There are several types of architectural features that can break your heart (or maybe some other part of your anatomy).  By this I mean features where the penalty for a slight miss is disproportionally large.  One of my favorites is a false front on an elevated green, where you can end up with an extremely awkward pitch even if your ball lands on the green.  We have two such greens on my home course.  Gathering bunkers are another because you get to watch your ball roll slowly into the bunker even if your shot actually landed some distance away.  The worst, in my view, is a shaved bank around a water hazard, which may be a product of maintenance rather than design.

Are there other common features where the architect does something so clearly designed to play with your mind?

Kalen,

I have designed a few of those holes - T shaped greens with a small lower portion, albeit usually with bunkers rather than a fall away in the front.  I even put a kick in bank behind the green to make the extra club option even more inviting.  On the right hole (usually a par 3 IMHO, or maybe a short 4) what's wrong with an unmakeable birdie putt for an indifferent approach?

The feature that seems mean spirited to most is a retaining wall and pond in front of the green. Somehow, when an approach hits the wall, golfers feel like they would have cleared the water had it only been a grass bank.

Long false fronts probably is a good example, as well.

Where should we locate the boundary between the mean spirited and the not mean spirited in the following?

I don't carry the lake by 1 inch, or

I carry the lake by 1 inch, but my ball rolls back in, or

I carry the lake by 4 inches, but my ball rolls back in, or

I carry the lake by 8 inches, but my ball rolls back in, or

I carry the lake by 18 inches, but my ball rolls back in, or

I carry the lake by 3 feet, but my ball rolls back in, or

................., or

shouldn't we stop trying to make such fine moral distinctions because it gets pretty loopy?

The only reason someone might care about such stuff is because they think a golf course should yield scores that correspond with your idea of the just result for a particular quality of shot. Golf courses don't owe you that.

I would humbly suggest that you just play the course, take your lumps and add up your score.    

Bob

Kalen,

I have designed a few of those holes - T shaped greens with a small lower portion, albeit usually with bunkers rather than a fall away in the front.  I even put a kick in bank behind the green to make the extra club option even more inviting.  On the right hole (usually a par 3 IMHO, or maybe a short 4) what's wrong with an unmakeable birdie putt for an indifferent approach?

The feature that seems mean spirited to most is a retaining wall and pond in front of the green. Somehow, when an approach hits the wall, golfers feel like they would have cleared the water had it only been a grass bank.

Long false fronts probably is a good example, as well.

Hi Jeff,

First to clarify, I think this is more of a break my heart scenario than a mean spirited thing.  I don't think its bad design at all, just makes for a very tough shot.  I don't have a problem with the majority of them, but only when they are made small.

In WA there is one course I played alot where this front section was only about 10 yards deep and 7 yards across.  To boot it was on a uphill 590 yard par 5, so often a mid to high iron was the club in hand for most players when trying to go at it.  And the front section was angled such that if you were above the hole on the next tier it was pretty much impossible to putt it down that slope and have it stay on the green.  So perhaps this is an extreme example.

A short par 3 or 4 as you suggested would very likely make this scenario a lot more sane!!!