[Mark_Fine]

If someone asked me to name one thing that truly distinguishes great golf architecture from the rest, I’d have to say it’s the hazards.  Yes the routing is key and the mix of holes is important and varying lengths and angles of attack add to the strategy and the quality of a design and so on and so on.  But if you think about the best of the best, it’s the hazards that set them apart.  And I’m not just talking about the bunkering like that of a Woodhall Spa.  It could be the greens and chipping areas like at Pinehurst #2 or the washes/barrancas at L.A. North, or the sand mounds at Prairie Dunes, or the gorse at Dornoch or the grass hollows at Royal Ashdown,… If an architect gets one thing right, he better make the hazards interesting.  I think that might be the biggest thing missing in much of modern architecture.  Many of the newer courses are so finely manicured and landscaped that the hazards often just blend right in.  They just don’t seem to provide that inspiration and their perceived “hazard” value (whether it's truly there or not) is subsequently diminished, as is the status of the design.    Could this be the prime reason many of us bend toward the older classics and discount many of the modern layouts?  It’s got to be the hazards!Mark

[Dan Herrmann]

Seven years later, I think Mark got it right... 

[Garland Bayley]

Then why isn't Old Works with its truly unique and extensive black mining slag for hazards one of the worlds greatest golf courses? The bunkers contain the slag! The waste areas are made of the slag! The terrain is often defined by old slag piles in ridges. There is a green which is backed by a mountain of slag. There is a tee on top of a slag ridge.

In addition to the slag, there is a stream, Warm Springs Creek, that is used to good effect on the beginning of the front and back 9s. There is a rock monolith off the side off one fairway that faces south and radiates heat like crazy onto the fairway. And last but not least, there are old smelter works!

Must be truly one of the great courses of all time.

[JESII]

Seven years later, I think Mark got it right... 

...I disagree, because of the below quote out of his post...

...it’s the hazards that set them apart.  And I’m not just talking about the bunkering like that of a Woodhall Spa.  It could be the greens and chipping areas like at Pinehurst #2...

I agree with his overall premise, but his inclusion of greens and immediate surrounding chipping areas forces every part of the golf course into the "hazard" category (except perhaps tees)...which diminishes the value of the whole argument...

In my opinion, hazards should be viewed as any area you would prefer not to be. There are always areas around a green that are more than acceptable.

[Michael Blake]

 It could be the greens and chipping areas like at Pinehurst #2

You're defining greens and chipping areas at Pinehurst #2 as 'hazards?'  Doesn't make much sense.

I couldn't wait to be on the greens and play from the chipping areas at Pinehurst #2. 

[Kyle Harris]

  It could be the greens and chipping areas like at Pinehurst #2

You're defining greens and chipping areas at Pinehurst #2 as 'hazards?'  Doesn't make much sense.

I couldn't wait to be on the greens and play from the chipping areas at Pinehurst #2. 

Does that include being above the hole? Or in the chipping area because you hit a poor approach?

[TEPaul]

"If someone asked me to name one thing that truly distinguishes great golf architecture from the rest, I’d have to say it’s the hazards."

Mark:

I'd say the one thing that could truly distinguish great architecture would be really great greens. If done well enough with good enough topography I'd think a course could almost go without hazards which are both expensive to make and maintain.

[Matt Varney]

I have a tendency to agree with you guys on the hazards in course design.  The one thing that is challenging is creating a mix of great hazards over 18 holes.  Many of the things discussed on GCA threads.  Trees, Greens, Bunkers, Native Grasses, Elevated Shots, Natural Features like Boulders / Rock Ledges.  Would you all agree that if you find a great balance between the course design flow along with the use of all these design features and hazards you have a really nice golf course?

[Mark_Fine]

I forgot about this post (it was so long ago).  Forrest and I could have saved several years of work if we both didn’t feel this way as the thoughts in that post became the basic theme for our book Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards.   I’m sure Forrest curses me to this day 

Jim,
We have discussed this topic before.  From the perspective of a “golfer” hazards are probably only bunkers and water as defined by the USGA.  However, from the perspective of a golf architect, there is many more things that can present a “hazardous” situation (places you don't necessarily want to be) and as such can be deemed hazards.  As an example, in an interview for our book with Tom Doak, he said he doesn’t get hung up on the “rules” defining hazards.  He said, “Some of the best hazards are, for example, short grass.  If used properly, such condition can serve as a great hazard.”

I believe that the best golf architects have vision of design concepts beyond conventional definition and this includes hazards.  Call them what you want, but if the only “hazards” they incorporated into their designs were “USGA defined” I think their courses would be pretty dull.  Just because a hole doesn’t have bunkers or water doesn’t mean it is free of hazards (at least from the perspective of most golf architects). 

Tom Paul,
I know you are a huge fan of Bill Coore.  I was on the phone with him for hours discussing this topic.  Here is one of his quotes included in our book, “The three most important things when it comes to a great golf course are the routing, the green complexes, and the hazards.”  Bill goes on to say that, “The hazards are the most important factor, even more so than the greens.”  He said that, “No other element has as much visual impact on the golfer as the hazards of the golf course.”  Forrest and I included almost two pages from the interview in chapter 9 as Bill just loved talking about hazards. 

[JESII]

Mark,

I've lost my appetite for the Dodge City style shoot-out TEP warned me about (and I relished on occassion) when first hanging around here so I'd rather talk about this over a few beers than lay out the ways and reasons I disagree with the finely nuanced interpretation of your premise...like I said, I agree with your overall premise, and we have gone over this on one or two occassions, but you have to admit that writing "greens and chipping areas" in a paragraph defining hazards sort of implicates all parts of the golf course as a hazard...other than the tee.

Let me try to merge your use of 'greens as hazards' with Tom and Bill Coore's use of greens and hazards independently...for a golf course to really be considered great, it must have interesting green complexes, and an interesting green complex includes areas that are advantageous to a player, and areas that challenge a player. The challenging areas can be considered hazardous situations and can certainly result in higher scores than "USGA defined hazards", but there is, and should be a real distinction in a golfers, and an architects, mind between a "hazard" and a "hazardous situation"...in that a player should consider them differently from a risk/reward perspective.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
The few beers (and a round of golf) seems like the best way to discuss this.  In the meantime, if you read our book, you might realize we are not that far off from agreement.  It is back in print (second printing came out in mid April). 
Mark

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,
I know you are a huge fan of Bill Coore.  I was on the phone with him for hours discussing this topic.  Here is one of his quotes included in our book, “The three most important things when it comes to a great golf course are the routing, the green complexes, and the hazards.”  Bill goes on to say that, “The hazards are the most important factor, even more so than the greens.”  He said that, “No other element has as much visual impact on the golfer as the hazards of the golf course.”  Forrest and I included almost two pages from the interview in chapter 9 as Bill just loved talking about hazards."

Mark:

That's just about word for word a conversation I had with him some years ago. I'd talked to him about going bunkerless on a project and he said he and Ben might consider it somewhere someday but he did say he thought bunkers were in the top three most important architectural elements. Bill may be my favorite out there but I don't agree with him on everything. I think a golf course with really great greens, a lot of width or very little rough just might be one of the most difficult architectural expressions to pull off but I believe if done really well it could be somewhat revolutionary and perhaps the ultimate architectural expession. I think really good bunkering probably does have the greatest visual impact on golfers but I don't know that some great visual impact is necessary all the time in golf architecture. 

[John Sheehan]

"Tom Paul,
I know you are a huge fan of Bill Coore.  I was on the phone with him for hours discussing this topic.  Here is one of his quotes included in our book, “The three most important things when it comes to a great golf course are the routing, the green complexes, and the hazards.”  Bill goes on to say that, “The hazards are the most important factor, even more so than the greens.”  He said that, “No other element has as much visual impact on the golfer as the hazards of the golf course.”  Forrest and I included almost two pages from the interview in chapter 9 as Bill just loved talking about hazards."

Mark:

That's just about word for word a conversation I had with him some years ago. I'd talked to him about going bunkerless on a project and he said he and Ben might consider it somewhere someday but he did say he thought bunkers were in the top three most important architectural elements. Bill may be my favorite out there but I don't agree with him on everything. I think a golf course with really great greens, a lot of width or very little rough just might be one of the most difficult architectural expressions to pull off but I believe if done really well it could be somewhat revolutionary and perhaps the ultimate architectural expession. I think really good bunkering probably does have the greatest visual impact on golfers but I don't know that some great visual impact is necessary all the time in golf architecture. 

Tom Paul,
I agree completely with you on this one.  The greens are the personality of a course, its soul.  Even before I knew a lick about GCA I would always prefer a course with good greens first, anything else was frosting on the cake.  I'm not sure you can convincingly argue that hazards are what distinguish "great architecture from the rest." 

When the argument starts conflating greens with hazards, as others have pointed out, there is no where to go with it.  When you separate them out, the greens must be there first or the rest means nothing.

My own analysis has led me to believe the greens are the primary design element that must be gotten right, followed by the green complex and surrounds, contours, then the hazards.  Then they must all tie together to marry with and complement the strategy. 

The old saying that “strategy starts with the green” is true as both a player and as a designer. To take an extreme example, if a cross-bunker is to the right, it's dramatically presented and beautifully intimidating, but the green opening and contours favor a shot from the left, what good is that bunker?  The hazards must complement the greens, which in turn dictate the strategy, IMHO, and for that reason alone, if forced to choose one design element, I'd say, "It's got to be the greens." 

All that aside, the hazards (and I think it is fair to broadly define them to include bunkers, water, and contours, etc.) can and do add flair and spice. I love them.  Fairway cross-bunkers might provide one of the most exciting shots in golf.  In marketing terms they might be the "sizzle" but the greens are the steak.

I am also a great fan of Max Behr. 

If you were looking to find a single design element that distinguishes the "great architecture from the rest," it would be easier to argue that the "line of charm" distinguishes the great from the rest more so than the hazards themselves, and that the line of charm can be created without the use of hazards.

Tom, to your point about a bunkerless course with "really great greens, a lot of width or very little rough:"

I don't have the book with me (same old story, loaned it to someone), but I believe in "Spirit of St. Andrews" MacKenzie talks about a bet they he and Behr had with a penal designer of their day.  The bet was that they could build a better course than he using only contours to defend the course: no hazards, no water, no rough.  Tom, you may know better than me, but what was the course built using those principles?  MacKenzie had high praise for it.  I believe it was lost during the Depression.  Not sure and don't have the tools to check right now.  But my point is, I can imagine a course like this being great much easier than I can imagine a course being great singly because of its hazards.

[TEPaul]

"I don't have the book with me (same old story, loaned it to someone), but I believe in "Spirit of St. Andrews" MacKenzie talks about a bet they he and Behr had with a penal designer of their day.  The bet was that they could build a better course than he using only contours to defend the course: no hazards, no water, no rough.  Tom, you may know better than me, but what was the course built using those principles?  MacKenzie had high praise for it.  I believe it was lost during the Depression.  Not sure and don't have the tools to check right now.  But my point is, I can imagine a course like this being great much easier than I can imagine a course being great singly because of its hazards."


JohnS:

I don't know about a bet they had with a penal designer but if you know anything about that some of us would love to know about it. Logically, if that did happen it was probably with Joshua Crane who they had the on-going "penal vs strategic" debate with at that time.

As for that course you're referring to it may've been Lakeside by Behr. Mackenzie called it one of the best in the world. It's still there albeit changed now. Matter of fact, the current USGA president, Jim Vernon, belongs to it. I have a feeling that one of the best expressions of their concept or dream, though, was the original iteration of ANGC with only 22 bunkers on the course and massive width. And I don't think anyone has ever said that ANGC didn't always have great greens!

I consider Bob Crosby of Altanta, the best around today to rerun all this particular information. He's working on it and we spoke yesterday and we both mentioned that both of them (Behr and Mackenzie) were visualizing a design concept with NO rough, and a few albeit really strategically placed hazards in the "Line of Charm", or more appropriately in the "Line of Instinct." And with all that width with no rough around and those few strategic hazards, the irony is they felt that with those selectively placed hazards and all that room to miss them (albeit be out of position for the next shot to some degree) that those few select hazards both could and should be really penal!! Their theory was that with all that room to miss them you really had to pay if you directly challenged them but that the choice was the golfer's in the degree he did or didn't do that. Their logical philosophical next step was if you didn't challenged them directly you paid sort of indirectly in what came afterwards which inspired you or tempted you to deal with the whole concept of degrees of recovery to make it up. But the real deal to them was the the golfer always felt the choice was his and that he made it and that his journey was dictated to him to accomplish.

Again, this might be the really ironic marrying of what is the truly strategic with a pretty penal aspect in golf architecture and golf, and it is also about the polar opposite of what we call indivdual shot "shot dictation" architecture----where there isn't much golfer choice and there's just basically physical rote shot execution that's demanded throughout!

But, I'll tell you, John, I've been studying this stuff and thinking about it for the last ten years and I'm still trying to figure out how to take it from the theoretical into the actual!

It ain't easy, that's for sure, and at the end of the day it may never be more than sort of a "glass-half-empty/glass-half-full" kind of thing in some important ways! 

And, then, there's my "Big World" theory which only means all golfers never like the same things and they probably never will.

[Mark_Fine]

Interesting thoughts about the greens.   

We cover this in much more detail in our book but our thoughts on what constitutes “hazards” goes back to the origins of the game. Back then, greens as you know, were not prepared surfaces, the hole was right next to where you teed off.  The most exciting part of the game was the adventure one took from the teeing area to the hole.  Golfers did not look for open space between them and the hole to make their golf courses – that would be boring.  Golf was played on what could be described more like obstacle courses and it was the challenge of all the “hazardous situations” that lie in between where you started and where you finished that made the game interesting and fun.  Back then, 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 performed.  For example, if your ball came to rest 20 feet from the hole but there was a big knob in your way, you were considered to be in a “hazardous situation” and in effect had a type of hazard in your way (later on that knob might have become part of the formal green area).  Only as time progressed, however, did the term “hazard” became a defined term (back in 1744).  Furthermore, it wasn’t until years later that the area directly around where the hole was located became an important aspect of the game/prepared playing surface. This is in part why Forrest and I consider hazards in a broad context and the most essential element of the true game of golf. 

[JESII]

Mark,

Perhaps you'll elaborate on what part of a golf course, or position of one's ball, would not present a "hazardous situation" by your definition..."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 performed..."[/i]

Thanks.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
We elaborated in our book and it only took 308 pages    Would you like me to send you a copy?
Mark

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Paul,
Augusta National at one time was close to your description.  The greens were the most hazardous aspect of that design.   Royal Ashdown Forrest is a course we have discussed here that has no bunkers.  However, if one thinks that golf course has no "hazards" they either work for the USGA and/or have a very narrow definition of the concept.  Play it and then tell me it has no hazards    Bunkers would make it easier 
Mark

[Sean_A]

There is obviously some middle ground in labeling hazards.  IMO, the rules of golf label hazards merely for the proper playing of the game.  Hazards defined by the USGA have nothing to do with presenting hazardous situations which just as often as not, are not hazards by definition.  However, clearly, everything can't be called a hazard, as Sully suggests Mark is essentially doing by not being more discerning.  All I can say is, I know a hazard when I see one.  In most cases, I am far more impressed by by the use of the land as a hazard than I am by the placing of bunkers and water.  We have been over-run with defined hazards and golf design could do with a huge turn about and rethink about what makes a hazard effective in terms of interest, efficiency and cost effectiveness. 

Ironically, this is why playing Lederach the other week was so refreshing.  The placement of bunkers made the relatively few on the course seem much more numerous because I had to make decisions about dealing with them.  I honestly don't think the Philly lot realize what a gem they have in Lederach.  Kelly has literally turned up the concept of what man made hazards should be about.  Hopefully, this won't be an effort lost in the sea of classic designs around Philly because in many ways, Lederach is more a classic course because of the throwback attitude toward centreline hazards. 

Ciao   

[JESII]

Jim,
We elaborated in our book and it only took 308 pages    Would you like me to send you a copy?
Mark

I could have sworn your book was about hazards...

[Mark_Fine]

Sean and Jim,
Have you read our book? I'd love to hear your comments about our definition/s if you do get a chance to read it.  We sure don't have all the answers but you will see that we do have some opinions.  What is most satisfying is when Forrest or I talk with a superintendent and he tells us that he has purchased copies for all his green committee members.  That tells us there must be something in there worth reading. 
Again, I'd love to hear your thoughts if you do pick up a copy.
Mark

[Mike McGuire]

Mark -

Didn't you and Forrest write a book about this?

Nevermind.  I see you have mentioned it in all your posts

"Forrest and I could have saved several years of work if we both didn’t feel this way as the thoughts in that post became the basic theme for our book Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards."

'Here is one of his quotes included in our book, “The three most important things when it comes to a great golf course are the routing, the green complexes, and the hazards.”

'We cover this in much more detail in our book but our thoughts on what constitutes “hazards” goes back to the origins of the game."

"We elaborated in our book and it only took 308 pages"

"Have you read our book? I'd love to hear your comments about our definition/s if you do get a chance to read it."

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Sheehan,

Tom Paul,

I agree completely with you on this one. 

The greens are the personality of a course, its soul.

John Sheehan,

You made your first mistake.

Never, never, never agree with TEPaul.

Would you say that greens are the personality of GCGC ?

Would you say that the greens are the soul of GCGC ?

Or, is it something else ........ architecturally ?

Anytime that you think that TEPaul is correct, go back and reconsider your evaluation and final opinion[/color]

[Sean_A]

John Sheehan,

Tom Paul,

I agree completely with you on this one. 

The greens are the personality of a course, its soul.

John Sheehan,

You made your first mistake.

Never, never, never agree with TEPaul.

Would you say that greens are the personality of GCGC ?

Would you say that the greens are the soul of GCGC ?

Or, is it something else ........ architecturally ?

Anytime that you think that TEPaul is correct, go back and reconsider your evaluation and final opinion[/color]

I read somewhere that the greens are the face of a course.  I think it a much better description than personality or soul. 

Mark

I am not sure what sort of comments you are seeking concerning your book.  Did you have any particular bits or bobs in mind?

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
Nothing in particular.  Just curious to hear your thoughts.

Mike,
Sorry for so many posts.   
Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()