[Tommy Williamsen]

The longer I play the less I like water as a hazard.  Periodically it is exciting-- A par five like #13 at Augusta, a drive that lets you cut off as much as you dare.  My concern is that it gets overused because it makes the course look beautiful.  

[Phil_the_Author]

Tommy,

I found your comments interesting. Tillinghast had a lot to say about water as a hazard:

“It is curious how water hazards, judiciously distributed to a reasonable extent, appeal to golfers.” Tilly wrote that in an article about water hazards for Golf Illustrated in February of 1919.

“Water hazards are popular and the builder of courses is glad enough to introduce them in his plans wherever he can…”

He writing about how a course committee would, "cast their eyes around in search of water. A natural lake is a gift of the gods, and any sort of running stream meets with approval. Sometimes this great desire for water hazards has influenced committees to such an extent, when several tracts of land were available, that the property upon which the water existed was selected in preference to another, which in every other respect was more suited to the game.”

He also wrote that when water hazards are established, they, “take care of themselves. There is no sand to be hauled and cared for. When the banks once are smoothed until they meet the water in a natural fashion, they only have to be trimmed up occasionally and the cost of upkeep consequently is very little… It makes pleasant breaks in the course and generally the beauty of the surroundings pleases the eye.”

Like all design features to a golf course, there are no absolute rules - just preferences.

[Tyler Kearns]

When I think of the proliferation of water as a hazard in golf, one word comes to mind - Florida. Perhaps I'm wrong, but even the greatest of Floridian courses such as Seminole feature a lot of water.

On pancake flat land, water hazards are simply a fact of life, and required in an effort to create the fill needed to build up the green & tee complexes and to shape mounds to set bunkers into. By elevating such features, they are able to drain naturally & mechanically. Ponds also serve as an outlet for excess water where the natural drainage system is either very slow or virtually non-existant.

TK

[TEPaul]

Water hazards in golf should be looked at in a number of ways. The most obvious, of course, is what they do to the playing of the game. Some, and some architects didn't like them much since getting one's ball in one is pretty final and requires rules relief to proceed (with commensurate stroke penalty). But the other functional reasons and uses of water hazards are interesting.

There was a great article about 25 years ago, in the Wall Street Journal of all places, that centered around the building of golf courses and the firm of Nicklaus & Co and basically used the creation of water features as the central theme.

It explained how creating ponds and lakes and water hazards so easily produced the fill to use to construct the course's architecture, to create a popular aesthetic (the ponds and lakes) from which real estate value was instantly enhanced due to the beauty of living around and near lakes and such and of course how those lakes and ponds would naturally serve as the holding tanks for both drainage and irrigation needs.

The article pretty much cast the creation of what would become water hazards on golf courses (ponds, lakes, etc) as a win-win-win situation.

But it seems to be true that the older architects weren't all that crazy about water hazards probably because they thought them unnecessarily penal for the playing of golf and they just didn't have the wherewithal to create them like the massive shaping equipment architects of a later day.

The old architects pretty much got the fill they needed to form and shape greens and mounds around them and such for drainage patterns and structure from the cuts they made that became the hole's bunkering!

[Tyler Kearns]

Tom,

The scenario you describe requires well-draining soil in order to work properly, otherwise the bunkers become the low points, and water will funnell into them and settle there. I do agree that the older architects tended to you swales that tied into green complexes and fairway contours as a means of getting the water off the playable surfaces on the course rather than utilize ponds or lakes.

TK

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Williamsen,

Would you demote Pine Valley and Crump's architecture because he created artificial water hazards that come in to play ?

Water hazards come into play on five (5) holes at Pine Valley, ten (10+) holes at Seminole, five (5) holes at ANGC, five+ holes at NGLA and about eight ( holes at Pebble Beach.

Would you say that water was overused in those examples ?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Patrick Mucci, The example you use are good ones.  At Pine Valley the water on 5 and 15 really don't come into play except for a really dreadful shot.  The same could be said for 16.  The cape hole at NGLA is a classic cut off as much as you dare.  I'm not against all water hazards just the proliferation of them needlessly.  And it is possible to build a holding pond that isn't in the line of play.   The water at Pebble beach on six, seven, nine, ten, and seventeen, all have water that beautifies the hole and may cause the heart to pump a little faster yet they are not so close to the line of play that they intrude on the players ability to enjoy the hole. Number eight may be the most thrilling shot in golf because of the water.
I am saying the the use of water has been used too much.  As an example I would cite Kemper Lakes.

[Tyler Kearns]

Tommy,

I think natural bodies of water should be exploited to their fullest, they are beautiful (Cypress Point, Pebble Beach), provide a nice change in color and texture to the golf course, and can amplify the strategic dilemna holes present by serving as an inescapable hazard.  

TK

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Williamsen,

When the hole is cut on the far right perimeter of # 16 green at Pine Valley, it has to be one of the most frightening approach and recovery shots in golf.

The tee shot on # 15 doesn't provide much margin for mis-hits.

At Pebble Beach I was referencing the line of the hazard more then the physical proximity of the water.

Don't forget that the old architects had free reign and no environmental impediments when dealing with water.

Today, many bodies of water are created for use as retention ponds for irrigation purposes.

Water is, or will become an extremely valueable and expensive commodity, somewhat depending on a  club's location.

[Dan Kelly]

Is there any more to the case against water than this: There's no recovery from it.

Not much of a case, if you ask me.

Can anything compete with water as a way to get the golfer's blood flowing -- to the brain, or away from it?

[mike_malone]

 William S. Flynn from" Analysis of Layout"-1927

  "One natural hazard,however,which is more or less of a nuisance is water. This is not nearly as bad when it parallels play and forms a picturesque landscape feature of the course. But when water is between the objective( the green or driving area) and the player, it may be that the man who plays only a foot short of the objective is much worse off than the one who makes a very poor shot that does not reach the water.

  In the first place the player is penalized a stroke with no chance of recovering it whereas the second player having played a worse shot gets by without penalty and may regain lost ground with a fine second shot. Water hazards absolutely prohibit the recovery shot,perhaps the best shot in the game."


  '

[Dan Kelly]

William S. Flynn from" Analysis of Layout"-1927

  [W]hen water is between the objective( the green or driving area) and the player, it may be that the man who plays only a foot short of the objective is much worse off than the one who makes a very poor shot that does not reach the water.

  In the first place the player is penalized a stroke with no chance of recovering it whereas the second player having played a worse shot gets by without penalty and may regain lost ground with a fine second shot."

Couldn't precisely the same thing be said of penal bunkers?

[wsmorrison]

Dan,

I think Flynn's concept of bunkering was much along the lines of his good friend and mentor, Hugh Wilson.  Wilson wrote quite clearly that a bunker shot should give the expert golfer a chance at recovery; (s)he shouldn't be required to only have an explosion shot back to the fairway.  The golfer should be afforded a chance to make use of one's skills in recovery and be rewarded for the ability to execute such a shot.

[TEPaul]

Frankly, I'd caution against any of us trying to get too literal about how some of those early architects felt about certain architectural features like water hazards and sand bunkering, particularly in the way of playability.

It seems pretty obvious to us that Flynn wasn't that crazy about water hazards (it's said that he really lost his temper while perhaps he was finishing off the 12-15 stretch at PVGC---water hazard holes---perhaps over the water hazards. This undocumented story indirectly from Eb Steineger, who apparently saw some Flynn temper tantrums and was very wary of him!)

But on bunker recovery, although Hugh Wilson did write about that fairly specifically (and Flynn may've followed that prescription to some degree), I personally hate to see any architect get too much into this idea that was very popular back then of "scientific architecture" that was apparently used to create some of the first of the "standardizing" of architecture to produce various almost progressive results in play across the spectrum of levels of playing ability.

One only has to read the thoughts of J.H. Taylor on this in TommyN's "In My Opinion" piece on this site. Taylor came up with the idea with "Mid-Surrey mounding" or "alpinization" that was clearly meant to create progressive penalty in an architectural sense.

This was clearly a negative reaction to some of the early geometric and penal designs but I often think some of those architects who reacted to those early problems in golf and architecture may have tended to take the "science" of architecture too far towards "standardization" of playabilities, at least in theory with sand bunkering!

[Paul_Turner]

But did Flynn hate water hazards so much that he tried to mask the creek at the 4th at Merion, with those awful bunkers?  

[wsmorrison]

Now, now, Paul.  

Flynn didn't hate water hazards; he wasn't so dogmatic in his belief of keeping them out of the line of play.  He utilized water in front of and around greens (16 at Cascades, 3rd at Kittansett, with Wilson at the 11th at Merion East, the 11th at Huntingdon Valley, 7th and 12th at Lancaster, 7th and 13th at Lehigh and many more) and less so in landing areas (8th at Rolling Green, with Wilson at the 12th at Merion, 15 at TCC in Pepper Pike, 5th and 16th at Cherry Hills, etc.).  Flynn was known to dam streams at times creating ponds in front of greens such as Huntingdon Valley's par 3 5th hole and the 6th hole at Philadelphia Country Club.

His preference was to use them parallel to the line of play, however he had a variety of styles that was not subject to simple rules.

As to the bunkers beyond the creek and short of the green at the 4th at Merion, I can see why you and Mike C. do not like the bunkering in front.  I kind of like them    They were put in for the 1930 Amateur but I have no idea why.  I wonder if we can find a reason for this at the club.  I'll call someone who may know and report any findings.

[Steve Lang]

 

If only there had been plastic sheet available versus use of clay to seal or act as liners back ..then??? .. ahhh we might have different context to discuss water as a hazard..  when it wasn't science insearch of a problem, but vice versa..

[RJ_Daley]

Water feature creation (as opposed to water naturally on the sight) evolved as a primary feature of golf design by the landscapists.  The tea garden folk that crept into golf design put the emphasis on the aestetic tranquilizing effect that water has on the golfer.  The increased incorporation of water features is where golf became more of a pleasant social passtime than a sport.  

Water was always within the context of golf or within sight of the old links courses.  Burns were traversed.  But, they were features that were natural to the land and had to be dealt with, not created.  The clever routers used creeks and burns often on the diagonal, though not always.  

Of course modern needs for irrigation and drainage or retention became needed, and so the LAs in GCA began to dresss them up aesthetically with fountains and falls, and interspersed flower gardens.  

Now, we have a whole golfing public who rate their courses by how many pretty ponds, falls, and creeks have been created.  I agree with those above who say that water as a hazard is a negative due to the unrecoverable nature of it.  But, more than a hazard, water is a tranquilizer dart to the modern golfer.  Too many golfers now say, "what a beautiful golf course they built, it has all those lovely ponds, fountains, falls, and creeks".  It is sort of like the shinny spoons effect on the moron.

[Steve Lang]

 

How many signature hole photographs have a water feature in them?

or

is water really a "final result" .. Has anyone ever skipped a ball across water here or there and found terra firma?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()