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.


Sean Remington (SBR)

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why not a dry moat ?
« Reply #25 on: May 20, 2011, 08:33:03 AM »
     I have been hoping to create this type of features on our course as a was of dealing with storm runnoff.  My idea is that this would be an alternative to the typical pipe and inlet engineering.   Installing pipe is very expensive and rarely works as billed.  At least with a dry moat we have an interesting, strategic feature that will contain the water and minimize it's impact.   More examples and pics please.

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why not a dry moat ?
« Reply #26 on: May 20, 2011, 11:18:10 AM »
Pat,

Brian points the the two most obvious holes at Spuglass where the 'moat' would improve the hole.

The barranca at Riviera now covered in as gnarley a grass as can be found is well nigh unplayable.

Bob

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why not a dry moat ?
« Reply #27 on: May 20, 2011, 11:34:38 AM »
At least one of the holes at Lundin Links plays in this fashion although it is marked as a hazard.  I enjoyed watching my partner trying to extracate himself from such a predicament at the BUDA.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why not a dry moat ?
« Reply #28 on: May 20, 2011, 11:58:39 AM »

The barranca at Riviera now covered in as gnarley a grass as can be found is well nigh unplayable.

Bob

Agreed.  I saw Tommy Armour make an 8 from down there on #8 with a front pin.  Pretty fugly.

Giles Payne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why not a dry moat ?
« Reply #29 on: May 20, 2011, 12:12:16 PM »
I agree that grass hollows with irregular bases make fantastic hazards. You get tricky lies and problematic stances. I think that they are actually much better hazards than most bunkers. I think that they are far preferable to water. They are a proper hazard and are not simple to get out of, but not an automatic loss of shot like water. In the UK there are a number of courses that use this protection. As mentioned, Royal Ashdown and Berkhamstead are bunkerless but certainly not hazzard free. Huntercombe has 13 bunkers but innumerable grassy humps and hollows.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why not a dry moat ?
« Reply #30 on: May 20, 2011, 12:18:54 PM »
Bahia de los Suenos, Seventh Hole par 3 222 Yards


Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why not a dry moat ?
« Reply #31 on: May 20, 2011, 04:28:06 PM »
Patrick,

Sadly no photos to show you but the Pollok course in Glasgow has a dry ditch running through part of it. Not sure whether it was an old railway cutting or drainage channel but its a couple of metres wide at the bottom and 1 or 2 metres deep with a grassed bottom so I would suggest while it might occasionally get flooded it is mostly a dry moat.

In the early 1920's when Mackenzie was redesigning the course he used the moat in front of a couple of greens. One of them a par 3 which could either be classed as a Redan or a Gibraltar if you looked at the green in isolation. When you take the moat into account I've got to think it more his idea of a Redan.

Just wish I had a photo  >:(

Niall

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why not a dry moat ?
« Reply #32 on: May 20, 2011, 05:59:20 PM »
Patrick

I built a course in Ninety Six, SC, replete with a replica earth work star fort from the revolutionary era. It is 900' across the diagonals and based on the Castillo San Marcos in St Augustine...a great course that gets little attention because no one know its there. Google Earth search 'patriot golf club ninety six sc' and explore it from ground level views which do the average 35' height of the earthworks a little justice. Four holes play in and out of the fort and two barrel vaulted brick tunnels allow you access to the inside and to the the ruins of barrack areas and the driving range. 18 is a par 5 where the third or second shot has to clear a dry moat and an 25 ' embankment with the green at the upper level. I think that from the fairway it is one of the most interesting approach shots ever to to a man made feature. Check out #7, a par three that has a green with a diagonal stone wall that is OB and only 3' from the green surface.

If someone is smart enough to post from Google Earth you will see what I mean.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 06:34:28 PM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why not a dry moat ?
« Reply #33 on: May 20, 2011, 06:08:41 PM »
I think some of the ravines and depressions at Shoreacres serve this purpose.  I am wondering how often we see them built artificially as opposed to existing features being incorporated into the routing.  I suspect that if they are not well conceived, theymay look very contrived and they may also create significant maintenace issues.  Nonetheless, the natural ones I have seen can be very interesting.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why not a dry moat ?
« Reply #34 on: May 21, 2011, 09:08:15 PM »
I was at a course recently, an old course, and I noticed features like this, not necessarily within the intended confines of play, that served another function....... redirecting surface flow.

Keeping it away from fairways, bunkers and greens and redirecting it toward streams/ditches meant to channel the water to outflow areas.

With all the rain we've had, and continue to have, it seemed like a pretty neat feature, even if it was incorporated into the confines of play.