What pisses you off about golf course architecture/construction?

[Bryan Izatt]

A general inability of architects/developers to design and build forward tees that are far enough forward for short hitting female players. (And, yes I know that there are a few who have - Cabot Links being the most recent I can think of).

[Joel_Stewart]

Some very good thoughts on this thread.

Over the past 10 years I'm really seeing very poor shaping on some of the smaller budget golf courses.  I think some architects and construction company feel that if the budget is small, they don't need to make natural looking land forms.  As a result you have flat smooth fairways and symmetrical mounding.

[Jason Topp]

I have often thought about why, in general, I find golden age courses more pleasurable to play than modern courses.  I wouldn't say these things piss me off.  I can have fun on any course.  However, the following factors matter to me:

If I am playing a modern course, I can be pretty certain I am going to walk an extra mile to play the course.  One of the pleasures of older courses is that the walk is much shorter.  I have actually measured the distance on a few courses using bing maps

Almost anything that results in a ball search.  It sucks to lose balls and it sucks worse to search for balls.  Often, older courses involve few ball searches.

Overuse of water hazards.  I suspect they prevail because they make good pictures.  They often do not make for interesting golf.

For the most part, I prefer greens that rely on tilt rather than sections.  Many older greens will tilt in one predominant direction which creates all sorts of interesting decisions regarding the side one leaves an approach and the best angle for approaching the green.  A sectioned green, by contrast, requires one to be able to precisely fly the ball to a particular area in order to have a reasonable putt which is beyond the ability of 95% of golfers.

Golf holes that have wide fairways but nothing interesting about the width.   I have seen more examples of this than I have seen of overly tight faitrways in courses built in recent years.

[Don_Mahaffey]

 I get pissed about golf architecture/maintenance/construction because so much of it is backwards but trying to point it out just brings out the daggers by the "experts' and "consultants".

For instance:
Does anyone ever ask why the high dollar club that just has to have the  $3M irrigation system with every possible bell and whistle,  also has to have an army of hose draggers?

Does anyone ever ask why the new course that just has to be sand capped, and has to have the best equipment and the best irrigation system, also requires the biggest staff and highest maintenance budget?

Does anyone ever question why the Superintendent who has to have a large staff, and new equipment every other year, and a multimillion dollar shop (sorry, agronomic turf care facility-mission control),  and who requires the most money and resources, has to make 2-3 times more salary than a guy who knows how to provide great conditions without all the fancy stuff and can deliever a quality product with 1/3rd the resources?

Golf is an incredibly backwards business.

Edit: thought of one more...ever question why the restoration architect who shows a club that what they have is pretty dang good and suggest few changes, makes a very small fee. But the restoration architect who finds all sorts of things that need fixing and does as much work as possible and spends a lot of the client's money - gets the large fee?

[JMEvensky]

Going uphill to every tee so all the tee shots are downhill. 

 

+1--a pet peeve of mine too.You can never have enough uphill holes,IMO.

[Phil McDade]

Jeff,

High on my list is reverse cant fairways on dogleg holes.

Metedeconk seems to have a number of them.

Patrick:

I'm interested in your thoughts on reverse cant fairways. I've seen some very good ones -- doesn't Oakland Hills feature one on the 18th? -- and I think, in moderation, they present an interesting challenge.

[jeffwarne]

:

If I am playing a modern course, I can be pretty certain I am going to walk an extra mile to play the course.  One of the pleasures of older courses is that the walk is much shorter.  I have actually measured the distance on a few courses using bing maps


For the most part, I prefer greens that rely on tilt rather than sections.  Many older greens will tilt in one predominant direction which creates all sorts of interesting decisions regarding the side one leaves an approach and the best angle for approaching the green.  A sectioned green, by contrast, requires one to be able to precisely fly the ball to a particular area in order to have a reasonable putt which is beyond the ability of 95% of golfers.

Good points regarding tilt.
Unfortnately modern speeds have nearly negated this feature on newer courses, because there's only so much tilt a green can have when designed for "tournament speeds"
The slower the green, the steeper the tilt possible, and more likely, the firmer the green can be kept, both of which accentuate the advantage preferred angles can create.
Sectioned greens-aim it down the middle, hit it a specific yardage in the air. impossible for most, boring for the rest that can and know better

[Dave McCollum]

Nothing new here as I agree with a lot of the above, including Jason’s remark that he can have fun on any golf course.  I’m always puzzled when massive piles of money are spent on golf courses and clubhouses and the golf is just “above average.”  Others have said the same.  Golf as landscape art for the rich and privileged; conditioning instead of good design and strategy; and so on.  Clearly, a lot of golfers have been “conditioned” to this mindset and are impressed by such displays of opulence.  If one is going to spend all that cash, shouldn’t great golf be part of the equation?

[Sean McCue]

The perceived notion that USGA green construction methods are always the best option.

Amen Brother!!!

[RJ_Daley]

Don Mahaffey wins the gold star for posts on this thread, if you ask me.  Great questions Don!!!

Your refrain, "Does anyone ever ask...." is beginning to sound something like a modern day Andy Rooney, in the most complimentary of ways.

 

[Jim_Kennedy]

When I read stuff like this:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,53579.0.html

[Bill_McBride]

Jeff,

High on my list is reverse cant fairways on dogleg holes.

Metedeconk seems to have a number of them.

Patrick:

I'm interested in your thoughts on reverse cant fairways. I've seen some very good ones -- doesn't Oakland Hills feature one on the 18th? -- and I think, in moderation, they present an interesting challenge.

"It's just unfair!"

Olympic Club - Lakeside has some beauties.  You'd better be able to work the ball off the tee.

[Matthew Rose]

Too many design cliches. Symmetrical routings, perfect par routings, 17 long par-3 over water, 18 long par-4 around water, four 200+ par-threes. Bunkers at 4:00 and 8:00.

I'll say that things like Biarritzes and Redans aren't included, because you simply don't see them enough, and I don't think one can get tired of such things.

[Paul Jones]

Seems, most courses have to be 7000+ yards, aren't walkable and are lined with houses that are too close.

[Troy Fink]

Restoring a classical era course by adding fake water features.

Building tees up un-necessarily high.

Over use of trees.

Courses that are unwalkable.

Houses.

Projects where the land left over for the golf holes, was the swampy unsuitable places for houses.

Every par 3 plays down hill for the ampitheater effect.

Not having a short par 3.

Thinking drain inlets are going to make a course play dry and reshaping the ground to attract water towards them, especially in chipping areas.

Belief that only sandy sites make the best courses.

Restoring a classical era course and not recogninzing the edges of the green have grown in.

And ditto to just about everyting posted before this one.  Most of my venting was already mentioned anyways, but I'm glad the opportunity was provided.

[Grant Saunders]

Trying to rush a grow in to get the course open.

I understand the need to start generating some income from a new course but in too many cases this requires a very compressed grow in period. The whole mentality of throw on heaps of fertiliser and water to get it growing and playable only creates ongoing problems for years to come. I know of a couple of courses still suffering from the thatch build up during grow in.

Successful grow in should be a measured approach as the flow on effects from the mistakes are far reaching.

[Tony Ristola]

Golf is an incredibly backwards business.

Yes it is. The question is how did it get to this point? For example, how did the clarion call of "excellence and economy" by the great architects 100-years ago evolve to the bling-bling we are graced with today?

One reason is a lack of journalism. There is little to no "hard talk" about the business today in the magazines consumed by the masses. There is little journalism on telecasts regarding golf architecture. Who is the journalist during the past 30-years who asked a "signature" architect if he really believes he is the architect of a course most everyone knows he didn't and couldn't design? I can't think of one, and shouldn't this be an oft asked question by "journalists"? Isn't their pursuit that of truth and accountability?

100-years ago there were no golf architect associations. The architects criticized the work and ideas of others openly... all for the betterment of the game. This discussion has been stifled, and the losers are the developers who lack information, the communities and their golfers.

Dr. Mackenzie stated it well..."if there is no discussion, there is no interest."
When there is no discussion, there is decay. I believe the lack of open discussion, the lack of journalism since WWII is one reason we are where we are. GCA Atlas helps fill part of the void, but the void is massive.

Edit: thought of one more...ever question why the restoration architect who shows a club that what they have is pretty dang good and suggest few changes, makes a very small fee. But the restoration architect who finds all sorts of things that need fixing and does as much work as possible and spends a lot of the client's money - gets the large fee?

Easy answer... it's difficult to justify a large fee for doing a small amount of work. Preservation of existing features doesn't pay well. It should as the architect is saving the club from being closed (wholly or partially) and saves the club money for reconstruction.

It's the same with building new courses. Why should an architect get a large fee for accepting and cleverly using the existing landscape; merely introducing features that enhance the property and golf experience? Taking four to 6-months instead of 12 to build the golf course, and with fewer men, and fewer expensive men. I believe this is one reason some architects move a lot of dirt... to justify a large fee.

[Bradley Anderson]

I am getting tired of the tall grass zones, or native areas as they are sometimes called.

- They generally cost more maintenance money to properly care for

- They can slow down play

- They can increase lost balls

- They can discourage beginning golfers

- They add a degree of difficulty to the game that is not learnable from a shot making standpoint - not like hitting from a bunker or a side slope. How do you practice hitting from a prairie?

- The Audobon Society has exaggerated the positive environmental impact of these areas.

None of these issues are good for the game, at a time when the game is struggling to grow and survive. They really PISS ME OFF!  

[Ally Mcintosh]

I am getting tired of the tall grass zones, or native areas as they are sometimes called.

- They generally cost more maintenance money to properly care for

- They can slow down play

- They can increase lost balls

- They can discourage beginning golfers

- They add a degree of difficulty to the game that is not learnable from a shot making standpoint - not like hitting from a bunker or a side slope. How do you practice hitting from a prairie?

- The Audobon Society has exaggerated the positive environmental impact of these areas.

None of these issues are good for the game, at a time when the game is struggling to grow and survive. They really PISS ME OFF!  

What if they are based far enough away from the centreline corridor of play and are given no maintenance whatsoever (or very minimal and infrequent in any case)?

They are perfect with width and scale in my view.

[Tom_Doak]

One reason is a lack of journalism. There is little to no "hard talk" about the business today in the magazines consumed by the masses. There is little journalism on telecasts regarding golf architecture. Who is the journalist during the past 30-years who asked a "signature" architect if he really believes he is the architect of a course most everyone knows he didn't and couldn't design? I can't think of one, and shouldn't this be an oft asked question by "journalists"? Isn't their pursuit that of truth and accountability?

Tony:

I agree with most of your post above, but your calling the guys who write for golf magazines "journalists" made me a little bit dizzy.

There used to be a fair number of golf writers who grew up in the newspaper business, some of whom even went to journalism school.  Today, I'm not sure there are any of them left.  Whether they quit out of frustration or were forced out by publishers who want cheap and pliable writers, I couldn't say.  But there is no journalism left in golf, and there hasn't been for some time now.

Of course, there's not a whole lot of journalism left in America, period.

[Matthew Petersen]

I am getting tired of the tall grass zones, or native areas as they are sometimes called.

- They generally cost more maintenance money to properly care for

- They can slow down play

- They can increase lost balls

- They can discourage beginning golfers

- They add a degree of difficulty to the game that is not learnable from a shot making standpoint - not like hitting from a bunker or a side slope. How do you practice hitting from a prairie?

- The Audobon Society has exaggerated the positive environmental impact of these areas.

None of these issues are good for the game, at a time when the game is struggling to grow and survive. They really PISS ME OFF!  

What if they are based far enough away from the centreline corridor of play and are given no maintenance whatsoever (or very minimal and infrequent in any case)?

They are perfect with width and scale in my view.

Location matters a lot with such areas.

On the high desert plains around Denver, I've played a number of courses that have such areas ... because that's the natural state of the ground there. The areas truly are "native."

But then ... there's a course I play a good bit here in the Phoenix area, that I like quite a bit in a number of ways, except this. It's here in the Phoenix desert and yet every hole is surrounded by "native areas" of tall grass (before you get to the housing lots). Such areas are plainly not "native" in any way and are generally harder to locate golf balls in than actual desert would be. When this kind of thing is done, that's just absurd.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Got a prviate email, asking for an anonymous posting of these items, of which I generally agree:

Poor drainage, particularly fronting the greens and in closely mown chipping areas. 
Ultra-dwarf bermuda greens improperly maintainted- grainy, bumpy, sometimes spongy. 
Bunkers as a primary design feature
Bunkers that are left to deteriorate so as to become nearly unplayable
Courses whose design, construction, and management nearly guarantee slow golf.

Certainly the last one ties into Matthew's last post.  Native areas are tough.  If you draw out the typical spray zones of average golfers, there aren't too many areas on most tighter courses that you could reasonably consider "out of play."

Matthew, I played one of my own Denver courses (Black Bear in Parker) earlier this year.  I like to think I struck the right balance of nature preserve and golfing room, but no matter how you cut it (see sentence above) it seemed like one of my group was in the gunch on every hole.  Seems to be a fact of life these days, given the emphasis on water conservation.  You might hate it now, but it will probably only get worse, at least in most areas. 

What really pisses me off is folks arguing for golf courses to artificially use less water in areas where its not a concern, "just because."

[Greg Clark]

Poorly designed irrigation systems that spray water in the wrong places and significantly impact the manitenance meld. 

[Carl Johnson]

I have certain features I like in a golf course.  Little if any water in play, no forced carries, permits ground game, walkable, relatively compact, relatively open (not treed to death), bunkers used strategically rather than "just for looks," interestingly contoured greens, green green surrounds with recover challenges, but also with options, designed principally for the average player to play for fun, with with the possibility of tough set-ups when appropriate.  What I don't like: real estate development courses with houses lining fairways and long trips from green to next tee and overly groomed fairways (I like to think I'm playing in somewhat of a natural setting, and nature isn't perfect).  Mastersbation in maintenance pisses me off.  Seems to me I've heard much of the same from others.

However, I'm not sure if I'd say that archicture that does not conform to my likes pisses me off.  I can just choose to not play such courses.  If an owner or developer hires an architect to design a course on land left between that which is best for homesites, I'm not inclinded to blame my dislike on the architecture.

The one design/construction/maintenance issue I will not forgive is poor drainage.  If, regardless of the other demands, the architect cannot handle drainage issues, then I do fault the architecture.  The architect is either incompetent, or has accepted a job on an impossible piece of property for a golf course, for which I also blame him or her.

[Matthew Petersen]

Got a prviate email, asking for an anonymous posting of these items, of which I generally agree:

Poor drainage, particularly fronting the greens and in closely mown chipping areas. 
Ultra-dwarf bermuda greens improperly maintainted- grainy, bumpy, sometimes spongy. 
Bunkers as a primary design feature
Bunkers that are left to deteriorate so as to become nearly unplayable
Courses whose design, construction, and management nearly guarantee slow golf.

Certainly the last one ties into Matthew's last post.  Native areas are tough.  If you draw out the typical spray zones of average golfers, there aren't too many areas on most tighter courses that you could reasonably consider "out of play."

Matthew, I played one of my own Denver courses (Black Bear in Parker) earlier this year.  I like to think I struck the right balance of nature preserve and golfing room, but no matter how you cut it (see sentence above) it seemed like one of my group was in the gunch on every hole.  Seems to be a fact of life these days, given the emphasis on water conservation.  You might hate it now, but it will probably only get worse, at least in most areas. 

What really pisses me off is folks arguing for golf courses to artificially use less water in areas where its not a concern, "just because."

I've played Black Bear, Jeff (when it was known as Centerberry). It's one of those where I have no problem with the "gunch." There's really no such thing as a course wide enough to contain every shot. I just don't really like to see places creating a manufactured "native" experience. The "native"/"gunch" at Black bear (or Saddle Rock, Murphy creek, Buffalo Run, Green valley ranch, etc etc) is actually native. If you can't keep it on the maintained grass, then go with god into whatever you might find.

But that same "tall grass" look is surely not native in Peoria, AZ, but there's a course here with plenty of it.