Elimination of Lateral Hazards or Hell's Half Acre

[Powell Arms]

Many of the courses built in 1920-1930, included some lateral hazard or Hell’s Half Acre concept on a par 5.  There was some discussion about the origin of these, and whether they were Tillinghast innovations or predated him.

see link http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=22045

My question is twofold:  why have they been removed from some of the classic courses, and why don’t we see these more frequently in modern design?  Are they too penal, too costly to maintain, etc?  On those courses where the HHA has survived, these hazards seem to have served to make that hole, and perhaps that course, more memorable.

[Mark_Fine]

Powell,
Many have sadly been lost over the years in the pursuit of fairness     Fortunately, there are a number of us out there that are trying to bring centerline hazards back into the game.   At many clubs, however, this is a tough sell but it is happening and if we have a say, this will continue to happen.  Please note that I'm not by any means saying all of these types of hazards should be restored.  But during the research process of master planning, they at least need to be looked at and studied to determine how best to proceed.
Mark

[TEPaul]

Powell:

First of all, in your first sentence you seem to be confusing a lateral hazard for a cross hazard. HHA is not a lateral hazard, it's a cross hazard.

Why were some removed or why are they not more used?

Well, one thing should be admitted and that is that a cross hazard of the likes of PV's HHA on #7 is just about the ultimate in penal architecture. Frankly nothing much could be more so on a golf course.

First, some on here may not be willing to admit that because the word "penal" seems to be completely perjorative on here and "strategic" seems to be perceived as the essence and requirement of quality architecture, and that PVGC can be and is remarkably penal.

The truth is PVGC is both but its far more penal than it is traditionally strategic.

Second, there are two types of penal features or architecture----one that is chock full of lateral hazards where the only option is to hit the ball between them. That type could be called "direction" penal.

The other type is "distance" penal. That type is a forced distance carry with no option to get around it, direction-wise.

HHA is the second type in spades. It's unbelievably penal for most golfers and that's probably why we don't see more of HHA features on golf courses.

For starters, PVGC was not intended for or designed for most golfers. Crump made no secret at all of that fact.

[Doug Siebert]

I haven't had the pleasure of playing PV so I don't know how big of a carry HHA is, but is it really all that different than having a pond that bisects the fairway, which is a fairly typical thing on a lot of courses?  Usually these are either right off the tee or just in front of the green, rather than sorta out there somewhere on a par 5, but the effect is pretty much the same on players of lesser skill or physical strength.

If I'm still alive and kickin' 50 years from now I'd probably rather have a waste area as a carry hazard than water or a ravine.  At least if I only make it 2/3 of the way across a waste area I can go in there and hit the rest of the way out.  Plus, I don't have to carry it all the way across, it can hop, skip and roll the last bit if necessary.

[Kyle Harris]

I haven't had the pleasure of playing PV so I don't know how big of a carry HHA is, but is it really all that different than having a pond that bisects the fairway, which is a fairly typical thing on a lot of courses?  Usually these are either right off the tee or just in front of the green, rather than sorta out there somewhere on a par 5, but the effect is pretty much the same on players of lesser skill or physical strength.

If I'm still alive and kickin' 50 years from now I'd probably rather have a waste area as a carry hazard than water or a ravine.  At least if I only make it 2/3 of the way across a waste area I can go in there and hit the rest of the way out.  Plus, I don't have to carry it all the way across, it can hop, skip and roll the last bit if necessary.

Doug,

Well, I'd say there is. The HHA at Pine Valley doesn't require SCUBA gear from which it play.

[Doug Siebert]

That's my point (which I guess I didn't make too well)  Anyone who would complain about something like HHA and not complain even more about a bisecting pond (which is quite common in today's architecture) is a hypocrite.

So to answer the original post, we do see them in modern architecture, they are just filled with water!

[TEPaul]

Doug:

For your information HHA is app 100 yards in distance carry and Tillinghast wrote about this kind of feature as needing to be 100 yards of carry distance.

Here's some more distance information on PV's #7 so you can get a better feel for it.

From the old tips it was app 300 yards to reach HHA. From the new tips it's app 340 yards.

Most players will have between 140-180 yards left to carry over HHA after a decent drive.

From right at the far end of HHA on the next stretch of fairway it is close to 200 yards to the middle of the green.

[JESII]

From the old tips it was app 300 yards to reach HHA. From the new tips it's app 340 yards.

You sure about this Tommy? I seem to recall it being about 500 yards to get over that thing this fall from the very back tee. That would mean 380 - 400 to reach it, no?

[Powell Arms]

The scenario described by TEPaul is the exact scenario that I think adds to this strategy of such holes, and the player can deside if it is too penal and needs to lay-up from the cross hazard.  (brain freeze on the use of lateral before).  I can think of a couple of instances in which these hazards were removed completely, wihch is what begged the original question.  

A heroic drive followed by a forced carry of 140-180 yds, or a layup leaving an approach of 200 yds.  That seems like a challenge that one wouldn't remove from their course.

As for the distances changes at PVGC, were the tees moved to keep HHA a certain distance from the "typical" drive and continue to force this kind of decision, or was it an unrelated move?

[JESII]

Powell,

At PV #7, the green is unreachable if you lay up short of HHA. TEP's 200 yard number was from the very nearest-to-the-green edge of HHA. That number is a bit high, but no more than 10 or 15 yards. It is just anout 275 from the very short edge of HHA to the front edge of the green. The fronting bunker is what makes it "unreachable".

Tom will have better info on the rationale behind lengthening #7, but I think it's safe to say they did it to keep up with the distances players are hitting the ball these days. They lengthened a handful of holes and the end product is pretty awesome. The course (read: due to equipment) evolved to where a top player may not his driver at all, or at most two or three times in a round. Today that is no longer the case. 7, 9, 13, 15, 16 and 18 are virtually mandatory drivers from the tips for just about all length players right now. 2, 6 and 12 give you the chance to hit driver but do not demand it.  

[TEPaul]

Sully:

You're probably right--it's probably slightly less than 360 now to reach HHA from the new tips (the old back tee was listed at 578 and the new tips are 636). So the two shots to just carry HHA would have to travel about 460.

[TEPaul]

However, the fundamental strategy of #7 as envisioned by Crump and Tillinghast was another interesting example of what we've called that old fashioned "shot testing" design which PV is a pretty complete example of.

The basic idea was even a good player had to hit some prescribed shots and hit them almost perfect or he would really pay a price coming up short or wild.

His option to not taking the risk was simply to lay way up in front of the obstacle and purposefully drop a shot to regulation (unless he could make it up with an approach and one putt).

#7 is pretty unusual in that it strategically requires even the good player to pretty much hit TWO of his best and longest shots in succession to be in a position to physically reach the green in regulation.

That's why Tillinghast referred to this type of design and strategy as a true "Three Shot" hole. And of course reaching this type of par 5 in two shots was supposed to be a physical impossibility.

I know I've posted it a number of times on here but are you aware that when Crump died he was in the process of turning #7 into a "double dogleg"?

Another hole Crump planned on changing in certain ways was the otherworldly par 4 13th!

I'm sort of glad he never got around to that although it would've been even more heroic and its tee shot and approach shot strategies would've been more cut and dried---or sort of in your face, and definitely a more intense form of that "shot testing" idea I mentioned above.