Are Today's Golf Courses Unfair to the Average Golfer?

[Imp]

If you don't have the length to make the forced carry, you should just move up the tee, or try it, fail, take a drop in a usually available drop zone. If you can't make 150 off a tee, any tee, you should be playing the forward most tee box (IMHO, and could be wrong, but you just don't have the ball distance).

Here's a 150+ yd forced carry, 18th hole, 290 yd par 4, at Carnigie Abbey in Portsmouth RI (tee box at top, over the beach, green at bottom).
[url="http://maps.google.com/?ll=41.610634,-71.27184&spn=0.002411,0.004206&t=h&z=18"]http://maps.google.com/?ll=41.610634,-71.27184&spn=0.002411,0.004206&t=h&z=18[/url]

You can also see a forward tee box that gives someone a 175ish shot at the green. Slice or short, you're on the beach. Too left too early, you're in the brush/woods. They have a sign, "drop area on other side". IOW, try it once. Fail, and take a drop around the corner on the good side if you don't make it.

FYI, if you don't have a straight drive, you have to treat this hole as 2 par 3s. The 1st part, iron to the fairway for 175-200. This course is one of the few in the area that has quite a few forced carries... but it's private. It's a Donald Steele course.

[KDMullins]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1354814963' post='6027701']
I've never seen your example for White tees or less. I've played 250yd Par 3's, 660yd Par 5's, 460yd Par 4's, and forced carry of 220yds, but all were from the back tees. Places people should not be if they don't have the ability. Yesterday faced a 215yd Par 3 where 195yds of it was forced carry and a Par 5 that had 210yds off the tee, but the White tees were 150+yds and 100yds carry on 18. That course has senior tees up with the red tees where there is no forced carry to speak of.
[/quote]

You seem to be focusing on the forced carry tee shot, and my point includes that, but it's also much broader. On many new courses I've played, nearly every shot has a potentially penal outcome: OB, water hazard, lost ball and/or all of the above. There is a place on nearly every shot where you simply cannot hit the ball...or else suffer some fate other than go find it and hit it again.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1354814096' post='6027633']
As an addendum to my last post an by way of example, Riviera CC is landlocked, has almost no forced carries, and doesn't have any water on the entire course, and yet, it's one of the stiffest challenges there is anywhere.
[/quote]

True - I've played there many times. I didn't think this discussion was about private clubs. They tend to have more difficult course ratings verses public tracks where average Joe and seniors frequent. The White tees at Riviera are 72+/130ish and 6500+ it's a par71 track and it's more traditionally setup of yardage wise. Difficult by many standards. Private clubs like that know when joining what ever their index was prior, it's going up. The prevailing attitude at my last club was our indexes travel well, especially for team play. Reason I prefer more difficult courses. Means if someone has an 18 index at Riviera and plays an easier course, they should to score better.

Not on forced carry... that 250yd par 3 had none... it was however from the back tee. White tee was 190yds. I travel and play golf in multiple states, and don't see many courses that are totally unfair, as is suggested in this thread. Not to say they don't exist, they do.
Sure there might be a hole here or there, but I just don't believe they are as frequent as its suggested here.

[KDMullins]

One thing that I think has drastically changed golf courses and golf course architecture in the modern era is the vastness of the land that alot of golf courses occupy. That, in turn, has lead to alot of unmown and generally unkept areas (primarily for financial and possibly aesthetic reasons) that really impact the playability of the course for a non-single digit player from any tees.

[Imp]

I'll be honest with you KD, to me, what you describe sounds 'challenging'. If you consider something that difficult as 'unfair', then I guess it all comes down to what one accepts to deal with.

--kC

[KDMullins]

[quote name='Imp' timestamp='1354816235' post='6027793']
I'll be honest with you KD, to me, what you describe sounds 'challenging'. If you consider something that difficult as 'unfair', then I guess it all comes down to what one accepts to deal with.

--kC
[/quote]

I hesitate to say anything is "unfair" in golf. I mean you see the place where you aren't supposed to hit it, so don't hit it there. I'm a decent player, and I accept and welcome that challenge. I just think it takes a better architect with a better imagination to design a golf course that challenging for the good golfer, but isn't so penal for the guy that has no idea where he's about to hit it.

[Pepperturbo]

Yesterday I watched a guy use 3 wood for 210yd shots, and he leaked it hard right a number of times into some ugly 5-6" turf; I use long iron for that yardage. He should not have been playing Blue tees. Heck with the swing I had yesterday, I should have been on the white tees too.

Again, what constitutes penal and challenge varies person to person, making this discussion difficult When I ask a 20 handicap friend which tee's, he could easily say Whites, knowing I will go along. He opts for the longer more difficult blue tees saying its only a stroke difference, and he likes the challenge. He hits driver 220yds and is older then me. By and large, he doesn't think what others say is penal, is all that penal, and neither do I. It comes down to a frame of mind.

[Imp]

OK. Getting somewhere. The thread is titled "Are Today's golf courses Unfair to the average golfer."

Key word... unfair. Difficult & challenging doesn't necessarily equate to unfair... things that many of us regularly see on newer courses, or re-conditioned older ones.

Maybe we should look at this from a different perspective... "what does one consider 'fair' in a golf course?" To many, it's decreased forced carries, whether through quantity or distance, wider fairways, trimmed trees, etc... There are quite a few of is that look at that as 'boring'. While nice, and speeding up play, and less costly to lose $4-$5 balls each time... is your ego in check to be on the right tee? More importantly, does that person even understand how to use a handicap, or even maintain one any more?

Heck, those that can't drive 200, are they still playing $5 balls? I know I wouldn't as they're too hard to make compression and distance. They should be playing something much softer that act more like a spring...

--kC

[larrybud]

There are a number of golf courses in my area, including one right across the street that more than half the golf population have no business in playing, regardless of the tees. I've seen guys lose a dozen balls on this course in *9* holes. They can't keep a ball in play when there's no parallel fairways that they can blast into.

When you have forced carries on APPROACH shots, tell me how playing different tee boxes really matter? These guys blast the ball all over creation and hit ground balls every 1/3 shot. The course wonders why they have 5+ hour rounds.

[teejaywhy]

[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1354816235' post='6027791']
One thing that I think has drastically changed golf courses and golf course architecture in the modern era is the vastness of the land that alot of golf courses occupy. That, in turn, has lead to alot of unmown and generally unkept areas (primarily for financial and possibly aesthetic reasons) that really impact the playability of the course for a non-single digit player from any tees.
[/quote]

I'm with you in a way. Although many modern courses are spread out over a large expanse of land, they mostly share that property with real estate development. What often happens is that the best property is used for houses and what is left over and unsuitable for building is left to the golf course. The designer has to work with land that is severe and not truly suited for golf. This is why there are so many crappy new golf courses.

Why many of the older courses are better is because they were built on sites that were deemed ideal for golf, instead of being forced into odd landscape leftover from a subdivision.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='Imp' timestamp='1354817476' post='6027885']
OK. Getting somewhere. The thread is titled "Are Today's golf courses Unfair to the average golfer."

Key word... unfair. Difficult & challenging doesn't necessarily equate to unfair... things that many of us regularly see on newer courses, or re-conditioned older ones.

Maybe we should look at this from a different perspective... "what does one consider 'fair' in a golf course?" To many, it's decreased forced carries, whether through quantity or distance, wider fairways, trimmed trees, etc... There are quite a few of is that look at that as 'boring'. While nice, and speeding up play, and less costly to lose $4-$5 balls each time... is your ego in check to be on the right tee? More importantly, does that person even understand how to use a handicap, or even maintain one any more?

Heck, those that can't drive 200, are they still playing $5 balls? I know I wouldn't as they're too hard to make compression and distance. They should be playing something much softer that act more like a spring...

--kC
[/quote]

I beg to differ... what's difficult and challenging design wise, yet fun for me, is more then likely unfair to those with considerably less ability. Then I wonder, has he chosen the correct tees or does he hate challenging his game, as it keeps him in an agitated state over 18 holes.

When I encountered a 475 yard par 4 into 3-4 club wind, I do NOT think it unfair, nor is a 250yd Par 3. What those challenges do is force the golfer to be more creative and rely upon other aspects of their game. (I do not hit my driver nearly as far as tour players). Aspects that average Joe doesn't likely have because, for what ever the reason, he's not put the time in to balance his game.

The only thing I know to be unfair is uncut Kikuyu rough, as the ball falls into deep pockets, many times barely findable, or sets up on the top 3" above dirt, forcing low percentage shots. Difference between Riviera CC's Kikuyu and other public courses with that turf, Riviera takes proper care of the rough; reason its a challenge there, not unfair. Public tracks however tend not to to take proper care to save maintenance costs, making the condition unfair for all. I haven't met one golfer that's faced ugly unkept Kikuyu, that thought it was a fair condition. Another condition I consider unfair is 6" of fluffy sand in bunkers. Both conditions change challenge into a less then probable shot even for good golfers.

IMO if a hole is poorly designed, then conditions should be seen as "unfair" for all golfers... not just those with less ability, as they can improve their ability.

[Pepperturbo]

Above someone eludes to golfers needed parallel fairways, as they can't hit a straight shot. Buying plots of land that allow parallel fairways is hard to do. And, it seems many DB'ers like arguing for people that have not only lost their voice, but their desire or ability to improve their game, hence courses need to be built for them. That's wrong in a few ways.

If someone can't dribble the ball, and get throw it high enough to reach the basket, he's not playing basketball. However, the prevailing thoughts here suggest lowering the basketball hoop, as it's too difficult for short people or those that have weaknesses or inability. I have watched those same guys on relatively easy courses loose 3-10 balls in a round, so????

[hoganfan924]

"Unfair" is a loaded word. About the only clearly unfair thing I've experienced on a golf course is a hole cut on a 5-6% grade with the green stimping around a 9-10. In other words, a straight uphill putt that is missed rolls right back to where it was putted from. However, I see poorly done, gimmicky design "features" on plenty of modern courses that can be too penal and bring too much luck and randomness into the mix, like:

Island greens
OB on both sides of the fairway
Water on both sides of the fairway.
Blind tee shots that roll straight into a hazard when the visible fairway is split down the middle
OB within the margin of the course (inside the course OB)
Lateral marshland that isn't marked as a lateral water hazard
Inside the dogleg hazards on blind tee shots (major cause of slow play)
A 440 yard par 4 that has a large water hazard right in the middle of the fairway only 230 yards out
A 430 yard par 4 with a large Oak tree dead center of the fairway at about the 210 yard mark.
Long par 4's and 5's where you get punished (or no advantage) for hitting a driver off the tee (e.g. - fairway runs out for no apparent reason)

Not to mention all of the modern courses that simply cannot be played along the ground. I've played golf with plenty of women and most cannot carry a ball off the tee more than 150 yards. They clearly are "not welcome" at some of these courses by design.

People [i]are[/i] voting with their feet and wallets. Consequently, many of these modern courses are going bankrupt and are being sold for a tiny fraction of what it cost to build them. Some private courses are going public or semi-private, some offering dirt cheap memberships to stay alive.

I personally play difficult, modern designs much more often than old school courses. Blackheath (league), Shepherd's Hollow, Fieldstone, Lyon Oaks, Dunham Hills, The Orchards and Pine Trace were what I played most this year as I enjoy more challenging and better conditioned courses. but I also recognize that I rarely see women, seniors and juniors playing them and that isn't good for the future of these courses. As more old school courses get plowed under to build subdivisions, roads and more modern courses, it's ultimately killing the golden goose of golf, IMO. More people are quitting the game than taking it up and that will put even more financial pressure on these newer courses in the future.

[KDMullins]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1354820201' post='6028085']
"Unfair" is a loaded word. About the only clearly unfair thing I've experienced on a golf course is a hole cut on a 5-6% grade with the green stimping around a 9-10. In other words, a straight uphill putt that is missed rolls right back to where it was putted from. However, I see poorly done, gimmicky design "features" on plenty of modern courses that can be too penal and bring too much luck and randomness into the mix, like:

Island greens
OB on both sides of the fairway
Water on both sides of the fairway.
Blind tee shots that roll straight into a hazard when the visible fairway is split down the middle
OB within the margin of the course (inside the course OB)
Lateral marshland that isn't marked as a lateral water hazard
Inside the dogleg hazards on blind tee shots (major cause of slow play)
A 440 yard par 4 that has a large water hazard right in the middle of the fairway only 230 yards out
A 430 yard par 4 with a large Oak tree dead center of the fairway at about the 210 yard mark.
Long par 4's and 5's where you get punished (or no advantage) for hitting a driver off the tee (e.g. - fairway runs out for no apparent reason)

Not to mention all of the modern courses that simply cannot be played along the ground. I've played golf with plenty of women and most cannot carry a ball off the tee more than 150 yards. They clearly are "not welcome" at some of these courses by design.

People [i]are[/i] voting with their feet and wallets. Consequently, many of these modern courses are going bankrupt and are being sold for a tiny fraction of what it cost to build them. Some private courses are going public or semi-private, some offering dirt cheap memberships to stay alive.

I personally play difficult, modern designs much more often than old school courses. Blackheath (league), Shepherd's Hollow, Fieldstone, Lyon Oaks, Dunham Hills, The Orchards and Pine Trace were what I played most this year as I enjoy more challenging and better conditioned courses. but I also recognize that I rarely see women, seniors and juniors playing them and that isn't good for the future of these courses. As more old school courses get plowed under to build subdivisions, roads and more modern courses, it's ultimately killing the golden goose of golf, IMO. More people are quitting the game than taking it up and that will put even more financial pressure on these newer courses in the future.
[/quote]

+1

[Pepperturbo]

I have NO issues with people quitting the game. Its not my job to worry about revenue streams of OEM's or golf courses. Its supply and demand, as it should be. Thanks to poor economic conditions, golf is moving towards what it use to be... a costly game that requires financial resources to enjoy it. New course development costs are huge today; consequently green fees are going to climb. Yes, there "might" be more women, senior and couple friendly courses showing up, but less people to play due to cost.

Every time I play (2-4 times per wk) public golf it costs at least $65-175, plus my wife's fees, that doesn't include golf vacations where we play 7-12 times. Not a lot of families can afford that, so debating better, more friendly designs for the masses doesn't suggest common or fiscal sense, just idealism.

As for women "not welcome" comment; that is not only ridiculous, its a huge assumption. Courses owners and architects should not be made scapegoats for societies influence. Many modern courses were built inside of the last twenty-five years. But, only in the last ten years have more women taken up the game, and its still not a big influx. My wife plays golf (12) and many of her girlfriends do as well. Darn near all are members of private clubs, that compared to public courses, are more difficult. Average women's tees are sloped at 137-140. When they play public courses, they find some of the distance, but not much of the difficulty, and ratings lower than what they are use to. Ask them their thoughts on the difference, they say they are use to it.

[hoganfan924]

I don't have any particular interest in "growing the game." However, I recognize that if the number of golfers in my area keeps contracting, some of those courses that I enjoy playing may not be around in the future.

I played Elk Ridge late in the summer (mid-Mi premium daily fee course). We finished around 5:45PM on a Friday. We were the last ones on the course with about 2 more hours of daylight left. Our cars and one other were left in the parking lot (that of the cart attendant). It's a decent modern course but one that would certainly be intimidating to a mid-capper or worse. I shot 76. Seems folks are voting with their wallets there as well.

Greens fees ultimately have to be set based on supply/demand economics. Many courses here offer deeply discounted greens and membership fees due to declining demand. I played Metamora CC and Oak Pointe CC (both private or semi-private) for $40. So these courses "built for the elite player" are now charging rates "for the masses." Believing that those courses will always be there and can charge greens fees based on the cost to build the course is magical thinking.

[Pepperturbo]

Based upon the economy alone, courses will close. Others, if qualified will be sold off for RE development, and an attractive price too. Recently saw that a few times in AZ. The fact remains, over the last fifteen years, too many golf courses were built in areas where the population of "dedicated" golfers are actually limited; consequently, many will, and should face closure.

That's when we will see more clearly prices creeping up. I've seen courses in CA and AZ reach an incredible green fee low. Having been on the BOD of a few, I have to wonder how they keep the doors open. This is the time for benevolent investors to buy at a song, and wait for demand to exceed course supply. Its for those reasons, and that many golfers are giving up the game, its hard for me to get my head around believing courses will be developed for people that only intermittently play golf.

I do agree with you, some people are voting with their wallets, but that's not so much the case in heavily populated, wealthy areas. Most high end resort courses haven't changed their green fee's all that much. Only time will tell which courses survive, and whether developers think Nicklaus 12 holes style event has merit. IMO, it's a marketing move (not a good one) to keep certain members interested, that otherwise will walk on their membership.

[Sean2]

Maybe "unfair" was a poor choice of words on my part...perhaps "too difficult" would have been better in retrospect. However, I use the two interchangeably in this case. Hoganfan924 said it very well in post #196. There is a public course near my house that has three sets of tee boxes. The middle tees are 6400 yards, and there are quite a few long par 4's. I've played the course a number of times and you can see the folks out there hitting a lot of woods into the greens on the par fours. The course offers some pretty good deals...gee, I wonder why?

Some of you have suggested people should practice more. Well maybe they don't have the time. Some of you have said that maybe they just don't have the talent to play the game and should take up something else. Perhaps they love the game with the same passion you do, just because they aren't as good as you in golf doesn't mean they should quit.

Some of you sound a bit smug and seem to equate your ability to play golf, and someone else's inability, as some kind of character flaw or deficiency on their part.

Regardless, a lot of these modern tracks are simply to damn hard for the average golfer to scoot around with any kind of facility. Hoganfan outlined some of the difficulties above. To equate those difficulties as "whining" ("waaaa, waaaaa, waaaa", I think one of our 43 year old posters phrased it), is facile and superficial.

Some you have indicated you have no interest in growing the game. However, I think it's in everyone's interest to have a healthy golf industry since it benefits everyone: from the golf course owners, to the designers, to those that manufacture golf equipment, to those who make the equipment that keeps golf courses nicely manicured, to those who teach the game, to those who work in golf stores throughout the United States and beyond. To those who make the golf clothes and shoes we wear, to the golf bags we carry, and the tees, Tin Cup ball markers, training aids, range finders, etc. So when you say you have no interest in growing the game, aren't you being just a little bit selfish?

So, if our courses are a bit more user friendly, MAYBE, more people will have more fun, maybe more people will play, maybe more money will be spent, maybe the industry will grow, maybe a whole lot of people will benefit. Including YOU.

[KDMullins]

Sean2,

I agree. The harsh reality is alot of people simply don't care much about things that don't directly impact them. That issue/thought could quickly take a political turn, however, and no good is going to come from debating it.

[hoganfan924]

What I meant by not having any particular interest in growing the game is that I have no financial connection to the game. I'm not a member of a private club, am not an instructor or in the golf retail business. So I have no more interest than in growing badminton. I do have a personal interest that enough people play the game so that the courses that I enjoy playing can stay in business and that the equipment manufacturers who's equipment I enjoy playing are profitable. That said, there are enough courses in this area that if golf contracts dramatically, there will still be good courses to play.

[kellygreen]

I think the problem is four-fold.

1. Some courses are just poorly designed. Either because they try to cram a course on to too small a piece of land..or the architect makes some pretty stupid decisions. In my area there are two courses where you simply cannot hit a driver. One is because there fairways are super narrow, and there is OB bordering the fairways on one side on every hole. ON BOTH SIDES on many holes. On the other course, poorly placed cross-hazards simply take the club out of your hands, because it simply isn't worth the risk of hitting it. In fact, even good lay-ups will sometimes find their way into the hazards.

2. Some courses are not well-designed for the kind of player who will typically be playing it. This is usually the fault of the developer. He ask for a course that will challenge highly-skilled players, in an environment where his more likely customers are going to be recreational players. So you wind up with a very good course...but one that simply overmatches players it was never intended for.

3. Some architects just aren't flexible enough to tailor their design philosophy to player of various skill levels. Jack Nicklaus, unfortunately, is such an architect. Some of his resort courses are not-very-fun to play. You can hit a drive in the center of the fairway. Hit your approach shot to the center of the green...and still find yourself struggling to make par. OTOH, Arnold Palmer seems to be able to design courses that smoothly increase their demands and difficulty as you move farther back on the tees.

4. Many players make courses harder than they need to be, because they play the wrong tees. As a result...like in point #2....they simply find themselves overmatched by course that was never intended for a player of their power and skill level to be playing.

[4thand11]

I personally think this should be addressed at the muni level. For example if a municipality has 3 or 4 courses, stagger them by difficulty. Make one flat, wide-open, and easy. Make the toughest one a signature course. Try to market them so that the appropriate level of golfer chooses the appropriate course. Market the beginner course to newbies, kids, women, social leagues, etc.

I do not, however, think we should just be resigned to the thought that golf is a game for the wealthy and will inevitably revert back that way. Most public courses near me are around 25-30 bucks to play without a cart on weekends. That is not too much money for the average person, and not a bad value for 4-5 hours of entertainment when compared with other options. The image of golf as a rich man's game is exactly what they need to get rid of in order for the game to thrive. The courses I play at are full of blue-collar guys, of varying ability, who absolutely love the game.

[SurfDuffer]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1354820148' post='6028081']
If someone can't dribble the ball, and get throw it high enough to reach the basket, he's not playing basketball. However, the prevailing thoughts here suggest lowering the basketball hoop, as it's too difficult for short people or those that have weaknesses or inability. I have watched those same guys on relatively easy courses loose 3-10 balls in a round, so????
[/quote]

You nailed it in this one paragraph.

What is this "Average" golfer??? Who is this guy??? Are these the people I see who can't advance the ball forward more than 120 yards per stroke.....who hit more shots sideways than forward.....who can't get the ball airborne???? Is this who we need to cater to???? Really???? These people aren't playing golf to begin with. Let them go to the miniature golf course, putt putt course, chip and putt or par three course. Bowling may be more up their alley. Better yet Bumper Bowling.

[Sean2]

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1354829358' post='6028889']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1354820148' post='6028081']
If someone can't dribble the ball, and get throw it high enough to reach the basket, he's not playing basketball. However, the prevailing thoughts here suggest lowering the basketball hoop, as it's too difficult for short people or those that have weaknesses or inability. I have watched those same guys on relatively easy courses loose 3-10 balls in a round, so????
[/quote]

You nailed it in this one paragraph.

What is this "Average" golfer??? Who is this guy??? Are these the people I see who can't advance the ball forward more than 120 yards per stroke.....who hit more shots sideways than forward.....who can't get the ball airborne???? Is this who we need to cater to???? Really???? These people aren't playing golf to begin with. Let them go to the miniature golf course, putt putt course, chip and putt or par three course. Bowling may be more up their alley. Better yet Bumper Bowling.
[/quote]

Wow.

[larrybud]

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1354829358' post='6028889']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1354820148' post='6028081']
If someone can't dribble the ball, and get throw it high enough to reach the basket, he's not playing basketball. However, the prevailing thoughts here suggest lowering the basketball hoop, as it's too difficult for short people or those that have weaknesses or inability. I have watched those same guys on relatively easy courses loose 3-10 balls in a round, so????
[/quote]

You nailed it in this one paragraph.

What is this "Average" golfer??? Who is this guy??? Are these the people I see who can't advance the ball forward more than 120 yards per stroke.....who hit more shots sideways than forward.....who can't get the ball airborne???? Is this who we need to cater to???? Really???? These people aren't playing golf to begin with. Let them go to the miniature golf course, putt putt course, chip and putt or par three course. Bowling may be more up their alley. Better yet Bumper Bowling.
[/quote]

Yes, because those golfers need to learn somehow. Unless you're a Tiger type who had an inherent ability at age 3, most new golfers do exactly as you've described. So why not design a course that those golfers can actually play without losing a dozen balls and taking 5.5 hours to play, but also is a good design for the better golfer?

HoganFan and I play on a league together at a course called Black Heath, which you wouldn't say is long from the blue tees, less than 3000 yards on the front 9. However, the 3rd hole is a par 3 that generally plays about 165 or so. Not long, right? Here's the hole:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Blackheath+Golf+Club,+North+Rochester+Road,+Rochester,+MI&hl=en&ll=42.753898,-83.127354&spn=0.00206,0.005284&sll=42.689167,-83.121208&sspn=0.032996,0.084543&oq=blackheath&hq=Blackheath+Golf+Club,+North+Rochester+Road,+Rochester,+MI&t=h&z=18

So you have carry over marsh, OB/Marsh left, long, and a very small bailout area to the right. In addition, the trees on the left stick out so much that you generally can't see the left 1/3rd of the green, so the "average" golfer who slices can't start the ball far enough left to have a chance at hitting it on.

I would say that on average, 1 out of 3 balls are lost on that hole, and there is ALWAYS a backup on this hole of at least one group. HUGE bottle neck. How is this good for anyone? But this is a perfect example of "modern" design.

Fill in the marsh so any topped shot won't be lost, cut back the trees so the slicers have a *chance*, and make the landing area larger. For the "good" players this will pretty much have zero affect, as they're not topping the ball anyway, right?

[SurfDuffer]

In the picture you posted there is clearly a forward tee box with no forced carry. If someone can't help topping the ball and can't carry that tiny area what the heck are they doing playing those back boxes????? You shouldn't have posted that pic.......you lost even more credibility for your post. That hole doesn't even look particularly difficult.

[hoganfan924]

Well, it's not a particularly hard hole for a good player but what men's golf league is going to tee off from the forward (women's) tees that is only an 80 yard shot? Part of the problem is that this hole is preceded by a 300 yard par 4, so there are frequently 3 groups on the 3rd tee. Just one example of bad design. This course has several badly designed holes that contribute to excruciatingly slow play even though it's not a hard course for a good player. 2:45 for 9 holes when there's another league in front of us is commonplace for 9

[SurfDuffer]

Bad design is bad design. That's a topic of its own. This is a thread of people whining about courses being too difficult.

As for league play.......what is someone doing playing in a golf league if they can't carry a tiny little hazard like the one in your picture?

[Sean2]

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1354834475' post='6029289']
Bad design is bad design. That's a topic of its own. This is a thread of people whining about courses being too difficult.

As for league play.......what is someone doing playing in a golf league if they can't carry a tiny little hazard like the one in your picture?
[/quote]
This is not a thread about people whining about courses being too difficult. You obviously don't read all the posts, or you don't comprehend what you're reading.

[KDMullins]

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1354831238' post='6029049']
In the picture you posted there is clearly a forward tee box with no forced carry. If someone can't help topping the ball and can't carry that tiny area what the heck are they doing playing those back boxes????? You shouldn't have posted that pic.......you lost even more credibility for your post. That hole doesn't even look particularly difficult.
[/quote]

You can't just play whatever tees you want on any given hole and have a legitimate, postable score for handicap purposes. I don't understand why people keep saying this. Besides, what you're seeing is most likely the Women's Tee.

...and are you really going to argue with the guy that plays there every week based on an aerial photograph?