[Phil_the_Author]

Water hazards, as a design feature, have been part of golf course design since the first designer said, "let's see if they can hit it over the stream, Laddie!"

But in all seriousness, what holes would you say would benefit the most from either water being added or changed. e.g.- #16 at ANGC became a much better hole (IMHO) when the green was moved and the stream turned into a lake.

[Phil Benedict]

I started a thread about water hazards a while back.  Generally I take a dim view of artificial water hazards such as those on desert courses.  Natural water hazards like Rae's Creek and the Pacific Ocean are among the greatest architectural features in the game.

As far as 16 at ANGC is concerned, I have no idea whether a lake is a better architectural feature than a stream, other than it looks better on television.  The hole is better now that the water is in play, but I can't say whether damning up the stream was needed to achieve this.  It's easier to find golf balls in streams.

[mike_beene]

Isn't Raes Creek damned up just to the left of 12?Does that make it unnatural?

[Glenn Spencer]

I have never understood why it matters, you put the green beyond the lake or the lake in front of the green. Some of them do work and some don't, but why does it matter if it was natural or not? Does it affect the playing of the hole?

[Tyler Kearns]

Glenn,

It does not affect the playability of the hole, but artificial water hazards tend to look contrived, and ARTIFICIAL. Natural water courses and their surrounds simply cannot be designed, and appear much more harmonious within the landscape and are more pleasing to the eye.

TK

[Matt Kardash]

I tend to think that many artificial hazards are pleasing to the eye. Then again, i'm more into artificial touches than most people here.

[Jim Nugent]

Glenn,

It does not affect the playability of the hole, but artificial water hazards tend to look contrived, and ARTIFICIAL. Natural water courses and their surrounds simply cannot be designed, and appear much more harmonious within the landscape and are more pleasing to the eye.

TK

Tyler, my first thought when reading your post was "sand traps."  Few are really natural, are they?  Yet they typically are installed by the dozens.  Do they look contrived?  Why the difference between the way we perceive sand and water?  

Or am I missing something?  

[James Bennett]

Phillip Young

I'll take Plainfield as a water hazard example.  I understand that #10 and #18 water hazards are planned for removal.  IMO, that will be a good thing.  #3 has a water hazard that works well, although I don't think of Plainfield as a water hazard type place - it is more a a ground movement place so the water doesn't sit as well with me.  

In that regard, I would like to see Plainfield's #14 (a long par 3 over a pond) amended to more of a merion style creek arrangement - similar severity of hazard for the better player, but enabling a ball to be retrieved and a better aesthetic in keeping with the rest of the course.  

Alas I expect it will be a long time before I see Plainfield again, but wishing and thinking will always be an option from afar.

James B

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()