Pet hates in course routings

[Max Prokopy]

I grew up with dirt teeboxes and sheep mowing the grass so I'm generally happy to tee it up on anything, but...


I don't like "island" lay-ups on three shot holes.  Having the layup area(s) bounded by wetlands on 3 sides has so many things wrong with it. 


I also agree with another poster who doesn't like strategic trees.  They grow pretty quickly so there's no plausible way that any interesting playing angles will persist.

[John Kavanaugh]

I dislike a course with 3 nines and par 4's with two greens. For all the same reasons I hate a buffet.

[Ben Stephens]

There should be no rules. Let’s get that clear at the outset… But there are some routing decisions that are not best practice… and then there are just pet hates (or dislikes) that are usually quite individual.


This thread is about the last of those.


Ben Stephen’s doesn’t like 3 or more par-3’s in the same direction (the inspiration behind this thread).


I don’t usually like 3 or more holes playing back and forth beside each other in succession.


That’s my pet hate. What’s yours?

I am not a fan of 3 or more par 3s in the same direction routing wise - if the holes are all good on merit I don't have a real problem


3 holes playing back and forth - urrgghh! it always depends on if the site is restricted.

[Ben Stephens]

Parallel holes in same direction
Only two par fives over by fourth hole


Reminder:  It’s pet peeves about routing not just golf holes.

I guess most of us on GCA know which course you are referring to Mike

[Sean_A]

Blind shots with a lack of space. It should almost, almost be a rule that if a shot is blind the ball can't be lost.  County Down bugs the shit out of me on this point. Though to be fair, this is a maintenance issue. Same for above, but it's so stupid it must be mentioned .

I liked the course but, OMG, Perrenporth.

Yes, Perranporth is not for the weak of heart. In certain winds defensive golf is the order of the day. A highly unusual keeper.

Ciao

[Ben Stephens]

Other pet peeves


- long distances from green to next tee


- all par 5's in the same direction like par 3s


- Someone mentioned about par 5s as 1,9,10,18 (Mottram Hall is one example)


- holes that are too close to each other - increases risk of safety or players playing another route on another hole as a short cut
- doglegs that are over 80-90 degs 


- if two loops of nine - bloody long walks from 9 to 10


- one nine hole loop is 600 plus yards longer than the second loop


- too many 'breather' holes into layout routing for the sake of it rather than create the best routing possible.


- finishing holes too far away from clubhouse


- clubhouse and car parking in the wrong place which affects the best possible routing


- course is bisected by railway or road which affects the routing (this is after not before)

[Ben Stephens]

Blind shots with a lack of space. It should almost, almost be a rule that if a shot is blind the ball can't be lost.  County Down bugs the shit out of me on this point. Though to be fair, this is a maintenance issue. Same for above, but it's so stupid it must be mentioned .

I liked the course but, OMG, Perrenporth.

Yes, Perranporth is not for the weak of heart. In certain winds defensive golf is the order of the day. A highly unusual keeper.

Ciao

Some of the blind holes had generous fairway widths at Perranporth others didn't - its a cracking course and look forward to seeing Tim Lobb's proposals for it (get the feeling it will be subtle similar to his approach at Isle of Purbeck)

[David_Tepper]

Blind landing areas where red, yellow or white stakes are very much in play. How will you know where to take relief if you can't see where your ball entered the hazard?

[Tom_Doak]

As a corollary from this - the mirroring of finishing holes. 9 and 18 are parallel to each other, perhaps separated by the same lake, perhaps playing to a shared green.

This is my pet peeve, and I must have seen thirty courses built in the 1980-2000 timeline by the Dyes and Jack Nicklaus that did it.  It means that they didn’t have much topography to inspire something different, so it’s a quick indicator that the rest of the course is going to be lacking in creativity.


After that, the only thing I hate are preconceptions, which must be why I clash with Ben here so often.  An architect should avoid them, so why would he answer to those of a critic?  Lots of the rules expressed here are things a golfer would rarely notice about a course if they weren’t looking to nitpick.  (For example I’ve yet to hear someone who just played St Patrick’s or NGLA complain that the par-3 holes played in the same direction - it took a guy who hasn’t been there and is looking to find “fault” with it.)


Likewise, while I share Ally’s reluctance to route holes back and forth in parallel, there are many sequences on great courses that do just that.  The best stretch of High Pointe did it, but those are the very holes Ran says may be the best stretch I ever built . . . the topography makes them different even though they are side by side.

[Tim Martin]

I am not a fan of more than one par five number 1, 9, 10 or 18.  Some courses have two or three.  Not sure I have seen four.   I don’t mind the holes.  I just find that they often lead to a steady diet of par fours somewhere else.  If the par fours are great, that is fine but they usually are not.

Holes that run back and forth or at 90 degree angles.  Our front nine is that way but I should not be routing courses because I have never come up with a better solution.  The best routed courses seem to often fan out from the clubhouse. 

I am not a fan of turning around and walking backwards.  It disrupts the flow of the round.  There needs to be some spectacular reason to do it.   

I know why it happens but I hate it when courses have one green, a par three and then a tee near the ocean.   That is not a course on the ocean but a housing course with a postcard opportunity.

If the holes are great, I can overlook all of these.

Taconic GC has a par 5 on 1,10 and 18. Is this the definition of getting “eased in” and “eased out?”

[Adrian_Stiff]

As a corollary from this - the mirroring of finishing holes. 9 and 18 are parallel to each other, perhaps separated by the same lake, perhaps playing to a shared green.

This is my pet peeve, and I must have seen thirty courses built in the 1980-2000 timeline by the Dyes and Jack Nicklaus that did it.  It means that they didn’t have much topography to inspire something different, so it’s a quick indicator that the rest of the course is going to be lacking in creativity.

Tom, interesting you bring up the 9th/18th combo often around a lake with the shared green. I used to like this concept. First one I saw was at Foxhills, 36 hole course with a double green housing the 18th for each course. Then it got over used and I started to dislike it. Uniqueness and variety is the key but I suppose if things get copied too much then the familiarity can get boring.
I think I am getting fed up of many of the UK links courses getting the same sand scrape treatment.
Its a bit like keep putting the same song on the album.

[Sean_A]

As a corollary from this - the mirroring of finishing holes. 9 and 18 are parallel to each other, perhaps separated by the same lake, perhaps playing to a shared green.

This is my pet peeve, and I must have seen thirty courses built in the 1980-2000 timeline by the Dyes and Jack Nicklaus that did it.  It means that they didn’t have much topography to inspire something different, so it’s a quick indicator that the rest of the course is going to be lacking in creativity.

Tom, interesting you bring up the 9th/18th combo often around a lake with the shared green. I used to like this concept. First one I saw was at Foxhills, 36 hole course with a double green housing the 18th for each course. Then it got over used and I started to dislike it. Uniqueness and variety is the key but I suppose if things get copied too much then the familiarity can get boring.
I think I am getting fed up of many of the UK links courses getting the same sand scrape treatment.
Its a bit like keep putting the same song on the album.

GB&I is moving from the same pot bunker to the same sand scrape. Don't worry about it. Focus more on the placement. It's sand either way.

Ciao

[Ben Stephens]

As a corollary from this - the mirroring of finishing holes. 9 and 18 are parallel to each other, perhaps separated by the same lake, perhaps playing to a shared green.

This is my pet peeve, and I must have seen thirty courses built in the 1980-2000 timeline by the Dyes and Jack Nicklaus that did it.  It means that they didn’t have much topography to inspire something different, so it’s a quick indicator that the rest of the course is going to be lacking in creativity.


After that, the only thing I hate are preconceptions, which must be why I clash with Ben here so often.  An architect should avoid them, so why would he answer to those of a critic?  Lots of the rules expressed here are things a golfer would rarely notice about a course if they weren’t looking to nitpick.  (For example I’ve yet to hear someone who just played St Patrick’s or NGLA complain that the par-3 holes played in the same direction - it took a guy who hasn’t been there and is looking to find “fault” with it.)


Likewise, while I share Ally’s reluctance to route holes back and forth in parallel, there are many sequences on great courses that do just that.  The best stretch of High Pointe did it, but those are the very holes Ran says may be the best stretch I ever built . . . the topography makes them different even though they are side by side.

Tom,


I wouldn't call it 'clash' - I would call it a 'constructive discussion'

I just found it odd that you have drawn up a layout that has 3 par threes in a similar compass point - Haven't had a good reason from you yet why this was the case. Was it the landscape, views or to fit in with the other holes in the routing?

Said that I am not really a fan when i see course layouts with 3 par 3's in a similar direction it does put me off.

Unless there is a good reason for doing so. Thank you to John Mayhugh for spotting NGLA is similar could the rest of the holes/course outweigh having 3 par 3s in a similar direction - on a strong course Yes on a weak bland course No.


Cheers
Ben

Look forward to more 'clashes' (your interpretation) or 'constructive discussions' in future

[Ben Stephens]

As a corollary from this - the mirroring of finishing holes. 9 and 18 are parallel to each other, perhaps separated by the same lake, perhaps playing to a shared green.

This is my pet peeve, and I must have seen thirty courses built in the 1980-2000 timeline by the Dyes and Jack Nicklaus that did it.  It means that they didn’t have much topography to inspire something different, so it’s a quick indicator that the rest of the course is going to be lacking in creativity.

Tom, interesting you bring up the 9th/18th combo often around a lake with the shared green. I used to like this concept. First one I saw was at Foxhills, 36 hole course with a double green housing the 18th for each course. Then it got over used and I started to dislike it. Uniqueness and variety is the key but I suppose if things get copied too much then the familiarity can get boring.
I think I am getting fed up of many of the UK links courses getting the same sand scrape treatment.
Its a bit like keep putting the same song on the album.

9/18 combo does get better views from the clubhouse seeing players come in one large area. However it does take away emphasis on one hole/green. It always depends in the layout whether this is the best fit option or not.


This is about course routings - outside that other than sand scrapes a peeve of mine is cookie cutter bunkers of the same size and shape this is become really common and artificial surely there should be varying sizes and shapes which makes it look more natural.

[Matthew Rose]

There is actually one version of this I do like, which is the two 18th holes at Blackwolf Run.

[Ben Stephens]

As a corollary from this - the mirroring of finishing holes. 9 and 18 are parallel to each other, perhaps separated by the same lake, perhaps playing to a shared green.

This is my pet peeve, and I must have seen thirty courses built in the 1980-2000 timeline by the Dyes and Jack Nicklaus that did it.  It means that they didn’t have much topography to inspire something different, so it’s a quick indicator that the rest of the course is going to be lacking in creativity.

Tom, interesting you bring up the 9th/18th combo often around a lake with the shared green. I used to like this concept. First one I saw was at Foxhills, 36 hole course with a double green housing the 18th for each course. Then it got over used and I started to dislike it. Uniqueness and variety is the key but I suppose if things get copied too much then the familiarity can get boring.
I think I am getting fed up of many of the UK links courses getting the same sand scrape treatment.
Its a bit like keep putting the same song on the album.

GB&I is moving from the same pot bunker to the same sand scrape. Don't worry about it. Focus more on the placement. It's sand either way.

Ciao

Sean


It wouldn't surprise me if the next iteration is grassy hollows or bunkers as sand is getting more expensive to buy.


Cheers
Ben

[Mike_Trenham]

The Clubhouse perched on the highest part of a hilly property.


Often makes for fewer loops of holes ending near the clubhouse for a few holes at dusk.


A slog of a finishing hole and blind as well.


Practice areas are often either weak or far from the clubhouse.


Oakmont is an example that works well, but there are plenty that don’t where it feels forced.

[Ben Stephens]

The Clubhouse perched on the highest part of a hilly property.


Often makes for fewer loops of holes ending near the clubhouse for a few holes at dusk.


A slog of a finishing hole and blind as well.


Practice areas are often either weak or far from the clubhouse.


Oakmont is an example that works well, but there are plenty that don’t where it feels forced.

Oakmont's clubhouse is located to one side of the course boundary which does help with the routing as opposed to having the clubhouse perched up the hill in the middle of the site which can make maximising the routing a bit awkward. Shinnecock seems to be ok like Oakmont. 

[Ben Stephens]

The Trump version of Turnberry is another one - 4 par 3s 4,6,9 and 11 all going north (not a similar compass point) on the outward holes.

[Thomas Dai]

GB&I is moving from the same pot bunker to the same sand scrape. Don't worry about it. Focus more on the placement. It's sand either way.
Ciao

Fair point.
Not so fussed when it’s naturally sandy alongside fairways but opening-up sandy areas well away from the lines of play for essentially visual and photographic purposes seems to be a way for some to make money rather than enhance the game. And in the long run such opened-up areas will require the on-site maintenance crew to have to look after the areas concerned or else if an absence of crew or funds is in place let them over time grow-over and return to how they once were before they were opened-up. In overall terms seems like a way to make golf more costly in subscriptions and greenfees.
Atb

[Max Prokopy]

Regarding direction of the par 3's, the design merits should quite considerably trump that compass pet peeve.


One fine example is Myopia Hunt. They have just 3 one-shotters (par 73):
~230 yards, slightly uphill with an open front and 2-tiered green
~105 yards with a super narrow green and frightening bunkers everywhere
~175 yards, blind landing area whose green sits in a dell and runs slightly away from the player.


I really couldn't care less if they're all in one wind direction or not. It seems there's more than enough ways around that where, in the hands of a fine architect, I wouldn't notice or mind.[size=78%] [/size]

[Jason Topp]

I am not a fan of more than one par five number 1, 9, 10 or 18.  Some courses have two or three.  Not sure I have seen four.   I don’t mind the holes.  I just find that they often lead to a steady diet of par fours somewhere else.  If the par fours are great, that is fine but they usually are not.

Holes that run back and forth or at 90 degree angles.  Our front nine is that way but I should not be routing courses because I have never come up with a better solution.  The best routed courses seem to often fan out from the clubhouse. 

I am not a fan of turning around and walking backwards.  It disrupts the flow of the round.  There needs to be some spectacular reason to do it.   

I know why it happens but I hate it when courses have one green, a par three and then a tee near the ocean.   That is not a course on the ocean but a housing course with a postcard opportunity.

If the holes are great, I can overlook all of these.

Jason,
There goes your invite to Rolling Green which has 9 and 18 as fives. But there are three par threes on the back which soften your concern for too many par fours. We do have a unique routing of 7 and 9 as fives and 17 and 18 as well.
You’re invited anyway and I’ll let you decide if the par fours are good enough.

Mike


I am pretty confident the last sentence of my post will carry the day.  Look forward to it happening someday.

[Joe_Tucholski]

I am not a fan of more than one par five number 1, 9, 10 or 18.  Some courses have two or three.  Not sure I have seen four.   I don’t mind the holes.  I just find that they often lead to a steady diet of par fours somewhere else.  If the par fours are great, that is fine but they usually are not.

I actually like par 5 openers.  Takes pressure off that first tee shot in my mind.  Rustic Canyon has 5s on 1, 9 and 10.  18 could easily have been a par 5 with space to go longer.


For the opposite reason I dislike an opening hole par 3 or an opener with tight OB.  To much stress on that first swing can really set a poor tone for the day. 


The driving range parallel to 1 (or any hole) is something that used to bother me a lot, but the popularity of yellow/non-white balls has made that less of a bother (still don't like it).

[Niall C]

- balanced nines
- par 72
- 4 par 5's
- 4 par 3's
- par 3's playing in totally different directions


All of the above together where the architect has obviously looked to design to standard. Bloody paint by numbers, bah humbug to that.


Niall


ps. what this site needs is a pissed off Santa Claus emoji

[Steve Wilson]

I know it's already been covered but I hate walkbacks.  One is OK, but beyond that it really gets annoying.
And I hate long transitions from green to tee in general.  That's why I think the transition from the 12th green
to the 13th tee at Golspie is one of the highlights of golf in the Highlands.  You never leave the same footprint
and it's all of five yards.