News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Philip Gawith

  • Karma: +0/-0
More water hazards in future?
« on: April 29, 2005, 05:32:24 AM »
I heard Pete Dye on TV last night  - in the context of TPC Louisiana - saying that while modern players had little fear for bunkers and rough, water really scared them.

Should one assume from this that new courses are increasingly likely to have water hazards? Would it be a correct impression that use of water as a design feature has increased over the years?

More generally, what do people think about water hazards as design features.  If you play the traditional courses in the UK you don't come across much water, at least in my experience. I suppose I tend to associate water hazards with some of the crasser excesses of resort golf and modern courses in general.

A natural water feature, like a creek or stream, can be an excellent feature, but how easy is it to create water features which add to a course's architectural appeal? Are there some architects who are considered to use water well as a feature?

Among the architects practising today, and esteemed on this site, are there any who regularly use water in their designs? Or are water features in some way inimical to the traditionalist mindset?

ForkaB

Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2005, 05:47:55 AM »
I think Pete is (surprisingly) thinking too narrowly.

Fear is a relative thing.  Yes, a trip to the water costs a standard tariff of one or two strokes, but is that less or more fearful than a trip to a dry nasty place which might cost many strokes more, or--more subtely--might cost some number of 1/2 "strokes"?  Which is more to be feared, losing a clear stroke, or being in a situation where you just might get that stroke back, but also might just give up another or two if your attempt at recovery fails?

Compare and contrast 17 at TPC-Sawgrass with 11 at Shinnecock Hills.  Which is more fearful?  Which is a better golf hole?

Philip Gawith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2005, 05:58:19 AM »
Rich

Is that the hole where Jimenez, I think, ended taking about nine last year as he repeatedly left a chip coming back, short?

I have played neither, but I agree that the 11th is a better hole for precisely the reason you suggest - a more multi-dimensional challenge.


ForkaB

Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2005, 06:16:41 AM »
philip

I think it was Huckaby, although Jiminez might also have taken 9..... ;)

T_MacWood

Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2005, 06:25:45 AM »
I hope not....I sometimes get the impression Pete Dye is consumed by the professional. More water is not going to make the game more enjoyable for the majority of golfers. Why not bring back some penalty to the sand hazard with less-than-ideal, more natural conditions.

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #5 on: April 29, 2005, 08:06:34 AM »
just can't ever see the clock being turned back on conditions in the sand hazard, Tom
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

JohnV

Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2005, 08:39:43 AM »
Why doesn't he go all the way and make it out of bounds?  Then they would really fear it.  240 yard par 3 with OB 6 feet off the edge of the green.  Keep reloading until you keep one in.

Certainly the way the PGA Tour maintains its bunkers, they have no fear for the players out there.

JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2005, 09:13:32 AM »
Jimenez made an 11 at 11 at Shinnecock Hills.

Maybe the solution is to make it so all bunkers are waste areas. That way, there is an excuse for not fully maintaining a sandy area, with the exchange being that players can ground their clubs. I know the Ocean Course has employed these tactics, and it has many fearful waste areas (10, 14, 16, 18). What is more of an advantage, being able to ground the club, or having a perfect lie.
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas

THuckaby2

Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2005, 10:30:36 AM »
Jimenez sucks.  On Shinnecock #11 any fool can get the ball in the hole in 8 strokes.  11?  What a hack.

 ;D ;D

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #9 on: April 30, 2005, 07:57:58 PM »
Out west (U.S. and Mexico) we are often forced to have storage reservoirs on courses. Some have hidden these and avoided the water hazard, but I never have. I feel the challenge of overcoming a hazard of water is exciting, if not overused.

In Mexico we have five holes with lagoons (manmade). Two are capes, one a flanking hazard; and two are carries (par-3 and par-5, third shot).

Considering there are 14 acres of lagoons (required for storage) in our Sonora, Mexico course, we could hardly hide them!

Golf is not a natural use of land...it is land planned for use by people. While it may be a goal to have it appear natural, it is not — even when natural water features are used. I see nothing wrong or evil about manmade water hazards. Golfers find them fun when cleverly planned.

— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #10 on: April 30, 2005, 07:59:44 PM »
As for the answer to "more" water hazards: Probably not much change. Water hazards will only be used as it is available and not merely for aesthetic reasons.
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Philip Gawith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2005, 07:11:28 AM »
Just so long as there aren't any fountains in the middle of your hazards Forrest. ;)

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2005, 09:24:54 AM »
We've had a run with fountains lately. One of our owner's likes fountains because they have been on one of their older (c.1928) courses for many, many years.

I would like to get some comments on fountains — rather than the ol' "...They are just plain stupid, get over it..." reply.

What say you — and others — about fountains? WHY are they stupid, horrifying to golf architectural critics, purists and GCA-ers? I am interested to hear some constructive negatives about fountains.
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

A_Clay_Man

Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2005, 09:49:41 AM »
Forrest- What's so natural looking about a fountain? Or, How does one make a fountain look natural?

Plus, Don't forget about the perpetual revenue generated from recycling all those golf balls.

 Has the pond of the future been patented? Ya know, the one with the conveyor belt that takes the submerged ball directly through a drying process and onto a pro-shop (or discount stores) shelf?


Phillip- Judicious use of any questionable feature always seems to translate to only once, or twice. Interesting how breaking rules can be judicious. But back to topic, A water hazard like Rae's creek is the epitomy. Recovery is sometimes possible. I know of few modern water features where that principle is taken into consideration. Which implies the anti-principle nature of most post WWII water hazards.

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2005, 11:35:13 AM »
I do not believe I have ever stated that a fountain is "natural looking."

However, one must admit that golf courses themselves are not natural. A course is a planned design on land otherwise left to its own control—nature's.

There is oft an odd relationship when the golf architect attempts to "make things look natural." Natural to what? Dye's #17 at Sawgrass is a prime example of excellent design which strikes dead the notion of attempting the natural. It isn't necessarily more correct, just an illustrative point.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2005, 11:35:53 AM by Forrest Richardson »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #15 on: May 01, 2005, 12:01:37 PM »
I do not believe I have ever stated that a fountain is "natural looking."

However, one must admit that golf courses themselves are not natural. A course is a planned design on land otherwise left to its own control—nature's.

There is oft an odd relationship when the golf architect attempts to "make things look natural." Natural to what? Dye's #17 at Sawgrass is a prime example of excellent design which strikes dead the notion of attempting the natural. It isn't necessarily more correct, just an illustrative point.

With all due respect, I (and this is only a personal opinion) would not characterize #17 at Sawgrass as excellent design in any way.  It is spectacular design, and it makes for most excellent theatre 4 days a year, but I think most of us would find it to be a very, very tiresome hole if we played 100 rounds a year on that course.

In that respect, more and more water hazards are limiting and not great architecture; fewer options (or none in the case of #17), fewer different types of shots to be played, and no recovery.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2005, 12:02:07 PM by A.G._Crockett »
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #16 on: May 01, 2005, 12:49:10 PM »
A.G. —

TPC Sawgrass was never intended to cater to a golfer who would play there every day or every week.

I disagree that TPC No. 17 serves only a useful place on four days per year. As we speak (discuss) on this Sunday morning there are nervous golfers stepping to the tee there with a few club choices in hand. These golfers are followed by more foursomes who also have the 17th in mind as they play 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. As I write this final sentance of this paragraph it is likely that a few practice swings have been made on the 17th tee by an otherwise calm individual who has just sensed a rush of perspiration migrating through their pores—all of us can imagine this scene, its drama and the actors.

Golf is supposed to be challenging, exciting and fun. No. 17 lives up to this ideal for the very reason it spits in the face of your narrow definition of what makes a good (or bad) golf hole. Here's to Pete Dye!

A great mystery of Golf Club Atlas contributors—many, at least—is that there are several out there who often do not think beyond a few simple dicta or a series of closely held beliefs about what makes a good course or hole. Your remark leads me to believe that you somehow feel as if every golf course might aspire to follow a rule such as: "A course should never have a hole which might become tiresome if played over and over by the same golfer."

There are many more reasons to build golf courses in the modern age—especially post the 1970s—than there were in the days we now hold in such high regard: The classic era.

As to your conclusion that "more and more water hazards are limiting and not great architecture" because they have fewer options (such as TPC's No. 17; no recovery, etc.), allow me to suggest that a golf course full of holes with only options is, in and of itself, a potentially tiresome trek. Occasionally it is refreshing to face a hole of "Death or Glory" qualities—one which says to the golfer, "Here I am, my creator has outlined one—and only one—perfect shot. Your job is to find this shot within your skills and execute it. Now. And, by the way, it is not a shot which requires much power or macho quality. It is a simple shot. More than a putt, but not by much. Now have at it. Take your best shot my little golfer. My flag is waiting for you to perform."

While it may not be called for to lay out numerous penal designs, the right combination is achieved in a good routing and "story," as we often refer to the rhythm and flow of a course.

The water hazard is not dead. In fact, this thread makes me want to inject one in whatever plan I pick up tomorrow.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2005, 12:51:09 PM by Forrest Richardson »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Philip Gawith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #17 on: May 01, 2005, 06:10:47 PM »
Forrest - I agree with most of what you have said on this thread. Yes, TPC Sawgrass 17 may not be strategic, but it is memorable for the people who play it and that is justification enough.

As for water features in general, I am not  against them. The course I grew up playing in South Africa (River Club in Johannesburg) had a lot of water on it and, for the most part if added to the course. But - and hence the questions in my original post - I do wonder what the place of water is in within the overall thinking of GCA afficianadoes.

I suppose my view - perhaps a bit lame - is that they are like other hazards: it all comes down to why they are there, and how they are executed. Just as bunkers can be strategic, or merely eye-candy, so too you can surely have better or worse water features.

As for fountains, I associate them with mediocre golf courses. I think that is an accurate representation of my own experience. It doesn't mean all fountains are bad - I think the fountain on the 9th at Sun City (in South Africa) isn't bad, but that is because the overall water feature is attractive. Often they are not.

I was interested, though, in your observation dating a fountain back to a course in 1928 or so. I had the impression that they had a more modern provenance  - clearly not.
As for why they cause more generalised offence, I will leave others to speak for themselves. I suppose it is something to do with them having a purely aesthetic function, but I don't suppose that is any different from planting an azalea bush at Augusta. Except many fountains are ugly!

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #18 on: May 01, 2005, 09:18:29 PM »
I did not mean to imply that our c.1928 course had a fountain dating back that far. It has been there since the 1950s or 60s. The owner likes it. We don't.

I suppose it depends on the fountain itself. I've seen some very cool fountains. Those at Disneyland/Disney World which shoot water over the heads of pedestrians are very entertaining. So are misting fountains.

Many of RTJ's courses in the 1960s and 1970s had fountains. When we go to restore these courses are we to understand that the GCA purist will want us to put them back? Or, are we to mix a blend of what is good and bad form and leave the fountains out of these re-dos?

— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #19 on: May 01, 2005, 10:57:39 PM »
here's one vote against fountains, Forrest
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #20 on: May 01, 2005, 11:23:06 PM »
Paul — Does that include a fountain which historically was on a RTJ or Joe Lee course? You would propose that it be removed?
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #21 on: May 01, 2005, 11:34:54 PM »
Forrest -- if the fountain was taken out years ago I personally wouldn't want it put back in....if it is still in place I guess it could stay...but they seem so artificial
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

ForkaB

Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #22 on: May 02, 2005, 06:42:41 AM »
Jimenez sucks.  On Shinnecock #11 any fool can get the ball in the hole in 8 strokes.  11?  What a hack.

 ;D ;D

"8 strokes!"

I sense the ugly head of revisionism at work here.  We've already flown below the double digit barrier of reality, and if Huck hangs in there long enough pretty soon he'll get his strokes on 11 SH down to 6 or even 5, before you can say Bob H's your uncle!  I'll bet that when he gets to be Tom Paul's age Huck will be telling us he birdied it, and was playing with Fireball Roberts, Tommy Armour and Old Tom Morris at the time!

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #23 on: May 02, 2005, 07:48:42 AM »
On the other hand, Paul, I toured Yellowstone National Park (US) last summer and saw plenty of natural fountains, geysers and steaming natural springs. I also "designed" severel golf holes in my mind through these features. They seemed very natural indeed.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2005, 07:49:08 AM by Forrest Richardson »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:More water hazards in future?
« Reply #24 on: May 02, 2005, 08:05:57 AM »
Every time the 17th at the TPC at Ponte Vedra comes up I feel obligated to repeat the story of my outing there several years ago. I was with a group of bankers. Delightful guys. Unfortunately, about half of them had handicaps of 18+.

Of our group of 16, about half were unable to post a score on the 17th.

I would assume our group was neither the first or the last to have players forced, after countless mishits, to carry a ball directly from the 17th tee to the 18th tee.

How good can a hole be when that happens?

Bob    
« Last Edit: May 02, 2005, 08:10:09 AM by BCrosby »