I wrote this in Golf Course Industry magazine in 2011:
Over time, I have developed my design oriented view of “Shot values” from amazingly consistent comments from Tour Pros and other good players. This provides me a tool for choosing the best design features. It could be a basis for a formal ratings system, but others can rate and analyze designs. I just design, striving to make as many shots as I can adhere to these parameters:
1. No Unplayable/ Unreasonably Difficult shots, including impossible forced carries, or targets behind mature trees, or greens that impossibly small or which reject shots. Also includes Uncomfortable Shots, with difficult “physics” like:
a. Uphill long iron shot from downhill lie
b. Combinations of vertical challenges, i.e., shots over a bunker lip but under tree branches.
c. Shot over water/OB required to reach target (i.e., water right in right to left winds)
2. Target Visibility. There are exceptions, but blindness reduces strategy and pace of play, and sometimes increases safety problems.
3. Target Accepts/Holds Well Played Shots - including:
a. Adequate Size – Statistically sized, and about:
i. 15% width/20% depth of expected shot distance (average players)
ii. 10% width/10% depth of expected shot distance (good players, used guarded “Sunday Pins”)
iii. Adjusted for typical wind conditions (i.e., deeper greens on downwind shots accounting for less spin, wider greens in crosswinds, etc.
iv. Generally, angled less than 30 degrees right or left for playability.
b. Contours with at least 1.5% upslope facing golfers, and fairways with less than 10% (depending on turf type) cross slope.
4. Options with Consequences –
a. 2-3 options on most tee shots, (More options provide little benefit) with a “best location” providing an approach shot that is shorter or from a better angle (usually no hazard carry), a level lie, better vision or holding capacity, or taking major hazards out of play on either shot.
b. On approach shots, a choice between “fat middle” area, “Sunday Pin” target, which might vary daily by wind or pin location.
c. A “bail out” area for any shot with difficult hazards.
d. Balance of Risk and Reward, i.e., opportunity to gain a shot or lose a shot. Risk proportion may rise near the end of the round when gaining shots is critical to those behind.
e. Create Temptation and Dilemma –
i. High Risk Shots should have 51-67%, chance to succeed, and reverse proportioned 67-51%, chances for recovery if missed. (Hazards can be more difficult Reaching a par 5 in two shots)
ii. Use large 90-100% doable “Safe” targets to accentuate the difference between safe and risky shots.
5. Reward one “best” shot pattern on each shot.
a. Wherever possible, strongly align prevailing wind, lie and target angle to “signal” a preferred shot pattern. It reduces confusion and makes success a matter of execution, and reduces luck. Setting up and rewarding one shot pattern on each shot requires golfers to ”hit all the shots” over the course of the round.
b. Even when favoring one shot pattern, leave enough room for others, as few golfers can hit all shots. Even top players can’t do it reliably without their “A game," relying on their ” go to” shot at other times.
6. Reward Different Recovery Skills over 18 holes – Hazards should be:
a. A mix of different types and styles, for visual and play variety. However, golfers who can hit “all the recovery shots” (or excel on only some) both enjoy courses where they vary from hole to hole.
7. Shot Difficulty Balance/Relationships – While the occasional truly hard or easy hole stands out, most holes should have:
a. Near average difficulty, with a mix of hard, medium difficulty and easier shots. Holes with difficult tee shot should have easier approach shots and/or putting. Where the long shots are relatively easy, putting can be relatively harder.
b. Similarly, hazard difficulty should relate to shot difficulty (i.e., relatively harder hazards on easier shots, and easier hazards for harder shots
c. Hazards should be harder on wider fairways and bigger greens and easier on narrow fairways and small greens.
8. Balance over 18 holes – Golfers have different game strengths, and the course should allow each to shine, with a variety of shots favoring accuracy, length, finesse, different shot patterns, and winds.
9. Variety and Rhythm over 18 holes – All other things being equal, varying hole pars, lengths, features, relative difficulty and shot types provides better play and competition over a very unbalanced course. Holes with variety, occuring in a pleasant sequence, especially avoiding a string of hard holes, provide the most enjoyable play and competitive conditions.
10. Exceptions to the Rules – Golf courses can’t be standardized, and I have never followed these rules for every shot, nor try particularly hard to do so.
Great holes first and foremost fit the land, and are aesthetic, sometimes at the expense of shot values. Using the land is the “first among equals” in design criteria. Many great old holes and courses break these rules. Some are even revered for it, such as Olympics’ “too narrow, too sloped” fairways, or the Road Hole at St. Andrews. But, while those exceptions are cool, modern designers who break the “rules” too often usually create courses that are more goofy than great.
Even now, golfers aren’t too coddled or demanding that they will quit the game if the greens won’t hold, or they are required to play to a reverse slope green, or hooks off fade lies, or an approach, etc. They all play the same course, and regard an uncomfortable or difficult shot as just another golf challenge.
For them, just playing is more important than playing a course with good shot values. However, if shot values are too far out of the norm, they may switch courses!
There you have it, a nice 10-point list (because it’s all about lists these days) succinctly describing the current consensus on “