tee shots over water

[dray]

I am a huge fan of the risk/reward contemplation that every golfer has to consider when they are on a tee box that faces water.The designer's goal is a throw over water that when executed properly assures a birdie,but risks a bogie versus a conservative tee shot that guarantees an easy approach for a three or an awesome deuce from 85 feet or more...how many are too many for an 18 hole course...2..3.?

 

[jhgonzo]

Depends on how the water comes into play. I'd have no issue with water being in play on EVERY hole, but I wouldn't want a 300-plus forced carry off every tee (can't think of a geographical location where that'd even be feasible unless you just went back and forth a 300-foot-wide pond 18 times!). If it's a water-heavy course, obviously variety will be needed as with any land feature like elevation and woods -- so a course where you had a long water carry, then maybe water to the right, then maybe a pond in a landing zone, small creek crossings, and so on, would be acceptable from a design perspective (albeit frustrating for most levels of players).

So to answer the original question, I wouldn't want to see more than 2 or 3 "max drive" carries (excuse the ambiguity) on a course, even if each one somehow managed to be unique in its own regard (i.e. a fountain in the middle of one, an optional bailout island or peninsula on another, etc.), simply for the fact that those particular risk/reward shots are not popular with most recreational players (and aren't executed with consistency every time, thus increasing the risk of lost plastic per round).

 

[atl scott]

Flyboy has a lot of water shots, and it's ranked #1 on the site. Holes 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 14, 15, 16, 24, and 25 all have water in play in one form or another although you only have to throw over water on holes 3, 5, and 25. Variety and fairness are key.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Here are the guidelines regarding water carries for different skill levels:
http://www.pdga.com/documents/design-skill-level-guidelines

 

[dray]

the tee shots would be over a creek that is about 35-40 feet across...depth of about 18-24 inches..

 

[Skunk]

the tee shots would be over a creek that is about 35-40 feet across...depth of about 18-24 inches..

I would like this if the tee was at least 100' away from the creek and the basket somewhere on the other side.

 

[jhgonzo]

I'd put the tee well over 200 feet from the close edge of the creek if it's 35-40 across...if you have something like 250' from the tee to the close bank, it'd be almost 300 to cross the creek, so that'd force the "max drive right around 300" crowd (a huge proportion of recreational golfers) to really think if they wanted to go for it, especially if the opposite side of the bank has trees or foliage with potential for knock-down into the drink even with a good full-power shot.

Edit: Regarding Chuck's post above, would the PDGA guidelines frown on such a design? With only a narrow creek in play, it's not a forced carry but a decision shot...do I go for it, or lay up?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Depends on the distance to pin and other side of the water. If it's intended as a blue level hole that's 350 total with the far side of the creek at 300, it would be adequate but not a good hole lengthwise for a par 3 since it's probably in the gray zone distance (depending on foliage). If it was for Red level, that same hole would probably be just fine as a par 4 (since the creek is that shallow). If you want to have a longer carry to the far side, what you do is have the shoreline be on an angle to the tee. A hole that's 300 feet where the pin is on the other side of the creek from the tee does this pretty well for blue level even if the creek is pretty straight presuming you can land anywhere short of the pin on the other side if you want to play safe.

 

[jhgonzo]

If it was for Red level, that same hole would probably be just fine as a par 4 (since the creek is that shallow).

I never realized that water depth was actually a contributing factor to determining par. Interesting and potentially useful bit of info!

...but could you expand a bit on the philosophy, unless I'm totally misreading what you wrote there.

 

[Cgkdisc]

From the Hole Notes section of the PDGA Course Design Guidelines:

"No player throwing from the shortest (or only) tee on a hole should ever be "forced" to throw over
water that is normally greater than 18" deep (50cm). Design an alternate flight path (usually to the left) that gives player the option to not cross water. Any normally dry trenches or bodies of water under 18" deep that are regularly in play should have safe paths down and out to be able to throw and/or retrieve discs safely."

So a 350 hole is probably par 4 for red level (independent of the creek) and this creek may be shallow enough to meet the recommended max depth guideline. If it was a murky, 3 ft deep creek, then a forced crossing of the creek would not meet the red level hole guidelines.

 

[bwiese]

I like water, it makes you chose between risk and reward if properly designed. Hole 7 at hawk hollow is a great example. The tee shot is 250-300 feet to get across the water(a 40 ft creek). For those not sure of clearing they can lay up and stay safe and dry. The hole is another 600+ feet long so laying up makes it a harder hole, but getting wet is even worse.

I love water holes like this where it produces scoring seperation for either good or bad shots or choices.

I hate loosing plastic so if the water is a shallow creek or lake that allows you to retrieve your disc I say bring it on.

 

[atl scott]

I like water, it makes you chose between risk and reward if properly designed. Hole 7 at hawk hollow is a great example. The tee shot is 250-300 feet to get across the water(a 40 ft creek). For those not sure of clearing they can lay up and stay safe and dry. The hole is another 600+ feet long so laying up makes it a harder hole, but getting wet is even worse.

I love water holes like this where it produces scoring seperation for either good or bad shots or choices.

I hate loosing plastic so if the water is a shallow creek or lake that allows you to retrieve your disc I say bring it on.

I saw Feldberg's putt for a 3 spit out on that hole at VTI one year. But hey, I've aced that hole, so.. you know.

 

[dray]

I am actually contemplating a tee shot that would require most of the flight over the water,that is the water would run the length of the hole.The tee shot would provide a RHBH over the water as well as an alternative anny or flick to the left that would be all over dry land.

 

[bradharris]

I am actually contemplating a tee shot that would require most of the flight over the water,that is the water would run the length of the hole.The tee shot would provide a RHBH over the water as well as an alternative anny or flick to the left that would be all over dry land.

So the tee is on one bank with the basket on the opposite bank up/down stream?

I like this a lot, particularly if there's not heavy foliage along the shore. It provides safe options for well executed shots with risk increasing (smaller relative landing area) as you go for greater reward (closer to the pin).

 

[bwiese]

I saw Feldberg's putt for a 3 spit out on that hole at VTI one year. But hey, I've aced that hole, so.. you know.

My friend Vince Whorly beat him at the VTI. First hole they played was 17 and dave f. Threw hyzer out safe and my friend threw a flick roller 45 feet from the pin. He missed the putt and pushed that hole, but feldberd was pretty impressed off the tee.

 

[bwiese]

I am actually contemplating a tee shot that would require most of the flight over the water,that is the water would run the length of the hole.The tee shot would provide a RHBH over the water as well as an alternative anny or flick to the left that would be all over dry land.

Sounds like a fun/good hole as long as there is a choice for a safe play that makes it harder to pick up a stroke.

 

[DavidSauls]

I think that's what the original post was about. Not holes with a forced water carry, but with a choice of a water carry to save a stroke (if successful), or a safe dry route for the faint of heart, or arm.

 

[mashnut]

I am actually contemplating a tee shot that would require most of the flight over the water,that is the water would run the length of the hole.The tee shot would provide a RHBH over the water as well as an alternative anny or flick to the left that would be all over dry land.

I love holes with options like that. There's one on the Steady Ed course at the IDGC with a wider hyzer option over the water that gives you a chance at a 2 or easy 3 and a tighter anny line that's safe but more difficult to 3 and almost impossible to 2.

 

[Paulie]

bwiese: I hate loosing plastic so if the water is a shallow creek or lake that allows you to retrieve your disc I say bring it on.

That.

 

[Martin Dewgarita]

Hole 16, portage lakes, OH. Love it. 250' Hyzer route (RHBH) over the water or 250' anny route through thick trees, much more difficult to execute but takes the water out of play if you so choose. Very nice, well designed hole.

Hole 15 Hidden Lake, St Augusta, MN. Scares the crap out of me, I enjoy it, but can you carry 350' of water? If not, there's not much option for a bail out, anything around the right side of the pond is thick crap that will add several strokes to your score. Poorly designed hole? A weaker arm in a tourney would probably say so. Casual rounds, if you can't hack it, play the shorts, or skip this course as it will eat you alive.