Least favorite design feature on a golf hole.

[Roadking2003]

Least favorite design features;

 

1. Deep rough. The least favorite part of golf is looking for balls. It also slows down play. If you want to speed up play and increase the fun factor, never have people looking for balls.

 

2. Tees too close together. A lot of older courses have essentially one tee box; the put the blacks at the back, then go up ten yards for the gold, then ten more for the women's tees. Courses should have large distances between tees so people can choose the tee that is appropriate for their skill level.

 

3. And then some modern courses have tees too far apart. So you are forced to choose between the tips at 7300 or the next tees at 6400.

 

4. Greens on older courses that were designed with Stimps of 6 or 7 that are now rolling at 11, 12 or 13. Pinehurst #2 is an example.

[PuttCurseRepeat]

Trees don't belong on a golf course.

 

 

Totally disagree. I love trees on a golf course.

 

I'm conflicted. I like trees, in general. I live near several. But I can't deny that tree removal programs have improved many a course's aesthetics and playability. Tree removal should be done slowly and conservatively. Butler National removed two iconic trees, on holes #17 and #18, during a tree removal program. Took character away from the holes (and some strategy on #18) and did nothing to improve them.

[VNutz]

Trees don't belong on a golf course.

 

 

Totally disagree. I love trees on a golf course.

 

I'm conflicted. I like trees, in general. I live near several. But I can't deny that tree removal programs have improved many a course's aesthetics and playability. Tree removal should be done slowly and conservatively. Butler National removed two iconic trees, on holes #17 and #18, during a tree removal program. Took character away from the holes (and some strategy on #18) and did nothing to improve them.

 

I haven't seen the inside of Butler in years, but I did caddy there for a while. That makes me sad.

[warfelg]

I got a list of them:

~"Gimmick" or Novelty hazards. The coffin bunker at TPC Scottsdale. The Cellar at Chambers Bay. Putting in something like that "just because" is stupid. It's like the courses that want to plant trees in places to "toughen up" a hole. It's stupid.

 

~Visual "trickery" stuff. A course I played a lot in Iron Valley was a PB/Pete Dye design. Lots of Bunkers that weren't in play, but looks like they were meant to align you. Lo and behold when you hit at them you ended up in trouble or with a terrible second shot.

 

~"Signature holes" for a designer. Looking at the Dye family again. Almost every course has a short protected green and or some variation of the island green.

 

~Railroad ties ....I really hate Pete Dye

 

~Lack of a "bailout" area on especially par threes. I've helped tweak some holes at courses I've worked at. I've a firm believer in giving places for a higher handicap player a place they feel safe to play to if the pin is in a tough location.

 

~Excessive tree planting. If an area was a corn field....don't force trees on it. I'm looking at you pine treed munies of the North east. And on the flip side....excessive tree stripping. If your in the middle of a wooded area a links style design likely wont work for you.

 

~Multiple tiered geens on a course. 1 or 2 is cool. 7-8 (like where I used to work) is stupid.

 

Now for course setup least favorite:

~Using bad pin locations on holes. Designers intend certain areas to be pin locations, others to not be pin locations. Supers should know this and adjust accordingly.

 

~Tee box usage. You're usually given big tee boxes....don't use the same 10x10 foot space.

 

~If you have par 3's all listed at the same length....FIND A WAY TO VARY THEM!!!! Set up 1 easy, 2 medium, 1 hard. Put black tees near a blue box. Heck, add your own box or two. Do something to make it interesting.

[One_Putt_Blunder]

I got a list of them:

~"Gimmick" or Novelty hazards. The coffin bunker at TPC Scottsdale. The Cellar at Chambers Bay. Putting in something like that "just because" is stupid. It's like the courses that want to plant trees in places to "toughen up" a hole. It's stupid.

 

 

 

In its current state that new wanna be church pews bunker on 18 at TPC Scottsdale is terrible. ( I think that is the one you are talking about) IMO they should have extended that another 20-30 yards back towards the tee so it was actually in play for more people then it would be somewhat OK vs downright dumb

[warfelg]

I got a list of them:

~"Gimmick" or Novelty hazards. The coffin bunker at TPC Scottsdale. The Cellar at Chambers Bay. Putting in something like that "just because" is stupid. It's like the courses that want to plant trees in places to "toughen up" a hole. It's stupid.

 

 

 

In its current state that new wanna be church pews bunker on 18 at TPC Scottsdale is terrible. ( I think that is the one you are talking about) IMO they should have extended that another 20-30 yards back towards the tee so it was actually in play for more people then it would be somewhat OK vs downright dumb

 

That's one of them. It's earlier on in the course though. Like hole 5 or 6

[az2au]

I got a list of them:

~"Gimmick" or Novelty hazards. The coffin bunker at TPC Scottsdale. The Cellar at Chambers Bay. Putting in something like that "just because" is stupid. It's like the courses that want to plant trees in places to "toughen up" a hole. It's stupid.

 

 

 

In its current state that new wanna be church pews bunker on 18 at TPC Scottsdale is terrible. ( I think that is the one you are talking about) IMO they should have extended that another 20-30 yards back towards the tee so it was actually in play for more people then it would be somewhat OK vs downright dumb

 

That's one of them. It's earlier on in the course though. Like hole 5 or 6

 

Nope. It is on the par 5 13th. And, while I normally appreciate tributes as appreciate Weiskopf designs, it is stupid as implemented.

 

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/the-7-coolest-changes-made-to

[warfelg]

I got a list of them:

~"Gimmick" or Novelty hazards. The coffin bunker at TPC Scottsdale. The Cellar at Chambers Bay. Putting in something like that "just because" is stupid. It's like the courses that want to plant trees in places to "toughen up" a hole. It's stupid.

 

 

 

In its current state that new wanna be church pews bunker on 18 at TPC Scottsdale is terrible. ( I think that is the one you are talking about) IMO they should have extended that another 20-30 yards back towards the tee so it was actually in play for more people then it would be somewhat OK vs downright dumb

 

That's one of them. It's earlier on in the course though. Like hole 5 or 6

 

Nope. It is on the par 5 13th. And, while I normally appreciate tributes as appreciate Weiskopf designs, it is stupid as implemented.

 

http://www.golfdiges...changes-made-to

 

Thanks for the correction.

[One_Putt_Blunder]

I got a list of them:

~"Gimmick" or Novelty hazards. The coffin bunker at TPC Scottsdale. The Cellar at Chambers Bay. Putting in something like that "just because" is stupid. It's like the courses that want to plant trees in places to "toughen up" a hole. It's stupid.

 

 

 

In its current state that new wanna be church pews bunker on 18 at TPC Scottsdale is terrible. ( I think that is the one you are talking about) IMO they should have extended that another 20-30 yards back towards the tee so it was actually in play for more people then it would be somewhat OK vs downright dumb

 

That's one of them. It's earlier on in the course though. Like hole 5 or 6

 

Nope. It is on the par 5 13th. And, while I normally appreciate tributes as appreciate Weiskopf designs, it is stupid as implemented.

 

http://www.golfdiges...changes-made-to

 

Thanks for the correction.

 

Indeed i don't remember that bunker for some reason. I had to lay up down the right side and come into a back left pin with wedge so must have totally missed that being there since it wasn't close to being in play the day i played it.

[dmarch]

My pet peeve is tee boxes that don't line you to the fairway/ hole, but instead to the trouble. I have belonged to two clubs now that Arnold Palmer designed and both have holes that do this. I HATE it.

 

Rant over..........

[ConcentricDimples]

I thought more about it and forced layups (especially on par 4 holes) may be my least favorite.

 

I'm not even long but I like hitting drivers

[naws-golfer]

My pet peeve is tee boxes that don't line you to the fairway/ hole, but instead to the trouble. I have belonged to two clubs now that Arnold Palmer designed and both have holes that do this. I HATE it.

 

Rant over..........

 

i've never understood this criticism. assuming the tee is flat, shouldn't you be able to hit it whatever direction you choose?

[Socrates]

My pet peeve is tee boxes that don't line you to the fairway/ hole, but instead to the trouble. I have belonged to two clubs now that Arnold Palmer designed and both have holes that do this. I HATE it.

 

Rant over..........

 

i've never understood this criticism. assuming the tee is flat, shouldn't you be able to hit it whatever direction you choose?

It is poor design. We are not all Tour level players and to design a tee box that deliberately points you into trouble is dirty pool. Even more so if it is a resort course and they are going to hound you about pace of play. Sort of defeats the purpose to deliberately slow down play by creating an obstacle for the player that only satisfies the designers psyche.

[krtgolfing]

My pet peeve is tee boxes that don't line you to the fairway/ hole, but instead to the trouble. I have belonged to two clubs now that Arnold Palmer designed and both have holes that do this. I HATE it.

 

Rant over..........

 

i've never understood this criticism. assuming the tee is flat, shouldn't you be able to hit it whatever direction you choose?

It is poor design. We are not all Tour level players and to design a tee box that deliberately points you into trouble is dirty pool. Even more so if it is a resort course and they are going to hound you about pace of play. Sort of defeats the purpose to deliberately slow down play by creating an obstacle for the player that only satisfies the designers psyche.

 

It is called getting a yardage book and not aiming at trouble... :beach:

[naws-golfer]

My pet peeve is tee boxes that don't line you to the fairway/ hole, but instead to the trouble. I have belonged to two clubs now that Arnold Palmer designed and both have holes that do this. I HATE it.

 

Rant over..........

 

i've never understood this criticism. assuming the tee is flat, shouldn't you be able to hit it whatever direction you choose?

It is poor design. We are not all Tour level players and to design a tee box that deliberately points you into trouble is dirty pool. Even more so if it is a resort course and they are going to hound you about pace of play. Sort of defeats the purpose to deliberately slow down play by creating an obstacle for the player that only satisfies the designers psyche.

 

so if a tee box points to a bunker, pond or trees, you just swing away and hope for the best? still think this one is on you.

[Socrates]

My pet peeve is tee boxes that don't line you to the fairway/ hole, but instead to the trouble. I have belonged to two clubs now that Arnold Palmer designed and both have holes that do this. I HATE it.

 

Rant over..........

 

i've never understood this criticism. assuming the tee is flat, shouldn't you be able to hit it whatever direction you choose?

It is poor design. We are not all Tour level players and to design a tee box that deliberately points you into trouble is dirty pool. Even more so if it is a resort course and they are going to hound you about pace of play. Sort of defeats the purpose to deliberately slow down play by creating an obstacle for the player that only satisfies the designers psyche.

 

so if a tee box points to a bunker, pond or trees, you just swing away and hope for the best? still think this one is on you.

I was primarily thinking about tees that point you out of bounds. I have no problem with bunkers or hazards or trees since those are part of the hole and are either on a yardage book or on the gps.

 

I play a lot of different courses that I have never played before and you've got a lot going on - figuring out yardages and club selection trying to do it quickly so you aren't being slow - and then after you've done everything right, you realize too late that the tee was really lining you up ob just for fun.

 

Of course it's on you because you hit it there, but it's a not helping your experience of a venue.

[teejaywhy]

My pet peeve is tee boxes that don't line you to the fairway/ hole, but instead to the trouble. I have belonged to two clubs now that Arnold Palmer designed and both have holes that do this. I HATE it.

 

Rant over..........

 

i've never understood this criticism. assuming the tee is flat, shouldn't you be able to hit it whatever direction you choose?

It is poor design. We are not all Tour level players and to design a tee box that deliberately points you into trouble is dirty pool. Even more so if it is a resort course and they are going to hound you about pace of play. Sort of defeats the purpose to deliberately slow down play by creating an obstacle for the player that only satisfies the designers psyche.

 

so if a tee box points to a bunker, pond or trees, you just swing away and hope for the best? still think this one is on you.

I was primarily thinking about tees that point you out of bounds. I have no problem with bunkers or hazards or trees since those are part of the hole and are either on a yardage book or on the gps.

 

I play a lot of different courses that I have never played before and you've got a lot going on - figuring out yardages and club selection trying to do it quickly so you aren't being slow - and then after you've done everything right, you realize too late that the tee was really lining you up ob just for fun.

 

Of course it's on you because you hit it there, but it's a not helping your experience of a venue.

 

Perhaps, just stick to the driving range?

 

[krtgolfing]

My pet peeve is tee boxes that don't line you to the fairway/ hole, but instead to the trouble. I have belonged to two clubs now that Arnold Palmer designed and both have holes that do this. I HATE it.

 

Rant over..........

 

i've never understood this criticism. assuming the tee is flat, shouldn't you be able to hit it whatever direction you choose?

It is poor design. We are not all Tour level players and to design a tee box that deliberately points you into trouble is dirty pool. Even more so if it is a resort course and they are going to hound you about pace of play. Sort of defeats the purpose to deliberately slow down play by creating an obstacle for the player that only satisfies the designers psyche.

 

so if a tee box points to a bunker, pond or trees, you just swing away and hope for the best? still think this one is on you.

I was primarily thinking about tees that point you out of bounds. I have no problem with bunkers or hazards or trees since those are part of the hole and are either on a yardage book or on the gps.

 

I play a lot of different courses that I have never played before and you've got a lot going on - figuring out yardages and club selection trying to do it quickly so you aren't being slow - and then after you've done everything right, you realize too late that the tee was really lining you up ob just for fun.

 

Of course it's on you because you hit it there, but it's a not helping your experience of a venue.

 

Why don't you just align the ball correctly instead of parallel to the the tee box?

[warfelg]

I don't see the big deal of tee boxes pointing somewhere other than right down the middle of the fairway.

 

There's many reasons as to why this is done including: space, sight lines, safety, aesthetics, water management, earth movement management, and a bunch of others. Take a critical thought off the tee box, look out and pick your line. You shouldn't be letting the tee box pick your line for you.

[ldgriff07]

A forced layup on a Par 4 doesn't bother me nearly as much as a forced layup on a Par 5. I know that nothing says a Par 5 has to be reachable in two, but I hate when I get up to a Par 5 and I'm forced to put something like hybrid in my hand because water or whatever else may come in to play at the 250+ yard range. When I come to a Par 5, I just expect that I'm going to be putting the big dog in my hand off the tee.

 

I also dislike crazy long Par 3's. As someone who typically plays the tips at most golf courses, I have no problem with 600 yard Par 5's or 450+ Par 4's. It's honestly not so much that the Par 3 is 220+ but it's the fact that typically the green isn't made to receive a shot from that distance. Whether it be because there's a force carry of 210+ or because the green is so small, the hole just isn't made to be played from that distance typically. The next tee up is typically around the 180 yard range and the hole is designed much more to receive a 7 or 6 iron shot.

[warfelg]

I also dislike crazy long Par 3's. As someone who typically plays the tips at most golf courses, I have no problem with 600 yard Par 5's or 450+ Par 4's. It's honestly not so much that the Par 3 is 220+ but it's the fact that typically the green isn't made to receive a shot from that distance. Whether it be because there's a force carry of 210+ or because the green is so small, the hole just isn't made to be played from that distance typically. The next tee up is typically around the 180 yard range and the hole is designed much more to receive a 7 or 6 iron shot.

 

What your kinda describing with this sounds like a course that was lengthened and they didn't add distance at the right places.

 

Typically if a hole is designed to be a long par 3 in the first place either the green will be huge (#8 at Oakmont), there will be a lot of space in front of the green, or the green will be pitched back to front. If it's a small well protected green and playing 180+, it's clearly a hole designed to play short that a designer just added length to.

 

But on the flip side for many designers: The balls are better, hybrids are in more bags, players are getting better. When it was a low launching iron that would run out, you had to give things I mentioned before. But now with balls that stop easier and clubs that hit higher and land softer, you kinda need to bring a little bit of a challenge in.

[umassgolfer]

I can't stand blind tee shots, or any blind shots with trouble close to the green/fairway on blind shots. Nothing more frustrating than hitting what you think is an ok shot, having a decent line on the ball, and not being able to find it because you can't see it land.

 

Also, we have a few courses nearby that have multiple holes alongside each other with very little tree protection separating them. It is a very heavily played course; sometimes I feel like I need a helmet in my own fairway.

[deadsolid...shank]

I also dislike crazy long Par 3's. As someone who typically plays the tips at most golf courses, I have no problem with 600 yard Par 5's or 450+ Par 4's. It's honestly not so much that the Par 3 is 220+ but it's the fact that typically the green isn't made to receive a shot from that distance. Whether it be because there's a force carry of 210+ or because the green is so small, the hole just isn't made to be played from that distance typically. The next tee up is typically around the 180 yard range and the hole is designed much more to receive a 7 or 6 iron shot.

 

What your kinda describing with this sounds like a course that was lengthened and they didn't add distance at the right places.

 

Typically if a hole is designed to be a long par 3 in the first place either the green will be huge (#8 at Oakmont), there will be a lot of space in front of the green, or the green will be pitched back to front. If it's a small well protected green and playing 180+, it's clearly a hole designed to play short that a designer just added length to.

 

But on the flip side for many designers: The balls are better, hybrids are in more bags, players are getting better. When it was a low launching iron that would run out, you had to give things I mentioned before. But now with balls that stop easier and clubs that hit higher and land softer, you kinda need to bring a little bit of a challenge in.

 

We have a hole at our home course. About 380. Just slightly downhill. Very small green with a good size mound in it. Basically decides the green into three distinct segments. Very amkeable putt if you're in the correct "segment". Thick rough right front, deep bunker left front, sharp drop off to trees behind. Small area (about five yards wide) in front where you can run your ball on. Really fun little hole, great green. Usually some kind of wedge in.

 

A few years back we added a new tee. Back behind a lake, aims you OB. Thick trees down the left at about driver distance (fairway is amply wide however, just tough sight lines). Generally plays into the prevailing breeze. Hole is now a 480 yard par four. This green that was designed for a short iron approach is a different beast when you're hitting hybrid or long iron in.

 

Because the course hasn't be rated for a while, it's still like #13 handicap hole.

[smashdn]

RE: Tee Boxes Leading You Astray

 

What do you do on the freeform tee boxes that aren't like a darn airport runway?

[ldgriff07]

I also dislike crazy long Par 3's. As someone who typically plays the tips at most golf courses, I have no problem with 600 yard Par 5's or 450+ Par 4's. It's honestly not so much that the Par 3 is 220+ but it's the fact that typically the green isn't made to receive a shot from that distance. Whether it be because there's a force carry of 210+ or because the green is so small, the hole just isn't made to be played from that distance typically. The next tee up is typically around the 180 yard range and the hole is designed much more to receive a 7 or 6 iron shot.

 

What your kinda describing with this sounds like a course that was lengthened and they didn't add distance at the right places.

 

Typically if a hole is designed to be a long par 3 in the first place either the green will be huge (#8 at Oakmont), there will be a lot of space in front of the green, or the green will be pitched back to front. If it's a small well protected green and playing 180+, it's clearly a hole designed to play short that a designer just added length to.

 

But on the flip side for many designers: The balls are better, hybrids are in more bags, players are getting better. When it was a low launching iron that would run out, you had to give things I mentioned before. But now with balls that stop easier and clubs that hit higher and land softer, you kinda need to bring a little bit of a challenge in.

 

We have a hole at our home course. About 380. Just slightly downhill. Very small green with a good size mound in it. Basically decides the green into three distinct segments. Very amkeable putt if you're in the correct "segment". Thick rough right front, deep bunker left front, sharp drop off to trees behind. Small area (about five yards wide) in front where you can run your ball on. Really fun little hole, great green. Usually some kind of wedge in.

 

A few years back we added a new tee. Back behind a lake, aims you OB. Thick trees down the left at about driver distance (fairway is amply wide however, just tough sight lines). Generally plays into the prevailing breeze. Hole is now a 480 yard par four. This green that was designed for a short iron approach is a different beast when you're hitting hybrid or long iron in.

 

Because the course hasn't be rated for a while, it's still like #13 handicap hole.

 

That seems to be becoming a problem. These courses feel the need to "lengthen" but don't take into consideration that the hole was meant to be played into with a certain club. It'd be one thing if they only lengthened that hole 20 yards, but 100 yards just isn't right.

 

That's kind of my same gripe with the USGA playing Par 5's as Par 4's in the US Open. Most the time when they do that, the holes weren't meant to be played into with long irons and hybrids, at least not as a 2nd shot on a Par 4. They were meant for wedges and short irons.

[One_Putt_Blunder]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

This is what happens when your course goes with the lowest bidder on the renovation project.

 

I absolutely agree that if you are going to add significant yardage the green complex is going to need to be tweaked as well.

 

Another good example of that is number 10 at ASU Karsten was a 510ish yard par 5 now it is a 500 yard par 4. Well the problem was they never changed the green which was originally designed for wedge approaches as a 3rd on the par 5 with mounding etc fronting the green to make the 2nd more risk vs reward with the up and down left. Now unless you can hit a towering 2nd from 200+ that stops on a dime you have no chance at GIR

[SlickT73]

Lets see here:

 

Tress in the middle of the fairway on a tee shot are horrible. There was a par 5 where I used to hit 9-iron off the tee because of this sort of BS.

 

Long par 3s that are simply boring and straight. It's one thing if I can play a bank-in running shot off a hill 20 yards short or something, but just asking for a boring 5 iron is pointless.

 

Tees that line you up anywhere but the fairway.

 

Par 4s where a flat, small green is on top of a huge hill. Usually requiring a layup off the tee as well. I don't know where this hole type came from - seems to be more prevalent where I live than elsewhere - but boy are these holes stupid. Just boring and tricked up.

 

Give me driveable 4s, good doglegs with options, split fairways, short and challenging par 3s, and reachable par 5s with options and trouble by the green.

[Socrates]

Perhaps, just stick to the driving range?

Why don't you just align the ball correctly instead of parallel to the the tee box?

RE: Tee Boxes Leading You Astray

What do you do on the freeform tee boxes that aren't like a darn airport runway?

I was going to write some snappy comments about the witty comments, but then I read the "Matsuyama crushing that bug at 18" thread and I realized that there was real wit being displayed there and I'll just move on. BTW, you guys have nothing on KYMAR. :hi:

[Shawn Paul]

I like trees on the course but I live in MN so there are trees everywhere all the time.

 

One thing that really grinds my gears - Par 3's that have a big elevation drop to them. An example is a par 3 that would play 120 but has a drop of 80 feet and plays more like 75 yds. I over hit the green every friggin time the first time I play the hole. I also feel it is kind of lazy from the course designer like they just kind of squeezed in a par 3 down a giant hill cause it would be neato.

[jli2636]

Courses where all of the par 3's have almost identical distances. I dont want to hit the same club into every par 3.