[Mark_F]

In a small piece in an online Golf Digest, Tom Doak mentions how short grass is his favourite hazard, because it is "always subtle, sometimes diabolical."  

Given the range of options that a missed shot greenside could encompass with such a hazrd, could it therefore be overused?

Would there be an ideal blend between short grass and other hazards, whether on the same hole or overall?

Lastly, from a purely working perspective,how much elevation change/undulation does a site need to have for it to work?

[TEPaul]

"Given the range of options that a missed shot greenside could encompass with such a hazrd, could it therefore be overused?"

Mark:

I guess anything could be overused in architecture but I sure do agree with Doak that short grass as a hazard is a wonderful thing. Primarily because there are so many things one can do on it for shots and the more available shot options offered in architecture the more interesting it gets. Short grass around greens is also a very "democratic" feature in my mind because the options from it are numerous and requiring of not strength but imagination because of that. Who knows, the little old lady could have as much "imagination" this way as Tiger Woods!   But we certainly know she can't driver the ball 317 yards.  

"Would there be an ideal blend between short grass and other hazards, whether on the same hole or overall?"

Sure, but I certainly wouldn't try to standardize something like that into some percentage formula in architecture.

"Lastly, from a purely working perspective,how much elevation change/undulation does a site need to have for it to work?"

I think this is critical to short grass as a hazard. A variety of anything and everything would seem best to me---some flat, some subtley undulating, and some quite contoured but all and all the last two are more interesting and fun for the shot at hand, in my opinion.

Obviously Tom Doak likes this feature and there sure is plenty of it at the new Sebonack. One of the reasons Doak may like this feature so much is he clearly has a good "eye" for it (reading the ground in play) and he seems to be very good at the shots himself, particularly putting them. There's no question it's something he likes to do as he goes around one of his courses. I think Bill Coore does too. I gave him my putter and a couple of balls when we had the get-together at Hidden Creek and he seemed to have a great time putting the balls from off the green as he walked around the entire course.

[Joe Hancock]

I'd like to hear further explanation on how short grass is a hazard.

Apart from increasing distance to the hole on a misplayed shot(which is totally dependant on shaping, as it can also be your friend when the shaping is such that the ball funnels back on the green), how does it penalize? I personally prefer the many optional shots short grass provides, and prefer to play off it over sand or greenside cabbage.

Also, if short grass is a hazard, wouldn't that make the putting green the ultimate hazard? Come to think of it, I addressed this very issue in reference to the 2nd hole at Mr. Doaks' Lost Dunes.

Joe

[TEPaul]

Joe:

In the philosophy or perhaps even theory of some on "penalty in the form of hazards, the idea is that those hazards are basically there, hopefully in an interesting "arrangement" that creates "strategic unity" (in an entire golf hole), to create problems to be solved with imagination and decision making in the vehicle of intelligence born of experience. At least that's the way Max Behr looked at it and explained it and despite the fact that a few idiots on here think Behr was an "idiot" for some of his ideas and philosophies, in my opinion, no one ever looked deeper into the subject (of the use and function of "penalty in the form of hazards) or explained it in depth better than he did.  

[Joe Hancock]

Let me get this straight....

By virtue of the short grass being "there", it makes one think, therefore it is a hazard.

I think I get where you're coming from, but I am struggling with it a bit. I am, at this point, seeing the short grass as more of a feature, condition or an issue(yea, I got ISSUES! ), that affects how one approaches the strategy of a hole. I don't neccesarily think that it becomes a hazard based on that, though.

Would Firm and Fast be a condition, or a hazard?

Joe

[Craig Sweet]

Right on Joe! I struggle with calling it a hazard as well....yesterday, it didn't matter where my ball went...in the fairway...in the rough...first cut...green...it was all hazardous!  

[TEPaul]

Joe:

Yesterday I was reading a number of articles on architecture from the first few years of the USGA Green Section Report (known as "The Bulletin") in which a number of writers (probably architects of that time) were claiming that architectural features such as a bunker on the side of a green that had a bank that sloped toward the green was basically poor architecture.

They claimed that such a feature with such a slope created a situation where a slightly mishit shot that landed near the bunker (on its slope towards the green) created what they referred to as "tricky" or "fluky" shots that worked out better than they should have.

There's no question at all that this kind of opinion, and architectural thinking about what was "poor architecture" was born of that time and that development of opinion on architecture that may be broadly referred to as "scientific" architecture (or sometimes referred to as "Modern" architecture).

They also seemed to be obsessed with fairness. I'm sorry but despite the fact that these were men or architects that wrote during our venerated "Golden Age" I feel they were wholly and entirely wrong and on a completely wrong track about architecture philosophically.

This type of opinion and philosophy is what Max Behr sometimes referred to as the "game mind of man" in golf architecture that what should be constructed should do nothing more than isolate and highlight "skill" and in a sense  the problems and solutions should all be totally visible in architecture.

Behr was far more impressive in his philosophy on what golf archtiecture should be, in my opinion. He felt these kinds of man-made and man-conceived "standardizations" and "formulaics" in the form of architecture got too far removed from what Nature itself was and the necessity of maintaining what it was in architecture---eg randomness.

His point was that Nature itself (the ground and how wind and water worked on it) knew nothing of golf or the "game mind of man". That Nature itself simply provided a fascinating canvas to play the game across with all her quirks and randomnesses.

In my opinion, when it comes to the best type and kind of golf course architecture Behr was right and those men who wrote those early articles on golf course architecture in the USGA's Green Section "Bulletin" were both wrong and very much on the wrong track philosophically about golf architecture.

[TEPaul]

"Would Firm and Fast be a condition, or a hazard?"

What do you think Joe?

If you looked out at a fairway that was say sloping or in some way complex topographically and you knew it was soft and wet where the ball would just stick where it landed would that make you think where your ball may end up more or less than if that fairway was firm and fast?

[Joe Hancock]

Tom Paul,

Not to put you on the spot, but what do YOU think of short grass on the course? Was it a hazard back then, is it a hazard now, and will it be used as a hazard in the future? Don't ask Cooreshaw to give you the answer, either!

I think that short grass functions differently today than it did in years gone by. Today, it is not uncommon for that short grass around the green to be over-watered and soft. In days of yore, irrigation was a lot of work, and the turf basically got the water when it was absolutely needed. I'm sure the play off these different conditions has changed due to that. Also, we have a multitude of wedges with all manner of bounce/loft/square groove combinations that bring shots to the table that weren't even considered back in the day.

Joe

[Joe Hancock]

"Would Firm and Fast be a condition, or a hazard?"

What do you think Joe?

If you looked out at a fairway that was say sloping or in some way complex topographically and you knew it was soft and wet where the ball would just stick where it landed would that make you think where your ball may end up more or less than if that fairway was firm and fast?

I would say that F&F is a condition that I need to adjust my way of thinking over the entire course of play. A hazard, in my mind, is a part of the course that is there to penalize bad thinking or bad play, but limited in its area of effect. I don't see the entire course being a hazard, no matter what. The ultimate exapmle of this would be the wind. The wind will increase the difficulty of every shot on the course, but it isn't a penalty for poor thinking or poor execution.

Joe

[A_Clay_Man]

When Mark Michaud cut the rough behind the tenth green at Shinney, it acted like a hazard.

Some seem to always confuse hazard with penalty. If anything, being in a hazard causes one to have to think, just a little bit more. Same would be true of short grass, no?

Tom P- This quote, should be the foundation for any further education. Clearly, many an architect (designer) fail to follow this simplest of principles.

That Nature itself simply provided a fascinating canvas to play the game across with all her quirks and randomness

[TEPaul]

"A hazard, in my mind, is a part of the course that is there to penalize bad thinking or bad play"

Joe:

That is true, in my mind, as well. However, I really am a believer in Max Behr's philosophy about "penalty". Of course he recognized a hazard as some function of "penalty" must actually penalize to some extent and obviously that extent is always measured in strokes (or even what some feel is a portion of a stroke).

Behr's is clearly a bit of a "glass half empty or glass half full" philosophy about the concept of "penalty (hazards) in the sense that he hoped that hazards would function in the way of actually inspiring goflers to do their best in relation to them and in the sense of challenging them rather than being intimidated by them and being forced down some yellow brick road (fairway) always between the Schylla and Charibdus of hazards (penalty) on either side. Ultimately he felt this type of thing taken to an extreme almost got into moralizing between good and evil that inherently became too defined---everything that Nature herself is not.

I don't think Behr's sort of optimistic "glass half full" philosophy on hazards and "penalty" should be taken to an extreme as all he really seemed concerned with was how they were arranged in ways that made you think more instead of in ways where it was totally obvious that physical execution (skill) and not thought was what was required.

[Joe Hancock]

Some seem to always confuse hazard with penalty. If anything, being in a hazard causes one to have to think, just a little bit more. Same would be true of short grass, no?

Adam,

Would it be too illogical, then, to conclude that great architecture has no hazards, as great architecture should test the thought process with each and every shot?

I'm not sure if I believe the above statement, nor have have I given it any in depth consideration. It is something to think about further, however.

Joe

[TEPaul]

"I would say that F&F is a condition that I need to adjust my way of thinking over the entire course of play. A hazard, in my mind, is a part of the course that is there to penalize bad thinking or bad play, but limited in its area of effect."

Joe:

It doesn't really matter whether you'd call a F&F fairway that's sloping, for instance, a condition or a hazard. The point is does a F&F fairway that is sloping require more observation and more thought or not to keep a ball on it with the consequence being it might run off into something bad compared to the same fairway that's soft? Can you see that in that sense a F&F fairway that's sloping can be more of a potential hazard than the same fairway that's soft?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
Would it be fair to say that the whole playing field is one big hazard with varying degrees of 'penalty', i.e,a flat lie in the fairway offers the highest odds for success with everything else offering lower odds?

[Joe Hancock]

We have a couple points of discussion going here. One point is trying to define a hazard, the other is trying to define the use, or overuse of short grass as a hazard.

I think I am trying to find out what the term "hazard" means, especially in the context of this thread. It's a good exercise, as it not only helps one think of the golf course in totality, but also from a design aspect of what the architect is trying to accomplish, hazard and otherwise.

Joe

[Matthew Mollica]

This discussion is going to be far more effective when people have read the Doak essay to which Mark refers. I'm sure some have read it already, but for the benefit of others, some is presented below.

"How does short grass cross the line from player's aid to hazard? There are several forms:  
 
The mowed bank of a green, as at Pinehurst (No. 2) or Royal Dornoch. Instead of letting the banks away from a green grow shaggy, so the wayward ball stops quickly, mowing them at fairway height allows gravity to take the ball further away from the green, leaving an awkward shot back. In the most extreme examples, such as the 6th hole at Royal Dornoch, the player must then somehow get the next shot sturdily onto the green, or the ball will return to his feet via the same slope.
 
Steep banks in fairways, as at National Golf Links or High Pointe. The appearance is of a wide open target, but a ball not played to the correct spot will be carried away by the slopes to a less desirable spot, perhaps even a bunker which did not appear to be within reach from the tee."

For the full article - visit http://www.renaissancegolf.com/essays.asp?e=besthazards

Matthew

[Joe Hancock]

Matthew,

Part of that essay raises the question I have. Is it really a worse situation to have short grass take you farther from the green rather than being hung up in cabbage greenside? I prefer to have a little room to work, as long as I have options.

As usual, I am probably letting my own abilities direct my discussion.

Joe

[Jim_Kennedy]

Joe,
Watching the ball as it rolls farther away instead of stopping in rough is a bit demoralizing and that can have some effect on the next shot. Stepping up to that next shot and having several options can put doubt in your mind. What do you do? chip with a mid-iron, a short iron or wedge, pitch it up with a 60*, putt? Is the grass so short that it leaves little room for error if you get a little steep/shallow with the wedge, will the short iron chip stop close, will the mid-iron chip bounce straight ahead?  
From rough there is little choice, you take a wedge and either blast it out like a sand shot or treat it like a chip, from a closer distance.

[A_Clay_Man]

Joe, Trying to marry two different mindsets, stroke v. match play, is perhaps at the root of many peoples opinions on how they view the effectiveness of a hazard.
 If recoverability, is to be valued, not only as an ability, but also as it relates to strategy (decision making), is likely at the core of the above statement, you highlighted.

[Tom_Doak]

I suppose the amount of short grass can be overdone, if it takes away from having a variety of other recovery shots around the greens ... bunker shots, flop shots, etc.  (I presume this is why some people don't like Pinehurst No. 2.)

However, in general, most courses are unbalanced the other way ... too many bunkers around the greens requiring the same recovery shot, and not much variety for chipping and flopping and putting from 20 yards out.

I'll let others debate the semantics of whether it's really a "hazard" or not.  To me, everything between tee and hole is just "through the green," and it's all fair game.

[Joe Hancock]

I'll let others debate the semantics of whether it's really a "hazard" or not.  To me, everything between tee and hole is just "through the green," and it's all fair game.

That was easy. Are the only true "hazards" water and OB, as they automatically mean penalty shots and more?

Tom, it's semantics, true enough, but as you ponder the proposed playability/ conditions of a course under design consideration....doesn't the type and number of hazards account for some of those thought processes?

I'm just trying to learn, fellas.

Joe

[A_Clay_Man]

No words.

[Joe Hancock]

Adam,

Forgive me, for I have not been there.

Do your posted pictures depict short grass as a hazard, or short grass as a hazard overused, or short grass as a playing condition, or.......help me out with at least SOME words.

Joe

[RJ_Daley]

JOE, What do you call the "Valley of Sin"?  Is it a short grass condition, feature, or hazard?  I can understand calling the wind a condition.  I can even understand calling firm and fast a condition.  It can be firm and fast in the rough too, in that a ball landing in hard rough can also bound deeper or bound back to FW.  

I guess I  would split thenotion of short grass anywhere around the green to a maintenance meld feature, short of merely a condition and closer to a hazard in concept.  A nose in the forgreen of a short grass mowed surrounds, or a short grass surround that slopes into an actual hazard seems more like a maintenance meld feature to me.  A feature diliberately designed and called for by the architect.  A strategic feature potentially associated with a hazard, but can stand on its' own merit as a strategic feature.  

I do think short grass can be overdone in theory.  I'm having a hard time thinking of where it is overdone, however.

I think that elevation change is integral to the use of the short grass feature.  That can vary by height of the ele change, and frequency or close proximity to the undulating slopes from up to down, etc.  I think a good green can be 3-10 feet in ele change within the surrounds to make the short grass feature interesting.  A fairway can have the ele change much higher and broader, obviously to enhance how the short grass feature effects the strategy and outcome of its effect, both in roll-out/away, or lie angles.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()