I haven't seen it asked, maybe I missed it, but is it good design if you're trying to miss the green? On the one hand, par is irrelevant and if that gives you the best way to the hole, then do it. On the other hand, is the design too penal if you have to play so carefully just to avoid a big number?
Joe,
Most gca's probably wouldn't design that on purpose. Or, in the words of Jack Nicklaus, the course should never be purposely designed to hurt you. The key word is "purposely" and that golfers shouldn't complain when it does happen, a la 1930's Ross greens that were once puttable, but now terrifying if you get above the hole at green speeds of 12+.
[size=78%] [/size]In general, given most golfers' fixation on par, etc., it would be seen as poor design, or perhaps more accurately, not as conceptually strong as an approach shot where you choose where on the green to hit to potentially yield a birdie vs. par. Is purposely giving up on birdie to avoid double bogey that much fun, conceptually, really? Maybe every so often, but not too often. I mean, anything is acceptable once in a round of golf, methinks.....And, many gca's do make it a practice, at least on hard holes with perhaps a pond near the green, to design in a bail out area for the timid.
Then, the conceptual question is, if you are saying hard par, easy bogey (a la RTJ) should that chip from the designed in bailout area be
into an upslope, controllable, and thus a chance to recover for par, with bogey more likely? Or should the green be tilted moderately to sharply away from the obvious bailout to make the resulting chip very tricky? In a few cases, I have a pond on the other side, so it should be naturally downhill towards the pond from the bailout area, so how does that affect any designed in cross slopes? I tend to soften those, because I don't care to make too many holes an option between hard bogey and easy double bogey for the player who lands in the bailout, intentionally or not.
I understand some would say you never reward a bailout, but in the end, if there is not an easy recovery shot from the bailout area, I believe the strategy is negated and you may as well aim for the green and take your chances. In other words, the easier the recovery shot from the bailout area, the more tempting and probably statistically sound that option is. Playing for the bail out is in fact a strategy to avoid a big number (i.e., water ball in most cases) and architects should reward good strategy somehow, right?
Personally, I don't care to cause a double or triple, but making par hard and bogey attainable seems like enough differentiation.
Even varying green speeds can be considered. For example, here in Texas, dormant Bermuda can get to 14+ from November until about now, and golfers need to play on those greens. If you design for summer speeds, typically 9.5-10, you can probably slope greens up to 3.75% or so for at least some cup locations. But in winter, 3% would be the absolute max, and it does acount for 25% of months of play, and maybe half that of actual play. So, should the course be nearly unplayable by average golfers for 6 months of the year? Or specific to this question, it is very possible that the reward varies according to season.
And, I mention this because of Jim S's question. It may vary seasonally. I will say, the average course manager of a high play course probably fights some borderline cup locations, and the most likely scenario is to find the easiest ones for off season, or evern heavy in season play to keep the flow of play moving.