HAZARDS: The Heart and Soul of Golf

The following is an article written for Dunyasi Golf, a prominent golf magazine in Turkey. It is part of an ongoing series. The theme of these articles is "Understanding golf strategy from an Architect's perspective".

I hope you enjoy....

HAZARDS: The Heart and Soul of Golf

“Hazards – how well chosen the name!

They are risks; and penalties must come to those who take risks and fail.”

ROBERT HUNTER

Golden Age Golf Architect

Our intention is to help improve your golf game (and lower your scores) by gaining a better understanding of golf courses and golf architecture. Instead of focusing on swing mechanics, we focus on golf strategies from an architectural perspective.

For an Architect, there is no element more important in defining strategy on a golf course than a “hazard”.

In golf, “hazards” can be defined as; any obstacle that affects the unobstructed play of a golf hole. This can include water, sand and grass bunkers, mounds, etc. Hazards are elements which have the potential to impose a penalty on a player. Consequently, many golfers mistakenly think architects use hazards to penalize players. In fact, architects use hazards to communicate the strategy of each golf hole.

Architects communicate strategy with hazards.

Hazards are considered the heart and soul of golf strategy. These signals describe the tactical examination for the golfer. Being able to understand these signals is paramount, if a golfer wishes to improve.

To begin to understand the importance of hazards, consider what golf would be without hazards.

   GOLF HOLE DIAGRAM 1

Diagram 1 (above) is a simple golf hole without hazards. Since there are not any obstacles to consider and negotiate, the strategy is simple; play straight toward the green. There is no particular strategy, other than distance. This golf hole is a test of strength and length, with no particular importance placed on strategy.

GOLF HOLE DIAGRAM 2

Diagram 2 (above) shows a golf hole with hazards. This golf hole possesses significantly more interest and strategy. Each hazard has meaning and conveys a portion of the intended message. The player needs to consider each hazard and the message it communicates. In this example line of play “A” encounters more risk, attempting to land over the bunkers, and is rewarded with a shorter and better approach angle to the green. Line of play “B” is a safer route, playing away from the bunkers but the approach to the green is longer and from a more difficult angle.

There are different philosophies related to the placement, style and severity of hazards.  The important thing to understand is: Hazards define the strategy of a golf hole. And, hazards will penalize golfers when they misinterpret the strategy or poorly execute a golf shot.

Think of hazards as a conversation with the golf course or the golf course architect. The hazards provide information, and you must comprehend the message each hazard imparts. However, it is important to understand the implication of each hazard may not be readily comprehensible. In fact, if the golf course is really good, the true strategy may require time and study before you truly understand the strategy. You will find, a superior tactical design demands sophisticated golfing skills, to fully comprehend and appreciate the strategy.

As you become adept at deciphering these messages, you will realize there is a hierarchy of hazard “intensity” and “influence”:

Hazard INTENSITY – refers to the visual character of hazards, which can be fantastically bold to slightly obscure. Bold and obvious hazards are used to provide a strong message. These types of hazards are typically used to indicate “line of play” in a very unmistakable manner. Obscure hazards impart a more subtle message and may require more intense study to discover and understand.

Hazard INFLUENCE – refers to the penalty potential of each hazard. For example, a water hazard inflicts a clearly defined and measurable penalty. On the other hand, a sand bunker imposes an unspecified penalty, the severity of which must be deliberated by the player.

If your intent is to truly improve your score, you must assess the intent of the hazards and plan your strategy, from your destination backward. This will be the most difficult mental adjustment you will need to make. Good golfers start assessing a golf hole by imagining the most advantageous position for approaching the green. Once they have established this point, they consider what they need to do to arrive at that point. In effect, they play the golf hole backwards in their mind to determine the line of play. This is the essence of good course management.

“Management - placing the ball in the right position for the next shot...is 80% of winning golf."

Ben Hogan

Unfortunately, most golfers are inclined to only consider where it is safe to hit the "present" shot and do not consider the ramifications of the "next or following" shot. Consequently, they often find themselves in awkward positions, scrambling to produce extraordinary golf shots.

Next time you play golf, consider planning your strategy as you would any journey. Determine your starting point and destination. Then, consider the safest and most prudent route of travel – working backwards from your destination to the starting point. Calculate any risks (hazards) and determine how best to avoid these. You should find this approach to golf enjoyable and liberating. Most importantly, it is guaranteed to lower your score!

STOP THE INSANITY.....

These are the words that kept ringing in my head, as I read the Arabian BUSINESS.com article about Tiger's first golf course design project in Dubai:. Some highlights from the article are reprinted below:

"Tiger Woods received $55.4m from UAE developer Tatweer to promote a golf resort in Dubai, just 24 days before the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008.

Documents seen by ARABIAN BUSINESS reveal that Woods was originally paid $26,250,000 to promote the Tiger Woods Dubai resort, following a contract first signed on 20 June 2006.

Aerial of Al Ruwaya

However, on 22 August 2008, both Woods and Tatweer signed an “Amendment to Golf Course Design and License Agreement” which contained 15 new clauses.

On top of the $26,250,000 already paid to Woods' company ETW (Eldrick Tiger Woods), the new deal stated that ETW would be paid “the sum of $70m as a promotional fee”.
The document broke down the extra payments as:
*$29,166,667 would be paid to ETW within ten days of the agreement being signed
*$14,583,333 would be paid to ETW within ten days of Woods appearing at the official opening of Tiger Woods Dubai."

Okay, in fairness, ETW reportedly agreed to forego the option to receive a "Chosen Devleopment Unit" within the project.  (But, according to the article, we aren't really supposed to know about this.  Whoops!  Also, it occurs to me that all golf architects could truly benefit from Tiger presenting a contract re-negotiation seminar! These guys ARE good!)

"The new deal also added that Woods' company would receive a “one-time fee of $28,800,000” if he agreed to develop a second golf resort with Tatweer." - bada bing! 

"In total, the potential value of the new deal was worth $98.8m to Woods – more than the $92.2m he had earned in prize money up to 2008." - bada bing, bing!

"When asked on Wednesday whether he had signed an amended contract, Tiger Woods told Arabian Business: “No, I’m not going to talk about that, sorry.” - OK.  Honestly, it's none of our business.  But, we just can't help ourselves, can we?????

So, let's see, Tiger Woods Design (TWD) - hasn't finished it's first course design, but has already been paid more than every golf architect will ever make in their career (if you exclude Jack Nicklaus, that is...). 

In the immortal words of golfing great - Roberto de Vincenzo, "What a stupid I am!"  You see, when people asked me what I thought about Tiger designing golf courses, I told them I thought Tiger has gone about it all wrong.  Why is he desiging golf courses?  He doesn't need the money.  Most golf pro's start designing once they are no longer competitive.  But, Tiger can still play.  So what's the deal?? 

I thought, with his celebrity status, Tiger could have (and should have) opened TWD and announced he was looking for the best sites in the world on which to design golf courses.  Very likely, developers would have been delighted to have TWD design their course, and benefit from the association with Tiger. He wouldn’t have to charge big design fees.  Heck, he doesn’t need the money (Okay, this is only speculation on my part). 

Then, TWD would get his pick of the best golf opportunities in the world.  In this way, he would have a better chance to do some truly fantastic and meaningful courses.  TWD - present portfolio of 3 golf course projects seems to me to lack a truly extraordinary potential site.  (The best opportunity to design a meaningful golf course is probably at the Cliffs in Carolina.  The Dubai site will be 100% manufactured - which means it can only look man-made i.e. difficult to do something "exceptional".  And, the Mexico site looks severe, at least the routing and photos of the site make it look "challenging" - to put it mildly.)

So it leaves us to wonder;  If you have the ability and opportunity to attract and work on the best golf sites in the world, why wouldn't you? 

STENSBALLEGAARD - GolfInc Development of the Year 2010

GolfInc Development of the Year 2010 

 The Winter issue of GolfInc magazine announced Stensballegaard Golf Club in Horsens, Denmark as 1st place "Development of the Year 2010".  You can read the article by clicking here.  In this article, Lyngbygaard Golf Club is also recognized as a finalist.  It is a great honor for us to have two golf courses recognized for this award. 

Both of these projects were developed at the same time.  The teams were different but the dedication was the same on each project.  The true reward is, this award recognizes achievement of project goals, i.e. the development team's effort and success. 

This is particularly gratifying as both of these projects needed to satisfy significant administrative and environmental restrictions.  On the postive side, both project sites possessed incredible natural beauty and the climate conditions are nearly ideal for Fescue turf.

INSIDE STORY

So, it is unusual (these days) to have the opportunity to design and build two golf courses in close proximity to each other. These two projects - Stensballegaard and Lyngbygaard are located about 25km/15miles apart from each other.

ENTITLEMENTS
After realizing there were an increasing number of golf projects being proposed, the Danish government convened a panel to study the impact of golf on the environment. This placed a moratorium on new golf projects and delayed any new projects for about one year. These two projects were among the first projects approved, following the federally imposed embargo.

The year long federal study resulted in legislation giving more authority to local municipalities, in the evaluation and entitlement of proposed projects. This, in a way, temporarily complicated the process, as municipalities were not previously accustomed to this much input and authority. So, it took some time for the local authorities to reorganize and establish a process for evaluating and approving golf projects. This gave Stensballegaard, which is located in the smaller community of Horsens, a slight advantage. Being a smaller community, Horsens was able to respond quicker to the new process. While Aarhus (Lyngbygaard), being a larger community, required more time to assimilate this new legislation and process. In fairness, a portion of the Lyngbygaard Golf Course sits on top of one of the community’s water wells. And, this was a delicate issue which required careful study and intelligent solutions, further delaying the start of construction.

I WAS WRONG
In the beginning,  I naively thought golfers would be curious about the difference between the courses, and even celebrate comparing the two. After all, how often do you get this opportunity, to see two courses developed in close proximity to each other, by the same designer? What an opportunity to understand how a designer deals with two different properties, two different sets of criteria. Jeez, was I wrong.

Actually, what has occurred is a polarization of opinion. Some golfers simply express a preference for one course over the other. But, most golfers like one course and can’t comprehend the appeal of other one. Initially, it seemed strange to me. I really didn’t expect such disparate opinions. In the end, it’s likely another lesson in how, as golf “extremists”, we lose touch with real “golfers”.

You see, we think all the intricate design minutiae we suffer over, represent something deeply meaningful to the average golfer. We grind away on; history, style, aesthetics, contrast, art, environmental issues, tactical balance, strategy, etc. etc. And, in the end, the average golfer’s myopic obsessions are;

1. Good "greens",
2. Green grass and,
3. Guaranteed good lie in the bunker.

The 3-G's!  Sound cynical?  It's not intended that way.  For the "average golfer" it's just this basic.  (And, in case you are wondering, if you are reading this, you probably aren't an average golfer.)

But, if you're still skeptical, next time you are in the 19 hole, take a moment to listen to, and contemplate the comments you hear about the golf course, any golf course.  I'm willing to bet they be covered by one of the three categories mentioned above.......

I was relating the above story to someone, and he told me I was looking at it wrong.  He said, "If golfers have a discernible and strong opinion about one course over the other, it means they are two very different golf courses.  You should consider this a compliment.  Not everyone can make two disctinctly different golf courses under such similar circumstances."  This isn't bad.  Maybe I should call him back and see if he wants a marketing job.......

Adventurer, romantic, storyteller

This is the title given to the GolfInc article I was asked to write, relating what it was like to work with Robert von Hagge.  I remember when Jack Crittendon (GolfInc) called to ask me to write something.  Coincidentally, we had just recieved news that Stensballegaard Golf Club had been selected by GolfInc as the #1 Development of the Year 2010.  And,  I thought Jack was calling to congratulate us.  In fact, he was calling to express is condolences and ask if I would write a few words for the magazine. 

Jack asked me to write "about 600 words" telling what it was like to work with Robert.  I was honored by the request.  And, the 30 day deadline seemed extravagant.  But, what started to become clear, as the days wore on was; this wasn't going to be as easy as I originally thought.

You see, I really didn't get to say goodbye to Robert.  In fact, I started to write a letter to him, which I never finished.  Even though I had 28 memorable years with him, there wasn't closure.  Our relationship, which was more like a "father/son" relationship than anything else, had gone through many phases, some basic, some complicated.  Strangely, the last project we worked on was Les Bordes.  Strange because it was the original Les Bordes course that we worked jointly on 25 years earlier.  It was really my first time as "project architect" - responsible for all the technical details.  How could we have known, it would also be the last project we would work on together.  These things started weighing on me, as I began writing "600 words about what it was like to work with Robert".

In the article, I mention the infamous "radical" comment I made to Robert about Les Bordes.  The funny part is; my comment spoke to the strong character of the golf course.  Each golf hole has distinct character.  There was nothing subtle about the visual quality of each golf hole, of the golf course.  It was this "powerful visual character" that I was referring to, when I said the golf course was "radical".  But, the word didn't clear my lips before Robert had a near allergic reaction.  You had to know him to understand how uncensored his reactions could be.  And, on this particular occassion, his reaction was memorable.  Like I said, it left an indelible mark and was never forgotten - or, likely, forgiven.

The last time I saw Robert, he sat in a chair in my office and, for the first time really, talked about his battle with cancer, about quality of life issues, being a burden to family and friends and his treatment options. It was a brief, touching and surreal moment. The scene was familiar, him sitting in a chair in my office. But, his candor about his situation, if not comprehensive and precise, was piercing and poignant.

I had recently lost my mother to cancer.  The only thing I could think to say was, our family had been grateful for every minute we shared with my mother.  The entire exchange lasted maybe 5 minutes. He stood up, wished me good luck on my upcoming trip to Europe, shook my hand and left my office. I sat there disorientated, sensing something of great magnitude had just transpired. We spoke very briefly on the phone perhaps 2 times after this, and only about business. But, I never saw him again. It's still difficult to reconcile this ending, after 28 years.

The photo of him (above), was taken in 2008 at Les Bordes.  It's probably my favorite picture of him because he is looking right into the camera and the moment is spontaneous, casual.  It captures the sense of satisfaction, accomplishment and happiness, which emenated from him. It's exactly how I remember him. How I always want to remember him.