Bad course design!

[rebby]

Forgive me for belaboring the point, but you might have missed that the distances in my post were with respect to the *forward* tees. The options you lay out above might apply to a 3 or 4 handicapper like yourself, but they aren't an option for most people. If you play the middle or back tees, which I presume you'd do at your skill level, add 54 or 75 respectively to all your carry/approach distances. I.e., even with the safe option you're hitting 234/275 to a green surrounded by hazards. And in the moderate option you need to carry 254/275 to clear the water.

Sight unseen, I'd still say that it's fair. Difficult yes, but it still sounds fair. I regularly play a course that has a required carry of 265 from the back tees over water. You have no choice, there is no layup option. Carry your drive 265 or take a penalty and go to the drop area. This is from the back tees. If you play the green tees, the required carry is only 185. From the white it's only 160. Just like the hole that you described above, it's difficult yet fair as long as you play from the tee box that makes the most sense based on your skill level.

I don't believe that a difficult hole constitutes as bad design. Quite the contrary actually. I enjoy the challenge presented via difficulty. What I hate, and consider bad design, are gimmicks (like the ones that I mentioned earlier in the thread). Put a giant oak tree smack dab in front of the tee box on the hole that we're discussing, and I'll be the first to agree that it's a bad design and unfair to the golfer.

[sacm3bill]

Sight unseen, I'd still say that it's fair. Difficult yes, but it still sounds fair... I don't believe that a difficult hole constitutes as bad design.

Hmm, good points... You may have turned me around on this.

[bwdial]

Another design peeve of mine is holes shaped like this: \_/

Not doglegs that double back (although those are dumb), but rather the elevated tee-chasm-elevated green variety of hole where a good tee shot is often rewarded with a poorer result than a mediocre tee shot. If driving past my playing partner by twenty yards means that I will actually wind up with a longer second shot than him because my ball picked up more steam as it careened back down the hill, you have failed as an architect.

[ohiolefty]

I dislike long walks between holes for no reason, particularly on 'parallel' holes. Most of the time, you're better to shorten the walk and add some dogleg into the hole(s).

[passintime]

I also dislike the "long just so we can say we are long" courses. Especially the ones that offer nothing that is appealing to the eye, and no hazards. I don't like playing a course where I get deja vu on every par 4.

[Blades4me]

I have heard of this for quite a while. "That course sucks its design is horrible" Now they sometimes say things like real golf doesn't involve going from a 5 story tee box to a green from only 130 yards away. and also you shouldnt have a tee shot that can only go about 150 yards and a carry of 300 yards so your second shot has to be a really long shot to the green. not sure im making any sense but what do you guys consider good or bad course design.... I really thought the course is made and you manage it as much as you can.

IMO, some courses do have a poor design, but most the time its b/c the person isn't that good of a golfer. My favorite is, "I don't like that course b/c I loose too many balls", translation, "I'm a hack". I really like the "old par 5 design" where the dog leg isn't until around 140-175 yds from the green cuz you really have to place that 2nd shot wisely and of course execute the shot. All courses have their personality, so understanding that and, pray tell, course management can usually takes the bite out.

I think it was Pete Dye who said, "golf isn't a fair game, so why try and design a fair course".

[bwdial]

IMO, some courses do have a poor design, but most the time its b/c the person isn't that good of a golfer. My favorite is, "I don't like that course b/c I loose too many balls", translation, "I'm a hack". I really like the "old par 5 design" where the dog leg isn't until around 140-175 yds from the green cuz you really have to place that 2nd shot wisely and of course execute the shot. All courses have their personality, so understanding that and, pray tell, course management can usually takes the bite out.

True, but there's a difference between a course that's difficult because it requires you to play perfect shots, and a course that's just impossible because even the best shots are penalized by severely sloping fairways or trees that have grown so large that they completely interfere with play.

The University of Alabama course that I described in one of my previous posts was definitely in the latter category. Hole number six rewarded a 250 yard driver caught on the screws (early 1990s mind you) with roughly the same second shot as a topped worm burner, since both would simply roll to the bottom of the deep chasm called a fairway between the tee and green. The topography of hole seven was a little less severe, but still very similar. Hole eight was, if you can believe it, even worse. Even the best place drives along the right side of the fairway were almost certainly destined to collect in scrub along the cart path along the left side of the fairway. A drive in the middle of the fairway might just make it into the lake. That's not a challenge. That's simply poor design.

[sean_miller]

I think it was Pete Dye who said, "golf isn't a fair game, so why try and design a fair course".

That might explain why his newer courses are so awful. Golf should be fun.

My least favourite designs: 1.) very elevated tee boxes for no reason. 2.) fairway bunkers that look like targets off the tee but actually have so much long rough in between the fairway and the bunker that a straight shot is a guaranteed lost ball. 3.) greens that have3 or 4 prime pin positions that are fair and one that is impossible to reach with a full shot, chip, or a lag putt, and guess where they put the pin - 7 days a week 4.) par 3 tee boxes that are too small to maintain properly 5.) courses that only allow you to hit either perfectly straight or a fade - all trouble and OB left on every hole - sorry but I'm not coming back! 6.) ~ half the holes at Pioneer Meadows in south Edmonton. 18 holes on a piece of land barely big enough for 9 holes. There is someone in your fairway or bombing one over your head on almost every hole.

[Blades4me]

True, but there's a difference between a course that's difficult because it requires you to play perfect shots, and a course that's just impossible because even the best shots are penalized by severely sloping fairways or trees that have grown so large that they completely interfere with play.

After I posted I thought about it a little more, and you are correct IMO.

That might explain why his newer courses are so awful. Golf should be fun.

LOL, golf is fun, but only with a good atittude. Your points are very valid. I will work on expanding my view(s). LOL, "thanks, I needed that".

[aloharb]

I hate courses that penalize you for hitting a good drive by putting a bunker in the middle of the landing area on a dogleg. I don't care much for Robert Trent Jones railroad ties in the traps either.
Rod

[Fourputt]

I hate courses that penalize you for hitting a good drive by putting a bunker in the middle of the landing area on a dogleg. I don't care much for Robert Trent Jones railroad ties in the traps either.

I've played several RTJ courses... haven't yet seen a railroad tie in a bunker. Doesn't mean it can't happen, but I don't think it's a standard ploy of his. Pete Dye is the designer who is infamous for his use of railroad ties.

[aloharb]

You are right. Got my designers mixed up.
Rod