“casual water” as an architectural element

[Steve Sayers]

I came across the following description in a Philadelphia newspaper written in 1919:

“The sixth also presents an interesting problem.  The distance is about 227 yards, but the difficult phase of the hole will be the casual water that will border the green on three sides.  For this reason the test will be called the Island hole, as the side of the green that will not be bordered by water will be out of bounds.  It will be a mighty daring golfer who tries to get onto the green on his drive.  There may be only a few who attempt the feat.”

How do you interpret the term “casual water” as it applies to an architectural element?  

Given the flowery writing style throughout the article, I’m thinking this may only be an adjective used to describe the water.

Also, given the date of the article (1919), how innovative was the idea of an “island hole”?

[Matt Dupre]

Steve,

What golf course is this?  And is the hole still in play?

[Pete_Pittock]

Hazarding a guess, maybe casual water described a lake or pond, rather than a stream.

[TEPaul]

Steve:

This is a very interesting question and mostly, in my opinion, as it relates to the Rules of Golf and when "relief" from "casual water" may have come into being in golf's Rules!

Clearly, something like this could have been used in an architectural context before "relief" from "casual water" came into being in the rules but somehow I doubt it ever was.

I was reading in some older writing (Hunter's "The Links") recently some of the unusual shots some of the older good golfers had and there was mention of their abilities in playing shots out of water and such and soggy areas (casual water?).

But I don't believe that architects EVER intentionally tried to encourage or certainly design wet and soggy areas that could be considered what we call "casual water" and from which relief is now granted in the rules.

Such things were simply an inconvience to play but there was never anything like the "relief" from them that we have today and have in the Rules of Golf today.

Long ago there were two overriding themes in all of golf that those players always adhered to and actually came to be called "The Two Great Principles"!

They were (or are);

1. You play the course as you find it.
2. Put your ball in play at the start of the hole, play only your own ball and do not touch it until you lift it from the hole.

This obviously included what we call "casual water" and which they did not take relief from!

As an addendum, the prinicple that a golfer did not touch his ball until he removed it from the hole had some other interesting applications in golf!

The stymie, for instance, was not something that was ever "invented" in golf! It was simply another example of the evolutionary RESULT and occasional HAPPENSTANCE of that same principle that you could not touch your ball!!

Back then, "laying your opponent a stymie" was not considered a sportsman like thing to do!! It just happened (and the stymie itself resulted from the fact the player just could  not touch his ball to effect "relief" for his opponent!)

[Paul_Turner]

If you lose a ball in casual water, isn't it a free drop?  Like losing it in GUR.

Not much of a hazard if that's the case.

[Steve Sayers]

MDupre:

The course is LuLu and the hole as described is not in existence.  There is mounting evidence that the original routing is not what we currently play.  The hole described in the article (#6) may very well have been where the present day 10th is located (a par 5).  Much of the information gathered to date is contradictory – I need to find more pieces of the puzzle to make any conclusions.

[TEPaul]

Steve;

What's this all about? Does it have anything to do with that mysterious depression on #10 you thought was a bunker? Sounds like you're talking about down around the present 10th green though.

[Forrest Richardson]

Casual water used to be played as a hazard. With no sunstantive change in definition, the condition was changed so that relief could be taken. I cannot recall the date -- but guess it to be in the very early 1900s.

[Steve Sailer]

Here's a possible innovation in hazards:

There is little that's more fun in golf than a player taking his shoes off and rolling up his pants to try to hit his ball from the water -- think Billy Jo Patton at the Masters or Jean van de Velde at Carnoustie. Most of the time it's a very bad idea, but an architect should try to design a water hazard that would be particularly tempting.

Design a green side water hazard that is automatically kept exactly 0.5 inches deep. It would have a non-muddy sand or gravel bottom. Players could take the usual drop, but they would also have a sporting chance to blast it out of the water and onto the green. The player who pulled it off would talk about it for years.

[Forrest Richardson]

And I feel we might introduce some baby piranhas in there for sport.

[TEPaul]

Steve Sailer:

Is that the way you're supposed to play a shot like that? No wonder I've never been very good at it. I've always rolled up my shoes and then taken my pants off.

[JohnV]

From Kenneth Chapman's The Rules of the Green:

The first distinction between permanent and casual water was made in the 1883 Wimbledon code.  Despite the distinction, the player was still penalized a stroke for lifting, but making the distinction was in itself signficant:

If the ball lie in casual water on the course, the player may take it out, change the ball if he please, tee it, and play from behind the hazard, losing a stroke.
If the ball be in a hazard, or the water itself be a recognised hazard, it may be lifted and dropped behind the hazard, under the same penalty.

The code applied a slightly more lenient penalty in the case of a ball in casual water, since the player was allowed to tee a ball.  The lesser penalty can be seen as the first step in the direction of the free drop.  The first code of rules issued in 1899 by the Rules of Golf Committee of the R&A made a clear distinction between "casual water through the green" and "water in a hazard" allowing a free drop in the first case and one stroke penalty in the latter.

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

Nice research work there. Where does one get a copy of Kenneth Chapman's rules book?

Obviously in C.B. MacDonald's references to Travis et al (which was later) those guys were satisfied to go in there and hit the shots in all kinds of conditions regardless of the inception of allowed lifting---certainly foregoing the shot penalty.

[JohnV]

Tom Paul,

It is definitely available from Amazon.

The complete title is:
The Rules of the Green, A History of the Rules of Golf
Author: Kenneth G. Chapman
Publisher: Triumph Books, Chicago  They have a website, but I didn't check to see if you could order the book through them.

ISBN: 1-57243-201-2
Published: 1997

I believe the USGA used to have copies for sale at Golf House, but I don't see it in their catalogue.  Perhaps you could call and ask them.