What design feature do you dislike the most?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Island Greens
I'll concede Pete and Alice "one" and perhaps Strong one, but that's it ...

as for the rest ... there is nothing clever or interesting about playing them

Ian I think what you have said represents 10% of what golfers like, 90% love them.

[Thomas Dai]

Island Greens
I'll concede Pete and Alice "one" and perhaps Strong one, but that's it ...

as for the rest ... there is nothing clever or interesting about playing them

Ian I think what you have said represents 10% of what golfers like, 90% love them.

I'm sure golf ball manufacturers and scuba divers also love island greens (and all ponds/streams etc). I'm sure they also love the likes of long grass and OOB where you can't retrieve your ball!

There is a close relationship between design and maintenance practices, some aspects of which have been touched on above.

Rather than incorporate disliked maintenance practices within this thread I shall start a separate thread on it - see - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59732.0.html

atb

[Garland Bayley]

If manmade lakes and ponds are a necessity in many developments, why not utilize them in the strategy of creating interesting designs?  

Impossible, they are boring. They take away shots. How many shots have you made from the middle of a pond?

It is often in today's climate preferable for many architects to hide the irrigation pond out of sight to achieve an aesthetic effect, but could not the question be asked that the designer has been inefficient in utilizing the available natural/required resources to create strategy?  Honestly, a sand bunker is much more out of place in most inland environments than a flooded space of land.  

By all means a pond does not have to be a forced carry, but the excuse to say it doesn't fit into the landscape is but an opinion perhaps resulting in a lack of creativity?

Au contraire. It is the lack of creativity that uses the cheap trick of adding a pond.

 My home course (clay-based) hides the retention pond out of sight; all the while there could have been multiple opportunities to place it in lower elevation, thus producing golf holes with greater options.  It is not wise to waste a strategic resource by hiding it behind some trees just because it looks unappealing.  With tongue in cheek, be like Fazio and try to make it look natural.

Charlie

I disagree that a manmade pond cannot be utilized to create strategy.  If I am building a course in a sugarcane or corn field and want to recreate a Cape hole; then why not dig a pond.  It creates strategy in that the golfer has to determine how much to cut the corner.  And if that is not strategy I don't know what is.  Simply saying that all manmade water hazards are boring because they leave no possibility of a recovery shot is illogical.      High fescue leaves no chance of recovery, so to do gorges and cliffs, deep woods, and oceans;  I guess those are boring too?  Therefore the architect that employs these challenges must have no creativity.  Rubbish.
 
If I may, I believe your opinion and Doak's distaste of manmade water is more aesthetical.  You don't like how they look; and neither do I.  But to say they don't create strategy is false.  For better or worse,  water dominates the players mind when confronted with it.  Therefore, however a 'cheap trick' they may constitute, and often times the lesser designs rely overly on their penal nature,  they nevertheless when creatively utilized are a useful resource in the mind of a great designer.  
Charlie

From Ran's review of Old MacDonald.

"Ninth hole, Cape, 415/230 yards; The best Cape holes (the fifth at Mid Ocean, the eighth at St. Louis, the fourteenth at National Golf Links of America) feature a water hazard upon which the hole pivots around. Such all or nothing hazards provide intense interest that the bunkers and vegetation on the inside of this Cape hole don’t match. Conversely, the bunkers and gorse here better tempt the golfer into being greedy, making this version a delightful hole to play time and time again."

A pond creates mindless strategy, and eliminates more strategy than it creates. It is simply a flag that says don't go here. How mindless can you get. I can do without the "intense interest" in whether my ball is going into the pond or not.

You didn't answer as to how many recovery shots you have made from the center of a pond.

[Garland Bayley]

Island Greens
I'll concede Pete and Alice "one" and perhaps Strong one, but that's it ...

as for the rest ... there is nothing clever or interesting about playing them

Ian I think what you have said represents 10% of what golfers like, 90% love them.

Please reference the scientific study that determined your allegation.

[Ryan Taylor]

Fairway bunkers that are surrounded by irrigated rough. Why is it so hard to understand the concept of width? Shouldn't golf committee members institute a fairway line check every spring or fall?

[Jason Topp]

Forced layup for me.  It is a let-down to be forced to dink one off the tee, particularly when a lot of real estate remains after the layup.

[Adam Lawrence]

Island Greens
I'll concede Pete and Alice "one" and perhaps Strong one, but that's it ...

as for the rest ... there is nothing clever or interesting about playing them

Ian I think what you have said represents 10% of what golfers like, 90% love them.

But so what? If you're going to assert that popular equals good then we're back to the 'McDonald's is the best restaurant in the world' argument.

(FWIW I agree that lots like them and I understand why people build them, but on balance I am with Ian).

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adam - You can't argue with an opinion and I am not arguing with Ian's, I have seen too many and am a bit fed up with them, but in the UK they are still rare. Not that what I am going to say now is relevant to golf architecture directly but if you build a new course in this country and include an island green you will get plenty of traffic they really are a big hit with the customers.

[Charlie Ray]

If manmade lakes and ponds are a necessity in many developments, why not utilize them in the strategy of creating interesting designs?  

Impossible, they are boring. They take away shots. How many shots have you made from the middle of a pond?

It is often in today's climate preferable for many architects to hide the irrigation pond out of sight to achieve an aesthetic effect, but could not the question be asked that the designer has been inefficient in utilizing the available natural/required resources to create strategy?  Honestly, a sand bunker is much more out of place in most inland environments than a flooded space of land.  

By all means a pond does not have to be a forced carry, but the excuse to say it doesn't fit into the landscape is but an opinion perhaps resulting in a lack of creativity?

Au contraire. It is the lack of creativity that uses the cheap trick of adding a pond.

 My home course (clay-based) hides the retention pond out of sight; all the while there could have been multiple opportunities to place it in lower elevation, thus producing golf holes with greater options.  It is not wise to waste a strategic resource by hiding it behind some trees just because it looks unappealing.  With tongue in cheek, be like Fazio and try to make it look natural.

Charlie

I disagree that a manmade pond cannot be utilized to create strategy.  If I am building a course in a sugarcane or corn field and want to recreate a Cape hole; then why not dig a pond.  It creates strategy in that the golfer has to determine how much to cut the corner.  And if that is not strategy I don't know what is.  Simply saying that all manmade water hazards are boring because they leave no possibility of a recovery shot is illogical.      High fescue leaves no chance of recovery, so to do gorges and cliffs, deep woods, and oceans;  I guess those are boring too?  Therefore the architect that employs these challenges must have no creativity.  Rubbish.
 
If I may, I believe your opinion and Doak's distaste of manmade water is more aesthetical.  You don't like how they look; and neither do I.  But to say they don't create strategy is false.  For better or worse,  water dominates the players mind when confronted with it.  Therefore, however a 'cheap trick' they may constitute, and often times the lesser designs rely overly on their penal nature,  they nevertheless when creatively utilized are a useful resource in the mind of a great designer.  
Charlie

From Ran's review of Old MacDonald.

"Ninth hole, Cape, 415/230 yards; The best Cape holes (the fifth at Mid Ocean, the eighth at St. Louis, the fourteenth at National Golf Links of America) feature a water hazard upon which the hole pivots around. Such all or nothing hazards provide intense interest that the bunkers and vegetation on the inside of this Cape hole don’t match. Conversely, the bunkers and gorse here better tempt the golfer into being greedy, making this version a delightful hole to play time and time again."

A pond creates mindless strategy, and eliminates more strategy than it creates. It is simply a flag that says don't go here. How mindless can you get. I can do without the "intense interest" in whether my ball is going into the pond or not.

You didn't answer as to how many recovery shots you have made from the center of a pond.

GJ,
I have never recovered from the center of a pond because there might be alligators, and worse, snakes in them, but the drowning of your golf ball does not equate to the drowning of creativity/strategy/options.

The BEST Cape holes, according to your quote, are ones that have water/ponds. 

I do agree that we both prefer hazards that allow for recovery (for options).  But I do not attribute the concept of options to be equal to the concept of strategy.  Demands are part of life.  And the golfer that shies away from demands are typically the same folk that equate obedience to a negative/oppressive reality.  I have to change a diaper, therefore I am not free to express myself.  Nonsense!        True joy can be found in accomplishing the task set before me.  Thus avoiding the pond on a golf course does not equate in some sort of enslavement over the player, but just the opposite.   A true understanding of freedom, in this scenario of 'escaping the ugly water hazard' can be likened to a conquering over an object that was attempting to take away my freedom,,,  or in this analogy, my $4 golf ball.

Thanks for the response
Charlie

 

[Sean_A]

Charlie

I am not going down the road of personal enslavement, but I do agree that not only is water a good design feature, but everything else mentioned as well.  Design is more about the balance of features than it is about the specific features.  Its easy to get away with too little of one thing, but not so much with too much of one thing.  I can understand the balance of features being upset for a specific reason, but generally, I think balance should perhaps be the prime goal because balance necessarily leads to variety. 

Ciao

[Greg Taylor]

Charlie

I am not going down the road of personal enslavement, but I do agree that not only is water a good design feature, but everything else mentioned as well.  Design is more about the balance of features than it is about the specific features.  Its easy to get away with too little of one thing, but not so much with too much of one thing.  I can understand the balance of features being upset for a specific reason, but generally, I think balance should perhaps be the prime goal because balance necessarily leads to variety. 

Ciao

Amen.

[Paul Gray]

Charlie

I am not going down the road of personal enslavement, but I do agree that not only is water a good design feature, but everything else mentioned as well.  Design is more about the balance of features than it is about the specific features.  Its easy to get away with too little of one thing, but not so much with too much of one thing.  I can understand the balance of features being upset for a specific reason, but generally, I think balance should perhaps be the prime goal because balance necessarily leads to variety.  

Ciao

Amen.

+1

And here we have a problem with the average golfer. Balance tends to equate to subtlety. Subtlety, in the eyes of the average golfer, means they miss 90% of what the course has to offer and is therefore translated as dull. 90% of golfers therefore, as per Adrian's comments about what sells, tend to prefer a shinier, less (dare I say it for fear of rebuke) sophisticated product.

[John Connolly]

I could do without:

1 - mandatory layup leaving a long approach (the ultimate "screw you" from the archie)
2 - overhanging tree branches on tee boxes - they leave me claustrophobic and anxious to move on down the fairway
3 - overhanging tree branches on the fairway - weed like behavior
4 - trees blocking and aerial entry into the green when you're in the middle of the gosh darn fairway and the ground game is not an option (even if it is an option I find it offensive)
5 - weeping willows within 6 miles of a golf course
6 - multi-stem trees - they must be the result of arboreal inbreeding
7 - bunkers well off the fairway - they are far more interesting when intruding into the line of play, if only slightly
8 - flat, featureless bunkers - go "big" or go home with bunkers, I say (not literally big, just be robust in design and texture)
9 - and, drumroll please, water hazards off the tee which are flanking both sides of the fairway - huh?

[Garland Bayley]

2 - overhanging tree branches on tee boxes - they leave me claustrophobic and anxious to move on down the fairway

Amen! I played one senior event where the tee was setup so that I could find no place where the branches did not interfere with my swing. But, all the shorter players could swing freely.

[Garland Bayley]

Charlie

I am not going down the road of personal enslavement, but I do agree that not only is water a good design feature, but everything else mentioned as well.  Design is more about the balance of features than it is about the specific features.  Its easy to get away with too little of one thing, but not so much with too much of one thing.  I can understand the balance of features being upset for a specific reason, but generally, I think balance should perhaps be the prime goal because balance necessarily leads to variety. 

Ciao

Amen.

+1

And here we have a problem with the average golfer. Balance tends to equate to subtlety. Subtlety, in the eyes of the average golfer that is missing 90% of what the course has to offer, is translated as dull. 90% of golfers therefore, as per Adrian's comments about what sells, tend to prefer a shinier, less (dare I say it for fear of rebuke) sophisticated product.

So you support ponds so that the average golfer will like the course, because it is not dull (subtle).
 

[Keith Kirkendall]

I'm not a big fan of blind approach shots.  Golf is hard enough even when you know where your ball landed.
Quadruple this if the blind shot involves a forced carry over a hazard.

[Garland Bayley]

...
The BEST Cape holes, according to your quote, are ones that have water/ponds. 
...
 

I wouldn't make too much of that. What percent of cape holes do not have water? Perhaps it is simply a matter of overwhelming odds, rather than quality.

[Will Spivey]

Overhanging tree branches on tee boxes are bad, robbing the player of angles, but my LEAST favorite design feature is where distance is the primary/only defense of the hole.  Maybe 1x or 2x a round is ok, but when it's a theme...yawn.

[Jon Cavalier]

Downhill approach shots to greens that slope from front to back. The 7th hole on the Plantation course at Kapalua is a perfect example.

I love that hole, so I'll have to disagree.

What did you want them to do, exactly?  The fairway slopes massively downhill, so you pretty much have to play from a downhill lie.  And Bill Coore actually told me when we were there that his first version of the green tilted slightly back toward the line of play -- but when they went back up into the fairway, it looked like a ski jump!

There is no problem with that hole if you land your approach short of the green.

While we can all certainly come up with a good or great hole that belies what one calls a "bad" design feature, the hole that immediately came to mind is one of the best openers in golf - the 1st at Oakmont. I'm also biased as I love this hole. Last time I plaued I think I hit 7 iron from 195 and ended up through the green despite landing some 25 yards short, but I was trying to land it even shorter.

This is also a feature that you rarely encounter. If overused I could see it being an annoyance, but in moderation when used naturally, I love it.

[Paul Gray]

Until yesterday I'd forgotten about this little gem:

A tree, complete with low lying, sprawling branches, right in front of the green.  

[MClutterbuck]

Greens surrounded nearly entirely by bunkers. I dont like features that are ease for the pro/scratch player and really tough on the high handicaps. I would much rather see a closely mown slope that plays with the minds of good players

Green side bunkers across from lakes. Same reason.

 

[Dave McCollum]

I’ve played two holes I thought were especially bad:

1.   A Vegas course where the tee shot was a layup, followed by 200+ approach to green benched into a steep hillside and falling off steeply into an arroyo.
2.   Similar, but even worse, a course near Boise where the 18th hole has a fairway running straight away with a large pond on the left.  The green is on the other side of the pond.  You can hit anything from driver to iron and still have the same 200+ yard forced carry across the pond.  I think they were forced to create an alternate route around the pond, but given the terrain, it would be very penal and risky.

I play with senior golfers mostly.  That ability to hit a 200+ yard shot seems to be an important difference between lesser and better players on long par 4’s and 3’s. 

[Jon Wiggett]

Until yesterday I'd forgotten about this little gem:

A tree, complete with low lying, sprawling branches, right in front of the green.  

But Paul, its 80% air or is it 90%, oh I forget.... I played Richmond GC (Yorkshire) where the last hole was a par 3 hit over a wood to a green you could not see with the clubhouse just a couple of feet behind it. To cap it off the direction marker was a red disc in the trees which I could not see.

Jon

[Thomas Dai]

...... design (I suspect Thomas meant maintenance) features.....

Brian,

Oh no I didn't!

See thread other entitled "What course maintenance features do you dislike the most?" -http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59732.0.html

Many interesting thoughts arising herein though.

atb

[Thomas Dai]

Haha, Oops! Thomas: I will say that I paused for thought for a bit to sense check my comment as it would be very much out of character for you to say anything that didn't 100% check out. I had forgotten that this was not a continuation of your earlier thread (where I recall reading the OP!), but a completely different thread .

Bottom line is I can't recall ever not agreeing with you on a GCA related topic.

No worries, as the folks from Downunder say

I shall be interested to read Ryans response to your post!

atb