I wrote this a few years ago in my book "Designs On a Better Golf Course, Questions and Answers for Green Committees.......To make it fit this thread, I suppose you would say that most holes that don't have most or all of these features would be a bad hole, at least according to most golfers.
A good hole fits the land well, plays well, has reasonable challenge, is fun, looks great, is memorable, and is also distinct from others on the course.
Some of the world’s great holes violate some of the good practices listed below. Most holes (with exceptions…there are always exceptions) follow most, if not all, of the following generally accepted golf course design principles:
• Aesthetics – Most of us play golf in large part to be out in nature.
• Visible targets and hazards – First, they are artistic (see above). Second, this fosters strategy and even safety, especially at courses you may only play one time.
• Length – From each tee, golfers should be able to play holes of all types from a reasonable length for them.
• Width – With some variety, wide turf corridors (fairways and roughs) facilitate strategic route options. Sub-200 foot turf corridors are narrow, while 225-250 foot corridors are comfortable. Any wider is just plain embarrassing to miss, but it does happen.
• Challenge – The Robert Trent Jones mantra of “Hard Par, Easy Bogey” still applies. We add “possible birdie.”
• Strategy and Options – One way to play the hole is penal, two or more ways to play is strategic. Parents know that giving kids one choice makes them defiant but offering them their choice usually makes them compliant. Golfers aren’t very different.
• Risk and Reward – Temptation has been around since Adam and Eve. Choosing between safe and risky shots is always fun. Choices elevate the game from a physical one to a physical and mental one.
· Encourage Good Shots – by letting golfers succeed, i.e., hold the green, stay in the fairway, etc., with all but very bad luck. And, by keeping most hazards moderately difficult, because overly punitive hazards make golfers less likely to take risks and succumb to temptation.
· Punish Bad Shots Proportionally – There are many variations in philosophy, applied by different designers with different goals to unique topography for each hole. However, most architects try to distinguish golfing misdemeanors from bigger crimes……. at least most of the time. Hazards that allow recovery enhance strategy, and, as someone opined long ago, “The right of eternal punishment should be left to a higher power than the golf course architect.” Besides, scorecard wrecking shots make for good bar talk. They also make golf course architects famous.
· Fair – While architects usually strive for “fair,” life’s not fair and neither is golf. “Perfectly fair” is unattainable. We can’t, and shouldn’t, eliminate “rub of the green.”
· Playable by All – For “D” players a “good shot” is airborne, generally flying towards the hole, and most of the way there. Even by that relaxed standard, most hit about 10 good shots per round and their best shots should get positive results! Those who hit less than 10 successful shots per round are called “E” (as in “ex”) golfers. When considering challenge and difficulty, architects generally err on the side of caution to accommodate all potential players by minimizing forced carries from the forward-most tees, which was easier to do before the environmental movement put birds ahead of birdies and minimizing hazards that only punish poor shots.
· Agronomically Sound – While unseen by golfers, architects must make sure the soils, sun and breeze, together with proper drainage and irrigation support fine turf expected by golfers.