[Mark_Fine]

One of my least favorite design features is "the interrupted fairway" (specifically when the interruption is rough grass) separating fairway areas.   I realize sometimes these areas were put in play due to soil or drainage problems or severity of slopes, etc.  Other times they were designed to save on maintenance and/or irrigation needs.  

One example some of you may remember is on #17 at Valderrama where a forced layup off the tee on the par five is the play for many golfers (not just the pros) because the fairway is interrupted by rough grass.  I think that design feature is poor and weakens the quality of the golf hole.  I’ve seen some courses where this feature is over used and/or become obsolete as the distances golfers hit the balls these days makes them sort of silly.  We are not sure if they were ever put in on one of the courses we are restoring even though they were called for in the original plans.  Our feeling is that they would be goofy to restore as they would force many golfers to layup with mid to long irons leaving just as long a shot into the greens as they had for their tee shot.  I highly doubt that this is what the original architect would have wanted.  

Anyone have any thoughts on this or want to suggest their own pet peeves?

[Tim Pitner]

Mark,

Good call on the undesirability of "the interrupted fairway."  It's visually jarring, annoying and smacks of laziness or a lack of creativity.  Engh's #18 at Red Hawk Ridge is an example in my neck of the woods--it's dreadful.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jordan,

Then, you won't like GCGC, which has the feature in abundance.

Holes like # 4, # 7, # 8,# 9, # 10, # 13, # 15 and # 17 have interruptions that vary from just rough to bunkers to bunkers and rough.

Yet, they work very well.

Perhaps the context in which you saw them didn't work well.

But, don't judge a feature based on one application.

[TEPaul]

Personally, I think the interrupted fairway which William Flynn put into a lot of his plans on various courses was a terrific idea provided it made strategic sense in play.

We're fairly sure he basically got the idea from his association with Pine Valley where the use of segregated or interrupted fairways apparently was Crump's unique idea (or could it have been Tillinghasts' via his suggestions on #7 or #13?).

How interrupted fairways at PVGC have worked over the years strategically as equipment and distance production changed is an interesting subject to consider.

[Bill_McBride]

Two of my pet peeves are intermingled and are forever enshrined in my memory of Grand Cypress near Orlando, a fairly early Jack Nicklaus design: excessive containment mounding and fairway dropoffs.  The mounding is everywhere, with even some chocolate drops thrown in for good measure.  The fairway drop offs can be dangerous if you are woolgathering whilst driving down the fairway in your mandatory cart.  These dropoffs are jarring in the sliced look.

Neither mounding nor drop offs are very natural looking.  

[Matt_Ward]

Mark:

Well, at least one of them -- the forced lay-up where no reasonable play can be made otherwise. Good example being the finale at Center Valley in eastern PA. Takes the driver out of your hands and then still forces you to hit a long approach.

Silly design that promotes such assinine adventures.

[Sean_A]

Mark

I am not overly fond of interrupted fairways.  They are ok once in a while especially if blind.  I prefer the narrow gaps of 5 yards between bunkers or rough or whatever.  At least there is a long shot of skirting the danger.  

I think the least favourite feature of mine is a combination of maintenance and design.  IMO thick rough under low hanging trees is most objectionable.  I don't even like any sort of harsh rough combined with any kind of tree.  In truth, I am not a fan of trees on golf courses unless the tree is beautiful and/or unusual.  Of course there are always exceptions, but one must state the rule in order to justify breaking said rule.  

My second pet peeve is related to the first because of the exclusion of the heroic recovery shot.  Trees blocking bunker play.  I know folks go on about hazards bla bla bla, but the fun of a great recovery shot is far more interesting than watching some guy not even contemplate heroics because of tree near a bunker.  

Both of these features are boring and do not promote Gestalt Golf.  

Ciao

Sean

[Tommy Williamsen]

Water.  It is so overused on golf courses these days because it is pretty.  I nice meandering creek or  pond once or twice a round is plenty.  Now courses advertize, "water on 16 holes."  You can't recover from a lake.  A hole like 16 at Hazeltine adds excitement to be sure, but so would some very steep faced bunkers that allow some recovery.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
Remember I am specifically talking about "rough grass" separations.  In particular, areas where rough grass is planted mainly with the intention of forcing a layup.  It has been a while since I played GCGC but I don't recall being "forced to layup" all that often off the tee.  Is that the case these days?  Most features are tolerable if not over used.

Tom,
I agree that Flynn got the idea from his work at PV.  As you know he used that concept of interrupted fairways often.  Tillinghast did as well.  Their best holes however, are probably the ones where that interruption was not simply rough grass.  #17 at Cherry Hills comes to mind as well as some of his Florida courses.  #11 at Lehigh has an interruption but that is more a cliff than simply rough grass.  

As I was saying earlier, some of these interruptions are almost becoming obsolete (or goofy) in that I don't believe the architects ever expected that they would be dictating play quite as much as they do.  A club called Center Valley used to have one where the play off the tee was a long iron followed by a fairway wood into the green.  I'm open in my thinking when it comes to golf course design but in my opinion that is just stupid.  Worse yet, it was the finishing hole.  Many golfers had no chance to reach the green in two shots and from the middle tees the hole was barely over 400 yards long.  

Tim,
You are right in that sometimes it is simply a lack of creativity (a low maintenance hazard of such).

Mark

[Mark_Fine]

Matt,
Our posts passed in cyber space.  I was thinking the same hole at Center Valley.
Mark

[Lou_Duran]

1) Trees planted in front of fairway bunkers.

2) Smallish greens with severe contouring on holes typically requiring long approaches.

3) Excessive bunkering, say more than 60 or so on a windy site.

4) Narow runway tees.

5) Hidden hazards.  

[cary lichtenstein]

Par 5's that sweep to the left with water on the entire left side.

The chocolate mounds at Nicklaus's Grand Cypress

Flat boring greens

Boring sand traps

[Tim Taylor]

Me too Tommy. My personal pet peeve is the water retention pond used as a hazard on the 18th hole. A Pete Dye favorite that has been over used everywhere. A particularly bad example is when the ninth runs up one side of the pond and the 18th up the other side. See: Lee's Hill in Fredericksburg, VA.

Agree too about bunkers vs. water. Wasn't it Bobby Jones who said that the difference between sand and water is the difference between a car wreck and a plane crash?

Tim

Water.  It is so overused on golf courses these days because it is pretty.  I nice meandering creek or  pond once or twice a round is plenty.  Now courses advertize, "water on 16 holes."  You can't recover from a lake.  A hole like 16 at Hazeltine adds excitement to be sure, but so would some very steep faced bunkers that allow some recovery.

[Ryan Farrow]

How about #11 at Oakmont where the fairway is interrupted by the infamous drainage trenches? For a very long hitter the interruption forces the player to make a very important decision on weather to go for the front potion of the green or lay up at the top of the hill.

I see nothing wrong with this.

[Norbert P]

Greens with pairs of 8 o'clock and 4 o'clock bunkering. Repetitiously so at Torrey Pines South.

Repetitive greens that do not allow options of approach by variance of shot height.  (Lob it or nothing)

Last,but not least. . . golf shoe design.

[Matthew Rose]

Public courses with waist high fescue lining both sides of every fairway.

Bulkheaded water hazards (unless your last name is Dye).

60 yard long bunkers parallel to water hazards that aren't the ocean.

Lakes on both sides of the same landing area.

Par fours over 500 yards. Okay in altitude or downhill, but I don't wanna see them at Winged Foot or Oakmont.

Four par threes on a course all 190+.

5-3-4 finishes, on either nine (or worse, BOTH nines). Nothing wrong with it, but it is something of a formula/cliche to me. Reminds me of a lot of cookie-cutter munis that I play where the pars of the holes are exactly the same on each nine and 1st and 10th tees will be right next to each other and indistinguishable.

[Andrew Thomson]

'framing' greens

[Mark_Rowlinson]

There is one hole with interrupted fairway of which I am very fond,the 8th at Royal West Norfolk.

[Mark_Fine]

Ryan and Mark,
Don't get me wrong, I like interrupted fairways (Pine Valley has some great ones as do many many other courses).  I just don't like it when the interruption is a section of "rough" separating the fairway.  I would not call the ditches at Oakmont on #11 rough.  

Interesting "dislikes" from everyone else.

[Ted Kramer]

Drop-shot par 3's.
The more I play them, the less I like them.

-Ted

[T_MacWood]

More than two (maybe three in some cases) tees.  

[Dan_Callahan]

This will sound like whining, but: misaligned tee boxes. I don't need the tee box to point directly down the middle of the fairway, but at some courses they are so misaligned that I can never seem to get comfortable.

[Mark_Fine]

Ted,
You might be the first person I ever heard that from?  

Tom,
I agree with you about too many tees.  Nothing worse than seeing five sets of "built up" tees on a hole.  It can be a real eye sore.  However, if done properly, extra sets of tees can add to the interest and playability of a golf course.

Dan,
I agree with you about poorly aligned tee boxes.  When you see a tee that is poorly aligned, I believe that it's just poor construction.  I doubt many architects planned them that way.  I know sometimes you find drawings that show the tees lined up in a questionnable direction.  I believe that was by mistake rather than on purpose.  Can't think of too many architects that would want to point the golfer off into a stand of trees or out of bounds.  Seems to me to be an absurd tactic if truly planned.  There are times that tees can point to a more risky path and that tactic is fine.  

[A.G._Crockett]

1. "backwards" holes, as Matt Ward said.  Forced (no options) to hit a short club off the tee or for a layup, then a much longer club into the green.

2. "Air" bunkers, ie, trees in the middle of the fairway in the landing area, or surrounding the green closely enough to affect access to the pin.

3.  Don't know if it counts as a design feature or not, but OB lining  both sides of the fairway because of housing, with the result that your ball is 20' from the fairway or cartpath and OB.

[Jim Colton]

Any par-5 similar to the 18th at the Irish Course at Whistling Straits.  I hit a great drive only to be rewarded w/ a SW second and a LW third.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()