Are artificial water features an architectural crutch ?

[Mark_Fine]

I believe the burn that crosses the 18th and 1st fairways at St. Andrews was designed for drainage from the town.  

Also, interestingly, Oakmont's ditches were designed for drainage purposes by Fownes and Loeffler.  During the floods last year, they proved how well they worked as most every other course out that way had water problems while Oakmont did not.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Yes, the townspeople of both St. Andrews and Carnoustie dug out by hand, according to plan (I'm waiting for you guys to claim that they did it via CAD drawings) a swerving ditch that goes in every direction except straight towards the sea. They did this some 150 to 200 years ago.

I got it! Maybe they got the two townships together and formed a work party to do it on successive weekends. Maybe even had a BBQ afterward...

I'm going to say this to both of you: PRODUCE THIS PROOF AND EVIDENCE THAT THE BARRY and SWILCAN BURNS ARE ENTIRELY ARTIFICIAL.  Until then you have both enrolled yourselves into Tony Cashmore School of Makebelieve. (Fantasyland)

[Tyler Kearns]

I have to credit Mike Clayton and his team for successfully building an artificial creek that meanders through the front nine of Peninsula (South), and is visually free of artifice. I'll try to post a picture shortly.

TK

[ed_getka]

I would say the presence of water is not in and of itself a crutch. However, when you design a course that brings water into play on 9+ holes, it has become a crutch. I am amazed at the marketers out there who will add in how "water comes into play on 7 holes" and so on, as if it were a really good thing.
   My only real problem with water hazards is that they eliminate the possibility of recovery in most cases. I would much rather attempt to make up for the bad shot that put me in the water than just add strokes to my scorecard.

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
I will see what I can find for you to put your mind at rest    I assume you at least agree about the ditches at Oakmont?
Mark

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mark, According to Tom Jarrett's excellent St. Andrews Golf Links--The First 600 Years:

The Swilcan Burn

THE SWILCAN BURN, WHICH CUTS ACROSS THE FIRST AND THE 18TH fairways of the Old Course, has followed the same channel since 1880. At that time it formed a boundry between the property of Mr. Cheap of Strathtyrum and the town's common. Until then it had meandered across the course in various channels determined by tide and flood, but towards the end of 1879 there were rumblings among local people that the course of the Swilcan had been deliberately altered. Whether deliberately or without forethought, Mr. Cheape had been dumping waste material on his side of the Swilcan, with the result that the course of the burn had been changed, reclaiming ground on Mr. Cheape's side and eroding the town's commonity. It was left to a member of the R&A to fight the local cause, and he was quite forthright in his attack. On the night of 9 September 1879, Mr. J.C. Fernie hired a large gang of labourers who worked non-stop through the night to restore the Swilcan to what he believed was it's original course - the course at the time when Mr. Cheape bought the links from the Dempsters in 1821.

The sight of the restored Swilcan gladdened the local hearts but Mr. Cheape was not amused, consdiering Mr. Fernie's action to be an invasion of his rights, andwithin a few days he had raised an action for damages against Mr. Fernie. Mr. Fernie sought supportof the St. Andrews Town Council in the action, claiming that the burn had been restored to its former course, that a decided improvement had been amde and that not an inch of Mr. Cheape's proeprty had been taken.

The Town Council did not take sides in the matter, and Mr. Cheape's action in the court was successful. The court found that Mr. Cheape was entitled to have the course of burn restored, and Mr. Fernie was ordered to pay the cost of the action and damages. Mr. Fernie apologised, and Mr. Cheape accepted his apology - and the £30 which he offered as expenses. Mr. Cheape, on his part, agreed that the course of the Swilcan should remain.

So Mark like all things natural that mix with Human Nature, yes, altered, but not artificial. Not entirely. I would suspect that the Barry Burn at Carnoustie experienced the same type of history - a natural waterbed that has been over a undetermined period of  years has been altered by Nature and Human Nature. But not totally artificial as your co-author elaborates.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mark, Unfortuantely I don't kow a lot of history about Oakmont. I fail to see what it has to do with what I'm disagreeing about here. The fact that Forrest is making the ascertation that Barry Burn was  a artifically-designed feature.

That would be wrong and I simply ask for proof or evidence of this fact, which he maintains.

[Forrest Richardson]

Both burns — Carnoustie and St. Andrews — are certainly more artificial than natural. The very fact that they are canals dug by man are evident of this.

As for the alignment — it is a blend of the natural gradient (water flows downhill and the burns must therefore follow the terrain) and, as I have guessed, golf course design.

As for the original question, we might take time to discuss whether a "crutch" is, in and of itself, a bad thing. Whenever we hear "bandaid" or "crutch" it is assumed that these are negative. Why? While a crutch takes it roots from a supporting device, I see no reason that a hazard must always be something else.

[redanman]

well, I for one prefer the "man-made"sewers to the man-made ponds covered in scum!

Funny though, "artificial water hazards" never makes me think of running water (Stream, burn, etc.) , it makes me think of dredged out lakes and lakettes.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Forrest,
Stick to the point. Lets see some proof. What guides you to make this statement?

Yes, it is obvious that water flows downhill, took the directional changes tht it makes. (It also seaps though the cracks of your beliefs!)

Are you claiming here that a surveyor got out there and routed the burn accordingly to his specifics? OR...... Quite possibly, did the Burn weave it's way--the path of least resistence towards the North Sea? I believe the latter to be the FACT. I believe that the look of the burn itself has been altered over time by the hand of man. I beliee the same to be more then possibly true about the Barry Burn.

Lets see some facts.

I've presented to you the fact that Fernie restored the Burn to it's original location which has been slowly eroding thanks to Mr. Cheape's and his family's excrement. What more can you offer that backs up your ascertations?

[Forrest Richardson]

The only facts I can send your way are my many conversations with Peter Lewis of the British Golf Museum. We have had many good laughts about the "sacred" nature of what many feel is "natural" at The Old Course, and other great courses.

Oh, and one more "fact" — After studying Carnoustie I will offer my opinion. And that is that Barry Burn is a poster child to artificial hazards and the purposeful manipilation of a golf routing — both aspects are artificial: The burn itself and the masterful placement of tees, improved fairway, hazards and green (e.g., the design.)

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Forrest,
That's your facts? A conversation with the guy at the golf museum?

While I'll give you that a lot of what we perceive has been altered on the Old Course, you still can't come up with F-A-C-T-S. What are his F-A-C-T-S? Have him email them to you. Not just his word, but historic proof in the form of written words from the past, as well as images and other forms of information.

I can't begin to tell you how many times I've dealt with people that knew the facts, but much like you, didn't have any factual information to back it up. They only knew what they wanted you to perceive they knew. Example: The Lido. Informed authority Dr. Bill Quirin has written and still believes that the new Lido course features two or three holes of the C.B. McDonald/Seth Raynor classic.

Wrong.

Missed it by about +/-100 yards West.

Yet, even with the proof presented to him, he still believes his ascertations.

Then there's Hacienda Golf Club: The club historian has written in the club history book of just how wrong Ron Whitten got it when he claimed that Max Behr has designed Hacienda CC. He claimed he had factual proof it was Bell. Well, he got some of it right at least, Behr had nothing to do with any of the course and  it was Bell that built the course--club developer Alonzo Bell. Credit for Hacienda goes to Willie Watson.

When I showed him THE FACTUAL PROOF, only then did he finally believe it, so much that the club went out and spent countless hours to refute all of it, only to find out that....surprize!!! Willie Watson designed the course.

So Forrest, provide the proof. Provide the FACTS.

[Forrest Richardson]

Sorry. No facts. Just opinions.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

EXACTLY......

Need I say more? Nothing like good old fashion Revisionism to throw  history out the window....

[Forrest Richardson]

It's the best I can do. All the best.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Isn't the pond at ANGC 16 man-made?  Also the pond at 11 there?

Jim,

No, the pond at # 16 is just an expansion of the creek that runs through the property.

The original 16th hole played over that creek.

The pond on # 11 is also an expansion of an existing waterway, Rae's Creek

While I don't consider 17 at TPC Sawgrass a great hole, many do, and I'm pretty sure the pond there is man-made.

I don't know if it's totally man made or an expansion of an existing water feature.  Perhaps someone familiar with TPC Sawgrass can enlighten us.

How is an artificial water hazard different from most sand traps?  

The water hazards are filled with water and the bunkers are filled with sand.  

Water Hazards usually need pitch, bunkers don't.
Water Hazards are usually sparse in numbers or in play, bunkers are usually systemic, throughout the golf course.

And, there is no penalty assessment associated with hitting into a bunker.