Just for grins, here is the chapter in my book, the Greens Committee Guide, summarizing my basic thoughts on hazard placement. Sorry about the formatting issues:
Where Do We Place Fairway Hazards? For most golfers, the answer is simple…..about 15 yards further than they hit their tee shots to punish those longer hitting son of a guns.
Golf course architects take a more thoughtful approach, considering all golfers. They start with a theoretical center line, running from the back tee to the landing zone, and then on to the green. 100 years ago, that theoretical landing zone was 200 yards away, but over time, it has increased with tee shot distances. Currently, architects typically use theoretical dogleg points or landing zones ranging anywhere between 265 – 300 yards, measured from the back tee, depending on their preference and the type of course being designed. Shorter regulation or executive courses might still use 225-250 yard landing zones.
However, architects shouldn’t “lock on” to that dog leg point when placing hazards, adjusting them based on:
· Altitude – i.e., Denver’s altitude famously adds 10% - 15% more length.
· Uphill and downhill shots – Downhill shots go further, of course.
· Prevailing Wind – Which is variable, and adjustments are always “best guesses.” And no, it’s not your imagination, science shows that headwinds hurt golf shots more than tail winds help them.
· Landing Zone Topography – Uphill, downhill, and occasionally sidehill topography affect roll and thus total distance. Wet and dry conditions (by either natural or irrigation) can also influence tee shot distance.
· Tee organization – Hazard placement should consider their distance from each of any multiple tees, with newer paradigms of proportional tee spacing often complicating hazard placement.
Design Philosophy plays a big part in hazard placement. Is this course meant to be strategic, penal, or heroic? What about this hole? Some holes can be designed [size=78%]t[/size]o challenge better players, while others might challenge average players more.
Strategic designs rarely punish badly muffed tee shots. Usually, one additional shot to reach the green is considered enough punishment. Hazard placement should consider the realistic tee shot distances of typical players, playing the correct tee for their tee shot distance. (And not those short hitters who insist on “playing the whole course” from the back tees.)
Hazard placement should consider that average players don’t always attain maximum length on tee shots, and that their tee shots typically have a higher proportion of roll than longer hitters. They don’t need poor shots in hazards, but having their career-long tee shots land in a hazard is also a Pyrrhic Victory. Average players also have a wider shot dispersion patterns. Fairway landing areas should generally allow all players to avoid hazards with reasonable shots.
Over 14 long holes, it’s best to create a variety of tee shots, including a mix of challenges including carrying hazards, skirting them, laying up short of them, fitting a shot pattern to them, finding a narrow landing zone between them, or landing with either spin and control, or less spin for more roll. There are an almost unlimited potential combinations of the above. The design of carry hazards requires coordination with all tee placements to entice a heroic “carry” shot for short hitters, while also providing challenges for longer hitters, which often entails “stretching” fairway hazards length to cover more ground.
Other considerations include placing hazards where they will be:
· “In play.” Lightly used hazards are probably unnecessary and often removed after a few years of play. On the other hand, golfers complain about hazards that see “too much action,” which can also create vocal demand for their removal. After 40 years as a golf course architect, I am still not sure what constitutes the “right” amount of hazard use, probably because that definition is often based on how many a player finds vs. how many are found by his competitors.
· Visible from the tee. (and then built to be aesthetic)
· Act as directional guides or aiming points – Sand bunkers and mounds often help direct the player’s eye and eliminate potential confusion.
· On occasion, act as “save hazards”, keeping shots from a worse fate. Examples include linear sand bunkers between the fairway and a lake.
· Providing visual play and visual variety, a characteristic of great designs!
We leave the first consideration last – Placement may start with conceptual thinking and math analysis, but in the end, hazards should be placed where the landforms allow, usually meaning a gentle up slope facing the tee. I have seen fairway bunkers placed on downhill (away from the tee and golfer) slopes and the fill for the support backing mounds can run forever, requiring huge amounts of hauled in fill. If huge earthmoving is required, the bunker is probably in the wrong place.
Nature doesn’t always put landforms exactly where we want, but it doesn’t really matter. Golfers aren’t that consistent, and fairway hazards of even normal size stretch 20-40 yards or more, catching golfers of different lengths – some after rolling and long hitters on the fly - which are subject to plug lies, so sand bunkers placed in the longer ranges of landing zones may somewhat equalize the penalty for lesser players.
New Note: I obviously disagree with Low about putting bunkers where shots tend to land. That would qualify, IMHO, as a bunker that sees too much action.