Do water hazards suggest lack of imagination?

[David Stamm]

While reading Ian Andrews 25 greatest architects again (which is very good Ian), it got me thinking while I was reading RTJ's Criticisms section. Ian points out that RTJ tended to rely too much on the pond-on-the-par-three or pond-fronting-the-par-five later on, possibly due to too much work and not really stretching out with new ideas. He also has said that many architects today are guilty of this as well. What does the treehouse think? Are water hazards usually indicative of lack of imagination and not stretching their imaginations to try something risky? Is it a "safe" bet for the architect?

[Tom_Doak]

I would agree with Ian's assessment.  Of course, in some places like Florida with shallow water tables, water has to be in play often ... but on par-3's, in particular, it seems like a lazy solution to me. 

There's nothing wrong with a par-3 over water, but only once in a while.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

It depends upon how it's used.

Take ANGC for instance.

The use of Rae's Creek and tributaries is brilliant.

# 16, # 15, # 13, # 12 and # 11 all use that feature brilliantly and in a variety of ways.

It has to be amongst the best, if not the best use of an inland water feature/hazard.

[Adam Clayman]

Patrick is correct about the use of a meandering water hazard.
 David, In the early days of GCA.com water hazards and trees were considered to be some of the weakest design elements. But, as with all things gca related, it's site specific and totally dependent on the frequency and justification behind such a feature.

[Tim Nugent]

Water and OB tend to be the ultimate hazards.  An immediate penalty of full stroke loss.  Therefore, it is only natural to include their use in the palette of design defenses.  Jones brought the water hazard closer to intended target in order to bring near misses by better players into play rather than just big misses that tend to be the domain of higher handicappers.  
They tend to be found more on the greens of 3's & 5's because the approach uses a higher iron.
As Tom indicated, the site will influence the use (and amount) of water hazards and care should be taken to no overuse them or they become repetitious (and hence boring).  Also the nature of the design style will influence - ie no pond/lake holes but rather burns running through holes - on their way to the sea -  on links style courses.  But, to suggest that the use of water somehow is indicitive of lack of imagination is IMO, absurd.  For, is an element that can - during the course of one stroke - raise one's hopes for success & then dash them with the realization of failure (and vice-versa).

[John Kavanaugh]

Water hazards are my favorite hazard because they speed up play.  Nothing quite like the finality of a splash.

[Kirk Gill]

Are water hazards any less imaginative than flanking fairway bunkers in the landing area, or on either side of a green?

Why is the use of water inherently less imaginative than the reduntant use of any other architectural feature?

Recovery from a water hazard certainly takes less imagination than from other types...........

[Garland Bayley]

If we would just let Ross have his wish of a calvary troop riding through the bunkers before play, then we wouldn't need no stinking water hazards. At least not RTJ ponds.

[Mark_Fine]

David,
Echoing what Kirt said, RT Jones may have "overused" water hazards at times, but how many architects place a hazard on the corner of every dogleg, or on the right front of every other green, or have tiers in most of their greens,...etc etc?

If you replaced half of Mr. Jones water hazards with sand bunkers in the same location, would we be having this discussion?  Would the holes be better or worse or just different?

Every architect has preferences (play enough of them and I think you will agree with me). 
Mark

[Tom_Doak]

It is the proliferation of man-made ponds which I was objecting to, and which I think was Ian's point also.

If you've got creeks, burns, oceanfront, etc., you'd be crazy not to maximize their impact on the golf course.  But if you don't have water features naturally, digging a pond is a lazy solution to a design problem.

[Mike Sweeney]

It is the proliferation of man-made ponds which I was objecting to, and which I think was Ian's point also.

If you've got creeks, burns, oceanfront, etc., you'd be crazy not to maximize their impact on the golf course.  But if you don't have water features naturally, digging a pond is a lazy solution to a design problem.

Tom,

How is digging a sand bunker in Elverson, PA, 120 or so miles from the beach any different?

[Jeff Doerr]

A while back I was struck by the thread where Ross routed a course that did not include the natural water hazards, while Flynn had it routed to engage those natural features.

The challenge for me seems to be to make the hazard look natural. Water feaures with smooth lines and shapes may provide a fair test, but I'll take a creek like ANGC all day long over those.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

There is proliferation of bunkers, too -- lots of it in the world today.  And yet every GCA poster who comes out to see one of our courses under construction suggests another bunker somewhere.  Ran did it himself for Pacific Dunes.

Digging a pond is more unnatural to me, not to mention about 50 times more expensive.

[jeffwarne]

Tom,
How many time do people mention removal or shrinking of a bunker?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Do you think that the proliferation of ponds is a product of the transference of the experience golfers get at resort and residential community golf courses that seem to have these features in abundance ?

[David Stamm]

Water and OB tend to be the ultimate hazards.  An immediate penalty of full stroke loss.

Ultimate? How so? Because of finality? I would totally disagree with this. While the outcome is absolute, I'm not sure if that necessarily means it's the ultimate type of hazard. It's the most SEVERE to be sure.



  Therefore, it is only natural to include their use in the palette of design defenses.


Natural? Hmmm. If the water feature itself is natural (creek, burn, lake) then sure. But to build one for the sole prupose of defense? I disagree.





     But, to suggest that the use of water somehow is indicitive of lack of imagination is IMO, absurd.

If you are emaning no use of ANY kind of water feature, I agree. And sure there are instances where a pond is needed as an irragation source. But if it is for the sole use of an "ultimate defense", in my eyes it means lack of imagination. How hard is it to place a pond?


 For, is an element that can - during the course of one stroke - raise one's hopes for success & then dash them with the realization of failure (and vice-versa).

"The difference between a sand trap and water is the difference between a car crash and an airplane crash. You have a chance for recovering from a car crash."- Bobby Jones

  "Water hazards prohibit the recovery shot, perhaps the best shot in the game."- William Flynn [/color]

[David Stamm]

David,
Echoing what Kirt said, RT Jones may have "overused" water hazards at times, but how many architects place a hazard on the corner of every dogleg, or on the right front of every other green, or have tiers in most of their greens,...etc etc?

True. However, water is water. It doesn't vary in character and the outcome is always final. While bunkers and greens can look virtually identical, they will vary in their own individual, subtle ways.

If you replaced half of Mr. Jones water hazards with sand bunkers in the same location, would we be having this discussion?  Would the holes be better or worse or just different?

I actually enjoy some of RTJ's courses. But, I believe in the ability for all types of golfers to have a chance to recover. So yes, I personally think some holes would be better.

Every architect has preferences (play enough of them and I think you will agree with me). 
Mark
Agreed. Every architect does have preferences. That's why some are better than others.

[David Stamm]

Are water hazards any less imaginative than flanking fairway bunkers in the landing area, or on either side of a green?

In general, no. But let me ask you, as an armchair architect, what would be easier for you? To design a water hazard or design a bunker. Certainly redundant placement of bunekrs isn;t much better, but their design can be varied.

Why is the use of water inherently less imaginative than the reduntant use of any other architectural feature?

Water in golf is 2 dimensional. Other hazards are not.

Recovery from a water hazard certainly takes less imagination than from other types...........

Agreed. I still haven't found a way to play that shot!

[Tony Ristola]

The worst of the modern offenses is wrapping the 9th and 18th hole around a hole dug in the ground. When a double green is added it kicks the nausea meter up to the gullet (actually beyond the gullet to the start of the nasogastric tube.) Ditto for island greens.

Some (many) developers in new golf nations just want water. They think it is required for a golf course of excellence.

One of the funnier water hazard moments was walking a sandy site near Hannover and stumbling upon a member with shovel in hand clearing a mud hole grown in with reeds. The hole was dug by the members and capped with clay. This was their ode de aqua. A less natural site could be found as my memory recalls it being next to the green sited on a knoll. It's ugliness and scale make it memorable; the small eruption of 7 foot high reeds poking up from beside the greensite, but the member was proud of their 80 square yard rancid water feature.

[Sean_A]

Water has its place like any other hazard.  However, it should be used sparingly for all the reasons David, Tom and others suggested and I think the bit off as much as you can chew variety is far superior to flanking water and to a lesser degree cross hazard water.  Like bunkers, I do think archies have been lazy in the use of water and I do think it often suggests a lack of imagination unless the sort demands that loads of water be in play.  However, I would question the appropriateness of a course that it was necessary to have an abundance of water.  But hey, some folks like this sort of thing and there is something to be said for water rather than harsh rough.  At least one doesn't waste time looking for balls - the time is used debating where to drop instead!

Ciao

[John Burzynski]

I don't mind bunkers, at least as a golfer anyone has the opportunity of a sand save or  agreat shot getting out of the bunker and perhaps even close to the hole.

You really can't do that out of a pond, can you?  A shallow creek, maybe, but most water hazards nowdays are ponds or lakes, and worse are many times forced carries over long stretches of water.

One of the charms of golf that keeps many of us coming back is that one special shot per round, that spectacular sand save or that great shot out of trouble where we miraculously place the ball three feet fromt he hole on a nearly impossible shot from next to a tree.  It keeps many of us coming back, even if the other 90, 100 or more shots where absolute crap that day.  Large water hazards preclude this from happening, and when they are scattered on many holes of a course, it depresses me.

[Mark_Fine]

There is a psychological aspect to hazards that I’m not sure has been mentioned.  These days bunkers are manicured playing surfaces, hardly hazards and rarely do they instill fear.  Water on the other hand, will even get Tiger Woods thinking.  Does anyone here for example think that #17 at the TPC would worry golfers if it was surrounded by sand.  Was it a lazy design solution?  I don’t think so.  Golfers are fearful of that hole before they even tee off.  #12 at Augusta fits the same description.  Just think of all the shrills from the crowd as the leader's ball lands short of the green and trickles back off the bank into "the sand" instead of the water   Again, like any type of design feature, it needs to be used sparingly. 

[Andy Troeger]

Seems like both sides have hit on many of the important points concerning water hazards. Water hazards have their place in golf but are not all created equal. I'll agree with those that say that meandering streams seem to create the best water features. With the exception of #13 at Blackwolf Run I love the way that course uses the river to create interesting challenges. It adds an element of fear that most bunkers just don't create for the better player. Heck, when pros would RATHER be in a bunker than in the rough at some venues they quite frankly don't seem to serve much purpose as a hazard. Water certainly gets their attention.

At the same time water for the sake of water or for aesthetic purposes goes too far at some venues. As was mentioned on some sites there is no way around it because of low water tables. However, when a course starts advertising "water on 15 of 18 holes!" that may be cringe worthy.

Jones' ponds may not be the most interesting feature I've ever seen, but taking the ones on the back nine at Spyglass as examples, they all make the golfer think a bit more than they would otherwise if they were replaced with bunkers, especially on #14. Is it a bit much to have three of them in four holes? Probably, especially with the par threes, but being they come at low points compared to the surrounding property they may be more practical than anything. Others probably could explain that better than I.

[Adam Clayman]

Does anyone here for example think that #17 at the TPC would worry golfers if it was surrounded by sand.  Was it a lazy design solution?  

Mark, Pete built an Island par three surrounded by sand at Teeth of the dog. It serves its purpose of exacting a well played shot, the same way as at TPC.
 No one said every water hazard was a lazy design. Just that, many of them are.

This likely requires it own thread but,,, Fear is an interesting word and concept in gca. Has anyone ever written about the fine line between fear and tempting?

[Steve Lang]

  Adam, I've never seen a sucker pin that i didn't like.. but give me an absolute hazard, be it water or chasm cliff and I'll probably at least think twice before firing at it.. 

of course, if it was tournament golf, I'd shoot to the center of the green and think fade or draw second..