How to design a "fair" and fun Golf course

[WUTiger]

9 hours ago, collapse said:

I think the PGA tour average is about 280....the average recreational golfer is probably under 240.

For the people I play with, half the 240 yard drives are followed by a sideways punch shot back to the fairway.

[Lihu]

My home course(s) offers pretty much what is described in the OP. You'd need to play 36 holes to get the entire experience described in the OP.

[onthehunt526]

@WUTiger I saw those two scorecards and know it is possible.  Glen Echo CC, especially falls into this template, but Normandie GC is along the same lines.

What I'm getting at with my plan is a variety of holes. Of course the short possibly driveable par 4 is going to have some trouble to maybe thwart attempting to drive the green, the short and medium par-4s would leave Driver as an option, but make throttling back the lightest shade, the Long par 4s would be fair by allowing room for run up shots. That's part of the challenge of design. However, like you guys have stated, the land and terrain dictates what you can do with the course.

[Grumpter]

For me varying the distance of the holes, within reason, is near the bottom of list of required elements when I think about a 'fun and fair' course. So much can be done to vary the way the same distance hole is played that is not really that important as long as the overall distance is not too short or too long.

For me when I think of 'fun and fair' it comes down to:

-  Not having 3 par 3's over 200 yards (though I do regularly play and enjoy one course that does have 3 par 3's at that length).
- Having at least 3 par 5's of which I can reach 2 (not every time but when I hit good shots). I can't recall many courses I like that have only 2 par 5's.
       * I played a course this weekend that has 5 par 5's and I really like the setup and course.
- Having enough length to make it a challenge rather than just driver wedge all day
      * Though playing a driver/wedge course every once in a while is darn fun in my book
- At least 1 par 4 that is drivable and a second that I can get pretty close (within 25 yards of green)
- Not consistently blocking shots to greens with trees. If they do have a hole or two with trees blocking the approach from one side of the fairway at least make the green reachable with a good escape shot.
     * A course I play blocks the right side of the fairway with a huge Oak. If I can get past it (maybe 20% of the time) or land on the left side of the fairway then I am left with a clear shot. If you get on the right side you are done. The tree blocks the approach to the right, It is red staked to the left, the rest of the fairway doglegs right, there are more trees further right and sand traps line the right side of the fairway from about 75 yards in. You can hit a very good drive and end up with no choice but to punch out to 100'ish yards in. Aim too far left on the drive is risky as a creek runs down the left side just a few yards off the fairway.

I could list more but this is getting more into my personal likes/dislikes. At the end of the day I just think the varying length of the holes is really not much of an issue as long as there is some variety in club selection. Elevation, bunkers, hazards etc. can make the same distance holes play very different.

[WUTiger]

4 hours ago, onthehunt526 said:

@WUTiger I saw those two scorecards and know it is possible.  Glen Echo CC, especially falls into this template, but Normandie GC is along the same lines.

... However, like you guys have stated, the land and terrain dictates what you can do with the course.

For the past decade, I have found a marginal land theme in different discussions of course architecture: More and more, courses are being build on marginal land - namely, land that has limited use for other things due to slope, vegetation, etc. This can box the architect in on the variety of holes offered - especially a less imaginative architect.

Also, golf faces increasing liability problems if someone gets injured due to creative design and routing of holes. For example, lawyers recommend this for parallel holes: the main traces of the holes should be about 70 yds. apart - preferably with trees in between - to lessen chances of injuries and lawsuits. You can't count on people to be careful any more.

A lot of decisions occur before we get tee up on a course's opening season!

[SavvySwede]

Just don't make a hole like this

[CoachB25]

On 12/5/2015, 10:17:39, saevel25 said:

It's not all about yardage. You can effectively lengthen or shorten a hole by adding hazards or doglegs. 

I really never think about it much. I've played the same course twice. One day I had 9 iron for an approach 5 holes in a row. The next time it was completely different. 

Even the best laid plans don't turn out the way you want. 

Exactly!  Doglegs necessitate placement golf in many places in my area.  We tend to have some radical doglegs.  I don't like them on some courses.  However, we have a couple that have doglegs with either a water or sand hazard protecting against anyone cheating a corner.   I might add that on some courses, the tee box placement is the problem.  Some have "safe" tee boxes for open play when, once in a while courses should open up those more challenging tee boxes.  At my home course, two holes in particular have tee boxes that can drive you crazy when open.  I love playing the course on those days.  One has a water hazard that runs diagonally to the tee box but creates a kind of optical illusion where players constantly hit into that water.  I crack up watching it all the time.  The other has two water hazards you have to clear when the box is over to the side.  I love that one also since I hit a three wood off or a slope and trust my ball will run out of steam before it gets to the water's edge.

[boogielicious]

12 hours ago, SavvySwede said:

Just don't make a hole like this

The designer of this hole should be made to play it as their only hole for eternity a la Sisyphus. 

[WUTiger]

17 hours ago, SavvySwede said:

Just don't make a hole like this

If this course is 20 years old or more, it's probably a hole that "settled out funny." The current greens crew should:

• Cut down the big tree (lakeside) on either side of the driving gap to open up the hole a little.
• Bring in a bulldozer, and soften the right shoulder of both the landing area and greenside slope.

The Oak Hills public course in Jefferson City, MO., has received a lot of edge softening, plus a complete re-do on several of the holes. The course is much more reasonable now.

[dave s]

Couple of thoughts:

1.  I really enjoy playing Jack Nicklaus Design courses.  They set up nicely from the tee boxes to my eye.  His designs challenge you to hit shots to the right areas of the course.  When you do, it sets up a good scoring opportunity. When you don't, you pay a little, but not dearly.  I believe his overall strategy is to design and build golf courses for all skill levels.  Honestly, I've never walked off a Nicklaus course feeling like I was overmatched or that the course beat me up. Fair, fun and great scoring opportunities if you 'play the course.'

2. One course close to my home plays 6100 from the white tees.  It's both challenging and enjoyable to play.  Good scores can be had if you play the course.  OTOH, from the blue tees, it plays 6700+ yards.  In the 90s, they built another set of tees that added 600+ yards to the course without considering what it did to how the course could be played.  For example, two holes require 200+ carry from the tees to reach the rough.  Not the fairway, the rough!  We played blue tees there this year which made what should be an enjoyable round of golf not so much.

[natureboy]

23 hours ago, SavvySwede said:

Just don't make a hole like this

 

That looks tough, but isn't the 'intended' play for a high draw that starts out over the water and then goes up and over the trees with the gap as a 'bail'  or window to allow a fade or straight shot?...not that I would hit the fairway or clear the trees all that often myself

[SavvySwede]

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

That looks tough, but isn't the 'intended' play for a high draw that starts out over the water and then goes up and over the trees with the gap as a 'bail'  or window to allow a fade or straight shot?...not that I would hit the fairway or clear the trees all that often myself

It's too risky to call it the intended play but it is possible. The tee box is below the base of the trees so you really need to get it up quick. I usually try to take a 4 wood straight over but it's a pretty nerve racking shot, very easy to make double if you don't get the tee shot just right. The course isn't very long sand I think a lot of folks play the whites simply to avoid that tee shot.

[natureboy]

6 minutes ago, SavvySwede said:

The tee box is below the base of the trees so you really need to get it up quick.

Ah, I missed that. Stupid hole then. My fix would be to replace the trees with short growing trees (like apples) or high bushes so the draw over the water is a decent risk/reward play. Clearly the fairway is canted to receive a draw. They probably let the trees grow too tall.

[DrvFrShow]

I would build a course that doesn't punish you for hitting a good shot.

[WUTiger]

It's difficult to build a golf course that serves "all golfers." Golf courses with 36 holes sometimes have a competitive 18 and a more recreational 18.

Case in point is the Paradise Point golf center at Camp Lejeune, NC. (A major Marine Corps base). Paradise has two courses:

• Gold | Champ tees 7,040 yds. | Par 72 | Rating/Slope = 74.2/129
• Scarlet | Champ tees 5,911 yds. | Par 70 | Rating/Slope = 67.7/114

The Scarlet course has four of its nine par 4s at less than 325 yards.

Comparison: Scarlet course has No. 16, a 471-yard par 5 // Gold course has No. 18, a 477-yard par 4.

Circa 1987, the Gold course had a handicap restriction on who could play it (if I remember right, 18 or better)

Details: Paradise Point score cards 

[Coronagolfman]

Go find a Tom Fazio course and play it a few times - you will see that his designs are much more playable than those of the great player-architects whose knowledge of the game and course design is clouded by their high skill levels.  Arnie is a close second in my book, although he typically will throw in a few very long and/or tough holes that will really demand no less than pro-level play.

[imsys0042]

On December 5, 2015 at 3:35 AM, SavvySwede said:

I like the idea only issue being how to get those holes to "play" to those yardages. Short to medium par 4's need some sort of defense against tee shots to keep them from becoming push overs and occasionally encourage using less than driver off the tee. You need to factor in elevation and prevailing winds as well. Two courses by me, Mercer Oaks East and West do a pretty good job of it.

I used to play there all the time.   Most of the people there are really nice.   They did do a very good job with those courses.

The only thing I would add to the thread is that it's nice to have an "unfair" hole on a golf course so you feel good about par or birdie.   Mercer Oaks #11 has a tree right center of the hole.   Unless you go left fairway or hit it past where the tree blocks the green, it's a pain.

My home course has a par 4 that plays like a bear.   Gary Van Sickle referred to it as "the most unfair par 4 in North America".   Feels really good to par it!  

[No Mulligans]

I recently played an almost par 3 (it had one par 4 hole) that I thought had a great layout.  It had contours and mounds on the fairways, contours on the greens, was well bunkered, and was pretty scenic.  What I liked is that it called for every club in my bag and I think it was designed that way.  I played from the back tees and some of the hole distances are: 101, 120, 132, 151, 167, 175, 183, 195, 203, 213, 228, 315.  As I said, the layout pretty much has it covered.

My wife on the regulation (not the par 3) course which illustrates the scenery:

Scorecard: