[Richard_Mandell]

I have noticed that many better golfers feel that a hazard that penalizes a shot hit over or past a target is deemed unfair.  Yet I bet most have no problem with a hazard, such as a pond, that fronts a target (for instance a putting surface).  It seems more accepted as just a design element (penal or not).  It is similar to the idea that putting surfaces that slope from front to back are tricked up surfaces. 

In contemplating this idea, I do agree that visibility may be a contributing factor to this but other than that, why is it that a hazard that challenges aggressive play is deemed unfair yet hazards that penalize timid play (or, worse, poor play due to lack of ability) are more accepted. 

I'm guessing that due to the fact this concern comes from the better golfer, the real reason is that it slows their efforts at a low score down, interesting playing features be damned!

So do the higher handicappers prefer hazards behind targets more?  And, do the better golfers prefer hazards in front of targets?

[Michael Whitaker]

Richard,

I don't prefer one or the other as both are legitimate challenges. What I do object to are hazards that do not fit into the challenge being presented... for example, a fronting bunker on a really long par four that blocks any way to chase a ball onto the green.

Hazzards behind targets are OK with me if they are designed to punish the overly agressive or if they are there to "save" me from an even worse fate, like skulling a shot over the green into the water.

[Garland Bayley]

Macan would have hazards in neither place.

[Bill_McBride]

Macan would have hazards in neither place.

Maybe not in theory but you'll find fronting bunkers at both Columbia-Edgewater and Royal Colwood.

Dr Mackenzie liked back bunkers.  Maybe eye candy, but what eye candy!

[Tom_Doak]

One of my favorite holes at High Pointe was the par-4 7th, a short par-4 with a nasty deep pot bunker hidden at the back right of the green.  The approach was wide open, and many golfers who were first-time visitors approached boldly without knowledge of its existence; but once you knew it was there, it was pretty hard to play a shot to back hole locations, and some players deliberately played well left or right to avoid it.

When Rick Smith came and played golf with me before the course opened, he did not notice the bunker until he was on the back of the green lining up his putt, and he almost fell in it.

Maybe I should build something like it at Forest Dunes?

[Bill_McBride]

One of my favorite holes at High Pointe was the par-4 7th, a short par-4 with a nasty deep pot bunker hidden at the back right of the green.  The approach was wide open, and many golfers who were first-time visitors approached boldly without knowledge of its existence; but once you knew it was there, it was pretty hard to play a shot to back hole locations, and some players deliberately played well left or right to avoid it.

When Rick Smith came and played golf with me before the course opened, he did not notice the bunker until he was on the back of the green lining up his putt, and he almost fell in it.

Maybe I should build something like it at Forest Dunes?

Sure.  It would be a fronting bunker from the other direction!

[Garland Bayley]

Macan would have hazards in neither place.

Maybe not in theory but you'll find fronting bunkers at both Columbia-Edgewater and Royal Colwood.

...

Don't know how much those have been modified since Macan. Certainly Columbia-Edgewater has been modified a lot.
Two that have been little touched are Fircrest and Salem, which both adhere to his principles.

[Sean_A]

Richard

Both types are highly acceptable and desirable.  I always thought a good way to spruce up drop shot 3s (especially those down wind) is to have a stream behind the green.  I also like the idea of front to back greens with a hidden bunker in the rear.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Richard

Both types are highly acceptable and desirable.  I always thought a good way to spruce up drop shot 3s (especially those down wind) is to have a stream behind the green.  I also like the idea of front to back greens with a hidden bunker in the rear.

Ciao

One of my few real pet peeves in design are holes with water behind the green.  When we played The Old Course backwards, having the burn just in back of the 1st green [and rough up to the "front" of the green] was not a good hole.

[Ryan Coles]

Golfers, generally don't miss long. A hazard is largely a waste of resources behind a green.

How many times did you miss long in the last round you played?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Richard,

Congrats on re-opening Keller.  I have driven by it to look, but not played.  Looks great.

As to your question, I don't think back bunkers are unfair, but do know good players who at least believe that they negate aggressive play by reducing the comfort level of aiming for that, say, back left pin if the margin of error is too small.  Obviously, it you ask players to take a chance on an aggressive shot, the target ought to be big enough to make it doable.  The USGA slope chart suggests that this would be at least 10% depth of the anticipated approach shot, or 15 yards for 150 yard approach, etc.  In fact, I would hesitate to add both front and back bunkers for that Sunday pin unless that 150 yard shot had a target at least 10-15% deeper to allow wiggle room.  If shallower, they seem to prefer a little back stop mounding to effectively enlarge the target.

So, I am not in the mind that good players don't really want any feature to raise scores. In their minds, having a more than reasonable chance is a more interesting golf feature.  Too dicey, and they don't really take the strategic chance we as architects are trying to tempt them to take as often as we think they should, and thus, golf becomes a more boring US Open grind type of challenge. (Obviously, if that front/back feature is done too often.  Every course is different and needs its own balance.)

I also recall George Thomas' writings, suggesting a fairway chipping area over the green on long par 4's.  His reasoning was that a shot long was actually a better miss than one that came up short, so why punish that?  That book alone was enough to convince me to limit backing bunkers to shorter holes, in general.

I have designed some long, downwind par 4 (14 Sand Creek Station comes to mind) with a small green, across the line of play, maybe 50-60 feet deep and 100 or so wide) with a completely open front and 3-4 bunkers at the back, plus a gentle upslope to the fw in front, the obvious challenge being distance control - if you play too short, the up slope stops your shot, but of course, you don't want to go long. Another option is a lower spin shot that can run up the fairway approach. And, I figure at 470 yards plus, many average players, even from the middle tees, will be hitting wedge shots on their third, and that green fits their game as well.

Lastly, there is the old "play harder than it looks" philosophy, where the architect places a lot of bunkers left and back left, purposely putting them there to create a championship course look knowing less than 20% of golfers will hook and/or go long, and those will be better players.  It was a popular theory for CCFAD courses from the 1970's until who knows when?  Now still?

Anyway, you asked, I answered.  That's my theory and I'm sticking to it!

[Thomas Dai]

Time for some photos -

Short par-4 8th at Narin & Portnoo - 1 yd over the green it's rocks and sea and bye, bye golf ball


Par-3 6th at Cruit Island - go long and it's bye bye golf ball. Drop a little short and the ball rolls back into the longer grass (green fence in second photos present during the winter period as protection from sea-spray)



Does having something big and obvious and hazardous over the green effect the players thinking bringing what's short of the green more into play?

Would what's close behind effect your planned shots into the above greens?

And what cunningly concealed features in front of, or to the sides of, or even on the green, have the designers/architects/constructors built into the green-site to allow for this?

atb

[Brent Hutto]

Golfers, generally don't miss long. A hazard is largely a waste of resources behind a green.

How many times did you miss long in the last round you played?

With the exception of a couple of holes I almost never miss long at my home course. That's because on about 20 of our 27 holes, being a few yards over the green is absolutely dead with an average golfer having zero chance of getting up and down (and even getting down in three being chancy).

That seem to be characteristic of many designs from the 50's, 60's and even 70's, in my experience.

Some of the links and heathland courses I've played in the UK, the ones with low profile greens, often make a recovery from being long about as simple as from being short. Which is a good thing when greens are super firm and there's a breeze.

[Sean_A]

Richard

Both types are highly acceptable and desirable.  I always thought a good way to spruce up drop shot 3s (especially those down wind) is to have a stream behind the green.  I also like the idea of front to back greens with a hidden bunker in the rear.

Ciao

One of my few real pet peeves in design are holes with water behind the green.  When we played The Old Course backwards, having the burn just in back of the 1st green [and rough up to the "front" of the green] was not a good hole.

There are enough good examples that I am not too worried about your pet peeve    The one I think most of is Sligo's 13th.  The stream behind the green makes the hole imo.  I also think of NB's 1st.  Not a great hole, but with a greensite like that nobody could say its a poor hole.  Time and a place...

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brent,

I think TD and I had an interchange on this a few months back.  I think it was a combo of elevated greens and front to back slopes.  If the front of the green is 3 ft. above the fw to get bunker depth, and the overall back to front slope of a 120 feet deep green was 2-3%, common in those days, then if you built a green on flat ground, the resulting pitch from over the green is 5.5-7 feet up and over to a downhill landing area.  It obviously would be less in other circumstances.

Many architects tried lowering greens in the CCFAD days of the 1980-90's to make them more receptive, which reduced the problem.

[Brent Hutto]

I think when it was built in the early 60's (Ellis Maples, 1961) my club's course had quite a few in the range you're describing. But some were lower profile and/or less pitched. There was a redo of some greens in the late 90's and in a few cases lowered the backs slightly.

Let me qualify my comment about an average player having "zero chance". I'm talking of course about up and down from over the green when the hole location is near the back. Many of our greens are 25+ yards deep so if the flag is down front it's almost impossible to overclub enough to be over the green. So over the green and back hole locations tend to happen together most often.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brent,

No doubt that the faster greens make the downhill recovery even trickier.

I typically like to roll the back edges of my greens for some visual relief.  You might be pitching over a valley at the standard 2%, or face a small knob on the green edge which is almost 10% for the first ten feet, before flattening out.  Obviously there is some luck involved in where you land, where the pin is, etc.  There will be a few places that are near impossible on any gently rolling green.

[Carl Johnson]

I have noticed that many better golfers (by which I take it you mean more highly skilled players) feel that a hazard that penalizes a shot hit over or past a target is deemed unfair.  (D.J. Ross, or one of the other old dead guys, said that it was his job to place hazzards and the golfer's job to avoid them.  I buy that.)  Yet I bet most have no problem with a hazard, such as a pond, that fronts a target (for instance a putting surface).  It seems more accepted as just a design element (penal or not).  It is similar to the idea that putting surfaces that slope from front to back are tricked up surfaces.  

In contemplating this idea, I do agree that visibility may be a contributing factor to this but other than that, why is it that a hazard that challenges aggressive play is deemed unfair yet hazards that penalize timid play (or, worse, poor play due to lack of ability) are more accepted.  

I'm guessing that due to the fact this concern comes from the better golfer, the real reason is that it slows their efforts at a low score down, interesting playing features be damned!

So do the higher handicappers prefer hazards behind targets more?  And, do the better golfers prefer hazards in front of targets?  In my view, both the best golfers and the most highly skilled players accept the challenges of the course as they are, and play the game.  The players who bitch and moan about what's fair and unfair re hazzard placement, etc., are just wannabes, regardless of their relative skill levels.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Carl,

While there is some debate, Ross is said to not have put lots of hazards behind greens, for whatever reason.  Might have been visibility, theory, etc.  Brad Klein might chime in.  So, you have Thomas and Ross in the Golden Age espousing fewer back hazards in different ways.  At least its not a new theory based on coddling spoiled, modern players.

I do agree that it is probably the "one level down from the top" player who finds the notion that architecture ought to help them plausible.  At least, its an interesting take!  Working with many Tour pros, they often feel the same. This includes JN, who often said that architecture should never hurt a golfer's score, just a golfer ought to hurt a golfer's score.

But I think Rich answered his own question with his phrase "hazard that challenges aggressive play is deemed unfair."  In some ways, it seems counter productive to punish aggressive play if you want to encourage it for more exciting golf.  Put another way, you have already asked a golfer to carry a bunker (depending on angle) to reach a guarded pin.  Wearing it out and then stopping it is often pretty hard.

Even at the top levels, BTW, we have to recall that most on the PGA tour (and these are top level guys, no doubt) still make most birdies on par 4 holes, and least on par 3 holes where the approach shot must be with a mid iron on most holes.  There are only so much accuracy with which they actually hit irons.  I believe we get a false impression from TV, since we only see the contenders, who are obviously striping it that week.

The next level down (for whom we may reasonably design on any non tournament course, like Keller) is even a bit further off.   I have no problem with those players asking for a bit of wiggle room, architecturally speaking.  Said yet another way, I can't recall the number of times we had design meetings where the phrase "if the Pro Tour came here....." when there was no chance in hell the pro tour was ever going to come there.  And, there is a big difference between the 5 handicap and the Tour Pro.

And, therein lies the balance of good architecture.

[BCrosby]

J H Taylor was adamant in his dislike of hazards behind greens. It was the reason why he disliked the Road Hole.

On his view, hazards behind greens discouraged aggressive approach shots.

Bob

[Tom_Doak]

J H Taylor was adamant in his dislike of hazards behind greens. It was the reason why he disliked the Road Hole.

On his view, hazards behind greens discouraged aggressive approach shots.

Bob

That's why I like having a hazard behind the green once in a while ... so the good players are nervous about being so aggressive on their approach shots.  I'm hoping to put a little doubt in the good players' minds because it will affect them more than the average guy. Weaker players never worry about stuff like that, and they rarely go over the green anyway.

I just draw the line on having water behind the green.  One reason I hate it is that there's often no good place to drop if you do go through the green and into the water; but I don't like to bring penalty strokes into play generally.

[Don Mahaffey]

Tom,
I remember you mentioning this when you played Wolf Point because of the creek behind the 16th green. I understand the drop issue, but I do think it can be avoided if the green is oriented so the hazard is at an diagonal angle behind the green vs just perpendicular to the line of play.

Your pet peeve is one of my favorite things for challenging good players because even though they know the hazard is there, they usually can't see it, and that allows for some caution. i think the only way you challenge good players is to challenge their confidence. Put a hazard in front of them and give them a yardage and they attack. Give them a back pin on a firm green with hazard behind and I think you give them something to think about. Another plus is most golfers are short so the hazard long isn't in play very often for them.

I also like greens where the best miss is long, but I think that is the golf world's pet peeve as well because almost no one does that.

I also like greens where the best miss is when you attack the pin vs playing safe to the middle. Crowned greens with "sections" offer this, but most of the golf world is infatuated with punishing the short side miss. I like a hole/green once in a while where the conservative play is punished by requiring the player to putt up and over internal features and the best miss may be just off the green but close to the hole.

[Tom_Doak]

Your pet peeve is one of my favorite things for challenging good players because even though they know the hazard is there, they usually can't see it, and that allows for some caution. i think the only way you challenge good players is to challenge their confidence. Put a hazard in front of them and give them a yardage and they attack. Give them a back pin on a firm green with hazard behind and I think you give them something to think about. Another plus is most golfers are short so the hazard long isn't in play very often for them.

I also like greens where the best miss is long, but I think that is the golf world's pet peeve as well because almost no one does that.

I also like greens where the best miss is when you attack the pin vs playing safe to the middle. Crowned greens with "sections" offer this, but most of the golf world is infatuated with punishing the short side miss. I like a hole/green once in a while where the conservative play is punished by requiring the player to putt up and over internal features and the best miss may be just off the green but close to the hole.

Don:

I like all of the things you mention, apart from water behind the green, and I try to mix them into our courses.  One of the fun things about the Forest Dunes project is that the best miss is in a different place when you are playing from a different direction!

While I am not a fan of water hazards, I do like to have danger behind a green on occasion.  We did that on the 11th hole at Sebonack -- it falls off the back into trouble -- and Mr. Nicklaus did not like the "lack of definition" that made it difficult to play confidently for the back of the green.  He did not appreciate that was exactly what we were trying for.

[Carl Johnson]

Carl,

While there is some debate, Ross is said to not have put lots of hazards behind greens, for whatever reason.  Might have been visibility, theory, etc.  Brad Klein might chime in.  So, you have Thomas and Ross in the Golden Age espousing fewer back hazards in different ways.  At least its not a new theory based on coddling spoiled, modern players.

Consistent with my thinking.  I respect the skill of the architect in deciding where to place hazards -- not where a player might prefer them, but where to present the challenges.

I do agree that it is probably the "one level down from the top" player who finds the notion that architecture ought to help them plausible.  At least, its an interesting take!  Working with many Tour pros, they often feel the same. This includes JN, who often said that architecture should never hurt a golfer's score, just a golfer ought to hurt a golfer's score.  I look at it as the challenge of golfers against each other on the course.  How do you know whose score will be hurt, or help (in the case of the golfer who can rise to the challenge).

But I think Rich answered his own question with his phrase "hazard that challenges aggressive play is deemed unfair."  In some ways, it seems counter productive to punish aggressive play if you want to encourage it for more exciting golf.  Put another way, you have already asked a golfer to carry a bunker (depending on angle) to reach a guarded pin.  Wearing it out and then stopping it is often pretty hard.  My preference: Who's excitement are we talking about?  The spectator at a pro event?  Or just testing the skill of the golfer?  I'd be on the latter side.  Which means sometimes aggressive, sometimes not, and all of the time smart.

Even at the top levels, BTW, we have to recall that most on the PGA tour (and these are top level guys, no doubt) still make most birdies on par 4 holes, and least on par 3 holes where the approach shot must be with a mid iron on most holes.  There are only so much accuracy with which they actually hit irons.  I believe we get a false impression from TV, since we only see the contenders, who are obviously striping it that week.

The next level down (for whom we may reasonably design on any non tournament course, like Keller) is even a bit further off.   I have no problem with those players asking for a bit of wiggle room, architecturally speaking.  Said yet another way, I can't recall the number of times we had design meetings where the phrase "if the Pro Tour came here....." when there was no chance in hell the pro tour was ever going to come there.  And, there is a big difference between the 5 handicap and the Tour Pro.  And, frankly, I'm on the side of the 5, 10, etc., rather than worrying about what the Tour Pro will think.  They're playing a much different game, both from a skill standpoint and a business standpoint.

And, therein lies the balance of good architecture.  Which suggests another good question -- how the heck do you architects manage to do that?

[Garland Bayley]

J H Taylor was adamant in his dislike of hazards behind greens. It was the reason why he disliked the Road Hole.

On his view, hazards behind greens discouraged aggressive approach shots.

Bob

Macan felt the same.
Plus Macan was of the school that a significant number of greens should run away from the golfer. In that case, putting a hazard behind the green would be a bit similar to putting one in front of a green sloping back to front.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()