News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Water Hazards
« on: March 09, 2006, 04:35:56 PM »
We complain a lot about trees here but don't you think water hazards are overused in modern architecture, particularly resort settings?  Water hazards work well if they punish the golfer for getting greedy and failing to execute - Cape holes for example.  The type of water hazards I find objectionable are parallel hazards that run down one side of the fairway.  All you think about on the hole is avoiding the hazard.

I just spent a week in Palm Springs playing Shadow Ridge and PGA West Stadium.  Each course had holes with long water hazards bordering the landing area.  Only way to avoid them was to hit away from them.  No choice to make.  I just didn't find these holes fun to play.  Maybe it's because I don't like losing ProV1's.

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2006, 04:49:40 PM »
Phil,

I don't know what the situation at Shadow Ridge and PGA West was, but oft times "water hazards" are requirements that weren't the course architect's idea!

For example, Rod Whitman and I have laid out a course on Vancouver Island (that should start construction this year). We would never design an artificial pond as a hazard for the sake of, say, guarding a green. But there will be no less than eight artificial ponds at this particular course mandated as part of the storm water management plan for the surrounding residential development (of more than 1,000 home lots, plus condos, etc.).  

There's nothing Rod and I can do about it, other than try to make the ponds appear as natural as possible and integrate them into the design of the golf course in unique and interesting ways. I look at it as a challenge.

I can imagine a student of golf architecture coming out there when the course is ready to play asking, "What were Whitman and Mingay thinking?!?! Eight ponds... I thought they had a traditional design philosophy!"

They weren't our idea  :)
jeffmingay.com

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2006, 04:51:48 PM »
Phil.

Natural water hazards, streams etc., generally add flavor to a course, it's the wretched artificially created ponds with waterfall backdrops I find so offensive.

I have played limited golf in Florida, but looking at televised golf in that State makes me feel that the ball retriever is the most important tool in the bag.

Bob

Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2006, 04:59:27 PM »
It's the unnatural hazards they put on desert courses and in Florida that I object to as well.  I have to quarrel with Raes Creek or the Pacific Ocean, for that matter.

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2006, 05:03:50 PM »
I'd be happy if they did away with them entirely, as a matter of facts, I prefer courses without them.
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2006, 05:27:10 PM »
Gentlemen,

I agree 100%.

If I went through my entire life not designing a single course featuring an artificial water hazard, I'd be a happy man. However, there are and always will be situations (as described above) when an artificial pond or two (or eight!) are mandated.

Even Bandon Trails has an irrigation lake in play!

Again, I consider our situation on Vancouver Island an interesting challenge. We'll see what transpires!
jeffmingay.com

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2006, 05:35:38 PM »
I agree with the general distaste for water hazards.  However, in talking to the "average " member the beauty and challenge of water hazards are always mentioned.  Moreover many of the pictorial essays on new courses feature the water hazrds.  Clearly this is another instance where our "refined tastes" may not reflect the general public.

A final point; there is some excuse in Florida.  In many cases the land is so flat, the only way to create any contour is cut and fill work.  Sometimes the most effective way to deal with the cuts is to turn them into ponds.

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2006, 09:48:01 PM »
Writing in Routing the Golf Course, Dr. Ed Sadalla comments on Perceived versus Actual Difficulty:

...It is important to note that difficulty of a hazard and the excitement it generates do not always go hand in hand. Many of the difficulties in golf are mental, not physical — subjective, not objective. One can distinguish between the actual difficulty of a hazard and the perceived difficulty of the hazard. Hazards with high perceived difficulty catch the golfer’s attention, stimulate the imagination, and produce an emotional response. Water is an example of a hazard with high perceived difficulty, even on holes where it is easily avoided. Water often compels fantasies of failure in the average golfer. Peter Dobrineiner, a British writer, put it succinctly: “Water creates a neurosis in golfers, the very thought of this harmless fluid robs them of their normal powers of thought, turns their legs to jelly and produces a palsy of the upper limbs.”

On many occasions, however, hazards with high actual difficulty have low perceived difficulty. For example, deep rough is a more difficult problem for most players than is a shallow sand trap. However, a green with prominent bunkers tends to attract more attention and elicits more apprehension than a green surrounded by rough. The former is more visually interesting, more exciting, and tends to be perceived as more hazardous, although the green surrounded by deep rough is likely to add relatively more strokes to the scorecard.




— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Jordan Wall

Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2006, 10:56:21 PM »

I just spent a week in Palm Springs playing Shadow Ridge and PGA West Stadium.  Each course had holes with long water hazards bordering the landing area.  Only way to avoid them was to hit away from them.  No choice to make.  I just didn't find these holes fun to play.  Maybe it's because I don't like losing ProV1's.

Palm Springs is a city that is very fun and enjoyable.  The only thing is is that many of the courses in the area are going to be like you say, with lots of unchallenging[/color]water hazards that are simply appealing to the eye.  This is because in Palm Springs it is pretty much one big retirement place with older folks and their dogs (there is nothing wrong with that either).  They want their courses to look nice but not be too hard, for obvious reasons.  Hence, the water that may not challenge you.

BUT, if the water is unchallenging, why do you mention how you hate to lose your Pro-v1's in the water.....?

Jeff Fortson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #9 on: March 10, 2006, 04:19:55 AM »
This is one reason why Riviera is sooooo good. ;D


Jeff F.
#nowhitebelt

Marc Haring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #10 on: March 10, 2006, 05:08:44 AM »
I think there are occasions of appalingly inappropriate use of water hazards. This one for example on a new links course. Water, water everywhere nor not a drop to appreciate.



Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #11 on: March 10, 2006, 02:20:38 PM »
Marc,

The hazard to the right of that fairway is just the sort I object to.  All it does is inspire fear.  The only strategy is to avoid it.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2006, 02:49:19 PM »
Phil,
What's the difference if it's water along the length of a fairway, 2' of heather, or heavy woods?  Actually, the penalty for plunking a ball into water that borders the fairway could very well be less as you're down the fairway hitting three from the drop and not three from the tee.
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #13 on: March 10, 2006, 03:11:12 PM »
Jim,

I don't like fescue that's too close to the playing corridors, which is the same thing as heather (which I have very little exposure to), or dense woods other than on the borders of the property.  Basically, I don't think a marginally off line shot should result in a penalty or lost ball unless it's because the player failed to execute a risky shot (eg taking too aggressive a line on a Cape).

I like the pond on the 9th at Hotchkiss, which was there before the course.  And I've lost a few balls in the woods on that hole as well, but I don't blame Raynor for that.  There's lots of room on the rest of the course.


Andy Troeger

Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #14 on: March 10, 2006, 06:40:34 PM »
I'm generally in agreement that water for the sake of water is probably not the greatest design feature in the world, but at the same time a natural water hazard (such as the river at Blackwolf Run) can foster some pretty awesome holes if used correctly. (No comments about #13 and the trees please!)  ;D

peter_p

Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2006, 07:19:10 PM »
     Belvedere GC in Charlevois MI has one lake for irrigation between the 13th and 15th holes. You don't even know it is there because it is hidden. Behind a large berm which seemed to be a natural hillside with mature trees.
     The 8th at the Reserve Vineyards (Cupp) has a large lake on the right side on the 2d, 3d shots on the 570 yard hole.
Give that the left side is mounding with tall grass where a ball can be Lost, the safer shot is toward the water as that does not incur a stroke and distance penalty.

Dave Bourgeois

Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2006, 07:55:04 PM »
Water for the sake of being pretty bothers me as well, if it takes too much width from the areas of play. If there is not space to play then the game is a tad one dimensional for me.  If the Water is well placed and offers a choice, like say a cape hole or other then I certainly dig the feature.

In Fl, housing courses for example there is just too much of it separating housing from golf.  I don't think it fools anyone here as the pretty water dosen't hide the homes.   ;)
« Last Edit: March 10, 2006, 10:21:21 PM by Dave Bourgeois »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Water Hazards
« Reply #17 on: March 10, 2006, 09:40:40 PM »
It's the unnatural hazards they put on desert courses and in Florida that I object to as well.  I have to quarrel with Raes Creek or the Pacific Ocean, for that matter.

Phil,

Most golf courses in the desert and Florida are part of a real estate development.

Homes on the water, or with water views fetch more money for the developer.

Many of those communities site the homes to maximize their sales price with the golf course being built as a convenience, but not as the center piece.

Homesites primary
Golf course secondary

By design.
[/color]
« Last Edit: March 10, 2006, 09:41:06 PM by Patrick_Mucci »