Water vs. Gorse

[Bill Brightly]

Water vs. gorse is a good topic. Here is my introduction to gorse:

I am predominantly a US parkland course player and a very good scrambler. No matter how terrible my drive is, as I walk into the woods my thought is "I am gonna find that damn ball and no matter how bad it is, I will figure out a way to make par..."

The first time I played Royal County Down I got off to a great start and was really striping the ball. Just me (as a single) and my caddy. I was on my way to a dream round! I think it was the 5th hole (but it might have been a later par 4) I smoked a 3 wood but pulled it a little left on a (partially blind) slight dogleg right. I was hopeful that is was OK, but the caddy said something like "thats a goner, hit another." I looked at him increduosly, it could only be 5 yards off the fairway...and did NOT hit another. (He did not know how good a scrambler I was!) He kind of shrugged, and then followed me as marched ahead determined to find that ball...After scaling a small knoll and getting to the spot where the ball entered the gorse...I realized that I could not even get in there through it to look. I tried and tried but it was a gnarly tangle so thick I could not get in!!!

So gorse is very penal, but I had plenty of room right to avoid it, just like I can play away from water if I choose to. I'll take it any day over a steady diet of water. The contrast between the gorse, heather and grass (especially at RCD) is just so stunning. I'll risk the penalty in exchange for the beauty.

[Ed Brzezowski]

ED

What Book   But yes the course is not IMHO a Scottish course but more an international one. As for the amount of work undertaken by DMK, alas IMHO its does not show. But then for St Andrews I was expecting a course FIT FOR PURPOSE and in the tradition of the local game.

Melvyn

Good Lord man the book is three years old, at least. Please explain "fit for purpose; ? I play an American style course played by a top 50 PGA pro. He enjoys it as do I. What purpose is there other than good enjoyment in a course and the game ? A place to hone ones game and enjoy the enviorns the good Lord gave us??  I cannot fathom your dislike of this course, the Castle course. I play Merion and Pine Valley frequently, neither are similar but both are a great walks the park. Dissimilar but equally great and equally enjoyable, but Merion has better showers.

[astavrides]

The presence of water (lakes, ponds and perhaps even the wee burn) as a hazard on a golf course is frowned upon by certain GCAs and GCA-ers. Yet there is little concern from those same quarters when gorse is present and well in play. I wonder why this is.

agreed.  i've thought for a long time that this is one of the GCA website great hypocricies.  not only gorse, but any long native grasses.  I'll give it a pass if it's for environmental reasons, but as far as strategy, or what makes a good course, they are functionally very similar.  And I happen to think water is more aesthetically (or however that word is spelled) pleasing.

[Sean_A]

For me this is a complete no-brainer.  A well used burn is miles better as a hazard than gorse could ever be.  I have a few issues with gorse beyond its unsuitabity as a hazard more than very rarely.  First, gorse releases a chemical which actually encourages thick, lush grass to grow.  The more gorse spreads the more it kills heathland/links characteristics.  Second, gorse is really ugly most of the year.  No, I don't mind a very controlled gorse bush here and there, but I detest seeing banks of the bloody stuff as is the case at TOC and TNC.

Ciao   

[Scott Warren]

In May/June, I'll take gorse. July to April, water!

[Jud_T]

How about gorse vs. trees?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sod the trees by making them into sleepers, otherwise cut the bloody things down if on the course.

It’s a design copout, like leaving a joker in the pack. They are the Anti-Christ when upon the fairways.

Part from that I like trees in most other environments.

Melvyn

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ed

My answer to your question (Reply #26) re’ Land fit for Purpose’ can, I hope, well in part be explained by a recent PM I sent a friend
on GCA.com. It reads as follows

“I have no insight into the game but do know that one should stick to the standards and rules, for me that is the way my father taught me the game, with honour and faith in ones abilities - which encouraged me to take up my clubs. The game in its honest form on the correct environment just brings out the best thus rewarding the golfer whatever skill level. I have learnt to accept that Golf cannot be played in its true form on sites unfit for purpose, it waters down the game to the point that one has to wonder is this really golf I am playing upon this course.

Alas for the best part of 50 years the selection process for courses have gone out the window being replaced with the man with the deepest pockets – it’s as if clients are saying we have the money, so we can build anything anywhere, forgetting that the game is inherently linked the Mother Nature. And she can be a real Madam, penal is her middle name.

I am an old golfer crying warnings from the rough to the young bucks without much success, but then that’s life.”

As for the Castle, I know the land prior to its transformation into this Disneyland of a course. It was never a site for a course IMHO. The land had to have its guts ripped out before being re styled into what the site never was. It’s just a load of rubbish, terra-formed like a modern abstract painting, this time with very little character reflecting the original land or its surroundings which I believe if it is to be a golf course it MUST have. Golf is about playing the land, the natural land as much as possible, it’s like a Point to Point or orienteering, the land submits the challenge and the participants take on the challenge. Manmade courses just rip the spirit out of the land without reproducing much of which they removed. In other words manmade courses can be made anywhere without the need to examine the land in the hope of retaining that which made the land original suitable for the game of Golf. Money now dictates the site instead of the site being identified as ideal for Golf.

I have been spoilt, many of our courses are natural, but of late we have been manufacturing more International courses to please ‘THE PLAYERS’ rather than keeping faith with the game. Soon if not careful courses will be produced anywhere irrespective of its suitability for the game. Fit for purpose is a site that is screaming golf and has a pull on the golfer to the point that he wants to play the land even before a course is built. It’s all about definition, I suppose, of the game being the child of the land and not the other way round.

Perhaps over a few pints and some hours of good chatting you may follow my train of thought, but in the meantime I hope you have a better idea as to where I am coming from.

Melvyn

[Carl Rogers]

This thread could be titled ..... "When the course offers no chance of a recovery shot".  Sparsely tree lined courses, w/ high branches, do offer a possibility of recovery

[Kalen Braley]

Put me in the camp of this being one of the GCA hypocrisies.

And I certainly don't buy the arguement of "tradition" as it relates to gorse... there are lot of things that were done on old-timing courses that are no longer "acceptable" or en vogue.

[Andy Troeger]

There's certainly a bit of hypocrisy involved with gorse versus water, probably because of aesthetic purposes. I think you could include the desert as well--often courses don't keep it cut down to the point where balls are generally lost. I think all these hazards can be used effectively if the golfer has room to avoid them. I agree that the golfer should have the opportunity to recover, but not 100% of the time from 100% of the places on a golf course. There should be spots the golfer has to avoid, given alternative options and routes.

The silliness IMO is that if a designer put water features on both sides of a hole it would be laughed at as ridiculous, unfair, ugly, and unnatural, but desert courses have "unplayable" hazards on both sides all the time, and other areas have courses with gorse/tall grass/etc. that basically have the same effect and are often lauded as beautiful, wonderful, great, etc.  I'm probably guilty of being accepting of that as well. I have to think its more aesthetic than anything else, because it usually has no impact on playability. Courses where you can hit it out there and find it are not included--I'm talking about places where the grass is so high you automatically reload.

Being realistic, if the gunch at Prairie Dunes was overnight turned into natural waterways in the exact same locations, playability wouldn't really change. The aesthetics would, and probably perception as well.

[Steve Lang]

  I'd rather fall into water than gorse.. bloody hell that stuff is if you try to reach into it without steady hand or ball retriever..

I always thought it was the origin of the "unplayable lie" in links golf, since burrowin animuls and crusts and other such things had been addressed by the original rules

[Colin Macqueen]

Steve,

".....crusts and other such things had been addressed by the original rules."

Gorse and water hazards I understand but I'm genuinely perplexed by these "crusts". What are these crusts you are  talking about? I cannot discern any obvious typo so when/where were crusts alluded to in the rules....maybe at Old Sandwich!

Cheers Colin

[Frank Pont]

Both are acceptable as long as they are far enough away from the playing line.

Biggest problem with gorse is that it is far too near to the playing line on many courses in Scotland, the Olaf Course at Cruden being a good example

[Melvyn Morrow]

Frank

Perhaps the cart tracks are closer and at times come very close to the playing line, At least gorse and wee burns are natural requiring golfers to combat the hazard. Carts and their tracks are watering down the game and against the real spirit of the game by persuading players not to walk or to let courses be built in unsuitable locations.

Melvyn

[Frank Pont]

Could not agree more, cart paths are even worse than water and gorse

[Steve Lang]

Steve,

".....crusts and other such things had been addressed by the original rules."

Gorse and water hazards I understand but I'm genuinely perplexed by these "crusts". What are these crusts you are  talking about? I cannot discern any obvious typo so when/where were crusts alluded to in the rules....maybe at Old Sandwich!

Cheers Colin

Yes Colin, must have been Old Sandwich as I was having lunch while posting.. how about "casts" .. what are animal casts anyway?  thrown spoils?