Least favorite design feature on a golf hole.

[Skaffa77]

 

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

 

You know...I can understand the OP's thought. While I consider it part of the design and strategy for the hole, a misaligned tee box for whatever reason screws with my sense of alignment. Let's say that there is a creek on the right side of a hole and the tee boxes are cut and aim that direction. When I set-up to aim down the fairway (left of the direction of the tee box), my peripheral vision will see the tee boxes edges and unintentionally, I may "feel" like I'm misaligned too much to the left. As sad as it sounds...it can creep into my swing and have unintended consequences.

[AlecEmersonGolf]

a hazard that you cannot see

[Skaffa77]

Personally, my pet peeve...

 

1. A hole that has no outlet for a miss. In other words...a tight hole with danger left and right. I get the challenge aspect, but I feel that golf should be both playable and challenging for all levels. If the left side is OB or water...I like to see the right side as a safe outlet and with that safety comes a harder or less advantageous next shot.

 

2. An unreachable Par 5. In my mind...a Par 5 should set up for a long 2nd shot that presents risk/reward and challenges the golfer if they want to go for it. I've played a few 600+ yard par 5's where you pound the driver 280+ and realize that you have no chance to reach the green and are forced to hit 2 mid or 2 long iron shots. It feels like all risk...no reward...

[ClarkGrswld4]

trees that overhang the green! a shot from the fairway that is hit directly at the green should not be hitting tree limbs IMO

[geesecougar2]

Overhanging trees off the tee that force you to hit a specific shot shape.

[umassgolfer]

trees that overhang the green! a shot from the fairway that is hit directly at the green should not be hitting tree limbs IMO

 

I agree, expect in the instance of the tree only blocking the green from certain angles. Two instances i can think of from courses I've played. I've been victimized by both but did not feel like the holes were "unfair".

 

1) Par 5, dogleg left. If you get too far right on your layup, even from the fairway, part of the green will be obstructed. That is the hole's defense. Play a smart layup and its a reasonably easy approach. But get loose with it, or try for the green in 2 and stay out right, and you're in trouble.

 

2) Short par 4. Similar as above, tree off to the front left of the green. 350 or so from the tips. Designed to be played 5-iron or so from the tee, leaving a short iron in. Or drive it down near the green and try for an up and down. But if you're laying up and cant control a mid-iron, you might not have (or deserve) a clean look at the whole green.

[SuperPapaBear]

Features that seem forced or develop from lack of maintenance. There is a par 5 on a course that dog legs around 200. When the course s built I'm sure you could carry the trees, but now, 40 years later, you can't.

[MichiganMan]

Dogleg par 4s that force you to hit an iron off the tee and then a similar (or longer) iron into the green.

 

Used to play a ton of these types of holes in MI during my HS golf days.

[Petunia Sprinkle]

Tree in the dead center of the fairway. no reason one should be punished for pounding a drive center cut.

 

Except, if there's a tree in the center of the fairway, a center cut drive is not the correct shot. The required shot is either a fade or a draw around, or if you're a maniac, a towering bomb over it.

[bruinsPATSirish]

Played a course with a couple of golfwrx's yesterday at Metamora CC, and something came to my attention. As a comparative short knocker (my good ones go 240), one of my least favorite holes is a long par 4 with a forced layup off the tee. I don't want to hit a 200 yard tee ball and leave myself with 200+ in. And it was even worse than that, because it was a dogleg left, with the tee ball over a lake. The big hitters can cut the corner, but to be safe I can't do that. So any amount I push it right leaves me with an even longer approach shot.

 

Another type of hole I don't like is one whose design overly punishes a tee ball which is barely offline. A course called Greystone which we played Saturday has the final two holes like this. They're ridiculous designs. Hit a tee ball 1 foot too far right and it's as bad as hitting it 50 yards too far right.

 

I totally agree with your point about being forced to lay up and then still having 200+ into the green. What a dumb design.

 

I also hate when a course creates a golf hole and decides to leave a tree/shrub/something in the middle of the fairway as a "design element". That isn't a good design, that's called mini golf! You leaving a 120 foot oak tree in the dead nut center of the fairway is silly, might as well be a damn Windmill!

[PuttCurseRepeat]

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.

 

Did the original tee mark the "tip" on that hole and now the new tip is 480? Can the hole still be played from 380 yard tees? If it's a better hole from 380, that's the way I'd play it, unless forced to move back for a tournament.

[deadsolid...shank]

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.

 

Did the original tee mark the "tip" on that hole and now the new tip is 480? Can the hole still be played from 380 yard tees? If it's a better hole from 380, that's the way I'd play it, unless forced to move back for a tournament.

 

Yeah, 380 was the tips and yeah, they're still there, just the blue tees now. The new tee was put in mainly for the pros in the ProAm we host.

 

It probably is a better hole from the 380 but our group normally play the tips so we just head there.

[warfelg]

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.

 

Did the original tee mark the "tip" on that hole and now the new tip is 480? Can the hole still be played from 380 yard tees? If it's a better hole from 380, that's the way I'd play it, unless forced to move back for a tournament.

 

Yeah, 380 was the tips and yeah, they're still there, just the blue tees now. The new tee was put in mainly for the pros in the ProAm we host.

 

It probably is a better hole from the 380 but our group normally play the tips so we just head there.

 

That's still just a huge jump in distance. Was there any consideration for a "mid" tee....maybe like 430-450? Or maybe some work done to the green to keep that character and make it more receptive?

 

Sorry, that's one of my big pet peeves with some courses/architects. When they are brought in to update a course, they generally just add a tee, forgetting to make to green complex be more receptive to the added length of the hole.

[deadsolid...shank]

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.

 

Did the original tee mark the "tip" on that hole and now the new tip is 480? Can the hole still be played from 380 yard tees? If it's a better hole from 380, that's the way I'd play it, unless forced to move back for a tournament.

 

Yeah, 380 was the tips and yeah, they're still there, just the blue tees now. The new tee was put in mainly for the pros in the ProAm we host.

 

It probably is a better hole from the 380 but our group normally play the tips so we just head there.

 

That's still just a huge jump in distance. Was there any consideration for a "mid" tee....maybe like 430-450? Or maybe some work done to the green to keep that character and make it more receptive?

 

Sorry, that's one of my big pet peeves with some courses/architects. When they are brought in to update a course, they generally just add a tee, forgetting to make to green complex be more receptive to the added length of the hole.

 

I think green work is so expensive it probably wasn't considered. And it's such a good green, I would hate to lose it, even if it fit the longer distance better.

On the plus side there really is very little play from the new tee. Our group, maybe one or two others, the pros, and championship flight of the club championship.

 

The entire distance added is a lake so there wasn't an option for a tee in the middle range.

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

Played a course recently that had an annoying feature:

It's a short par 4, maybe less than 380 from the back tees, about 340 from the regular tees. There's a bunker placed right across the fairway about 60 yards short of the edge to stop all but the big hitters from trying to drive it. That I don't mind. The problem is the massive net that protrudes from the right side about 100 yards off the tee to protect the green on a different hole. It wouldn't be so bad, but the tee ground is wide rather than deep, and they always place the tees on the right edge of the tee box, making it into a dogleg where you have to hit left to avoid the net. Plus, there's a hazard left, and the tees point there. You already have to lay up because of the bunker, but unless you can hit a sharp fade, you now have to layup about 170~180 or risk the hazard. It's not like the second is easy, because the green drops away right, and there is OB right, left, and back.

It would be a perfectly fine par 4 with a straight tee shot (lay up, hit wedge/short-iron into tricky green), but the massive net and placing of the tees makes it into a silly hole.

[warfelg]

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.

 

Did the original tee mark the "tip" on that hole and now the new tip is 480? Can the hole still be played from 380 yard tees? If it's a better hole from 380, that's the way I'd play it, unless forced to move back for a tournament.

 

Yeah, 380 was the tips and yeah, they're still there, just the blue tees now. The new tee was put in mainly for the pros in the ProAm we host.

 

It probably is a better hole from the 380 but our group normally play the tips so we just head there.

 

That's still just a huge jump in distance. Was there any consideration for a "mid" tee....maybe like 430-450? Or maybe some work done to the green to keep that character and make it more receptive?

 

Sorry, that's one of my big pet peeves with some courses/architects. When they are brought in to update a course, they generally just add a tee, forgetting to make to green complex be more receptive to the added length of the hole.

 

I think green work is so expensive it probably wasn't considered. And it's such a good green, I would hate to lose it, even if it fit the longer distance better.

On the plus side there really is very little play from the new tee. Our group, maybe one or two others, the pros, and championship flight of the club championship.

 

The entire distance added is a lake so there wasn't an option for a tee in the middle range.

 

Interesting about the lake predicating the change in distance.

 

And I didn't mean specifically the green itself, more the area around it and making it maybe so you can run a shot up there, or better space behind for balls that go long. I imagine you can fo it without dramatically changing the area around it. But of course I say that without seeing it.

[smashdn]

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.

 

It is common for archies to use a par three to get over a large elevation change in the topography of the land. They often have you teeing over gullies and quarries and other junk too just to get you around it in the layout of the course. Still perturbing though.

[teejaywhy]

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.

 

Did the original tee mark the "tip" on that hole and now the new tip is 480? Can the hole still be played from 380 yard tees? If it's a better hole from 380, that's the way I'd play it, unless forced to move back for a tournament.

 

Yeah, 380 was the tips and yeah, they're still there, just the blue tees now. The new tee was put in mainly for the pros in the ProAm we host.

 

It probably is a better hole from the 380 but our group normally play the tips so we just head there.

 

That's still just a huge jump in distance. Was there any consideration for a "mid" tee....maybe like 430-450? Or maybe some work done to the green to keep that character and make it more receptive?

 

Sorry, that's one of my big pet peeves with some courses/architects. When they are brought in to update a course, they generally just add a tee, forgetting to make to green complex be more receptive to the added length of the hole.

 

Many times, stuff like this is done "in house," without knowledgable architectural input. The results can be poorly conceived and implemented.

 

[deadsolid...shank]

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.

 

Did the original tee mark the "tip" on that hole and now the new tip is 480? Can the hole still be played from 380 yard tees? If it's a better hole from 380, that's the way I'd play it, unless forced to move back for a tournament.

 

Yeah, 380 was the tips and yeah, they're still there, just the blue tees now. The new tee was put in mainly for the pros in the ProAm we host.

 

It probably is a better hole from the 380 but our group normally play the tips so we just head there.

 

That's still just a huge jump in distance. Was there any consideration for a "mid" tee....maybe like 430-450? Or maybe some work done to the green to keep that character and make it more receptive?

 

Sorry, that's one of my big pet peeves with some courses/architects. When they are brought in to update a course, they generally just add a tee, forgetting to make to green complex be more receptive to the added length of the hole.

 

Many times, stuff like this is done "in house," without knowledgable architectural input. The results can be poorly conceived and implemented.

 

We are a very "landlocked" course. The quest to add a little more distance didn't have many options. Also added about 30 yards to another tee box (which made for a much more difficult tee ball than the other hole we've been talking about). We went from about 6,900 yards to just under 7,100. But we're at almost 4,000' of elevation so still not very long. It was done mostly for the pros.

If we want any more yardage at this point we have just a coup,e options. Some pretty drastic redesign work to move some greens and maybe tee and cart paths. Or tee boxes on the back porches of homes on the course!��

[MichiganMan]

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

 

To be fair, there are a lot of factors that determine a holes effective yardage. In theory, there could be a 20-30 yard difference in yardage between each par 3, but due to any number of factors the holes play the same yardage. I.e. wind, elevation change, temperature, etc.

 

Using the same club into each par 3 is less important to me than the designs of the holes being different.

[naws-golfer]

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

 

great point

[cagecitizen]

1. par fives that force you to take less than driver off the tee

 

2. blind approach shots - one or two per course is fine, but any greater reliance on it as a design feature is just poor architecture.

[umassgolfer]

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

 

To be fair, there are a lot of factors that determine a holes effective yardage. In theory, there could be a 20-30 yard difference in yardage between each par 3, but due to any number of factors the holes play the same yardage. I.e. wind, elevation change, temperature, etc.

 

Using the same club into each par 3 is less important to me than the designs of the holes being different.

 

Great point. At some point it becomes about lazy course set-up if all the par-3's play similar distances.

[bauer22]

I hate 2 and 3 tiered greens. I think if you're anywhere on a green you should have a shot at making a putt. Some multi tiered greens have such severe slopes that if you're on the wrong tier you can just automatically give yourself a 3 or 4 putt...

[FairwayFred]

Artifical ponds and water hazards 99% of the time are my least favorite design feature. Lazy, repetitive architecture. "When in doubt, build a pond". Boring.

[aliikane]

Blind shots where you can't see flag or fairway.

[teejaywhy]

 

We are a very "landlocked" course. The quest to add a little more distance didn't have many options. Also added about 30 yards to another tee box (which made for a much more difficult tee ball than the other hole we've been talking about). We went from about 6,900 yards to just under 7,100. But we're at almost 4,000' of elevation so still not very long. It was done mostly for the pros.

If we want any more yardage at this point we have just a coup,e options. Some pretty drastic redesign work to move some greens and maybe tee and cart paths. Or tee boxes on the back porches of homes on the course!��

 

But why compromise your course "for the pros" who make up a tiny fraction of the rounds played?

[FairwayFred]

 

We are a very "landlocked" course. The quest to add a little more distance didn't have many options. Also added about 30 yards to another tee box (which made for a much more difficult tee ball than the other hole we've been talking about). We went from about 6,900 yards to just under 7,100. But we're at almost 4,000' of elevation so still not very long. It was done mostly for the pros.

If we want any more yardage at this point we have just a coup,e options. Some pretty drastic redesign work to move some greens and maybe tee and cart paths. Or tee boxes on the back porches of homes on the course!��

 

But why compromise your course "for the pros" who make up a tiny fraction of the rounds played?

 

I wonder how many holes have been ruined and how many courses have been made worse by the quest to get the back tee yardage on the card over 7000 yards?

[deadsolid...shank]

 

We are a very "landlocked" course. The quest to add a little more distance didn't have many options. Also added about 30 yards to another tee box (which made for a much more difficult tee ball than the other hole we've been talking about). We went from about 6,900 yards to just under 7,100. But we're at almost 4,000' of elevation so still not very long. It was done mostly for the pros.

If we want any more yardage at this point we have just a coup,e options. Some pretty drastic redesign work to move some greens and maybe tee and cart paths. Or tee boxes on the back porches of homes on the course!��

 

But why compromise your course "for the pros" who make up a tiny fraction of the rounds played?

 

I wonder how many holes have been ruined and how many courses have been made worse by the quest to get the back tee yardage on the card over 7000 yards?

 

I wouldn't say it's "worse", it's definitely more difficult. And at our elevation the course plays fairly short so the 7,000 number doesn't carry the weight it does elsewhere (that's way I also mention elevation on any post relating to club distances).

 

I find it kind of fun. Most of our par fours only require a short iron or even a wedge in, so I don't mind the challenge of hitting something longer in there.

 

TeeJay, itreally didn't compromise the course because so few actually play the tips. I think I mentioned earlier that outside of our group, there might be only one or two more that play there. And it's a small, easily maintained tee box so it didn't cost much to add or maintain.

[teejaywhy]

We are a very "landlocked" course. The quest to add a little more distance didn't have many options. Also added about 30 yards to another tee box (which made for a much more difficult tee ball than the other hole we've been talking about). We went from about 6,900 yards to just under 7,100. But we're at almost 4,000' of elevation so still not very long. It was done mostly for the pros.

If we want any more yardage at this point we have just a coup,e options. Some pretty drastic redesign work to move some greens and maybe tee and cart paths. Or tee boxes on the back porches of homes on the course!��

 

But why compromise your course "for the pros" who make up a tiny fraction of the rounds played?

 

I wonder how many holes have been ruined and how many courses have been made worse by the quest to get the back tee yardage on the card over 7000 yards?

 

Seems to always be easy to extend the par 3's so you end up with a 6700 yard course with four 200 yard par 3's. THE WORST.