In the 17th at High Pointe, I saw a par 3 which has a lot of potential, but ends up being a bit disappointing (relative to the rest of the back nine - other than the 18th, which has been discussed before.)
I like the setting for the hole. Two things stood out to me. One was clearly maintenance. The other was either associated with the design or perhaps maintenance not matching the design intention. I'm not sure which but I'm hoping to find out as a result of this thread.
The first issue, which is maintenance rather than design is the scrubby trees that are growing between the tee and the green. I thought they detracted visually from what should have been an attractive green setting from the tee. It reminded me of the neighbor that doesn't trim their bushes or allows crazy things to grow in an otherwise manicured bed.
The second issue relates to how I wanted this hole to play. I wanted badly for the area left of the green to funnel balls down to the green. It looked appealing from the tee, but when you get close to the green you realize the left area is maintained as rough and there is really no hope for a ball struck to the left to filter in toward the hole as you might imagine.
So here's my question for the evening. Was this the design intent or is this the super's interpretation of how it should play? Has it been modified over time, or has the conditioning remained unchanged here?
Here's a view from the tee (sans trees) that provides a view of the area left of the green
Here's a look at the green looking back on the hole for what it's worth