These hazards seem to lack strategy and only penalize a mishit. Why would anyone design them on purpose?

Kelly,

  I meant two types of hazards--one you must carry--the other that runs along the right or left of the tee or line of play with no carry option.

--one you must carry--

Mayday,

That is my 10 year old's favorite shot in golf!

Mayday,

To actually answer the question:

Typically because the topography is such that having to cross creeks and other water features are also akin to having cross low areas. If they were to be avoided, each hole would be going uphill from the water.

Pretty redundant.

Come on guys, this sort of thing isn't necessarily a priori for architecture. Think outside the box a bit.  

Patrick,

It certainly is exciting watching Augusta at 13 and 15.  However for the average club member on a typical forced carry hole if you hit a bad drive then you probably have to wedge it up to the creek and then play the forced carry with a wedge shot or something close to that.  So the average player, and even a good player must hit a good to great drive or the second shot is a nothing shot, that is my problem with the forced carries is that the hole quickly becomes very boring if the tee shot is not played just right.  We used to play a course in San Saba, TX that had a forced carry to a par 5 last hole, the forced carry could be made on the second shot to reach the green in two.  Much anticipated hole, however if you hit a bad drive the whole excitement of the hole was gone, that was it you hit a bad drive wedge it up to the edge of the pond and then wedge up to the green.  Had there been some other challenge that gave you a second chance to redeem yourself it would have been a much better hole, there would still be the incentive and excitement from a well played tee shot.  If there is a way around the hazard off to the side then if the player hits a bad drive they can still hit a mighty second shot to try and circumnavigate the hazard and have an  open shot to the green.  To me that is a much more exciting hole that provides another avenue by which to play the hole without diminishing the reward of a forced carry over a hazard to reach the green in one fewer shot.  Seems to me there is much more freedom and excitement in that type of design as opposed to the forced carry.  What creates the forced carry doesn't neccesarily have to be a low area, creek, etc, and can be a natural feature on the high land.  The problem with people always chiding others to think outside the box is that they always use the same phrase, if you really want to listen to someone who thinks apart from others then they are usually the ones that don't fall back on cliches
 

 #13 and #15 ANGC are good examples for discussion. In fact, #13 is just a small creek in front so one is not forced to carry alot of water and it has that movement around the right side of the green that creates the strategy. It also is not at a fixed distance so one can layup to their favorite distance. For #15 the water is more of a forced carry but it isn't on the tee shot so that,again, the required carry distance is not fixed.

  Wayne,

   Think about how Flynn used water at Indian Creek where he had a tabla rasa. The par three has a small strip of water to carry but the main use of water is at the back of the green . Then the wonderful short par four follows with the strategic use of water; cut off as much as you choose.

    My favorite course to hate , Stone Harbor, has many holes where the water is only to be avoided ; you  are not given a chance to decide what you want to do.

    Tom,

        I love shot testing but hate capital punishment for failure. When the brain is not engaged in decision making the game becomes boring.

 Pat,

   I think #17 TPC is interesting because it shows that to make the strategy work the hole must be short and the green big enough to allow for choices. I haven't played it yet but it seems that Dye has recognized the dilemma and designed around it.

    As for PVGC, This is a course that bills itself as a heroic course that is not for everyone so it gets a pass to some extent. But, I think the downhill par three on the back suffers from the fronting water. I prefer the other par threes much more.

Mayday,

What choices are there on # 17 at TPC ?

Pat,
    IF the wind is reasonable one can choose to aim at sections of the green. One can choose a club to just carry or be bolder to a back pin with an additional club. The art of choosing to hit a full shot or a half shot  also seems strategic to me.
    But if I must hit my driver the best I can and the straighest I can  (forced carry of 240 yards) that isn't strategic.

   Tom,
 Maybe you need to define "shot testing" for me. I don't want to disagree if in fact we agree.

    I would hope I had made my peace with the Lord before they start the walk to the chair!

Mayday:  gotta agree with Patrick re 17 at TPC...I think that green would have to be much bigger or much closer for all but the absolutely best players in the world to truly have a choice on how to play..

right now even the pros dunk a fair amount of balls in there ...and the public dunks an average of 3 for every player there!

 Actually the water that runs along the side of the line of play with no carry option is more bothersome to me . The result is a decision to avoid at all costs since there is little or no benefit to hugging it.

  This is usually seen at resort courses .


   Now if Pat can find some interesting uses of this hazard  I will be impressed.

 Jason,

   Thanks for your post. Don't you think the wide fairway is essential to this hole. If you had your usual 35 yard fairway I wonder how this would change your view of this hole.