Least favorite design feature on a golf hole.

[TheDarkOne]

Trees in the middle of the fairway. I don't know if this is a Midwest thing or what, but nothing worse.

[niball]

I can't stand Par 3's over 220 yard.

[hoganfan924]

Uneven tee boxes, approach shots where you can't see the green's surface, severly sloped fairways where a drive down the middle rolls into the rough, trees or boulders in the middle of the fairway, par 4's that force a longer approach shot than tee ball and small island greens. I actually like tee boxes misaligned with the fairway as it forces the golfer to follow a disciplined alignment procedure.

[tElihu]

[quote name='tjy355' timestamp='1303951518' post='3191767']
As I read through this thread, I'm a bit saddened by the realization of the overwhelming embrace of the modern "American" style of golf course. It seems we love the sameness and predictability that is so often found with the modern game. These newer courses all have a one dimensional, white-bread sort of presentation, without any soul and lacking any quirk or character. The modern golf course presents a single manner of play, no strategy or thought is needed, no options are offered. Every hole the same. The primary concern is the visual aesthetic with not much consideration of the actual play of the game.

Similar to the manner in which our beer, our coffee and our bread had evolved into watered down facsimiles of the real thing, targeted toward the lowest common denominator and stripped of any distinctive flavors in the attempt to gain the largest market and offer the longest shelf life.

In recent years however, we have seen trends that show the beginning of a reversal of the slide toward mediocrity. The growth of microbreweries has led to a revival of the proud brewing traditions and the increasing popularity of craft beers with real flavors not found in the same old Bud/Coors/Miller. Starbucks (etc...) has introduced a new generation to better coffee and more people discover the bold, fresh taste that just can't be found in a can of Folgers. As well, shoppers are more able to find freshly baked breads as many supermarkets are now offering European style loaves that are so much better than the baked-weeks-ago-gummy-wad-of dough-wrapped-in-plastic that is Wonder Bread.

So with some hope for the new generations of golfers, there is a glimmer of a "renaissance" in golf course design that is slowly taking root. New stuff that evokes a throwback if you will, to the the origins of the game from the links of the British Isles and the early 20th century "golden age" American designs. Golf courses that are meant for golfing. Courses like Sand Hills, Bandon Dunes, Ballyneal mark a real paradigm shift.

My only hope is that more people are able to open their minds and experience for themselves, the joy of links golf or some of the recent American creations that evoke links sensibilities. You will find blind shots. "Stuff" in the middle of the fairway. Firm fast conditions that bring the ground into play. Humps and bumps that can be used to feed the ball toward the target, or away if the shot is not properly executed. The wind is a factor. Walking is encouraged. Golf is more a "game" and less of a penal slog.
[/quote]


You make some great points, but I'm guessing that most here wouldn't have as much of a problem with hitting over a hotel or the road behind #17 at St. Andrews as they would a road right in front of a rock hard green or a barn in the middle of the fairway. They probably won't complain about the tree in the fairway at 16 at Hilton Head as they would a huge oak 40 yards in front of the tee box at their local muni.

I guess my point is, those things are great and I agree that they add character and flavor to a golf course. And we need more classic design. The uniqueness is part of a classic course's history and what makes it great. But they have to be done right and they have to add to the experience. Just throwing a blind shot out on a given hole doesn't necessarily make it a throwback, just like not every portrait with a hideously crooked nose is a Picasso.

[Pepperturbo]

From what I read, most want a course that is designed so "average Joe" golfer won't have to contend with obstacles, and the result of his judgment when facing those obstacles. Another thread was started "which type of golfer you are", challenge or... It looks like this thread has evolved in the same direction, only from opposite vantage point.

It comes down to frame of mind and ability. Sure slow play can be the result of hole design, I never said that couldn't be the case. But, slow play is NOT the designs fault. It's the fault of the golfers judgment; that which golf purposely tests.

Yesterday I played golf with a friend that's a 22 index from course tee's rated 70.8/132, and only 6400yds. Every hole was fairly tight driving to undulated fairways, lots of blind shots, deep bunkers, false fronts and forced carries from tee's and fairways. Not much in the way of normal second cut of rough either. At the edge of the fairway it was 1-3' of ugly gorse like conditions. Miss the fairway, you loose a ball but it was beautiful surroundings with 160-205yd Par 3's.

Using the prevailing thoughts found in this thread - yesterday's rd would have been 5+ hour rd; it was 4hr 10min. Also, the guys I played with would have been pissing and moaning in their beer as they faced each shot, but that wasn't the case. Yes, they struggled, including my friend, who battled [b]forced carry's [/b]on many holes because he's a short hitter, and [b]blind shots[/b] because of eye sight. I told him move up to shorter tees, which would have allowed him to clear many hazards, and score better, he said no. Right then he made his choice, and took responsibility for that choice. Even though we're too very different men, he and I are alike in that neither of us blames our struggles on or off the course on anything other then our judgment. Life is not easy, its about choices, and conditions we can't control, same it true about golf - only choices in golf comes under course management.

He cared over 100 as did one other guy. At the end of the round my friend said that course beat the hell out of him, but said he enjoyed himself. On the way to our cars he hollered to me saying, "he want's to come back". I read that to mean he likes the challenge, even though his skill is not up to certain course demands. The course was problematic, still it was how each of us coped while tackling obstacles that test what skills we possess.

[Potatohead]

First post in this thread hits the nail on the head. I cannot stand forced layups. Make it narrow if you want, but don't take away someone's choice off the tee. I hate that.

[Funderpants]

Specific feature don't bother me and there is only one course that I have no desire to play again. It had boring design and my least favorite hole.

Every hole was a hard dog leg, except the par 3's. One hole in particular is a long par 5, dog leg right, at the bend is has a 5-10 yd wide fairway extending a good 30-40 yards, with a large hump running down the middle rolling your ball into the thick vegetation. You either carry 300 or layup leaving 250+ to the hole.

[hoganfan924]

In Michigan at least, in the 1980's and 90's there was a trend where most course owners and designers were convinced that the way to golf riches was to build the toughest "championship caliber" golf course they could, regardless of whether any of these courses would ever even host the local city junior am. So off they went with their forced carries, blind tee shots, island greens, trees in the middle of the fairway and courses cut through the woods (no parallel fairways) with distances from green to the next tee so long that they don't allow walkers. And many golfers bought into the delusion that getting their a$$es beat by these courses was somehow the thing to do. Well, it took a while, but mid-cappers have finally realized that paying $80 to shoot 10-20 strokes above your handicap and losing 6 balls a round isn't "fun." Golf is a game right, that's supposed to be fun, isn't it? Now a whole bunch of these piss poor designs get very little play, courses are going under left and right and private clubs built in this era are opening for public play and offering deep membership discounts. The tough (but fair) courses seem to be doing better than the stupid tricked out courses now that the novelty has worn off and people have less money to spend.

[toddnt]

Courses that end on Par-3's!

[HitEmTrue]

For the record, even though I did post a picture of a layup hole, I don't mind "forced" layups at all. It only seems odd to me when it creates a longer second shot than the first...a shot that some people may not be able to play. Also don't understand the dislike of blind shots or obstacles in the fairway.

[Swordfish]

I'll add my vote to two that are mentioned here:

1. Trees in the middle of the fairway
2. Par 4 dog legs that make you layup on your first shot and then leave you with a 220+ second shot??

I will also add courses that allow houses to get so close to fairways and then blame us for hitting balls into their backyards!

Unlike others, I like the island greens (would love to try TPC Sawgrass) and I don't have a problem with long par 3's. (just shouldn't be on hole 1 or 18) What I wish courses would do is introduce a few more short par 4's. Ones that reward long hitters but punish you if you go for it and don't make it.

[msean]

I don't mind challenging, and I don't mind weird/quirky designs, what I don't like is inconvenient. By inconvenient I mean fairways too close together that jam up play. I also don't like fairways too close to driving ranges where a drive down the middle results in 5 minutes trying to pick your ball from the range balls while you're hopng someone on the range doesn't hit you.

My least favorite design is one that doesn't allow walking. I don't care if someone wants to ride, to each their own, but if your course is carts only count me out. Walking is part of the game for [b]ME,[/b] again I don't care if other people ride, but when you take out the walk it takes out a lot of the pleasure for me.

[tElihu]

I'll add long par 3s with small, heavily guarded greens and short par 3s with large, flat, unprotected greens.

As a guideline, the green size, severity and difficulty should be related to the typical approach shot for that hole. In general, if the average golfer will have a short shot in (e.g. par 5, short par 4 or short par3), the hole should be more protected (and vice-versa).

[tElihu]

I'll also add a course that has 27 holes built on a piece of land that's designed (i.e. sized) for 18. Unless the community has a dire shortage of golf courses, build a nice 18 and charge a few bucks more per round.

[Random Hack]

I hate courses wtih overly contoured/"slope-y" greens - there's nothing wrong with a short and easy hole having a tricky green as it's "defense", but when you play 18 holes and don't have a putt with less than 2' of break all day - that to me is silly.

Hate it when you hit a good iron shot to 10' on the hardest hole on the course and you're left with a quadruple breaker for no good reason.

Obviously the pin placement factors in as well, but I've seen some greens that are so damn gimmicky (IMO) there's really nowhere to put a pin that rewards a good shot with a nice look at birdie.

If memory serves, I think the pros had this issue at the Barclays when it was at that course in Jersey City - every green was just gimmicky as all hell.

[Pepperturbo]

.[u][b]a shot that some people may not be able to play.[/b][/u]

I found the line above rather interesting considering we're playing golf, using skills that dramatically vary on courses that vary in difficulty. If it's true 95% of the golfers don't break 100, then its fair to assume they don't have many shots, right? Many of my friends don't have shots that I have, so they play easier courses and or shorter tees, as they should. Presuming one is physically capable, is it not suppose to be a motivating factor for each golfer to improve the number of shots in his bag??? The consequences for not doing that is he's left in a quandary when course designs present shot options that he doesn't have... Its not the courses designers fault many golfers don't improve; he's just trying to present a challenge or lesser challenge by providing shorter tees. Are courses suppose to be designed to accommodate limited shots? Answer is yes. All golfers need to do is choose easier courses, or shorter tees.

Last evening I prepared a list of courses for our upcoming desert trip. I went through a slew of courses that were rated easy for me, opting for much harder courses. There again, I was able to "choose" what fit my game and likes. Saying that in no way suggests all obstacles will be handled with deft skill...

Yesterday my buddy and I faced a 460yd Par 4 that required a 230yd forced carry into a breeze, over a hazard. As I read that condition, if it wasn't possible, move up to shorter tees to insure I can cover forced carry's. Next option is attempt the shot and hope... or purposely layup and change how I play the hole. My buddy chose to play the tees I was playing, but couldn't cover the hazard. Course management says if I can't cover a forced carry, leaving a longer 2nd shot then I must lay up short of the hazard to insure a good 2nd shot to within reason of the green, knowing I am playing that Par 4 - with 3 shots, relying upon my short game to save Par. If there's no short game to speak of, that means the tee's are too long, and or possibly the course is too difficult. There in lays course management and or the measure of the golfers judgment.

There's no reasonable excuse for poor judgment. Each of them should have left their egos in the car, and played the tees that insured they cover all forced carry's. Moving up one tee would have been the answer. As we walked off that hole, my friend took 8, the other guys took 6 and 7, yet no one held up play. I can't help but wonder how much being a better golfer would improve pace of play of the 97% of golfers that don't break 90.

[teejaywhy]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1304001042' post='3193029']
... Another thread was started "which type of golfer you are", challenge or...
[/quote]

Pepper - after reading your last post in that topic, I am convinced you have a misunderstanding of what Nuzzo (and myself) proposed as the fun type golfer. You should check out my reply #58 on page 2 of that thread. I think we are not so far apart as it might seem.

[url]http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/465076-what-kind-of-golfer-are-you/page__view__findpost__p__3179157[/url]

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='tjy355' timestamp='1304010878' post='3193541']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1304001042' post='3193029']
... Another thread was started "which type of golfer you are", challenge or...
[/quote]

Pepper - after reading your last post in that topic, I am convinced you have a misunderstanding of what Nuzzo (and myself) proposed as the fun type golfer. You should check out my reply #58 on page 2 of that thread. I think we are not so far apart as it might seem.

[url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/465076-what-kind-of-golfer-are-you/page__view__findpost__p__3179157"]http://www.golfwrx.c...ost__p__3179157[/url]
[/quote]

I recall reading your post. I understand the golfer your talking about; most of my friends fit into that category. Still, there are many courses out there that are easy, fun tracks for those types of golfers. My friends say that. Where it might differ is if someone lives in an area where there are limited courses.

Most of my golf is played in CA, AZ and TX. How each of us views golf course obstacles varies. But, that's only because our skills and mental approach to the game directs our thinking regarding obstacles. I don't like tee boxes with hog backs in them, but it don't view them as anything more then another course obstacle that I must contend with. Its frame of mind.

My wife gets annoyed when she encounters tee blocks that direct her away from where she really needs to hit the ball... but she copes. Never heard her wish that a course should be designed to better fit her 12-14 index, or any of my golfing buddy's wishing this or that obstacle shouldn't exist because it makes golf less fun.

[HitEmTrue]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1304010701' post='3193531']
.[u][b]a shot that some people may not be able to play.[/b][/u]

I found the line above rather interesting considering we're playing golf, using skills that dramatically vary on courses that vary in difficulty.[/quote]

Pepper, yesterday I posted a picture (page 3 of this thread) of a hole on an easy muni course. Moving up a tee box does not make the 2nd shot any shorter. It is just my opinion that the particular hole in question does not mesh with the rest of the course...with the shorter hitters (and beginners on the course) having to nudge the ball up to the hazard to hit it over.

There is a drop zone on the other side of the hazard (don't get me started on that), so I guess peeps can swallow their ego and drop it there after hitting into the creek.

Hmmm...the best scoring strategy for some might be to hit driver into the creek, and then drop on the other side hitting 3.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='HitEmTrue' timestamp='1304014015' post='3193682']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1304010701' post='3193531']
.[u][b]a shot that some people may not be able to play.[/b][/u]

I found the line above rather interesting considering we're playing golf, using skills that dramatically vary on courses that vary in difficulty.[/quote]

Pepper, yesterday I posted a picture (page 3 of this thread) of a hole on an easy muni course. Moving up a tee box does not make the 2nd shot any shorter. It is just my opinion that the particular hole in question does not mesh with the rest of the course...with the shorter hitters (and beginners on the course) having to nudge the ball up to the hazard to hit it over.

There is a drop zone on the other side of the hazard (don't get me started on that), so I guess peeps can swallow their ego and drop it there after hitting into the creek.

Hmmm...the best scoring strategy for some might be to hit driver into the creek, and then drop on the other side hitting 3.
[/quote]

Thanks for refreshing my memory, I saw the picture. Not sure that's the best scoring strategy - psychologically.. I can understand how it would be a bottleneck for poor judgment. I hope no ones suggesting courses should be designed to allow for poor judgment.

If each line is 210, I see no reason why someone that can't carry the hazard wouldn't lay up short, then hit 2nd over and as close to the green as possible. This guy has to know because he's a short hitter he has to rely upon his wedge game to save par, presuming he has one. The other option is to move up to the tee's that allow him to cover the hazard in 1, then hit to as close as possible to the green, again relying up his wedge game for par or likely bogie.

No matter how its cut - that golfer has to, for the most part, play holes that length in 3 - hoping to save par or accept his limitations of bogie or double. Many easy courses have a few testy holes for most mid-high index golfers, reason they are rated hardest, or #1 - #18, yet rated easy to scratch while having a more difficult slope rating for average Joe golfer.

For short hitters, most normal 400+ yd par 4's require 3 shots to the green; least that's what I've seen. There's a fact that can't be changed, a bogie or double bogie golfer will face challenging holes, even on some of the easier courses. If he lacks short game, then the combination of being a short hitter and lacking a par saving wedge game means he's clearly playing the wrong tees and should accept his game limitations. The fact that many of those types of golfers overlook their short comings is the reason his actions effect slow play. I still don't believe its the holes fault.

Note this course - [url="http://www.palmsprings.com/golf/miss_sig.html"]and #1 hardest hole & it's ratings[/url] I've played this course many times with friends when in the desert. For scratch its sub par but for the average golfer its 124 from the back tees. That course is difficult to my friends so they play "white" tees.

[HitEmTrue]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1304018611' post='3193904']
Thanks for refreshing my memory, I saw the picture. Not sure that's the best scoring strategy - psychologically.. I can understand how it would be a bottleneck for poor judgment. I hope no ones suggesting courses should be designed to allow for poor judgment.
[/quote]

Would you concede that it would be a bottleneck even if the golfers exercised good judgment? Wind's blowing strong...20+ mph...some shorter hitters hitting 1st shot 170-180. Then laying up to the creek. Hitting 3rd over the creek. Then to the green. Others hitting closer to the creek, and then clearing the creek to the fairway. And then those who did not make an error in judgment, but struck the ball poorly into the drink. Finally, the better golfers waiting 200 out for the ones ahead to hit third and fourth shots to green.

[quote]The other option is to move up to the tee's that allow him to cover the hazard in 1[/quote]

From the very front tees it is about 240 yd carry to clear the creek, and not a straight shot, either. Anyone good enough to make that shot isn't moving up to the red tees.

[OneBowTie]

That set up can lead to a backup no matter how good or bad the golfers are. I've seen plenty of really good golfers play holes like that and mis-judge the layup, or the ball jumps much further off the club then they anticipated..... or the fairway rolls further then they thought. Or what I have found is that you will have players clubbing down and swinging way harder then they normally do and hit some awful slice, pull, duck hook which then leads to back up.

 

Or, I've seen this a thousand times on holes just like this hole...... people hit it off the tee and instead of simply accepting the ball is in the hazard..... they will search forever along the bank looking for the ball and it leads to slow play....

 

Just because Pepper got some bs report that "he" claims beer carts and hot dogs are the major cause of course backups and slow play- and the same report supposedly says course design is low on the reasons for slow play- now matter how you present a viable reason to show or prove otherwise- he will do his usual and tell everyone how he always has some inside knowledge or expert opinion to the subject at hand, and of course his knowledge or opinion far outweighs everyone else

 

Course design can/does/will play a large role in the pace of play of said course.

[HitEmTrue]

[quote name='OneBowTie' timestamp='1304027408' post='3194246']
Or, I've seen this a thousand times on holes just like this hole...... people hit it off the tee and instead of simply accepting the ball is in the hazard..... they will search forever along the bank looking for the ball and it leads to slow play....
[/quote]

But certainly that not a reason to not have creeks cross the fairway, is it? Sorry for the double negative.

[jermio]

I, too, am not a fan of being forced to lay up on every other hole. There is a local course that I played recently that punishes anyone who hits over 285ish with their driver. My brother could hit his driver on almost every hole (he hits about 270ish), but I was forced to play a 3 wood or hybrid off the tee. I don't mind having to manage the course, but it seems like only the long hitters have to worry about course management on that course!

[OneBowTie]

[quote name='HitEmTrue' timestamp='1304028257' post='3194274']
[quote name='OneBowTie' timestamp='1304027408' post='3194246']
Or, I've seen this a thousand times on holes just like this hole...... people hit it off the tee and instead of simply accepting the ball is in the hazard..... they will search forever along the bank looking for the ball and it leads to slow play....
[/quote]

But certainly that not a reason to not have creeks cross the fairway, is it? Sorry for the double negative.
[/quote]

Variety is the spice of life!!!!

I have no issues with lakes, creeks, ponds anywhere on a golf course. Some golf courses though don't or didn't seem to know how to route the course in some instances, which tends to lead to large course back ups and slow play. Like I mentioned earlier, I have no issues with almost any course design, other then when they put too many types of holes or situations on a golf course that will surely lead to slow play..... IE... 2 short par fives on same side where most golfers will lock and load trying to get home in two. Which then you find followed up by such a hole as one pictured, and then add in a really long par 3 where everyone loses their golf balls. Its those courses that will get my money about one time.

I think a creek, pond, river or what not crossing fairways is pretty normal in golf..... but when you force a hole golf course to layup to 200 or less on a 420 plus golf hole, I am not too fond of that type of lilly pond!!!

edit:

I think its ridiculous that anyone would even think that golfers who start on one tee would move to another tee because of a force layup hole. Most golfers usually do start on a set up tee boxes that they "think" is suitable to their game, and I have never seen anyone in the middle or a round or on any hole after starting say, well this hole has a forced layup, so lets move up a tee box or two.......or this is too long of a par 5/4/3 so lets move up to the reds for this hole!

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='HitEmTrue' timestamp='1304022853' post='3194083']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1304018611' post='3193904']
Thanks for refreshing my memory, I saw the picture. Not sure that's the best scoring strategy - psychologically.. I can understand how it would be a bottleneck for poor judgment. I hope no ones suggesting courses should be designed to allow for poor judgment.
[/quote]

Would you concede that it would be a bottleneck even if the golfers exercised good judgment? Wind's blowing strong...20+ mph...some shorter hitters hitting 1st shot 170-180. Then laying up to the creek. Hitting 3rd over the creek. Then to the green. Others hitting closer to the creek, and then clearing the creek to the fairway. And then those who did not make an error in judgment, but struck the ball poorly into the drink. Finally, the better golfers waiting 200 out for the ones ahead to hit third and fourth shots to green.

[quote]The other option is to move up to the tee's that allow him to cover the hazard in 1[/quote]

From the very front tees it is about 240 yd carry to clear the creek, and not a straight shot, either. Anyone good enough to make that shot isn't moving up to the red tees.
[/quote]

I revisited the image and what you wrote... Its only a 420yd hole, and both lines represented 210 yards. Even if it is determined to influence slow play, its only ONE hole. It shouldn't affect the whole field because most courses have a difficult or testy hole for average Joe golfer. And, it shouldn't be that big of a deal for mid-low indexes.

You also say its 240 to cover from the front tee's, yet the hole is only 420 with what appear to be 3 tee boxes. Using your line and from the back tee, carry would be approx 210 + 150 to cover the hazard or 360, right?, with 60 left to the green? Nobody can do that into a stiff breeze. If that's all true, its an odd hole, and my next thought is how long is the course overall from the back tee's, and what's it rated, making it problematic. Still one difficult to navigate hole, or even a number of them do not represent the slow play problem golf faces at every course nation wide. Playing double, even triple bogey golf on really difficult courses is NOT the recipe for slow play either. My high index friends keep up with me all the time, course I have to wait for them because they are hitting more shots, but that's normal. It's how people tackle a hole or it's obstacles that influences slow play. That's my 2cents.

[geesecougar2]

When people are playing from the white tees and still cannot make a forced carry, moving to the red tees is not an option. Yes, it would be awesome if golfers who can't break 90 stuck to easy courses. But then all the nice courses would either go out of business, or I'd have to pay much much more to play them.

It would be wonderful if all average golfers accepted their limitations and exercised "good judgement" so as to not slow down pace, but world peace would be nice too. So what can we do to alleviate the problem? We can ask course designers to spread out spots on a course that tend to cause bottlenecks.

At the end of the day, people are out there to have fun, and part of the fun is trying a risky shot; they may totally screw up 9 out of 10 times, but that 10th time when they hit a perfect shot is what gets them coming back to the game. I think it's arrogant and out of line to basically tell them to know their role as a hacker and either layup every time or get off this course. Ultimately, assuming they adhere to basic pace of play expectations, they have just as much of a right to be there whether they shoot 68 or 125.

Anyway to get back to my original post in the thread and as mentioned by someone else, the design I absolutely hate the most are trees and branches just off the tee that dictate only one way to play the tee shot. It's such a cheap way to make a hole play difficult; you might as well put a windmill there and call it a day.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='E - SF' timestamp='1304030857' post='3194352']
When people are playing from the white tees and still cannot make a forced carry, moving to the red tees is not an option. Yes, it would be awesome if golfers who can't break 90 stuck to easy courses. But then all the nice courses would either go out of business, or I'd have to pay twice as much to play them.

It would be wonderful if all average golfers accepted their limitations and exercised "good judgement" so as to not slow down pace, but world peace would be nice too. So what can we do to alleviate the problem? We can ask course designers to spread out spots on a course that tend to cause bottlenecks.

Anyway to get back to my original post in the thread and as mentioned by someone else, the design I absolutely hate the most are [b]trees and branches just off the tee that dictate only one way to play the tee shot[/b]. It's such a cheap way to make a hole play difficult; you might as well put a windmill there and call it a day.
[/quote]

As much as I understand your points, even concur to an extent, I read your intent to mean, in general, the golfer is not responsible for bettering his game, his behavior or judgment. In lieu of those inabilities course designers and owners need to change, maybe even spend more to accommodate the slowest, and or in this case the shortest in the convoy.

You're also saying you only have one style of shot, and you're not going to change that to give yourself more shot options, courses need to change, right?

[geesecougar2]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1304031613' post='3194384']
[quote name='E - SF' timestamp='1304030857' post='3194352']
When people are playing from the white tees and still cannot make a forced carry, moving to the red tees is not an option. Yes, it would be awesome if golfers who can't break 90 stuck to easy courses. But then all the nice courses would either go out of business, or I'd have to pay twice as much to play them.

It would be wonderful if all average golfers accepted their limitations and exercised "good judgement" so as to not slow down pace, but world peace would be nice too. So what can we do to alleviate the problem? We can ask course designers to spread out spots on a course that tend to cause bottlenecks.

Anyway to get back to my original post in the thread and as mentioned by someone else, the design I absolutely hate the most are [b]trees and branches just off the tee that dictate only one way to play the tee shot[/b]. It's such a cheap way to make a hole play difficult; you might as well put a windmill there and call it a day.
[/quote]

As much as I understand your points, even concur to an extent, I read your intent to mean, in general, the golfer is not responsible for bettering his game, his behavior or judgment. In lieu of those inabilities course designers and owners need to change, maybe even spend more to accommodate the slowest, and or in this case the shortest in the convoy.

You're also saying you only have one style of shot, and you're not going to change that to give yourself more shot options, courses need to change, right?
[/quote]

What I'm saying is that it's a lesser design that takes very little thought, and does not reward a perfect shot but rather severely punishes an imperfect shot. Golf is not a game of perfection; it is a game of managing imperfection. I just think it's tacky.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='E - SF' timestamp='1304032859' post='3194414']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1304031613' post='3194384']
[quote name='E - SF' timestamp='1304030857' post='3194352']
When people are playing from the white tees and still cannot make a forced carry, moving to the red tees is not an option. Yes, it would be awesome if golfers who can't break 90 stuck to easy courses. But then all the nice courses would either go out of business, or I'd have to pay twice as much to play them.

It would be wonderful if all average golfers accepted their limitations and exercised "good judgement" so as to not slow down pace, but world peace would be nice too. So what can we do to alleviate the problem? We can ask course designers to spread out spots on a course that tend to cause bottlenecks.

Anyway to get back to my original post in the thread and as mentioned by someone else, the design I absolutely hate the most are [b]trees and branches just off the tee that dictate only one way to play the tee shot[/b]. It's such a cheap way to make a hole play difficult; you might as well put a windmill there and call it a day.
[/quote]

As much as I understand your points, even concur to an extent, I read your intent to mean, in general, the golfer is not responsible for bettering his game, his behavior or judgment. In lieu of those inabilities course designers and owners need to change, maybe even spend more to accommodate the slowest, and or in this case the shortest in the convoy.

You're also saying you only have one style of shot, and you're not going to change that to give yourself more shot options, courses need to change, right?
[/quote]

What I'm saying is that it's a lesser design that takes very little thought, and does not reward a perfect shot but rather severely punishes an imperfect shot. Golf is not a game of perfection; it is a [b]game of managing imperfection.[/b] I just think it's tacky.
[/quote]

I agree - however maybe where we differ is the extent to which I will go to manage my imperfections so I can handle what ever I encounter. For instance I play a few holes that from the tee a nice draw is required to insure I find the fairway. Hitting a fade is not an option without finding the right ugly.... I almost always raise the bet on a certain friend when we're playing certain courses, as he fades the ball. I, on the other hand hit the ball reasonably straight, but can put a bit of a draw on the ball, or fade when its mandatory or beneficial. That said, when I took up the game, I only hit fades. It took about 6-8yrs before I challenged myself to see if I could control the ball more. Kinda like the 7-10 split in bowling. How many know how to take it down?

I also agree - golf is a game of managing imperfections, but it sometimes demands as much perfection as we can muster, and sometimes its more then we have. The consequences that result are simply part of life. I can't help but be reminded of - 18 holes of golf is a microcosm of how we handle our lives. Have to good evening.