From Jeff's post above....(there's a little icon in the editor in the 2nd row, far right; a blue [arrow]. It is set to clicked by default. It toggles the editor's built in "smart formatting". If you unclick it then your cut and paste will be smoother.)
---
Sorry in advance for the formatting problems that this site gives cut and paste words. This is from my "stock" preliminary design report. I know in advance, some will find this offensive or wrong somehow, but hey, if I can't concisely decide what I think makes a good hole after 43 years of this (and maybe another 10 of childhood study) something is probably wrong, even if its just that I don't give the exceptions enough coverage.
Also, I believe that we subconsciously apply a rating to every hole on every course, usually on a 10-80-10 bell curve. (With 18 holes, I guess that is 11-78-11 ratio, assuming two great and two weak holes, with 14 somewhere within the course’s average hole quality) For example, at Cypress Point, 15 and 16 are probably considered the best by most, with 18 and ? considered the weak ones.
I can generally define what I think is a good hole - it fits the land, plays well, has reasonable challenge, is fun, looks great, is memorable, and is also distinct from others on the course.
I guess a weak hole would be one severely deficient in the qualities listed below. Granted, some of the world’s great holes violate some of the good practices listed below. Most holes (with exceptions…there are always exceptions) follow at least 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. When natural site qualities are short on natural beauty, the architect needs to supply it with hazards, contouring, landscaping, etc.
• Visible targets and hazards– First, they are artistic (see above). Second, this fosters strategy and even safety. They are even more important at resort and public courses for safety than at private clubs.
• 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 and allow “hit it, find it, hit it again” golf. 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. I add “possible birdie,” because who doesn’t like those?
• 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 (which is really no 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. And, it’s even more enticing when it saves a shot or two. Otherwise, why bother?
Differing choices elevates the game from a rote, 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. But only if possible and when we want to. Besides, scorecard wrecking shots make for good bar talk. They also make golf course architects famous. 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.”
· 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, totally 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. Key playability tenants includeminimizing forced carries from the forward-most tees, which was easier to do before the environmental movement put birds ahead of birdies. Another is to minimize placing 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.
One of the beauties of golf is its vastly different fields of play. The manner in which different architects apply – or don’t – these general rules is what makes golf course architecture such a fascinating subject.