Water that abuts a green

[Tommy Williamsen]

I found this quote for Tom Doak on the Harbour Town/Ballyneal; thread fascinating. "You'll get no argument from me that the 4th at Harbour Town is HARDER than the 3rd at Ballyneal, because there's a water hazard smack up against the collar.  But if that's really your ultimate sign of quality, then you might as well just dismiss all my courses, because I have no interest in building a hole like that.  Any halfway smart player is just going to take the water out of play . . . the only tactics involved is understanding how far away from the water you personally have to aim to do that.  At least the hole at Ballyneal encourages you to look at the hole location before deciding where to aim."

Does water actually diminish the options a player can take? Does he ask "how far away from the water you personally have to aim to do that?" Does he ask, "How close to the water dare I aim?" I've asked both. When Rickie Fowler won the PLAYERS took dead aim at the pin on the right side of 17. When I first played Sand Hills i wondered why C&C never used the little river by the clubhouse. What is the best use of water?

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy:

One thing you will notice about Bill Coore's work as well as mine is that we very rarely put water up against a green.  I think Gil Hanse has already done it more times in his career than Bill and me combined . . . maybe just at Doral.

I can't speak for Bill on his reasons, but I know when we were routing Streamsong I had what's now the 13th on the Red course as two holes - a long par-3 to a green near the water and then a long par-4 - and Bill asked to change that because he didn't like having the par-3 green right up against the water as I had drawn it.

As for my reasons, one of the most important things I learned from my time in St. Andrews is that everyone who complained about an impossible shot because of some crazy contour, had just put themselves on the wrong side of the contour.  Had they stayed on the correct side of the hole when approaching, the same contour would have been a backstop for them.That's how I rationalize building greens with contour in them. 

But water alongside a green messes with that.  You can't play to the correct side of the contour if there's water there, and you've got to be very careful about putting in a contour that will cause a player playing over it to maybe go into the water.  Remember the year Tiger Woods putted into the creek from the top tier on 13 at Augusta?  Can't have that.  And I'd rather give up the water next to the green, than give up the ability to employ contour.

The discussion of the Mark Broadie book a month or two ago reinforced this idea to me.  He says pretty clearly that the only good strategy for a pro on a hole with water alongside the green is to aim away from the water outside of their 99% margin of error - the way Ben Hogan described his strategy for the 11th at Augusta National - and that's how most players approach it now.  I suppose a lot of them have always done this . . . I remember vividly Ed Sneed telling Pete Dye how he thought the 13th at the TPC at Sawgrass was unfair, and Pete responding that was because players were too scared to play close to the water, and I can't recall Jack Nicklaus ever knocking it in the water on an important approach shot in the prime of his career.  So, you can build a hole like the 4th at Harbour Town, but you know exactly how the pros are going to play it, and it isn't very interesting to watch.

Note:  we may have a par-3 green at Memorial Park that's up against the water:  Brooks Koepka would like to, and I would rather it be a deep hazard instead.  But we are considering it on the shortest par-3 on the course, precisely because that's the one place where the players would be tempted to flirt with the trouble.

P.S.  Did Rickie take dead aim?  Or is his 9-iron miss a 15-foot circle so he could aim four feet past the hole and be safe, and he just missed it slightly short?

[John Kirk]

Tommy,


You've received a comprehensive response from the expert.  Here's the simpleton's addendum.

The player never gets to play this hole from short and left of the green.  The architect does not even need to consider how to defend the hole from short and left of the green.  On the other hand, the presence of a water hazard identifies those who can hit a solid mid- to short-iron shot, and those who can execute under the duress of a severe penalty for failure.

[SL_Solow]

Given that Tom has already answered a question directed at his design philosophy, it it somewhat presumptuous to add an additional reply, but as Tom knows, that has rarely stopped me.  I view this issue as a different way of discussing the balance between risk and reward that creates strategic interest in course design.  If the penalty for taking the risk and failing exceeds the reward for success, then the hole will not create interest as no one will intentionally take on the hazard (penalty area).  Tom's observation that the better players won't take on the risk makes it even less rational for the ordinary player.  Thus the penalty area only becomes relevant for misses and is thus a penal feature.  There are those who might find such a feature attractive.  One's choice comes down to philosophy.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The discussion of the Mark Broadie book a month or two ago reinforced this idea to me.  He says pretty clearly that the only good strategy for a pro on a hole with water alongside the green is to aim away from the water outside of their 99% margin of error - the way Ben Hogan described his strategy for the 11th at Augusta National - and that's how most players approach it now.

When you get to reading the copy of LSW that I sent you, you'll see that we said the same thing (in a bit more depth), and we even recommend to amateurs that they add a roughly ten-yard "penalty buffer" to water hazards, pushing their aim even further away from the water. (We also only count 80-90% of their shots in forming their Shot Zones, or 95-100% if they're really good players.)

P.S.  Did Rickie take dead aim?  Or is his 9-iron miss a 15-foot circle so he could aim four feet past the hole and be safe, and he just missed it slightly short?

He missed the shot, IMO. A few times. 

----------

As for my opinion, which carries about as much weight as a thimble carries water… (no pun intended), I think that water abutting a green can influence the shot before it - players who know that they'll have to carry the water or "can't miss left" or something will likely factor that in to where they position their tee shots. And I've talked to some players, and there's not even any consistency here. On a hole with water right of the green, some players prefer to come from the right, so they're hitting "away" from the water, while others have told me they like to come from the left, as they're rarely "long" and this has them hitting over only grass (or sand), never over water.

Plus, I imagine an architect could build a green that slopes toward the water, thus allowing a player who plays a shot with some bounce/roll to it to filter the ball down closer to the hole, even if it's on the side of the green with the water. I've seen some greens like that, and appreciate that they require a different shot than the "fly it and stick it" type we commonly see in the U.S.

So… Again, that take may not be worth your time to read, but… I can think of a number of holes I quite like architecturally where water abuts the green on one or more sides.

P.S. Tom, are you at all familiar with the 8th at Avalon Lakes, and what are your thoughts on that? It's a Dye course, if you're not, and the LPGA used to play there. My college team plays its conference championship there.

[Scott McWethy]

I'm curious what people think about the 16th hole at Pine Valley regarding this topic.  I was able to attend the Crump Cup this year and I couldn't believe how the water was so close to the green on this hole.  Essentially eliminated any pin positions on the right side of the green.  With the second shot playing down hill, the obvious play that came to my mind was to play short of the green and either chip or putt from there.  Wondering if people think this is a good design or a flaw in the hole with the water right up against the green.

[Tim_Weiman]

I'm curious what people think about the 16th hole at Pine Valley regarding this topic.  I was able to attend the Crump Cup this year and I couldn't believe how the water was so close to the green on this hole.  Essentially eliminated any pin positions on the right side of the green.  With the second shot playing down hill, the obvious play that came to my mind was to play short of the green and either chip or putt from there.  Wondering if people think this is a good design or a flaw in the hole with the water right up against the green.

Scott,


My most memorable experience at a golf tournament was standing in the middle of the 16th fairway at Pine Valley when the Walker Cup was played in 1985. It was there that Bob Lewis made his club selection largely based on the water hazard near the green - he played a 5 iron rather than the 4 iron his caddy had pulled out of his bag.


About ten years later, I spoke to Bob about that shot (which won the match) and he looked at me and said ”water behind and to the right”.......amazed that I was there and remembered so clearly what happened.


Make no mistake, even for the course record holder (as Bob Lewis was) that water dictated a conservative play.

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:  any good player today would tell you it’s ridiculous to hit more than a 5-iron for the approach to a par-4 😉.


PS. I’m headed to Houston tomorrow night and will be there for most of a week.  Send me an email and let’s get together if you’re in town.

[Tommy Williamsen]

As a player I do like water that abuts the green periodically. It affects my overall strategy. If I am ahead in a match, I might play a little more conservatively and aim away from the water. If I am behind and my opponent is stoney, I will go for it. I understand what Tom wrote and it makes sense. Instead of a penalty stroke for hitting it in the water, there is a penalty for hitting the shot away from the pin.
Ricky, btw, hit it close three times in a row. Once on the last round and twice in the playoff.

[John Kavanaugh]

On a side note at Harbour Town the 4th and 14th are mirror images. Water on the left on 4 and water on the right on 14. Fading the ball away from the water on 4 makes it a much easier hole. I would prefer a hole like the 17th at TPC where an island eliminates your options and frees up your mind.

[Tommy Williamsen]

John, I have not played VN yet. It sure looks like a lot of water is in play.

[John Kavanaugh]

John, I have not played VN yet. It sure looks like a lot of water is in play.

Just on 16 holes. It's why I love penal golf and quickly get bored if double is out of play on par 3's.

[JESII]

I think there's more to it than this...and I think it drives to the heart of my issue with Broadie's thesis.


We are deeming Amen Corner plus 15 and 16 at Augusta unappealingly penal to play because of the risk greatly outweighing the reward yet they are the most interesting holes to watch every single year. The reason is that the heart is stronger than the mind and it's the architects responsibility to create these circumstances. In the battle of player versus course, the architect always has the weak minded player as his #1 weapon...and we're all weak minded.


Broadie goes straight to data (as he should, I suppose) and pulls out what he sees. While I haven't read Erik's book (Lowest Score Wins) yet, it sounds like he espouses very similar information and strategies. It's tough to argue with numbers...but it's also difficult to argue that a player shouldn't trust their instincts. Remember what Rotella said about committing to a shot...


I suggest that you absolutely can use contour and water. It goes back to the turtle and hare analogy. If the turtle has a way to take an extra shot to get there without taking much risk you have the basis for a good hole in my opinion. On 11 at Augusta, Hogan was prudent enough to know how to be a turtle because he virtually never missed a step...he also had a green running away from him at 6 feet instead of 13...

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim:  any good player today would tell you it’s ridiculous to hit more than a 5-iron for the approach to a par-4 😉.


PS. I’m headed to Houston tomorrow night and will be there for most of a week.  Send me an email and let’s get together if you’re in town.

Tom,


Bob Lewis actually hit a 4 iron in the morning match from the exact same distance - 185 yards!


Re Houston, yes I am back in town. Sent you text.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Broadie goes straight to data (as he should, I suppose) and pulls out what he sees. While I haven't read Erik's book (Lowest Score Wins) yet, it sounds like he espouses very similar information and strategies. It's tough to argue with numbers...but it's also difficult to argue that a player shouldn't trust their instincts. Remember what Rotella said about committing to a shot.

There can be multiple ways to play a hole, or choose a target, depending on the desired outcome: lowest average score, best chance for birdie, etc.

Never mind that the 16th actually still lets you play away from the hole to the safe part of the green and still funnel the ball down to the hole. Were the green relatively flat, you'd find a LOT of shots hit to 25 feet or so from the hole on the opposite side of the water (except when the flagstick is front right, in which case they'd be left and about hole high).

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I'm curious.  Would you put #8 and #17 at RCCC in this category?  My memory is a bit faded, but from what I can recall and see on aerials those two greens could be considered abutting.

[Dan Herrmann]

What about a course where the designer builds a green adjacent to an existing body of water?   

[Paul Rudovsky]

Think it makes a huge difference depending if we are talking stroke play or match play.  I think water abutting green works much better during match play.

Example is #4 at Brookline...no water but illustrates the risk/reward equation.  During stroke play qualifying at 2013 US Am, almost no one tried to drive it (330 yards to blind tiny green with very bad trouble left and long and medium trouble right) almost no one took out a driver...it was 5 iron and wedge.  But during match play a fair number of players went for it. 


I think that reflects smart decision making in both cases...dumb to go for it in stroke play where a double or worse was very possible...but could be smart strategy in match play.  Unfortunately I do not have any statistics to provide detailed specifics regarding above.

[John Kavanaugh]

You've got to love that Snappy Doodle drove the 17th at the WM Classic and putted into the water. Putt for eagle, make double. Snap!!!

[Tommy Williamsen]

So I guess here's the deal. Water makes a hole exciting and/or terrifying. It can take away from the strategy of the individual shot. Greens with greenside bunkers or wildish slopes and undulations add strategy to the shot into the green. For me both work.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I'm curious.  Would you put #8 and #17 at RCCC in this category?  My memory is a bit faded, but from what I can recall and see on aerials those two greens could be considered abutting.

I didn't think of those when I made my post.  But they are not really right on the water . . . you would have to make a very wild miss to the safe side before you worried about hitting your next shot into the water.


Likewise nobody worries about putting or chipping into the water on 11 at Augusta if they bail right.  But on 15 or 16, even the pros have to worry about it . . . you can't just airmail 15 green deliberately to play safe, or miss 16 green to the right, or your NEXT shot has a much greater than 1% chance of getting wet.  That's why you actually see guys miss in the water during the tournament on those two holes, because missing on the other side could be even more costly.


Ironically though I mentioned that Bill Coore also shies away from greens on the water, the best hole at his very first course, the 2nd at Rockport CC, is a short par-3 with water left and a buried elephant in the middle of a wide green.  When the flag is left, you have to choose between trying to hit that half of the green, or playing safe from the water and maybe having to putt over the mound.  It's not so severe that you worry about putting into the water, but it would take a great putt to get anywhere close from the wrong side -- kind of like #12 green at Bandon Trails now that I think of it.

[JESII]

Would we consider the Road Hole green complex penal or strategic?

[James Bennett]

Hi Jim
Strategic in my opinion.You don't have to take on the Road or the Road bunker, which a penal definition implies.The closer you get to the hazards, the greater the reward.
The strategic hazards on the Road Hole are severe, but that doesn't make them 'penal' in design.
I think
James B

[Sean_A]

Jim

I think up until the past 15-20 years, TRH was a beautiful blend of strategic and penal.  The drive was highly strategic, but the approach was always penal if we count the road as a hazard (in the orignal sense of the word...not using golf rules rather limited use of the word)...which I do.  Playing between hazards is not as deep on the penal continuum as a forced carry, but it isn't strategic either because in one shot or five, eventually play is forced between hazards...same for the forced carry. I haven't played TOC in more than a few years so I don't know how wide the TRH fairway is these days.  When last I played I would say the drive was bordering on penal because the rough has been dragged in so far.  There is also rough in the "layup" zone shy of the green.  I strongly suspect that by now TRH has become a strictly penal hole.  IMO, the presentation of the 16th (no fairway left of Principal's Nose) and TRH are examples of the biggest design travesties of the 20th century.  Its an easy fix, but the mind set is not so easy to turn. 

Water abutting a green...sure, its part of the archie toolkit so its good stuff.  As always, find a good balance and it works just fine once in a while.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Weren’t many bunkers once watery drainage pits many, many decades ago?
Atb