[Thomas Dai]

From a playability standpoint water hazards, whether stream or pond or sea etc, could be more exciting if they weren't so often so immaculately conditioned and presented.
Where the edges were a bit scruffy and there was sand or mud or a beach or whatever stretching out into the water so you could, if you wished, consider playing a recovery shot a la Curtis Strange on the 13th at ANGC or Jean Van der Velde at Carnoustie or Brian Davis at Harbor Town or Brett Ogle on the beach at Pebble etc.
The kind of special moments that players, playing partners, spectators, photos and film remember forever. Not many special moments in taking a drop at the side.
atb

[Garland Bayley]

... But no one has recommended any more exciting alternatives to the water hazards for most of the holes mentioned above?  ...

When something is false in general, there is no point in going through giving details on every example.

The best example I can think of is Monarch Dunes in Nipomo CA. A lot of boring water holes, and a lot of exciting holes in the dunes.

No one goes to the British Isles to play water holes. They go to play the generally water hazardless links land. Turn the links into Florida replicas, and I estimate almost no one going.

[Mark_Fine]

Thomas,
No question the recovery shot is one of the most exciting shots in the game. Water, gorse, an impossibly deep bunker,...sometimes don’t allow for a recovery shot to take place.  Remember, I didn’t say water was the “best” hazard, I just said it might be create the most excitement.


I don’t know if you know but back when Augusta put in those trees on #15    they also raised the level of Rae’s Creek in front of #13    because sometimes a golfer would end up in the creek and/or in the hazard and have some kind of recovery shot to the green. They wanted to end that so they raised the water level.  Now a golfer knew if they ended up in the hazard, there was no possible recovery.  All that did was reduce temptation to go for that green in two and eliminate the unpredictability of the hazard.  It was that unpredictability and the chance of knowing their might still be an opportunity to get up and down for birdie that tempted players to try the heroic shot vs laying up. Fortunately the powers to be figured this out and lowered the water level back down to where you just might get lucky and have a play.

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
So basically you don’t have a more exciting suggestion     


No one said anything about why you go to the British Isles to play links golf.  Of course it is not for the water holes.  I was just making a point that if used sparingly water creates a lot of excitement whether you like the feature or not.  I listed a bunch of holes as examples.  You didn’t make much of an argument why I am wrong 

[Mike Bodo]

From the posts so far, it seems the controversial aspect of water is pretty clear.  No surprise there.  However, not a lot of consensus so far on water being the most exciting hazard.  But no one has recommended any more exciting alternatives to the water hazards for most of the holes mentioned above?   If there was no water on any of the finishing holes at TPC Sawgrass would they be more or less exciting?  If there was no water on the finishing holes at Bay Hill would they be more exciting?  If there was no water on 15-17 at Cypress Point or on the 18th at Pebble Beach would the holes be more exciting?  If they eliminated the water on the finishing holes at Quail Hollow would the holes be more exciting?  If they replaced the pond on the 18th at Torrey Pines South with a bunker would the hole provide a more exciting finish? 

Bobby Jones was once asked how he played the island green hole at East Lake and he responded, “with an old ball”.  I wonder if he viewed that hole as exciting?  I don’t know if he liked it, but it sure got his attention. 

Final thought, there are no water hazards on the front nine of Augusta National.  If they reversed the nines for the tournament, would the back nine finish be as exciting? 

Keep in mind, if you're playing the aforementioned holes the word "exciting" or "excitement" isn't necessarily the first thing that pops into ones head. Terrifying, nerve-wracking, disconcerting, intimidating are perhaps more common adjectives that come to mind. From a spectator and TV viewers POV, these holes and many others with water hazards that are historically known for drama are extremely exciting for the potential turn of events they can create. I just watched the final round of the 2016 Masters yesterday and still am in disbelief at how Jordan Spieth took a 7 on #12, effectively losing the tournament. From a spectators standpoint that was exciting drama. If you're Jordan Spieth that hole forever haunts you any time you step up on the tee. The same goes for all the players who plunked balls into #12 in last year's Masters final round, paving the way for Tiger to take his 5th Masters title and 15th major.

[Mike Bodo]

Speaking of this subject, Links Magazine writer, Tony Dear, published an article listing what he feels are Golf's Greatest Water Hazards.


https://www.linksmagazine.com/golfs-greatest-water-hazards/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=insider04.12.20


I would love to hear peoples opinions on his choices - both pro and con.

[Garland Bayley]

Mark,

You made argument yourself labeling recovery shots exciting. If you get a drop, often in a very playable location, you have taken away the excitement. Add one to your score. Math is boring, recovery shots are exciting. Avoiding water hazards is boring. Getting in water hazards is a pain. Having a chance at recovery is exciting.

[John Kavanaugh]

Garland,


You must feel lucky having at least one recovery shot every hole.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Garland,


You must feel lucky having at least one recovery shot every hole.

John, if I counted properly water comes into play on 14 holes at VN.

[Mark_Fine]

So Garland, would those holes mentioned be as exciting and present as much drama (call it what you want) without the water hazards? 


Also, Jordan Speith might beg to differ with you about how easy the shot is from some drop areas   


Mike,
All those terms/feelings you mentioned are brought on by that hazard.  Sometimes you can just avoid the hazard altogether but sometimes you have no choice but to confront it and take it on.  As Pete Dye once said about the 17th at TPC, many golfers start thinking about that shot long before they arrive at the tee.  It’s only a 120 yard shot to a nearly 8000 sq ft green, well within the capability of most golfers.   What’s the big deal and why would that get even a pro excited/nervous     

[John Kavanaugh]

It comes into play on 14 holes. I have hit it into a lateral hazard on 16 holes. Sometimes what wasn’t in play is.

[Mark_Fine]

Let me be clear, water can be a horrible hazard if overused and/or used poorly.  I remember playing the TPC at Eagle Trace in Florida and felt like I needed a boat instead of a golf cart to get around.  I would not enjoy playing there every day! 

I have worked on multiple courses where I have advocated taking water hazards out and/or reducing their size or level of impact on a golf hole.  I have also “never” added a new water hazard that wasn’t already there.  There was one course, an old Emmett design, where the owner insisted against my recommendations to add a pond.  Golfers often blame the architect, but owners can do what they want so we had no choice (he had the pond built on his own) as he wanted a water feature near the clubhouse so it could be seen while people were dining.  Did nothing for the golf hole but so be it.


All this said, if used well, water can be a very exciting if not polarizing design feature and there are few other hazards that overall compare.   Like them or not, I could list hundreds of examples of water hazards from great golf courses.  The case is pretty compelling. 

[Ronald Montesano]

What are hazards? Water courses (including marsh grass), sand pits, OOB, quicksand.


Water is the NASCAR of golf. It is the accident waiting to happen, albeit without the threat of injury and death.


The most exciting hazard (not to be confused with the most appropriate, the most strategic, the most functional, the most exotic) is the one that offers the most dire threat, the most horrific outcome.


Rae's Creek as it is on 11 would not be as good on 12 nor 13. As it is on 12, would not be as good on 11 nor 13. And, as it is on 13 (twice!) would not be as good on 11 nor 12.


Contrast Paul's Island at Sawgrass with his Island at PGA West. Even if the Players had been hosted by PGA West all these years, I propose that we would not like 17 there as we do 17 at Jax. Why? Alcatraz has those rocks, which impact results far more than the wooden frame at the other place. At Sawgrass, it's all or nothing with a short pitch. Alcatraz is longer, and therefore, mistakes are understandable.


Water can be exciting and strategic, and it can be exciting and stupid. Rae's Creek is a brilliant example of this, on all three holes. You can aim right on 11, left on 12, and wherever on 13, and never risk death by H2O. Or, you can be a stupid and bring it into play on all three holes. On those three holes, there is so little water, yet so much excitement.


It is when there is so little safety, so little alternative, that water becomes exciting and stupid. That list is quite long.

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

I'm guessing I can think of just as many dramatic uses of bunkers as water hazards.  But like you say, a few posts ago, bunkers just like water hazards can be bland/boring when overused or not used correctly.  As for bunkers a few good uses:

Road hole bunker on TOC 17
Deep bunkers left on 5 at ANGC
Massive bunker front left on Pac Dunes #6
Several bunkers on CPC 9
Bunker front right on Pasatiempo 16

[Thomas Dai]

It would probably be amiss not to include in this thread the famous Bobby Jones quote [size=78%].......[/size]


[/size]"The difference between going in a sand trap and getting in water is like the difference between an auto wreck and an airplane wreck. You can recover from one of them."[size=78%][/color]
[/size]atb

[Mark_Fine]

Thomas,
That quote is spot on. Lack of recovery is why I would personally not rank water hazards very high on my "what are the BEST kinds of hazards" list.  But this is not a thread about best.  If every hole had dire consequences it would probably not be very much fun for long and not a very good design. 


Ronald,
You explained it well.  It is that dire outcome that makes it thrilling.  And just like NASCAR, if there was crash after crash, it would really suck and few would want to watch for long. 


Kalen,
You know I have done a little bit of research around the world on bunkers and hazards.  You are absolutely right, we both could put together a list of great and fairly dramatic bunkers, etc.  But maybe it is the fatality and dire consequences of water (coupled with its beauty which is an oxymoron) that can set water apart as the most exciting.  The bunkers you mentioned are all fantastic but like Bobby Jones said, not necessarily fatal.  They don't elicit the same emotions as water does.  That greenside bunker for example on CPC #9 is awesome but it is not terrifying as you know if you try to do something heroic and hit your drive into it you can still can get up and down.  The more dire, probably the more excitement.  Think about the Devil's Asshole on #10 at Pine Valley.  The hole wouldn't be the same or ever talked about if that bunker was just a small pot two or three feet deep. 


In many ways this all goes back to why hazards in general are so important to compelling and inspiring golf.  You need the right balance but every once in a while a little extra excitement and challenge is good to test the nerves 

[Tom_Doak]

You did not specify whether you meant "exciting" TO PLAY or TO WATCH ON TV.


It excites people watching TV to see players find a watery grave, as Ben Wright used to say.  Ron's NASCAR analogy was a very good choice in that regard.




But, the most exciting shot on 16 at Augusta had nothing to do with the water hazard next to it.

[Thomas Dai]

To what extent do folks like or dislike or whatever it when sand bunkers and water hazards bleed into one another, ie no grassed area deliberately in between them?
Atb

[Sean_A]

To what extent do folks like or dislike or whatever it when sand bunkers and water hazards bleed into one another, ie no grassed area deliberately in between them?
Atb

I like it a ton when done right.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Tom.
You are right I didn't specify but if anything I meant both.  I also didn't mention #16 at Augusta but since you brought that hole up, clearly the steep slope in the green is the most critical design feature.  However, I think you will admit the bunker on the left would get a lot more play if the water wasn't there so the water does influence play.  Depending on the hole location, if you miss the green to the right, it can almost be as bad as being in the water.  Would the hole be better without the water on the left?  Maybe, maybe not, but it would be much easier that is for sure.  Another question is do you even need that left bunker?  Let the water be the only hazard on the left. 


Thomas,
Beach bunkers as I sometimes call them are as old as golf itself.  Pine Valley has a few on the par three 14th hole.  Then can be tricky to build/maintain if they are not natural. 

[John Kavanaugh]

It's like none of you have played with bad golfers in Arizona. How long do you need to hike through the rocks looking for a ball before you wish it was a water hazard?

[Tom_Doak]

It's like none of you have played with bad golfers in Arizona. How long do you need to hike through the rocks looking for a ball before you wish it was a water hazard?

Indeed, you know the situation is really dire when management tells you to bend the Rules and treat other areas like a water hazard!

[Thomas Dai]

It's like none of you have played with bad golfers in Arizona. How long do you need to hike through the rocks looking for a ball before you wish it was a water hazard?

Indeed, you know the situation is really dire when management tells you to bend the Rules and treat other areas like a water hazard!

Some places have been treating difficult terrain as drop-at-the-side hazard areas for quite some time, same with potential danger areas, like an area with snake issues.
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Funny, but in checking this thread a few times over the last few days, I never once considered that it was about watching golf on TV.    I went through thrilling shots of various types that I have played.


Long ago, someone here opined that the most exciting moments in golf are the "hang times" when you don't know if your shot is going in a hazard or not.  Oddly, IMHO its more "edge of your seat" when contemplating missing a hazard than hitting a green (or fw)  Technically, hazards aren't exciting or thrilling or boring.  It's the moments they may create that are exciting.  Or the feelings, like exhilaration when you miss them.  So, I guess it's more exciting to miss water than most other hazards.


Thus, a hazard on the edge of a target is probably the most exciting hazard.  I can think of examples of sand and water, maybe even native areas, that all fall in that category, but my mind does keep coming back to clearing a water hazard, a la a Cape Hole or Cypress Point 16.  Not sure if it is because the entire carry might be possible to end too early, the amount of penalty or $4 for the lost ball, or just what, but long carries over water do seem to be the most thrilling.


Are they controversial?   I think not.  We may discuss any one feature as poorly designed as controversial.  We might get bored of 18 straight water holes, if too similar, must as we might get bored of 14 long holes with bunkers (or narrowed by trees) a la RTJ or Dick Wilson.


I mean, is there any one hazard or design idea that is so great that it should be used almost exclusively, or are they like jokes, only funny the first time you encounter them (at least in a round?)

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,


You must feel lucky having at least one recovery shot every hole.

Must be why low handicappers tell me I have more fun playing than they do.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()