Article III
Short grass--Subtle but Effective
Hazards on golf
courses exist in two ‘dimensions’--physically on the ground, and in
the player’s mind. Of the two, the latter probably has far more
effect on the play of the average golfer, but make no mistake, a
variety of hazards used wisely and placed correctly, can and will
influence play of all golfers. Take for example a small simple pond
or stream immediately in front of a tee. How often would we top the
ball if the hazard were not there?
The example of a
pond or perhaps a deep penal cross bunker in front of a green proposes
a challenge that is obvious and demands that all player’s must execute
a one dimensional shot to succeed or face the consequences. However,
the objective of golf course design is to make the course difficult
and interesting for the better golfer without making it too difficult
and overwhelming for the average weekend player. Therefore, the ideal
hazard would be one that scares and causes indecision of the knowing,
but of which the average golfer is not aware and could safely manage
their round. Imagine, for example, a hole guarded by several randomly
placed land mines. The first-time visitor would walk blindly through
the hole and, thanks to the laws of chance, would probably not
encounter danger one out of ten tries; but the wise and skilled would
have a hard time taking one step for fear of their lives.
In golf
architecture, tightly mowed grass is the nearest tool designers have
to create a similar effect in the minds of golfers. The average
golfer sees acres of manicured grass and is encouraged to swing away
without any preconceived sensation of fear. To them, the obvious
potential for penalty doesn’t exist. In the hands of the clever
architect, he or she can utilize short grass in several ways to
increase the actual and perceived difficulty of the course. To the
better player, short grass immediately suggests that the rub of the
green could significantly influence their shot unless it is perfectly
executed. What was previously an ‘easy’ up-and-down recovery shot
from the surrounding rough has quickly evolved into a challenging
option filled with indecision laced with the potential for a big
number.
So let’s consider
this interesting feature and think about how it crosses the line from
player’s aid to a real hazard. There are several forms short
grass—all of which can be subtly used and result in not so subtle
consequences.
1.
The steep
shaved slopes surrounding a green site—epitomized by countless courses
in the U.K. and in the U.S at classic venues like Augusta, Oakmont,
Pinehurst and Shinnecock and at many modern layouts we see on the PGA
Tour. With creative contour and faster greens speeds, players don’t
want to be on the wrong side of the pin raising the possibility for
three putts. Good players are compelled to try and play their
approach shots “below the hole” bringing slippery front and side
slopes surrounding the greens more into play. If they miss, a three
putt may be inevitable, or their ball may bounce and roll far away
from the green surface like we so often see at the front of the 9th
hole at Augusta, or all around the plateau greens at Pinehurst.
2.
The
‘simple’ open approach to a green--a steady feature on many British
links and also found more often on the newer destination courses like
Pacific Dunes, Sand Hills and Friars Head. The open approach allows
the average player to run their ball in or to try and reach the green
from their maximum range, but sometimes, depending on the random
contour and slope of the approach, it creates indecision for the good
player on whether to approach from the air or on the ground…whether to
play a full approach, or consider chipping from just short. In some
cases, players are tempted into playing difficult running shots in
order to get close, which they haven’t practiced and which can easily
take an odd bounce. These players would be better off taking their
medicine and playing their standard shot to the back of the green and
eliminate the potential for disaster.
3.
Gentle, but
random contours in fairways, again as we find on many courses through
the U.K. and on many of the long admired classic layouts in the U.S.
Many of these ‘random’ slopes are not so random at all and are created
to intentionally gather and “collect” balls into bunkers or come to
rest in unlevel lies away from the ideal landing area. For better
players looking for an advantage and the best angle to attack the
green, these contours have the uncanny ability to increase the sphere
of influence. Consequently, they ask the player to risk the best line
for the optimum shot.
4.
Steep
angular slopes in fairways. From the tee, the wide fairways appear to
be an expansive target free for attack, yet these features can
redirect a ball not played to the correct spot and carry it away by
quick slopes to a less desirable location that could leave a blind
approach, or even to a bunker which didn’t appear to be within reach
from the tee.
5.
Wide-open
fairways that tempt the better players to cut corners and skirt the
edges of ‘known’ hazards to strategically improve their angle of
attack. This width creates choices and not always good ones for all
players, and it enhances opportunities for the average player to
maximize length. The increased width requires the better players
think and asks them to ‘place’ their tee shot for the best angle to
the green and as a result, increases their interest and the challenge
they face. The expansive width may also lull the player into a false
sense of security by not concentrating on placement, or fools them
into not playing for a hidden advantage of position for the next shot.
6.
Banks on
approaches to greens, which allow shots from some positions to roll
and bounce straight along the best line onto the green, while turning
shots from other positions towards trouble and limited recovery
options. At first glance the approach may ‘appear’ to be open, but
only the correctly played shot to the right spot will be rewarded.
This feature asks all players to consider their options and chose the
best technique that best suits their skills.
The possibilities
and potential for short grass to be a subtle, but very effective
hazard is endless. For lower budget courses, expansive fairways are
probably not an option due to the cost of maintenance, but they could
take advantage of introducing a few shaved slopes around putting
surfaces to create interest and challenge. For newer designs, short
grass should become a much larger component of play to create as many
options and choices for golfers to enjoy the true spirit of the game.
Not all hazards
are meant to be obvious--telling players where to go and where not to
go. The subtle hazards are typically those that must be experienced
through repeat play and self-discovery. These hazards are also often
the most interesting and effective in influencing play amongst all
golfers and as a result, players find them and their round of golf
engaging and more memorable.
Scott A. Witter, Golf Course
Architect
Article II
Beware the Short Par-4
One of the most interesting and
engaging experiences during a round of golf is the opportunity and
anticipation to play a short par 4. For the average player, this type
of hole represents a solid opportunity to make par, or even set them
up for rare birdie. For the better player, it poses a great chance to
make birdie (or better). If well designed, it should offer the
greatest opportunity and a huge risk all in the same package.
In a time where the USGA has no
qualms about pushing par-4 holes to 500 yards, it is refreshing to
find short par-4’s that offers many options, subtle, but key decisions
and timeless strategies that all golfers can still enjoy. Nowhere is
this connection more apparent than on the many classic layouts from
the ‘Golden Age’ of golf course architecture. Take for example
Merion’s miniscule 310-yard 10th. Some have argued that it
can yield a lot of birdies, but only a well-crafted short par-4
should. The moment you take it for granted, however, look out!
Overestimate your capabilities, and you’re likely to experience a
psychological crash that irreversibly alters the rest of your round.
Ironically, it’s par-4s like this
that have required the least amount of ‘Tiger-proofing’ over the
years. That is because their challenge, and fun, lies in the exacting
strategic characteristics and numerous choices more so than the
typical one-dimensional boring tee shot--grip it and rip it! At the
10th at Merion, a reasonable strategy is to hit a mid-iron
to the fat part of the fairway. This option secures a safe tee shot,
however, and thanks to the genius of the design, the safest play off
the tee also leaves the most difficult approach shot to the green, due
to an obstructed view, a very shallow green to hold and a treacherous
front bunker. A second option combining distance and accuracy could
come from a long iron, or in the case of modern technology, a hybrid
club, with which one should easily be able to find the fairway. This
approach gains the advantage of more distance and opens up an
unencumbered short pitch or chip shot into the deepest portion of the
green. Care must be taken again, however, because the tee shot could
go long or too wide and find one of the bunkers that guard the right
side, leaving an awkward long bunker shot. With an accurate tee shot
and good distance control, the player will find the green set on a
diagonal from the line-of-play, so this tee shot offers them a variety
of wedge play choices to get close for birdie.
Decisions, decisions…the 10th
at Merion offers a slightly elevated tee giving the player a feeling
of power and dominance over this ‘little’ hole. The urge to take a
chance at driving the green is hard to overcome. If the ball comes in
too hot, it will find one of the deep hairy bunkers along the back of
the green, or worse, bound over or between them and out of bounds. If
you have ever wondered about the difference between a tee shot and a
drive, this hole will make you understand it. The temptation and
risk-reward equation of this simple, yet complex little hole should be
coming clearer now. However, if you still need convincing that the 10th
at Merion is a world-class design despite its lack of brawn, consider
that Jack Nicklaus, in his prime at the U.S Open in 1971 would have
won the tournament outright but for two bogies at this little demon!
Because of their inherent design
attributes and short length, the short par-4 stirs considerable debate
and emotions regarding how to play them. The joy begins at the tee
where all players are given options that best suit their own abilities
and sets up what they believe to be the preferred position for the
best approach to the green. No golfer likes to be forced into how
they must play their shot. Rather, when choices are offered and
strategic options available, the player experiences more freedom that
captures their attention and emotions. This engagement in the moment,
without being restricted in a particular manner is what creative, fun
and strategic golf is all about.
The key to making a great short
par-4 is to have enough elements of risk, carefully placed, or found
in a natural state, to punish the overly aggressive and reckless play
and make recovery a formidable challenge. While such a hole must
reward a player who accepts all the risk and plays an exceptional shot
with a clear advantage over any other line, the miss should be fraught
with potential disaster. What is also important parameter to the
success of such a design is that the player must face a much more
difficult approach from any other spot but the aggressive line to make
the risk taken a worthwhile option.
Another fine example of the ideal
short par-4 is the 10th hole at the Riviera Country Club in
Los Angeles. At 312 yards, few holes provide as much temptation, joy
and frustration. Players can reach the green site with as little as a
3-wood; but with even the smallest mistake, most will do well to make
par. Oddly enough the hole appears as though it plays as a dogleg
right. This characteristic alone causes the careless player to think
the best line is to cut the corner, however, the most consistent
chance at birdie is to play away from the shortest route and out to
the left where the depth of the putting surface offers many more
realistic chances. From the tee, the player sees much more fairway to
the right and the big cross bunker leads your eye to this side of the
hole, but this play leaves an almost impossible second shot to nothing
more than a sliver of a green from this angle. 80% of play from this
side results in bogey or worse. Hitting your tee shot to the left
doesn’t look like the best option either, because a fairway bunker
partially hides the ideal landing area and golfers don’t have the
confidence to play directly at a bunker, which is what the shot
requires. The short center bunker and the far bunker appear as though
they connect--precisely where you want to lay up with your tee shot.
The dynamics of the short par-4 are
fabulous…conspiring to draw the ego of the player into making a
horrific mistake. As an architect, I want the player to think they
have an opportunity to take a breather. A short hole--no problem. We
know that the most dangerous attitude a golfer can adopt is
complacency, or a false sense of security. By tempting the better
player with the possibility of an easy birdie, the architect tightens
the screws and adds some pressure to the mix. The design entices the
player to hit shots that pressure can make very difficult. This
scenario is why the short par-4 makes an ideal match-play hole.
You’ve got to expect that your opponent is going to make birdie, or
even an outside chance at two. So you press a little and if you make
a bad decision, rush the shot, get sloppy with your timing, or too
cute with your hands, you’ve got trouble and the hole can be lost in
one shot.
Scott
A. Witter, Golf Course Architect
Article I
Does Length Matter?
Well, that depends on your
personal point of view and how good the lighting is…but I digress and
this is about golf, so when it comes to ‘measuring up’ on the
weekends, there seems to be a general consensus that longer is
better. Is this true?
The average weekend golfer, who
regularly plays their local public or private layout believes this to
be the case, but how do they arrive at this conclusion and why? In
spite of all their practice and local knowledge, they continue to
nurse an 18 handicap as they battle the demons on their modest
6,400-6,600 yard home course. However, when they travel to play a
‘new’ course, they immediately size up its quality and challenge based
on the overall length. With nothing more than a glimpse at the score
card to check the length from the tips, even if they would NEVER play
from there, the average player has suddenly become an architecture
aficionado. Most people who decry courses that are less than 7,000
yards couldn’t break 90 from the back--but they are driving
architecture and the golf development market with their uneducated
dollars.
So who, or what is responsible for
this outlook. Frankly, egos and television are the prime culprits
with technology running a close third. Ego is a product of human
nature and a beast that few can truly understand let alone rationalize
with any respectable measure of defense, and with men comprising the
majority of golfers, egos commonly restrict most levels of sensible
thought, no matter what the topic. The fuel for the ego is the deadly
combination of television and golf equipment. Watching the tour
players use the most advanced equipment has resulted in a completely
warped sense of reality in every aspect of the game. Just because the
tour players can hit their tee shots 300 yards and putt on greens that
stimp at 13 doesn’t mean that we should expect the same results and
playing conditions. Over the past 12 years, studies have shown that
in order to obtain any significant length benefit from equipment
improvements, players must generate a club head speed in the range of
110-125. Ironically, the average weekend player rarely surpasses 100
and therefore gains almost no benefit in length.
Despite the evidence, golfers
still ask the inevitable question, if we remove the length, won’t the
course be too easy? This is where the biggest problem lies in
architecture, and in the ability of the game to grow, remain
affordable and to attract new golfers. Players, owners and yes even
many architects have somehow come to believe that length is a key
component to assess difficulty and to use as a measure of greatness.
It is hard to blame the players for they are simply following the lead
offered by owners who build the excessive layouts and the
technological advances created by equipment manufacturers. The
uneducated owners basically follow the same lead from
manufacturers--blind leading the blind, as well as the data they are
constantly fed from ‘golf guys’ or surveys that tell them they must
build their course longer to ensure a positive bottom line. As far as
the architects are concerned--remember them, they are the experienced
professionals making actual design decisions, well, in the past
fifteen years I have yet to meet an architect who turned down a job
just because the owner demanded the course length to be at least 7,000
yards. Perhaps though, the architects should take a firm stand and
refuse the work to break this senseless cycle. Unfortunately, golf
course architects get thrown together with the tour player/designers
and their appeal is weakened by practicality. Moreover, few golfers
have any idea what architect designed their home course, but when
planning a vacation, you can rest assured they know which tour player
has put their latest ‘signature’ on the 7,000 yard resort course as
opposed to the real architect who did the work.
Ironically, while length only
pacifies a miniscule portion of golf market, excessive length actually
harms the key factor of the game, enjoyment. The two components that
so often are responsible for a golfers opinion of enjoyment (scoring
and speed of play) are the ones most negatively affected by more
length. If the average player consistently struggles to reach the
green in regulation, even with their best shots, they must play
additional shots, which also increases the time to play their round by
15 to 25 minutes. It is no surprise that extra time and strokes
diminish a course’s popularity, profitability and the potential that
golfers will ever return. Furthermore, the additional length has
removed options, variety and interest, in turn creating
one-dimensional play of bomb-and-gouge. So here we are back to the
same question. If the architect removes length from their design
palette, are they left with short courses that aren’t very good and
with little defense against technology?
If this was the case, timeless
classics like Merion, Pine Valley, Fishers Island, Cypress Point,
Crystal Downs, Oyster Harbors, Eastward Ho, Myopia Hunt, all of which
are less than 6,600 yards, would have fallen out of favor long ago.
To the contrary, these clubs, along with countless others, and many of
their contemporaries such as Pacific Dunes, Bandon Trails, Ballyneal,
Boston Golf Club, Inniscrone, Kingsley Club, etc., are some of the
most sought after facilities in the country, providing more than
sufficient challenge and interest to humble the best of players.
Merion, Pine Valley and Pacific Dunes in particular are some of the
hardest courses that have ever been played, and length is not a factor
to the difficulty or enjoyment experienced on any.
Presently, there is no ‘good’
answer, not as long as economic factors such as housing and equipment
sales remain the driving force behind development. There are however,
several criteria, or design parameters available to the architect and
the willing owner to create more interest, to add challenge and to
make the game more affordable and fun without adding more time to
round of golf.
Consider the following:
1.
Make the player
think. Providing
golfers with tempting choices and options keeps them thinking and
often off balance, even with the advanced equipment. If the design of
a hole entails multiple options, players will always fall prey to
their egos when given the choice to take great risk. One of the
greatest creative minds in golf course design, Pete Dye, may have said
it best, “When you get those dudes thinking, they are in trouble.”
2.
Place pressure on
their expectations.
Short holes, par threes and exciting short par fours give the average
player a solid chance to make par, whereas the best players feel the
pressure to make birdie. If the architect can create a selection of
interesting holes in the middle of the round that appear to be push-overs,
the better golfers can become overly aggressive while trying to make
birdies. This approach can often see the opposite results through
poor course management and excessive risk taking.
3.
Make them
manufacture shots.
Create unpredictability and keep the better layers off guard. In
order to score well, require the best players to hit a fade from a
draw lie, or a draw from a fade lie to a green with a brisk left to
right slope. Establish situations where the better golfer must get
creative and manufacture a shot to score well or to recover from to
save par.
4.
Intimidation &
Deception.
Intimidation, whether real, or perceived is one of the most effective
ways for an architect to add a colorful dimension of difficulty.
Deception can be created by reducing the dimension and ‘appearance’ of
the target the golfer ‘sees’. Intimidation can be enhanced by making
the penalty for misjudgment seem even greater than it is, and by
making the initial shot seem impossible when it is actually much
easier than it appears. This can be effective with a short bunker
precisely placed to mask the view of a green site, thereby creating a
depth deception. Taking the influence of the surrounding landscape
such as Cypress Point, or the powerful internal aspects of a course
such as Pine Valley can easily overwhelm the player leading them to
think they can’t make the shot. While the intended target is
essentially no different than their own home course, the player allows
their mind to wander with the dread of where the ball may end up,
instead of concentrating only on the target.
