[mike_malone]

 I just looked a few photos on Instagram showing a North Carolina course. Several showed elevated greens and then several showed water right next to the green.


  I’m clear that I prefer the hills. It’s possible that when you miss the green you have multiple possibilities for steepness, rough height, and blindness for your wedge shot. You may hit a high degree wedge or a lower degreed one.


You may try a high shot or a chip and run.
You need to adjust your stance and engage in a little guessing.


The pond leads to taking a penalty stroke and dropping.


It may look better but it ain’t golf.

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,


Or you can take a page out of Pete Dye's book and just do both when in doubt. 

[Nick Schreiber]

I have an honest question: are water hazards truly as bad as architecture nerds (of which I consider myself as a member-in-training) would have you believe? I ask while knowing (and agreeing with) many of the arguments against:

- Forced carries disproportionately affect high handicappers
- We should be able to find our balls, even after bad shots
- The penalty does not fit the crime
- A high percentage of water hazards deter strategic play
- Many great courses have been made worse by the installation of new water features
- Many water features don't appeal to the eye at all!


Again, I agree with all of the bullet points above, but I've recently heard a couple compelling arguments on the flip side from my wife Sarah, who does not play golf (yet). The first is that for the non-golfer and beginner, ponds, lakes, creeks, rivers, etc. can actually generate interest in the game. We often speak glowingly of how golf gives us a chance to take a stroll outside, surrounded by nature. A water hazard, including manmade ones that are designed and built with care, can add to that walk with the visual interest it generates.[size=78%] [/size]

The second point she made is that, though the penalty may not fit the crime, the thrill of hitting an island green, or a long iron over a water hazard, must be tough to match. For those of us who are fans of blind shots because of the excitement and anticipation that ensues as we first hit the shot, and then as we climb over the hill to see exactly where we ended up, I view this as a comparable feeling to the type described by Sarah. Though my wife is competitive by nature, I don't think she is alone amongst beginners or non-players in seeing the happy trade-off between risk and reward, even at its most extreme.

This conversation came about because Sarah believes that if we build Old Barnwell with a mission to bring more beginners and women to the club, then I should probably consider what that audience would want in a course, even if it goes against architectural best practices. In short, she has said that my aversion to water hazards/features is elitist! She asks: who doesn't get joy when viewing a good looking body of water nestled amidst greenery and trees?


My guess is that most participants on this site would acknowledge that water hazards, in moderation, aren't all that bad. But her argument has me thinking more broadly about popular appeal, and how it can coexist with strategic and insightful design. Though it may cause some headaches for Brian and Blake, I'm glad I've got Sarah to provide a different perspective on these things!

[Kalen Braley]

Nick,

Good post, appreciate the insights/questions.

For me I typically draw the line at, was the water feature already there and you more or less fit the hole around it?  Or was it added in an attempt to add interest?  The vast majority of the time if its the latter, its not so great.

For example, the creek on 13 at ANGC in how its used in multiple ways is nothing short of brilliant...but the pond on 16? not a big fan.  Ditto for the creek at Merion on a handful of holes, just genius.

P.S.  Perhaps the most notable exception for me is Torrey Pines 18.  As hideous as the pond is and painfully out of place, I totally understand how much strategic interest it adds.

[Joe Hancock]

Nick,


Sounds like you’re in good hands, all the way around. Good post, and best of luck with your project.


My wife is a balanced perspective when I’m doing site visits as well.


I think Mayday is being overly provocative. His “all hills, no water” perspective would leave out places like Yeamans Hall….

[Garland Bayley]

Ponds violate the unified theory of golf enjoyment. Ponds provide instant disappointment as opposed to the delayed gratification of finding out the result of a blind shot.

Besides, it would be the elitists that believe they can successfully navigate a slew of ponds.

Check out my tagline authored by a very fine golfer.

[mike_malone]

I was clear to say ponds not creeks. Water out of play would be beautiful.


  Joe,


  I’m hardly provocative. I’m just nudging.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have an honest question: are water hazards truly as bad as architecture nerds (of which I consider myself as a member-in-training) would have you believe? I ask while knowing (and agreeing with) many of the arguments against:

- Forced carries disproportionately affect high handicappers
- We should be able to find our balls, even after bad shots
- The penalty does not fit the crime
- A high percentage of water hazards deter strategic play
- Many great courses have been made worse by the installation of new water features
- Many water features don't appeal to the eye at all!


Again, I agree with all of the bullet points above, but I've recently heard a couple compelling arguments on the flip side from my wife Sarah, who does not play golf (yet). The first is that for the non-golfer and beginner, ponds, lakes, creeks, rivers, etc. can actually generate interest in the game. We often speak glowingly of how golf gives us a chance to take a stroll outside, surrounded by nature. A water hazard, including manmade ones that are designed and built with care, can add to that walk with the visual interest it generates.

The second point she made is that, though the penalty may not fit the crime, the thrill of hitting an island green, or a long iron over a water hazard, must be tough to match. For those of us who are fans of blind shots because of the excitement and anticipation that ensues as we first hit the shot, and then as we climb over the hill to see exactly where we ended up, I view this as a comparable feeling to the type described by Sarah. Though my wife is competitive by nature, I don't think she is alone amongst beginners or non-players in seeing the happy trade-off between risk and reward, even at its most extreme.

This conversation came about because Sarah believes that if we build Old Barnwell with a mission to bring more beginners and women to the club, then I should probably consider what that audience would want in a course, even if it goes against architectural best practices. In short, she has said that my aversion to water hazards/features is elitist! She asks: who doesn't get joy when viewing a good looking body of water nestled amidst greenery and trees?


My guess is that most participants on this site would acknowledge that water hazards, in moderation, aren't all that bad. But her argument has me thinking more broadly about popular appeal, and how it can coexist with strategic and insightful design. Though it may cause some headaches for Brian and Blake, I'm glad I've got Sarah to provide a different perspective on these things!

Nick,


You pretty well sum up the philosophical arguments.  In general, one shot hazards are preferable to two shot hazards like lakes and OB, because, if nothing else, no one wants to add a half dozen lost $5 golf balls to the cost of golf.  And, as mentioned, recovery is thrilling in its possibilities, as much as the thrill of hitting an island green or carrying any water hazard, without the agony.


I doubt many mind ponds in moderation. Over 18 holes, water isn't so bad that it shouldn't be featured on at least one tee shot and one green approach (or maybe 2, one left, one right?).  If you believe in proportional penalty, green ponds might make the most sense on holes with short approach shots (or par 5 holes where you can reach in two). On tee shots, I think most archies would consider using water on the longer par 4 holes, i.e., the Pete Dye version of the Cape Hole to force golfers to play the hole longer than the scorecard yardage, unless willing to hit a risky and perfect shot.


Mention water, and a lot of folks go to Florida courses where they seem to be everywhere (and are needed to provide drainage on flat ground.)  We all seem to dislke too much water (although the alternative of having too much water in the fairways, getting our shoes wet is worse in those Florida cases) and the artificial look of many golf course ponds.  Even some of that comes from practical requirements, like armoring banks against erosion, etc.  But, other parts of it come from poor shaping, size, proportion, etc.


So, not all black and white as seems to be the most popular form of social media discussion these days.

[Ira Fishman]

Nick,


My wife falls into the thrill of victory category although not on tee shots on Par 4s or Par 5s. However, I doubt it would be a factor in choosing a course to play. I do think tees set up at the right yardage but not designed solely to make the course "shorter" would appeal to her and her friends. Our course added a few front tees several years ago to almost uniform praise and probably will add a few more soon. And it is a short course...but not for the women or older men on too many holes.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Nick:


My first design had one water hazard, a pond on the second shot of the par-5 18th hole, which led all the way up to the green.


Because of wetlands restrictions, the pond and the buffer around the pond became a bigger hazard than I'd anticipated, and the hole was way harder than I wanted.  The person who hated it the most was my first wife -- she would be playing along pretty well, and that hole consistently reduced her to tears.


So, tell your wife to be careful what she wishes for!   

[Nick Schreiber]

All points duly noted and appreciated! And now I've figured out that if I want to broach a potentially controversial topic, I can always do so under the guise of "my wife thinks XYZ... how would you respond to that point of view?"

[Mike Nuzzo]

beautiful and strategic shaping is far more attractive than a flat pond
peace

[Rob Marshall]

That's the problem with a lot of Florida golf. You replace the fun of a great recovery shot with a drop and the hope to avoid double....

[mike_malone]

Nick:


My first design had one water hazard, a pond on the second shot of the par-5 18th hole, which led all the way up to the green.


Because of wetlands restrictions, the pond and the buffer around the pond became a bigger hazard than I'd anticipated, and the hole was way harder than I wanted.  The person who hated it the most was my first wife -- she would be playing along pretty well, and that hole consistently reduced her to tears.


So, tell your wife to be careful what she wishes for!   

So I played Stonewall North again ( loved the left green side bunker on 12 and continue to adore that hole) but the member said Doak said he would redo 13.


I disagreed. I thought the water on the right was not penal but pushed me left. So I loved the hole. This was before I nailed my hybrid to 12 feet to a right pin.


Btw how many “Doak said”s are true?

[Joe Hancock]

beautiful and strategic shaping is far more attractive than a flat pond
peace

Can said shaping exist alongside a pond, or lake? Or should the water be out of sight, out of mind?

[Tim Martin]

I’m with Mayday and would prefer the hill. More going on than sink or swim.

[Jeff_Brauer]

beautiful and strategic shaping is far more attractive than a flat pond
peace

Can said shaping exist alongside a pond, or lake? Or should the water be out of sight, out of mind?

Joe,


Ross wrote that 2 or 3 ponds should be enough, and barring flat ground and needing to provide multiple drain outlets, I think that is a good general rule. And, when a reasonable number of ponds are built, the usual thought is to double or triple their useful function to provide aesthetics and hazards.


That said, I once postulated here that the best looking ponds seem to "disappear around a corner" of trees or earth to give the suggestion that they are bigger than they are.  Thus, I can be in favor of hiding some of the ponds from golfers.  As to Mike's pithy/snarky comment   while water is level, there is an artistic opportunity when shaping the banks, planting contrasting plant material, etc.


In many areas, there are regulatory limits on surface water to control evaporation, etc.  No one likes those, but in reality, it pays only to have your irrigation lake and no or very few other water hazards that you man make.  No sense in losing pond water to evaporation, and having to connect the irrigation system to it to fill it up and keep it filled.  Not at today's typical water prices, and sure to go higher.  And, I don't like damning on stream lakes because of silt, and regulations are making that harder every year, as well.


The Short version for golfclubatlas.com.....In a few years' time, we might not have any need to discuss this, because the trend will clearly be to fewer ponds for reasons outside of whether the gca thinks they are necessary for golf. 

[Steve Kline]

the thrill of hitting an island green

Perhaps when playing a course once in your life, but I can't imagine playing that kind of hole every day on my home course and finding it very fun. Do or die shots aren't much fun


Choosing how close to flirt with a creek that skirts a fairway or green? Now that I find interesting. If you're playing bad aim away from it and suffer the penalty of a poor angle, etc. If you're paying well, take on the challenge. If you fail that challenge, then curse yourself for being so stupid to do so. 

[Sean_A]

I fail to understand the all or nothing attitude toward features. Like all concepts, water used wisely, judicially and sporadically can be as good as any feature.

Ciao

[mike_malone]

Just not as good as hills.

[Garland Bayley]

... Like all concepts, water used wisely, judicially and sporadically can be as good as any feature.

Ciao

Balderdash!

BTW, Too much gorse can be even worse than too many ponds. Right, Mayday?

[Sean_A]

Just not as good as hills.

Mayday

If there are no hills, water is probably better 😎. Your point is very weird.

Ciao

[Sean_A]

... Like all concepts, water used wisely, judicially and sporadically can be as good as any feature.

Ciao

Balderdash!

BTW, Too much gorse can be even worse than too many ponds. Right, Mayday?

Who is talking too much? I am generally not a fan of gorse, but on Cleeve Cloud's 5th it's an excellent feature. Anything used sparingly can be excellent. Variety is one thing which makes courses interesting.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Played at a 9-hole course which once had no greens irrigation.
Later on they built a dam/pond across a small stream near the highest point of the course and irrigated all the greens by gravity.
atb

[Garland Bayley]

... Like all concepts, water used wisely, judicially and sporadically can be as good as any feature.

Ciao

Balderdash!

BTW, Too much gorse can be even worse than too many ponds. Right, Mayday?

Who is talking too much? I am generally not a fan of gorse, but on Cleeve Cloud's 5th it's an excellent feature. Anything used sparingly can be excellent. Variety is one thing which makes courses interesting.

Ciao

When people use the word variety as a positive for courses, i am sure they aren't thinking of ball gobbling, two stroke penalty imposing gorse.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()