[Jason Thurman]

It seems like many consider a course with a lot of opportunities for lost balls to be a bad thing. But why?

There’s obviously a root in Mackenzie’s principles, where he bemoaned the annoyance of searching for lost balls. And I agree. SEARCHING for a lost ball slows down play, causes frustration, and generally stinks. But what’s so bad about a water hazard? There’s no annoying search. The ball splashes, you drop, and you move on. Why is that so bad? It’s no less fun than 3 putting a heavily contoured green or getting stuck with an awkward stance in a tumbling fairway.

There’s obviously a limit. I don’t want to lose 6 balls in a round. I’m too cheap. But considering balls are roughly 1/20th the inflation-adjusted cost today that they were in Mackenzie’s day, don’t you think some of the annoyance with lost balls due to water hazards or OB is just sour grapes?

[Bill Brightly]

Well, my ball is never lost. It is just temporarily in an unknown location. I have 5 minutes to find it and figure out a way to get it back in the short grass. I take a lot of pride in my ability to create shots to do this. Many years of hitting into the woods have allowed me to hone this skill. And there is NOTHING more fun than coming up with a ridiculous shot and sinking a put to win or tie a hole when my opponent thought I was dead off the tee.

Water hazards don't allow for any of this.

[Peter Pallotta]

The thought has occurred to me too, Jason -- and interesting contrast you note to our accepting a lost shot on a heavily contoured green with more equanimity than a lost ball in the water off the tee. I think the water ball feels more drastic, the punishment seems more harsh, too harsh in fact. (Who wouldn't want his mistakes and sins to be treated with at least a bit of compassion and forgiveness?). But I also think, as I've raised recently, that it's the 'hand of man' issue again (though few seem to agree with me), i.e. the heavily contoured green, especially if it appears to have been 'found', simply is and so seems to be neither trying to reward us nor to punish us; whereas since we're sure that an architect has put the water hazard there, on purpose, to hurt us and to demoralize us, we get mad at him and at the water hazard, and bemoan the lost ball. We're mad, in short, because the hand of man had the audacity to hold up a mirror to our shortcomings.  And who needs an architect do to that on a golf course when we all have our wives and girlfriends and significant others doing it the rest of the week!   

Peter

[Tyler Kearns]

Jason,

Personally, it is not a cost issue, it is a time issue.  Water hazards are good for the reasons you mentioned, and therefore should be made visible to ensure players know that the ball is a) in the hazard and b) where it entered the hazard.  I don't have a problem with water hazards, I just prefer natural water features over artificial and do not enjoy an overabundance, but I feel that may about nearly all design features.

Searching in long rough, or underbrush on tree lined holes is extremely irritating and adds undesired minutes to the game of golf, and therefore, in my opinion should be avoided wherever possible.

TK

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Tyler's point about visibility is spot on. If you can see your ball go in the water you know what happened to it. If the potential point of entry is obscured from where the shot was struck it is frustrating.

[Garland Bayley]

I cannot hit a recovery shot while submerged in a pond. Therefore, a major joy of the game has been taken away.

How often does Tom Doak have to remind people that recovery shots are some of the most exciting in the game?

Why do we have to build courses so that low handicappers have a greater advantage than they would at Old MacDonald for example? Are low handicappers of such fragile egos that they cannot stand coming up against a ball sprayer who finds his ball in the gunk and recovers to save the hole by two putting from 60 feet, while the low handicapper two putts from 15 feet?

Jason, you have taken the stance of JakaB who espouses the lazy, I prefer water hazards, because I can just drive my cart up next to them, hit a ball from the most ideal location I can find for my drop, and play on. Congratulations.

[David Whitmer]

I cannot hit a recovery shot while submerged in a pond. Therefore, a major joy of the game has been taken away.

This was my first thought, and one I still espouse. A water hazard is so final, and it's immediate dejection that I can't find it and hit it again. At the club I used to work at you could theoretically rinse your golf ball on ten of the eighteen holes. The constant threat of losing a golf ball drove me nuts.

At the same time, I can't help but think a water hazard has its place in moderation. A water hazard tells the golfer, "You simply CAN'T hit it here and escape." Therefore, prior to the shot, we know we can't go there. Why get upset when we then do exactly that?

While it's not the supreme test of one's ability to recover and score, it's the supreme test of controlling one's golf ball right here and right now. And I feel both tests have their place in a round of golf.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Part of the 'annoyance' is in knowing that you have to cover the same shot again, at least in the case of non-lateral water and OOB.  

[Jason Thurman]

I cannot hit a recovery shot while submerged in a pond. Therefore, a major joy of the game has been taken away.

How often does Tom Doak have to remind people that recovery shots are some of the most exciting in the game?

Nonsense. You can still hit a recovery after hitting the ball in the water. It just requires a drop and a stroke to do so. What’s so unfair about that penalty? One of the most satisfying shots of my life was an approach to 2 feet to win the 11th hole at Houston Oaks in Paris, KY with a tap-in par after my tee shot bounced into a lateral hazard. I can remember everything about the sequence – walking up and seeing the ball submerged, the dead bluegill floating a few feet away, the drop, rehearsing the flatter swing after dropping on the bank with the ball well above my feet, and watching the ball sail against the blue sky, knowing all along that I had the right stick and had just thrown an unforeseen haymaker in the match. It was as satisfying as any slice carved through the trees to save a hole.

An even greater moment was when I hooked a ball out of bounds on the 3rd hole at Pleasant View in Madison, WI. I remember my opponent shaking his head and telling me I was about to be 2 down as the ball caromed off a trampoline in a guy’s backyard. Stroke 3 was pounded right down the middle, stroke 4 was a hybrid to the front of the green, and stroke 5 dropped into the cup from 15 feet. It’s probably the most satisfying par I’ve ever made, as my opponent walked away with a 7 and I proceeded to win in 14 holes.

You act like water hazards or OB are golf’s equivalent of the blue screen of death suddenly flashing when you reach the final battle in Super Mario 2 – game over, go home. In reality, recovery from lost balls is just a different kind of recovery. Can you help me understand why it’s so awful for you to have to put a second ball into play? Why shouldn't you occasionally be forced to hit a shot with the pressure of knowing that if you miss in a particular spot, you have to take a penalty?

[Jon McSweeny]

This particular topic is one of the three or four areas of confusion that I have had over the last six months of reading this site. Jason's point is one that I have been looking for a bit more discussion on.

In addition to agreeing that there is a huge practical distinction between losing balls and having to look for balls, and enjoying the pressure of having to avoid a bad shot which can not be readily "fixed," I also think that a recovery effort can be improved by having to deal with some water as well. Firing one through the trees- and over "that" ridge- and then trying to run it on to the green can be even more interesting when there is a creek just behind the hole.

[Brent Hutto]

My ideal of "playing golf" involves putting the ball on a tee and then striking it repeatedly with a club until it rests in a hole several hundred yards away. The more the activity involves looking for balls or dropping a new ball or for that matter clambering in and out of a golf cart or anything else other than:

a) walking and
b) hitting the ball

then it becomes a less enjoyable activity. Sure any golf course needs places where you don't want to hit the ball. And occasionally that might be OB or water. But here's when it all starts to sour for me...

It's when the majority of shots are not about advancing the ball toward the hole WHILE avoiding obstacles. They're about hitting away from OB and water hazards first and foremost with progress toward the hole being the second priority.

And again, I'm not talking about one hole or one shot. But surely any of us who doesn't hit the ball as straight as Moe Norman has played those water and OB damned courses where the main thing you recall after your round is how successfully you avoided losing balls and counting up how many times you were not successful. That's not a game any more, or at least if it's a game it's much inferior to what I think of as "playing golf".

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,

"A loss without a search" is, to me, a lot less unsettling than a "lost" ball.
There is a finality to a watery grave; no obvious redemption in sight; resurrection unlikely unless a Lazarus type of shot (a Thurman speciality!) is miraculously wrought. We can rest easy as our fate is essentially sealed.

Now a "lost" ball can give you two minutes of a'wonderin' "Is it going to be lost?" as you approach the area which is disturbing. This is followed by five minutes of ever-increasing angst as you search, in vain most often, for the errant orb. Now during what seems like an eternity, but is actually only five minutes, there is always this tantalising possibility that the ball will be unearthed. Oftimes a forlorn hope. Very disturbing!
This scenario unsettles the perfervid Scot and leads to a very, very disturbed mental state for a few holes which is never induced by the splash of a wayward golf shot into a pond or ocean.

So "…what’s so bad about a water hazard?"  There are worse things!

Laughing here!

Cheers Colin

[Bill Brightly]

Colin, o' Colin...

We often think so much alike, but on this one, we take a different path. The ball is not lost until the 5 minute bell rings! There is hope, the glass is half full!

And if you Aussies took caddies...you would  find more errant balls!

[Garland Bayley]

I cannot hit a recovery shot while submerged in a pond. Therefore, a major joy of the game has been taken away.

How often does Tom Doak have to remind people that recovery shots are some of the most exciting in the game?

Nonsense. You can still hit a recovery after hitting the ball in the water. It just requires a drop and a stroke to do so. ...

That's not a recovery shot! That's a "Well, I have to post a score, so I might just as well get along with it and finish the hole."

Time to step away from the keyboard son until you figure a few more things out.

[Mike Wagner]

Why do we have to build courses so that low handicappers have a greater advantage than they would at Old MacDonald for example? Are low handicappers of such fragile egos that they cannot stand coming up against a ball sprayer who finds his ball in the gunk and recovers to save the hole by two putting from 60 feet, while the low handicapper two putts from 15 feet?

Wow - Garland, that's more than your usual nonsense in just two sentences.  I won't try to convince you of anything since you couldn't answer my simple question from a recent thread (going to have to assume you knew it was an argument you couldn't win).

 

[Garland Bayley]

Why do we have to build courses so that low handicappers have a greater advantage than they would at Old MacDonald for example? Are low handicappers of such fragile egos that they cannot stand coming up against a ball sprayer who finds his ball in the gunk and recovers to save the hole by two putting from 60 feet, while the low handicapper two putts from 15 feet?

Wow - Garland, that's more than your usual nonsense in just two sentences.  I won't try to convince you of anything since you couldn't answer my simple question from a recent thread (going to have to assume you knew it was an argument you couldn't win).

 

Educate me. What's nonsensical about it? Sure I get a little hyperbolic with low handicappers ego statements, but what else do you have a problem with?

[Nigel Islam]

Maybe this makes me ignorant, but I am not fond of man made water hazards that are not for drainage. For some reason I give creeks more of a pass than ponds too I actually think thick waist high heather slows the game down more though. I like to play quickly, and even though I don't lose a ton of balls I also don't like to spend time looking for them.

[Ken Moum]

Why do we have to build courses so that low handicappers have a greater advantage than they would at Old MacDonald for example? Are low handicappers of such fragile egos that they cannot stand coming up against a ball sprayer who finds his ball in the gunk and recovers to save the hole by two putting from 60 feet, while the low handicapper two putts from 15 feet?

Wow - Garland, that's more than your usual nonsense in just two sentences.  I won't try to convince you of anything since you couldn't answer my simple question from a recent thread (going to have to assume you knew it was an argument you couldn't win).

 Actually, if you ignore the hyperbole about low handicappers, he's absolutely correct.

Just about every low handicapper I play with loves courses that beat the average guy to death with lost ball, penalty strokes and unplayable rough. God forbid that a 12 handicapper with an excellent short game should DARE to upset them on a course with opportunities to recover from my bad shots.

I've had the discussion many times and inevitably they express their admiration for courses with narrow fairways and lots of trouble to play over.  It's not a surprise, after all, courses like that only widen their sizeable advantage.

K

[Tom_Doak]

The thought has occurred to me too, Jason -- and interesting contrast you note to our accepting a lost shot on a heavily contoured green with more equanimity than a lost ball in the water off the tee.

I think most golfers feel it is the other way around, including Tour players.

One of the first opportunities I had to spend time with Bill Coore was at Kapalua, where he was reducing the tilt on the 2nd green a bit because recovery shots from the left had proven beyond the Tour players' skills.  After watching for a while I asked him if he would have made the change if the Tour hadn't asked, and he responded that he understood the players' gripes -- but the funny thing was that if there had been a water hazard to the left of that green costing them more than a stroke, nobody would have complained about it. 

It was just the inability to get up and down with the NEXT shot that made them look foolish, and that's what they didn't like about the hole.

Lots of people feel the same way about contoured greens -- they don't like to feel foolish.  Probably a lot of the people who object to water hazards are coming from a similar point of view.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I think that what you describe is what makes Winged Foot so difficult.

Depending on hole location, miss it on the wrong side, and recovery becomes difficult to impossible

[Thomas Dai]

Here's a good reason why you might be happy to take a penalty for a lost ball without trying too hard to find it -



I'm sure folk herein have some 'interesting' stories about things best avoided on golf courses and practice grounds.

atb

[Sean_A]

I sound like a broken record, but there is no such thing a bad or good types of hazards, good or bad types of greens, good or bad length of grass.  All types and styles are good and necessary.  The issue is balance and that is where reasonable people can differ.   Every course is different so blanket rules on this sort of stuff is meaningless.  Sure, its okay to have preferences, but remember, they are only preferences.  Because Dr Mac or Max Behr or whoever wrote something god knows when doesn't mean they were advocating a be all and end all proposition.  Those guys broke their own rules all the time in the name of common sense or fancy even.  There isn't much point in getting hung up on all or nothing propositions; its better to focus on balance and variety.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

I sound like a broken record, but there is no such thing a bad or good types of hazards, good or bad types of greens, good or bad length of grass.  All types and styles are good and necessary.  The issue is balance and that is where reasonable people can differ.   Every course is different so blanket rules on this sort of stuff is meaningless.  Sure, its okay to have preferences, but remember, they are only preferences.  Because Dr Mac or Max Behr or whoever wrote something god knows when doesn't mean they were advocating a be all and end all proposition.  Those guys broke their own rules all the time in the name of common sense or fancy even.  There isn't much point in getting hung up on all or nothing propositions; its better to focus on balance and variety.

Ciao

+111111

variety is the spice of life

Doral, Miami Springs, ANGC, NGLA, Goat Hill, Pennard, Gweedore, RCD, all have their unique features to be celebrated, not homogonized

[Mark Pearce]

waist high heather

Waist high heather would be a hazard!

[John Mayhugh]

waist high heather

Waist high heather would be a hazard!

It's pretty common to hear people in the states refer to tall grass as heather.  I almost did a thread about the subject but laziness took over.  Anyway, this at Porthcawl is probably the tallest heather I've encountered.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()