What makes a golf course and a golf hole excellent to you?

[kthomas]

I'm a current MLA student (Masters of Landscape Architecture), and really playing with the idea of getting into golf course architecture (a big task on its own, I know). 

 

I want to start a conversation about what makes a golf course, and any given golf hole, excellent to you. 

 

Golf is many things to different people, so I'm expecting what makes a golf course and a golf hole great to one person different to the next. In my eyes, a key challenge of golf course architecture is distilling down what makes a golf hole and ultimately a golf course excellent for different players, and creating a golf hole that is excellent to a wide variety of golfers and skillsets. 

 

Curious to hear your thoughts on what you consider to be an exceptional golf course, with specific hole examples, and why it is excellent in your eyes as a player. 

[MelloYello]

To be honest, it's been my experience that golfers are more apt to remember BAD holes, which are usually those that possess some strange or otherwise abnormal feature that disrupts play. 

 

I don't think there's really a definition of what's "good." There are easy holes, hard holes, picturesque holes, holes that are long or short, etc. People usually acknowledge those for what they are. They all have their place. 

But golfers usually spend the majority of time focusing on and complaining about the bad holes . So try to avoid designing any of those, LOL. 🙂

 

.

Edited December 21, 2022 by MelloYello

[kthomas]

3 minutes ago, MelloYello said:

To be honest, it's been my experience that golfers are more apt to remember BAD holes, which are usually those that possess some strange or otherwise abnormal feature that disrupts play. 

 

I don't think there's really a definition of what's "good." There are easy holes, hard holes, picturesque holes, etc. People usually acknowledge those for what they are. 

Golfers usually spend the majority of time complaining about the bad holes though. So try to avoid designing any of those, LOL. 🙂

 

.

 

That's certainly a big part of it.

 

My regular golf partner is my wife, who's perhaps a 30 handicap or so. 

 

There's certain holes she absolutely hates, sometimes won't even bother playing them. That's because they are so unplayable for someone of her skill level, that its just not fun for her. An example of this is Arizona National's Hole #2, a par 5 that has two forced carries to get you to the green. 

 

I think as more and more people get into the game (as hopefully they do, we need the sport to expand to survive), we need to be cognizant that courses need to have a certain level of playability, while still being challenging to the better skilled golfers. It's marrying those two to make a golf hole fun and playable for all levels that requires a certain level of creativity. 

 

Bad experiences in a lot of cases are more formative than good or even great ones, so you certainly bring up a great point. 

[dvq9654]

Personally, a good golf course consists of the following:

 

- Variety of hole types: I have yet to play a “great” golf course where there wasn’t a variety of types of holes. Not just in terms of par 3, 4, and 5, but also in terms of within each category of par. This means short par 4s, long par 4s, etc. It also means different and unique green complexes, demands of the tees and approach shots 

- Variety of different shots: this is related to the above, but a good course requires, or at least gives the option, to hit nearly every club in your bag and benefit from shot making vs hitting same shot all day 

- Conditioning: great courses have good conditioning (a bit obvious) 

- Not overly penal / don’t favor one type of shot over and over: a great course doesn’t hurt you for the sake of hurting you. It may require you to hit the right shots, but it’s not going make it stupid difficult just for the sake of doing so. I think of the number of Nicklaus courses I’ve played where every shot needs to be a fade to an elevated green when this comes to mind. Not fun at all for someone who draws the ball even a bit 
- Quality of the Land: you can have all the above, but if you don’t have a good piece of land with variety, good views or something else unique, hard to imagine a course being great

 

in terms of holes being great, the best holes often:

 

- Allow multiple options: this isn’t universal, but I love holes that make you think and allow many approaches. Should I pound driver at the green? Should I lay up to the left and play a short pitch? Or maybe I push up the right side and attack from there. These types of holes not only test your execution, but your mental game. 

- Require specific shots: holes that require you to execute a specific shot can be quite fun. For instance, there is a downhill par 4 at a local course. You usually have a longish iron in, and the green is redan-esque, with a massive drop behind the green. Long is therefore dead, so you have to land it short and hope you judge the bounce / roll-out correctly. In a sense it’s the opposite of the “multiple approaches above”, but this hole fully tests you skill and if you don’t execute the approach, your short game will be tested. 
- Provide something unique: this could be anything, like a tee sheet requiring you to cover a ravine, a super interesting green, etc. Could also be the setting or the view. 

I’m sure there are plenty of others, but these come to mind for me

[vandyfan]

1 hour ago, kthomas said:

Curious to hear your thoughts on what you consider to be an exceptional golf course, with specific hole examples, and why it is excellent in your eyes as a player.

 

Disclaimer(s): I am not an architecture expert or even novice. I have a fragile ego. I like golf courses that play on the easier side.

 

I like width and options off the tee, generally. I would rather be challenged on my shot into a green rather than off the tee. Width, to me, is at least 60 yds of a safe landing zone between hazards or thick trees. Options off the tee means I don't HAVE to hit driver on every par 4 or par 5 (I can generally accomplish this by selecting appropriate tees). I think 200+ yd par 3s stink and I much prefer short, treacherous par 3s vs bland straight 200+ par 3s. Forced layups on Par 5s or Par 5s that are extremely tight are horrible and I hate them. 

 

To me, a great example of what I am talking about is Pursell Farms. To me, it is a golf course that looks normal/challenging but actually plays very forgiving as most fairway landing zones are 60 yds+ and generally have a safe side of each green to bail out on. One hole out there that I dig is #7, a 365 yd par 4 from the tees I play (424 yds from the tips):

 

 

So this has everything for me, it is 205 to the centerline bunker so you can layup short (in a 90 yd wide landing zone) and still have like a 6-7 iron left in. The centerline bunker is only about 220 to carry so you can take driver BUT the landing zone shrinks to 57 yds and has lost ball potential on both sides. I don't HAVE to hit driver here but there is a reward for hitting driver well and also a penalty for hitting it poorly. You can miss left of the green by a tad and not be in a bunker. Above all, the centerline bunker and bottleneck of the fairway makes me pause every time and consider "how well am I hitting my driver". If I played from the tips this hole has none of this intrigue because I only hit driver about 260-270 yds so the centerline bunker almost isn't in play and there is no option to cover it. 

Edited December 21, 2022 by vandyfan

[caniac6]

I like courses , and holes, that give you options. A lot of the old courses can be played with low, running approach shots, or high shots that carry to the green. The older courses usually reward good shots, but give some room for recovery from bad shots. I’m watching a replay from last year’s Women’s US Open, and Pine Needles looks about as good as it gets.

 

[kthomas]

I recently heard Tom Doak state on a podcast that most golf course architects don't design golf courses for the average player, because they are usually excellent players themselves. 

 

I'm certainly not a great golf player by any metric, and solidly fall in the average golfer camp. I think about playability a lot, especially when golfing with my wife. I think its backwards that a lot of golf courses are designed with only the top ~5% of golfers in mind. Yes, we need those golf courses, but I don't see how its great for the sport to have the majority of golf courses designed with only those players in mind. 

 

My wife doesn't care if she makes par or a double bogey on a hole. Yes, pars and birdies are worthy of a celebration for her, but ultimately she just wants to get out on a golf course and have fun. It quickly becomes miserable for her (and many others), when you can't play a hole and golf balls are being donated to the course at a decent frequency. Golf should be about fun first, especially if we want the sport to grow. 

 

I've been thinking a lot about how to make golf fun for newer players while still being fun and challenging. In my mind, this requires challenging a lot of the "norms" that we just accept as part of the game. I have some ideas on what I think a fun concept could be, which is still an evergreen concept and in constant evolution for me. 

[Pepperturbo]

I don't have an excellent course or hole in mind.  All I like is challenging courses with high course ratings and slope.  They tend to force me to focus and execute shots.

 

My only idealistic desire is being able to see/read the fairway and its obstacles.  I raise to the challenge, not buckle under demand.

 

I am probably in a minority, but if a course is made up of wide open and easy holes, designed for less skilled players, I am not likey to return.  Golf courses should be designed to meet the game of skill to score well, not a game of how easy can we make it for those that don't want to try to improve but want to score?

 

 

[ChipNRun]

I'm a retired management professor, and I will address this from the Operations Management/Sustainability angle.

 

First of all, know the likely golfing audience you will draw with your golf course. This audience will be able to pay $X to play your course. So, don't build a course that takes $X + 100 to maintain.

 

Case story: My own home course, a Jack Nicklaus Signature course, part of a residential development. After initial hole design and shaping, Jack had a heart to heart talk with the developer. Jack warned that the course would be very difficult to play, and also very costly to maintain. But the developer - with visions of building Winged Foot "Way Out West" - told Jack to make it as hard as he could.

 

A number of problems emerged:

• First, in the late 1990s several other residential-development courses were springing up play in this illinois area near St. Louis. Lots of competition to sell (then) $250,000 houses along the fairway. So, these courses tagged with the name of a a big-time pro didn't sell out all their lots - not even to non-golfers. This meant they couldn't go private with a lot of big-money people footing the bill. So, the shell-shocked developers had to battle each other to bring in those $40 a round players, which upset the homeowners who had been fed false promises of exclusivity. Market reality: Their real audience and their ideal audience were quite different.
• This caused rather quick revenue pressures. One way to survive was to cut expenses. But, the exotic sand bunkers around the course required a lot of TLC. The greens crew was supposed the power-flush the bunker drainage lines three times a year to keep them open. With power flushes few and far between, the bunkers turned into several dozen mini-lakes on the course if it got more than a half-inch of rain. Bunkers started caving in, which harmed the putting green eco-system.
• Basically, about year No. 15, the course took a real hit in its reputation. A hard-working greens crew got a decent recovery budget, and set out to do things such as rebuild critical sand bunkers, turn others into grass bunkers, and move from poa annua to bent grass on the greens.

Now, here are some positives for building the course:

• Don't skimp on the tee boxes! I have seen courses with nice greens, OK fairways, and poor tee boxes. But, I have never seen a course with decent tee boxes that didn't also have superb greens and fairways.

• Consider mostly flat-bottom bunkers. These are bunkers where you just walk in the back door, hit your shot, and walk out. Given, these bunkers can have high banks between sand surface and green, but at least smaller golfers and senior golfers won't injure themselves having to mountaineer up and down treacherous sand dunes. Plus, these are easier for greens crews to maintain St. Louis Country Club, a classic old-line course, had flat-bottom bunkers from its initial design, and is still very challenging. See hole No. 7 above.
• Keep killer holes to a minimum. Most courses have a treacherous, day-breaker hole on each nine. One per side is tolerable. But, don't go overboard on holes where missing the fairway pretty well guarantees a triple bogie. If you look at the old, pre-World War II classic courses, you see some tough holes. But, if a player missed the fairway, or  had to lay up short for a hazard, there was still a way out. You could scramble out to within 100 yards of the green, and have a chance for a bogie, or occasionally a par if you could get up and down.
• Don't make greens on short holes too small. A 110-yd. par 3, or a 290-yd. par 4 downhill give the golfers a respite from longer holes. But, that means the greens will be pounded with high-angle wedge shots for most approaches. A constant high-angle barrage takes a toll on turf grass. So, make sure you allow for decent square footage. One way to do this and still require skilled shots is to have two nodes of the green. Hit the wrong node and you can still make par, but a birdie becomes iffy.

In my dream world, I would also design golf courses. If you have any questions, please PM me.

Edited December 22, 2022 by ChipNRun
Clarify that picture is from StLCC.

[kthomas]

6 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

I don't have an excellent course or hole in mind.  All I like is challenging courses with high course ratings and slope.  They tend to force me to focus and execute shots.

 

My only idealistic desire is being able to see/read the fairway and its obstacles.  I raise to the challenge, not buckle under demand.

 

I am probably in a minority, but if a course is made up of wide open and easy holes, designed for less skilled players, I am not likey to return.  Golf courses should be designed to meet the game of skill to score well, not a game of how easy can we make it for those that don't want to try to improve but want to score?

 

 

 

I don't see why we can't achieve both. However this would certainly require some creativity and reimagination.

 

But I don't see why a golf course couldn't be rewarding and challenging for the more skilled players while still being playable for lesser skilled players.

 

[Pepperturbo]

40 minutes ago, vandyfan said:

 

Disclaimer(s): I am not an architecture expert or even novice. I have a fragile ego. I like golf courses that play on the easier side.

 

I like width and options off the tee, generally. I would rather be challenged on my shot into a green rather than off the tee. Width, to me, is at least 60 yds of a safe landing zone between hazards or thick trees. Options off the tee means I don't HAVE to hit driver on every par 4 or par 5 (I can generally accomplish this by selecting appropriate tees). I think 200+ yd par 3s stink and I much prefer short, treacherous par 3s vs bland straight 200+ par 3s. Forced layups on Par 5s or Par 5s that are extremely tight are horrible and I hate them. 

 

To me, a great example of what I am talking about is Pursell Farms. To me, it is a golf course that looks normal/challenging but actually plays very forgiving as most fairway landing zones are 60 yds+ and generally have a safe side of each green to bail out on. One hole out there that I dig is #7, a 365 yd par 4 from the tees I play (424 yds from the tips):

 

 

So this has everything for me, it is 205 to the centerline bunker so you can layup short (in a 90 yd wide landing zone) and still have like a 6-7 iron left in. The centerline bunker is only about 220 to carry so you can take driver BUT the landing zone shrinks to 57 yds and has lost ball potential on both sides. I don't HAVE to hit driver here but there is a reward for hitting driver well and also a penalty for hitting it poorly. You can miss left of the green by a tad and not be in a bunker. Above all, the centerline bunker and bottleneck of the fairway makes me pause every time and consider "how well am I hitting my driver". If I played from the tips this hole has none of this intrigue because I only hit driver about 260-270 yds so the centerline bunker almost isn't in play and there is no option to cover it. 

LOL I like your disclaimer, how you describe what you like and that you know you're fragile... LOL.  I never thought about a course like the way you describe holes.  You sound as though you've given this a great deal of thought.  

[vandyfan]

19 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

you're fragile... LOL.

 

I think we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on our enjoyment of golf courses but I take your comment as intended which I think is a compliment and recognition of our differences. I am extremely fragile, haha. As a healthy 38 year old male with an average driving distance of 260-270 I play tees between 5,600 yds - 6,000 yds. I have no illusions about my game or my skill. I am an average player regardless of what my hdcp is at the moment. 

 

29 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

Golf courses should be designed to meet the game of skill to score well, not a game of how easy can we make it for those that don't want to try to improve but want to score?

 

I will object slightly at the "don't want to try to improve" notion. I think there is room for challenging golf courses and beginner golf courses and all manner in between. To @kthomas's earlier point about Doak, I think there is some truth to the fact that many courses are designed to defend themselves against an elite player FIRST and there just aren't THAT many elite players out there. Probably not enough to support a public golf course. At the risk of hijacking the thread, I see people refer to "resort" golf courses as generally very easy. Maybe because I play in South Carolina and Florida often, that is not my experience. Many times these are hellscapes that are hemmed in by houses, retention ponds and native areas on repeat. For example, here is what I see as a "typical" challenging resort hole in Florida (Links at Sandestin #18):

 

 

For a bogey golfer, this hole is an absolute nightmare. The landing area off the tee is fine, width-wise, but it is a forced layup for most people as the water comes in at 220 yds, carrying the water into the wide part of the second portion of the fairway requires a 285 carry into a 50 yd landing zone that has danger everywhere. If you layup, your reward is a 170+ yd shot into a green that is surrounded by water and the landing area (green and rough included is about 32 yds wide). For comparison's sake, the 17th at TPC Sawgrass is 28 yds wide for a 130 yd shot BY A TOURING PROFESSIONAL off a tee and they still hit that shot into the water, why would a resort golfer be subjected to this? I play this course almost annually because it is across the street from my condo and has great views. I watch players just get ejected by this hole (and many others) on the course constantly. 

 

Sorry for getting off topic @kthomas but this is the type of course that I all too often see. Target golf to the extreme where 90% of the players playing it do not have near the skill or control to handle it. If you cater to the elite player, you damn well better be sure there are enough to keep your course afloat, financially. 

Edited December 21, 2022 by vandyfan

[ThinkingPlus]

Big fan of grass.  Greens with no dead areas and somewhat smooth would be nice.  Fairways with mostly grass.  That's about it.  My standards aren't very high because architecture just doesn't matter that much.  You hit the fairway, hit the green, and try to make a putt.  What else is there?

[Pepperturbo]

3 minutes ago, kthomas said:

 

I don't see why we can't achieve both. However this would certainly require some creativity and reimagination.

 

But I don't see why a golf course couldn't be rewarding and challenging for the more skilled players while still being playable for lesser skilled players.

 

Most difficult courses are playable by less skilled people.  Being less skilled doesn't necessary mean lack of judgement.  The problem is: people chose the wrong tees.  They only look at yardage and never see tee rating or slope.  Add, most of them don't know how far they "carry" any given club, including some of my mid-hi cap friends.  They think if they hit the driver decently long, it shouldn't be a problem, but it is; and they walk off 18, blaming the course for the abuse. 

 

Designers can go to great lengths to design fair courses or holes for all, but we can't lead a horse to water. 

 

[Pepperturbo]

20 minutes ago, vandyfan said:

 

I think we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on our enjoyment of golf courses but I take your comment as intended which I think is a compliment and recognition of our differences. I am extremely fragile, haha. As a healthy 38 year old male with an average driving distance of 260-270 I play tees between 5,600 yds - 6,000 yds. I have no illusions about my game or my skill. I am an average player regardless of what my hdcp is at the moment. 

 

 

I will object slightly at the "don't want to try to improve" notion. I think there is room for challenging golf courses and beginner golf courses and all manner in between. To @kthomas's earlier point about Doak, I think there is some truth to the fact that many courses are designed to defend themselves against an elite player FIRST and there just aren't THAT many elite players out there. Probably not enough to support a public golf course. At the risk of hijacking the thread, I see people refer to "resort" golf courses as generally very easy. Maybe because I play in South Carolina and Florida often, that is not my experience. Many times these are hellscapes that are hemmed in by houses, retention ponds and native areas on repeat. For example, here is what I see as a "typical" challenging resort hole in Florida (Links at Sandestin #18):

 

 

For a bogey golfer, this hole is an absolute nightmare. The landing area off the tee is fine, width-wise, but it is a forced layup for most people as the water comes in at 220 yds, carrying the water into the wide part of the second portion of the fairway requires a 285 carry into a 50 yd landing zone that has danger everywhere. If you layup, your reward is a 170+ yd shot into a green that is surrounded by water and the landing area (green and rough included is about 32 yds wide). For comparison's sake, the 17th at TPC Sawgrass is 28 yds wide for a 130 yd shot BY A TOURING PROFESSIONAL off a tee and they still hit that shot into the water, why would a resort golfer be subjected to this? I play this course almost annually because it is across the street from my condo and has great views. I watch players just get ejected by this hole (and many others) on the course constantly. 

 

Sorry for getting off topic @kthomas but this is the type of course that I all too often see. Target golf to the extreme where 90% of the players playing it do not have near the skill or control to handle it. If you cater to the elite player, you damn well better be sure there are enough to keep your course afloat, financially. 

I hear ya, you make sense and that we're slightly off-topic, but still germane.  It was a compliment. 

 

I play many courses like you describe, one that comes to mind is AZ, Ocotillo 27, at 6700-7000 yds the most difficult 18, has rating of 72.2 and slope of 133 from the back tees and most holes have lots of water in play, like your pic.  As difficult as it is for the unskilled, if people chose more appropriate tees, it wouldn't be as difficult. 

 

When I play the above course and others like it, I chose tees and my tee club carefully.  At Ocotillo, I use 2 iron off many tees and don't presume I should be able to use Driver all the time; and if I can't, blame it on the course design.  If I can't keep my ball in the fairway with a certain club, it's my fault, regardless of hole design.  There is no entitlement when it comes to being able to easily score in golf.

 

What you may be overlooking is the greater reason behind many public course designs; they want to attract as many tournaments as possible.  At more difficult courses that I frequent, better players, like me, play more regularly, than high caps.  Companies that hold or sponsor golf tournaments don't look for easy venues to accommodate their typical entrant.  As someone who's sponsored such tournaments, if the course is properly chosen, we look for the event to leave a lasting memory on the entrant.  The other thing about hosting tournaments, as opposed to general play, everyone plays off the same tees.  Have a good day.

[kthomas]

53 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

Most difficult courses are playable by less skilled people.  Being less skilled doesn't necessary mean lack of judgement.  The problem is: people chose the wrong tees.  They only look at yardage and never see tee rating or slope.  Add, most of them don't know how far they "carry" any given club, including some of my mid-hi cap friends.  They think if they hit the driver decently long, it shouldn't be a problem, but it is; and they walk off 18, blaming the course for the abuse. 

 

Designers can go to great lengths to design fair courses or holes for all, but we can't lead a horse to water. 

 

 

I definitely don't disagree with you, these are all very valid points.

 

The sport of golf has done a huge disservice to people by creating certain perceptions on how and where to play - especially with tee boxes.

 

There's also too much focus on performance and scores relative to par and the golf course when it comes to the average player. Expectations are set based on performance, and there's certainly a time and place for that, but I think it can take away from the gun for the average player at times.

 

A cool concept that Andy Staples materialized is the Match Play course at PGA National. There's no defined par or tee boxes, it's designed solely for match play. I think this is a fun and interesting break from the prototypical golf course. By no means do I think it should be the new standard or replace current courses, not at all. But a fun and different way to look at the game.

Edited December 21, 2022 by kthomas

[Ifelloffladder]

Aside from the conditions of a golf course my other pet peeve with courses are ponds or water obstacles. Just put another bunker there. You know how much golf balls cost? Oh and forests! Again you know how much golf balls cots? I don't mind threes lined up but when you can't find your ball...

[ChristopherMcDonald]

To me a course is excellent dependent on two main criteria for me:
1. The natural beauty of the land, elevation changes are always nice
2. How well the course is maintained

For a hole to be excellent, I feel like there has to be a distinguishing feature that sets it apart. Doesn't even need to be part of the hole. Could be the surroundings that set it off for me. 

[Steele47]

17 minutes ago, ChristopherMcDonald said:

To me a course is excellent dependent on two main criteria for me:
1. The natural beauty of the land, elevation changes are always nice
2. How well the course is maintained

For a hole to be excellent, I feel like there has to be a distinguishing feature that sets it apart. Doesn't even need to be part of the hole. Could be the surroundings that set it off for me. 

 

Cool.  That's Oak Quarry.  Played there one time behind these 2 idiots (young guys not physically challenged) who decided it was a good idea to drive their cart off the path down to about 30 yards short of that green pictured.  They got stuck in some soft ground/mud.  They had to take their clubs off and call for help lol...  

 

In terms of good course design.  See Gamble Sands.  Great course no matter your skill level.  Plenty of options.

[ChristopherMcDonald]

1 minute ago, Steele47 said:

 

Cool.  That's Oak Quarry.  Played there one time behind these 2 idiots (young guys not physically challenged) who decided it was a good idea to drive their cart off the path down to about 30 yards short of that green pictured.  They got stuck in some soft ground/mud.  They had to take their clubs off and call for help lol...  

 

In terms of good course design.  See Gamble Sands.  Great course no matter your skill level.  Plenty of options.

You are correct sir. Great track and that hole is certainly breathtaking. Gamble Sands looks stellar too

[aenemated]

29 minutes ago, ChristopherMcDonald said:

To me a course is excellent dependent on two main criteria for me:
1. The natural beauty of the land, elevation changes are always nice
2. How well the course is maintained

For a hole to be excellent, I feel like there has to be a distinguishing feature that sets it apart. Doesn't even need to be part of the hole. Could be the surroundings that set it off for me. 

 

Ah, my beloved Oak Quarry. Got a lucky kick off that right bunker and nearly holed out once. Absolutely love that course. 

[ChristopherMcDonald]

1 minute ago, aenemated said:

 

Ah, my beloved Oak Quarry. Got a lucky kick off that right bunker and nearly holed out once. Absolutely love that course. 

It's on the upper end of what I want to spend on a weekend and it's a bit of a drive but damn what a track. 

[klebs01]

32 minutes ago, ChristopherMcDonald said:

To me a course is excellent dependent on two main criteria for me:
1. The natural beauty of the land, elevation changes are always nice
2. How well the course is maintained

For a hole to be excellent, I feel like there has to be a distinguishing feature that sets it apart. Doesn't even need to be part of the hole. Could be the surroundings that set it off for me. 

/cdn-cgi/mirage/610045b6f775786869a4f03bbc6ea866d3e558421809bdcec86344355da3a40c/1280/cdn-cgi/mirage/610045b6f775786869a4f03bbc6ea866d3e558421809bdcec86344355da3a40c/1280/https://golfdigest.sports.sndimg.com/content/dam/images/golfdigest/fullset/2020/08/oak%20quarry%2014th.jpg.rend.hgtvcom.966.644.suffix/1598024890254.jpeg

those are probably the two least important items for a great course in my book. In fact, sometimes it’s much more impressive Whalen an architect does something great with a lesser property. 
 

Arcadia bluffs is a great example of this. The south course is a much better course than the bluffs course. Much more strategic, much better greens. The bluffs gets the attention because it’s near the lake but it’s a much less interesting course. I would play the south 8 or 9 times out of 10. 
 

Oak quarry is a 4 on the doak scale in my view. Just slightly above average course. Worth a play of looking for a game in the area, but definitely not worth traveling for. 

[OnTheBag]

I've had the pleasure of walking the most revered golf courses on the planet.  ANGC, The Old Course, Pebble, Torrey Pines, Olympic, the list goes on and on and on.  What makes a great golf hole to me is one that present a decision and choice.  The highest level golfers in the world can all hit a straight shot a set distance.  The best holes challenge their ability to hit a shot outside their comfort zone.  For instance, a hole that requires a draw can test a great golfer that normally plays a fade.  

 

Standing on the tee box with decisions to make is the peak of this game in my opinion.  

 

I've reached the point in my life where the words don't always flow like they used to.  I hope this makes sense.

[Steele47]

I had no idea there was a 'doak scale'.  

[ChristopherMcDonald]

2 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

those are probably the two least important items for a great course in my book. In fact, sometimes it’s much more impressive Whalen an architect does something great with a lesser property. 
 

Arcadia bluffs is a great example of this. The south course is a much better course than the bluffs course. Much more strategic, much better greens. The bluffs gets the attention because it’s near the lake but it’s a much less interesting course. I would play the south 8 or 9 times out of 10. 
 

Oak quarry is a 4 on the doak scale in my view. Just slightly above average course. Worth a play of looking for a game in the area, but definitely not worth traveling for. 

 

Maintenance to me is inarguable. All things being held equal, the course needs to be maintained and in good shape. If it's not, it's not an excellent course, IMO of course. 

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, Steele47 said:

I had no idea there was a 'doak scale'.  

Typo.  Pretty sure it is dork scale.

[RainShadow]

8 hours ago, kthomas said:

 

That's certainly a big part of it.

 

My regular golf partner is my wife, who's perhaps a 30 handicap or so. 

 

There's certain holes she absolutely hates, sometimes won't even bother playing them. That's because they are so unplayable for someone of her skill level, that its just not fun for her. An example of this is Arizona National's Hole #2, a par 5 that has two forced carries to get you to the green. 

 

I think as more and more people get into the game (as hopefully they do, we need the sport to expand to survive), we need to be cognizant that courses need to have a certain level of playability, while still being challenging to the better skilled golfers. It's marrying those two to make a golf hole fun and playable for all levels that requires a certain level of creativity. 

 

Bad experiences in a lot of cases are more formative than good or even great ones, so you certainly bring up a great point. 

Neither of those carries is more than 35 yards long. Lay up and lay up and lay up again.

 I play that course often, from the blue tees. I'm not long. It's 3h, 3h or 4wood, 9i or wedge to green on that hole. I usually par or bogey it, because the second shot bugs me.

I played with a 60 ish year old woman today at that course, probably a 30 cap, who managed it fine.

No offense, but if she can't carry any shot 45 yards in the air, she shouldn't be playing a championship layout.

Edited December 22, 2022 by RainShadow

[klebs01]

20 minutes ago, Steele47 said:

I had no idea there was a 'doak scale'.  

it’s outlined in the confidential guide. A 3 is an average course. I think it’s useful and buckets most courses at the bottom in more of an avoid, not good, and average system and then splits hairs with truly good courses. 

[mbwannab]

Two things:

1. Flat tee boxes

2. No uphill par 3’s, I’ve never had a hole-in-one but if I did I want to see it go in(never understood uphill any hole, games hard enough 😂 )