What makes water hazards great for the game?

[Dan Kelly]

Dan...I didnt realise that the Pacific Ocean was...MAN MADE?

Michael --

My point, of course, was this:

If the Pacific WERE man-made, you'd find Pebble Beach 18 (like Doral 18) disagreeable and unimaginative?

I don't love courses littered with water hazards (particularly multiple, flanking water hazards), but I don't understand the distinction between natural and man-made, when it comes to golf holes. If it's a good golf hole, why care what's natural and what isn't -- unless you're the one paying for the design?

Dan

[John Kavanaugh]

The ugliest water hazard on a great course that happens to be contiguous to Earths greatest hazard is the artificial pond fronting the 18th at Torrey Pines South.  No one could argue that the hole would be made better without the pond.  I would go so far to say that no one could make a legitimate argument that it is anything but a great hole.

I still remember the first time I played Torrey that I had no idea a water hazard fronted that green until I saw the stakes from about the 200 mark.  Fortunately I had played the hole too poorly to have found the pond by mistake. It is a butt ugly mark on a beautiful walk.

[Jason Thurman]

Agree with Dan on the "natural vs. man-made" debate. I doubt most people even recognize the difference, and I don't understand how one is better than another when it comes to playability (unless there's a giant dam you hit over from the landing area, which is the case on at least one course just south of Cincinnati...).

Several people have mentioned that water removes options, but that's only the case after you've hit into it. You'll have a hard time convincing me that there's any tee shot in golf in which making a wise decision is more important than on a "cape" tee shot with water tight to the fairway on the inside.

[Mike Schott]

The ugliest water hazard on a great course that happens to be contiguous to Earths greatest hazard is the artificial pond fronting the 18th at Torrey Pines South.  No one could argue that the hole would be made better without the pond.  I would go so far to say that no one could make a legitimate argument that it is anything but a great hole.

I still remember the first time I played Torrey that I had no idea a water hazard fronted that green until I saw the stakes from about the 200 mark.  Fortunately I had played the hole too poorly to have found the pond by mistake. It is a butt ugly mark on a beautiful walk.

Hi John.

The 18th at Torrey South is a great hole due to the hazard when the pin is up front. It's been 6-7 years since I played it and I think I took a 6 with a 3 putt because I was too cautious with my approach due to the pond. When the pin is back, it's a simple 3 shot shot par 5 on ordinary land.

[SL_Solow]

Barney;  do you think the hole could be improved if the hazzard were more artfully shaped?  do you think that water is the only way to make the hole work?  Is it a great hole because of its position on Torrey Pines?  I played it before and after Rees and view it as a fairly conventional par 5, reachable in 2 for many where the risk/reward is created by the pond.  Nothing special about the green.  Not a bad hole but for me it isn't great.

[Jud_T]

I don't understand the distinction between natural and man-made, when it comes to golf holes. If it's a good golf hole, why care what's natural and what isn't -- unless you're the one paying for the design?

Dan

Dan,

I think it's a question of before or after.  The point is if there's natural bodies of water that must be utilized in the routing, ok, make the best of it and it and turn it into something scenic and challenging.  But aside from necessary irrigation on a tight property, why introduce a man-made body of water?  Is there no other more imaginative solution that would provide players with a decision and an option other than dropping a ball?  The conscious decision of whether to take a one stroke penalty or take a risk and potentially bring either a great recovery or a big number into play is an infinitely better and more interesting proposition than drop 2, hit 3 over the same pond you just dunked one in for just about everybody.  If we're talking post construction, sure you can say whether a man-made body of water works well or not strategically and aesthetically, but it still begs the question, was there not a more elegant solution to this puzzle?

[John Kavanaugh]

Barney;  do you think the hole could be improved if the hazzard were more artfully shaped?  do you think that water is the only way to make the hole work?  Is it a great hole because of its position on Torrey Pines?  I played it before and after Rees and view it as a fairly conventional par 5, reachable in 2 for many where the risk/reward is created by the pond.  Nothing special about the green.  Not a bad hole but for me it isn't great.

I only played the hole after the renovation.  Yes I think the hole is great partly because it is the 18th on a championship course.  Sadly, because I know it reveals my ignorance, I also think it is a great hole because of what I have witnessed during competitive play.  I also think the green as it stands today is fantastic.  I love a green that can make grown men cry.

I don't think the green could be any more artfully shaped than the circle it is now.  Circles actually are more soothing to my eye than squiggles.

[Jason Thurman]

Jud,

How is the decision of how to play a risk-reward shot with water as the risk any less of a decision than if the water is replaced by sand/fescue? Just as an example, would the 18th tee shot at The Trophy Club be less interesting if the bunkers were replaced by water? I don't think it would be, though I do think it would be less forgiving. That's not a bad thing, but I think too often we confuse "strategy" with "opportunity to recover." There are plenty or strategic shots with dire consequences if poorly executed or planned, and I tend to think that without those consequences the shot isn't really strategic at all.

[Jud_T]

Jason,

I don't recall 18 at Trophy that well, it's all a blur!  I don't have a problem with one or two do or die propositions per round, particularly if there's a bailout option for the unwashed.  It's just often an overused concept.  But given my druthers, and the terrain for a variable hazard, I'd generally prefer to have a wider dispersion of possible outcomes and recoveries than 0 or 1...And frankly I'd also rather spend the price of a couple extra Pro-V's on post-round beverages...   You can have a very severe do or die hole which doesn't have water and still allows for the possibility, albeit treacherous, of recovery.  Take #2 or #9 at Kingsley as examples.  They're both arguably harder and have as much or more pucker factor than a simple par 3 over water with a benign green. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Who when thinking about the great recoveries in their life doesn't come back to a shot from the confines of a water hazard.  Last year I would have said that the time I hit my second into a lateral hazard on a par five, took a drop, and then holed out for a birdie four was my favorite.  This year I was able to make contact with my ball in the same hazard and holed out for eagle.  The only range of emotion greater than mine was that of my opponent when he not only lost the chickens he had counted they laid egg on his face as they left.  Only hazards can create this type of drama.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Dan
I see your point, but if I was bulding a course and a feature was not natural, I would not have built 18 at Doral like it is.
So comparing the man made and non made is really no issue.
That is like saying what would Pebble Beach be like if it doesnt have the Ocean..well it does!!!
If a feature is not natural, I just dont like it to be blasted in my face like 18 at Doral, with a fountain to boot.
A more subltle hazard would suffice, like the one at Quail Hollow's number 18, way more interesting than just a huge man made lake.
Just my opinion.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Jud, the two examples you cite at Kingsley are perfect of good design without water.
Compare number two at Kingsley to even number 17 at The Players, give me Kingsley every time.
Water just seems like an easy option anytime an architect wants to increase the level of difficulty.
I even think the new Fazio hole at Oak Hill number 6 I think it is, spoils the course, they changed a stream into a fully fleged man made lake, and it looks so fabricated.

[John Kavanaugh]

I would call the water hazards in Florida natural because when you remove the dirt to build the course water naturally appears.

[SL_Solow]

Barney, sorry for the delay but there is work.  returning to Torrey I understand the appeal of a course on which tournaments and indeed majors have been played.  But in analyzing the architecture, I try to divorce myself from the external factors.  The shaping issue I raised related to the hazard, it is clearly man made and doesn't fit the ground although it has obvious strategic impact.  Again, I don't think its a bad hole, I just don't see any feature that makes it great.  It requires some thought and presents choices but there is nothing unique to make it stand out from many similar holes.  Indeed the artifiality of the pond reduces its attractiveness to me.

[mike_malone]

 Diagonal water hazards are great; parallel to play are horrible. Flynn liked to integrate crossing creeks so that they might affect the layup shot rather than encouraging a carry. I think water that crosses the line of play that gets you to decide on  the proper layup is much more interesting then just mindlessly trying to carry it.

[Matthew Essig]

Why do I not find it surprising that the man-made vs. natural water hazards discussion is brought up again in this thread even though the topic of this thread does not involve that discussion topic...........

I love the history that water hazards have, even though people don't usually think about how they have been part of the game since the beginning. The first courses were built on the land that linked the biggest water hazard of them all, the ocean, and the town. St.Andrews, Royal County Down, Carnoustie, and Royal Birkdale (I could keep going), all have some type of water hazard on it. The courses could have built around these features, but were incorporated. I never hear anyone talk about their historical importance.

[Andy Troeger]

I'm not sure #2 at Kingsley is a good example for those of you bashing water because of a lack of the ability to recover. The recovery from the depression on the right to a front pin was too tough for me--I picked up twice. There are very few water hazards that have caused that much frustration! A severe hazard is a severe hazard, even if it doesn't eat your golf ball.

And I'm with those that don't see the point of the natural/non-natural distinction. Either the hazard works well or it doesn't. There's definite benefit to hazards that look natural (or tasteful), but I don't care if it was found or built.

[Matthew Essig]

Diagonal water hazards are great; parallel to play are horrible. Flynn liked to integrate crossing creeks so that they might affect the layup shot rather than encouraging a carry. I think water that crosses the line of play that gets you to decide on  the proper layup is much more interesting then just mindlessly trying to carry it.

+1, mostly.

Angles are great in architecture, period. I also think that creeks may be the most useful and strategic piece of golf architecture because they are small, so avoidable, but still brings fear to the golfer. They can also cause the golfer to consider playing from them, and they are easier to maintain compared to a stagnant lake. Still undecided about the parallel hazards being horrible.

[Jud_T]

I'm not sure #2 at Kingsley is a good example for those of you bashing water because of a lack of the ability to recover. The recovery from the depression on the right to a front pin was too tough for me--I picked up twice. There are very few water hazards that have caused that much frustration! A severe hazard is a severe hazard, even if it doesn't eat your golf ball.

Andy,

You do realize that firing at the pin might not always be the best course of action, both off the tee and on the recovery in this instance...Of course I wouldn't expect someone who can't distinguish between a large bathtub full of water and golf balls and an exquisitely contoured, bunkered and maintained, albeit penal, green and surround to consider such options...

[mike_malone]

  Matthew,
  Water hazards parallel to the line of play have no  strategy or options. You just must avoid them or take your stroke penalty.

[Andy Troeger]

Jud,
Good try, that was almost funny. Penal is penal, I hope Kingsley turns on the faucet and fills that thing up so I can take a drop next time 

[Matthew Essig]

  Matthew,
  Water hazards parallel to the line of play have no  strategy or options. You just must avoid them or take your stroke penalty.

I understand that it requires much less strategy. They shouldn't be made often.

But it can still cause fear, and it requires you to hit a good shot.

I like the tee shot on the 18th at Valhalla.

[mike_malone]

  I am from the school that takes on a hazard rather than avoiding them.

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike,

It is not all that uncommon to have a natural lateral hazard left and an OB right. The strategy is always to force your misses left as a lateral penalty is proportionally less than an OB. What really becomes interesting is when your opponent hits one OB before your turn to play. Oddly enough a shot into the lateral far enough forward for a good drop becomes a successful play. Nothing and I mean nothing is so frustrating as following your opponent OB.

People who play just for fun miss out on making lemonade and we all know besides sugar you gotta have some water.

[mike_malone]

 John,

  I know we go back and forth on the definition of strategy on this site but I believe 2 choices are the minimum requirement to be called strategy.