" into a golf model, is futile.


It's the assembly of parts, that make the art.


10th at Riviera.

[Mark_Fine]

Adam,
Agreed about the assembly of the parts.  But you have to agree, it is the assembly of the bunkers (hazards) and the orientation/size of that green that make #10 one of the best golf holes in the world.  It has everything going for it.  If you took away the bunkers, we wouldn't be talking much about it would we 

[Mike Hendren]

14th at Augusta National Golf Club.

[Mark_Fine]

Michael,
Good try but tell any pro at the Masters that the 14th at Augusta doesn't have anything hazardous about it 

[Mark_Fine]

Royal Ashdown Forest outside of London doesn't have any bunkers (no open sand areas of any kind) and I don't believe it has any water hazards either, but after playing it you will walk away thinking it doesn't need any.  But you won't walk away thinking it doesn't have any hazards! 


Maybe we all need to broaden our definition of the term 

[Kalen Braley]

In the generic use of the word, 100% agreed.

Well Done Mark! 

[Mark_Fine]

I was very close to getting a project in Hilton Head where I was planning to renovate an existing golf course that needed work/updating and I wasn’t going to use any formal bunkers.  I think it would have turned out awesome but I ended up losing the job to Rees Jones  .  I am sure Rees will build something comfortably generic (unless they tell him about my idea and he runs with it)!   

[Joe Hancock]

Is subtlety a feature? Is deceiving grades/ slopes a feature? Is lack of definition a feature?


If a feature can’t be framed in a pretty photo, is it a feature at all?


My point is, there are a lot of unnoticeable aspects to great courses.....even great holes....that aren’t “in your face”. I bet Tom Doak could point out any number of examples from their work at The Loop.....a compliment, in my book.

[Peter Pallotta]

My favourite Par 5 and the only one I've ever loved has no fairway bunkers, decent width, no particularly special views or backdrops/vistas, is neither punishingly long nor fashionably short, doesn't present the golfer with a myriad of 'options' off the tee, features no defining or obvious 'risk-reward' shot, and has no water/water hazard anywhere in sight. It's simply an excellent design, that elegantly fits/drapes over the site, with rumpled fairways.

If I was much more well-travelled and had played a number of famous/highly-ranked golf courses, I'd feel confident in saying the 8th at Crystal Downs is one of the very best Par 5s in the world; as it is, I just say it's my favourite.

But if I were to call it one of the very best, and call it "great", it'd be because of what it *doesn't* have.

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
Actually the 8th at Crystal Downs IS one of the best par fives in the world.  The rumpled fairways are the defining feature and if you can't play off a side hill slope with the ball above or below your feet you might feel otherwise about how much you love that hole 


Joe,
Of course subtle features are features and they are often what separate the good from the great.  Not to get off topic but I wonder how many notice them after one time around a golf course?  We recently added one little knob in a rolloff closely mown area to the right side of the 15th green at Bethlehem GC. Many golfers won't notice it at first but ask anybody who ends up near/behind that knob if they notice that feature or if they think it is NOT a hazard 

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - it's true that the rumpled fairways are a 'feature' of the hole (and on my one play I somehow managed to hit a good 3-wood second shot off a downhill lie). But it doesn't seem to be an obvious one, nor a 'hazard' in the usual sense of the word. But this is where personal taste and temperament come in: I also particularly liked the Par 3s at CD, which to me were similarly understated and elegantly designed, without obvious 'hazards' for the most part. I know that CD has several famous and highly-regarded Par 4s that *do* have such dramatic features and hazards, and I much enjoyed playing them all; but from a strictly design-architecture perspective they all left me a bit cold. I think it's because, for my tastes, they drew too much attention to themselves.
Peter

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
The only thing I will argue with you about is the obviousness (is that a word) of the rumpled fairway on the 8th.  That might be one of the best fairways in the world and any architect who is trying to design any contour into a flat piece of property should see that hole first. 


Yes we all define “hazards” differently but let me give you one more simple example that we all can relate to.   Take a straight 10 foot putt on a flat surface and add a 2 inch high little mound directly between your ball and the hole.  Is that simple little 2” high mound a hazard?  You decide 😉


I am not suggesting we build 2” high mounds all over greens (I was just making a point) but simple features like that little knob we added on #15 at Bethlehem can make all the difference.  By the way there used to be a bunker there and I removed it.  The closely mown area we added with that feature adds much more interest and diversity to the golf hole.  Weaker players will love it and better players will be baffled by it.  They will have to think 😊😊

[Ira Fishman]

Mark,


You would make the Sophists proud. And I choose to define Sophistry as I want to serve my purposes, not as how they might have defined themselves.


Ira

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()