Of what relevance...

[Mike_Clayton]

Mark.

We did a new and short par four at Peninsula in Melbourne a couple of years ago.
Its maybe 320 yards to the middle of the green and there are a lot of options of line,club - and shot - from the tee.
The green wasnt't even grassed when I played it with Geoff Ogilvy. He flew a driver all the way over the hazards onto the middle of the green and said 'Why would you bother even trying to design a course for us'
Ironically with grass on the green his ball would have finished in the back bunker and from there it is really difficult but the point was still the same.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff

I am advocating actual ways to improve golf and in particular the skill to control and hopefully enjoy the game to its maximum. The severe hazards are fine, they make the golfer think, to pull his shot to overcome the obstacle, I get nor see any pleasure or for that matter see any great skill in hitting a long ball. I am reminded of Tiger at the 1st at Carnoustie in last years Open, he hit his ball into the water to the left of the fairway, proving that even the best do not possess the skill 100% of the time. Was it pressure or just too much power, whatever it affected his game.

To me a hazard is there to dissuade the golfer from taking that line of play and therefore be responsible for his shot. I see no problem in evacuating oneself from a bunker or other hazard by retreating backwards prior to commencing the struggle with the architect. That’s the penalty for not considering your route or game with due care and attention and the Architect is One Up by forcing you to make an error.

It’s a game Jeff and should not be made easier, golf has never been a walk in a park but is quickly becoming one or should I say a ride in the park. 

I did not mention length because I believe central hazards will control distance by limiting initial drives from the Tee making 6,500-6,800yard course really playable and enjoyable by ALL. If golf was just about getting a ball down a hole in the least amount of strokes then I agree but that is and never has been what golf is all about, problem is that so many seem to have forgotten why they started playing the game in the first place, but then that’s my opinion.

John

Old Tom was a man of the people, he designed course for the average man with the holes becoming more testing as you played through. This is reflected in his design fee of £1per day which remained constant for 40 odd years, whilst others charged three to four times that amount including James Braid. Championship Courses in the 19th Century were the day to day course everyone could play, something we need to re-introduce today. The best players in those days played all the popular courses open to the average golfer, it’s slightly different today – pity.



So Yes, if the Architect is given the Green, light he can and should make a major difference and perhaps we should stop thinking that long distance means skill. Skill comes in after you make a poor shot to be able to get back into your game, that is golf and the golf I want to see.

Severe traps, no I don’t think so, but certainly another real test of the golfer resilience and ability to think golf as well as play. The name of the game is Mr Average not the Highest or Lowers Common Dominator – we should never forget that but it would seem that we have.

Melvyn,

I am not advocating making golf easier, although there is probably lots of room out there for easy courses in the marketplace.

My belief is that if you make fw hazards too difficult, so they guarantee loss of a stroke, that thinking is reduced.  Most golfers will play defense and steer well clear.  Now, if the hazard is a piece of cake, it will be ignored.  But if we can strike that balance of 2/3 a chance to reach the green but 1/3 you won't if you get in a hazard, then I think we create the most temptation, and thus thought, strategy, intrigue, etc.

I think we do have to consider the common approach of stroke play in the US, whereas a deep, deep fw bunker only causes the lost of one hole in match play, it can put a golfer so far behind in stroke play that its clear he can never catch up, and the match could in essence be over.

Even in match play, getting back in the hole is the goal, as you say, after hitting a poor shot. If you have to play backwards, its less thrilling than pulling off a great recovery shot towards the green to stun your opponent and put the pressure back on him, isn't it?

Just MHO.  And of course, I have always wanted to build a fw hazard as deep as the one on the 4th at Royal St. George, so I am certainly not set in stone about that.

But really, looking at the fw bunkers of any GA guy, I don't think they are wholesale more difficult than most of what's built today is it?  Compare Tillie at SF or Mac at Cypress vs. comparable level courses now, like Muirfield Village, Pac Dunes, any Coore course, etc.  Aren't they all in the same depth range?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

I love deep bunkers. They have the ability to persuade me to take the risk and trust my little skill or to re think my shot altogether. With the ever forward movement of technology on the ball and club the courses have not necessary kept up. Yes, there some yardage added, the odd bunker moved or modified but I feel very little has been done to dissuade the golfer from  taking the risk, thus allowing the long drive with very little worry of hitting a major hazard. That I feel is the result of the Pro game and big money. A ‘let’s keep the course simple’ attitude and easy for the long ball, I want to see more traps for the long ball and stretching over this whole bounce zone covering more than just a few yards.

I believe the course should offer severe penalties to the brash, the risk taker, and not just around the Greens. The game starts at the Tees so the Architect should be guarding his course from the start of the first average bounce and not just with a single hazard. I sincerely believe that technology is out stripping our courses and making life easier for the big hitters, if that means on Par 4’s & 5’s we have to place and extend the hazard zone , then IMHO so be it.   If the ball and club is being allowed to move on without restrictions (well minimal), then architects must be allowed to combat this, because we cannot keep on increasing the length of our courses infinitum.

As I said the main option is to use technology to reduce ball travel, but many will not be happy with that.

My preference is more central hazards, and I also like blind shots, obscuring the pin from view (screws up range finders – good enough reason to have a few on a course but that’s not why I like them), it just adds that little bit more of a challenge and enjoyment, but again not many will be happy with that either.

Sooner or later a compromise is going to have to be made to combat these mounting problems, but who actually has the balls or is currently interested enough in the future of golf to do something constructive – our governing bodies, no I think not, as some have not woken up to the current problems.
 
My view of golf is that it should be fun, relaxing and enjoyable and a few extra hazards and some blind spots in my opinion will just add more interest to my game.

[BCrosby]

I say let 'em shoot nothing...who gets hurt by that?

JES II is right. You would only care about what a pro does to a course if you care about keeping the best scores around par. If you don't care about the latter, there's no reason to care about the former.

Rich is right too. Great players will separate themselves from not so great players on all courses, whether those courses be good, bad or indifferent. 

Bob   

[John Kavanaugh]

You need to up the percentage of players and talk about solid ball strikers instead of pros.  It really is about consistency and short game that makes a guy a pro.  I do hope designers don't dumb down their greens just because pros have better short games.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

I can agree on extending the hazard zones, perhaps with staggered bunkers, since continuous sand costs a lot and blocks a lot of cirulation.  

I also wonder if the overall cost of adding signifigant sand hazards well over 300 yards from the tee is worth it for most courses aimed at the enjoyment of the vast class of average golfers.

Its cheaper just to cant or roll the fw a bit, perhaps just enough to make a shot to the wrong side of the fw trickle into the rough.  If it holds the fw, then a sidehill lie makes life more interesting for the long hitter, but doesn't necessarily punish a pretty good shot.

I didn't quite get the impression that this thread was about limiting the ball, rather about what weight should be given to designing the "average" course for the games of Tour professionals and people of nearly equal ability.

I am in the camp of encouraging better players to try all the shots.  You say you are, but we disagree on whether harder hazards make golfers take bigger chances, as I think it reduces them.  It appears that you are in the "make 'em pay" camp.  May I presume that if your driving length is, say 260 yds, that you think payment ought to be extracted at about, say 270 yards and beyond?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

I was not talking about bunkers alone, but hazards in general, nor am I suggesting 300 yards of sand hazards but various around the drop zones.
What is the definition of a good shot, is it that which misses the hazard or
which has travelled some distance, everyone has his own opinion.

The reference to limiting the ball was just a potential option of resolving a problem which takes it outside the power of the Architect – I believe I have stated clearly that courses should be designed for Mr Average, but correctly placed multi hazards could be a way of persuading the long hitter to approach the course in a different way, thus allowing one course to be used for most if not all purposes.

I think that you have misunderstood my point, I don’t advocate making harder hazards, but their location is rather important and should be perhaps aimed at the better player’s line of play/fire.

My own preference is for more hazards and deep bunkers, not to ‘make ‘em pay’ but to raise their game and encourage more than just long drives from the Tee. My thoughts are along the lines of encouraging more interesting and enjoyable shots for players and spectators alike. I think that we are of the same opinion but have different approaches to the potential problem. If a guy wants to hit the hell out of a little ball, I would suggest that he goes to a driving range but if he want to play golf then IMHO courses should present a challenge and that is what I would be looking from an architect.     

[Michael]

Correct me if I'm wrong...But...

 When courses are "set up" for pros...and par is a good score on most holes.... lot of them complain.