Does ANGC offer the most effective use of

[Patrick_Mucci]

WATER, architecturally and strategically ?

Does the back nine offer the most effective use of WATER, architecturally and strategically ?

# 11,
# 12
# 13
# 15
# 16

[Joe Hancock]

Patrick,

Do you think the water features are more or less strategic for the fact that the grass is cut very short right to the water line?

Maybe the water features wouldn't be so strategic if they had the environmentally sound buffer zones that most golf agencies advocate using these days.

Joe

[wsmorrison]

I'll let you know when I get back on Sunday.  It won't surprise me if the back nine does exceed other sets of nine holes in terms of strategic and scary use of water.

Joe makes an excellent point.  How less effective were the water hazards in the scruffy days?

[Andy Troeger]

Patrick,
I've only watched on TV, but I haven't seen its equal in anything I've played or seen.

[Pete Lavallee]

Interesting, in the "scruffy days" all these hazards were creeks; the ponds on 11, 15 and 16 were all created by damming Rae's Creek. Did Jones and the Good Doctor build any ponds in the original design? Certainly Jones signed off on creating the ponds which surely have a greater effect on scores just due to the extra volume. Would things have been different if MacKenzie were still alive to effect the decision?

[Bill Gayne]

Other courses that come to mind for strategic and architectural use of water on the back nine would be TPC Sawgrass and The Ocean Course at Kiawah.

TPC to a lesser extent because there's seemingly water on every hole.

Neither of these courses is the water use as effective as ANGC.

[ed_getka]

Patrick,
   I wouldn't include #16 in the list. The water is a non-issue for the most part other than keeping golfers from underclubbing. I doubt many golfers would be readily getting up and down on that green if they came up short on grass there.
   #12 with the swirling wind and a shallow green is a different story. The water makes a big difference, just ask Jeff Maggert.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I've never seen the place but I plan to this week. From all the TV I've seen of it I would say those holes you mentioned offer very effective use of water. Over the years we sure have seen some contenders hopes drown in the water of those back nine holes, haven't we?

It seems like the brilliance of that back nine and probably the reason for the old adage "The Masters doesn't begin until the back nine on Sunday", is on the back nine par 5s particularly, contenders traditionally have made birdies and eagles or have seen their hopes drown trying.

I'm just wondering, Pat---is this thread some kinda trick question?  

[mike_beene]

If 12 and 15 were on other golf courses they would get the same criticism 17 at Sawgrass gets:there is too much of a luck element.I think the same can be said for the hanging lie on 13.Redstone and Bay Hill use water more effectively.They need it .Augusta doesn't.If we have to hear one more time how weak and boring 14 is compared to the great 15th I will lose the remainder of my mind.

[Michael Moore]

"Architecturally" encompasses ornamentation, so in this regard I prefer the water at the Samoset Resort and several other courses to that of the Augusta National Golf Club.

[Mark Bourgeois]

"Getting in a water hazard is like being in a plane crash -- the result is final." -- Bobby Jones.

I apologize for being nitpicky, but water is not strategic, it's penal.  There's no recovery. I guess 13 sometimes would be an exception.

Maybe you could say the water forces them to play a shot that leaves them out of position, which would be a "strategic" error. But then it would be some element of the greens that makes it so, not the water. The finality of the water penalty makes the golfer err towards the "strategic" error of hitting himself out of position.

I would agree those holes are excellent examples of the penal, though. Except 16.  That hole seems fluky to me.

Old Augusta was intended as a strategic golf course.  New Augusta is a penal golf course.