[paul cowley]

 I know I have said it before but by the time you get past 800 posts, one can't help but repeat one'self occasionally [can't imagine what it must be like to be past 10,000  ].

but..........this game really started to go downhill with the advent of all those rules and definitions.
  Get rid of all those hazards with their stakes, lines and colors.
  The only people who should touch a rake are greenskeepers, and then only as often as their budjet allows.
   Loose impediments should get the same relief as you would if you were behind a tree.
   
....just give me penalty strokes for OB, lost ball, and unplayable lie [which includes strokes for plugged, buryied, and yes, even for burrowing animals, snakes, fire ants ...I mean abandon the ball if you fear its lie, drop another at nearest relief and just keep briskly moving towards the hole].

  Maybe then we could get this game back to what has been refered to as an examination of life etc...etc.

Tom, maybe reading old Max just might help my condition...ya think  .

[TEPaul]

"Tom, maybe reading old Max just might help my condition...ya think   .

Paul:

That would depend on what your condition is. Max Behr confused a lot of people but that was probably only because he made them start to really think, and in this world sometimes, and with some people, that can be a very dangerous thing to do!  

But what Behr was really trying to do in this vein is stop the rules-makers, golfers and architects from endlessly defining everything. He felt that was not conducive to preserving  Nature's necessary balance in golf.

[Mark_Fine]

Remember, a "waste area" doesn't necessarily have to have sand in it.  Especially in the old days, it could be just soil or other unkept ground such as rough and heather or land that was sterile.  "Waste rough" and "waste barrens" were two descriptions used early on.  

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the "sandy wastes" that Tom and Wayne are talking about always implied areas with sand (although there might be other vegatation growing in these areas).  Do you guys ever recall coming across the specific term "waste area" with regards to Pine Valley?  I know this was implied, but I'm not sure it was ever stated that way.  I never saw "waste area" on a Flynn drawing, but I did see him use "waste rough" and "sandy wastes".  

[wsmorrison]

The use of the term is not as important as the design and use of the feature, at least to me.  So if something was or was not called a waste area doesn't matter to me.  I agree that a waste area does not need to involve sand.  But where and when in America was there an earlier use of waste areas?  When I referred to the quarry at Merion East, there was no sand in there originally.  Yet I consider this an early example of a rough waste area.  I haven't made a study of hazards as you have Mark, but are there examples in America of sandy waste areas that pre-date Pine Valley?  If so, where.

When was the first local rule allowing grounding of clubs in designated waste areas implemented?  Can the USGA overrule local rules or suggest they are improper if they conflict with their own rules and precedents?  The waste areas at Harbor Town are as groomed as any formalized bunkers that I've seen and they certainly are man-made and thereby architectural rather than natural features.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
Your question about grounding clubs in a designated waste area is a good one and I don't have a date off the top of my head.  Maybe someone else here does.  

Were Pine Valley's "sandy wastes" considered hazards or not?  I know Flynn called them that but how were they played?  

I think before the formal designation of a waste area, if you were not in a bunker, it is possible you could have been in an area the architect considered a waste area.  Again, these were not necessarily designated or designed as features, they were just areas on a course that were considered something other than bunkers (eg. unkept ground, rough,...).  Myopia Hunt had such areas for example and they were not called bunkers.    

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
If you also look into some of the history of Sunningdale you will see similar areas (which is not surprising given its influence and Colt's influence on Pine Valley).  

Off to the first of two soccer games today.  See ya,
Mark

[Norbert P]

 Sandpines has plenty of effective waste area - about 150 acres of it.

[TEPaul]

"Also a  "waste bunker" is defined as a hazard in the rules of golf."

Mark:

Could you point me to where a "waste bunker is defined in the Rules of Golf? A "bunker" is a "hazard" but where do the Rules of Golf mention a "waste bunker'?  

[Jim Thompson]

The difference between a bunker and those other features of various compositions through the green on a course is that bunkers are maintained.  A waste area becomes a bunker when a super puts a rake in it for its perpetual maintenance throughout the course of a days play.  The sole level of maintenance for waste areas should be limited to those needed to break any crusting for the sole sake of promoting drainage where needed. There was / is no local rule of record regarding grounding clubs in waste bunkers because there was / is no rule which needed to be countered.  In the rules of golf there is no such thing as a waste bunker.  There are maintained hazards = bunkers and everything else.  I would be in favor of removing all rakes from all existing bunkers and letting players ground clubs wherever they wish.

Cheers!

JT

[TEPaul]

Mark Fine;

From yesterday at 6:44:17pm;

"At PVGC all sand areas other than areas designated as obstructions (sand roads and the like) are considered to be hazards (and not the more modern version of "waste area" in which some local rules consider to be "through the green")."

The local rule designation probably started with Pete Dye's "waste area" at Harbor Town. Originally Pete called it a "waste bunker".

Again, the USGA/R&A has not defined such a thing as a "waste area". It is not in the Rules of Golf. Again, if you've seen a definition of a "waste bunker" in the USGA/R&A Rules of Golf I'd like to know where you saw it.

[Tom_Doak]

Not to argue with Pete Dye, but I don't remember the term "waste area" or "waste bunker" being used before the opening of the TPC at Sawgrass.  Pete might have been using the term earlier but it hadn't caught on.

If it has been in use since the teens, can anyone find an example of it in print?  It isn't in Thomas' book or MacKenzie's or Ross's, and it isn't in The World Atlas of Golf which describes all the best courses pre-1980, including Harbour Town.

As to the use of "waste areas" in the design ... the problem is not as Don Mahaffey describes, but just the opposite ... at Pine Valley or Pacific Dunes or Kiawah Island, the bunkers blend into the natural areas so well that it is impossible to tell where one stops and the other starts, which drives rules officials batty.  They can't call it all a bunker [because some parts aren't raked, and that would be considered unfair], so they decide to call it all a waste area.

That's fine with me, by the way.  I don't see much advantage in people taking practice swings in the bunkers at Pacific Dunes.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Doak,
Pete Dye does talk about it in his book and he does refer to Harbour Town.  The term "waste" does appear in the notes sections of some old drawings that I have.  That said, I do not ever recall seeing the specific term "waste bunker" used.  

My understanding is that if the word "bunker" is used in a description such as "horseshoe bunker", "pot bunker", "center line bunker", "saving bunker, "waste bunker", or "anything bunker", it is defined as a formal hazard in the rules of golf.  

If the word bunker is missing, that is another story.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Part of the problem with "waste areas" is one of semantics. Is it an area that was disturbed during construction and will eventually return to a more natural area? Is it an area intentionally thinned out of native vegetation to add playable space, or is it an area regularly maintained with an imported base material, but not a bunker?

Transitioning the course into the surrounding native using "waste areas" where it is tough to say the waste area ends and the native begins is fine with me. Maintained "waste areas" that have sharp edges and separate the course from the natural surroundings is not good design in my book.

[TEPaul]

"As to the use of "waste areas" in the design ... the problem is not as Don Mahaffey describes, but just the opposite ... at Pine Valley or Pacific Dunes or Kiawah Island, the bunkers blend into the natural areas so well that it is impossible to tell where one stops and the other starts, which drives rules officials batty.  They can't call it all a bunker [because some parts aren't raked, and that would be considered unfair], so they decide to call it all a waste area."

TomD:

This is precisely what I'm talking about and why I started this thread. The USGA however does not use the term "waste area" in the rules of golf. To them, at this point, it essentially doesn't exist as something separately defined. To them it's just "through the green" which ultimately may be a good thing. The only rules that deal with "waste areas" are "local" rules exclusive to some clubs and courses that say they have such a thing as "waste areas". In the Rules of Golf the USGA/R&A say they have not defined such a thing and have no plans to do so.

I think this may offer some type of opportunity as the USGA says they do not acknowledge, in a definitive sense, a "waste area" which we all know are becoming more constructed (filled with 'sand or the like') and maintained (like a bunker) but on the other hand the USGA says a club (a committee) has no authority under the Rules of Golf to designate a bunker as a waste area in a local rule even though the bunker is also constructed and maintained. Obviously the USGA has not said, and would not say, that these clubs and courses could not designate their "waste areas" as bunkers!  It's just they won't allow the opposite to be true under the Rules (for obvious reasons---eg one could ground one's club ).

For all:

I have not read Pete Dye's book but the other day it was Alice who told me about Pete's original "waste bunker" (it had waste water pumped into it). I thought she said Crooked Stick but obviously she must have said Harbor Town. Maybe I got confused because she said she was at their house at Crooked Stick looking out the window at the Solheim Cup. But she did say that at first Pete called that original bunker a "waste bunker", not a "waste area".

Mark Fine:

I'm still waiting for you to point me to where I can find the term "waste bunker" in the Rules of Golf (or the Decisions Book).

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I don't think you will find it.  But as I said, any time the word "bunker" is used, it is my understanding that it is a "formal" hazard as defined in the rules of golf.  A "waste bunker" is therefore just a certain kind of bunker and deamed a hazard.  A "waste area" is not a "formal" hazard.  That is what I meant and I hope that is clear.
Mark

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I don't think you will find it.  But as I said, any time the word "bunker" is used, it is my understanding that it is a "formal" hazard as defined in the rules of golf.  A "waste bunker" is therefore just a certain kind of bunker and deamed a hazard.  A "waste area" is not a "formal" hazard.  That is what I meant and I hope that is clear."

Mark:

It doesn't exactly work that way, at least not in the modern reality. I don't think it matters to the USGA what anyone calls it, a "waste bunker" or a "waste area", or even whether or not someone claims it's "formal" or not (a word not used in the defiinitons within the Rules, by the way), it's more a matter of what it IS! And this seems to be a reality they aren't willing to deal with now or in the foreseable future, in one sense. That one sense is they will not define what a "waste area" is. In the other sense, they told me you can't designate a bunker a "waste area" just because you want to call it a "waste area".

Look, you know what the definition of a "bunker" is, and if not here's how USGA/R&A defines it;

"A "bunker" is a hazard consisting of a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like."

So what if that original "waste bunker" (as Pete Dye called it) that he built at Harbour Town which is now called a "waste area" had soil or turf removed and replaced with sand or the like?

If it looks like what the USGA defines as a "bunker" and was built basically somewhat like a bunker then why does it now have a new designation in the local rules on golf courses that have them and why is the USGA not willing to acknowledge that it's a bunker?

These are interesting questions, and I spy a potential opportunity in this.

What does that "waste area" at Harbour Town, and others on other courses, look like to you? Do they look more like "through the green" areas or do they look more like great big enormous somewhat unkempt bunkers???  

Are you beginning to see what I spy as a potentially interesting opportunity yet?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()