I accept all of the above but if you really want to spice up the excitement level you need copious amounts of


                            WIND!



this morning the wind was forceful enough to brake two fibreglass stays in my aged umbrella.   A 6 iron  punched low from 60yards that finished 12 feet past the pin and an 8 iron from 115 yards over a bunker to the fat part of the green, were two of the most exciting and rewarding shots I've ever played.  

There are two shots I can think of that are exciting to me that don't necessarily require hazards. The first is the elevated tee shot. Watching the ball fly against the sky, seemingly forever, is exciting. Some architects perhaps fall too in love with it, but there's a reason for that. It's great. Maybe there are notions peripheral to the shot that aren't too likable, like cart rides up the hill, or the like, but it's an exciting shot.

Secondly, I've never played a true biarritz hole, but I can imagine how much fun it would be to hit one to the front and watch it disappear, and then reappear again on the back tier. Basically, any successful negotiation of the ground game on a particularly undulating, complicated piece of ground is a truly exciting shot.

Mark,

I didn't think this was a trick question, I don't really think it's a question at all. You define everything that creates interest on a golf course as some form of hazard, either formal or informal. Then you tell us that the most exciting shots in golf are insome way influenced by a "hazard".

Hey Socrates, no kidding!

What you failed to recognize or address is my suggestion that by your definition, even a bit of grain on a three foot uphill putt qualifies as a "hazard". I don't have a problem with it, but in that light what's the point of the thread? Other than another opportunity to push your book, that is...

JES II,
Hopefully you get my point about the influence of hazards (call them informal or formal hazards or whatever you want).  I'm not trying to sell more books and this would not be the forum to do so anyway.  I'm just passionate about the topic.  

My real drive was more to get to making a point about the high cost of maintenance for hazards (see earlier post).  It is getting way out of hand and it is not good for the game.
Mark

Mark,

I didn't think this was a trick question, I don't really think it's a question at all. You define everything that creates interest on a golf course as some form of hazard, either formal or informal. Then you tell us that the most exciting shots in golf are insome way influenced by a "hazard".

Hey Socrates, no kidding!

What you failed to recognize or address is my suggestion that by your definition, even a bit of grain on a three foot uphill putt qualifies as a "hazard". I don't have a problem with it, but in that light what's the point of the thread? Other than another opportunity to push your book, that is...

I must admit I thought the same.  With a definition of hazard as broad as Mark's the proposal becomes trite.

Mark,

A question whose answer will shed some light on your term "hazards": Which shot(s) have you seen that do not involve some form of "hazard"?

JES II,
To address your question in the very simplest terms, I’d say that a shot that is not defined by a hazard might be one that is played where there is little in the way to make the golfer think.  A hit it and go find it shot, where there is little chance to get in any kind of trouble or less than ideal position.  Those types of shots (some would call them “low shot value” shots) where little is demanded of the golfer.  Those shots are generally not too exciting to most.  Do you agree?

Mark,
Good post.  I might beg to differ with you about short grass but we all have our opinions.  One of the things we did for our book was interview a lot of different people about their thoughts on hazards, all kinds of hazards.  Here are a few comments I will share - Bill Coore for example states that, “Hazards are the most important factor on a course, even more so than the greens.”  He talks about all kinds of hazards and says, “There is nothing so set in stone in golf course architecture that you would never consider doing it,” referring to the shed on the Road Hole at St. Andrews and use of boundary holes, with out-of-bounds running along side play.

In talking about different kinds of hazards, Mike DeVries loves old stone walls and also believes that contouring is a form of a hazard that is a great way to combat technology.  He is also a big believer in designing his courses around the wind as this can make golf courses more interesting.  Tom Doak argues, “Natural vegetation is the most underused hazard out there.  Golfers are infatuated with having wall to wall manicuring.”  Doak says he doesn’t get hung up on the “rules” defining hazards.  He says “Some of the best hazards are, for example, short grass.  If used properly, such condition can serve as a great hazard.”  Gil Hanse loves to use topography as a hazard for deception and obstructions that force precise shot making.  He likes to design holes where one side of the fairway offers a clear view of the green, while making the other side somewhat blind over a natural hill or landform.  

We got insight on these types of opinions from many others such as Tom Fazio, Art Hills, Geoffrey Cornish, Mike Strantz, Geoff Shackelford, Jim Engh, Pete Dye and the list goes on.
   

How about number 5 at Riviera. There is only one bunker short and left of the green but this does not "define" the hole nor make it "exciting". The contours of the golf hole make the necessary shots exciting.

Thats all I got, 99% of the time you are right but there are some exceptions.

JES II,
There really aren't too many if you take a broad definition.  But I go back to my initial point "The most EXCITING shots in golf are in some way defined by a hazard".  I've yet to hear too many that aren't (even by a reasonably narrow definition of what constitutes a hazard).  Eliminate Rae's Creek and how exciting are those holes at Augusta?  Remove the pond around #17 at the TPC and what fear is left in the golf hole?
Eliminate the OB and the shed on #17 at The Road Hole and the road beyond the green not to mention the Road Hole Bunker, and how exciting is that hole?  Remove Hell's Half Acre from #7 and replace it with fairway?  I could go on for days.  

No need to be difficult on this point Jim.  Just accept it  

Finally! A description of these exciting hazards. And look at that...they're all the same hazards we've always considered.

Mark,

All those other things you like so much are probably better described as features or obstacles because the term "hazard" comes with the connotation of penalty shots. After all, you can't even come up with a shot on any of the 1500+ courses you've played that is not effected by one or the other type..."formal" or "informal".

As previously mentioned here on my thread called something like "The Time Between Shot And Result Is The Key", I believe the most exciting shots in golf are those which hold your attention for the longest time while they come to rest.  For me, 10-15 second putts which have a chance to go in, or low rolling shots over firm fairways to a green, are the best that golf has to offer.  Hazards are not necessary for this type of excitement and enjoyment.

By the way, Ballyneal is particularly good in this respect.  A great ball watching course.

I think hazards create a different kind of excitement, that of apprehension.  There's adrenaline and fear when faced with avoiding a great hazard before the shot, and once again, keen interest in a shot as it flies and rolls after the ball is struck.

Adam,

I read your description of the two shots at the Banff par 3.  Both described shots would elicit great interest.  The first shot looks perfect, so all will follow its lengthy downhill flight to see how good the result really is.  The second shot was mishit, but obviously not so badly as to give up on.  In that case we're watching to see if it makes it across the lake.

Mark,

While I feel your case for the most exciting shots has merit, I'll take the long rollouts on firm, fast turf.

I also like shots which have large hollows/dips to carry and if you fail a blind shot awaits.  In the photo below there is a huge hollow (the dark area past the golfer on the right) which can be carried downwind.  You will also notice that the centre ridge pushes balls toward the dip - shorter hitters fall for this all the time!  If the golfer fails to make the carry he is then left with a blind shot which needs to be hit high (not very clever for a downwind shot unless judged perfectly).  However, if the player decides to avoid this "hazard" then there are bunkers waiting on the left side of the fairway (light brown areas just left of the pin).  The church also acts as a hazard for those wanting to go far left in the hopes of getting a good angle by using the footing of the 8th tee as a kicker for a front left hole placement.  Strangely enough, a layup on this hole isn't a bad play!  

The 14th at Pennard and the 2nd at Burnham also have dips in crucial areas of the fairway which can cause havoc.  Huntercombe also springs to mind as a course with a wonderful relationship between topography, decisions and angles of play.

Pennard is full of topography decisions like the one described above.  Perhaps a hazard can be defined as an object or feauture which causes the golfer to pause.  I know that in many cases the golfer wouldn't necessarily know about this topography decisions on the first play, but that is part of the charm - things getting in your head the more you learn about a course.   Proper hazards often don't have this sort of appeal because they are over-used.  Perhaps too many archies have had limited definition of a "hazard" and the result is a cookie cutter approach to design which lessens the discovery and thrill aspects we all seem to want to encounter in golf?



Ciao

I see Sean's photograph and see a fairway with some fantastic features.  Calling them hazards, however, is incorrect, unless any feature on a golf course is a hazard, in which case, as I've said, you deprive the word hazard of any sensible meaning.