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

[Pepperturbo]

2 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

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. 

I've played the course you're referring to with my wife, least 100 times over the years.  The last time we played that exec course, my 14 handi buddy doubled #6 and bogeyed #9.  That #6 is 2i or 4i down the middle parallel to the bunker, then wedge in; and #9 I use 8i-6i off the tee then appropriate long iron into or short of the green.  Normally, I finish 1-2 under or off-day 1-2 over.  When I play that course, It's for iron practice, and don't recall that last time I used any wood there. 

 

Most of the time I use an iron that lands me short of the green, pressuring my chipping to save par.  On #10 I use 4i off the tee 190-200yds, and wedge on the green; while others use Driver thinking they can drive the green, only their ball is lost right on the hill or left in the creek, or short of the green, on an uphill lie, and they chunk the next shot because of the lie.  Better to hit a shorter club to the flat portion of the fairway, so the next shot is easier; that's course mgt.

 

The difference in how I play that course and how most others play it, I don't think about scoring; whereas most others I've played with are trying hard to score, not improve their game around the course or ball striking.

 

You're applying what I see as logic to how a hole should be played, as opposed to address the hole as you best can play it.  Like #9 on the exec... I can hit driver easily to the other side of the creek, leaving a wedge in, but don't.  I use all sorts of mid-short irons to lay up short of the crossing cart path, even hit 3 iron down the left flat area right of the cart path, then mid-iron in or from above to short of or on the green, 2 putt or up down for par. 

 

Nearly everyone I have seen play it picks a driver and usually doesn't hit it as far as they think, ending in the creek or hard right into the trees, or hard pull left on the slope of #1, leaving a shot they don't have.  Rack up strokes, not thinking about anything other than the pressure of scoring.   They could do what my 12 index wife does on #9; she plays Blue tees too; hits a wood relatively straight short of the cart path, then another wood relatively straight short of the green, chip and put for par.  She knows she can't reach the green in two, so she plays to her strengths and beats most guys.

 

Golf course mgt is NOT how someone wants to play a hole or thinks it should be played and can't; it's playing the hole to the best of your ability and using good judgment.  If that means laying up short of the hazard because you can't cover the hazard, there it is.  Wishing it was designed another way to accommodate your skill level is a wish that won't be granted.  Then you hit the next shot reasonably straight with whatever club you can control, etc.

 

What's remarkable in this thread, everyone talks about their idealistic expectations.  When it should be more on how to overcome the obstacles you face during play; like sun in your eyes early morning or afternoon and fairway undulations that have the ball above or below your feet, and self-control needed to do what's necessary when facing challenges outside your skill.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2022 by Pepperturbo

[vandyfan]

3 hours ago, RainShadow said:

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

 

I think the forward tee box needs fixing was my main point. 

 

25 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

What's remarkable in this thread, everyone talks about their idealistic expectations.  When it should be more on how to overcome the obstacles you face during play; like sun in your eyes early morning or afternoon and fairway undulations that have the ball above or below your feet, and self-control needed to do what's necessary when facing challenges outside your skill.

 

 

Are you suggesting that there are not really poorly designed golf holes but, rather, golfers that are not up to the task of solving the problem presented by said hole? 

Edited December 22, 2022 by vandyfan

[Pepperturbo]

2 hours ago, kthomas said:

 

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. 

That's good to know.  But I think you're now talking about personalities behind club cultures.  Not so much how people face general challenges. 

 

I have many years in Interclub Match play, where we played against teams from other clubs.  We visited their course to play against them, in turn they did the same at our course.  Both my pvt clubs were very challenging.  Over all the years, the majority of people I played against were mid-hi caps from clubs that had easier courses.  

 

The reason I shared was both my clubs wanted PGA level challenging courses, and membership supported that even though most members were mid-hi caps, and challenged by the course.  Guess what happened in match play.... LOL

 

The germane point our members consciously chose club cultures with challenging courses, while our opponents chose clubs with easier courses.  Maybe it comes down to a simple choice as to where you play.  Look at rating and slope, it's there to tell the reader in advance, what they are going to face.

[Pepperturbo]

17 minutes ago, vandyfan said:

Are you suggesting that there are not really poorly designed golf holes but, rather, golfers that are not up to the task of solving the problem presented by said hole? 

NOPE, I am not suggesting that.  I understand they exist, but poorly designed holes exist in every golfer's life.  People  complain about holes on some of the best courses in the world. 

 

As much as most golfers think #17 on 6600+ yard St Andrews (members 71.7/142) is outstanding, others complain it's NOT easily playable by hi caps.  If I recall, from the middle tees, #17 is a 455yd Par 5, or a long Par 4.   The same goes for some of the holes on Pebble Beach GC. 

 

The Road hole on St. Andrews is surly offbeat, naturally designed like most other Links courses.  It requires the player from back tees to blindly hit over a building, find the fairway, and cope with a road in play, and an unbelievable bunker.  Plenty of people have names under their breath, for that hole.  Why?  They don't have what it takes to play it and walk off with Par.

 

I don't look at a difficult hole and say it needs to be redesigned, so it's easier for old guys like me.  I see challenge and look to adapt as best I can.  If I can't measure up, it's my own fault for not having developed the skill to execute the right shot.  

There's a 442 yard, challenging Par 4 hole that I face often.  From the elevated tee, I have to hit a narrow center of a downhill fairway, and get the ball down far enough to make the 2nd shot over water to a green surrounded by water and bunkers.  I only hit the ball 245-255 carry; the kicker, by the time I reach that tee, it's into the wind 1-2 clubs worth, robbing us me of distance...grr.  As a result, my tee shot lands in the center, but it doesn't get far enough for a flat lie.  What's left is 195-200yd downhills and cover a pond fronting the green, from an uneven lie.  The slightest error, and plunk.  I only made Par on that hole 1 time, it always ruins a good score.

 

I could move up to the forward easier tees, but that's not in my makeup.  I want to concur it.  Plus, it's one of my favorite courses. 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

2 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

I've played the course you're referring to with my wife, least 100 times over the years.  The last time we played that exec course, my 14 handi buddy doubled #6 and bogeyed #9.  That #6 is 2i or 4i down the middle parallel to the bunker, then wedge in; and #9 I use 8i-6i off the tee then appropriate long iron into or short of the green.  Normally, I finish 1-2 under or off-day 1-2 over.  When I play that course, It's for iron practice, and don't recall that last time I used any wood there. 

 

Most of the time I use an iron that lands me short of the green, pressuring my chipping to save par.  On #10 I use 4i off the tee 190-200yds, and wedge on the green; while others use Driver thinking they can drive the green, only their ball is lost right on the hill or left in the creek, or short of the green, on an uphill lie, and they chunk the next shot because of the lie.  Better to hit a shorter club to the flat portion of the fairway, so the next shot is easier; that's course mgt.

 

The difference in how I play that course and how most others play it, I don't think about scoring; whereas most others I've played with are trying hard to score, not improve their game around the course or ball striking.

 

You're applying what I see as logic to how a hole should be played, as opposed to address the hole as you best can play it.  Like #9 on the exec... I can hit driver easily to the other side of the creek, leaving a wedge in, but don't.  I use all sorts of mid-short irons to lay up short of the crossing cart path, even hit 3 iron down the left flat area right of the cart path, then mid-iron in or from above to short of or on the green, 2 putt or up down for par. 

 

Nearly everyone I have seen play it picks a driver and usually doesn't hit it as far as they think, ending in the creek or hard right into the trees, or hard pull left on the slope of #1, leaving a shot they don't have.  Rack up strokes, not thinking about anything other than the pressure of scoring.   They could do what my 12 index wife does on #9; she plays Blue tees too; hits a wood relatively straight short of the cart path, then another wood relatively straight short of the green, chip and put for par.  She knows she can't reach the green in two, so she plays to her strengths and beats most guys.

 

Golf course mgt is NOT how someone wants to play a hole or thinks it should be played and can't; it's playing the hole to the best of your ability and using good judgment.  If that means laying up short of the hazard because you can't cover the hazard, there it is.  Wishing it was designed another way to accommodate your skill level is a wish that won't be granted.  Then you hit the next shot reasonably straight with whatever club you can control, etc.

 

What's remarkable in this thread, everyone talks about their idealistic expectations.  When it should be more on how to overcome the obstacles you face during play; like sun in your eyes early morning or afternoon and fairway undulations that have the ball above or below your feet, and self-control needed to do what's necessary when facing challenges outside your skill.

 

 

BTW not sure how long it's been since you've been there (or where you live other than SoCal), but since the city took it over they've really been trying to improve the general maintenance level of the course. It's improving considerably. 

 

Honestly the way you play the course is how I'd expect a better player to approach it. It's not about scoring at all; that course is a practice opportunity. It doesn't challenge you very much natively, so you invent your own challenges for example like you said by deliberately hitting short and working on short game, etc. 

 

I think you bring up a dichotomy though. There is no difference between good course management and trying to score, in my opinion. 

 

A lot of players think that they need to bang driver to score. Get as close as you can to the green because proximity is king, right? Whereas I agree with you--the idea is to play the hole to the best of your ability and use good judgement. Know your tendencies and misses. Know where you have the best chances to recover. Play away from trouble. If you do that, you'll minimize your scores long-term, even if you sacrifice a birdie opportunity strategy that brings significant risk of double into play.  Long-term, course management is about reducing average scores, not necessarily "going low" on any given round where you're lucky enough to avoid trouble despite risking it multiple times. 

 

That's my issue with the hole @vandyfan brought up. I can't see any course management strategy to "solve" that hole.  The design doesn't offer any playable misses. If you want the opportunity to "think" your way around that hole, it doesn't offer it. It's execute or die. Which is fine for a really good player, but you can imagine why bogey golfers would hate a hole like that. 

 

(BTW on that course, I take driver on #9 partly BECAUSE my miss is over-draw or occasionally even a hard pull. The creek is shorter left and my miss usually puts me right on that slope underneath the #1 tee. Depending on distance, it's a 52* or 56* over some trees right onto the green. For me, left is a VERY playable miss there lol.) 

[RainShadow]

2 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

NOPE, I am not suggesting that.  I understand they exist, but poorly designed holes exist in every golfer's life.  People  complain about holes on some of the best courses in the world. 

 

As much as most golfers think #17 on 6600+ yard St Andrews (members 71.7/142) is outstanding, others complain it's NOT easily playable by hi caps.  If I recall, from the middle tees, #17 is a 455yd Par 5, or a long Par 4.   The same goes for some of the holes on Pebble Beach GC. 

 

The Road hole on St. Andrews is surly offbeat, naturally designed like most other Links courses.  It requires the player from back tees to blindly hit over a building, find the fairway, and cope with a road in play, and an unbelievable bunker.  Plenty of people have names under their breath, for that hole.  Why?  They don't have what it takes to play it and walk off with Par.

 

I don't look at a difficult hole and say it needs to be redesigned, so it's easier for old guys like me.  I see challenge and look to adapt as best I can.  If I can't measure up, it's my own fault for not having developed the skill to execute the right shot.  

There's a 442 yard, challenging Par 4 hole that I face often.  From the elevated tee, I have to hit a narrow center of a downhill fairway, and get the ball down far enough to make the 2nd shot over water to a green surrounded by water and bunkers.  I only hit the ball 245-255 carry; the kicker, by the time I reach that tee, it's into the wind 1-2 clubs worth, robbing us me of distance...grr.  As a result, my tee shot lands in the center, but it doesn't get far enough for a flat lie.  What's left is 195-200yd downhills and cover a pond fronting the green, from an uneven lie.  The slightest error, and plunk.  I only made Par on that hole 1 time, it always ruins a good score.

 

I could move up to the forward easier tees, but that's not in my makeup.  I want to concur it.  Plus, it's one of my favorite courses. 

 

 And that’s the challenge of the game. And life.

Everything  isn’t always perfect or easy, and we have to adapt and overcome.

I’ve played plenty of courses that forced me to except worse than par on holes because I couldn’t find a way to make par due to how it was designed and my own limitations. 

[srsbeans]

On 12/21/2022 at 2:34 PM, vandyfan said:

 

Disclaimer(s): I am not an architecture expert or even novice. I have a fragile ego. I like golf courses that play on the easier side.

 

I like width and options off the tee, generally. I would rather be challenged on my shot into a green rather than off the tee. Width, to me, is at least 60 yds of a safe landing zone between hazards or thick trees. Options off the tee means I don't HAVE to hit driver on every par 4 or par 5 (I can generally accomplish this by selecting appropriate tees). I think 200+ yd par 3s stink and I much prefer short, treacherous par 3s vs bland straight 200+ par 3s. Forced layups on Par 5s or Par 5s that are extremely tight are horrible and I hate them. 

 

To me, a great example of what I am talking about is Pursell Farms. To me, it is a golf course that looks normal/challenging but actually plays very forgiving as most fairway landing zones are 60 yds+ and generally have a safe side of each green to bail out on. One hole out there that I dig is #7, a 365 yd par 4 from the tees I play (424 yds from the tips):

 

 

So this has everything for me, it is 205 to the centerline bunker so you can layup short (in a 90 yd wide landing zone) and still have like a 6-7 iron left in. The centerline bunker is only about 220 to carry so you can take driver BUT the landing zone shrinks to 57 yds and has lost ball potential on both sides. I don't HAVE to hit driver here but there is a reward for hitting driver well and also a penalty for hitting it poorly. You can miss left of the green by a tad and not be in a bunker. Above all, the centerline bunker and bottleneck of the fairway makes me pause every time and consider "how well am I hitting my driver". If I played from the tips this hole has none of this intrigue because I only hit driver about 260-270 yds so the centerline bunker almost isn't in play and there is no option to cover it. 

 

 

I like how this guy's thinking about it.

 

This decision making sometimes gets described as "risk vs. reward" which is accurate enough, but also kind of reductive. For the golfer, you're out there trying to  pick clubs and execute shots; you're trying to hit certain lengths in certain directions but in making those decisions you have to evaluate and manage your "cone" of your likely miss pattern.

I find that with good golf holes are going to to have design features that toy with your cone-aiming decisions in interesting ways. Some easy examples are trouble on either side, or short (forced carries), bunkers, pitches to elevated surfaces, slopes. These force the player to consider how confident they are with these shots and maybe even elicit an emotional response.

To me any good golf course is going to have at least a handful of good golf holes, that require you to do that cone-aiming in different ways, and around different types of features. I think it's fine for a hole to be boring up to the green if the green complex tests short game shots.

[Pepperturbo]

17 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I think you bring up a dichotomy though. There is no difference between good course management and trying to score, in my opinion. 

I don't see it that way.  Course management seldom suggests aggressive play to score.  Course mgt tells me look from the tee, and note how the designer wants me to play the hole.  Course mgt says play within your ability.  If all I am thinking about is winning or scoring, I won't be using course mgt and will accept making more mistakes.

 

One challenging course I play has a number of holes that visually suggest driver, but run-out and hazards say, wait a minute. 

 

A good drive on one nearly reachable par 5 has a lot of trouble short of the green, nothing much long of the green.  Go for it 3wd 2nd shot, means a pure uphill shot, looking to get though the access area which is 20+ yards wide.  Because I seldom have that shot, I am left hitting 2i or 3i straight up the left, then easy wedge in.  I can still birdie the hole, but the old fashion way. 

 

On that course, another long 615yd Par 5, no wind, it's always tough for me, add wind it's a real bear.  There is no right answers for my length, while my buddy being longer, has no problem.  My Driver can reach the landing area where the ball runs down hill, maybe into a OB crossing the fairway, so I am left with a pure 3wd or 2 iron to the flat area.  The problem then, even if I pure either of those clubs over the hazard, the hole is so long and tight, my 3rd shot using best 3wd will still be short of the green.  I am left with bogie unless I hole out, which has happened a few times. 

 

In other words, even though I hit the ball straight, that hole doesn't favor my distances from either Blue or White tees, regardless of club.  The problem isn't the long hole yardage, but the yardage to the OB crossing the fairway. 

 

I experience the same effect as the hole in the image above, with water, not favoring mid-hi-caps.  How I see my problem or challenge and how others above see the water hole is: notwithstanding my challenge, I never thought the hole should be redesigned, made easier to accommodate my distances when others handle it better. 

 

There will always be holes that don't fit my ability and distance, so I just do my best, take what I can do and move on.  I am a 4 index presently from 6500yds.  My longer buddy is a 12 index, and he's birdied both aforementioned holes quite a few times, yet I beat him most of the time.  Hiccups happen, but attitude overcomes obstacles, and gets the win. 

 

 

 

[Pepperturbo]

19 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

BTW not sure how long it's been since you've been there (or where you live other than SoCal), but since the city took it over they've really been trying to improve the general maintenance level of the course. It's improving considerably. 

 

Honestly the way you play the course is how I'd expect a better player to approach it. It's not about scoring at all; that course is a practice opportunity. It doesn't challenge you very much natively, so you invent your own challenges for example like you said by deliberately hitting short and working on short game, etc. 

I played there a few weeks back, walked off 2 over.  Agree, the city is doing an outstanding job of improving the course and clubhouse.  The way I play there, does challenge me; you're right, it's not about scoring, but practice.   #1 tee is always entertaining.  Everyone whacks the Driver, either hook left into the creek or mostly right into #2 fairway or green.  I hit 4i down the middle, 210+ yards, wait and watch. LOL

[ND2005]

On 12/21/2022 at 2:37 PM, vandyfan said:

 

I think we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on our enjoyment of golf courses but I take your comment as intended which I think is a compliment and recognition of our differences. I am extremely fragile, haha. As a healthy 38 year old male with an average driving distance of 260-270 I play tees between 5,600 yds - 6,000 yds. I have no illusions about my game or my skill. I am an average player regardless of what my hdcp is at the moment. 

 

 

I will object slightly at the "don't want to try to improve" notion. I think there is room for challenging golf courses and beginner golf courses and all manner in between. To @kthomas's earlier point about Doak, I think there is some truth to the fact that many courses are designed to defend themselves against an elite player FIRST and there just aren't THAT many elite players out there. Probably not enough to support a public golf course. At the risk of hijacking the thread, I see people refer to "resort" golf courses as generally very easy. Maybe because I play in South Carolina and Florida often, that is not my experience. Many times these are hellscapes that are hemmed in by houses, retention ponds and native areas on repeat. For example, here is what I see as a "typical" challenging resort hole in Florida (Links at Sandestin #18):

 

 

For a bogey golfer, this hole is an absolute nightmare. The landing area off the tee is fine, width-wise, but it is a forced layup for most people as the water comes in at 220 yds, carrying the water into the wide part of the second portion of the fairway requires a 285 carry into a 50 yd landing zone that has danger everywhere. If you layup, your reward is a 170+ yd shot into a green that is surrounded by water and the landing area (green and rough included is about 32 yds wide). For comparison's sake, the 17th at TPC Sawgrass is 28 yds wide for a 130 yd shot BY A TOURING PROFESSIONAL off a tee and they still hit that shot into the water, why would a resort golfer be subjected to this? I play this course almost annually because it is across the street from my condo and has great views. I watch players just get ejected by this hole (and many others) on the course constantly. 

 

Sorry for getting off topic @kthomas but this is the type of course that I all too often see. Target golf to the extreme where 90% of the players playing it do not have near the skill or control to handle it. If you cater to the elite player, you damn well better be sure there are enough to keep your course afloat, financially. 

 

You and I must have near 100% overlap on our golf course preferences. 

 

This type of course is the type I absolutely abhor and try to avoid. I dislike most Florida golf courses due to designs like these. 

 

I am a modestly good golfer but far from a scratch. I suffer on courses like these. They must be hell for the average golfer. 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

40 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

I played there a few weeks back, walked off 2 over.  Agree, the city is doing an outstanding job of improving the course and clubhouse.  The way I play there, does challenge me; you're right, it's not about scoring, but practice.   #1 tee is always entertaining.  Everyone whacks the Driver, either hook left into the creek or mostly right into #2 fairway or green.  I hit 4i down the middle, 210+ yards, wait and watch. LOL

 

Yep. My tee club on #1 is dependent on the pin. A front pin I lay up with probably 4h or 5i to put one in the middle, knowing that I'll need spin on the wedge to stop it. Middle-back pin I'll hit driver, where I can't realistically expect to get close but proximity-wise and having a pitch that I have room to roll is easy. 

 

The reason I am willing to try driver? Because on the first tee of a course without a practice range, most of us duffers can eff up a hybrid or long iron just as bad as we can eff up a driver swing. Driver's even sometimes easier than a long iron with that giant toaster on the end of the stick lol!

 

58 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

I don't see it that way.  Course management seldom suggests aggressive play to score.  Course mgt tells me look from the tee, and note how the designer wants me to play the hole.  Course mgt says play within your ability.  If all I am thinking about is winning or scoring, I won't be using course mgt and will accept making more mistakes.

 

 

Yeah, I suppose this is a different mindset due to abilities then. I'm not at a skill level where I'm birdie-hunting on a regular basis. For me a birdie comes when I have a lucky approach that gets closer than my usual dispersion gives me or sink a putt a little harder than I can reasonably expect.  

 

For me course management is "how do I avoid a blow-up hole", knowing that good golfers consider a double a blow-up, but at my level a blow-up is triple or worse. So it's less about aggressive play to score than it is about making sure that the mistakes (of which there are many) aren't so penal that it turns into a really big number. 

 

For me "scoring" is more about limiting mistakes than getting more birdies. I'm satisfied walking off a hole with a bogey if I miss GIR, and happy on any hole making par. Birdies are just a bonus, not something that I have the ability to "seek". 

 

So for me course management and trying to make my best possible score go hand in hand, because across 18 holes, an individual par or even a birdie doesn't save a round, but one quad can really screw up my card. So I try to avoid those and take the good holes as they come. 

[ChipNRun]

See related thread on building combination tee boxes in Normandie Renovation.

 

[me05501]

On 12/21/2022 at 8:54 PM, 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? 

See, this is interesting. It seems like some assume that every player *deserves* to have a path to a GIR on every hole. I doubt many designers would agree with that principle. 

Depending on the strengths and weaknesses of one’s game, there will probably be at least a couple of holes each round where reaching the green in regulation is just not a reasonable expectation. A 220 yard par three would be a good example. That’s partly why there are bailout areas around most greens. 
 

Every player playing from the appropriate tee should have a reasonable shot at par. That doesn’t mean he should be handed a GIR and routine two putt. 

Edited December 24, 2022 by me05501

[mallrat]

First off, good luck with your journey. 
 

Now, the path you are going down is completely separate from the golf course path in terms of time to get where you want to go. I have worked with both, someone who has their Masters in Landscape architecture and a course designer. From what I gathered there was 1 common similarity; making their work look natural, other than that; there’s a big difference. 
 

The gentleman with the Masters hated what he did. Well he loved it but hated it. He loved the design aspect but hated all the meetings, reviews, permits and HOA/office park management approvals.  He wanted to be a hands/shovel in the dirt guy. 
 

The designer loved what he did but did not do as much as you would think. Most designers are very conceptual vs work based. They will have a shaping crew who they trust that does 98% of the work. I, in fact, haven’t seen a designer get on a piece of equipment for more than 15-30 minutes. Not saying it doesn’t happen. 
 

If you want to be involved or learn from a current course architect, be prepared to travel. The shapers I have known/met would be gone for 2 to 3 weeks, be home for a weekend or 2 then back on the road. 
 

If you go that route it will most likely be a long journey starting at the bottom. Cleaning drainage trenches, moving around gravel, hand finishing bunkers, learning and installing irrigation, probably some hydro seeding all before you get on equipment. 
 

Good luck 

[betarhoalphadelta]

3 hours ago, me05501 said:

See, this is interesting. It seems like some assume that every player *deserves* to have a path to a GIR on every hole. I doubt many designers would agree with that principle. 

Depending on the strengths and weaknesses of one’s game, there will probably be at least a couple of holes each round where reaching the green in regulation is just not a reasonable expectation. A 220 yard par three would be a good example. That’s partly why there are bailout areas around most greens. 
 

Every player playing from the appropriate tee should have a reasonable shot at par. That doesn’t mean he should be handed a GIR and routine two putt. 

 

I feel like you may not have really looked at the diagram of the hole in question upthread. 

 

The point was that the design of the hole effectively forced a lay-up short of water, then required a ~170y approach to a very narrow green with ZERO bail-out areas and water hazards about 290 degrees out of 360 around it. 

 

There's a path to GIR on this hole. Hit a decent lay-up off the tee and then hit a perfect approach with trouble everywhere. It's not like it's a 490 yard par 4 where people can't even hope to reach. It's that there isn't anywhere to miss on the approach that isn't wet, and the approach is forced to be longer because of the water crossing the fairway that it requires a club that brings all of those misses into play.

 

The question is whether a hole should be designed to create an acceptable miss on that approach shot. In this case there is none--most misses are wet and a penalty. My contention is that this hole doesn't require a player to engage strategy at all. It just requires perfect execution. That's fine if you're catering to scratch or better golfers. But it has little to no place on a course that the general golfing public has to contend with. For them, it's just donating golf balls to the lake.

[me05501]

On 12/24/2022 at 1:30 AM, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I feel like you may not have really looked at the diagram of the hole in question upthread. 

 

The point was that the design of the hole effectively forced a lay-up short of water, then required a ~170y approach to a very narrow green with ZERO bail-out areas and water hazards about 290 degrees out of 360 around it. 

 

There's a path to GIR on this hole. Hit a decent lay-up off the tee and then hit a perfect approach with trouble everywhere. It's not like it's a 490 yard par 4 where people can't even hope to reach. It's that there isn't anywhere to miss on the approach that isn't wet, and the approach is forced to be longer because of the water crossing the fairway that it requires a club that brings all of those misses into play.

 

The question is whether a hole should be designed to create an acceptable miss on that approach shot. In this case there is none--most misses are wet and a penalty. My contention is that this hole doesn't require a player to engage strategy at all. It just requires perfect execution. That's fine if you're catering to scratch or better golfers. But it has little to no place on a course that the general golfing public has to contend with. For them, it's just donating golf balls to the lake.

I agree that it’s not a great hole and it’s a type that’s all too common in Florida where almost every course has too much water. 
 

However, if I was playing that hole and didn’t hit an ideal drive I wouldn’t be trying to reach with my second. I have to take my medicine even if it means hitting two 85 yard wedges. Another poster acted like that was an insane option but it’s simply different from the usual. 

 

My point is that it’s okay to lay up on a hard par four. The course doesn’t owe me a chance to make up for my sub-optimal drive.
 

 

Edited December 25, 2022 by me05501

[TomScht]

I do like a hole with a high tee box, so your drive can fly off into space.  Of course, maybe people who live in the mountains would like a hole that's flat, like in Texas.

Course-wise I think I'd get exhausted if every hole was staggeringly awesome.  When Tom Doak rebuilt Memorial, in Houston, he built maybe 6 or 7 fantastic, memorable holes, leaving the in between ones for resting.

[Lobby]

I’m a simple guy. 
 

I like a large practice green. A good driving range with short game areas

 

i like grass as lush as possible.  
 

and I wanna have fun:  don’t make the driving areas too narrow, don’t have many water hazards, and don’t make me lose balls if I have an errant shot

[Golferpaul]

Obviously, everybody likes a well-conditioned course with a wide variety of holes (distances, doglegs, elevation changes, etc).

 

I like courses with ponds rather than deep rough.  If you hit in a pond, it takes 20 seconds to drop and play on.  Deep rough is a buzz kill.  EVERYBODY hates to look for golf balls.  

 

Design the course to facilitate faster play.  NEVER have trouble off the first tee.  The first hole should be wide open and easy to get everyone off to a fast start.

 

And slow the greens down so that mid cappers don't spend extra time on the greens struggling over a four-foot putt that they are afraid to miss.

 

I've gone from playing the tips at Pebble and Pinehurst in my younger days to playing the white tees today.  Everyone gets older, so be sure you have tees that challenge the young guns from the tips and also short (5500 -6000) for us senior golfers.

 

I believe the average par three should be a seven iron so golfers can hit about the same clubs as the pros hit.

Then par fours should average a short iron or wedge if you hit a good drive (just like the pros)

The average par 5 should be reachable in two shots by everyone.  Again, like the pros.

 

Then do the math and build tees that the average 70-year-old can play.  BTW, golfers in their 70s have much more disposable income than younger golfers.  

[Warrior42111]

For a course: variety of hole designs is # 1. The top conditioned course in my area I rarely play anymore, 7 holes are slight dog leg rights water right on 6 of them, just gets boring IMO. Next, I like a variety of tees if possible, and I'm not talking about distance, some of my favorite courses have tee boxes that start on different sizes of the holes, it's really fun and almost like playing a different hole if you play the couse a couple times a week. Lastly, is green conditions, you tee a ball on the boxes, can roll it in the fairway, can't do much about poor greens.

 

For a hole: I like to have multiple ways to play the hole, can I be aggressive and go Driver wedge, and also have the option of driving iron short to mid iron? I like that much more than holes that force you to hit a specific 2-3 shots. It adds to the mental game for me thinking what's the best risk reward option, and to evaluate how I'm hitting mid round.

[RichieHunt]

I'm more into the pure design of courses rather than history, amenities, status and even conditioning.  So from a golf course perspective I'm looking for a design of holes that when it is all summed up it is compelling to play along with beauty to the course.  And to get into the 'excellent' course design (something I would rate as 9.0+ out of 10) it needs to be void of annoying features.

 

For example, when you get a hole where there is a small pond next to OB or woods, that's a major annoyance because the golfer often doesn't know if they went into the pond or the woods.  Some of the other things are basic architecture principles of form not following function or what Pete Dye liked to do...have blind tee shots that were tight with trouble on both sides.  I think the best designs generally follow the principle that if you lose a ball you know it right away and they reward good shots.  Inferior designs tend to do the opposite.

 

The ebb and flow of the course design, hole by hole, is critically important as well.  You're not going to have 18 incredible holes out there.  But you can do little things to some of the more pedestrian holes to make them memorable.  I really love designs that I can go back and easily remember each hole.  

 

Not to toot my own horn, but when I designed my first course in The Golf Club 2019, I was really proud of the design (I still have issues with green contours and bunker shaping) because of the ebb and flow.  I made sure to not try and create incredible hole after incredible hole and sparsed out those holes so they could stand out even more.  The 'transition' holes that weren't as picturesque had their own unique features that could be something as simple as being one of the most difficult greens on the course or sticking a tall tree right off the fairway that didn't really come into play, but you could measure your drives over time by how far your ball was past or short of the tree (the tree was located pretty close to where most drives would end up).  Another hole was a very shallow green that had a short approach that one could spin the ball hard on, but it was still very playable (in fact, lots of eagles could be made there).

 

Often times as a golfer your brain needs a rest from so much stimuli.  There are some very difficult courses that I really like playing, but I tend to prefer courses that are 'getable.'  Part of the issue I have with a lot of the recent golf destination course designs is that the the greens are often so ridiculous that the course isn't 'getable.'  Or a course like Rustic Canyon which is pretty easy to get the ball on the green, but has super difficult greens just makes the course a bit mundane for me.  It's still a good course overall, but I can't put it in the 'excellent' category even if it was in impeccable shape.

 

As far as an individual hole goes, there's too many things to go over that I can't condense it down like I could about what I like about golf course designs.  I do think the Road Hole at St. Andrews and #10 at Riviera are just bad golf holes.  As a golfer you got to play them like they are your favorite holes, but looking at it objectively from a design perspective they are rotten.  

 

Off the top of my head, a favorite par-3 of mine is #17 at Bay Hill.  It's very picturesque and features a large green that allows for shots to hold on a long tee shot.  The green is also very flat and players hole a ton of putts there.  It's still a difficult, picturesque hole, unique with the beach sand, but is certainly getable if you hit a good shot and you can save par with the green having a low level of difficult to putt on.

 

#16 at ANGC is great because it can play so many ways.  I think that is probably the simplest and least expensive way to make a good par-3...make a large green and large tee boxes so the hole can play very different day-to-day.  And of course, #12 at ANGC is a gem, but you may come across the chance to build something that great once in a lifetime.

 

Those holes all feature water, but #3 and #6 at Caledonia Golf & Fish Club don't feature water, but again use large greens and tee boxes to make the hole play vastly different and that helps make them so enjoyable.

 

I tend to like risk reward on par-5's.  So that typically involves a water of some sort.  RedTail in Sorrento Florida came up with a unique design on one of their par-5's where they made the hole very reachable in two shots, but the fairway was very narrow and the rough was very thick...thicker there than anywhere else on the course.  So you could reach it in two hitting a driver off the tee, but if you missed that fairway you were going to have to hack it ouf and then hit a long approach to the green.  The hole isn't overly picturesque, but it's not unappealing and when the conditions are good you can really see that narrow fairway and it makes the hole look more devilish and it's just a unique design that isn't tricked up.

 

I don't mind driveable par-4's at all.  Problem for me is that many of them aren't really driveable because they require more luck than anything.  I'd rather have a drivable par-4 that nobody considers laying-up off the tee than a a driveable par-4 that everybody is laying up off the tee anyway.  

 

Well designed dog legs can range from being able to carry the dogleg or those that are designed precisely enough and the second half of the hole is such that you feel like when you are walking up to your ball that you are 'peaking around the corner' for a pleasant surprise.  Kind of like when you go to a beach town resort and you drive up to it and the beach is blocked off by hotels, but once you make it around the hotel it's like it's revealing a whole new planet with the ocean and the sound of the ocean.  

 

I always thought Arnold Palmer was a very underrated designer and he understood that concept.  He also favored approach shots that were elevated as it made the hole stand out, but he was careful to parse them out so not every hole had an elevated approach.  Just like not every one of a course's best holes should have a water feature.  That's what happens down in Florida a lot and part of it is because of the topography, but if more designers would try to focus on making some of their better designs that didn't have water they'd make better courses.

 

 

 

 

 

RH

[Chanceman]

Alaster Mackenzie knew what to do. Make it easy for the hacker and hard for the tiger. Easy bogey, hard par. I have played a number of his courses both famous and not - they are all a joy to play. Why? - because they give you options. A hard shot? - take the longer route. 

Conversely Jack Nicklaus courses are not worth the trouble for most mid to high handicappers. Why? Because he often gives you one shot to play and if you cant then you are in deep trouble. 

[charli]

My favorite holes are fun holes. Whether it’s the tee shot, The approach, or the green where if you miss it’s big trouble. I look at strantz and see how much fun his courses are to play. 

[Golferpaul]

5 hours ago, Chanceman said:

Alaster Mackenzie knew what to do. Make it easy for the hacker and hard for the tiger. Easy bogey, hard par. I have played a number of his courses both famous and not - they are all a joy to play. Why? - because they give you options. A hard shot? - take the longer route. 

Conversely Jack Nicklaus courses are not worth the trouble for most mid to high handicappers. Why? Because he often gives you one shot to play and if you cant then you are in deep trouble. 

I've played 45 Nicklaus courses and IMHO your post is bunk and a myth.  Nicklaus courses have more strategic options than any Mackenzie course.

[ND2005]

One thing I like in an "excellent" hole is that it visually gives you clues as to what you should do/where you should hit it. 

 

I'm not opposed to the blind shot every now and again but for the most part I think a course should give you visual cues as to how to play the hole. 

 

A course that does a great job of this is Mammoth Dunes - even though the fairways are a mile wide, the holes all kind of visually clue you in as to the appropriate route to take. Another good example of this is #9 at Bandon Trails - the shape of the tree lines and the bunkering just practically beg you to hit a little right-to-left shot into the sweet spot of the fairway. 

 

In terms of Par 3s - I like variety across the round. I played a course recently where I hit either a 6 or a 7 iron on all of the par-3s. Boring. I love a good short par 3 with a creative green (Streamsong Red #8, Streamsong Black # 15, Dormie Club #12). The occasional long one is all right too, but can really gum up pace of play at a public course as most players will struggle once you top 200 yds. There is a public course near me with a 230 yd Par 3, I rarely see more than 1 player per foursome hit the green in regulation (myself included haha!)

[Warrior42111]

5 hours ago, ND2005 said:

One thing I like in an "excellent" hole is that it visually gives you clues as to what you should do/where you should hit it. 

 

I'm not opposed to the blind shot every now and again but for the most part I think a course should give you visual cues as to how to play the hole. 

 

A course that does a great job of this is Mammoth Dunes - even though the fairways are a mile wide, the holes all kind of visually clue you in as to the appropriate route to take. Another good example of this is #9 at Bandon Trails - the shape of the tree lines and the bunkering just practically beg you to hit a little right-to-left shot into the sweet spot of the fairway. 

 

In terms of Par 3s - I like variety across the round. I played a course recently where I hit either a 6 or a 7 iron on all of the par-3s. Boring. I love a good short par 3 with a creative green (Streamsong Red #8, Streamsong Black # 15, Dormie Club #12). The occasional long one is all right too, but can really gum up pace of play at a public course as most players will struggle once you top 200 yds. There is a public course near me with a 230 yd Par 3, I rarely see more than 1 player per foursome hit the green in regulation (myself included haha!)

Agree with you on variety of par 3s that always makes the round fun.

 

I don't mind longer par 3s but I think designers are just like ok Par 3 let's throw a bunch of hazards in the way. I rather see that 200+ yard par 3 with less sand or forced carry but a tricky green complex. 

[knock it close]

49 minutes ago, Warrior42111 said:

Agree with you on variety of par 3s that always makes the round fun.

 

I don't mind longer par 3s but I think designers are just like ok Par 3 let's throw a bunch of hazards in the way. I rather see that 200+ yard par 3 with less sand or forced carry but a tricky green complex. 

Agreed a redan or biarittz or something similar that allows you to use ground make for great 220+ yard par 3's, the ones at like Atlanta Athletic Club that are 230 with water short left and bunkers long to a shallow green are bad. 

Edited January 12, 2023 by knock it close

[jjr]

Huge Alister MacKenzie fan here, I m going to throw this out, if you play any A.M. track you'll find 75% of the holes are excellent.

 

If you're moving foward with design study plans, give this try!

 

http://mackenziesociety.org/ray-haddock-lido-prize/

Edited January 12, 2023 by jjr

[klebs01]

On 1/12/2023 at 7:36 AM, ND2005 said:

One thing I like in an "excellent" hole is that it visually gives you clues as to what you should do/where you should hit it. 

 

I'm not opposed to the blind shot every now and again but for the most part I think a course should give you visual cues as to how to play the hole. 

 

A course that does a great job of this is Mammoth Dunes - even though the fairways are a mile wide, the holes all kind of visually clue you in as to the appropriate route to take. Another good example of this is #9 at Bandon Trails - the shape of the tree lines and the bunkering just practically beg you to hit a little right-to-left shot into the sweet spot of the fairway. 

 

In terms of Par 3s - I like variety across the round. I played a course recently where I hit either a 6 or a 7 iron on all of the par-3s. Boring. I love a good short par 3 with a creative green (Streamsong Red #8, Streamsong Black # 15, Dormie Club #12). The occasional long one is all right too, but can really gum up pace of play at a public course as most players will struggle once you top 200 yds. There is a public course near me with a 230 yd Par 3, I rarely see more than 1 player per foursome hit the green in regulation (myself included haha!)

I think great holes are generally the opposite of what you described. They don’t provide a clear best play. They obscure the best line or it changes with the pin placement. They use bunkers or hill or other features to create illusions of distance or conceal gaps between the bunker and the green. 
 

it was interesting listening to Doak talk about the first at old Mac and how he moved the principles nose bunker in response to the modern game. He moved it closer to the green to trick people into blasting driver closer to the green, but they the have to hit a tough partial wedge off tight fairway over the bunker with out enough room to roll it to the hole. Looks easy, but there are spots you definitely don’t want to miss and they vary with the pin placement. You aren’t going to lose a ball on that hole, but par won the hole in a playoff for a USGA event. 

[smashdn]

On 12/21/2022 at 1:36 PM, caniac6 said:

I like courses , and holes, that give you options. A lot of the old courses can be played with low, running approach shots, or high shots that carry to the green. The older courses usually reward good shots, but give some room for recovery from bad shots. I’m watching a replay from last year’s Women’s US Open, and Pine Needles looks about as good as it gets.

 

 

I have always been drawn to this hole.  Sorry it is so busy how I have drawn it but wanted to show a couple things in one image.  There are four pinnable spots on the green; front right, front left, back left, and back middle.  This is important as, IMO, the hole location dictates the play to a great extent.  As originally conceived the bunkers were larger and pinched the fairway more, more like a bottle hole template.  Additionally, the bunkers were all flat with or a little below the grade of the fairway so they readily collected tee shots.  This particular bottle hole has a small place where you can fade a drive down into the yellow area.  From the back tee it takes a big drive and a big fade to get it down into that spot.  And really that spot short right of the green is only advantageous if the hole is cut back middle or front right as there is a bisecting ridge that cuts the green in left and right hand halves. 

 

If the hole is cut on the left side I always found it better to fit an iron off the tee either between the bunkers if I was feeling aggressive and confident  or short of the left hand bunker.  Unless the hole is cut front right you are always going to have to deal with that fronting bunker.

 

Anyway, I like this hole because there are lots of options, decisions that seem to be impacted by the hole location, just grabbing driver is not always prudent, and despite all of that, there is still plenty of width for the lesser player to hit to and play the hole.  You can actually play it short of the bunkers off the tee, lay up short of the fronting bunker, then pitch on and make par or likely no less than bogey if you execute your shots.

 

One downside to the design is maintenance.  You can see that the bunkers have gotten smaller and one was removed.  That bunker on the right was perpetually full of "chert rocks" as I do not think the fairway bunkers were lined during original installation.  Now you can see where some houses are creeping in on that right hand side.  That is really going to pinch that hole corridor.

 

Good short hole otherwise.  I think it plays like 340 from the very back.