[Scott Witter]

I have thought about this for a while and when you consider the time evolution from putting surfaces built in the 20's and the dramatic styling they have, but still played on today, could some of these and their inherent qualities be considered as 'hazards' as opposed to craftly, clever, interesting features?

This came more to light in rereading Mark Fine's post on exciting shots.  If we think about and read many of Mark's and Forrest's enlightenments on hazards and from the many sources quoted in their book and from our own personal experiences with greens like these, isn't it reasonable to summize that for many golfers, a green can also be a hazard?  Not necesarilly to be avoided, obviously, but to be seriously dealt with in terms of approach, strategy, its ability to cause severe damage with plenty of potential for 3 and 4 putts!

Many quotes on the Exciting Shot thread discuss "short grass, contour/topography, hazardous conditions that impact your score and anything that can add interest and challenge of a golf hole"

So whether 'informal' or 'formal', doesn't seem to matter as clearly, great contoured putting surfaces, such as those we so often speak of on this site, are indeed hazards IMO

Finally, the quote from Ross that Mark stated really brought it to the surface.  "this contouring around a green makes possible an infinite variety in the requirements for short shots that no other form of hazard can call for."

What do you think?

[Mark Pearce]

A green is NEVER a hazard.  Interesting and challenging, absolutely but not a hazard.  Unless of course you accept the Fine definition of a hazard, which appears to be any feature of a golf course which creates interest or challenge.

[JESII]

Scott,

I nit-picked Mark on that thread for his use of the term "hazard" and defining it in a way that includes everything on the golf course. I think "hazard" is the wrong terminology, but you may also notice on that thread that if we were going to define it that way I was in total agreement.

Just think of it this way, how often can you end up in a position on the green that is clearly worse than one of the greenside bunkers? It happens all the time.

What's great about that type of situation is that you will almost never get a player standing back in the fairway to recognize their own limitations about keeping that approach below the hole. The temptation of "I am sure I can pulll it off this time" is too great.

[GDStudio]

May I offer one more thought, or question as it may be...

Should we even call hazards hazards?  Not all "hazards" as such are "bad", and most, if done properly, offer interest and challenge.  

But, by taking this definition of any thing that creates interest or challenge equaling a hazard, we would have to include the entire golf course.  We could even say that the visual impact of surrounding landscapes (mountains, ocean, etc) could be classified as a hazard.  

Hazard tends to have a negative feeling, and certainly the entire golf course should not be associated with a negative feeling, so how about we drop the term hazard for something more true to meaning?  What that would be I have no idea.  

I usually just lump everything into the term "Golf Elements"  while in discussions with clients.  This term means everything that is placed, design, or incompasses the golf course in play and the near surrounds that may come into play.

on a side note, I am sure many thought this, but in most golfers game the entire course truly is one large hazard...

[GDStudio]

JES II - I agree,,,

[wsmorrison]

Why don't we consider hazards as those defined by the rules?  All these items that Mark Fine includes are features on a golf course, they are not hazards.  They add interest, can require specific or multiple shots but they are not hazards.  Jeez, Mark includes everything but the cup as a hazard, even short grass.  Short grass is a maintenance practice that influences the play over certain features, it is not a hazard in my mind.  By the way, is the pin a hazard?  I guess Mark thinks it is.

[BCrosby]

I'm with Wayne. Let's keep it simple. Hazards are what the rules say are hazards.

I'm not sure this answers the thread question, but a good hazard is always an interesting feature. At least that is how Low, Hunter, MacK, Behr, Thomas et al. thought of them.

Bob

[Scott Witter]

Well, by no means was I trying to create more controversy to spill over from the other thread or add aggravation for Mark, though I am certain he can take care of himself  , but I was curious how far one might consider the 'definition' of a hazard to go, in thinking about elements/features on a course when taken in conceptual and literal terms depending on ones personal interpretation, which, on this site, most positions are based.

I think Wayne, Branden and JES all make good points and not unlike what I expected that is why I asked the question, even if you don't like it  

"I'm with Wayne. Let's keep it simple. Hazards are what the rules say are hazards."

Well then there you have it, shouldn't question the rules officials!

I still like the quote in the movie Babe, where the duck says something to the effect..."I like that rule, that is a good rule...but this is bigger than rules"

[JESII]

Scott,

To your title line question...I don't know where you would draw the line seperating the two (interesting features and hazards). I think every green can and should be some of both.

[Scott Witter]

JES:

I tend to agree and though hindsight is 20/20...to some maybe, I would rather take the original position I did, I think it gets us looking at the issue closer.

[JESII]

I look at a hazard as something to be avoided...not necessarily at all costs, but ideally you would like to avoid it. I look at "interesting features" as tools that may help accomplish what you want on a shot.

We have a green at Huntingdon Valley (#9) with a substantial tier that re a front shelf and a back shelf. There's a bit of green space off to the right as well that has its own features, but for most days when the pin is either top or bottom the tier can work as a hazard or a feature. Two-putting from the wrong shelf is very difficult (more difficult than most tiered putts I see (except for #10 at Royal New Kent   ) for some reason.

With the pin on the bottom (3 out of 4 days) and a short to mid-iron in your hands (to a normally firm green) you will almost always try to play the shot past the hole and let the slope bring it back down. If I am understanding you properly, the top tier would be the hazard, and the player is tempted to flirt with it for optimal results. He will try to utilize an interesting feature the brings the "hazard" more into play.

Interestingly, when the pin is up top the player will have two choices in working with "features" that bring "hazards" into play to get the best result. This area is much smaller than the lower tier. If I am left with a mid-iron (6, 7 or I will always try to knock it down a bit to land at the bottom and skip up the hill, while if I am close and have a 9 or wedge I'll try to fly it to or pst the hole to take advantage of the backstop that runs uo the back and off the green. Risks to the first shot (the knock-down) are not getting it up the hill and leaving a very difficult two-putt. risks to the second shot is going over the green which results in a chip or putt from the fringe that has no chance of staying on the top shelf.

Does this sound at all like the scenario you're looking for?

[Scott Witter]

Jim:

Good description and I think you have captured the essence of what I was thinking...that said, it is getting into the golfers head that I am interested in and how they interpret course elements as features or hazards...and I believe that is what Ross may have been eluding to in his quote.  We and many others can go on all day about personal interpretations of hazards vs features vs elements, etc., but to me great 'features' all seem to have a hazardous value to them, some more than others depending on the players skills, and make the player really think.  Yes, from your description, the shelf scenario applies well in this case.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim said:

"I look at a hazard as something to be avoided...not necessarily at all costs, but ideally you would like to avoid it. I look at "interesting features" as tools that may help accomplish what you want on a shot."

So Jim, that gorse or waste area on the left side of the fairway.  Is that "something to be avoided...not necessarily at all costs, but ideally you would like to avoid it?  

I was just wondering if that fits your definition of a hazard?  If so, it seems your definition of a hazard is more than what the USGA deems as one  

Mark

[JESII]

Mark,

You'll notice upon further review that not once did I try to limit the scope of your definition of "hazard". What I want you to do though, and this is about the fifth time I'll ask it, is give me one example of a shot that is not influenced in some way by a "hazard" according to your definition of the term.


I understand Wayne's desire to limit the terminology to the USGA definition. I also understand the sentiment you, Scott and others are trying to make about the effect "hazards" or "features" make. But you're trying to take me head on with this and yet you cannot answer that one question.

[Mark Pearce]

Also, of course, it does not follow that if a waste bunker is a hazard under whatever definition you use, then so is a ridge on a green or a mound by the green side.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
The answer (and I've tried to say this in different ways) is that there are very few if any.  Golf was designed around hazards/hazardous situations/call them what you want.  And the best courses were (and still are) the ones with the most interesting thought provoking ones.  That is why they are the essence of the game.  
Mark

[JESII]

Obfuscate:
SYNONYM'S - confuse, conceal, disguise, complicate
ANTONYM - clarify

 
So a "hazard" is everything on the golf course...and the best golf courses have the most interesting "everythings"...

Who could argue with that logic?

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
I suggest you educate yourself on the history of the game and its features.  

[JESII]

Mark,

Do you understand where I am coming from? You've laid out a premise that by the definition you've prescribed has no possible counter-position. When I make that point you tell me to study up.


Why don't you do this, address Scott Witter's thread topic here (after-all, it was formulated by your own thread) and ellaborate on when a green moves from "interesting feature" to "hazard".

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
Part of what I'm trying to say is that at one time THE WHOLE GOLF COURSE was essentially one big hazard area.  That is why golf was played where it was played.  They didn't pick a flat featureless field and hit rocks back and forth.   The various paths with all the peril/challenges inbetween is what made the game exciting and interesting.  Tell me what part of The Old Course is not hazardous and maybe you can help me better answer your question?  

Part of our premise is to remind the world that this hazardous nature of golf is what makes the game so great.  Note:  That may be obvious to most of us here but it is not obvious to everyone else.  Otherwise, today we not constantly be seeing courses trying to condition hazards (call them what you want) away.  Perceived "unfairness" is no longer acceptable.  

To address Scott's point about greens; how about the plateau on #16 at Augusta.  If you are on top and the pin is on the bottom you are in a hazardous/dangerous position.  How about some of the false fronts on old Ross greens like at Charles River.  They are in effect hazards (again call them what you want).  What about the 1st green at Sand Hills.  If that green is not hazardous, I don't know what is.  You can easily have a five foot putt and for your next shot a 40 yard pitch shot back up the hill (been there done that).  

Of course none of these are defined as "hazards" by the USGA definition.  And Forrest and I are by no means trying to change this.  Maybe you should read our book.  It is much better written and thought through than these off the cuff posts.
Mark

[JESII]

Mark,

To your response on Scott's topic...at what point are any of those greens merely "interesting features", if ever?


As to your premise...by your definition, everything is a hazard. I have never disagreed, assuming that is the definition we are going to use. I did ask several times about what shots might not be influenced by something, and the answer was there are none. I think that makes the definition pointless.

I appreciate your mission of spreading the word about the error of making a golf course fair(er), but to include every feature on the golf course as a "hazard" is cumbersome at best. Would you propose not mowing fairways? How about greens, should we mow them less? Should we ever roll greens?

I don't know TOC at all (other than from TV), so I can't really comment, but as I've said; if we are going by your definition there is no limit.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
You asked:

"Would you propose not mowing fairways? How about greens, should we mow them less? Should we ever roll greens?"

I am not exactly sure what you are getting at but sometimes we don't mow parts of "fairways" and we end up calling it rough.  Sometimes we mow greens less because they are too hazardous (recall the issues with the Open at Southern Hills on #18).  And sometimes we roll greens to make them more treacherous.  

Not to keep beating this to death, but we state that a waste area is an example of an informal hazard.  What would you propose we call it?  We could call it a design feature which it is as well.  But that definition of design features is truly all encompassing.    

[GDStudio]

and the best golf courses have the most interesting "everythings"...

Now you just sound like a client...

[Forrest Richardson]

The term "hazard" (to golf) is as modern as the wooden tee. Nearly so. But, in meaning, "hazard" in golf should be exactly as Mark describes — any element that makes you think.

This notion is what golf is all about. The essence of a great football game is not restricted to the turf, players and clock. It extends out to the fans, the weather, the long bus ride that one team endured, the smell of hotdogs and cries of "Beer, get yur beer...!"

A green is indeed a "hazard", all-be-it one that we face in a different way than a bunker, water pond or waste area. What makes a green truly unique is that it is not "trustworthy" to the golfer...

On one hand we have no alternative but to walk along its hot coals en route to the small hole. Yet on the other hand, this "must-walk" path can leap up and surprise us with a twist or turn that, from a particular angle or area, is something we have never before seen. This is seemingly unfair and unjust, yet it is at the heart of golf — all golf. To not recognize a green as a potentially "hazardous" area of one's round and score is to suggest that length or carry or maybe terrain are of no consequance either.

[GDStudio]

If we here believe in the true essence of golf, then we must subcribe to the fact that the ENTIRE course is a hazard.  The fairway is not a flat lifeless uninteresting piece of land (well, it shouldn't be).  The green is contoured, the tees even should question the play of the hole.  A hazard is not a defined object wihtin the playing field, it is the playing field, and everything that effects it.  


Forrest, your analogy to football is great.  A game can be won or lost by the outside elements' effects on the game, such as in golf.  If one is distracted by anything on the course (good or bad) it is a hazard.  This can be done with focused views, changing slopes / terrains, landscaping, etc.  It is not just a bunker, grassed hollow, or water feature.  I would much rather use a slope in the fairway than a bunker to set up an approach shot into the green.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()