[Mike_Sweeney]

Par 5's get beat up here often for being uninteresting. Water often gets beat up here as "limiting options."

Below is a picture of Bay Hill 16 which has changed over the years, but below is the version I played over New Years. At 525 yards, it requires (we played around 490) a fairway shot in order to go for the green in two. Cut the corner, stay in the fairway and you have a shot to the green. If you miss the second, there is a good chance you will go splash, and with one of the best greens on the course, being on the green may not be so good depending on the pin!

Bay Hill is not set up for the below average golfer, so what is wrong with a little water in front of a Par 5 green to set up classic risk/reward?

While not as dramatic with a stream instead of a pond in front of the green, Merion 4 and Augusta 13 are examples from classic courses.

[Phil Benedict]

Mike,

I introduced a thread recently whining about certain types of water hazards, mainly those running parallel to the fairway.  The Bay Hill type of hazard is fine because it incorporates risk/reward decision-making. Streams are preferred because they are natural (and you may be able to retrieve your ball) but absent a stream a man-made pond fronting a par 5 green is ok, so long as it doesn't look stupid (eg 18th at Torrey Pines).

One thing about water is that it is a real hazard whereas the alternative (bunkers) often is not for the modern elite player.

[mike_malone]

 I like how there is a difference in the carry required over the water. This offers some choices.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()