What do we think about , , , , Part 3

[profsmitty]

Golf course design

Good morning. A third installment of a poll about how we golfer feel about the current state of golf. This poll is a little longer that the previous two but it is a big topic.

Thanks for your participation. Your comments are greatly appreciated. In particular, if you have ideas about what constitutes a well designed golf course, please tell us what they are.

[mrb]

Wow, I get to be the first one to respond.

 

I'm no scratch golfer, but I have played enough different courses to know what I like....kinda like that old cliche....what is it...I don't know what art is, but I'll know it when I see it..something like that.

 

In any case...I think the key to good course design is playability. I have played courses where there were not a lot of options for holes, so each and every time you play, there's only really one way to go. So I really appreciate playing courses where you have some choices to make...be it risk/reward related, or conditions dictate a particular path.

 

Those are just my thoughts.

[MrJones]

I've worked on a couple of different courses during my lifetime and find myself liking or disliking holes not by how easy they are, but by how they look and play.

 

I also have a tendancy to notice little things (cosmetic) that could be done to make a hole look nice. One constant mudhole off the side of the tee box can turn a beautiful hole into an eye sore. And maybe 100$ worth of landscaping would do the trick.

 

I can also tell by how the greens look, and especially the rough right around the greens, how much the super really cares about how his course plays and looks. Some do a lot, other just want to cut the dang grass and go home.

 

I'd had some of my best rounds (scoring) where I did nothing but complain about how bad the course itself looked and played. I just hate it when it looks like their "wasting" the course.

 

I love to play at what I consider a "pretty" course. Whether it's hard or easy or neither, I just enjoy being out there. It's a real pleasure for me to play on a course that someone really takes care of and even if I have a bad round, I don't mind.

[profsmitty]

Wow, I get to be the first one to respond.

 

I'm no scratch golfer, but I have played enough different courses to know what I like....kinda like that old cliche....what is it...I don't know what art is, but I'll know it when I see it..something like that.

 

In any case...I think the key to good course design is playability. I have played courses where there were not a lot of options for holes, so each and every time you play, there's only really one way to go. So I really appreciate playing courses where you have some choices to make...be it risk/reward related, or conditions dictate a particular path.

 

Those are just my thoughts.

It's amazing how often Justice Stewart's quote about pornography can be applied to things other than pornography.

[thenewbie]

creative use of pre-existing landscapes and course adaptability based on playing ability (many teeing options) are two big factors for me. I love a course where an advanced player and a begginer can play together, but from different tees, and have fun.

[mshills]

Here are a few things I typically notice:

 

1. The short par 3 is an endangered species. Too many courses I play give you the "short" par 3 of 175 yards, with the other three stretching to 200+. I'm not a short hitter, but I appreciate the short hole just as much as the 600 yard par 5, and I always remember the great short par 3s that I've played.

 

2. Allow players to hit driver on all par 5s. Whenever I see a par 5 that forces me to hit a 4w or hybrid club off the tee, I always think that the designer ran out of space and just had to squeeze a hole in there. Not to say that a player MUST hit driver, but I dislike par 5s where a well-struck drive winds up in a creek bi-secting the fairway. Par 5 holes are all about decisionmaking and forcing a player to consider his options, so don't forcibly remove one option.

 

3. Let players get into a groove before bringing in the tough holes. A pet peeve of mine is when #2 is a 210 yard par 3 with a green the width of a twin sized bed. Ugh. Give the player a few holes to get it together before clubbing him over the head with that hole.

 

4. One risk-reward par 5 and one risk-reward drivable par 4 can make a solid course memorable.

[SV Golfer]

I think the biggest thing for me, being a frugal high school kid, is course maintenance, along with the layout obviously. I like creative courses that offer a fair challenge.

 

However, you can have the nicest layout, but if I have to pay $70 to play a five hour round on greens that are stimping at an 8 and fairways that look like a shag carpet, you can bet I'm going to take my money elsewhere.

[rrkman]

I thought that this would be pretty easy but it actually got me thinking a little.....

 

The problem that I have is that I weigh each of the three factors somewhat evenly.....and always thought that I would rather play a course in great condition before a great location or great architecture. But the most memorable course that I've ever played was Koolau on Oahu. Condition was at best just ok but the location was amazing. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think all of these are important but depending on the situation, one factor can easily 'trump' the others. In a place like Hawaii, it would be a mistake to not use 'location' as a huge factor....but in farm country (I live in the midwest), you better focus on architecture and maintenance. But, even with a great location, horrible maintenance and/or not using the 'location' in the architecture can still make it just an ordinary course. Hope this makes sense.

 

I'll keep babbling with some more examples....

 

Turtle Bay Palmer Course - Great condition, I'm not a golf architect but in my opinion a good layout......BUT, I was extremely disappointed with the 'location' because it is right on the ocean but you only it see on the drive to #1 and then at the green of 17. But this also has me thinking....actually the location is great - North Shore of Hawaii (don't know many people that would say they hate it there). Is the problem 'maintenance' - meaning that to keep the course in good condition, they needed to put it where it is and/or surround it by trees to reduce the wind effect. Or is it design, was it designed to be a 'tour' location and they used the location the best they could but wasn't as concerned about tourists getting to play 'next to' the ocean? Or is is just bad design for not using the ocean?

 

I'll stop here because I think I'm starting to wear out my welcome. :)

[Bobbers]

I live in Wisconsin, we have a shorter season than some of you. Hence, pace of play is a consideration, if nothing else for the economics of the course owner. Several courses in the area have one or two holes per nine that are destined to bring play to a halt. I'm not talking about par three's where etiquette (if you can find it...) keeps play moving. I'm talking about holes that are tricked up in such a way that, if you don't hit the four foot circle, the ball is lost or so seriously hidden that play slows. I can't tell you how many GREAT pieces of land I've seen screwed up by a course owner that thinks they can effectively be their own architect...

 

Rant off...

[italianstallion]

1) What kind of holes and the layout are key elements that run through my mind when picking a course to play. If there are too many gimmicky holes or the layout was not well planned and thought out (oh lets throw a 90* dogleft left in here 150 yards off the tee because we've run out of real estate) then I will not play that couse.

 

2) Alot of people just like to play golf, they don't care about the condition of the course or its design. As a better player I feel like I am more in tune with what certain design characteristics and what the architect was trying to accomplish with a certain layout.

 

3) Good course architecture for me means no unnecessary hazards and bunkers, but at the same time I love it when a hole scares the pants off me with all the trouble I can get into. A well designed course will punish bad shots, and bad shots only. Well executed shots should never be punished.

 

4) The course doesn't need to reflect its physical location in my opinion. You can build a course in the middle of a forest but if you want to knock down every tree in the process to create a "links" feel go right ahead. I'm not interested in the location of the course as much as I am the design anyway. There are some exceptions (Pebble Beach wouldn't be half the course it is without the ocean, however Pebble Beach can't be built anywhere else)

 

5) Not a fan of built up golf courses at all. Work with the land, don't build it up and turn it into an eyesore. It is my belief (and i think a designer stated this) God already put the course there before it was built, someone just needed to come along and put the finishing touches on it.

 

6) See number 3

 

7) Again, I'm a firm believer in punishing only bad shots and letting good to marginal shots slide. Graduated rough is the best solution here. The further you get away from the golf hole, the worse situation you should find yourself in.

 

8) Everyone loves a green golf course, can't really argue there. Condition plays a big role in what courses I play, but if there is a rare hidden gem that doesn't have the greatest of conditioning I'll still play it for its design features.

 

9) Tying in with #4, the location of the course can help alot, but location doesn't always hurt. I don't need to have a big ocean or tall mountains to look at when I'm trying to concentrate on landing a ball on a green surrounded by all sorts of bunkers from 180 yards away. Yes location helps for "photogenic" holes, but an inland par 5 like the 4th at Bethpage is every bit as beautiful as the par 5 18th at Pebble, just in a different way.

 

10) Whether or not a well designed course has practice facilities isn't going to make or break my day. A well designed course is 18 holes, not 18 holes with a practice green and a driving range. Not many nice courses are without these features, but if I was a member at Augusta National and for some reason they removed their practice areas, you think I'd opt out of my membership the next year?

 

11) Absolutely pace of play needs to be considered. We have a terrible stretch of holes at our golf course that are a pace of play nightmare. It starts with a long par 4 of 454 yards, then moves to a short par 4 of 268 yards and then goes to a long par 3 of 255 yards. So people struggle on the first long par 4, then there is a huge backup on the short par 4 when people wait for the green to clear, and then theres an even longer wait at the long par 3 where no carts are allowed on the hole. Someone wasn't thinking ahead.

[dlygrisse]

IMO:

1. blends in with the landscape and surrounding scenery, Dont move too much dirt.

2. has greens in good condition, I can live with tee boxes and fairways that are a little scetchy if there are drougth conditions etc. but I hate putting on crappy greens.

3. Has at least one good short par 3,4 and 5 with good risk reward situations

4. Has at least one long Par 3,4 and 5 with generous landing areas

5. Does not have so much trouble in play that you cant breath, give me a bailout on most every hole if I am not hitting it well.

6. Nothing worse than houses so close to each fairway that you are afraid you will take out a window on every drive.

7. Should be walkable if you want to walk, I hate a 500 yard walk to the next green.

8. I am sick of over watering, a ball should roll a little when hitting the fairway, not plug.

9. If you want to speed up play cut the rough, a lot of slow play is caused by people searching for a ball.

10. a good course should be challengening for the good player and playable for the hack.

[Subsonic]

Most modern designs are too tricked up. They are not geared towards the regular gofer. It seems as if everyone wants to be Pete Dye.

 

I really prefer many of the courses designed during the 50s and 60s. Ed Ault is one of my favorite designers. He really knew how to design a fun course.

 

Here is a formula that I think works well for golf courses: 6 fairly easy holes, 6 Medium holes and 6 challenging holes. The courses that I have played that meet this criteria are usually fun for everyone from low to high handicaps.

[freddiec]

Great Poll.

For me a good golf course needs to be very fair and reward a good shot, what you see if what you get. I'm a big fan of Donald Ross designs, where there are options when hitting approach shots and encourages creativity. If a course is truly a good one, it doesn't have to be long. Small underlating greens, with wide fairways, fesque are the ones I love. There is a course in Providence, RI (Triggs) I discovered last year. This place is a Marvel in my opinion. Its a golf factory and gets more play than most courses in NE and somehow they have been able to keep this great Ross course in great shape.

 

Ross always had 1 or 2 very reachable par 5's, a short par 4, a few good doglegs with a bunker off the tee, atleast one par 3 of about 150 yds. His design ideas were genius and he used the land without moving much earth.

[CPHoya]

Key Factors:

 

1) A good course will be walkable unless the terrain makes that impossible. Some courses are wonderful tracks built in and around ravines, large hills, etc., and thus walking them is naturally a nightmare. I don't mind that. However, I do mind walking a course that is flat and open and wasting space to the tune of 300 or 400 yards between a green and the next tee. This is poor design. A great example of this is Rustic Canyon in Moorpark, CA. Even though that course is flat as a sheet (for the most part) it is supremely irritating - not tiring; irritating - to walk that course.

 

2) A good course will be maintained in relation to its price point. Operating a golf course is expensive, and many costs can be controlled by allocating fewer resources to the general upkeep of the course. The price to play should reflect those costs. When I pay $20 for a round of golf and there are stray mud pits, dirt areas, or unlevel tees, I am willing to accept it. When I pay $150 for a special round of golf, there better not be stray mud pits, dirt areas, on unlevel tees.

 

3) A good course will not punish better players in unreasonable ways. This was referenced earlier. If any hole is designed in a manner that renders it impossible to play in an effective way, it will sour anyone's impression of the course.

 

Exhibit A: Holes with nonexistent or severely difficult landing areas between 260 and 320 yards from the tee are ridiculous; I can think of one pet peeve hole in Camarillo, California that requires either a 310 yard carry from the tips, or a <240 yard tee shot, on a 450-something yard par four, because the fairway is inexplicably bisected by a band of uneven, thick rough that taints the entire reasonable landing area.

 

Exhibit B: Par threes that require 210+ yard tee shots at severely sloped greens that cannot be held without a nod from the gods.

 

Exhibit C: Holes that require the "wrong shot" are infuriating and unnecessary. I can think of three different holes at three different courses that suffer form this malady. All of them are doglegs right, but the back tee is dominated by a tree that blocks any reasonable left-to-right trajectory. The result is a dogleg right that demands a right-to-left drive that will be traveling exactly the wrong direction when it hits the fairway, and will almost certainly come to rest in the rough. These holes are designed to reward a fade (for a righty) but an overgrown tree, affecting only the back tees, ruins the design by requiring a draw (again, for a righty) into a landing area that punishes a draw.

 

4) A good course will not have endless artificial fairway mounding. Some courses are abominations simply because you play entire rounds from awkward lies.

 

5) A good course will have at least one short-iron par 3.

 

6) A good course will warn you that they are aerating the greens when you call to make a reservation, rather than when you show up.

 

I'm sure there are more I can think of, but this is long enough.

[jreed]

Here are a few things I typically notice:

 

1. The short par 3 is an endangered species. Too many courses I play give you the "short" par 3 of 175 yards, with the other three stretching to 200+. I'm not a short hitter, but I appreciate the short hole just as much as the 600 yard par 5, and I always remember the great short par 3s that I've played.

 

2. Allow players to hit driver on all par 5s. Whenever I see a par 5 that forces me to hit a 4w or hybrid club off the tee, I always think that the designer ran out of space and just had to squeeze a hole in there. Not to say that a player MUST hit driver, but I dislike par 5s where a well-struck drive winds up in a creek bi-secting the fairway. Par 5 holes are all about decisionmaking and forcing a player to consider his options, so don't forcibly remove one option.

 

3. Let players get into a groove before bringing in the tough holes. A pet peeve of mine is when #2 is a 210 yard par 3 with a green the width of a twin sized bed. Ugh. Give the player a few holes to get it together before clubbing him over the head with that hole.

 

4. One risk-reward par 5 and one risk-reward drivable par 4 can make a solid course memorable.

 

I agree about the short par 3's, I really like them as well. One of the nicer courses I play has a number of par 3's that are 150 or less. Kind of odd these days. They are all quite different, hitting uphill, downhill, severly sloping greens, etc. Very challenging.

[golfortennis]

Agree about the short par 3s as well. My old club had a 215 yard par 3, and a 124 yd par 3. The short one scared the members to bits, because of the green and the bunkering, the other one didn't. Yet when the local paper did a top 10 of par 3s, the long one was the one that made the list? There is a fascination with length on a par 3 it seems that is no congruent with actual golf quality. That, plus I think a lot of courses grab extra yardage on the par 3s in order to advertise their total length.

 

I have to disagree about a practice range with the earlier poster there. I need to warm up prior to a round. I don't need an absolutely pristine range, but a somewhat decent place to warm up is essential. I went there to play 18 holes, not warm up for 3 and play 15 holes.

 

Completely agree about the use of "blocks" in the middle of a fairway on a par 5.

[armydiver]

I checked the box that indicates that I think I am a better judge than most, then I see the results, and without exception, my answer was the majority answer. I guess I am not as elitists as I thought.

[profsmitty]

I checked the box that indicates that I think I am a better judge than most, then I see the results, and without exception, my answer was the majority answer. I guess I am not as elitists as I thought.

I have always thought that one of my greatest strengths is to be consistently and almost universally average.

 

On a more serious note, I think that one of the outcomes of the polls that I have done, and those that are scheduled to follow, are to draw a more definable picture of the mainstream of golf. I hope to be able to draw a little better picture of who we as a community really are as a result of all of this.

[armydiver]

I checked the box that indicates that I think I am a better judge than most, then I see the results, and without exception, my answer was the majority answer. I guess I am not as elitists as I thought.

I have always thought that one of my greatest strengths is to be consistently and almost universally average.

 

On a more serious note, I think that one of the outcomes of the polls that I have done, and those that are scheduled to follow, are to draw a more definable picture of the mainstream of golf. I hope to be able to draw a little better picture of who we as a community really are as a result of all of this.

 

Great poll, are you doing this analysis for sh*ts & gigs, or for work?

[profsmitty]

I checked the box that indicates that I think I am a better judge than most, then I see the results, and without exception, my answer was the majority answer. I guess I am not as elitists as I thought.

I have always thought that one of my greatest strengths is to be consistently and almost universally average.

 

On a more serious note, I think that one of the outcomes of the polls that I have done, and those that are scheduled to follow, are to draw a more definable picture of the mainstream of golf. I hope to be able to draw a little better picture of who we as a community really are as a result of all of this.

 

Great poll, are you doing this analysis for sh*ts & gigs, or for work?

I'm just a pointy-headed academic trying to study and classify golf and golfers for some yet to be completely defined project. For those who are stumbling into my threads for the first time, I have conducted two previous polls

 

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=224759

 

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/index.php?sh...p;#entry1484846

 

I intend to post additional polls in the coming weeks and months. At some point, I will try to come to some generalizable conclusions based on this research and I will share them first with the GolfWRX community.

 

I am confident that my findings will support the proposition that golf and golfers are a much more complex social and economic phenomenon than many believe. Exactly how these commonly held assumptions differ from reality remain to be seen. I am encouraged by what I have learned so far. One of the most important findings of the first and second polls is that we are not the homogeneous collection of conservative ideologues that many assume we are. This in itself is an important finding. I hope to flesh out how these differences manifest themselves as more data becomes available through the polls.

 

Again, this is not a rigorous scientific inquiry by any means. There are too many confounding variable that I cannot control for. However, I hope it will have some explanatory power. We'll see.

 

If anyone would be interested in participating in this project let me know. I would be happy to hear form you.

[JD3]

Many design styles can meet these criteria for a truly great course, which I think are:

 

- make you hit every club in the bag and every type of shot; if there's a club or shot you're not comfortable with, at some point during the round this will be exposed and you'll pay a stiff price;

- variety

- all bunkering has strategic value and comes into play (i.e. not decorations)

- well designed greens (absolutely impossible to have a great course with only average green designs)

- require that you play with imagination

[Big A HG]

A great course doesn't have to be built on the best piece of land. The amount of earth moved depends on the land itself and the type of course you are building. Courses with better conditions are better courses to play and I feel is important. A good course is a good course, but a good course can be ruined by bad playing conditions.

 

A great designer can build a course on any piece of land given to them and doesn't need a bunch of gimmicky hazards to make it an awesome course. You can give any designer a piece of land along the Pacific coast and it'd be hard to screw it up, however, give a designer a piece of wasteland, and a great one will still create a masterpiece.

 

People see all the new picturesque designs out there, but that doesn't mean they play worth a shittt, but because they look nice, people think they play awesome too...not true.