Water Behind a Green

[David Kelly]

William Gordon is an architect that we don't discuss much. His best courses are Stanwich, Saucon Valley Grace and Weyhill. When he was building Grace, he communicated with a local surveyor in Scotland, who sent him exact specs on the Eden hole at TOC. Gordon built a really great version, as good as any I have played, except there is no water behind the green, even though the Saucon Creek meandors throughout the entire property. He had PLENTY of places to use the creek and create a more perfect copy. It always bugged me, so I sent an email to his son David who responded: "Dad did not believe in hazrads behind greens, he felt going long was penalty enough." So that explained the mystery, and also why he took out every bunker behind a green when he was asked to "modernize" Hackensack (Banks) in 1961.

Bill,

Did he put a bunker back behind his Eden on the Grace?

[Melvyn Morrow]

"Dad did not believe in hazrads behind greens, he felt going long was penalty enough."

Love it, I am glad that there is another who believed that the ball should be allowed to run free behind the Green, certainly if the Green is higher allowing the poor shot to run and run. It gives one the feeling of really playing freely in the arms of Nature, which let’s face it was the game of golf until we made so many of the new manmade excuses for golf courses.   

I still say we can learn from the past, we just need to understand that past designers were certainly equal to their modern counterparts.

Melvyn

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

I'm not certain that your premise is accurate.

The overwhelming majority of approach shots don't go long.
If anything they tend to be short

Bob Von Hagge once stated that only 4 % go long, so water long wouldn't seem to be an onerous hazard

[Sean_A]

I really do not see the issue with the rules and what to do if you find the water, just drop another. Also water,or any obstacles behind the green, usually do not come into play and are rated lower because of it.

If I recall water is behind 11 on TOC.

Ed - If you do that you are disqualified if you dont see the ball go into the hazard. You must be 100% sure the ball is in the hazard. Any long grass on a bank leading into the hazard means you cant be 100% sure. Water Hazards behid a green often are partially blind.

Adrian

I don't think this is true.  I believe the group needs to be confident the ball is in the hazard to take a drop.  Often this would mean someone saw the ball go in the hazard or there could be short grass encircling the the hazard to leave only one conclusion if the ball isn't found. 

One of the best uses of water behind a green I have seen is at #13 at Rosses Point.  The tee is high above the green and plays downwind as well.  There is a minimum carry to be made because of the bunkers.  I know my fear when playing the hole was going in the rear water.

http://www.countysligogolfclub.ie/scoresaver

Ciao 

[jeffwarne]

Niall,

I'm not certain that your premise is accurate.

The overwhelming majority of approach shots don't go long.
If anything they tend to be short

Bob Von Hagge once stated that only 4 % go long, so water long wouldn't seem to be an onerous hazard

Additionally, wouldn't the need/desire to protect/challenge back pins be equally important to front pins.
In addition to rewarding  the bold and challenging those who drove it into unpredictable lies that fear a lack of distance control.



and for those of you assuming the average golfer won't know where to play his next shot from, you're absolutely right.
Average golfers RARELY have any idea how to proceed correctly in a penalty situation (sort've like PGA Tour players )
How many guys would walk back if they lost a ball over green in high grass?

[John Chilver-Stainer]

I have used water behind  two Par 3’s on different courses.

As is often the case the water hazard wasn’t an intentional part of the strategy but a prerequisite.

However I took the opportunity and made sure it came into play by putting the green surface hard against the water surface – deliberately intimidating the golfer.

In both cases I created a swale in the central part of the green for 2 purposes.

The main purpose is to allow the ball that carries to the front of the green a chance to decelerate and avoid the water. The other purpose, apart from spicing up the green, was to create a “terror” pin position at the back of the green.

In one of the greens I have also created a large hump to the left of the green where the golfer can halt the ball and allow it to be deflected onto the green surface. This is the most popular way to play the hole.

Saving bunkers have been placed to the right of the green – which in the mean time have been gratefully received and were christened “thank you John”.
 
Generally I haven’t had any negative feed back, in fact only positive – particularly  the better golfers enjoy the challenge of getting the shot right.

[Bill Brightly]

William Gordon is an architect that we don't discuss much. His best courses are Stanwich, Saucon Valley Grace and Weyhill. When he was building Grace, he communicated with a local surveyor in Scotland, who sent him exact specs on the Eden hole at TOC. Gordon built a really great version, as good as any I have played, except there is no water behind the green, even though the Saucon Creek meandors throughout the entire property. He had PLENTY of places to use the creek and create a more perfect copy. It always bugged me, so I sent an email to his son David who responded: "Dad did not believe in hazrads behind greens, he felt going long was penalty enough." So that explained the mystery, and also why he took out every bunker behind a green when he was asked to "modernize" Hackensack (Banks) in 1961.

Bill,

Did he put a bunker back behind his Eden on the Grace?

No, nothing, just a very steep slope with rough. I don't think I have ever gone long, but four would be a good score.

[mike_malone]

 #8 at Torresdale/Frankford should return to the original with water behind the green and a blind shot down to the green as well !!!

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian

I don't think this is true.  I believe the group needs to be confident the ball is in the hazard to take a drop.  Often this would mean someone saw the ball go in the hazard or there could be short grass encircling the the hazard to leave only one conclusion if the ball isn't found. 

Ciao 
[/quote]Its a rule a lot of people break. You need to be certain beyond reasonable doubt not confident as that does not imply near certainty. If someone sees it go in then that is certainty, the problem with water beyond a green is that very often it is invisible, the ground could be damp between the green and water and it could plug. If you think your ball is in a hazard and you spend any amount of time looking for the ball outside of the hazard, you cant then say its been lost in the hazard.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I tend to like traps better. I find major penalty hazards to take pleasure from the game for the average to poor player. It is one thing for a lake  to be behind part of the green. But to have the entire green feed into water can be very effective on a champinship course but does not seem wise to me on a members club. I would minimize OB's and water to as few holes as possible.

[Jason Topp]

Here are the text of the decisions on the rules issue. 


26-1/1 Meaning of "Known or Virtually Certain"

If a ball has been struck towards a water hazard and has not been found, the term "known or virtually certain" indicates the level of confidence that the ball is in the water hazard that is required for the player to proceed under Rule 26-1. A player may not assume that his ball is in a water hazard simply because there is a possibility that the ball may be in the hazard. If it is not known that the ball is in the water hazard, in order for the player to proceed under Rule 26-1 there must be almost no doubt that the ball is in the hazard. Otherwise, a ball that cannot be found must be considered lost outside the hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.
All available evidence must be taken into account in determining whether knowledge or virtual certainty exists, including any testimony and the physical conditions in the area around the water hazard. For example, if a water hazard is surrounded by a fairway on which a ball could hardly be lost, there exists a greater certainty that the ball is in the hazard than there would be if there were deep rough in the area. Observing a ball splash in a water hazard would not necessarily provide knowledge or virtual certainty as to the location of the ball as sometimes such a ball may skip out of a hazard.

The same principle would apply for a ball that may have been moved by an outside agency (Rule 18-1) or a ball that has not been found and may be in an obstruction (Rule 24-3) or an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1c).




26-1/1.3
When is it Necessary to Go Forward to Establish “Virtual
Certainty”?

Q. Rule 26-1 requires there to be “knowledge or virtual certainty”
before proceeding under the provisions of the Rule. In the absence of
“knowledge” that a ball is in a water hazard, is it possible to establish
the existence of “virtual certainty” without going forward to assess the
physical conditions around the water hazard?

A. In the majority of cases, in order for it to be reasonably concluded that
the ball does not lie anywhere outside the water hazard, it is necessary to
go forward to assess the physical conditions around the hazard. However,
there are situations where there will be sufficient evidence that the ball is
in the hazard to establish “virtual certainty” without anyone having to go
forward to review the physical conditions around the hazard.
In the following examples, the conclusion that it is “virtually certain”
that the ball is in the water hazard would be justified without anyone
going forward to the water hazard so that the player would be entitled to
proceed under the provisions of Rule 26-1.

• It is a clear day, with good visibility. A player’s ball is struck towards
a water hazard, which has closely mown grass extending right up to
its margin. The ball is observed to fall out of sight as it approaches the
water hazard but is not seen actually to enter it. From a distance, it can
be seen that there is no golf ball lying on the closely mown grass outside
the hazard and, from both prior experience and a reasonable evaluation
of current course conditions, it is known that the contour of the
ground surrounding the hazard causes balls to enter the hazard. In such
circumstances, it is reasonable for the conclusion to be reached from a
distance that the ball must be in the water hazard.

• It is a clear day, with good visibility. A player’s ball is struck towards
an island putting green. The margin of the water hazard coincides
with the apron of the putting green. Both from prior experience and
a reasonable evaluation of current course conditions, it is understood
that any ball that comes to rest on the apron or the putting green
will be visible from where the stroke was made. In this instance, the
ball is observed to land on the putting green and roll out of sight. It is
therefore concluded that the ball has carried over the green and into
the water hazard. The player drops a ball in a dropping zone in front of
the hazard, which has been provided by the Committee as an additional
option to those under Rule 26-1, and plays to the green. When he
arrives at the putting green, he discovers his original ball on the back
apron of the green lying on a sunken sprinkler head. Nonetheless, in the
circumstances, it was reasonable for the conclusion to be reached from
where the ball was last played that the ball must be in the water hazard.
In the following example, it cannot be established that there is “virtual
certainty” that the ball is in the water hazard without going forward to
assess the area surrounding the hazard.

• It is a clear day, with good visibility. A player’s ball is struck towards a
water hazard, which has closely mown grass extending right up to its
margin. The ball is observed travelling in the direction of the water
hazard and it is known from prior experience that, with normal turf
conditions, the ball would undoubtedly go into the water hazard.
However, on this day, the fairways are wet and therefore it is possible
that the ball could have embedded in the fairway and thus might not be
in the water hazard. (New)

[Sean_A]

Adrian

I don't think this is true.  I believe the group needs to be confident the ball is in the hazard to take a drop.  Often this would mean someone saw the ball go in the hazard or there could be short grass encircling the the hazard to leave only one conclusion if the ball isn't found. 

Ciao 

Its a rule a lot of people break. You need to be certain beyond reasonable doubt not confident as that does not imply near certainty. If someone sees it go in then that is certainty, the problem with water beyond a green is that very often it is invisible, the ground could be damp between the green and water and it could plug. If you think your ball is in a hazard and you spend any amount of time looking for the ball outside of the hazard, you cant then say its been lost in the hazard.
[/quote]

Adrian

We are saying the same thing only I am additionally saying that one doesn't have to see the ball enter the hazard to claim its in the hazard (old rule).  For instance, I wouldn't give a guy a hazard drop if he didn't see it go in and there is tall grass around, but I would if there was short grass around (and I think this is a completely legit interpretation of the rule).  This is the mistake many clubs make with water hazards - there should be short grass around the hazard for it to be a truly effective water hazard.  Once lost ball enters the scene the water hazard starts to lose its effectiveness and thus the intention of the design.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Niall,

I'm not certain that your premise is accurate.

The overwhelming majority of approach shots don't go long.
If anything they tend to be short

Bob Von Hagge once stated that only 4 % go long, so water long wouldn't seem to be an onerous hazard

Patrick

You're absolutely right, of the long ones I imagine that most would be better players with a few outright thins from hackers thrown in.

The point being that water in front and the good player is not too concerned because he's confident in his ball striking ability but the hacker is worried because he's not that certain of consistantly making the carry. Put the water behind and with the pin up the back and now its not about how well the good guy strikes it but has he got the right yardage. You're testing his nerve. The hacker meanwhile maybe sees an opportunity to be bold and may just pay the penalty but I suggest overall that water behind is a more interesting hazard, particularly with fast and firm conditions.

Niall

[Niall C]

As Tim points out, its very difficult to integrate water behind a green to the modern rules. You have to be sure on the point of entry and traditional greens sitting towards the golfer then cause an element of partial blindness. Water needs to be seen so the opportunities are reduced. Blind water hazards are rather rubbish.

Adrian

Any blind hazard tends to be rubbish. Take your point that it might be harder to show the hazard when its behind what might be a riased green. Also take your point about where to drop but assume that wouldn't be an issue where its a burn ? To be clear, the two examples I gave were simple burns/drainage channels hard behind the greens and with little or no rough to stop a ball.

Cary

I think where you have flanking water as well it makes the water behind irrelevant as an intimidating factor as most players are going to be thinking about keeping it straight rather than whats over the back.

 Niall

[Bradley Anderson]

Niall,

I'm not certain that your premise is accurate.

The overwhelming majority of approach shots don't go long.
If anything they tend to be short

Bob Von Hagge once stated that only 4 % go long, so water long wouldn't seem to be an onerous hazard

Patrick

You're absolutely right, of the long ones I imagine that most would be better players with a few outright thins from hackers thrown in.

The point being that water in front and the good player is not too concerned because he's confident in his ball striking ability but the hacker is worried because he's not that certain of consistantly making the carry. Put the water behind and with the pin up the back and now its not about how well the good guy strikes it but has he got the right yardage. You're testing his nerve. The hacker meanwhile maybe sees an opportunity to be bold and may just pay the penalty but I suggest overall that water behind is a more interesting hazard, particularly with fast and firm conditions.

Niall

Niall,

I am inclined to think that a much greater percentage of shots were long in the old days than now. The equipment launched the ball at a lower trajectory. However, I have come across nothing on this subject in my reading from those times. I do note that many of the older golf courses have depressions behind the greens that were once bunkers. Do you have any thoughts on this?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

I'm not certain that your premise is accurate.

The overwhelming majority of approach shots don't go long.
If anything they tend to be short

Bob Von Hagge once stated that only 4 % go long, so water long wouldn't seem to be an onerous hazard

Patrick

You're absolutely right, of the long ones I imagine that most would be better players with a few outright thins from hackers thrown in.

The point being that water in front and the good player is not too concerned because he's confident in his ball striking ability but the hacker is worried because he's not that certain of consistantly making the carry. Put the water behind and with the pin up the back and now its not about how well the good guy strikes it but has he got the right yardage. You're testing his nerve. The hacker meanwhile maybe sees an opportunity to be bold and may just pay the penalty but I suggest overall that water behind is a more interesting hazard, particularly with fast and firm conditions.

Niall,

One of my favorite features, in combo with a back hole location is the plateaued green, with some back to front slope, with a deep bunker behind it.

A perfect example would be the 16th at The Creek..

Go long, and I don't care how good you are, you're in trouble.

Those hole locations with that configuration at the green, strike fear into every golfer's mind, which translates to more conservative play which leads to three putts.  But, a bogey is better than a double or higher.

Niall

[mike_malone]

 I think water behind the green is ideal because you aren't forced to carry it. Rather it affects your club selection.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bradley,

If you examine clubs designed and built in the early part of the 20th century, you'll notice an inordinate number of bunkers, sand and grass, behind the greens with no fronting bunkers.

One club that I'm familiar with, built in 1927 had 8 holes with sand bunkers behind the green and 7 holes with deep grass bunkers behind the greens.

I think you're right in that the game wasn't as aerial as it is today, that trajectories were lower, fronts open and the rears protected vis a vis bunkers.  The purpose of which was to force precision and penalize overly aggressive shots.

[Niall C]

I think water behind the green is ideal because you aren't forced to carry it. Rather it affects your club selection.

Mike

I think the great thing about it is that effects the mind. Thinking about the two examples I gave, both are links therefore firstly you have fast and firm conditions where the ball is going to run on landing, secondly there is likely to be wind and lastly on both of those holes the tee was elevated. Thats 3 factors that add to the uncertainty.

I would also add that both greens aren't really that punishing to the sides which I think helps in that the rear burn is foremost in your mind.

Bradley

Like Patrick says, the game was less aerial and the fronts of greens were left open to allow the ball to be run on. It is possible that because of that more players ran long but I really don't know. If I was to guess I would suggest probably the percentages would be as close as they are today because hackers like me always seem to overestimate there ability and leave it short.

Niall