Fazio: “I’d say no hazards perpendicular to the line of play.”
Excuse me while I blow the dust off around here from the extended hiatus. Diving right back in - Golf Digest held a “panelist summit” last week in which several panelists talked about golf course ratings, design, etc. Bob Carney at Golf Digest’s Editor’s Blog has an entry that discusses Tom Fazio’s dislike of perpendicular hazards. (Ironically, Bob spelled perpendicular wrong in the “editor’s blog, but I digress…)
I’m not sure what exactly the definition of a “perpendicular” hazard is - does it have to be situated across the entire line of play? Fazio claims to want to make a rule for golf that there be no perpendicular hazards because it’s unfair to the beginning golfer.
This is an absolutely absurd notion - that courses with hazards like this should not be rated. Let’s take perhaps two of golf’s best and most famous holes - the 12th and 13th at Augusta National. The 13th is perhaps the most interesting and strategic hole in all of golf. Both holes feature a perpendicular hazard (a creek) directly in front of the green.
Now, a beginning golfer is going to face any number of challenges, the least of which is the “unfair” perpendicular hazard. If a golfer is not able to carry something as simple as a 5 or 10 yard wide creek, they don’t belong on a golf course yet. They need to stick to the driving range and par 3 courses until such time they can carry a golf ball 10 yards in the air. The notion that a course shouldn’t be ranked because of this is absolutely absurd.
Popularity: 18% [?]
Fazio was talking about rating a course’s greatness. I don’t think he suggested making a rule that would disallow perpendicular hazards, just that courses that had such hazards would have their greatness rating reduced because of them.
Having been to Pine Valley a while back and absolutely marvelling at it, I sincerely doubt whether I would enjoy playing there. One of the holes has a very long carry over water to a narrow opening to the fairway. Most mid handicappers aren’t going to enjoy that hole unless they hit a miraculous shot.
Is that a great course? For a low handicapper, absolutely. For anyone else? I see Fazio’s point. If I (20.6 hdcp) were to play the greatest 100 courses, I’d want the greatest to be the ones I enjoyed the most. I might rate Pine Hill (a neighboring course) higher than Pine Valley. -Let you know when I manage to play both!
Thanks for the comments, rrassoc. Here is what Fazio said:
“If I can make a rule for golf, if I was rating a course, I’d say no hazards perpindicular [sic] to the line of play. I’d take off points for that.”
I think that’s pretty clear cut. Certainly there are hazards that even a mid-handicapper will have a difficult time negotiating. Those are going to be extremely rare - Pine Valley is one of the most difficult courses in the world. I doubt it’d have as high a rating as it has were it not for the fact that it is so difficult.
Perpendicular hazards provide some of the more interesting tests and strategic elements in golf. Taking points off a course’s rating because it includes them says more about Fazio than the course.
Good luck on your quest to play them. I guarantee that if you get the opportunity to play Pine Valley, and if you’re able to negotiate that shot, it’ll be your most memorable. But Fazio would rather you not even have the opportunity.