[Kalen Braley]

To follow up on the Pet Peeves thread about things you don't like, I thought we would have a thread where one can provide visual examples of holes that you thought were "less than the best" or pet peeve architecture, to put it gently!

Keep it clean gentleman and don't be harsh!!  

I'll go first.  

I present this hole and the view from the tee.  What you see is OB left of the cart path, a stream running before the fairway, a pond to the right, with another stream in front of the green.  That was penal enough I thought, but then a bunker was added both short and out to the right, and in front of the green.  Then throw in that this hole plays into the prevailing wind...and all in all, just a bit too much...ok probably way too much.

[David Harshbarger]

I like the way they worked the cart path in, though.

[Mark Saltzman]

Kalen,

As we discussed, that is easily the worst hole on the course.  Out of character and too penal.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

As we discussed, that is easily the worst hole on the course.  Out of character and too penal.

Agreed,

That is certainly one of the worst holes I've ever laid eyes...but i'm glad the rest of the course was pretty interesting, especially the back 9.

[Sean_A]

One of my pet peeves is using sand to block off access because folks are worried about distance.  Below is an example of what could be a very interesting driveable par 4 turned into a dead boring double iron hole.  This solution to distance is so dire the archie should not be allowed to call himself that.


As if the above wasn't bad enough, he had to go and do the same thing later.


Here is an example of terrible trees down the left.  One drives severely downhill and then approaches severely uphill - the trees obviously block out a ton of shots from the fairway as they are far too high.


Here is a look at the hole from behind the green - no need to make what should be a fantstic hole into a frustration.  


Who could possibly think this is a good look?


Ciao

 

[Joe Bausch]

Can you provide an aerial view of distances to the bunkers, etc?  Or at least verbalize distances to various points in the photo you provide?  And how wide is the FW at various points?

[Phil McDade]

Here's a state-side version of Sean's bunkering. One of the very few things that seems out of kilter at Milwaukee CC, a terrific Alison course that Doak's group has done some work on. These bunkers are at the corner of the par 4 11th, a sharply doglegging, short par 4 that can be driven by the aggressive player. There is plenty of room right of these fairways for the more conventional play off the tee. To me, this just seems a bit busy (a guess, but it's probably 275 yds or so to clear this field of bunkers):



My sense is that the bunkers here are placed to discourage those from driving the green. Better than trees, but this is an area of the course squeezed in a narrow corridor of land next to the Milwaukee River, so not sure what the solution might be.

[Garland Bayley]

The 9th at Monarch Dunes looks hideous to me. This is a course set in sand dunes inland from Pismo Beach State Park in CA, well known for its sand dunes for dune riders. The front nine is filled with ponds, ruining what could have been a very good course. When I got to the 9th and saw the totally artificial look that matches neither golf nor nature, I put away the camera thinking there is no reason to reward this course with a picture thread on GCA.com. Unfortunately, the back 9 is great with only one pond in play to detract from its greatness.

Also, unfortunately the picture does not truly capture the peevish nature of the hole.

[Jim McCann]

I'm not a big fan of "waste bunkers" - especially when they're incorporated into the design of ANY course in Scotland!!!

Here's a snap of my pet peeve taken from the elbow of the doglegged par five 9th hole on Jack's Gleneagles PGA Centenary course today:

[JLahrman]

I don't have a photo, but here is an aerial shot (thank you Google Earth) of the green of a par 5 that I used to play quite often.

It's a longish par 5, and the second shot plays downhill after a level drive.  It is reachable with two good pokes, and the second shot is pretty much blind because you can't get to the slope with your drive.  There are trees on either side which pinch towards the green, so it's a fun hole to go for it in two because there is a bit of a gamble to it.

But at the green, they leave a big patch of rough just short of the green.  Come on now, you can SEE IT IN GOOGLE EARTH!  This is discouraging the exact type of play you need to reach the green in two.  It also eliminates the option of playing a running third shot if you lay up.

Why?  To make the hole harder?  What does this do?  It keeps the hole from playing exactly as it should!



It would take two extra minutes to mow this patch along with the rest of the fairway.  The hole would be 50% better if it were done.  There is another par-5 at this 36-hole muni course where they do the exact same thing.

I like this course very much.  Mowing this patch would make a good thing better.

Mr. Greenskeeper, if you seek to improve your course, if you seek to do it without incurring any extra time or cost, Mr. Greenskeeper, open this playing lane.  Mr. Greenskeeper, MOW DOWN THIS ROUGH!

[Paul Stephenson]

The "double hazard".  The three bunkers are about 85 yards short of the green.  Getting over the tree from the right two bunkers is nearly impossible.

[Paul Stephenson]

And another.  Get into this fairway bunker and the trees block out the left half of the green.

[Garland Bayley]

The "double hazard".  The three bunkers are about 85 yards short of the green.  Getting over the tree from the right two bunkers is nearly impossible.

So hazards are supposed to be easy?

[Rick Shefchik]

The "double hazard".  The three bunkers are about 85 yards short of the green.  Getting over the tree from the right two bunkers is nearly impossible.

So hazards are supposed to be easy?

One or the other. A difficult bunker that needs to be avoided, or a stand of trees. Not both.

[Mark Saltzman]

One or the other. A difficult bunker that needs to be avoided, or a stand of trees. Not both.

And what if the bunker shot is not inherently difficult, what then?  If you have a bunker with a small lip 150 yards out from the green, is it then OK to have a tree in front of it?  For many good players being in this type of bunker is little different than being in the fairway and is certainly better than being in thick rough.

[Mark Saltzman]

One of my pet peeves - forced lay-up.

Here's the example: Par 5, 550 Yards.  Tee shot plays downhill to a downward sloping fairway that runs into a hazard at 215 yards.  There is a few yards of rough short of the hazard and you can't play for the single last yard of fairway, so a 200 yard tee shot is about what works.  This leaves 350 yards in after a very good lay-up.  I don't think that makes much sense.

[Garland Bayley]

The "double hazard".  The three bunkers are about 85 yards short of the green.  Getting over the tree from the right two bunkers is nearly impossible.

So hazards are supposed to be easy?

Isn't an 85 yard bunker shot "hazard" enough? Making the golfer hit a knock down, 85 yard bunker shot to a green surrounded by bunkers seems a tad, oh I don't know....close to impossible?

You're right! It's a complete waste of time and money to put both bunkers and a tree there. They should have just put a pond in to take up that piece of real estate.



Hit the shot out short front of the green and try to get up and down. What do you think you deserve? A birdie from every bunker you get into? It's a hazard! Get over it!

Actually, maybe it's finally a fair bit of architecture, as the high handicapper has nearly as much chance as the low handicapper from this double hazard.

Double Bogey

[Sean_A]

The "double hazard".  The three bunkers are about 85 yards short of the green.  Getting over the tree from the right two bunkers is nearly impossible.

This scene doesn't have much to recommend it.

Three bunkers where one will do.  Bunkers in the rough.  Bunkers presumably so shallow that someone thought it necessary to plant a stupid tree.  No, not any architect's finest moment.

Ciao

[Frank M]

Glencairn. The holes on the other side of the tracks are pretty brutal. Wish they had stuck to 18 holes.

[Garland Bayley]

The "double hazard".  The three bunkers are about 85 yards short of the green.  Getting over the tree from the right two bunkers is nearly impossible.

So hazards are supposed to be easy?

Isn't an 85 yard bunker shot "hazard" enough? Making the golfer hit a knock down, 85 yard bunker shot to a green surrounded by bunkers seems a tad, oh I don't know....close to impossible?

You're right! It's a complete waste of time and money to put both bunkers and a tree there. They should have just put a pond in to take up that piece of real estate.



Hit the shot out short front of the green and try to get up and down. What do you think you deserve? A birdie from every bunker you get into? It's a hazard! Get over it!

Actually, maybe it's finally a fair bit of architecture, as the high handicapper has nearly as much chance as the low handicapper from this double hazard.

Double Bogey

In all honestly, I cannot tell if this response is a poor attempt at satire or a firm belief... for argument's sake, I'll assume you mean it. As such, are we to assume that you have no problem planting trees between a greenside bunker and the green? You should have stopped after "It's a hazard!" And Garland, I don't think I or anyone "deserve" a birdie from any bunker. On the hole pictured, I bet I wuold make birdie 1 or 2 times out of 100, maybe, and save par maybe 25-40% of the time, WITHOUT the trees.

At my club here in Louisville, we just took down a pine tree that had overgrown and impeded a fairway bunker. The fairway bunker is on a par 4, approxmately 100 yards from the green (short par 4). If a player's ball ended up on the right side of the bunker, he/she had to option of either hitting a knockdown 3 iron or come out at a 45 degree angle...very, very strange hole.

I really can't get worked up about this double hazard thing, unless people start complaining about ponds. If it was a pond, you would be lying 2 and not have advanced the ball. In the double hazard, you can advance the ball near the green and lie 2. Also, I didn't see anyone complain about the other double hazard. There is another bunker right next to the green on the line out of the fairway bunker. Do we have to wait for someone to cut down the tree before people start complaining about that double hazard?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()