Encouraging V. Preventing

[Adam Clayman]

This sums up what I believe to be the monumental divide between factions of opinion on what constitutes quality golf course architecture.

Be it the Lon Hinkle tree or the new ANGC. Those who seek to prevent certain people from doing certain things is contrary to the spirit of the sport, the cradle, and a fun golfing experience.

Since C.B.'s days in old Chicago, those who attempted to improve the sport with vertical obstacles have been making freshmen mistakes.

Thank goodness Sand Hills came along and re-introduced the world to just how novice and ill-conceived their additions really are.

Add lush rough in close proximity to greens and fairways to that list of mistakes.

[John Kavanaugh]

Adam,

If Sand Hills is so great then why do members of this board take free drops from the gunch...Why does Sand Hills require some kind of phantom lateral hazard rule to be enjoyed?  Wouldn't it be better to have water hazards and play the game as intended under the rules..

[Adam Clayman]

JB- I don't know about phantom drops from the gunk. I'm sure their conscience is their guide. But lets not limit ball fudging to Sand Hills members who participate on this board. I've seen others do it and as with most things, the gods are watching and re-act in kind.

[Brent Hutto]

So Adam, is it reading too much into your declaration to conclude that you feel trees should never, ever be in a play on a golf course?

For example, if someone might conceivably want to play their usual pull-hooked tee shot from an adjacent fairway is it incumbent on the golf course architect to make sure there's a tree-free corridor between the fifteenth fairway and the seventh green so as not to prevent that shot?

Unless you're playing at the Sheep Ranch or cutting your own holes in a pasture somewhere one fundamental action of the golf-course architect is to make certain paths from tee to hole more desirable than others. So I assume you'll allow him to cut the grass in a fairway of some finite width to make that desirable. But you say a tree that blocks any shot is bad. How about a water hazard over on the slice side of the fairway, a slicer might want to play his approach from over there? Heck, how about rough for that matter.

Let's say we want to get fancy and put a dogleg-left hole on a course. Where do you draw the line between Encouraging and Preventing? Can you make a treeline define the dogleg or is rough or a fairway bunker better?

I don't think your proposition holds up at all. Encouraging a particular path to the hole is part of golf course design. Preventing (maybe we should call it Discouraging since we all know trees are 90% air) certain other paths is an equally valid part of golf course design. A hole with an enormous oak tree right in front of the green might be a poor hole but it's not as simple as saying that a tree in the line of play is bad. If there are two or three ways to play an approach shot and one of those is eliminated by the tree that's still golf.

John,

Good catch on the drops out of the gunch. That fake lateral rule is one of my biggest peeves in golf.

[Adam Clayman]

Brent, You caught me. I do not mind the occasional use of vertical hazards. But by all means, they need to be sparingly used. I'd cite Cypress's penultimate and home holes as examples of sparingly.

Where did you guys here about this lateral rule?

I've never played with a member there, maybe that's why?

[Rich Goodale]

What is a "poof" if not a "vertical hazard?"

[Jeff Doerr]

What is a "poof" if not a "vertical hazard?"

Say what?!

Adam, you want the proverbial "lines of charm" vs. "dictated route" - correct?  I do think the Hinkle tree is required to cover up a poor routing at times...

[Andy Troeger]

Adam,
I don't think most courses have interesting enough of terrain to be able to avoid vertical hazards. Most places I would argue need them to make things more interesting. Sand Hills is obviously an exception to that.  I think golf benefits from the variety of different hazards and courses that are out there instead of sticking to one model.

The gunch, heather, etc on many courses nowadays is a horrid hazard to me unless its thinned out enough to find the ball and sometimes have some kind of play back to the fairway. Too many courses just treat it as "we don't need to mow here" and the ball becomes immediately lost. Hence, the invention of the "lateral hazard in tall grass" rule that has become pretty common in some areas to keep pace of play from grinding to a halt.

I agree with your general premise of encouraging a golfer to do things versus preventing their occurance, but limiting that to vertical hazards doesn't fit in my mind. The spirit of the game is to figure out and execute how to get the ball in the hole in as few strokes as possible, negotiating any hazards that may be in play.  Some methods of doing this are admittedly more enjoyable than others.

[John Kavanaugh]

JB- I don't know about phantom drops from the gunk. I'm sure their conscience is their guide. But lets not limit ball fudging to Sand Hills members who participate on this board. I've seen others do it and as with most things, the gods are watching and re-act in kind.

Adam,

I was referring to members of GCA taking phantom drops not the actual members of Sand Hills.  Even I being one to not look a gift horse in the mouth would not question how or why or where a member of Sand Hills may choose to drop his ball.  The practice of not insulting members of top ten courses is sanctioned under the HRAE...or known as the Hooray rule.

[Scott Szabo]

I believe this rule is in play at Wild Horse to keep play moving along.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Adam,
I have almost everything to learn about this subject and little to offer, but here goes:

It seems to me that one dividing line is between those courses (design + maintenance) that i) strive to expose to the greatest possible degree the difference in “skill-level” between one player and another, and to manifest that difference in terms of scores and, ii) those courses that strive to minimize (or at least to re-prioritize) the differences is “skill-level”, and not especially in terms of how it manifests itself in scores.

The first type of course obviously aims to test, and is best-suited for, the professional game; even its criteria for what constitutes “skill” (i.e. the ability to execute almost perfectly a wide-variety of clearly-define shots) speaks to the goals and measuring-sticks of the professional golfer, especially in the context of stroke-play.  

(By the way, from what I’ve read, I think Augusta is now probably more this type of course than it’s ever been before, which, now that I think more about it, is probably okay by me: from where I sit, Augusta is there to host the Masters once a year, and this year any lack of excitement, for me, had more to do with Phil and Vijay and Ernie not being there with Tiger for the last few holes than with anything else…but I’m probably missing a lot of what others are seeing, or not seeing.)

The second type of course is the amateurs’ course, in that it aims to provide a wonderful golfing experience to a wide-variety of players of differing skills while still testing – especially in the context of match play – those skills.  To do so, I think, it has to define “skills” more broadly than the first type of course, i.e. it’s not so much about executing shots perfectly as it is about the player recognizing that he can’t, and then finding imaginative approaches to play the course and to compete on it, even if those approaches have not been “prescribed” by the architect/design (though they’ve probably been “allowed for” by the architect/design.)

The only problem I see is that the ethos of the professional game has rarely had as much influence/impact on the amateur game as it has now.  It’s just a feeling (or a guess), but never before has the professional’s definition of skill and the approaches to testing that skill (e.g. fast greens) been as important to the amateur golfer as it is now.  And the only reason I think this IS a problem is the costs involved in designing and maintaining these so-called “championship test” for courses that will never host such a stroke-play championship for professional golfers.

Peter

[JohnV]

I believe this rule is in play at Wild Horse to keep play moving along.  

Have they ever heard of a provisional ball?

If they assume that the gunch is a lateral water hazard (there aren't any other kinds of lateral hazards), does that mean a player can't ground his club or move loose impediments or do they get rid of those rules also in the name of keeping play moving along.

After a while you have to wonder what game is being played as it obviously isn't golf.

[Scott Szabo]

John,

Much of the gunch at Wild Horse is definitely playable.  Like I said, I think it is a local rule to keep play moving.

I played there last year in the fall on a Friday morning and they were moving the tees way up for the weekend play.  I'm not quite sure what the "weekend play" is like, but I'm led to believe that many of the locals come out to play who may or may not be avid golfers.  

[Rich Goodale]

John

It is golf, (and you are allowed into golf heaven just as long as you don't post a score and make sure any bets aren't rules-compromised).

What is an "alp" if not a "poof" on steroids?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Barnbougle Dunes has the same rule regarding balls hit into the marram grass and it's definitely not "golf."  On the other hand, without that rule I cannot imagine how long the rounds would take there, nor how many would fall victim to the Tasmanian Tiger snake, so let discretion be the better part of valor...

Mark

[Andy Troeger]

Same rule also applies with many desert courses. Provisional balls and reloading all day would be a lot of fun...

[Jimmy Chandler]

I believe this rule is in play at Wild Horse to keep play moving along.  

Have they ever heard of a provisional ball?

If they assume that the gunch is a lateral water hazard (there aren't any other kinds of lateral hazards), does that mean a player can't ground his club or move loose impediments or do they get rid of those rules also in the name of keeping play moving along.

After a while you have to wonder what game is being played as it obviously isn't golf.

John --

My home course is a muni (Twin Lakes in Clifton, VA) where most fairways are lined with dense sets of trees (the course is not named the Oaks for nothing) and nasty underbrush. Many of these areas are red-staked hazards, I believe to speed up play.  This does force one to take a drop w/penalty, and you cannot ground your club, etc. -- though I'm sure most golfers ignore these rules (hopefully they don't keep a handicap).

Do you see problems with this policy?  I do believe it helps speed up play.

[Adam Clayman]

Peter, Thoughtful response that has alot to digest. My initial thoughts were of Bobby Jones' round at Cypress were he finished with a 62 playing another world class player just for grins. (not a formal tourney). Since Dr. MacKenzies definition of quality incorporated both the challenge to the pro and the enjoyment of the Am, this is where the notion of score comes into play and how the importance of par, the number, has been abused by what I refer to as freshmen.

Scoring in the fifties, for 18 holes, would still be a challenge to the accomplished without all these tricked up uses of weak design elements that send the newer or less skilled to the sidelines due to the lack of optimal enjoyment.

Scott, I've never heard about the local rule at WH and I definitely agree with JVB that if there's any competition at hand this certainly is not golf. During casual rounds of golf, (that are less casual now that the green fees most everywhere are outrageous) being considerate of those who follow is paramount and would justify the use of this practice. Submitting scores for handicap is still possible since there are already situations where the score to be submitted for handicap is based on what the player likely would've scored. The irony is the ego of the player usually screws himself out of this reality carding a five when under the rules it was likely more.

Rihc, is that a poof or a pond? or is that Scottish speak for something esoteric?

Andy, It never ceases to amaze me how subtle enough terrain movement is needed for quality gca.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy, It never ceases to amaze me how subtle enough terrain movement is needed for quality gca.

Adam,
Probably true, although "subtle" is hard to define and probably varies from person to person. I would guess our opinions on GCA still would have some "subtle" differences though which may or may not downgrade me to "freshman" status by your definition  

[Scott Szabo]

Adam,

As for Wild Horse, I think it is in place for casual rounds only.  Any tournament or play or scores being submitted for handicap purposes would obviously follow USGA rules.

However, we both know that all scores submitted for handicap purposes are done by golfers who play by the rules

Scott

[Tom Yost]

Not that it has anything to do with the original topic, but I can confirm that _many_ desert courses here in Arizona have adopted a local rule treating the desert as a "lateral water hazard."

Tom

[Kalen Braley]

Not that it has anything to do with the original topic, but I can confirm that _many_ desert courses here in Arizona have adopted a local rule treating the desert as a "lateral water hazard."

Tom

Yet one more contrived aspect of your local desert course...the irony is thick on that one...

[Tom_Doak]

I am discouraged to hear that Barnbougle has such a local rule, snakes or no snakes.  (I wandered around those dunes aplenty before there were any fairways and never got bit; I hope Bill Coore has the same good fortune.)

I don't know why Barnbougle would need such a rule, we all played it several times without losing very many golf balls.

[Brent Hutto]

At courses like Barnbougle, Wild Horse or Sand Dunes are the playing corridors more closely bounded by rough than the Sandwich, Deal and Princes courses I saw during my trip to the Kent coast? I lost a couple balls in the tall grass but nothing that couldn't be handled with provisionals. The competitors in the Amateur Championship did seem to need more provisionals that you typically see good player hit but that was in fairly windy conditions.