Least favorite design feature?

[tlavin]

Bushes, trees or any other growing species within bunkers.

Please don't take this to mean that I would turn down an invitation to play Pine Valley...

[Kerry Gray]

I have a couple which seem too common and unappealing.
The over- contructed tee box. Does every tee need to be elevated and built to resemble a mountain plateau? I am happy if it's level. I am unconvinced they constantly need to be elevated. It's artificial and some look aweful.
The all too common par 4 wrapped around a pond. Doral #18, TPC #18 and a few others that are copied everywhere. I call these the Scuba Divers Dream holes. One or two are fine, but they are copied too often.
   

[Michael Simes]

As this is my first post, I want to first express thanks to Ran for permitting me to join the group, and to thank all GCA folks for providing excellent insight and entertainment to me during my workdays.

I agree with Mark's initial thought on the interrupted fairway.  Unfortunately, several of my favorite courses actually employ the technique.  The first at University of Michigan Golf Course has such a feature (though it is designed to permit cars to traverse the first hole to park during home football games).  Several of the courses I grew up playing in Florida (a place where it truly makes no sense and looks downright awful given the predominant turf used on courses in Florida) have this feature.

Others would be: water hazards that only come into play for the high-handicapper (18 at University of Michigan/18 at Inwood are excellent examples), and split fairways that don't appear to offer any significant disparity in risk or reward (one of the holes on the back of Bethpage Red (13 maybe?), I believe, has this type of feature).

[Sean_A]

As this is my first post, I want to first express thanks to Ran for permitting me to join the group, and to thank all GCA folks for providing excellent insight and entertainment to me during my workdays.

I agree with Mark's initial thought on the interrupted fairway.  Unfortunately, several of my favorite courses actually employ the technique.  The first at University of Michigan Golf Course has such a feature (though it is designed to permit cars to traverse the first hole to park during home football games).  Several of the courses I grew up playing in Florida (a place where it truly makes no sense and looks downright awful given the predominant turf used on courses in Florida) have this feature.

Others would be: water hazards that only come into play for the high-handicapper (18 at University of Michigan/18 at Inwood are excellent examples), and split fairways that don't appear to offer any significant disparity in risk or reward (one of the holes on the back of Bethpage Red (13 maybe?), I believe, has this type of feature).

Welcome Michael.  It falls upon me to take issue with your first post as you have chosen to write of a course I am very fond of.  The 1st at U of M does get interrupted, but the penalty is very light and it only effects very long balls.  The water on #18 does come into play as it can be reached with the tee shot.  For the big boys this brings the bunker on the right and therefore the trees on the left much more into play with a layup.  Obviously the water would play on most people's minds if they were in either spot of bother.  

Sorry to disagree with your first post, but that is the nature of the site (or at the very least myself).

Ciao

Sean

[Michael Simes]

The water on #18 does come into play as it can be reached with the tee shot.  For the big boys this brings the bunker on the right and therefore the trees on the left much more into play with a layup.  Obviously the water would play on most people's minds if they were in either spot of bother.  

I'm happy to have someone disagree with my first post.  As a lawyer and a husband, it makes me feel right at home.  At 455 yards, playing into a prevailing wind, I can't imagine the water coming into play on the tee shot.  Anyone who can reach that water is a low-handicapper, and would likely tee off with a three-wood to take it out of play.  From the bunker right, the fact that there is 30-35 yards of space between the edge of the water presents no bother to the low-handicapper.  The trees on the left (where I found myself on Sunday en route to a triple bogey to turn a 72 into a 75) provide virtually no recourse other than a pitch out to the fairway, leaving a 150-155 yard shot to the green.  This also takes the water out of play.  In the three years I lived in Ann Arbor, and in the many visits since, I have probably played that course around 200 times.  I have never placed a ball in that water.  I would much prefer to see the water moved up 20-25 feet and the area fronting the green shaved down to make the water a factor for a front pin position.

I agree the penalty is light in the interrupted fairway on 1, and that it is less architectural than practical in nature, but that the penalty is light is, to me, even more reason to dislike its appearance.

[Dan Moore]

Man made target, framing or containment mounding.  UGH!!!

[Dan Joseph]

What do you guys think about large mounds in the fairways or near rough?  You know, the one's that look like they buried an elephant.

[Sean_A]

The water on #18 does come into play as it can be reached with the tee shot.  For the big boys this brings the bunker on the right and therefore the trees on the left much more into play with a layup.  Obviously the water would play on most people's minds if they were in either spot of bother.  

I'm happy to have someone disagree with my first post.  As a lawyer and a husband, it makes me feel right at home.  At 455 yards, playing into a prevailing wind, I can't imagine the water coming into play on the tee shot.  Anyone who can reach that water is a low-handicapper, and would likely tee off with a three-wood to take it out of play.  From the bunker right, the fact that there is 30-35 yards of space between the edge of the water presents no bother to the low-handicapper.  The trees on the left (where I found myself on Sunday en route to a triple bogey to turn a 72 into a 75) provide virtually no recourse other than a pitch out to the fairway, leaving a 150-155 yard shot to the green.  This also takes the water out of play.  In the three years I lived in Ann Arbor, and in the many visits since, I have probably played that course around 200 times.  I have never placed a ball in that water.  I would much prefer to see the water moved up 20-25 feet and the area fronting the green shaved down to make the water a factor for a front pin position.

I agree the penalty is light in the interrupted fairway on 1, and that it is less architectural than practical in nature, but that the penalty is light is, to me, even more reason to dislike its appearance.

Not another lawyer on this site!

I don't know what to tell you Michael.  I have watched guys hit into that water (~350 from the tips downhill) and layup for fear of reaching the water.  I have been in the water from the daily tees though from the back it would take Hoylakian conditions (which I would greatly welcome at U of M) to reach the agua.  

When I mentioned the bunker coming into play my view was with going for the green in two.  Anyhow, if a guy lays up from the bunker or trees for fear of the water than the water comes into play - no?  

I can understand the idea of pushing the water closer to the green (or preferably pushing the green closer to the water) though I have become somewhat adept at hooding a wee 6 iron from the trees just over the water and kicking up to the green.  Ironically, for the sake of the higher marker I am not completely sold on the idea of making the water more in play.  The hole is quite good as is because I see many guys get fooled by the space between the water and green.  They typically come up short though still on land.  

BTW  Where does a guy studying law find time for 70 games at year at only one club?  With the course being closed mid Novemberish til mid Marchish that is over two games a week not counting other games!  I can quickly visualize three possibilities or a combination thereof.  First, U of M has become too easy these days.  Second, you didn't do nearly as well as you could have or third, you are brilliant.  I am hoping that the third option is the accurate scenario.  

Ciao

Sean

[Michael Simes]

I have been in the water from the daily tees though from the back it would take Hoylakian conditions (which I would greatly welcome at U of M) to reach the agua.  

When I mentioned the bunker coming into play my view was with going for the green in two.  Anyhow, if a guy lays up from the bunker or trees for fear of the water than the water comes into play - no?  

I can understand the idea of pushing the water closer to the green (or preferably pushing the green closer to the water) though I have become somewhat adept at hooding a wee 6 iron from the trees just over the water and kicking up to the green.  Ironically, for the sake of the higher marker I am not completely sold on the idea of making the water more in play.  The hole is quite good as is because I see many guys get fooled by the space between the water and green.  They typically come up short though still on land.  

BTW  Where does a guy studying law find time for 70 games at year at only one club?  With the course being closed mid Novemberish til mid Marchish that is over two games a week not counting other games!  I can quickly visualize three possibilities or a combination thereof.  First, U of M has become too easy these days.  Second, you didn't do nearly as well as you could have or third, you are brilliant.  I am hoping that the third option is the accurate scenario.  

I, too, would love to see the course get firm and fast.  The fairways, for my money, have always been a shade too shaggy.

My point about the bunker is that the bunker is not a concern for the low-handicapper, because, should a drive find it, it is merely a six-iron shot out of a shallow-faced bunker to a huge green with water a good 20 yards short of where it would need to be to pose a problem.  This type of shot should be bread-and-butter for the low handicapper.

As to the possibilities you suggest, I certainly cannot confess to the third, and I can state with certainty that the first scenario is not true.  The second possibility is almost certainly true, but schedule management played a big role.  I simply made sure that my classes during second and third year never occupied more than three days per week.  While this made for a busy three days (and busy nights the rest of the week), it allowed four full days to get my butt out to the course.  200 might be conservative.  At $20 per round for students, it would have been a crime (or maybe not, I did miss criminal law a few times  ) to play it any less frequently than I did.

[Aaron Katz]

Long par fours that have the green completely fronted by a bunker(s).  If they have the green angled away from the player and they put a bunker fronting the middle part, fine.  But there should be an opportunity to play a running shot at the edge of the green.  It is for this reason that I think a hole like #10 at Bethpage Black could be greatly improved.  

I hate this architectural feature for three reasons.  One, it seems like a very contrived way to make an already difficult hole into an even more difficult one.  Second, it takes away the strategic play of playing just short of the green -- playing short simply puts the bunker directly in play for a short pitch third.  Third, it makes the hole virtually unplayable in certain wind conditions.  The 10th at Bethpage has played into a decent wind everytime I've played it, and it struck me as unreasonable to require the player to hit a 200 - 220 yard shot low enough to avoid the wind but high enough to carry the massive fronting trap.

[Jeff Peterson]

I don't know if the interrupted fairway is my least favorite feature in the abstract, but when it's used multiple times for no apparent reason other than to force a certain type of shot (or randomly penalize a long, straight shot), it gets pretty tedious.

Case in point:  Coyote Golf Club in New Hudson, Michigan.  It's not a course blessed with architectural interest anyway, but the repeated use of flat fairways interrupted by yards of rough in the normal landing area borders on the insane.  Case in point, this par 5 with 100 yards of rough beginning at 230-270 from the tee.  



If you go through the whole tour, you'll see this is a feature used 9 times on this course.  Ugh.

[Doug Ralston]

Treeless 'links-style' courses built in heavily forested areas. It looks as out of place as if you planted thousands of trees next to St Andrews to create a 'lush tree-lined masterpiece'.

Also, I dislike courses with only two tee positions. I can live with it if one is within my range [5600yd or less], but public courses should be playable by the public. [Do what you want with your private courses].

And I have noticed when I play that it seems architects always place the fairways well left of where they should be......

[Jim Franklin]

Doug -

You may hate Bob O'Link outside of Chicago. At the all male club they have one set of tees to play each day. Great course too.

As for me, I hate the forced lay up. We are changing a hole at my club that used to allow for a little risk/reward tee shot, to now only hitting a 3 iron to 160 and go from there. It is a shame really as we could have taken the hole back to Tillie's original intent, but they decided against that.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
Yuck!  This is exactly what I am talking about.  Poor design practice in my book.  Maybe used once it is tolerable but after that, forget it!  

Jim,
That sounds pretty bad with what is going on there.  Who made that decision    I can only assume safety had something to do with it?  

[Tom_Doak]

Interrupted fairways DO have a purpose -- they reduce fairway acreage and save on the maintenance budget, especially on a course with bentgrass fairways.  Positioning the interruption so it doesn't take away playing options is tricky, though.

My least favorite design feature is the double green.  They're great at St. Andrews, and pointless everywhere else.

[Kyle Harris]

As this is my first post, I want to first express thanks to Ran for permitting me to join the group, and to thank all GCA folks for providing excellent insight and entertainment to me during my workdays.

I agree with Mark's initial thought on the interrupted fairway.  Unfortunately, several of my favorite courses actually employ the technique.  The first at University of Michigan Golf Course has such a feature (though it is designed to permit cars to traverse the first hole to park during home football games).  Several of the courses I grew up playing in Florida (a place where it truly makes no sense and looks downright awful given the predominant turf used on courses in Florida) have this feature.

Others would be: water hazards that only come into play for the high-handicapper (18 at University of Michigan/18 at Inwood are excellent examples), and split fairways that don't appear to offer any significant disparity in risk or reward (one of the holes on the back of Bethpage Red (13 maybe?), I believe, has this type of feature).

Mike,

Welcome!

The 13th at Bethpage Red has a large amount of risk/reward. The green from the right side of the bunker complex is many times more difficult to hit, hold or get a ball close to the flag than from the left side. The green slopes right to left and the gaping bunker is tight against the right side.

From the left, it's possible to run a shot in or fly one all the way using the slope to hold. Both bunkers are also on the flanks and not a carry hazard from that angle.

Must be that drinking on the golf course during Saturdays in the fall.  

[Ted Kramer]

Interrupted fairways DO have a purpose -- they reduce fairway acreage and save on the maintenance budget, especially on a course with bentgrass fairways.  Positioning the interruption so it doesn't take away playing options is tricky, though.

My least favorite design feature is the double green.  They're great at St. Andrews, and pointless everywhere else.

"Everywhere else" is such a severe statement.
I'm surprised that you can't imagine a cool, useful, or architecturally interesting double green somewhere besides TOC.

-Ted

[Jim Franklin]

Mark -

Safety had nothing to do with it. The "powers that be" wanted additional length on the scorecard is my guess. The committee is loaded with people with good intentions, but no serious knowledge of architecture. They are so happy to get the tournament that I believe they are blinded. I am actually surprised that Keith Foster is going along with changing the hole in that manner. He fortunately decided not to change #6 when he saw it was one of Tillie's favorite 18 holes he designed.

Jim

[Aaron Katz]

Interrupted fairways DO have a purpose -- they reduce fairway acreage and save on the maintenance budget, especially on a course with bentgrass fairways.  Positioning the interruption so it doesn't take away playing options is tricky, though.

My least favorite design feature is the double green.  They're great at St. Andrews, and pointless everywhere else.

Tom,

The Par 3 course at Olympic club has (or had -- I haven't been there for about 6 years) a great double green with a bunker smack in the middle of it.  I thought it was neat because if you hit on the wrong side of the bunker, you had to choose between using the slope of the green to get around it or pitching over it.  I thought it was really visually appealing, and also served as a nice social gathering place of sorts for multiple groups that were playing different holes.  

[Slightly off topic, I had one of the oddest pars in the history of golf on the first hole that uses that green, in fact:  Pulled my tee shot left, so I was pin high on the green, but with the bunker in between my ball and the hole; tried to hit a flop shot over the bunker but chunked it into the bunker (leaving a nasty divot on the green); holed on my bunker shot for a par.  That gave me a green in regulation, zero putts, and a sand save, all on a single par 3.]

[Michael Simes]

Mike,

The 13th at Bethpage Red has a large amount of risk/reward. The green from the right side of the bunker complex is many times more difficult to hit, hold or get a ball close to the flag than from the left side. The green slopes right to left and the gaping bunker is tight against the right side.

From the left, it's possible to run a shot in or fly one all the way using the slope to hold. Both bunkers are also on the flanks and not a carry hazard from that angle.

I should have known a Penn Stater would disagree with me about something.  

I agree with you totally that the second shot is vastly different in terms of reward.  My issue with the 13th is that, at least as I remember it, it isn't significantly harder to hit the left side of that fairway than the right side.  

A better version of the split fairway which offers, I think, the same reward you describe on the Red 13th, but also requires a much riskier tee shot is on the back side at Talking Stick North in Scottsdale.  The tee shot to the left fairway (which leaves a much easier and shorter shot to the green) is much more difficult than the tee shot to the right.  The right fairway is miles wider, and the carry is probably a good 50-60 yards shorter, if I remember correctly.  I don't remember the risk of going for the left fairway on Red 13 as being very high.  

That said, it's been some time since I've played it, so my memory may be failing me.

Good luck on October 14.  Here's hoping for 8 in a row.  Go Blue!

[Tom_Doak]

Ted:

I have just never seen a good double green anywhere else but St. Andrews.  (Name a few if you want.)  

And, just the opposite of my point about interrupted fairways, on a double green there is nearly always a dead zone in the middle which is rarely used for either hole because of safety considerations -- so there's a sizeable amount of extra green space being paid for in the maintenance budget.

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,

The 13th at Bethpage Red has a large amount of risk/reward. The green from the right side of the bunker complex is many times more difficult to hit, hold or get a ball close to the flag than from the left side. The green slopes right to left and the gaping bunker is tight against the right side.

From the left, it's possible to run a shot in or fly one all the way using the slope to hold. Both bunkers are also on the flanks and not a carry hazard from that angle.

I should have known a Penn Stater would disagree with me about something.  

I agree with you totally that the second shot is vastly different in terms of reward.  My issue with the 13th is that, at least as I remember it, it isn't significantly harder to hit the left side of that fairway than the right side.  

A better version of the split fairway which offers, I think, the same reward you describe on the Red 13th, but also requires a much riskier tee shot is on the back side at Talking Stick North in Scottsdale.  The tee shot to the left fairway (which leaves a much easier and shorter shot to the green) is much more difficult than the tee shot to the right.  The right fairway is miles wider, and the carry is probably a good 50-60 yards shorter, if I remember correctly.  I don't remember the risk of going for the left fairway on Red 13 as being very high.  

That said, it's been some time since I've played it, so my memory may be failing me.

Good luck on October 14.  Here's hoping for 8 in a row.  Go Blue and white!

Mike,

These days it's a bit tighter down the left and a bit wider down the right. Your sight line also favors the right side and you must "try" to aim yourself for the aggressive line. I think a lot of the difficulty on the hole stems from going against natural instinct and actually aiming for the bunkers or just left with all that room right.

October 14th is circled on my calender. The Lloyd Carr clock and first down marker (You know, measures 9 yards in one direction, 11 yards in the other direction and adds two seconds to every hour) isn't used at Beaver Stadium.

Oh yeah...

Career Bowl Victories:
Joe Paterno: 21
University of Michigan: 18

 

[Michael Simes]

Mike,

These days it's a bit tighter down the left and a bit wider down the right. Your sight line also favors the right side and you must "try" to aim yourself for the aggressive line. I think a lot of the difficulty on the hole stems from going against natural instinct and actually aiming for the bunkers or just left with all that room right.

October 14th is circled on my calender. The Lloyd Carr clock and first down marker (You know, measures 9 yards in one direction, 11 yards in the other direction and adds two seconds to every hour) isn't used at Beaver Stadium.

Oh yeah...

Career Bowl Victories:
Joe Paterno: 21
University of Michigan: 18

 

I look forward to playing the Red again.  My brother-in-law also thinks I'm wrong about this.  I think what may be the issue is that the rough is supposed to be more penal than it is on the left, making a miss to the left a bigger problem than it was last time I was over there.  As my brother-in-law pointed out, the rounds there are 6 hours long without that kind of rough, so perhaps adding in rough wouldn't be the best idea.

As for Beaver Stadium, whatever we used to win games there by scores of 34-8 and 20-0 over the last 9 years will be fine by me.    Best of luck.  Maybe Joe will stick around for another 50 years and try to get back to .500 against Lloyd Carr.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

I'll go on Bill V's team and concur with wetlands.  Ach.  
Not only because I am occassionally wild, but also for the rest of the hacks with less than perfect swings; it goes in hand with Bob Jones' quote that the water hazard is so final.  It is disheartening to hit shots that might be a little bit off, and be absolutely f**ked with the result if the ball ends up in such wetlands.  Not to mention what this does to pace of play on public courses.  

I just wonder sometimes, were there not other ways to route the golf course around wetlands, or use grading to direct water down to wetlands on the periphery?  Flynn did this with great success at Lehigh CC--note the stairsteps directing water down the hill away from #1, around #17 green, and down to the right of #2 tees.  This was probably done with success at other classic courses as well.    

To continue the bitch session, design of courses with the 'links-style' nine and forested nine.  With the exception of Beechtree, but just because the first nine reminds me in part of Bethpage Red.  

#13 at BSP-Red, by the way, is a tough tee shot, specifically because the right side and short of the bunker is SO open, and the proper tee shot must be aimed over the left-side bunkers.  

Interrupted fairway?  Not at all bad.  Tillinghast did this with great success several times.  Ridgewood, in particular, stands out, as its fairways interrupted by dolomite mounds provide a good test of shot placement and decisionmaking should one miss the fairway.  

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,

These days it's a bit tighter down the left and a bit wider down the right. Your sight line also favors the right side and you must "try" to aim yourself for the aggressive line. I think a lot of the difficulty on the hole stems from going against natural instinct and actually aiming for the bunkers or just left with all that room right.

October 14th is circled on my calender. The Lloyd Carr clock and first down marker (You know, measures 9 yards in one direction, 11 yards in the other direction and adds two seconds to every hour) isn't used at Beaver Stadium.

Oh yeah...

Career Bowl Victories:
Joe Paterno: 21
University of Michigan: 18

 

I look forward to playing the Red again.  My brother-in-law also thinks I'm wrong about this.  I think what may be the issue is that the rough is supposed to be more penal than it is on the left, making a miss to the left a bigger problem than it was last time I was over there.  As my brother-in-law pointed out, the rounds there are 6 hours long without that kind of rough, so perhaps adding in rough wouldn't be the best idea.

As for Beaver Stadium, whatever we used to win games there by scores of 34-8 and 20-0 over the last 9 years will be fine by me.    Best of luck.  Maybe Joe will stick around for another 50 years and try to get back to .500 against Lloyd Carr.

The Red is undergoing some good changes and is worth another look.

And your premise re: TSUN assumes that Lloyd Carr will be coaching in the near future.