News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Mark Bourgeois

Re: Do water hazards suggest lack of imagination?
« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2008, 10:49:13 AM »
Heroic School application of water = Often good
Penal School application of water = Often Bad

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do water hazards suggest lack of imagination?
« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2008, 10:50:07 AM »
There is a psychological aspect to hazards that I’m not sure has been mentioned.  These days bunkers are manicured playing surfaces, hardly hazards and rarely do they instill fear.  Water on the other hand, will even get Tiger Woods thinking.  Does anyone here for example think that #17 at the TPC would worry golfers if it was surrounded by sand.  Was it a lazy design solution?  I don’t think so.  Golfers are fearful of that hole before they even tee off.  #12 at Augusta fits the same description.  Just think of all the shrills from the crowd as the leader's ball lands short of the green and trickles back off the bank into "the sand" instead of the water ::)  Again, like any type of design feature, it needs to be used sparingly. 


Mark, I agree with your assesment that water features need to be used sparingly. And they certainly have their place in the game. I just think it's a fall back solution when an arch runs out of ideas, that's all. This is certainly evident in So Cal. Comparing 12 and 17 is, IMHO, off the mark. While going long at ANGC's #12 isn't the best thing in the world, you can recover (see Justin Rose yesterday). 17 at Sawgrass allows no such thing.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do water hazards suggest lack of imagination?
« Reply #27 on: April 12, 2008, 12:55:32 PM »
I will go on record as saying "no" to the post's question. Water hazards may bring about the lazy approach in some designs, but one needs to consider a few factors before they universally disclaim water hazards.

For one, today we often build courses on tough sites where water may actually be a requirement of the landscape. Tom D. points this out early in the post. Secondly, many today rely on earthmoving to form a golf course — the temptation is difficult to avoid, especially when people "like" water in the landscape.

Here is an excerpt of past writing on the subject, "Perceived versus Actual Difficulty," by Dr. Ed Sadalla who collaborated with me a few years back (Routing the Golf Course):

It is important to note that difficulty of a hazard and the excitement it generates do not always go hand in hand. Many of the difficulties in golf are mental, not physical — subjective, not objective. One can distinguish between the actual difficulty of a hazard and the perceived difficulty of the hazard. Hazards with high perceived difficulty catch the golfer’s attention, stimulate the imagination, and produce an emotional response.

Water is an example of a hazard with high perceived difficulty, even on holes where it is easily avoided. Water often compels fantasies of failure in the average golfer. Peter Dobrineiner, a British writer, put it succinctly: “Water creates a neurosis in golfers, the very thought of this harmless fluid robs them of their normal powers of thought, turns their legs to jelly and produces a palsy of the upper limbs.”

On many occasions, however, hazards with high actual difficulty have low perceived difficulty. For example, deep rough is a more difficult problem for most players than is a shallow sand trap. However, a green with prominent bunkers tends to attract more attention and elicits more apprehension than a green surrounded by rough. The former is more visually interesting, more exciting, and tends to be perceived as more hazardous, although the green surrounded by deep rough is likely to add relatively more strokes to the scorecard.

Generally, golfers are likely to notice and emotionally respond to any hazard that a human would have difficulty walking through. Water, sand, trees, shrubs, and desert all constitute a challenge to human movement and hence are visually engaging. Subtle difficulties, such as those that cause an uneven stance and those that cause a ball to roll off the fairway, may not catch the attention of the recreational golfer but surely add to the difficulty of the course.


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

JC Urbina

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do water hazards suggest lack of imagination?
« Reply #28 on: April 13, 2008, 02:05:36 AM »
David
When I see water next to a green I think to myself, this hole has taken 50% of the fun out of the green and green surrounds.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do water hazards suggest lack of imagination?
« Reply #29 on: April 13, 2008, 08:24:28 AM »
Jim,

You said, "When I see water next to a green I think to myself, this hole has taken 50% of the fun out of the green and green surrounds."

Do you feel that way about the burn next to the green on #1 on The Old Course at St. Andrews as well as on #18 at Carnoustie, or at #14 at Pine Valley, or at #11 at Merion, or,....shall I go on  ;)

There is a place for water on great golf courses if used appropriately and with restraint. 

Mark

One more thought for everyone to ponder - how exciting would the back nine at Augusta National be without the water?  It is what creates the fear, the risk/reward and the excitement to the back nine.  Take the water away from #11, #12, #13 and #15 and those holes lose most of their appeal and fear factor.   
« Last Edit: April 13, 2008, 08:38:32 AM by Mark_Fine »

Ian Andrew

Re: Do water hazards suggest lack of imagination?
« Reply #30 on: April 13, 2008, 11:10:30 AM »
Mark,

You're right - water has a place - when it's natural. Your examples are good ones and I have always liked holes designed around a creek in particular. Although that’s a dying strategy since environmentally this has become unacceptable. That said, there are few better holes than the 13th at Augusta.

My issue is with a pond being created solely to provide the source of strategy. The answer is so common to the point of being monotonous – we’ve seen the hole a 1000 times and there are more interesting ways of producing holes. The 12th at August is interesting because of the bunker layout and the water – not because of Rae’s Creek alone. 

I agree with Jim’s point of view, once you use a pond, you begin to remove all the recovery options and make the strategy and the hole finite. The joy of golf is often found in the recovery – the pond offers none.
The 17th at TPC may be a great hole – due to the situation of a resort and a championship course – but philosophically the hole sucks as a design idea and should not be reproduced. Surrounded by bunkers allows for an eventual finish – surrounded by water leads to purgatory. Any hole that a high handicap potentially can’t finish is not a good hole.

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do water hazards suggest lack of imagination?
« Reply #31 on: April 13, 2008, 12:00:10 PM »
The burn at The Old Course is not natural. In fact, golf itself is not natural...nor nearly any great hazard relationship ever seen in the game. For example, the coastline at Pebble Beach is significantly altered to accommodate golf. As are the greatest bunkers (at least in their modern configuration.) Hell Bunker is a grand example: Here lies a bunker that is so crisp, defined and "set" that its earliest known shape is nearly three times the size and certainly not rivetted.

Let's face it: Golf is really naugahyde®   :-\
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do water hazards suggest lack of imagination?
« Reply #32 on: April 13, 2008, 12:03:14 PM »
I believe the actual truth is 95% of golfers love water and prefer it to run offs, redan's, cute bunkers clad in fescue, ...... They also like GREEN and they like fountains in the middle of lakes.
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

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do water hazards suggest lack of imagination?
« Reply #33 on: April 13, 2008, 01:01:23 PM »
Adrian — I wouldn't go that far. However, water is an attraction for human beings. This is a fact. Hostile, open swept land (linksland, if you will) is not an enjoyable landscape. In golf, though, we have learned to acept it as traditional and a desired situation. But, deep down, it strikes fear and uncomfortableness within us. Perhaps that is the challenge that lies in links environments.
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do water hazards suggest lack of imagination?
« Reply #34 on: April 13, 2008, 01:01:48 PM »
Geoff S says sometime along the way we forgot that golf is supposed to be fun. Some of you may have seen the thread about Slag Bandoon, Craig Sweet, and I playing RTJ II's Great Blue. There is a lot of water near the greens. As a group of not the best golfers in the world, we rinsed many balls. Not a lot of fun. The net effect? I played there once 20 years ago, and I won't play there for another 20 years. Unfortunately, the course is lowland and the ponds are pretty much necessary for a course to be built there.

Tnere is a huge difference between a pond and a stream. I belong to a course with a stream. When you hit you ball towards the stream, there is actually a small chance of getting into it. However, it still makes you plan your play to be safe with respect to it. Ponds, are just too fat! Unfortunately bunkers have lost their teeth with better clubs and better maintennace. I think Bill Diddel was doing the industry a service by designing difficult courses without bunkers or water hazards.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Jason McNamara

Re: Do water hazards suggest lack of imagination?
« Reply #35 on: April 14, 2008, 04:39:25 AM »
Which Japanese course is it that has a green (on a par 5?) fronted by water that is intentionally shallow enough to tempt the golfer to go for the splash explosion?  I think it was the course that hosted the WC about 6-8 yrs ago.  It's gimmicky, and one hole like that may well be enough for all of Japan, but it would make the golfer think.  I wonder how many do try to play out of it.

Rich Goodale

Re: Do water hazards suggest lack of imagination?
« Reply #36 on: April 14, 2008, 05:10:32 AM »
I fully agree, Jason

The splash explosion out of shallow water is one of the most challenging and fun shots in golf, whether you are playing it or watching it.

Archies out there

I'f you have to have a pond or creek, why can't you keep the water level low, at least at the shoreline, to allow for such shots?

Rich

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do water hazards suggest lack of imagination?
« Reply #37 on: April 14, 2008, 05:26:41 AM »
Rich,

I will from now design ditches and creeks with low water levels if you promise to come along and weed all of the bottoms each week in the warm season and keep them looking pretty like at Augusta....  ;)
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Rich Goodale

Re: Do water hazards suggest lack of imagination?
« Reply #38 on: April 14, 2008, 05:45:44 AM »
I said near the shoreline, Brian, not bottoms!  Reminds me of the children's book, "Tops or Bottoms"......... :)

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back