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.


Patrick Kiser

  • Karma: +0/-0
Water Hazards
« on: September 30, 2007, 09:59:09 PM »
To borrow from Mike Hoak:

"About five years ago, I was paired with a Scottish gentleman at Bonaventure Country Club outside of Fort Lauderdale.  The course seemed to have one or more water hazards on every hole and this poor chap landed in damn near every one of them.  He ran through a dozen balls in 8 holes.  I know that because he had to borrow a ball from me until the beer cart girl could bring him out another box.  At the turn, he walked directly to his rental car and left."

Never been a fan of the water hazard and reading this just reinforced it even more.  I sure don't miss Waterworld (aka So. FL).

Why do architects seem to think this is such a great hazard to have on courses ... especially on par 3's?

I have a theory ... just a theory.

When you're out of ideas to make a course "interesting", "challenging", "strategic", "heroic" or whatever ... throw in some water.

And it's such a real challenge to just lose a ball, drop a ball, and hit 3  ::)  Woohoo!!  The golfer sure was challenged...

Just seems like a lame excuse for a way out.  Seems to me if some real thought were given, there would be other ways to push the golfer.

I could be wrong, but that's how it feels.

So what do folks think about water hazards?  If you're a fan, then explain why.  When do they ever make sense?
“One natural hazard, however, which is more
or less of a nuisance, is water. Water hazards
absolutely prohibit the recovery shot, perhaps
the best shot in the game.” —William Flynn, golf
course architect

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2007, 10:28:01 PM »
Patrick,

If you go back about six years to one of my first posts, I think it was the answer to the exact same question!

In FL and other flat areas, the gca needs to provide drainage outlets.  The flatter the ground, the more the lakes need to extend around the course, because you only have so much vertical grade to run pipe downhill.  

At Wild Wing Plantation, I have one interconnected lake that drains at the low spot of the property at the fifth tee.  So, yeah, it comes into play a lot, but if it didn't, the fw themselves might look like water hazards.

I really haven't heard any of my gca friends say that they LIKE courses with water on every hole.  Hard to make them look different that way.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2007, 10:38:17 PM »
Jeff:

Of course, sometimes water hazards are there for drainage.  But, be honest, aren't they also there sometimes because your clients think water hazards are sexy?

It was hard for me to build Stone Eagle in California because the client wanted water hazards in the desert ... aside from needing an irrigation reservoir up on the hill, water appeals to the desert resident because it has a cooling effect.

Randy Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2007, 10:39:30 PM »
Sometimes you need the dirt, so it becomes an economical criteria especially in Florida where developers buy cheap swamp land and need to create residential pads above the water table. The biggest reason I have found though is pressure from the developers. They pay, they say! Waters sells to future homeowners, views of the golf course are great, view of the golf course and water equals bigger bucks per square foot. Seventy percent that are buying don't even play golf so its hard to counter argue. The sad fact is these are residential communities with golf courses and not golf courses with residential communities. I am faced with this in South America at times and as a result do everything to make these water hazards less aggressive and as a far out of play as possible but its challenging. In South America water hazard not only take away the recovery shot but the cost of balls are almost double then in the USA. At one of my past courses the membership and the developer went round and round on this issue and the club (independent of the developer) finally installed wooden low walls around the lakes similar to a hockey rink or polo field. Isn't that SPECIAL!  

Patrick Kiser

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2007, 11:20:52 PM »
Jeff,

I'm not finger pointing So. FL in particular.  Just water hazards in general.

But you make a good point.  When does it no longer make sense to build a course, if it's going to be surrounded by water on every hole?  So. FL is obviously a different animal all together in that respect.

I have some not so fond memories of The Colony in Naples.  Every imaginable water hazard.  What a joke that place was.  Clubhouse was the only good thing about the place.  The course never should have been built.

Patrick,

If you go back about six years to one of my first posts, I think it was the answer to the exact same question!

In FL and other flat areas, the gca needs to provide drainage outlets.  The flatter the ground, the more the lakes need to extend around the course, because you only have so much vertical grade to run pipe downhill.  

At Wild Wing Plantation, I have one interconnected lake that drains at the low spot of the property at the fifth tee.  So, yeah, it comes into play a lot, but if it didn't, the fw themselves might look like water hazards.

I really haven't heard any of my gca friends say that they LIKE courses with water on every hole.  Hard to make them look different that way.
“One natural hazard, however, which is more
or less of a nuisance, is water. Water hazards
absolutely prohibit the recovery shot, perhaps
the best shot in the game.” —William Flynn, golf
course architect

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #5 on: September 30, 2007, 11:31:43 PM »
It is interesting also how golfers react to water. If you place a bunker in the line of play every second golfer will moan about it being unfair. Water however seems to meet almost universal approval from golfers although it is a much more severe punishment if one ventures into it.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2007, 12:04:06 AM »
Jeff:

Of course, sometimes water hazards are there for drainage.  But, be honest, aren't they also there sometimes because your clients think water hazards are sexy?

It was hard for me to build Stone Eagle in California because the client wanted water hazards in the desert ... aside from needing an irrigation reservoir up on the hill, water appeals to the desert resident because it has a cooling effect.

Tom,

I had one client request an island green one time. I don't recall any specific discussions other than that about how much water a course would have.  

Yesterday, the client asked if there was any water on the course, and after discussion of various factors (where the water was coming from, irrigation efficiency, etc.) I told him that to be honest, I didn't think the course needed one. He nodded and agreed, saying he could go either way on that.

Short version, no not really, but it may be true and so true that its not even discussed!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #7 on: October 01, 2007, 12:11:08 AM »
Having a water hazard on just about every hole on a course is probably about the problem of drainage and the inability of the architect to overcome this particular problem. When one thinks of the truly great links courses of England, Scotland and Ireland, these particular hazards are rarely in play.

I find the water hazard of the 17th at the TPC Sawgrass to be an abomination and a detriment to the determination of seeking a winner of the tournament. Perhaps if it came earlier in the round it might be acceptible, but as the penultimate hole and the penalty it represents is akin to the three strikes rule in criminal cases, a lifetime of  punishment.

Bob


Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #8 on: October 01, 2007, 05:00:07 AM »
Whilst this forum is mainly against water hazards, the majority of golfers like water incorporated into the design. Striped up fairways, trees and damp holding greens are also plusses in those golfers minds.
Its probably evolved from TV education where we rarely see golf played on links courses.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

JMorgan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #9 on: October 01, 2007, 06:35:22 AM »
Question to the pros: have you or do you run into clients who will ask for more water hazards on the front nine to drive up ball sales in the pro shop?  Rather cynical question, I know.

John Kavanaugh

Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #10 on: October 01, 2007, 06:44:36 AM »
I like water hazards because when you are playing with a C-noter you don't have to spend half the day looking for his balls in the rough, trees, desert, heather, etc. etc..  Splash and dash.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2007, 07:03:11 AM by John Kavanaugh »

JMorgan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #11 on: October 01, 2007, 07:07:31 AM »
I too (like Mr. Huntley above) dislike #17 TPC Sawgrass.  It's more sideshow spectacle, less golf.  

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #12 on: October 01, 2007, 07:19:32 AM »
Question to the pros: have you or do you run into clients who will ask for more water hazards on the front nine to drive up ball sales in the pro shop?  Rather cynical question, I know.
I dont think the extra ball sales is a plus to a golf course, if anything it is a minus. The idea of the water is attractive but a green fee + buggy + 6 new balls adds up and that means less affordable. I cant agree with you re the 17th at Sawgrass, those type of holes are very exciting to the masses.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

JMorgan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #13 on: October 01, 2007, 07:40:45 AM »
Question to the pros: have you or do you run into clients who will ask for more water hazards on the front nine to drive up ball sales in the pro shop?  Rather cynical question, I know.
I dont think the extra ball sales is a plus to a golf course, if anything it is a minus. The idea of the water is attractive but a green fee + buggy + 6 new balls adds up and that means less affordable. I cant agree with you re the 17th at Sawgrass, those type of holes are very exciting to the masses.

Adrian, I think you misunderstood my question.  I know the outlay of more money is not beneficial to you and me.  I am asking the architects if they've ever encountered a client who calculates the sale of gator balls and new golf balls into the overall p&l of the course during the design process and says, "Give us more water hazards on the front nine because we want players to come into the pro shop to buy more golf balls from us."

The masses may love those kind of holes, but I consider myself a one-man multitude.   ;)
« Last Edit: October 01, 2007, 07:52:16 AM by JMorgan »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #14 on: October 01, 2007, 08:28:59 AM »
James:

No, I haven't had a client whose objective was to drive up golf ball sales -- I haven't heard any stories about it, either.

Julian Robertson did tell me during the construction of Cape Kidnappers that my associates and I "worry too much about people losing their golf balls," because we were concerned that we were getting so close to the edges of the earth so often.  I should've asked him to write that down and sign it so I could show it to him when customers complained the course was too hard!

John K:

Pete Dye was a believer in your "splash and dash" theory -- I asked him once if he didn't think all the water on his courses contributed to slow play, and he made the case that it made a course play faster than the other choices for unmaintained areas.  

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2007, 09:08:18 AM »
If people are using water hazards in lieu on bunkers or other hazards because they speed play, something like a perversion of design values has taken place.

If speed of play is really that important, all sorts of options open up. For example, you might eliminate rough totally and use netting or fencing at fw edges. High handicappers will finish in less than 3 hours. Problem solved. Tighten o.b. stakes. Problem solved. And so forth.

I am with Bob Huntley. At Athens CC, Donald Ross was given a piece of property dominated by a large lake located in the middle of the tract. Ross designed 18 holes where, with one minor exception, water is not in play.

In some respects, Ross designed the course so as to avoid the lake. That has always been a marker for me of Golden Age design principles. Because I can't imagine any designer after WWII doing what Ross did.  

Bob

Patrick Kiser

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2007, 12:00:22 PM »
Amen to that.

If people are using water hazards in lieu on bunkers or other hazards because they speed play, something like a perversion of design values has taken place.

If speed of play is really that important, all sorts of options open up. For example, you might eliminate rough totally and use netting or fencing at fw edges. High handicappers will finish in less than 3 hours. Problem solved. Tighten o.b. stakes. Problem solved. And so forth.

I am with Bob Huntley. At Athens CC, Donald Ross was given a piece of property dominated by a large lake located in the middle of the tract. Ross designed 18 holes where, with one minor exception, water is not in play.

In some respects, Ross designed the course so as to avoid the lake. That has always been a marker for me of Golden Age design principles. Because I can't imagine any designer after WWII doing what Ross did.  

Bob
“One natural hazard, however, which is more
or less of a nuisance, is water. Water hazards
absolutely prohibit the recovery shot, perhaps
the best shot in the game.” —William Flynn, golf
course architect

henrye

Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #17 on: October 01, 2007, 02:41:56 PM »
I completely disagree with the naysayers of Sawgrass' 17th.  The hole is fun, not that tough in that a high handicapper can execute the shot, yet visually intimidating.  For heaven sake, a PGA tour pro should be able to make that shot.  Also, as Adam Scott demonstrated a few years ago, you can still win with a water shot on the final hole.
I'm a believer that if you have water on the course, you might as well make use of it rather than try to ignore it or avoid it.  I've generally never been partial to a hole which has water on it, but the architect has done his utmost to take it out of play.
Water features prominently is a number of holes that are considered among the best in the world and almost without exception it is in play.

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2007, 04:52:27 PM »
I played a course this spring on the northern neck of VA.  Just about one half the holes had some form of water hazard near the green.  Some of them were tiny little ponds.  I was curious and asked about them.  They replied that many of them had been sand bunkers, but the water table was so high that they just decided to dig a little deeper and make them ponds.

i have grown to despise the over use of water as much as Sean Arble dislikes the over use of bunkers.  Periodically, water on a par three is fun and challenging.  It is also fun to have a creek wind its way down a fairway and skirt across the frontof the green.  I hate it when water is used just for the sake of having a water hazard.  It is too easy a way to  make a hole difficult.

Even if ponds are needed for watering systems, or to get fill for other parts of the course, they don't always have to come into play.  Water does add to the pleasure of the game and the beauty of the course, just don't uses it on every hole.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #19 on: October 01, 2007, 04:56:37 PM »
I love a hole - think #17 and #18 at Carnoustie - where a creek, burn, whatever you call it, snakes down the fairway, maybe across the fairway, and in front of the green so it comes into play more than once.  It makes you think your way through the hole, and maybe you have to take it on or play close to it in order to get the best angle into the green.

I hate a hole - or in Florida many times an entire course - where there is water all down one side of the hole and condos/houses all down the opposite side.  There are way too many courses in Florida where that's the norm.  Yes, it's all about the drainage and using the spoil to build up tees and greens, but it's so formulaic it's boring as hell even while it's dangerous as hell.

Mike Golden

Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #20 on: October 01, 2007, 05:13:19 PM »


John K:

Pete Dye was a believer in your "splash and dash" theory -- I asked him once if he didn't think all the water on his courses contributed to slow play, and he made the case that it made a course play faster than the other choices for unmaintained areas.  

Of course, in Florida, the biggest reason to 'splash and dash' might be the 10' gator thinking you are his lunch ;D

Greg Murphy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2007, 12:53:19 AM »
Why do people spend personal millions to build their dream homes beside water or on promontories, especially those with a view of water? Same reason golfers love water hazards (and elevated tees).

TEPaul

Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2007, 07:48:08 AM »
I'm sort of ambivalent about water hazards on golf courses.

On the one hand, they certainly do preserve the idea of sudden and immediate penalty in golf in the currency of golf--eg strokes to pay.

The fact that a water hazard immediately takes your ball out of play by instantly losing it for you should actually speed up play compared to the potential lost ball elsewhere that can and does allow a five minute search period which is too often followed by either a violating of the rules via the neglecting of the stroke and distance penalty or takes more time to go back and play stroke and distance (when too many golfers neglect to play a provisional ball).

On the other hand, water is sort of primal with human beings. I guess Freud was right when he said he felt water (or particularly running water) was sexy to human beings, or did he say sexual? However, I can't recall ever being remotely sexually aroused by a water hazard on a golf course in the same way I suppose I was sexually aroused by watching Marilyn Monroe actually drool in one of her kiss scenes.

If water did not provide, and therefore preserve, this type of instant penalty in strokes in golf, God only knows how much more Man would've tried to completely sanitize the whole idea of natural penalty from golf itself---eg look what golf has done to the functional penalty of the sand in sand bunkers.  ;)

And I'm also sort of ambivalent towards this mentality, or even constant obsession, with speed of play---eg the race against the clock to finish a round. I'm more into the idea of going out and playing golf and spending the time enjoying one's self rather than attempting some breathless race against a clock around a golf course.

If as many golfers are truly as interested in a race against a clock as they seem to be, my suggestion would be that they play golf in the old fashioned way---eg if your ball be lose FOR WHATEVER REASON the hole must be given up in match play.

Obviously RELIEF in regard to a LOST ball was instituted more for stroke play because if your ball becomes lost in stroke play you can't exactly go onto the next hole as you can in match play. All you could do in that context in stroke play would be to just go home. ;)

Hey, that's not a bad idea at all if you speed-of-play clock-lovers are really as fixated on preventing slow play as you seem to be.  Let's just say a golfer in stroke play lost his ball, for whatever reason, on the second hole of his round. He would have to go home at that point. He and the speed of play fixators could then honestly say he only took perhaps 27 minutes to play golf that day.

"Honey, why are you home so early, I thought you were playing in a stroke play tournament today?"

Would you please shut up, woman---I lost my f...ing golf ball on the second hole and they made me leave."  ;)
« Last Edit: October 02, 2007, 07:54:03 AM by TEPaul »

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #23 on: October 05, 2007, 10:24:32 AM »
Good points are made here.

One of the compelling reasons for water (besides drainage, natural streams, and irrigation storage) is because water is an engaging addition to landscapes, especially those that humans feel positive toward.

There is very good information on how humans react to water — both as a threat and as a comfort — in my book on routing golf courses. Dr. Ed Sadalla, a good friend, contributed an entire chapter on psychology and the primal / DNA aspacts of how mankind reacts to the land, differnt natural and artificial features, etc.
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Richard Boult

Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #24 on: October 05, 2007, 06:55:10 PM »
I'm with Forrest on this one... The links-style course can engage us without water hazards since they're bordered by the sea. I enjoy the variety that water provides on an inland course.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back