Glenn,
Great question, even if I would be a bit uncomfortable explaining my worst.
First, I agree with Tom D in a large way. I once had a conversation with a lesser known gca (although one who has at least one regular here who is a supporter) who stunned me with the casual remark that "You know that every course must have at least one bad hole!" While I didn't say anything, most of the mediocre to bad holes I see (or don't like) are, IMHO, a result of the gca just accepting his/her first attempt and not really trying other options.
It starts in routing, and if I have a hole that isn't at least good, I keep trying and can't recall too many that I just gave up on. I at least try to get my worst holes to areas where I can move some dirt to fix them. In fact, its often a necessity to move some dirt anyway, and routing a hole through a hill to get some cut can pay dividends. Valley fairways are nice, even if they are sometimes artficially created.
That said, in the feature design, some holes need more bunkers or whatever, and often the budget simply precludes adding enough bunkers or enlarging the green to give a hole some oomph. In other cases, the owner - who has final say, since he who has the gold rules - doesn't want anything too radical, so you get stuck with something less than you envisioned.
As examples, I have recently had different owners reps question a Redan, Road Hole, and wild green contour concept as not what he wanted. (Thats not golf, says he!) To be fair, they may have been ultra conservative about maintenance costs or speed of play in this golf business environment.
Perhaps the biggest reason for bad holes now is environmental constraints. At Sand Creek Station, in Newton, KS, which has gotten generally good reviews, many have expressed a dislike of the par 5 second hole, which is down by Sand Creek itself, and has an old oxbow near the second landing area which may force a layup, and which despite our best efforts, is blind, at least until the cattails grow back.
In the planning phase, we naturally routed the course in the floodplain areas, and in a way to maximize housing on non-floodplain land. In finalizing the routing, we had proprosed (and been allowed to) move that old ditch to right in front of the green and the plans went all the way through to final documents that way. However, like many projects in housing, we started in advance of some permits and the total housing design.
The net result was that the housing engineers came back after bid and told us that the old oxbow had to stay where it was, since they had used up our wetlands destruction allowance in other project areas (i.e., filled a wetland somewhere else to get another lot)
Now stuck, I tried to make the creek more visibile, but the fw area was so low, and the creek such a prolific flooder, that we actually had to raise the fw a bit more to provide 2 year flood protection - i.e. cart and fw would not submerge more than once every two years for drainage and revenue reasons, which trumped a blind, poorly located wetland in the design.
I a not a bad or uncaring gca, but I complied with the law, and the developer/owners wishes, which were beyond my control and forced on me after I could do something about it.
And that, children, is the tale of how golf holes occaisionally come to be less than ideal.......(In the spirit of the season, I'm trying to make it sound like Xmas story
)