What makes a golf course and a golf hole excellent to you?

[daegyu]

Things that are important to me:

1) hate blind tee shots

2) does the course insulate me from the surrounding residential/city life? courses in track home developments can be nice, but they'll never make me feel the same way an off-the-path course will. 

[Soloman1]

.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Soloman1

[black bnr32]

I hate blind tee shots and love picturesque views.  Blind tee shots feel like bad course design.

[Steele47]

26 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

it’s outlined in the confidential guide. A 3 is an average course. I think it’s useful and buckets most courses at the bottom in more of an avoid, not good, and average system and then splits hairs with truly good courses. 

Oh.  Well if it's confidential, then no wonder I had no idea. 

[klebs01]

Blind shots and blind areas are great. It draws out the suspense. The mystery of the outcome remains until you walk up and crest the hill and the result is revealed. Similar with blind areas and greens like the Biarritz and the suspense while the ball runs through the Swahili. Waiting to see if it reemerges. 
 

Uphill par threes are probably the best solution to going up a steep slope in the routing. 

[aenemated]

20 minutes ago, mbwannab said:

2. No uphill par 3’s, I’ve never had a hole-in-one but if I did I want to see it go in(never understood uphill any hole, games hard enough 😂 )

 

I'd like to introduce you #3 at Wolf Creek in Mequite, NV 😂 AKA, the most ridiculous par 3 of all time (granted, the whole course is easily the most ridiculous course I've ever played). For the life of me, I don't know how I actually hit that green.

 

Edited December 22, 2022 by aenemated

[Steele47]

1 minute ago, aenemated said:

 

I'd like to introduce you #3 at Wolf Creek in Mequite, NV 😂 AKA, the most vicious par 3 of all time. For the life of me, I don't know how I actually hit that green.

 

 

This hole when I played it instantly reminded me of when Robin Williams did his funny 'take' of golf.  Paraphrasing here,  he said something to the effect of,  'and then they put up a flag to give YA HOPE!'   lol..

[black bnr32]

13 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

Blind shots and blind areas are great. It draws out the suspense. The mystery of the outcome remains until you walk up and crest the hill and the result is revealed. Similar with blind areas and greens like the Biarritz and the suspense while the ball runs through the Swahili. Waiting to see if it reemerges. 
 

Uphill par threes are probably the best solution to going up a steep slope in the routing. 

Aren’t you upset when you don’t know where to aim?

[klebs01]

2 minutes ago, black bnr32 said:

Aren’t you upset when you don’t know where to aim?

Can’t say I’ve ever been angry about that. 

[BYK]

I really enjoy holes that don't appear "engineered".  ie they fit with the surrounding landscape, and it's obvious the golf course is part of the land it's on

[ChipNRun]

7 minutes ago, daegyu said:

2) does the course insulate me from the surrounding residential/city life? courses in track home developments can be nice, but they'll never make me feel the same way an off-the-path course will.

 

Courses that wind through golf housing developments have added pressure. Most of the holes on my home course run the gauntlet amid housing tracts.

		B  O  R  D  E  R  S						B  O  R  D  E  R  S
No.	Par	Left	Right	Other		No.	Par	Left	Right	Other
1	4	OB	Lake			10	4	OB	Hazard	Swale Front
2	4	OB	Lake			11	3	OB	Hazard
3	5	OB	Hazard			12	4	OB	Hazard	Cross Lake
4	3	🙂	🙂			13	4	OB	Hazard	Hz Front
5	4	OB	Hazard			14	5	Lake	OB
6	5	OB	Hazard			15	3	Lake	🙂
7	4	OB	Hazard			16	4	OB	Hazard
8	3	Hazard	OB			17	5	OB	Lake
9	4	OB	OB			18	4	OB	Lake
Out	36					In	36

 

We only have 1.5 safe holes on the course.

 

These current borders, however, are more benevolent than a couple of years ago. Several former OBs were converted to current hazards. This reflects a trend across golfdom to reduce the penal nature of the holes winding through suburban housing tracts.

[betarhoalphadelta]

4 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

 

I play many courses like you describe, one that comes to mind is AZ, Ocotillo 27, at 6700-7000 yds the most difficult 18, has rating of 72.2 and slope of 133 from the back tees and most holes have lots of water in play, like your pic.  As difficult as it is for the unskilled, if people chose more appropriate tees, it wouldn't be as difficult. 

 

 

At least for me, I agree with @vandyfan that this hole is absolutely a killer for the bogey golfer. And I'd disagree, looking at that hole, that there's any respite no matter what tee box you're hitting from. 

 

As described, the tee landing area is generous. The risk-reward play (if you play up to a tee box where you can easily carry the creek) is that you get an easy approach if you choose a terribly difficult landing area. But if you can't trust yourself to execute that shot, and you're left with a 170+ approach to a narrow green flanked on both sides by water, it doesn't matter what tees you started from. That approach is deadly. 

 

We often talk about course management being "knowing where to miss". While us bogey golfers often can't control the ball enough to miss correctly, at least we can shade our dispersion cones away from trouble. The problem with this hole and this approach shot is that the only place to miss, is, well, not to miss at all. And for a bogey golfer, asking them to do that from 170+ is simply not realistic. 

 

And it's made even worse--missing short is narrower than missing pin-high. So you can't lay up short of the green and rely on short game. The best design would be to widen it short of the green if you wanted to keep it narrow green-high. That would give bogey golfers a chance, laying up short of the green to avoid the penalty stroke and hoping your skills to get up and down will save a par. But in this case if you can't trust the 170+ approach, you do what, hit two 85 yard wedges? One to the fat part of the fairway on the other side of the creek and then have to hope you don't hit an 85 yard wedge offline into the water? 

 

Hell, I guess I could drive it short of the creek, wedge it over, and then hit an 85 yard putt? 

[Texasaggie2016]

Coming from the plains of South Texas….elevation changes and a course layout that makes you play each of your clubs (i.e. hole shape, length, elevation changes, hazards, etc.). 

[SE Gamer]

Frankly haven't ever given this topic much thought. So it's kind of cool to consider this off the cuff.

 

1. Relatively easy starting and finishing holes on each 9. One of my personal favorite courses I'd played had 1, 9, 10, and 18 as their par 5s. I really loved the course for the greens, but having scoring holes in those positions was nice. While it probably shouldn't matter, the mental side of easing into a round is real. Nothing worse than starting (or ending) the day with a big number on a difficult hole.
2. I love a scenic course. This can come in all shapes and sizes. So it's hard to advise on what this actually means. So I'll stick with the "I know it when I see it" saying.
3. Variety, with risk/reward holes sprinkled throughout. I enjoy holes that are a sort of, "choose your own adventure". Either at your own peril or safety. 
4. Well manicured and quick greens. I can't think of a "favorite" course on my list that didn't have smooth and quick greens.
5. Par 3s that are somewhat gettable. One of my regular courses is long. Which means every par 3 is 200+ yards. Not to mention well protected with plenty of trouble. If you can manage to get around their par 3s in even for the day, you've done very well. Now, I don't mind the one (or two) par 3s like this. But it's nice to have a par 3 or two that only require a mid/short iron. 

[MattM97]

Some courses that I've really enjoyed playing I've noticed off the tee they almost play a visual trick on my eye. Nothing crazy but one course whatever they did it made the fairway look smaller than it actually was so you had to hit good shots off the tee or so you though, but also made you know your distances. It made it so you had to think more and execute but wouldn't absolutely punish you for a not so great tee shot. 

 

Next is one thing that others mentioned tee boxes and not just nice and flat but space as well. I've play plenty of courses with small tee boxes that turn into bunkers mid summer and it sucks playing those, I've also played a few courses where the tee boxes were massive and could move the tees anywhere to keep grass its best. 

 

Other stuff just comes down to maintenance, any course can be good with some upkeep but that's out of your hands I guess cause many great courses can suffer lack of resources. 

[Roejye]

Good:

 

1) a variety of holes, you will most likely use every club in your bag. A mixture of difficultly levels would fall under this umbrella too.

2) well maintained. My favorite course doesn't really have any signature picturesque holes, but it's very well maintained and has a good variety of holes too.

 

Great:

I don't know because I'm probably too cheap to pay for great. Probably multiple picturesque holes as well as everything mentioned in good for me.

[kthomas]

15 hours ago, RainShadow said:

Neither of those carries is more than 35 yards long. Lay up and lay up and lay up again.

 I play that course often, from the blue tees. I'm not long. It's 3h, 3h or 4wood, 9i or wedge to green on that hole. I usually par or bogey it, because the second shot bugs me.

I played with a 60 ish year old woman today at that course, probably a 30 cap, who managed it fine.

No offense, but if she can't carry any shot 45 yards in the air, she shouldn't be playing a championship layout.

 

No offense taken.

 

She can smash the ball - she out drives a lot of guys when she gets a hold of it. A forced carry is psychologically daunting, especially for players that aren't very consistent shot to shot.

 

I love AZ National and other championship style courses like Starr Pass, but they certainly aren't for everyone. They can be very unforgiving for inconsistent mid to high cap players.

[vandyfan]

15 hours ago, black bnr32 said:

Aren’t you upset when you don’t know where to aim?

 

There are sooooo many tools to help someone with blinds shots (Google Earth Pro being the easiest to use). I saw a lot of people complaining about the blind shots at Tobacco Road and I found them fairly easy to chart using satellite imagery which is free on the internet. 

 

40 minutes ago, kthomas said:

I love AZ National and other championship style courses like Starr Pass, but they certainly aren't for everyone. They can be very unforgiving for inconsistent mid to high cap players.

 

I checked out AZ national's #2 hole on Google Earth and, frankly, 462 yds for the most up tees is a waaaaaay too long (yes I know it is a par 5). Based on a quick google search, it seems the average driving distance for a woman is 165 yds So to play AZ national's number 5 they wouldn't be able to carry the 1st forced carry from the tee (need about 170 to do that) so they would have to lay back at 140 yds or so. Which would then leave 326 left to the hole which is basically Driver + Driver to get there. Which is outrageous. 

 

By contrast, to have the same effect for the average male golfer (who, again based on google) drives it about 215 yds would be about 630 yds. How many average male golfers (not elite WRXers) have to play 630 yd par 5s? Hell, to use TPC Sawgrass again the longest par 5 out there is 583 yds. And that for Tour Players. 

 

For the up tees, the hole should play as a 370 yd par 5 and the tee should be here (not laying teeing grounds well is a personal pet peeve and lazy course design):

 

If the tees are here, with an avg drive of 160, it would still require a Driver + FW + Wedge at least and with the second forced carry most players from the forward tee would be laying up on the second shot anyway. Every other par 5 on this course from the forward tees is less than 400 yds so to make this the LONG par 5 while still forcing someone hitting it 160 yds off the tee to layup is just....that's bad. I feel like I fixed this hole in a matter of seconds for them....can I get a consulting fee?

Edited December 22, 2022 by vandyfan

[Pepperturbo]

15 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

At least for me, I agree with @vandyfan that this hole is absolutely a killer for the bogey golfer. And I'd disagree, looking at that hole, that there's any respite no matter what tee box you're hitting from. 

 

As described, the tee landing area is generous. The risk-reward play (if you play up to a tee box where you can easily carry the creek) is that you get an easy approach if you choose a terribly difficult landing area. But if you can't trust yourself to execute that shot, and you're left with a 170+ approach to a narrow green flanked on both sides by water, it doesn't matter what tees you started from. That approach is deadly. 

 

We often talk about course management being "knowing where to miss". While us bogey golfers often can't control the ball enough to miss correctly, at least we can shade our dispersion cones away from trouble. The problem with this hole and this approach shot is that the only place to miss, is, well, not to miss at all. And for a bogey golfer, asking them to do that from 170+ is simply not realistic. 

 

And it's made even worse--missing short is narrower than missing pin-high. So you can't lay up short of the green and rely on short game. The best design would be to widen it short of the green if you wanted to keep it narrow green-high. That would give bogey golfers a chance, laying up short of the green to avoid the penalty stroke and hoping your skills to get up and down will save a par. But in this case if you can't trust the 170+ approach, you do what, hit two 85 yard wedges? One to the fat part of the fairway on the other side of the creek and then have to hope you don't hit an 85 yard wedge offline into the water? 

 

Hell, I guess I could drive it short of the creek, wedge it over, and then hit an 85 yard putt? 

As I see the game of golf, we're supposed to keep trying to better our golf skills and thinking around the course.  I am 70+ and still working at the game.  I often play yardages that are, technically, long for me, like 450-475 yard Par 4's, when my drive is 250+ = 200-220 yards in.  An argument could be they do to me what the hole in the above image does to hi-caps.  I MUST hit a perfect drive and a perfect 2nd shot, knowing I probably will come up short of the green, and have to rely on my short game to save Par or bogey at times.  I just don't see my challenge like you see the above hole, challenge.

 

Last I understood, shorter Executive courses and moving up to shorter tee boxes on longer courses are there specially for the less skilled.  What makes no sense, is expecting a course owner to design a long course to attract 16-25 index players, and not want to attract better amateurs.  I am reminded of the line: can't make every one happy, so we must choose. 

 

As people playing a game that requires progressive skill, we're supposed to keep trying to elevate our game to make it easier to overcome course obstacles.   If a course has holes that are too difficult, seek out courses that are easier.  In my area, there are plenty of easy courses, that have a number of harder holes designed for guys like me.

 

But this discussion is interesting, in that five of my buddies long-ago peaked at 15-20 handicaps, and we often play golf together.  Sometimes they play my tees, other times they play more forward tees.  Some of those guys are 15 years younger, one is three years older than me, too.  Never heard them elaborate on difficult holes or courses the way you and others have here.  Our private club courses are rated way more difficult than most public tracks, and most of the members are mid-hi caps.  I wonder why pvt clubs, for the most part, have more difficult tracks. 

 

At my last club we asked, in a blind survey, if members had issues with course setup; the answer was don't change it.  I wonder why there's a difference between people posting here and pvt club members with relatively the same skill level.

[RainShadow]

1 hour ago, vandyfan said:

 

There are sooooo many tools to help someone with blinds shots (Google Earth Pro being the easiest to use). I saw a lot of people complaining about the blind shots at Tobacco Road and I found them fairly easy to chart using satellite imagery which is free on the internet. 

 

 

I checked out AZ national's #2 hole on Google Earth and, frankly, 462 yds for the most up tees is a waaaaaay too long (yes I know it is a par 5). Based on a quick google search, it seems the average driving distance for a woman is 165 yds So to play AZ national's number 5 they wouldn't be able to carry the 1st forced carry from the tee (need about 170 to do that) so they would have to lay back at 140 yds or so. Which would then leave 326 left to the hole which is basically Driver + Driver to get there. Which is outrageous. 

 

By contrast, to have the same effect for the average male golfer (who, again based on google) drives it about 215 yds would be about 630 yds. How many average male golfers (not elite WRXers) have to play 630 yd par 5s? Hell, to use TPC Sawgrass again the longest par 5 out there is 583 yds. And that for Tour Players. 

 

For the up tees, the hole should play as a 370 yd par 5 and the tee should be here (not laying teeing grounds well is a personal pet peeve and lazy course design):

 

If the tees are here, with an avg drive of 160, it would still require a Driver + FW + Wedge at least and with the second forced carry most players from the forward tee would be laying up on the second shot anyway. Every other par 5 on this course from the forward tees is less than 400 yds so to make this the LONG par 5 while still forcing someone hitting it 160 yds off the tee to layup is just....that's bad. I feel like I fixed this hole in a matter of seconds for them....can I get a consulting fee?

Come play it and see how you fare.

The hole doesn't need fixing. It's a 3 shot par five, even for 90% of the big hitters.

I play with a couple of long ball guys that can carry the first wash from the tips, but very rarely, if ever, go for the green in two. The shallow green is elevate about 35-40 feet above the fairway.

It's a strategy, shot placement hole, by design.

Even if I could carry it 260 of the tee, it would still be a 3 shot hole.

[kthomas]

39 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

As I see the game of golf, we're supposed to keep trying to better our golf skills and thinking around the course.  I am 70+ and still working at the game.  I often play yardages that are, technically, long for me, like 450-475 yard Par 4's, when my drive is 250+ = 200-220 yards in.  An argument could be they do to me what the hole in the above image does to hi-caps.  I MUST hit a perfect drive and a perfect 2nd shot, knowing I probably will come up short of the green, and have to rely on my short game to save Par or bogey at times.  I just don't see my challenge like you see the above hole, challenge.

 

Last I understood, shorter Executive courses and moving up to shorter tee boxes on longer courses are there specially for the less skilled.  What makes no sense, is expecting a course owner to design a long course to attract 16-25 index players, and not want to attract better amateurs.  I am reminded of the line: can't make every one happy, so we must choose. 

 

As people playing a game that requires progressive skill, we're supposed to keep trying to elevate our game to make it easier to overcome course obstacles.   If a course has holes that are too difficult, seek out courses that are easier.  In my area, there are plenty of easy courses, that have a number of harder holes designed for guys like me.

 

But this discussion is interesting, in that five of my buddies long-ago peaked at 15-20 handicaps, and we often play golf together.  Sometimes they play my tees, other times they play more forward tees.  Some of those guys are 15 years younger, one is three years older than me, too.  Never heard them elaborate on difficult holes or courses the way you and others have here.  Our private club courses are rated way more difficult than most public tracks, and most of the members are mid-hi caps.  I wonder why pvt clubs, for the most part, have more difficult tracks. 

 

At my last club we asked, in a blind survey, if members had issues with course setup; the answer was don't change it.  I wonder why there's a difference between people posting here and pvt club members with relatively the same skill level.

 

It's interesting that you bring up private clubs.

 

I actually just visited a private club that under went a recent bunker renovation. Part of that renovation involved moving bunkers where they were too penal for lesser skilled players - such as bunkers behind the green for players that can't make the ball stop/stick a green, and bunkers that left you short sided with an uphill lie while the green runs away from you. 

 

So, in some cases there are private clubs that realize that their layouts can be too penal for some players, that takes away from the ultimate goal of fun. And this course is still fun and requires strategy for the better players to score well, but it's also been made more fun and less penal for the lesser skilled players. The renovation was overwhelmingly positively received by all members of the club. 

[kthomas]

17 hours ago, klebs01 said:

Blind shots and blind areas are great. It draws out the suspense. The mystery of the outcome remains until you walk up and crest the hill and the result is revealed. Similar with blind areas and greens like the Biarritz and the suspense while the ball runs through the Swahili. Waiting to see if it reemerges. 
 

Uphill par threes are probably the best solution to going up a steep slope in the routing. 

 

I think if done right they can add a lot of fun, every once in a while its fun to have a golf hole that has a "reveal" as you play it. 

[kthomas]

22 hours ago, ChipNRun said:

I'm a retired management professor, and I will address this from the Operations Management/Sustainability angle.

 

First of all, know the likely golfing audience you will draw with your golf course. This audience will be able to pay $X to play your course. So, don't build a course that takes $X + 100 to maintain.

 

Case story: My own home course, a Jack Nicklaus Signature course, part of a residential development. After initial hole design and shaping, Jack had a heart to heart talk with the developer. Jack warned that the course would be very difficult to play, and also very costly to maintain. But the developer - with visions of building Winged Foot "Way Out West" - told Jack to make it as hard as he could.

 

A number of problems emerged:

• First, in the late 1990s several other residential-development courses were springing up play in this illinois area near St. Louis. Lots of competition to sell (then) $250,000 houses along the fairway. So, these courses tagged with the name of a a big-time pro didn't sell out all their lots - not even to non-golfers. This meant they couldn't go private with a lot of big-money people footing the bill. So, the shell-shocked developers had to battle each other to bring in those $40 a round players, which upset the homeowners who had been fed false promises of exclusivity. Market reality: Their real audience and their ideal audience were quite different.
• This caused rather quick revenue pressures. One way to survive was to cut expenses. But, the exotic sand bunkers around the course required a lot of TLC. The greens crew was supposed the power-flush the bunker drainage lines three times a year to keep them open. With power flushes few and far between, the bunkers turned into several dozen mini-lakes on the course if it got more than a half-inch of rain. Bunkers started caving in, which harmed the putting green eco-system.
• Basically, about year No. 15, the course took a real hit in its reputation. A hard-working greens crew got a decent recovery budget, and set out to do things such as rebuild critical sand bunkers, turn others into grass bunkers, and move from poa annua to bent grass on the greens.

Now, here are some positives for building the course:

• Don't skimp on the tee boxes! I have seen courses with nice greens, OK fairways, and poor tee boxes. But, I have never seen a course with decent tee boxes that didn't also have superb greens and fairways.

• Consider mostly flat-bottom bunkers. These are bunkers where you just walk in the back door, hit your shot, and walk out. Given, these bunkers can have high banks between sand surface and green, but at least smaller golfers and senior golfers won't injure themselves having to mountaineer up and down treacherous sand dunes. Plus, these are easier for greens crews to maintain St. Louis Country Club, a classic old-line course, had flat-bottom bunkers from its initial design, and is still very challenging. See hole No. 7 above.
• Keep killer holes to a minimum. Most courses have a treacherous, day-breaker hole on each nine. One per side is tolerable. But, don't go overboard on holes where missing the fairway pretty well guarantees a triple bogie. If you look at the old, pre-World War II classic courses, you see some tough holes. But, if a player missed the fairway, or  had to lay up short for a hazard, there was still a way out. You could scramble out to within 100 yards of the green, and have a chance for a bogie, or occasionally a par if you could get up and down.
• Don't make greens on short holes too small. A 110-yd. par 3, or a 290-yd. par 4 downhill give the golfers a respite from longer holes. But, that means the greens will be pounded with high-angle wedge shots for most approaches. A constant high-angle barrage takes a toll on turf grass. So, make sure you allow for decent square footage. One way to do this and still require skilled shots is to have two nodes of the green. Hit the wrong node and you can still make par, but a birdie becomes iffy.

In my dream world, I would also design golf courses. If you have any questions, please PM me.

 

This is a great response!

 

I'm hoping to visit with many golf course superintendents over the next bit to get this kind of feedback. What an architect thinks makes a great golf course will be different from what an owner thinks makes a great golf course, the superintendent and maintenance team, and even players. 

 

Like anything else in life, it's hard to make a quality product without understanding and getting input from key stakeholders. A golf course has to work in real life, not just in pictures to be successful. 

[kthomas]

18 hours ago, OnTheBag said:

I've had the pleasure of walking the most revered golf courses on the planet.  ANGC, The Old Course, Pebble, Torrey Pines, Olympic, the list goes on and on and on.  What makes a great golf hole to me is one that present a decision and choice.  The highest level golfers in the world can all hit a straight shot a set distance.  The best holes challenge their ability to hit a shot outside their comfort zone.  For instance, a hole that requires a draw can test a great golfer that normally plays a fade.  

 

Standing on the tee box with decisions to make is the peak of this game in my opinion.  

 

I've reached the point in my life where the words don't always flow like they used to.  I hope this makes sense.

 

The most fun part of the game for me is the strategy component. 

 

I love having to think about how I should tackle a specific golf hole in order to get the lowest score. I know that a hole is interesting to me if I can't stop thinking about it afterwards, trying to come up with differing strategies to tackle the hole. 

[me05501]

IMO a really good golf hole needs three elements:

• It has to be INTERESTING compared to the run-of-the-mill basic muni holes that are so common
   
• It has to DELIGHT me in some meaningful way and deliver at least a little dopamine reward for having had the experience of playing it
   
• It needs to avoid being FRUSTRATING for no good strategic reason. 

 

Of course there are tons of classic holes that defy these rules, especially in the U.K. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

12 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

As I see the game of golf, we're supposed to keep trying to better our golf skills and thinking around the course.  I am 70+ and still working at the game.  I often play yardages that are, technically, long for me, like 450-475 yard Par 4's, when my drive is 250+ = 200-220 yards in.  An argument could be they do to me what the hole in the above image does to hi-caps.  I MUST hit a perfect drive and a perfect 2nd shot, knowing I probably will come up short of the green, and have to rely on my short game to save Par or bogey at times.  I just don't see my challenge like you see the above hole, challenge.

 

Last I understood, shorter Executive courses and moving up to shorter tee boxes on longer courses are there specially for the less skilled.  What makes no sense, is expecting a course owner to design a long course to attract 16-25 index players, and not want to attract better amateurs.  I am reminded of the line: can't make every one happy, so we must choose. 

 

 

I think the problem here is not one of length, but one of designed hazards. As we all talk about, one of the biggest blow-up causes in scores for most people are penalty strokes. 

 

I.e. when I think of design, I think short par 4s should be tricky, and bring design elements into play that reward risk-taking when successful and punish it when not. The goal is to force you to think your way around them to make sure that you're safe, because hazards can bring big numbers into play. For example I play an 18 hole exec course where the #6 hole is a 294 par 4 from an elevated tee box. Easy, right? Well, the whole left side is a creek, becoming a pond about 220 from the tee. There's bail-out to the right, but there's also a sizeable fairway bunker at roughly the 210 mark on that side. Driver here can get you very close to the green and if you're tendency is to miss right, is pretty safe. I've driven it to the front fringe and made birdie. For me my tendency is a left miss, so with an eye towards course management I now simply play it back with 4h to about 200 to the wide part of the fairway and trust my 100y wedge in. I want to take the hazard out of play. Likewise #9 is a 317 par 4 with a creek crossing the fairway at the 220-230 mark, and a huge downslope in front of it where if you try to lay up and get it too close, it can run down to the creek. That hole for me is either driver/wedge, or PW/6i depending on whether I want to go for it. Thus laying up leaves a MUCH harder shot. I trust that I can carry 230 on a good strike with driver, so in that case the risk seems to be worth it. But a poor strike can result in a penalty stroke. 

 

IMHO longer par 4s are putting a premium on both distance and accuracy to make GIR. In that case I think the goal should be to avoid surrounding the green complex with penalty areas/OB. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be hazards in the form of bunkers, deep rough, trees that can cause issues with lines of play if you're offline, etc. But the hole is already being made "difficult" merely due to distance, so IMHO you may want to avoid the most penal outcomes (penalty strokes) to the extent you can. I don't mean don't have OB or penalty areas, but make sure that there is a "good miss" and a "bad miss", because when a hole has that much distance, you're bringing in longer clubs where a miss is more likely.  

 

The ways to solve the quandary of the hole @vandyfan posted:

 

• Option 1: don't have water crossing the fairway. This way it's not a forced layup. It still puts a premium on accuracy (because you could still have water on both sides of the fairway) and still rewards distance (because you'll have a shorter iron into that very narrow green flanked on both sides by water). It would still be a VERY difficult hole. 
• Option 2: Increase the size of the area surrounding the green so the water is farther away. Feel free to put in other hazards (bunkers, etc) or make the green bigger but make it really undulating and/or multi-tiered, where you can entice players to flirt with danger by tucking pins/etc such that hitting the center of the green doesn't make it an easy 2-putt. Here you are keeping the hole difficult, but the reward for trying to cross the water on the drive is a much easier approach and potentially a look at birdie, and the reward for laying up is that you have to hit a really bad shot on approach to put one in the water to make it more difficult to end up worse than bogey. 

But the problem with a forced layup AND a treacherous approach is that there's no course management strategy to try to take the worst case scenarios (penalty strokes) out of play. You can't "think" your way around this hole. There's no "good miss". It's execute or die. 

[kthomas]

I'll add some small details that really drive me nuts as a player:

 

1. Starting holes that face East, so the sun is in your eyes for early morning tee shots.

2. Finishing holes that face West, so the sun is in your eyes when you are playing a twilight round of golf.

3. Uneven tee boxes - golf is hard enough as it is, my ability to get off the tee box should be solely up to me, last thing I want to have to do is fight a tee box that's going to disrupt my tee shot. Optical illusions and other tricks are great, just don't F with my ability to put a good swing on it 🤣

4. The trend of shrinking greens. Looking back at some of the great golden age golf courses, greens were very generous in size. There's seemingly been a trend to shrink greens more and more.

5. Doglegs with trees - I agree with Tom Doak that these are overrated. 

6. Holes that are so penal they don't even allow for a "miss". A hole that seems to eat my lunch frequently is AZ National #4. This hole just has my number. You can't miss long, left or short. Long or right and the ball is unplayable desert. Left has it going in a narrow bunker (if it saves you), or down a big slope towards or even on another holes green. It's an elevated tee box, and there's a predominant right to left wind that's going to effect your ball flight that you also have to compensate for. Some may disagree with me, but I never enjoy this hole, always glad to get off of it (hopefully with my sanity and pride in tact 🤣). 

[CBraynor]

Great topic! I love talking golf architecture.

a lot of what I think makes a hole or course great has already been said, but I’ll add a few things.

1. Undulation. Not only should the greens be undulating, but there should be some good movement in the fairways as well, while still looking natural and not out of place. Nothing more boring that 18 dead flat holes with push-up greens that’s have a slight back to front slope.

2. Playability. Should test good golfers while not overly punishing bad golfers. Ex: limiting forced carries, wideish fairways, limiting hazards, etc.

3. Angles. With wider fairways, there should be a certain side that offers an advantage, but comes with a risk. Ex: there’s bunkers down the left side, but the left side offers an easier approach to the green, while the right side is wide open, but for the approach shot you’ll have to contend with a bunker. 
4. Walkability. Obviously this depends a lot on the property but if possible, there should be no unnecessarily long walks from the green to the next tee.

5. Short grass. Rough is fine, but short grass makes for some more variety around the greens. 

 

if I hit the lotto I would absolutely buy a nice Sandy property somewhere and design my own course. One can dream right?

[ChipNRun]

1 hour ago, kthomas said:

I actually just visited a private club that under went a recent bunker renovation. Part of that renovation involved moving bunkers where they were too penal for lesser skilled players - such as bunkers behind the green for players that can't make the ball stop/stick a green, and bunkers that left you short sided with an uphill lie while the green runs away from you.

 

For your career goals: If you could start working on course undergoing renovations, you would learn a lot: Modern techniques to enhance a course, plus what not to do from the start.

 

Also, realize that golf courses are made up of multiple systems, both physical (irrigation, club house, heavy equipment), and biological (turf grass, lakes) and mixed (bunkers, putting greens). And, these subsystems all have a rated life. In 15 years the irrigation may wear out, in 12 years certain bunkers needing rebuilt, in 15 years the greens may need reseeding. This means that the wise course developer does capital budgeting to fund these future rebuilds and improvements. In the St. Louis area, several public access courses have undergone leasing disputes because the owner and operator couldn't agree on who should pay for capital improvements.

 

In the past 15 years, the golf industry has come up with revolutionary ways to build bunkers so they last longer. Check out the Billy Bunker site.

 

Another question, often at play in renovations: How many bunkers do you need? The Cardinal Creek course at a local Air Force base was built in the 1960s, the era of "championship" courses. Original layout had some 70 bunkers. Fifty years later, the course operators were looking to slim down the budget. Maintaining all those bunkers was a chore.

 

So, the operators did a test. The course had three golf scrambles in two days. We're talking roughly 60 foursomes, 240 golfers. The afternoon before Scramble #1, the greenskeeper brought in extra workers: the crew detail-raked every bunker on the course. Then, the afternoon following Scramble #3, the greenskeeper took a cart around the golf course. Of the 70 bunkers, one-third were untouched! Not a single golfer among the ~ 240 had put a ball in the bunker. Result: by end of summer, the course had one-third fewer bunkers. 

 

Also, what do you put into your bunkers? In St. Louis area, most of the courses have gone to heavier bunker sand, because it's less likely to blow away in summer winds. Also, there's the cost. Transportation distance is a major cost component of replacement sand.

One course in central Missouri went to crushed pea gravel in their bunkers. Benefits: the source was a rock quarry 20 miles south of the course. Previously, the bunker sand came from 300 miles away in Arkansas. Also, the pea gravel was coarse and irregular in shape, so if rain came it didn't pack down the bunker sand. Still, it shattered when hit by sand wedges, so it did minimal damage to the clubs.

[BirdieRoll]

Great thread. Thoughts that come to me, in no particular order:

 

Start with the greens and work backwards, i.e. make them big enough so that you have six pinnable locations: front left, front right, middle left, middle right, back left, back right.

 

Interesting green complexes with different pin locations create variety which keeps the player engaged. Players will want to return to play the course again because each day will likely have a different pin number so they are putting to different green areas each time.

 

Then you create width off the tee so you give the player the chance to hit the ball to the side of the fairway that gives them the best angle for their approach. If the fairway is too narrow and greens are too small, then there's no variety and now your customer is bored.

 

Range and first hole running north.

 

Walkable if at all possible with short green to tee transitions. Helps with pace of play.

 

A hole with a centerline fairway bunker - just make sure all four options are available: left, right, short, long. Otherwise it can become one dimensional.

 

Holes where if you take on a bunker/hazard and pull it off, you're rewarded with a better look/angle at the green vs. taking the 'safe' route.

 

Depending on your audience, keep bunkers to the sides of greens so players can use the ground and run the ball on to the greens.

 

Firm and fast conditions if possible. Players like to see the ball move, tumble down a fairway.

 

As little water as possible on the course. Water doesn't allow for a recovery shot. Give the player who hit a bad tee shot a chance to get back in the hole.

 

As few trees as possible. Punching out becomes tiresome, slows down pace of play, fewer trees equals better turf, too.

 

Multiple tee boxes.

 

A fun finishing hole, not a brute. Who wants a seven on their card when they finish? Make it such that par should be realistic with a shot at a bridie with bogey at the worst. Imagine a match coming down to 18. Let's make it where there's a real chance at birdie to win the match.

 

Short par 4s are always fun with an offset green. Give the player a wedge for their approach but make it a distance control challenge.

 

And for good measure: a drivable par 4 late in the round.

 

Four good courses I'd look at closely because of the great mix of fun and strategy: Gamble Sands and Wine Valley in Washington state and Mammoth Dunes and Sand Valley in Wisconsin.