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.

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Shane Gurnett

  • Karma: +0/-0
The use (and abuse) of the water hazard.
« on: March 14, 2002, 11:41:22 PM »
Seems like there's hardly a course built these days that doesn't rely on the water hazard as a visual feature, often over the closing holes. But what role should the use of the water hazard play in strategic design?

Many modern water hazards demand a forced carry, but personally I prefer the use of water only as a threat, where a shot hit close to water is rewarded, but need not necessarily be carried to achieve that goal (the old options argument).

Part of the reason for exploring the topic is by referencing the use of water hazards on the Melbourne sandbelt. Out of eight courses, only Huntingdale (original design - one hole) and Commonwealth (again one hole) feature water in play. 2 holes out of 144 is a very low number by modern standards.

When should a water hazard be an incorprated into the hole, and when should it be left well enough alone? Why aren't other options such as waste areas and natural undulations used more often?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The use (and abuse) of the water hazard.
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2002, 11:52:24 PM »
Shane,

What is the original design at Huntingdale that features water?  I would have guessed 15 but that isn't original is it?

I like 16 at Commonwealth - much more interesting than a forced carry.  It would be worth finding out if that lake is a natural feature, or if it was "manufactured" by the designers in the early twenties'.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

bm

Re: The use (and abuse) of the water hazard.
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2002, 11:57:14 PM »
You can probably get away with that in the sandbelt thanks to the great drainage and (?) low water table.

Other places with clay soil require more lakes just for drainage purposes (ie. if the water table is high and the site is flat)

Better to avoid but if it is necessary for technical reasons then what better place to put it than in front of the clubhouse where it can be appreciated?

I agree with the sentiments of options vs forced carries (in most circumstances) as I suspect most on this board would.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Shane Gurnett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The use (and abuse) of the water hazard.
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2002, 01:15:15 AM »
Chris

16 at Commonwealth is an original water catchment that fills naturally from the bottom. I'm told its very rare but I dont know the technical name for it. It has some sort of preservation order over it which thankfully prevents further enlargemnt or filling.

The 14th at Huntingdale (par 5) was originally the only water hole, with a forced carry off the tee. What you now see at 15, 16 and 17 is the orginal dam that was hidden amongst the tee tree and has been significantly enlarged. The jury is still out on whether those changes are for the better.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

John Lyon

Re: The use (and abuse) of the water hazard.
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2002, 05:17:04 PM »
Water looks nice but in many courses it looks/feels like a substitute for strategy.  It is interesting the differences between the UK and US in the number of water holes on a course (on average). If I were in the design business and given the poor drainage in many parts of the country, "selling" the strategic benefits of water would be a key part of the design job.  In my opinion water is over sold, over relied on as a design tool and beautiful to look at.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The use (and abuse) of the water hazard.
« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2002, 05:33:45 AM »
To see the overabundance of water on a golf course, just
visit many of Florida's newer courses.

Dig a hole, fill it with water, use the dirt to build up tees
and greens.

BOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGG!! :'( :'( :-[ :P ::) ??? :'(
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Slag_Bandoon

Re: The use (and abuse) of the water hazard.
« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2002, 10:11:34 AM »
To be read with John McGloughlin voice and cadence.--->
 My bent is to hide the water from sight and play.  Recovery play should be retained as a big part of the game.  Forced water carries aren't heroic - they're FORCED carries.  Heroism is when courage is mustered to take the tough shot when there is an option. Water is perty but not playable. Avoid its construction for eye candy at all costs.  Knee jerk design implementation for stumpified archy?  Besides, who thinks land is ugly?  Land Rocks!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Daley

Re: The use (and abuse) of the water hazard.
« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2002, 12:03:29 AM »
Thankfully, water isn't a big feature of the Melbourne sandbelt holes: H'dale: 14th, 15th and 17th.  Metro: 10th & 17th, C'wealth: 3 & 16th, Southern: 6th, 8th, 10th, 13th, and 14th. Originally, Southern sported a drivable 260 yard par-4 over water.

Water also comes into play on the 14th and 15th holes at Kingswood.

Seemingly every week in the States, the would-be winner is asked to "avoid the water" over the last 3 holes and the title is his. So very boring!

Chris: The original Huntingdale 15th was around 190 yards and tight in against the road, with the green also more towards the road. TWP re-did the green 30 years ago, and it was repositioned 3 years ago to its current site.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

NicP

Re: The use (and abuse) of the water hazard.
« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2002, 03:14:55 AM »
Shane,

          I have to agree - water is the most overused element of modern design. I went to the US last year and I can't tell you home many times I looked at a course guide to work out "how far it was to carry the water"!! It was fun the first day but got very dull after 4 weeks let me tell you!

The 16th. at Comm is a great hole. The water is there but it isn't. It's the golfers decision wether to bring it into play - perfect!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

TEPaul

Re: The use (and abuse) of the water hazard.
« Reply #9 on: March 17, 2002, 05:29:20 AM »
The use of increased water hazards in modern design has an interesting evolution that has a bit more to do with other things than just a shift to another architectural "feature" (the water hazard).

I'll never forget an article (maybe 25-30 years ago) about golf architectural construction that concentrated on the use of "water features" and certainly "water hazards" in the Wall Street Journal, of all places.

The article seemed to use the Nicklaus Company as its source but it was explained that, as was mentioned on this thread already, the equipment in the modern era was there to easily and effectively "dredge" to produce the necessary "fill" to construct the golf course but it did far more than that! It created lakes and water features that proveably increased the "value" of the property instantly, the value of surrounding land that was planned for use for residential real estate that was the basis of how the entire golf course was to be ultimately funded! And that it actually increased the value of the entire community or area in some cases!

The article was very specific on the point that water, water features, that could be also used with golf design was the symbiotic characteristic that added the "value". So it wasn't just another "golf architectural feature" that modern design decided to use strictly in a golf architectural design context, it was much more than that.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The use (and abuse) of the water hazard.
« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2002, 07:01:48 AM »
Ran:

When you used the word "dredge", the first thought that
came to mind was the other course at the TPC Stadium in
Ponte Vedra.  

Every hole there was a "dredge."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Peter Galea

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The use (and abuse) of the water hazard.
« Reply #11 on: March 17, 2002, 08:08:03 AM »
While I'm not advocating the abuse of or even the use of more water on a golf course, there are some positives.
Such as an irrigation source, capturing runoff, the use of plants along the litoral edge to reduce or remove nitrates and phosphates applied to the site in the form of fertilizer, sometimes a water source for bucket equipped helicopters when fighting a possibile devastating blaze nearby, and habitat for fish and other aquatic animals. And Oh Yeah, you don't have to mow it! :D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"chief sherpa"

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The use (and abuse) of the water hazard.
« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2002, 01:38:42 PM »
I was watching a tape of a Shell's Wonderful World of Golf match between Christy O'Connor and Don January at Royal County Down, originally played in the late '60s, I believe.

The course was spectacular (and I wish they'd used much more of their airtime showing the course, and quite a bit less on Jimmy DeMerit's "witty" chat-ups with the players); it had all the rugged seaside features I would have expected, having never been their myself.

But I was surprised to see a water hazard in the fairyway of the 17th hole, about 260 yards from the tee. The small, triangular pond looked totally out of place, and as artificial as those Florida "lakes" alluded to earlier on this thread.

Does anybody know the history of that particular hazard, and whether it's still there?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »
Logged
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

RC_Stanfield (Guest)

Re: The use (and abuse) of the water hazard.
« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2002, 02:42:46 PM »
Yes I was there this past fall.  The water feature is the lowest spot ont the course.  I was told that the feature has been concreted at the bottom so that it holds water all year long.  They did the concrete cause they say it just got to be an eye sore during the summer.  I think it is all year.  Oh well.  Although there is so much good on that course that it is easy to just forget about #17.  The short course there is great too.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The use (and abuse) of the water hazard.
« Reply #14 on: March 18, 2002, 03:49:32 AM »
BTW, that was the Valley course at TPC I referred to
earlier. :'( :P :-[ :'(
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Slag_Bandoon

Re: The use (and abuse) of the water hazard.
« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2002, 09:39:35 AM »
Hide the water!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up