[Garland Bayley]

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 

It seems you are talking about spectating, not playing.

[Garland Bayley]

Mark

The record high score at TPC Sawgrass is something like 239 from a high handicap low ball hitter who couldn't hold the 17th green. You call that excitement? 

[Pete_Pittock]

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.

Except when you reach to retrieve a ball and slip on the bank, and the next group finds a solitary golf bag.   (Sorry for deleting the rest of the quote, which was very good , but not germane to my answer.)

[Edward Glidewell]

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.

I was going to say something similar. I think there's a definite argument (and one I'd probably agree with) that water is the most exciting hazard when considering golf as a spectator sport, because it adds to the drama and can lead to big changes on the leaderboard. It's more fun when disaster is looming, although even then the hazards need to be used judiciously. The drama is lessened if there's water in play on every single hole.

As far as actually playing golf, well, I think you'd find very few golfers who would be happy regularly playing a course with water lurking everywhere. That's not to say it can't ever be an exciting hazard; making a heroic carry on a do or die shot can feel great. Overall, though, it's not especially fun to hit your ball into the water, especially multiple times a round. All other things being equal, I'd certainly prefer to play a course with little or no water than one full of hazards.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
You are absolutely correct, it is the excitement and anticipation, etc. that such hazards create.  And obviously there are many kinds of hazards that can create those feelings but I think there is something about water that makes it unique. 


Garland,
I still don't follow your thinking at all.  Do you think Pete Dye was talking about someone watching on TV??  Of course not.  He was talking about the golfer who knows he will somehow have to complete that 17th hole to finish off his or her round.  It had nothing to do with spectating     


And regarding Speith; you were the one talking about boring or easy drop areas not me.  I just mentioned him because he didn't find the drop area on 12 too easy nor did any of the four leaders who hit it in the water last year and who all couldn't get up and down from the drop   


Edward,
Just saw your post.  I agree and said so earlier about water on too many holes.  It could get old fast.  But I was thinking about playing as much as watching.  Remember it is fun to watch as well even members of your own foursome play some of these shots.  In golf even when playing, we do a lot of spectating 


Once again, I offer this question - would the Masters be as exciting (for the players and for those watching) if the nines were reversed?  Like it or not, some (not all) of the water hazards on the back nine make that nine as thrilling as it is.   

[Garland Bayley]

The 2019 Masters was particularly boring, because the guy that played the safe shot on 12 won. Mostly the spectator had to put up with watching stupid play lose the championship.

It doesn't matter if they switch the nines. High drama exists without water hazards in play. Sometimes the most exciting things happen on the 10th.

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
If you think the 2019 Masters was "particularly boring" then we will just agree to disagree    Maybe you would feel the same way if they switched the nines at the TPC of Sawgrass too (it wouldn't change anything would it)?  Same for Cypress Point or Pebble Beach or,...  You might want to study these courses a bit more before making such comments 

[John Mayhugh]

Other than OB which no golfer likes,

I don't agree with this statement at all.
I hate going out of bounds, but strategic use of it makes for some great holes. OOB, like water, is misused when it's simply there to punish an errant shot or force only a single type of shot. When used to heighten the risk (and for a great reward), OOB can be wonderful. Look no further than the rail line on the 4th at Woking or the 4th at St. Enodoc. In both cases, the hole is made better with out of bounds.

[Mark_Fine]

John,
I understand and agree with most of what you are saying about OOB. I know they those holes you mentioned. Rail lines are common along many great courses over there.  But other than a few select situations like the 17th and 18th holes at St. Andrews for example, I just don’t think OOB is a particularly exciting hazard.  Like any kind of hazard (or hazardous situation), OOB can as you say heighten the risk and the reward but I still argue very few golfers like it. 

The 18th at Pebble Beach has both with the water down the left and the OOB along the right.  Both strike fear but which hazard do you like the best and feel is more exciting to try to carry or circumvent?

[Tal Oz]

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.

I was going to say something similar. I think there's a definite argument (and one I'd probably agree with) that water is the most exciting hazard when considering golf as a spectator sport, because it adds to the drama and can lead to big changes on the leaderboard. It's more fun when disaster is looming, although even then the hazards need to be used judiciously. The drama is lessened if there's water in play on every single hole.

Ed, It sort of dawned on me that golf is always a spectator sport. Once you hit your shot you're just as much a spectator as anyone. Those precious few seconds when a ball is airborne hoping to clear a hazard are as thrilling as draining a double breaking 50 footer or cleanly nipping a lob wedge off a tight lie and watching it check up. Those are the highs us golfers chase.


The answer to most things on this site is some variation of variety is the spice of life. The do or die nature of water can be thrilling a few times a round, but would be overboard if every hole posed the same question. The second 9 at ANGC poses the water question differently on every hole at Amen Corner and 15 and if I ever have the pleasure of playing a round there I hope I have a decision to make whether to go for it or not on 13 and 15. Doral or PGA National seem like a place where a dozen golf balls and a ripped up scorecard would be in the lakes.

[Jeff Schley]

The second 9 at ANGC poses the water question differently on every hole at Amen Corner and 15 and if I ever have the pleasure of playing a round there I hope I have a decision to make whether to go for it or not on 13 and 15.

On your 2nd or 3rd shot?   

[John Mayhugh]

The 18th at Pebble Beach has both with the water down the left and the OOB along the right.  Both strike fear but which hazard do you like the best and feel is more exciting to try to carry or circumvent?

This question makes no sense to me.
I said that I like the strategic use of out of bounds. While there is out of bounds along the right side of the 18th fairway, it is in no way strategic. There's no benefit to playing over there, and no one would choose to hit close to it to gain an advantage on the hole. Hitting right makes the hole play longer and puts tree(s) in the way.

[Mark_Fine]

John,
I guess I didn't phrase the question well.  I was trying to point out if OOB was on the left instead of water, I don't think golfers would like the hole at all.  It is bad enough that OOB is on the right but trust me, the OOB does add to the strategy of the golf hole.  If there was no OOB, golfers would play even more away from the water than they do now.  They know they can't miss wide right or they are re-teeing their golf ball because they are OB.  That fear adds to the stress over the golf shot and makes you flirt more with the water.  Furthermore it is a three shot hole for most golfers so going to the right is no big deal if you can keep it in bounds.  The most important thing about your first shot is making sure you get to play the same ball with no penalty for your second    By the way, that tree can be in your way whether you are right or left or short of it. 
Mark

[Sean_A]

I don't like the idea of any architectural features being proclaimed as the most exciting, best placed, best type etc. Practically all features are good or at least understandable. The issue is more case by case taking into account all sorts of factors. What is important is that architecture doesn't get pushed into a corner by any prevailing wisdom, theory, practice etc other than variety is king.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
Of course variety is the most important factor.  You for one, down play the need for bunkers 😊  These threads are just to get people thinking.  I hope no one takes them too seriously 


Stay well!
Mark

[John Mayhugh]

Mark,


To be fair, it's a massive downgrade in excitement by replacing the Pacific Ocean with pretty much anything. If the ocean were on the right where the homes are now and the only role would be to punish an errant shot, then the hole design would be wasting a great opportunity.

Also, I don't believe having out of bounds on one side of a hole and water on the other is desirable, no matter how strategic either hazard is. We seem to be using the term strategic a bit differently. I am referring to intentionally taking on or playing closer to a hazard in order to gain an advantage. I agree that the ob on Pebble's 18th may affect how someone plays the hole (e.g. club off the tee), but the only advantage one gets from playing near it is reducing the likelihood of going in the water, which isn't the same thing.

One thing to add - I think out of bounds works best used sparingly and when the characteristics of the site drive it. In the US, most out of bounds is there out of necessity and doesn't make for a better hole.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
If you think the 2019 Masters was "particularly boring" then we will just agree to disagree    Maybe you would feel the same way if they switched the nines at the TPC of Sawgrass too (it wouldn't change anything would it)?  Same for Cypress Point or Pebble Beach or,...  You might want to study these courses a bit more before making such comments 

You might study golf a little more. Lowest score wins. There is an opportunity to miss a shot and have your score go higher on every swing, or to hit an exceptional shot and have your score go lower on every swing. Therein lies the drama. Penalty areas just change the math. The most exciting thing that happened at Augusta in fairly recent history was Bubba's hook on 10 in the playoff. Didn't even involve amen corner.

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
So to be clear, what you are saying is that it really doesn’t matter what order the holes on a golf course are played, front nine first or back nine first because in the end you have to play them all eventually and add up your score?


We will just agree to differ. 


Stay well,
Mark

[Tal Oz]

The second 9 at ANGC poses the water question differently on every hole at Amen Corner and 15 and if I ever have the pleasure of playing a round there I hope I have a decision to make whether to go for it or not on 13 and 15.

On your 2nd or 3rd shot?   

I'd be content laughing my ass off getting safely aboard laying 12 a la Sergio if it meant playing there. But to answer your question 2nd.

[Mark Pritchett]

There is nothing exciting about a water hazard.

Really?  Nothing exciting about the 16th at Cypress?  2nd at Peachtree?  12th at ANGC?  There are great golf holes with water and bad golf holes with water.  The truth is always in the middle.  Dumb take. 

[David_Tepper]

As the saying goes, "there is no accounting for taste."

[Edward Glidewell]

The second 9 at ANGC poses the water question differently on every hole at Amen Corner and 15 and if I ever have the pleasure of playing a round there I hope I have a decision to make whether to go for it or not on 13 and 15.

On your 2nd or 3rd shot?   

Someone I know who has played ANGC said they hit a great drive on 13 and was planning to lay up on their second shot to try for a birdie. The ANGC caddie asked them if they thought they'd ever play there again. When the player said no, the caddie handed him a 3 wood (this was in the late 90s) and told him to knock the damn ball on the green.


He hit it in the Rae's Creek tributary, but says he's glad he went for it anyways.

[Mark_Fine]

Edward,
Kind of the same as laying up on #16 at Cypress Point if you think you are only ever going to get to play it once.  I still remember the first time I played there, I looked at the caddie and said, "I am staying on this tee until I knock one on the green or run out of golf balls, which ever comes first."    Only took three balls   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()