Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Thomas Dai on October 15, 2014, 02:06:29 PM
-
What design feature do you dislike the most?
Hopefully dialogue will not focus on a design feature that particularly effects your own personal game but rather types of feature that effect all players, irrespective of age, strength or sex.
Me? I'm not fond of forced carries, prefer streams to ponds....and I absolutely detest fountains in lakes.
atb
-
Over zealous tree removal.
And
Shots that demand the ball be bounced in, whilst the approaches are unsuitable. Either much softer than the green or too sloping.
-
Forced carries.
-
Not too big a surprise: Waterfalls.
I guess if you happen upon a natural one, that's OK. Otherwise, what a complete waste. I'm not entirely anti water hazard, but the waterfalls drive me crazy. Such a waste of resources for something that means nothing to the actual playing of golf.
-
Trees that narrow the line of play off the tee.
-
Trees situated between a bunker and the green.
-
Forced layups.
Especially on longer holes where you may hit a longer club with your second shot than you did off the tee.
-
Learning to play the game while growing up in florida ive grown to dislike water in all its forms, especially when it comes into play on every hole.
That being said i absolutely hate standing on a tee box lined with trees so tight that it prevents your ability to aim anywhere but straight down the fairway, and even then you still have a chance of hitting a tree 30 yrds away with your driver. This feature becomes increasingly annoying the further you play back.
-
Trees situated between a bunker and the green.
Water protecting the front of the green on holes where the drives are guarded on both sides by bunkers.
Fairways where the landing zone is on a downslope and the green is elevated.
Downhill lies in deep bunkers with high lips.
Perched greens with steep slopes on both sides and the back.
Fairways routed around trees which guard the low side of the fairway.
Narrow bunkers with pitched edges. Greens that slope away into said bunkers.
-
Are waterfalls and fountains design features? Particularly fountains, assuming the pond would still be there anyway.
In addition to not being a fan of trees that make playing corridors into hallways, I do not like it when they frame a hole in general. In other words, a hole becomes a dogleg left simply because trees are planted to create that shape to the hole (whether they are a huge impediment or not).
-
I don't care for trees covering or adding to the penalty of a bunker or water hazard. Trees that catch a shot and drop them into a hazard seems the double whammy to me.
I don't like the maintenance of conifers, particularly spruce and arbor vitae that allow the branches to grow all the way down to the ground rather than have 18 inches to 3 feet trimmed up the trunk to allow the ball to be found, and to be chipped out at least a few feet if not a bit of a swing back to a fairway some feet or yards away.
I don't like turtle back small greens without any decent pinable areas.
I don't like blue grass rough more than 2.5 inches.
I don't like greens without any collar cut, even if only 22 inches at least oe mower width.
I don't like courses with repetitive runway tees extending 50 yards and more.
I don't like courses with rows and rows of artificial mounds buried elephants aside all the hole corridors for FW separation.
I don't like near dead flat greens.
-
Definitely the fountain in the pond...
-
Man-made water hazards.
-
Manicured bunker edges. :-[
-
Manicured bunker edges. :-[
Ben
Which courses / bunkers that aren't manicured is it that you do like?
-
Over zealous tree removal.
This goes against Golf Club Atlas orthodoxy and may need an explanation.
-
Puts me in a small minority here I'm sure, but I'll come out of the closet and say that as long as a Club is managed sensibly in financial terms, I like water features, gardens and flowers. They look nice. And perversely, I like things that look nice.
What first attracted me to golf was the beauty of the surroundings in contrast to what I saw around me every day. The golf is more important, but I don't think a good course and beautification are mutually exclusive.
-
Manicured bunker edges. :-[
Ben
Which courses / bunkers that aren't manicured is it that you do like?
I guess that is a bit of an "open to interpretation" type of statement.
I'll clarify with pictures.
What I like:
(http://www.businessinsider.com/image/51bb400ceab8ea6b3b000000-1200-675/tiger-woods-rough-bunker-shot.jpg)
or
(http://www.travelgolf.com/departments/photo-galleries/images/preview/40718.jpg)
or
(http://imavex.vo.llnwd.net/o18/clients/southerndunesgolfclub/images/Homepage/banner_SouthernDunes-4-002.jpg)
What I don't like:
(http://www.armsturf.com/images/bunker_sand_golf_course.jpg)
or
(http://stophavingaboringlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/fairway_bunkers_tamarina_golf_course_mauritius.jpg)
I also do like stacked sod, even though most have the uniform edge look I don't like, the stacked sod is the "added character" type of feature that I like in bunkers...
(http://www.tampabay.com/resources/images/dti/rendered/2012/07/c4s_britnotes071912_231351a_8col.jpg)
Maybe my statement should have said ... Bunkers with NO CHARACTER.
-
Over zealous tree removal.
This goes against Golf Club Atlas orthodoxy and may need an explanation.
Some tree removal is necessary and some courses have been completely transformed for the better. Secondly if tree removal benefits the health of the turf, again I don't have a problem. Ditto for heather regeneration on heathlands.
What I object to is the almost default viewpoint that all tress = bad. And taking them out for the sake of it. Not every course can be walton heath or shinnicock. If you're a parkland course on the edge of Wolverhampton, built on clay, relatively poor design, compromised by local houses or say a road, the "beauty" of the mature specimen trees and how they change through the seasons, is probably one of the few redeeming features.
A balance is needed. Entrenched anti tree mentality might be fashionable here. It is not shared by most of the market and those who pay the bills.
-
Ben
Thanks for clarifying.
What are the courses in your 2nd and 3rd pictures?
-
Trees planted in a row to provide separation between fairways, or like soldiers standing in line.
-
Ben
Thanks for clarifying.
What are the courses in your 2nd and 3rd pictures?
#2 is Old MacDonald at Bandon
#3 is Southern Dunes in Az
-
Ben
Thanks for clarifying.
What are the courses in your 2nd and 3rd pictures?
#2 is Old MacDonald at Bandon
#3 is Southern Dunes in Az
Thanks - ironically both are about as manicured as you can get. They are stylised eye candy. Not really any more morally high brow than a water fountain or a flower bed.
I think they look great by the way.
-
Bunkers cut into the top of mounds.
Teeing areas that dont align to the general line off the tee.
-
OOB just a few feet off the fairway.
And worse than that would be OOB just a few feet off the fairway with a cart path next to propel balls OOB.
-
I do not particularly care for:
1. Out of bounds
2. Ponds or lakes
3. Long distances from greens to tees
4. Trees that hang over fairways
5. Multiple Tee boxes that are scattered like leaves
6. Tee boxes that do not orient players down middle of target
7. Courses that cater to those who only work the ball one way...;-)
-
I dislike out of bounds. It slows the game down considerably, when the player has to go back to the tee box. How bout treating all lost balls as red stakes.
Branches that extend well onto to the fairways and block good shots. Cut them down!
-
I dislike out of bounds. It slows the game down considerably, when the player has to go back to the tee box. How bout treating all lost balls as red stakes.
Branches that extend well onto to the fairways and block good shots. Cut them down!
Inspired by Eric here id also like to add the obnoxious cart paths that cut though the middle of the fairway.
-
My likes and dislikes:
I hate the green that most call a redan. I got forced into building one once and I have never heard a good word about it. The Club and Greenkeeper wanted it. I have realised very few people like them or understand them.
Trees are good in some situations but in the UK have largely been overdone and some courses over time it seems every space has been filled, but I still like certain trees and some trees I don't think have any place. Pine, Birch, Thorn, Oak are fine.
If you have a crap site then you have to make it better. Water is usually the way. Fountains ming.
-
Adrian
Would that be on the Orange course at Cumberwell?
-
Yes the 3rd green Ryan.
-
I dislike the green wall syndrome...trees lining fairways.
I dislike crappy trees burying lovely trees.
I dislike trees overhanging fairways.
I dislike trees causing massive shadows on a brilliantly sunny winter day.
I dislike trees partially blocking views of features such as bunkers.
I dislike rough under trees.
I dislike trees with low canopies.
I dislike trees blocking interior views or views of where other golfers are...this is a safety hangup...I want to see what the idiots around me are doing.
Lets draw a line under trees.
______________________________________________________________
This all stuff I look at when evaluating courses. There are more, but I am feeling quite negative now :D
Ciao
-
Sean - Do you like clumps of pine trees 40 yards from the centre line?
-
Man-made water hazards.
+1
No surprise to anyone that I'm seconding this. ;)
-
Trees planted in a row to provide separation between fairways, or like soldiers standing in line.
+1
-
Sean - Do you like clumps of pine trees 40 yards from the centre line?
No, should I?
Ciao
-
Downhill approach shots to greens that slope from front to back. The 7th hole on the Plantation course at Kapalua is a perfect example.
-
Downhill approach shots to greens that slope from front to back. The 7th hole on the Plantation course at Kapalua is a perfect example.
I love that hole, so I'll have to disagree.
What did you want them to do, exactly? The fairway slopes massively downhill, so you pretty much have to play from a downhill lie. And Bill Coore actually told me when we were there that his first version of the green tilted slightly back toward the line of play -- but when they went back up into the fairway, it looked like a ski jump!
There is no problem with that hole if you land your approach short of the green.
-
Trees situated between a bunker and the green.
This
-
Although it might be overly specific: The design feature that causes a genuine distaste (often accompanied by a muttering such as, “this is the best you could come up with,”) is the pinched/narrowed fairway designed as the second shot landing zone manifested on par-5’s. I would enjoy knowing the reason behind this forced design, but I would expect that they are implemented as attempt to add strategy to an otherwise redundant unreachable par 5 hole. But by pinching the landing zone I argue that the design accomplishes the exact opposite since it deletes any other options for the player. Usually these holes result in the player smashing a fairway metal near the green instead of attempting to hit the “green” (the pinched fairway landing zone) with a mid-iron, since a simple greenside chip is preferable to the full wedge shot, and this assumes that the player executed the difficult lay-up perfectly. In other words, the layup offers very little reward if executed to perfection.
An example of this design (and since this is my very first post on GCA, I will select a course that is often belittled on this forum) is #2 at TPC Sawgrass.
Another design feature that leaves a bad taste in my mouth is green after green that slopes back to front. I must admit this is because of a bias towards greens that severely slope side to side or the rare green that slopes front to back. (Recently my favorite approach shot in golf was softened. The result is that we lost a world class green site. #7 at The Golf Club)
Charlie
-
Downhill approach shots to greens that slope from front to back. The 7th hole on the Plantation course at Kapalua is a perfect example.
As long as you can run it up, I think those are great shots. You can hit them with almost any club in your bag.
-
Downhill approach shots to greens that slope from front to back. The 7th hole on the Plantation course at Kapalua is a perfect example.
I love that hole, so I'll have to disagree.
What did you want them to do, exactly? The fairway slopes massively downhill, so you pretty much have to play from a downhill lie. And Bill Coore actually told me when we were there that his first version of the green tilted slightly back toward the line of play -- but when they went back up into the fairway, it looked like a ski jump!
There is no problem with that hole if you land your approach short of the green.
Lol, that's what I would expect someone of your stature to say. I landed a perfect shot short and it rolled to the back of the green. It was a front pin, downhill down grain. I wrote a letter to one of the designers asking why he built the green that way. I was pleasantly surprised to get a letter in the mail from Ben. He explained that the front pin was to be used sparingly and that if the green was flat at the bottom of the hill it would look like a "back stop". Still don't like it as a design future but I understand your point which was exactly the same as Ben's. I'm still amazed that he took the time to respond to my letter. Still have it, dated December 31, 1997.
-
Artificial mounding that looks like it is artificial
-
If manmade lakes and ponds are a necessity in many developments, why not utilize them in the strategy of creating interesting designs? It is often in today's climate preferable for many architects to hide the irrigation pond out of sight to achieve an aesthetic effect, but could not the question be asked that the designer has been inefficient in utilizing the available natural/required resources to create strategy? Honestly, a sand bunker is much more out of place in most inland environments than a flooded space of land.
By all means a pond does not have to be a forced carry, but the excuse to say it doesn't fit into the landscape is but an opinion perhaps resulting in a lack of creativity?
My home course (clay-based) hides the retention pond out of sight; all the while there could have been multiple opportunities to place it in lower elevation, thus producing golf holes with greater options. It is not wise to waste a strategic resource by hiding it behind some trees just because it looks unappealing. With tongue in cheek, be like Fazio and try to make it look natural.
Charlie
-
If manmade lakes and ponds are a necessity in many developments, why not utilize them in the strategy of creating interesting designs?
Impossible, they are boring. They take away shots. How many shots have you made from the middle of a pond?
It is often in today's climate preferable for many architects to hide the irrigation pond out of sight to achieve an aesthetic effect, but could not the question be asked that the designer has been inefficient in utilizing the available natural/required resources to create strategy? Honestly, a sand bunker is much more out of place in most inland environments than a flooded space of land.
By all means a pond does not have to be a forced carry, but the excuse to say it doesn't fit into the landscape is but an opinion perhaps resulting in a lack of creativity?
Au contraire. It is the lack of creativity that uses the cheap trick of adding a pond.
My home course (clay-based) hides the retention pond out of sight; all the while there could have been multiple opportunities to place it in lower elevation, thus producing golf holes with greater options. It is not wise to waste a strategic resource by hiding it behind some trees just because it looks unappealing. With tongue in cheek, be like Fazio and try to make it look natural.
Charlie
-
Rough so thick you spend far too much time searching for balls hit off the fairway (if you find them at all).
Man-made water hazards.
Tom, is this one reason ANGC did not get a 10 in the CG?
-
I confess to making a snap judgement about any course the moment I see a fountain. I've yet to have my opinion changed after 18 holes of golf.
-
Island Greens
I'll concede Pete and Alice "one" and perhaps Strong one, but that's it ...
as for the rest ... there is nothing clever or interesting about playing them
-
Borrowing a bit from my own post on Sean's 'defending bogey' thread - 3 features that would prevent me from happily challenging a 5 handicapper (a much better golfer than me) to 18 holes of match play, straight up: 1. severly perched greens, 2. daunting forced-carries, and 3. fairway hazards as severe as the Church Pews or Hells Half Acre.
Peter
-
If manmade lakes and ponds are a necessity in many developments, why not utilize them in the strategy of creating interesting designs?
Impossible, they are boring. They take away shots. How many shots have you made from the middle of a pond?
It is often in today's climate preferable for many architects to hide the irrigation pond out of sight to achieve an aesthetic effect, but could not the question be asked that the designer has been inefficient in utilizing the available natural/required resources to create strategy? Honestly, a sand bunker is much more out of place in most inland environments than a flooded space of land.
By all means a pond does not have to be a forced carry, but the excuse to say it doesn't fit into the landscape is but an opinion perhaps resulting in a lack of creativity?
Au contraire. It is the lack of creativity that uses the cheap trick of adding a pond.
My home course (clay-based) hides the retention pond out of sight; all the while there could have been multiple opportunities to place it in lower elevation, thus producing golf holes with greater options. It is not wise to waste a strategic resource by hiding it behind some trees just because it looks unappealing. With tongue in cheek, be like Fazio and try to make it look natural.
Charlie
I disagree that a manmade pond cannot be utilized to create strategy. If I am building a course in a sugarcane or corn field and want to recreate a Cape hole; then why not dig a pond. It creates strategy in that the golfer has to determine how much to cut the corner. And if that is not strategy I don't know what is. Simply saying that all manmade water hazards are boring because they leave no possibility of a recovery shot is illogical. High fescue leaves no chance of recovery, so to do gorges and cliffs, deep woods, and oceans; I guess those are boring too? Therefore the architect that employs these challenges must have no creativity. Rubbish.
If I may, I believe your opinion and Doak's distaste of manmade water is more aesthetical. You don't like how they look; and neither do I. But to say they don't create strategy is false. For better or worse, water dominates the players mind when confronted with it. Therefore, however a 'cheap trick' they may constitute, and often times the lesser designs rely overly on their penal nature, they nevertheless when creatively utilized are a useful resource in the mind of a great designer.
Charlie
-
Island Greens
I'll concede Pete and Alice "one" and perhaps Strong one, but that's it ...
as for the rest ... there is nothing clever or interesting about playing them
Ian I think what you have said represents 10% of what golfers like, 90% love them.
-
Island Greens
I'll concede Pete and Alice "one" and perhaps Strong one, but that's it ...
as for the rest ... there is nothing clever or interesting about playing them
Ian I think what you have said represents 10% of what golfers like, 90% love them.
I'm sure golf ball manufacturers and scuba divers also love island greens (and all ponds/streams etc). I'm sure they also love the likes of long grass and OOB where you can't retrieve your ball!
There is a close relationship between design and maintenance practices, some aspects of which have been touched on above.
Rather than incorporate disliked maintenance practices within this thread I shall start a separate thread on it - see - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59732.0.html
atb
-
If manmade lakes and ponds are a necessity in many developments, why not utilize them in the strategy of creating interesting designs?
Impossible, they are boring. They take away shots. How many shots have you made from the middle of a pond?
It is often in today's climate preferable for many architects to hide the irrigation pond out of sight to achieve an aesthetic effect, but could not the question be asked that the designer has been inefficient in utilizing the available natural/required resources to create strategy? Honestly, a sand bunker is much more out of place in most inland environments than a flooded space of land.
By all means a pond does not have to be a forced carry, but the excuse to say it doesn't fit into the landscape is but an opinion perhaps resulting in a lack of creativity?
Au contraire. It is the lack of creativity that uses the cheap trick of adding a pond.
My home course (clay-based) hides the retention pond out of sight; all the while there could have been multiple opportunities to place it in lower elevation, thus producing golf holes with greater options. It is not wise to waste a strategic resource by hiding it behind some trees just because it looks unappealing. With tongue in cheek, be like Fazio and try to make it look natural.
Charlie
I disagree that a manmade pond cannot be utilized to create strategy. If I am building a course in a sugarcane or corn field and want to recreate a Cape hole; then why not dig a pond. It creates strategy in that the golfer has to determine how much to cut the corner. And if that is not strategy I don't know what is. Simply saying that all manmade water hazards are boring because they leave no possibility of a recovery shot is illogical. High fescue leaves no chance of recovery, so to do gorges and cliffs, deep woods, and oceans; I guess those are boring too? Therefore the architect that employs these challenges must have no creativity. Rubbish.
If I may, I believe your opinion and Doak's distaste of manmade water is more aesthetical. You don't like how they look; and neither do I. But to say they don't create strategy is false. For better or worse, water dominates the players mind when confronted with it. Therefore, however a 'cheap trick' they may constitute, and often times the lesser designs rely overly on their penal nature, they nevertheless when creatively utilized are a useful resource in the mind of a great designer.
Charlie
From Ran's review of Old MacDonald.
"Ninth hole, Cape, 415/230 yards; The best Cape holes (the fifth at Mid Ocean, the eighth at St. Louis, the fourteenth at National Golf Links of America) feature a water hazard upon which the hole pivots around. Such all or nothing hazards provide intense interest that the bunkers and vegetation on the inside of this Cape hole don’t match. Conversely, the bunkers and gorse here better tempt the golfer into being greedy, making this version a delightful hole to play time and time again."
A pond creates mindless strategy, and eliminates more strategy than it creates. It is simply a flag that says don't go here. How mindless can you get. I can do without the "intense interest" in whether my ball is going into the pond or not.
You didn't answer as to how many recovery shots you have made from the center of a pond.
-
Island Greens
I'll concede Pete and Alice "one" and perhaps Strong one, but that's it ...
as for the rest ... there is nothing clever or interesting about playing them
Ian I think what you have said represents 10% of what golfers like, 90% love them.
Please reference the scientific study that determined your allegation.
-
Fairway bunkers that are surrounded by irrigated rough. Why is it so hard to understand the concept of width? Shouldn't golf committee members institute a fairway line check every spring or fall?
-
Forced layup for me. It is a let-down to be forced to dink one off the tee, particularly when a lot of real estate remains after the layup.
-
Island Greens
I'll concede Pete and Alice "one" and perhaps Strong one, but that's it ...
as for the rest ... there is nothing clever or interesting about playing them
Ian I think what you have said represents 10% of what golfers like, 90% love them.
But so what? If you're going to assert that popular equals good then we're back to the 'McDonald's is the best restaurant in the world' argument.
(FWIW I agree that lots like them and I understand why people build them, but on balance I am with Ian).
-
Adam - You can't argue with an opinion and I am not arguing with Ian's, I have seen too many and am a bit fed up with them, but in the UK they are still rare. Not that what I am going to say now is relevant to golf architecture directly but if you build a new course in this country and include an island green you will get plenty of traffic they really are a big hit with the customers.
-
If manmade lakes and ponds are a necessity in many developments, why not utilize them in the strategy of creating interesting designs?
Impossible, they are boring. They take away shots. How many shots have you made from the middle of a pond?
It is often in today's climate preferable for many architects to hide the irrigation pond out of sight to achieve an aesthetic effect, but could not the question be asked that the designer has been inefficient in utilizing the available natural/required resources to create strategy? Honestly, a sand bunker is much more out of place in most inland environments than a flooded space of land.
By all means a pond does not have to be a forced carry, but the excuse to say it doesn't fit into the landscape is but an opinion perhaps resulting in a lack of creativity?
Au contraire. It is the lack of creativity that uses the cheap trick of adding a pond.
My home course (clay-based) hides the retention pond out of sight; all the while there could have been multiple opportunities to place it in lower elevation, thus producing golf holes with greater options. It is not wise to waste a strategic resource by hiding it behind some trees just because it looks unappealing. With tongue in cheek, be like Fazio and try to make it look natural.
Charlie
I disagree that a manmade pond cannot be utilized to create strategy. If I am building a course in a sugarcane or corn field and want to recreate a Cape hole; then why not dig a pond. It creates strategy in that the golfer has to determine how much to cut the corner. And if that is not strategy I don't know what is. Simply saying that all manmade water hazards are boring because they leave no possibility of a recovery shot is illogical. High fescue leaves no chance of recovery, so to do gorges and cliffs, deep woods, and oceans; I guess those are boring too? Therefore the architect that employs these challenges must have no creativity. Rubbish.
If I may, I believe your opinion and Doak's distaste of manmade water is more aesthetical. You don't like how they look; and neither do I. But to say they don't create strategy is false. For better or worse, water dominates the players mind when confronted with it. Therefore, however a 'cheap trick' they may constitute, and often times the lesser designs rely overly on their penal nature, they nevertheless when creatively utilized are a useful resource in the mind of a great designer.
Charlie
From Ran's review of Old MacDonald.
"Ninth hole, Cape, 415/230 yards; The best Cape holes (the fifth at Mid Ocean, the eighth at St. Louis, the fourteenth at National Golf Links of America) feature a water hazard upon which the hole pivots around. Such all or nothing hazards provide intense interest that the bunkers and vegetation on the inside of this Cape hole don’t match. Conversely, the bunkers and gorse here better tempt the golfer into being greedy, making this version a delightful hole to play time and time again."
A pond creates mindless strategy, and eliminates more strategy than it creates. It is simply a flag that says don't go here. How mindless can you get. I can do without the "intense interest" in whether my ball is going into the pond or not.
You didn't answer as to how many recovery shots you have made from the center of a pond.
GJ,
I have never recovered from the center of a pond because there might be alligators, and worse, snakes in them, but the drowning of your golf ball does not equate to the drowning of creativity/strategy/options.
The BEST Cape holes, according to your quote, are ones that have water/ponds.
I do agree that we both prefer hazards that allow for recovery (for options). But I do not attribute the concept of options to be equal to the concept of strategy. Demands are part of life. And the golfer that shies away from demands are typically the same folk that equate obedience to a negative/oppressive reality. I have to change a diaper, therefore I am not free to express myself. Nonsense! True joy can be found in accomplishing the task set before me. Thus avoiding the pond on a golf course does not equate in some sort of enslavement over the player, but just the opposite. A true understanding of freedom, in this scenario of 'escaping the ugly water hazard' can be likened to a conquering over an object that was attempting to take away my freedom,,, or in this analogy, my $4 golf ball.
Thanks for the response
Charlie
-
Charlie
I am not going down the road of personal enslavement, but I do agree that not only is water a good design feature, but everything else mentioned as well. Design is more about the balance of features than it is about the specific features. Its easy to get away with too little of one thing, but not so much with too much of one thing. I can understand the balance of features being upset for a specific reason, but generally, I think balance should perhaps be the prime goal because balance necessarily leads to variety.
Ciao
-
Charlie
I am not going down the road of personal enslavement, but I do agree that not only is water a good design feature, but everything else mentioned as well. Design is more about the balance of features than it is about the specific features. Its easy to get away with too little of one thing, but not so much with too much of one thing. I can understand the balance of features being upset for a specific reason, but generally, I think balance should perhaps be the prime goal because balance necessarily leads to variety.
Ciao
Amen.
-
Charlie
I am not going down the road of personal enslavement, but I do agree that not only is water a good design feature, but everything else mentioned as well. Design is more about the balance of features than it is about the specific features. Its easy to get away with too little of one thing, but not so much with too much of one thing. I can understand the balance of features being upset for a specific reason, but generally, I think balance should perhaps be the prime goal because balance necessarily leads to variety.
Ciao
Amen.
+1
And here we have a problem with the average golfer. Balance tends to equate to subtlety. Subtlety, in the eyes of the average golfer, means they miss 90% of what the course has to offer and is therefore translated as dull. 90% of golfers therefore, as per Adrian's comments about what sells, tend to prefer a shinier, less (dare I say it for fear of rebuke) sophisticated product.
-
I could do without:
1 - mandatory layup leaving a long approach (the ultimate "screw you" from the archie)
2 - overhanging tree branches on tee boxes - they leave me claustrophobic and anxious to move on down the fairway
3 - overhanging tree branches on the fairway - weed like behavior
4 - trees blocking and aerial entry into the green when you're in the middle of the gosh darn fairway and the ground game is not an option (even if it is an option I find it offensive)
5 - weeping willows within 6 miles of a golf course
6 - multi-stem trees - they must be the result of arboreal inbreeding
7 - bunkers well off the fairway - they are far more interesting when intruding into the line of play, if only slightly
8 - flat, featureless bunkers - go "big" or go home with bunkers, I say (not literally big, just be robust in design and texture)
9 - and, drumroll please, water hazards off the tee which are flanking both sides of the fairway - huh?
-
2 - overhanging tree branches on tee boxes - they leave me claustrophobic and anxious to move on down the fairway
Amen! I played one senior event where the tee was setup so that I could find no place where the branches did not interfere with my swing. But, all the shorter players could swing freely.
-
Charlie
I am not going down the road of personal enslavement, but I do agree that not only is water a good design feature, but everything else mentioned as well. Design is more about the balance of features than it is about the specific features. Its easy to get away with too little of one thing, but not so much with too much of one thing. I can understand the balance of features being upset for a specific reason, but generally, I think balance should perhaps be the prime goal because balance necessarily leads to variety.
Ciao
Amen.
+1
And here we have a problem with the average golfer. Balance tends to equate to subtlety. Subtlety, in the eyes of the average golfer that is missing 90% of what the course has to offer, is translated as dull. 90% of golfers therefore, as per Adrian's comments about what sells, tend to prefer a shinier, less (dare I say it for fear of rebuke) sophisticated product.
So you support ponds so that the average golfer will like the course, because it is not dull (subtle).
??? ::)
-
I'm not a big fan of blind approach shots. Golf is hard enough even when you know where your ball landed.
Quadruple this if the blind shot involves a forced carry over a hazard.
-
...
The BEST Cape holes, according to your quote, are ones that have water/ponds.
...
I wouldn't make too much of that. What percent of cape holes do not have water? Perhaps it is simply a matter of overwhelming odds, rather than quality.
-
Overhanging tree branches on tee boxes are bad, robbing the player of angles, but my LEAST favorite design feature is where distance is the primary/only defense of the hole. Maybe 1x or 2x a round is ok, but when it's a theme...yawn.
-
Downhill approach shots to greens that slope from front to back. The 7th hole on the Plantation course at Kapalua is a perfect example.
I love that hole, so I'll have to disagree.
What did you want them to do, exactly? The fairway slopes massively downhill, so you pretty much have to play from a downhill lie. And Bill Coore actually told me when we were there that his first version of the green tilted slightly back toward the line of play -- but when they went back up into the fairway, it looked like a ski jump!
There is no problem with that hole if you land your approach short of the green.
While we can all certainly come up with a good or great hole that belies what one calls a "bad" design feature, the hole that immediately came to mind is one of the best openers in golf - the 1st at Oakmont. I'm also biased as I love this hole. Last time I plaued I think I hit 7 iron from 195 and ended up through the green despite landing some 25 yards short, but I was trying to land it even shorter.
This is also a feature that you rarely encounter. If overused I could see it being an annoyance, but in moderation when used naturally, I love it.
-
Until yesterday I'd forgotten about this little gem:
A tree, complete with low lying, sprawling branches, right in front of the green. ::)
-
Greens surrounded nearly entirely by bunkers. I dont like features that are ease for the pro/scratch player and really tough on the high handicaps. I would much rather see a closely mown slope that plays with the minds of good players
Green side bunkers across from lakes. Same reason.
-
I’ve played two holes I thought were especially bad:
1. A Vegas course where the tee shot was a layup, followed by 200+ approach to green benched into a steep hillside and falling off steeply into an arroyo.
2. Similar, but even worse, a course near Boise where the 18th hole has a fairway running straight away with a large pond on the left. The green is on the other side of the pond. You can hit anything from driver to iron and still have the same 200+ yard forced carry across the pond. I think they were forced to create an alternate route around the pond, but given the terrain, it would be very penal and risky.
I play with senior golfers mostly. That ability to hit a 200+ yard shot seems to be an important difference between lesser and better players on long par 4’s and 3’s.
-
Until yesterday I'd forgotten about this little gem:
A tree, complete with low lying, sprawling branches, right in front of the green. ::)
But Paul, its 80% air or is it 90%, oh I forget.... I played Richmond GC (Yorkshire) where the last hole was a par 3 hit over a wood to a green you could not see with the clubhouse just a couple of feet behind it. To cap it off the direction marker was a red disc in the trees which I could not see.
Jon
-
...... design (I suspect Thomas meant maintenance) features.....
Brian,
Oh no I didn't! :)
See thread other entitled "What course maintenance features do you dislike the most?" -http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59732.0.html
Many interesting thoughts arising herein though.
atb
-
Haha, Oops! Thomas: I will say that I paused for thought for a bit to sense check my comment as it would be very much out of character for you to say anything that didn't 100% check out. I had forgotten that this was not a continuation of your earlier thread (where I recall reading the OP!), but a completely different thread .
Bottom line is I can't recall ever not agreeing with you on a GCA related topic. :)
No worries, as the folks from Downunder say :)
I shall be interested to read Ryans response to your post! :)
atb
-
Brian
On reflection I think you're correct in that my post was poorly stated. Much requested and discussed but very rarely implemented. I suppose what I was trying to say is that I disagree/dislike much of the clamour.
-
I'll chirp in with at least partial defence of Ryan's point. There does tend to be a somewhat black and white mentality towards trees which implies that you're either pro trees or anti trees. Such simplification isn't necessarily helpful, although anyone can be forgiven for concluding that it's the only way to get the message across to the average club member. Start assessing each tree on its individual strategic merits and before you know it exceptions are being made for the most misplaced of stumps because uncle Thomas once had a more than fortuitous hole in one via its branches.
But all trees, strategically speaking, are not equal. Swinley Forest isn't bad as a result of being build through, er, Swinley Forest. The long dogleg par 4 I played the other day with a copse of trees on the corner of the dogleg at about 320 yards were clearly committing a crime, as was that lone oak smack back in front of another green.
-
Ironically, in my opinion my home course would benefit greatly from a programme of tree clearance.
Horses for courses and all that.
I was fortunate to play a few of the surrey heaths this week: St Georges Hill, West Hill and Worplesdon. Of the 3, I believe Worplesdon had done extensive tree felling. It was by far the wettest and the heather was nowhere near as healthy and prevalent as at the other two. I looked through a few old threads about West Hill and many concerns were expressed about the trees. The turf is healthy, the heather plentiful, I wouldn't taken any trees out.
-
I tend to fall into the Mackenzie school of thought here—specifically, hunting for lost balls (and losing balls) considerably reduces the pleasure of golf.
Water hazards, forced carries, and OB are often identified as the culprits here, but I can accept these as part of the game. Sure, some routings that crisscross man-made ponds on nearly every hole are ridiculous, but unless you live in a place like Florida, courses that commit these sins are easy to avoid.
The real problem, as I see it, has two consistent manifestations:
- Unplayable terrain (super thick grasses, shrubbery, rocky outcroppings, etc) WAY too close to fairways (and oftentimes not even marked with red stakes or OB stakes)
- Groups of trees with low branches and unplayable undergrowth in the field of play (again, often rarely demarcated as hazards)
As a player, there is nothing worse than blocking a drive into an unmarked black hole, failing to find your ball, and then taking a "walk of shame" back to the tee to try and salvage a double bogey after hitting 3 off the tee. That's not golf—that's torture. I'm confident Mackenzie would agree.
Certainly, some of the "unplayable terrain" identified above adds to the local flavor of a course, but wherever these elements are retained, great care should be given to marking them as hazards where stroke and distance are the penalty (and not effectively OB, which takes bogey out of play).
Furthermore, huge clumps of trees—as well as even evenly spaced trees lining fairways—are all too common among courses of all types (in the US, at least). As far as I'm concerned, the presence of trees along fairways massively reduces options off the tee. In effect, the strategy becomes "hit it straight, or else," and that removes the heroic aspect of golf that is so exciting on links courses.
Tall (but sparse) grasses, bunkers, longer approaches, and hillocks are perfectly acceptable penalties for offline drives, but fatal penalties for poor tee shots likely do more to harm interest in golf than people currently realize. Yes, you should be rewarded for hitting it straight, but at the same time, you shouldn't be killed for hitting a ball offline, either.
After all, even one heroic shot can transform a round, but if there are no opportunities for heroic recoveries (and BS line drive punches under and around trees don't count for your average player), then a distinct and exciting element of golf has been lost.
Based on what I've read, I think Mackenzie would agree :D
-
I tend to fall into the Mackenzie school of thought here—specifically, hunting for lost balls (and losing balls) considerably reduces the pleasure of golf.
Water hazards, forced carries, and OB are often identified as the culprits here, but I can accept these as part of the game. Sure, some routings that crisscross man-made ponds on nearly every hole are ridiculous, but unless you live in a place like Florida, courses that commit these sins are easy to avoid.
The real problem, as I see it, has two consistent manifestations:
- Unplayable terrain (super thick grasses, shrubbery, rocky outcroppings, etc) WAY too close to fairways (and oftentimes not even marked with red stakes or OB stakes)
- Groups of trees with low branches and unplayable undergrowth in the field of play (again, often rarely demarcated as hazards)
As a player, there is nothing worse than blocking a drive into an unmarked black hole, failing to find your ball, and then taking a "walk of shame" back to the tee to try and salvage a double bogey after hitting 3 off the tee. That's not golf—that's torture. I'm confident Mackenzie would agree.
Certainly, some of the "unplayable terrain" identified above adds to the local flavor of a course, but wherever these elements are retained, great care should be given to marking them as hazards where stroke and distance are the penalty (and not effectively OB, which takes bogey out of play).
Furthermore, huge clumps of trees—as well as even evenly spaced trees lining fairways—are all too common among courses of all types (in the US, at least). As far as I'm concerned, the presence of trees along fairways massively reduces options off the tee. In effect, the strategy becomes "hit it straight, or else," and that removes the heroic aspect of golf that is so exciting on links courses.
Tall (but sparse) grasses, bunkers, longer approaches, and hillocks are perfectly acceptable penalties for offline drives, but fatal penalties for poor tee shots likely do more to harm interest in golf than people currently realize. Yes, you should be rewarded for hitting it straight, but at the same time, you shouldn't be killed for hitting a ball offline, either.
After all, even one heroic shot can transform a round, but if there are no opportunities for heroic recoveries (and BS line drive punches under and around trees don't count for your average player), then a distinct and exciting element of golf has been lost.
Based on what I've read, I think Mackenzie would agree :D
+1
Excellent post, Chris.
Clearly you're new here and brain rot hasn't begun to set in yet. :D
-
Thomas, thanks for a couple of really great topics/threads.
I still don't understand an architects refusal to remove a cool tree/shrub that sits between you (in a deep pot style bunker off the edge of a FW) and the green 85m away. Especially when said vegetation is prickly, nasty business, and only a few paces from the forward lip of the bunker - so unless you can perfectly execute a steep bunker shot from a small deep pot 85 m, you are in trouble. Wipe.
:(
-
Thomas,
A bit late to the party with this one but it needs saying........
The >90 degree dog-leg......
(http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h403/nyt1976/ScreenShot2014-10-26at195125_zps6b4f50da.png) (http://s1108.photobucket.com/user/nyt1976/media/ScreenShot2014-10-26at195125_zps6b4f50da.png.html)
If you're not convinced try watching this.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm26byKURA4
-
Thomas,
A bit late to the party with this one but it needs saying........
The >90 degree dog-leg......
(http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h403/nyt1976/ScreenShot2014-10-26at195125_zps6b4f50da.png) (http://s1108.photobucket.com/user/nyt1976/media/ScreenShot2014-10-26at195125_zps6b4f50da.png.html)
If you're not convinced try watching this.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm26byKURA4
Oh my f.......
No doubt the one brain in that room felt pretty lonely.
-
Asked and answered before but just don't like collection areas .
-
Wow - that looks utterly awful. The phrase "Oh the Humanity!" surged into my head.
Thomas,
A bit late to the party with this one but it needs saying........
The >90 degree dog-leg......
(http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h403/nyt1976/ScreenShot2014-10-26at195125_zps6b4f50da.png) (http://s1108.photobucket.com/user/nyt1976/media/ScreenShot2014-10-26at195125_zps6b4f50da.png.html)
If you're not convinced try watching this.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm26byKURA4
-
I guess technically it's <90 not >90. An acute angle.
Of "greater" severity is what you're describing. And man is that one nasty hole. I'm not sure it's just because of the severe dog leg. That hole's bigger problem is the approach in. Claustrophobic much?
-
I guess technically it's <90 not >90. An acute angle.
No, it's more than ninety, because in play you're turning through the outside part of the angle, not the inside.
-
I guess technically it's <90 not >90. An acute angle.
No, it's more than ninety, because in play you're turning through the outside part of the angle, not the inside.
I was thinking the angle is more like 100, an obtuse angle.
Ciao
-
Actually I just realised I expressed this badly. The angle of the dogleg is the angle off the straight ahead line.
-
I guess technically it's <90 not >90. An acute angle.
No, it's more than ninety, because in play you're turning through the outside part of the angle, not the inside.
I was thinking the angle is more like 100, an obtuse angle.
Sean,
Ciao
Sean,
Agreed - I wrote obtuse and then changed it before posting - guess my high school geometry lessons didn't sink in as well as I'd hoped.
Neil.
-
I guess technically it's <90 not >90. An acute angle.
Of "greater" severity is what you're describing. And man is that one nasty hole. I'm not sure it's just because of the severe dog leg. That hole's bigger problem is the approach in. Claustrophobic much?
Possibly not of greater severity but I did think something similar. I'd be fuming if I played the layup supposedly well and found, because my ball had rolled out to 193 yards as opposed to the required 191 yards!
-
Thomas,
A bit late to the party with this one but it needs saying........
The >90 degree dog-leg......
(http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h403/nyt1976/ScreenShot2014-10-26at195125_zps6b4f50da.png) (http://s1108.photobucket.com/user/nyt1976/media/ScreenShot2014-10-26at195125_zps6b4f50da.png.html)
If you're not convinced try watching this.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm26byKURA4
Have we ever had a World's Worst 18?
-
What is the green in the corner for?
Jon
-
Sean,
Agreed - I wrote obtuse and then changed it before posting - guess my high school geometry lessons didn't sink in as well as I'd hoped.
Neil.
Well, this is now very interesting to me. It seems intuitive that you'd measure the dogleg angle as you'd measure any angle - in the example shown here you'd measure "out" to where the ball would land and then back "in" slightly, giving you an acute, <90 angle. Whether or not you'd play to the "outside" of the apex of the angle wouldn't change whether that angle was acute or obtuse - so I'm not sure I'd buy Adam's explanation of why it's appropriate to characterize it as >90. The only way it could be considered >90 is if the dogleg's supplement angle was being measured, and that would seem like an odd way to characterize/measure a dogleg. I realize it's semantics - it's seems pretty clear that we're all in agreement that the hole is of questionable design. The flyby in the link makes that entry into the green seem very uninviting.
-
(http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h403/nyt1976/ScreenShot2014-10-26at195125_zps6b4f50da.png) (http://s1108.photobucket.com/user/nyt1976/media/ScreenShot2014-10-26at195125_zps6b4f50da.png.html)
Great post Neil. The hole is so, um, different, that I'm almost keen to play it!
Made me chuckle to see that the curved red line shows the front edge of the green to be 209, 202 and 153 yds from the white, yellow and red tees respectively. I wonder if there are marker posts on the line from each tee behind the green to aim at and how tall they are (sic!).
atb
-
Sean,
Agreed - I wrote obtuse and then changed it before posting - guess my high school geometry lessons didn't sink in as well as I'd hoped.
Neil.
Well, this is now very interesting to me. It seems intuitive that you'd measure the dogleg angle as you'd measure any angle - in the example shown here you'd measure "out" to where the ball would land and then back "in" slightly, giving you an acute, <90 angle. Whether or not you'd play to the "outside" of the apex of the angle wouldn't change whether that angle was acute or obtuse - so I'm not sure I'd buy Adam's explanation of why it's appropriate to characterize it as >90. The only way it could be considered >90 is if the dogleg's supplement angle was being measured, and that would seem like an odd way to characterize/measure a dogleg. I realize it's semantics - it's seems pretty clear that we're all in agreement that the hole is of questionable design. The flyby in the link makes that entry into the green seem very uninviting.
::)
If someone says the hole doglegs 3 degrees, do you come back practically to the same place as the tee?
-
At times like this a diagram is invaluable ;)
(http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h403/nyt1976/ScreenShot2014-10-27at162202_zps543d5152.png) (http://s1108.photobucket.com/user/nyt1976/media/ScreenShot2014-10-27at162202_zps543d5152.png.html)
-
Exactly. I don't know why a different convention would be used to describe doglegs than what was taught in grammar school. I mean, I know we golf hobbyinsts are brilliant but ... ;D
-
At times like this a diagram is invaluable ;)
(http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h403/nyt1976/ScreenShot2014-10-27at162202_zps543d5152.png) (http://s1108.photobucket.com/user/nyt1976/media/ScreenShot2014-10-27at162202_zps543d5152.png.html)
Brilliant. If that is the design convention, then doglegs are measured as either the supplement of the near angle or the actual angle from a line extending straight from the tee. Thanks, Neil.
-
What is the green in the corner for?
Jon
Jon,
It looks as though it could've been the original 7th green - and that they have extended the 8th so much that to play it as such would mean crossing the driving zone of the 8th - hence the little beauty that is the 7th now........
-
Exactly. I don't know why a different convention would be used to describe doglegs than what was taught in grammar school. I mean, I know we golf hobbyinsts are brilliant but ... ;D
If you were driving your car and were told to veer 3 degrees to the right, would you be heading back towards where you came from?
-
If you drew a picture of a nutcracker would you say the angle the nut sits in is >90? We could do this all day if you like.
Neil's excellent graphic seems to resolve the issue.
-
...
Neil's excellent graphic seems to resolve the issue.
Agreed
-
.
-
What is the green in the corner for?
Jon
Jon,
It looks as though it could've been the original 7th green - and that they have extended the 8th so much that to play it as such would mean crossing the driving zone of the 8th - hence the little beauty that is the 7th now........
Thanks for the answer Neil :)
-
Thomas,
A bit late to the party with this one but it needs saying........
The >90 degree dog-leg......
(http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h403/nyt1976/ScreenShot2014-10-26at195125_zps6b4f50da.png) (http://s1108.photobucket.com/user/nyt1976/media/ScreenShot2014-10-26at195125_zps6b4f50da.png.html)
If you're not convinced try watching this.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm26byKURA4
Have we ever had a World's Worst 18?
Holy...
This hole takes the phrase "Connector Hole" to a whole other level.
I would have just built the 175 yard par 3 and had a nice stroll through the woods to 8 tee..
-
Thomas,
A bit late to the party with this one but it needs saying........
The >90 degree dog-leg......
(http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h403/nyt1976/ScreenShot2014-10-26at195125_zps6b4f50da.png) (http://s1108.photobucket.com/user/nyt1976/media/ScreenShot2014-10-26at195125_zps6b4f50da.png.html)
If you're not convinced try watching this.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm26byKURA4
Have we ever had a World's Worst 18?
Holy...
This hole takes the phrase "Connector Hole" to a whole other level.
I would have just built the 175 yard par 3 and had a nice stroll through the woods to 8 tee..
Aren't we a pampered bunch.
Not every club has 900 acres to choose the best set of holes from. Sometimes they have 90 or less. This type of hole was prescribed by none other than Tilly for such situations with a lack of real estate. Maybe the club produced Ryder Cuppers, because the players there learned to hit more shots than the standard hit it high and hit it long that we see golf has become.
It's not the course's fault if your hit it high and hit it long doesn't reward you as you feel entitled to.