The most exciting shots in golf

[Mark_Fine]

Tim,
How about the OB all the way up the right hand side with dozens of onlookers hanging over the rail watching the incoming play?  Ask one of my playing partners from last June if that had any influence on his tee shot.  He couldn't aim his tee shot far enough left (he was also worried about hitting into golfers coming down the 1st fairway) to keep it from bounding past the rails and out on to the street    

[Tony_Muldoon]

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.  

[Doug Ralston]

I have yet, in six or eight plays, to see a single person only hit one shot from the tee at Eagle Ridge #13. No matter how good previous shots are, they simply do not want to stop. The only hazard is expiring while waiting for your shot to land. I recommend going to your cart, putting up your club, taking a sip of your beer, and returning to the tee to watch the landing.........

Great par-4! Most exiting shot I have seen, certainly.

Doug

[Kirk Gill]

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.

[JESII]

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.

Kirk,

Not to nit-pick, but I would say both of these examples include "hazards" by the Mark Fine definition. The elevation itself is a "hazard" in your first, as is anything at all down in the landing area that might adversely effect your result. On the Biarritz example, just the contour itself counts as a "hazard" due to the chance of miscalculating its effect on the ball. Do I have this right Mark? So, while those shots are exciting, they are effected by "hazards".

The only thing you can do to avoid being taken over by the omni-presence of "hazards" on the golf course is just to cease caring about results...that's it...

[JESII]

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...

[Paul Stephenson]

If the grey matter between your ears fits the definition of an "informal hazard" then all golf shots are influenced by hazards, not just the exciting ones.

The level of excitement increases proportionately with the involvement of said grey matter.

To eliminate hazards, you would either have to not care as JESII mentioned, or be brain dead.

[Mark_Fine]

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

[Tom_Doak]

To me, the most exciting shots in golf happen when you aim at Point A to get to Point B, whether it is using a slope to move the ball to the hole, or controlling the trajectory of the shot to achieve a particular result.  Most commonly this involves going over, under, or around trees, but it can also be called for with a crosswind and a particular contour near the green and/or a hazard which defends it.

You can have a great hole without any element which is formally called a "hazard", but I concur that if you stretch the definition wide enough, everything is a hazard.

[Mark Pearce]

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_Fine]

Mark,
What would you define as a hazard (formal or informal)?

[JESII]

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"?

[Mark Pearce]

Mark,
What would you define as a hazard (formal or informal)?

Let's start with the obvious ones.  Bunkers, water, rough.  Also man made obstacles in play (the walls at North Berwick and Muirfield). What I do not count as a hazard (in any sense) are contours in the fairway or green.  These can greatly add to the excitement of a shot and there can be areas of closely mown grass that the intelligent golfer will seek strenuously to avoid (perhaps preferring to risk entering or striking a hazard) but they are not hazards.  To count an area of closely mown grass as a hazard robs the word of any sensible meaning in a GCA context.

Ask yourself this question.  Are there any circumstances in which you would take an unplayable lie or seek relief from a hazard on the fairway or green (other than free relief for animal scrapes, standing water etc.)?  No, I didn't think so. I suspect that you can easily conceive of a situation leading to the taking of relief (for instance for an unplayable lie) with penalty in ecery one of the hazards I have identified.  I don't think that this is a requirement for a hazard but I do think that it is an interesting question, nonetheless.

[Mark_Fine]

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.
   

[JESII]

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?

I'm not sure that actually addressed my question...I'd probably say it avoided it...so I will repeat it...

Which shot(s) have you seen that do not involve some form of "hazard"?

[Ryan Farrow]

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.

[Mark_Fine]

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  

[JESII]

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".

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark,
Just a sort-of unrelated aside. Some of the talk has been about the definition of a "hazard", but not much about the definition of "exciting."  I think -- just a guess -- that the definition of "exciting" has changed over the years, and that this change is tied-into the way hazards are now being used.

I can imagine, for example, that the "Postage Stamp" 8th hole at Troon was exciting to play, and it probably still is; but once Dye created the 17th at TPC, the definition of an "exciting short par 3" must've changed dramatically.

Or, take a course like Augusta that early on, I'm told, had real width to its fairways, and not many penal, fairway bunkers: I've got to believe that Bobby Jones and Mackenzie wanted to create a fun and exciting course from tee to green, and from the 1st to last hole, and not just on those holes where Rae's Creek comes into play. But "excitement" may have meant something a little more subtle in those days, at least occasionally, e.g. exciting might've also been a perfectly executed long and high fade off the tee to take advantage of or counteract the slope of the fairway.  

If it was thought of that way, it isn't anymore. The course has been changed and lengthened continuously since then, and our tastes in "excitement" have changed perhaps, so that now all we wonder about is if Freddie Couples will go for the green in 2 at the 15th, and make it over the creek.

Anyway, all just a still-forming theory.

Peter    

[John Kirk]

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.

[Doug Siebert]

To me, the most exciting shots in golf happen when you aim at Point A to get to Point B, whether it is using a slope to move the ball to the hole, or controlling the trajectory of the shot to achieve a particular result.  Most commonly this involves going over, under, or around trees, but it can also be called for with a crosswind and a particular contour near the green and/or a hazard which defends it.

I have to say, this thought is good enough to be almost on the level of John Kirk's unified theory!  This is the sort of thing that adds to the anticipation of a shot.  Whether the shot succeeds or fails, this is the sort of thing that makes you antsy to play the next time!

Sometimes if I've got something really crazy in mind, I'll wait a bit before hitting the shot to make sure my playing partners are paying attention instead of hitting while they are filling their divot or putting away their club.  These shots are so fun you just gotta have an audience!

Of course in a way this depends on Kirk's theory, because a lot of the "aim away from where you want the ball to go" depends on stuff happening to the ball after it leaves the clubface that requires you to watch the ball and not know until later if it will do what you expected.

[Sean_A]

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

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
Nice post.  Hopefully some who have that narrow definition of hazards will look at your photo and broaden their opinion.  

JES II,
You just like to argue no matter what I say.  Did you read any of the comments from some of the other architects, etc in my post.  Probably not.  

John,
Firm fast turf with undulation is a great form of a hazard.  Deal always comes to mind as the rollouts are long and ball disappears then reappears as it rolls along.    
 

[Mark Pearce]

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.

[Mark_Fine]

Mark,
You are entitled to call them what you want.  Many of us just call them informal hazards.  The USGA definition of hazards which is just bunkers and water is way too narrow for me.