[JESII]

Branden, Forrest and Mark,

How would you explain the fact that I hope for subtle off-balance lies? Or a bit of wind? Would one typically hope for a "hazard" to help accomplish his goals?

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
When I am playing an important match (especially against a better player), I hope for wind and rain.  Maybe that is from playing so much links golf but the point is that everyone copes with these challenges in different ways.  
Mark

[GDStudio]

Branden, Forrest and Mark,

How would you explain the fact that I hope for subtle off-balance lies? Or a bit of wind? Would one typically hope for a "hazard" to help accomplish his goals?

The same way I figure some people prefer to be in a green side bunker than rough...I don't design just for them.  I try to have a balance of everything for everybody.  Some people will have advantages while others have disadvantages, and we hope that it changes up throughout the round.

Like Mark says, he hopes for rain and wind because he believes he is more adept in that condition than his opponent.  You prefer off-balance lies, that will kill others.  That just reinforces the point that the entire golf course should be concidered the hazard, because to each and every person, something different challanges them.  

[wsmorrison]

Thanks to David Elvins, I read Tom Doak's very interesting notion about short grass as a "hazard."  I do not agree with his terminology but do agree that the consequences of using the maintenance practice leads to many shot varieties and causes the golfer to think about optional ways to play the hole, from the tee shot and both approaching the green and around the green.  This has less to do with being a hazard and much more to do with allowing the expression of skill.  Skill is the essence of the sport and the more architectural features (hazards and non-hazards) and maintenance practices they present opportunities for skill (mental and physical) to be rewarded (with occasional luck), the more interesting and timeless the designs.

I like the examples Tom Doak mentioned, however I would surely add Shinnecock Hills to that list.  From the very start, Flynn designed short grass areas in strategic locations before and around the green and designed corridors of play around the natural and artificial slopes of the fairways.  Around the greens, the integration of the fall-offs and collection areas to bunkers and contours on and around the greens is fascinating.  The greens are being expanded back to their original dimensions and I think the closely mown areas and green complexes will be even greater than they are today.  In some cases 30-40% of the green spaces have been lost with an average of about 20% or so where there has been lost green area.  There will be far more interesting pin positions after the green space is returned with an influence on the shots all the way back to the tee.  Thus the mental and physical skills will be once again fully realized.

Skill is the essence of the sport and the architect does best, especially on championship designs, when he creates situations where this is tested and the players' abilities are challenged and examined.

[JESII]

Mark and Branden,

Why do you immediately resort to comparing players when explaining a feature as a hazard? What would you call these features when I am out playing by myself? Do you design your courses and holes with mano a mano play as the primary motivation for hazard (informal and formal) placement?


Here's why I am trying to get you guys to really clarify your thoughts on this...the term "hazard" has a very strong negative connotation and I don't think every feature on a golf course is negative.

Go back and look at the example I tried to spell out on #9 at HVCC (earlier in this thread). I can try to explain it further or answer questions if it'll help, but the ridge behind a front hole location is certainly not a negative feature when I am down in the fairway hoping to make a birdie.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
I think I understand your points.  We are trying to change the perception of hazards from being a negative as you say, and to broaden the perspective.  We see them as anything but negative.  They are the essence of the game.
Mark

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
You stated after reading Tom Doak's article about short grass being a hazard:

"I do not agree with his terminology but do agree that the consequences of using the maintenance practice leads to many shot varieties and causes the golfer to think about optional ways to play the hole, from the tee shot and both approaching the green and around the green.  This has less to do with being a hazard and much more to do with allowing the expression of skill."

What do "hazards" using your definition accomplish that is different from what you said above?
Mark

Note: Forrest and I talk at length about the influence of maintenance practices/course set-up on hazards.  A Superintendent plays a huge and invaluable role here.  

[JESII]

Jim,
I think I understand your points.  We are trying to change the perception of hazards from being a negative as you say, and to broaden the perspective.  We see them as anything but negative.  They are the essence of the game.
Mark

Mark,

I am not using the term negative in suggestion that they should not be there. I use negative in terms of the golfer thinking about certain areas as negative...places to avoid. You are defining everything as a hazard which I think changes the definition. Perhaps that is your goal. Perhaps I am not imaginative enough to see the benefit of defining everthing one way.

[wsmorrison]

"What do "hazards" using your definition accomplish that is different from what you said above?"

It should be obvious to you, Mark.  For one, think about the results and rule requirements as a result of failing the challenge of real hazards versus the collection of features you include in hazards.  Just because architectural features or natural features incorporated into a hole design can, under some circumstances, influence play in a similar manner as do real hazards, doesn't mean they are hazards.  The consequences of being in a hazard are different so are the resulting recovery options and requirements.  

Your premise, and those that agree with you in thinking about two disparate sets as one is faulty in my mind.  Features such as Jim described on the 9th green at HVCC can be a huge benefit to the approach shot depending upon pin position and approach angle or it can be an impediment depending upon the same factors.  Yet you would call this feature, a ridge in a green, a hazard.  It isn't.  If I were to stretch the definition to your all-encompassing length, then I guess to you it is under certain conditions and not in others.

Note:  I think all of us on this site are aware of the influence of maintenance practices of hazards and other parts of a golf course and of course the role superintendents play even if we haven't read about it.  By the way, did I lend my copy of your book to someone out there?  I cannot find it.  Tom Paul, do you have it?

[GDStudio]

Here's why I am trying to get you guys to really clarify your thoughts on this...the term "hazard" has a very strong negative connotation and I don't think every feature on a golf course is negative.

JES II

I think we are coming at this from different points, but are actually thinking along the same lines.  I don't feel any feature should have a negative feel within the golf round.  Everything should represent some sort of challenge, but not all will provide the same challenge to each individual golfer.

[GDStudio]

I personally do not like the word hazard in the context of golf because I feel that it limits what the word could / should truly mean.  I am not sure I agree that everything should be called a hazard, but for lack of a better word, it shows that there are more "hazards" than what is typically thought of, ie bunkers, creek, water, hollow.  

[JESII]

Branden,

How can a water hazard not project negative feelings to the player?

I would agree that it is your job to create enough benefit to successfully flirting with the water that I will consider it, but the water itself cannot possibly emote anything but bad...

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
We still call "a ridge in a green", "a ridge in a green".  Tom Doak still calls "short grass", "short grass".  A "grass hollow" is still "a grass hollow".  "Waste areas" are still called "waste areas".  We just happen to think they are also very interesting forms of hazards.  From an architect's perspective, they are part of his box of crayons with which to color his designs and make them unique works of art as well as interesting obstacle courses.

 

[GDStudio]

Yes, good point, it does represent a very strong negative feeling.  Maybe we are at odds with what the word negative means.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
I'm sure Branden can hold his own, but aren't you really limiting your perspective?  Don't you ever look at a water feature and think "opportunity", or "beauty" or "risk/reward", or "peacefulness",....From a card and pencil perspective it could be viewed as "bad" but that is a very limited perspective is it not?

If you stand on the tee on #16 at Cypress Point and are thinking "bad" when it comes to the water features, you are taking the game way too seriously  
Mark

[GDStudio]

Mark,  You have a great point regarding the water, it should create feelings of opportunity, beauty, risk/reward, but peacefulness when you are looking at a 150+ carry could be a stretch for most recreational golfers.  Even water on one side of the fairway with no carry could break any peaceful thoughts some may have.  But isn't that what you may have wanted to do to the golfer anyway?

JES II, when you state negative feeling, do you mean bad, or do you mean challenged?  Is challenged a bad thing?  Challenged too much could be bad in some cases.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Maybe we are at odds with what the word negative means.

That has shot straight to number one, against fierce competition, as the funniest thing I've ever read at this site.

[Jim Johnson]

Scott, I wouldn't call a green a "hazard", but....

I used to play on a regular basis at a fairly new course just outside of town. Unfortunately, whoever designed it built it with 18 greens of 2 or 3 tiers.

I play to about a 15 handicap, nothing great, but then there's nothing greater than getting out into the fresh air and enjoying this great game with good friends. To do that, however, I have to play elsewhere. I found that over time I would consistently shoot in the low-mid 90's on that course. Why? Because I rarely one-putted a green. It seemed I always either two-putted or three-putted, and after awhile that got old.

I'm not saying "give me a course with 18 flat greens". I will say however, that if you present me [or any other mid-handicapper] with a "straight" 10 foot putt, my odds of making it are probably pretty slim. I don't practice my putting every day for an hour or two like some guys we know   I do consider myself a "decent" putter though; I think I always have been.

I consider it reasonable for an architect to present golfers with about 6 fairly "flattish" greens [obviously with slight or mild undulation in them to keep them from being "boring"], and then perhaps 7 or 8 with more pronounced undulations, and then perhaps 3 or so with fairly extreme undulations/slopes/tiers, and then one with pretty radical contouring, one of those greens which makes guys talk about it on the patio after the round.

Just my two cents.

JJ

[Scott Witter]

JJ:

Thanks for the reply and glad to see that you weren't sucked into the hot winded discussion   about hazards and stuck to an opinion about the premise at hand.  I will not comment about you opinion as it was my intention to see what others really thought as opposed to smacking the ball back and forth for days...

Your comment on 6 flattish greens, however, reminded me when I assisted on setting up a few courses for USGA senior open qualifying events where I worked with the officials to locate 6 easier, 6 medium hard and 6 difficult pin positions on each course.  It was interesting to hear their approach regarding how they arrived at those parameters...they were quite different than mine as an architect and it was a learning experience of sorts  

[Eric_Terhorst]

Skill is the essence of the sport and the architect does best, especially on championship designs, when he creates situations where this is tested and the players' abilities are challenged and examined.

When I looked at this thread this morning, I would have thought Wayne Morrison's point above would have mercifully thrown cold water on this discussion.  

Maybe Lloyd Cole's comment will.

Branden and Scott if you must persist, can you please tell us why we need to deconstruct seemingly simple and well-defined words and concepts to understand something better or derive some insight?  Why must a green be called a feature or a hazard?  What is missing when we call a green a green in a discussion of golf course architecture  

Thanks, Eric

[Mark_Fine]

Eric,
A green is still a green but in the eyes of a course designer, it is much more than just that.  Same would go for a tree still being a tree.

Don't get hung up on "definitions".  This is more about a perspective looked at from a golf architecture viewpoint rather than from that of a USGA rules official.  
Mark

[Lloyd_Cole]

Mark
The issue here is not folk getting 'hung up' with definitions. It is the ability of this forum to function if certain factions decide to abandon accepted usage of the English language.
Of course we know what you're talking about. Sort of. You need to figure out a  way of comminicating your ideas using the langauge and conventions accepted here, otherwise all you bring is confusion. If you cannot be bothered to do that, please don't expect to be taken seriously.

[Scott Witter]

Eric:

If you reread my post and replies, I never really took a hard position, rather and as Mark Fine notes, as an architect, I think about these things...even a lot sometimes and often wonder how golfers and others look at the elements on a course, be they features, hazards, components...it doesn't matter and how they perceive them in reflection to each other and to their their game and as architectural concepts.  You'll simply have to excuse the right side of my brain for taking control.

I guess I see this site for something deeper and at times more worth while than looking for ways to throw cold water on a subject that is really at the heart of GCA-- "hazards" ...could be me though  

Mark is right, don't let the definitions cloud your view

[Mark Pearce]

Eric:

If you reread my post and replies, I never really took a hard position, rather and as Mark Fine notes, as an architect, I think about these things...even a lot sometimes and often wonder how golfers and others look at the elements on a course, be they features, hazards, components...it doesn't matter and how they perceive them in reflection to each other and to their their game and as architectural concepts.  You'll simply have to excuse the right side of my brain for taking control.

I guess I see this site for something deeper and at times more worth while than looking for ways to throw cold water on a subject that is really at the heart of GCA-- "hazards" ...could be me though  

Mark is right, don't let the definitions cloud your view

Scot,

No-one is looking to throw cold water on anything.  What we are asking is that when discussing what is, I agree, an interesting issue Mark should use the same language as everyone else and use terms in a way that we all understand.  It's quite possible to have this discussion with calling a green a hazard. Indeed, those of us who object to that use of the term might then contribute rather than spending our precious GCA minutes pointing out the absurdity of that use of language.

[Mark_Fine]

LLoyd,
Your point is taken.  Maybe we need to be clear on what we are discussing.  But somethings aren't black and white and hazards (in my opinion) are one of them.  

Here are a few more quotes from Ross:

"In the British Courses, heather, whins, and bent grass are in many cases left growing in a diagonal formation, producing a remarkably interesting hazard."

"By natural hazards, we refer to ravines, broken faces of the land, brooks, and the like, each of which should be used to its best advantage."

On the discussion of mounds and pots, Ross states, "Where it is desirable to cover a large area of ground, hazards of this kind can be used advantageously."  He goes on to say, "But it is not necessary to fill these shallow pits with any sand.  Both the high parts and hollows may be covered over with coarse grass if desired."  

Is Ross talking about hazards or not?  Maybe he should have been clearer on his use of the word hazards.  I don't think he cared as to him it was obvious that they things were hazardous?
Mark  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()