Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
bkuehn1952

What Relatively Common Golf Course Features Do You Dislike?

103 posts in this topic

I do not like trees or a large tree in the middle of fairways or fronting greens.  Most of us are not PGA caliber players.  Attempting to work a ball off the tee around or over a large tree smack in the middle of the fairway can be frustrating.  I can do it but I don't like a steady diet of this.  Worse are the greens protected by a large tree that require an extremely high ball flight (and often long distance) in order to clear the tree and hit the green.  Give me some options, like leaving 1/2 the green open.

Any feature the rest of you prefer not to see frequently?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

I don't like greens that don't give shot options. I like old style courses that give the choices of either flying the ball on to the green or playing a low runner to the green.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More of a layout/rules than shotmaking complaint. I don't like tees so far from the hole that the course uses that as an excuse to make you ride instead of walk.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only encountered this 2 times. Tour 18 in Houston replica hole of Bay HIll #6, and a course I played in Destin, FL. LONG sweeping, narrow par 5 with a lake to the left of it. Talk about hard. Holy cow

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stakes.  I don't like stakes.  Red ones, yellow ones, and especially white ones. :-P

Steaks, on the other hand ... :beer:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I don't like stakes.

So you prefer the painted line approach for designating hazards and OB. ;-)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I hate courses where half the holes are defined by adjacent water hazards. Zero room for error. I usually donate at least a sleeve on those type of courses.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How bout electrical lines running through the middle of the course and knocking down my better tee shots.

Oh wait. You said common. Not the goofy places that  I sometimes play.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I played at a course with a power line over a par 3.  There was a course rule that if your tee shot hit the power line, you should take a mulligan.  One day I hit the power line 3 times in a row.  It didn't really bother me as it didn't happen often most days, but it was a little silly.

I do like water though.  The more the better.  I say make every fairway an island fairway and every green an island green, fun!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you prefer the painted line approach for designating hazards and OB.

Ha!!!  Very funny. :beer: I would prefer a course that has no water, no OB and no trees.  And, while we're at it, no rough.  I can score really well on courses like that. :-P

I played at a course with a power line over a par 3.  There was a course rule that if your tee shot hit the power line, you should take a mulligan.  One day I hit the power line 3 times in a row.  It didn't really bother me as it didn't happen often most days, but it was a little silly.

I do like water though.  The more the better.  I say make every fairway an island fairway and every green an island green, fun!

Most courses I know of have a more stringent rule when it comes to power lines.  You MUST replay the shot.  Pretty frustrating when your ball just nicks one and ends up in a decent position, yet you have to give it another go anyway.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Elevated greens, meaning about 6' off the fairway.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Island greens.  I do not know why but I always toss one in the water on the first shot.  I think they just play head games with me a first.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hazzards that are blind from the tee
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Random bumps, moguls, and such in the middle of fairways that can turn otherwise well played shots into poor results.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I thought of one ... I'm not a big fan of fairway bunkers with big lips.  It's punishment enough for most of us to have to play from the sand, but to also have to get it up quickly in the air is asking a lot.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1. Any large bunker with only one decent access point. I don't feel like raking 30 yards of footprints because the architect was too lazy to put a tongue in an oversized trap.

2. Crooked tee boxes.

3. Dumb sidehill lies in the middle of the fairway.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Patches of playable grass in the middle of a bunker. Effectively an island within a bunker. What's that about?

Turnberry and Muirfield both have them.

It's either a bunker or it isn't, albeit you could argue that this is the residue of a natural landscape feature from the old links sand dune which was never always a perfectly uniform dune anyway

Not a massive fan of artifical water hazards. Make use of the natural landscape, but I can equally accept that some holes (particularly matchplay holes) are given a dramatic edge for having a lake. Need to be careful though about over doing the use of water hazards as the lazy architects response to creating a challenge

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2017 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    Leupold Golf
    Snell Golf
    Talamore Golf Resort
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • Thanks for your questions Swede. Regarding data for irons, if I understand what you are asking, the driver data can't really be correlated. Each iron would have it's own ideal launch conditions (launch angle, spin rate, ball speed) which would be based off of the player's swing speed.  The ball is designed to perform differently with longer clubs than shorter clubs, but if you can get dialed in with your driver, you'll be pretty close with the rest of the set also. The driver/shaft combo certainly affects the trajectory as well, and sometimes guys are playing the wrong ball and the wrong driver.  But what I see more often is a player who goes through the fitting process when purchasing a driver and irons, then they play whatever ball happens to be on sale.  It would be like using a different driver every time they played!  When trying to optimize trajectory, the ball is a good place to start.  Why buy a new driver when moving to a different ball can make the difference?  Sometimes the ball will help some, but to get where a player needs to be a different shaft or driver might be needed also. A lot of guys will go through a ball fitting whenever they get a new driver, which is not a bad idea.  Usually, if your previous driver fit properly and the new one fits properly, the ball will work just fine.  I usually suggest going through a ball fitting at least every-other-season just to make sure.  Sometimes our swings evolve...maybe your swing has improved or swing speed has increased, or it could be the other way, but it's good to make sure your stuff is correct.
    • To be clear, I have never talked about "the Titleist fitting." I don't know what they do to fit players. I'm simply talking about their recommendation to start at the green and work backward, but ultimately to consider all the shots you play in a round of golf, not just ones with the driver. I'm not talking about "here's two balls, try them out." I'm talking about the idea of "here are 30 kinds of golf ball. I eliminated a few because they felt horrible off my putter. I eliminated a few more for poor performance around the green. I eliminated some more for poor spin or flight with my irons. Of the six that I had left, these two performed well with my driver, so one of them is a good fit. If they have a super official "ball fitting" process, I wasn't talking about that, nor was I talking about a "here is a Pro V1 and a Pro V1x… hit some shots and pick one." So… I wish you hadn't devoted that much attention to the "Titleist method" in your post when that's not at all what I was asking. My point was… I'm skeptical that the Bridgestone method (only hitting a few balls, not doing much to account for consistent tee heights, ball position, players getting "warmed up" during the process, etc., only using the driver and disregarding the rest of the shots) is a great method, either.
    • 1. Golf is elitist. So far from true but I still get way too many people who chuckle at my interest in golf- as if I should be embarrassed that I enjoy such a snobby pastime.  2. Just swing your swing- and stop obsessing about getting a "pretty" swing. Sorry, but that's not sound advice - when I get rid of the key elements that are holding me back, yes, sure- then I'll make the most of what I've got. I'll swing that swing. Until then, not a chance, now that I have learned about the fundamentals . There's work to be done to make my future golf far more enjoyable and competitive.   3. Lessons are expensive. Nope- look hard enough and you can find quality swing guidance at a reasonable price.  I agree with lotsa others above but these resonate for me at my level of play right and interactions with people now. 
    • Let me address the things you mentioned and clarify a little bit, because I think there is some misconceptions on some of the aspects. There is perception that the Titleist fitting covers everything and the Bridgestone only addresses the driver.  One of the biggest issues I have with the Titleist method is it's not a real golf ball fitting.  They give you a Pro V1 2-ball pack and a Pro V1x 2-ball pack and basically tell you to hit some shots and see which one you like best. So regardless of swing speed, handicap, launch numbers or anything else, they are saying you can pick this ball or that ball.  The other models in Titleist's line are not included and competitor models are not included.  I know for a fact that there are many players who don't fit into either of those models, but Titleist doesn't offer other options or comparisons.  They claim the Pro V1 and Pro V1x have the best distance, best short game spin, best flight characteristics, softest feel and great durability.  I hate to tell everyone, but there is no such thing as a perfect golf ball.  The laws of physics and aerodynamics apply to Titleist just like everyone else.  A ball that is designed for high spin will not be as long as a lower spinning model and will tend to curve more, and a ball designed for distance will not have the same type of performance on approach shots and around the green. Titleist also doesn't offer any data that shows how those models stack-up for players, or how they perform compared to their ideal numbers.  Sure, people love the spin that they get around the green, but do they need that much spin?  Is all that spin hurting them in other areas?  High spin actually gets a lot of players in trouble and costs them more strokes than it saves them.  Similar to the Titleist method that has players go through the process on their own, after a Bridgestone tech works with a player and their driver and shows them the data, a 2-ball pack is given to the player to continue their testing on the course with irons and short game.  As far as the number of shots on the launch monitor is concerned, you are correct...typically 3 or 4 shots with each ball is recorded.  It's not a lot, but it's 6-8 more shots over a launch monitor than a Titleist fitting. Obviously it would be great to do more, but a fitting could easily stretch to an hour per player, so a typical 4-5 hour event we could only help a handful of players.  A normal fitting takes about 15 min, so that is 16-20 players per event.  At that number, the cost of each fitting was right around $40/player.  If an hour was spent with each player, it would cost almost $200/player which isn't cost effective. On the launch angle issue, what I said was there are many things that can affect the launch, including the ball.  I didn't say 2* wasn't possible and I didn't say in the example I posted that only 1/2* could be attributed to the ball.  Honestly, I can't say how much of that 2* is related to moving to a different model...even if other variables like tee height, ball position were removed, the difference in loft will vary from player-to-player due to different swing speeds, swing paths, angle of attack etc which is unique to everyone.  Plus depending on what model is used first and which model is recommended could have a smaller or larger affect than other combinations.  You could probably make the same case for every category if you wanted though, right?  You could say how much of the difference in spin was caused by the ball change and how much was the result of some other variable?  Spin is more important than the launch angle, so even if the l.a. stayed the same, the drop in spin would have made a nice difference by itself.  But we know the player was launching the ball too low with too much spin, a lower spinning/higher launching ball was recommended and the results were a more efficient trajectory and an increase in performance. I believe the key is to be able to show a player in black and white what their launch conditions are with their current ball and how it compares to their ideal numbers.  If you can't show a player the areas that need improvement, then how can you confidently recommend the best ball for them?  The truth is, most people are playing the wrong ball, so it's not that hard to make an improvement, and honestly there are probably a handful of different makes/models that would be better.    
    • 1-5. Putting matters most. Uh huh. What are the chances I gain 2 strokes because I (or just about any golfer) 4 putted? It's happened. Rarely. What are the chances I (or just about any golfer) hit an errant tee shot and blow 2 strokes? 40% every tee shot for me. 
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Dragondrake
      Dragondrake
      (57 years old)
    2. Mistabigevil
      Mistabigevil
      (36 years old)
    3. Taylor56
      Taylor56
      (61 years old)
  • Get Great Gear with Amazon