What design feature do you dislike the most?

[Ian Mackenzie]

I do not particularly care for:

1. Out of bounds
2. Ponds or lakes
3. Long distances from greens to tees
4. Trees that hang over fairways
5. Multiple Tee boxes that are scattered like leaves
6. Tee boxes that do not orient players down middle of target
7. Courses that cater to those who only work the ball one way...;-)

[Eric Strulowitz]

I dislike out of bounds.  It slows the game down considerably, when the player has to go back to the tee box.  How bout treating all lost balls as red stakes.

Branches that extend well onto to the fairways and block good shots.  Cut them down!

[K Rafkin]

I dislike out of bounds.  It slows the game down considerably, when the player has to go back to the tee box.  How bout treating all lost balls as red stakes.

Branches that extend well onto to the fairways and block good shots.  Cut them down!

Inspired by Eric here id also like to add the obnoxious cart paths that cut though the middle of the fairway.

[Adrian_Stiff]

My likes and dislikes:
I hate the green that most call a redan. I got forced into building one once and I have never heard a good word about it. The Club and Greenkeeper wanted it. I have realised very few people like them or understand them.

Trees are good in some situations but in the UK have largely been overdone and some courses over time it seems every space has been filled, but I still like certain trees and some trees I don't think have any place. Pine, Birch, Thorn, Oak are fine.

If you have a crap site then you have to make it better. Water is usually the way. Fountains ming.

[Ryan Coles]

Adrian

Would that be on the Orange course at Cumberwell?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Yes the 3rd green Ryan.

[Sean_A]

I dislike the green wall syndrome...trees lining fairways.

I dislike crappy trees burying lovely trees.

I dislike trees overhanging fairways.  

I dislike trees causing massive shadows on a brilliantly sunny winter day.  

I dislike trees partially blocking views of features such as bunkers.  

I dislike rough under trees.  

I dislike trees with low canopies.

I dislike trees blocking interior views or views of where other golfers are...this is a safety hangup...I want to see what the idiots around me are doing.

Lets draw a line under trees.
______________________________________________________________


This all stuff I look at when evaluating courses.  There are more, but I am feeling quite negative now  

Ciao


 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean - Do you like clumps of pine trees 40 yards from the centre line?

[Garland Bayley]

Man-made water hazards.

+1

No surprise to anyone that I'm seconding this.

[Garland Bayley]

Trees planted in a row to provide separation between fairways, or like soldiers standing in line.

+1

[Sean_A]

Sean - Do you like clumps of pine trees 40 yards from the centre line?

No, should I? 

Ciao

[Rob Marshall]

Downhill approach shots to greens that slope from front to back. The 7th hole on the Plantation course at Kapalua is a perfect example.

[Tom_Doak]

Downhill approach shots to greens that slope from front to back. The 7th hole on the Plantation course at Kapalua is a perfect example.

I love that hole, so I'll have to disagree.

What did you want them to do, exactly?  The fairway slopes massively downhill, so you pretty much have to play from a downhill lie.  And Bill Coore actually told me when we were there that his first version of the green tilted slightly back toward the line of play -- but when they went back up into the fairway, it looked like a ski jump!

There is no problem with that hole if you land your approach short of the green.

[BHoover]

Trees situated between a bunker and the green.

This

[Charlie Ray]

Although it might be overly specific:   The design feature that causes a genuine distaste (often accompanied by a muttering such as, “this is the best you could come up with,”)   is the pinched/narrowed fairway designed as the second shot landing zone manifested on par-5’s.    I would enjoy knowing the reason behind this forced design, but I would expect that they are implemented as attempt to add strategy to an otherwise redundant unreachable par 5 hole.   But by pinching the landing zone I argue that the design accomplishes the exact opposite since it deletes any other options for the player.  Usually these holes result in the player smashing a fairway metal near the green instead of attempting to hit the “green”  (the pinched fairway landing zone) with a mid-iron, since a simple greenside chip is preferable to the full wedge shot, and this assumes that the player executed the difficult lay-up perfectly.  In other words, the layup offers very little reward if executed to perfection.
An example of this design (and since this is my very first post on GCA, I will select a course that is often belittled on this forum)  is #2 at TPC Sawgrass.

Another design feature that leaves a bad taste in my mouth is green after green that slopes back to front.   I must admit this is because of a bias towards greens that severely slope side to side or the rare green that slopes front to back.  (Recently my favorite approach shot in golf was softened.  The result is that we lost a world class green site.  #7 at The Golf Club)

Charlie

[JLahrman]

Downhill approach shots to greens that slope from front to back. The 7th hole on the Plantation course at Kapalua is a perfect example.

As long as you can run it up, I think those are great shots. You can hit them with almost any club in your bag.

[Rob Marshall]

Downhill approach shots to greens that slope from front to back. The 7th hole on the Plantation course at Kapalua is a perfect example.

I love that hole, so I'll have to disagree.

What did you want them to do, exactly?  The fairway slopes massively downhill, so you pretty much have to play from a downhill lie.  And Bill Coore actually told me when we were there that his first version of the green tilted slightly back toward the line of play -- but when they went back up into the fairway, it looked like a ski jump!

There is no problem with that hole if you land your approach short of the green.

Lol, that's what I would expect someone of your stature to say. I landed a perfect shot short and it rolled to the back of the green. It was a front pin, downhill down grain. I wrote a letter to one of the designers asking why he built the green that way. I was pleasantly surprised to get a letter in the mail from Ben. He explained that the front pin was to be used sparingly and that if the green was flat at the bottom of the hill it would look like a "back stop".  Still don't like it as a design future but I understand your point which was exactly the same as Ben's. I'm still amazed that he took the time to respond to my letter. Still have it, dated December 31, 1997.

[Kevin_D]

Artificial mounding that looks like it is artificial

[Charlie Ray]

If manmade lakes and ponds are a necessity in many developments, why not utilize them in the strategy of creating interesting designs?  It is often in today's climate preferable for many architects to hide the irrigation pond out of sight to achieve an aesthetic effect, but could not the question be asked that the designer has been inefficient in utilizing the available natural/required resources to create strategy?  Honestly, a sand bunker is much more out of place in most inland environments than a flooded space of land.  

By all means a pond does not have to be a forced carry, but the excuse to say it doesn't fit into the landscape is but an opinion perhaps resulting in a lack of creativity?
 My home course (clay-based) hides the retention pond out of sight; all the while there could have been multiple opportunities to place it in lower elevation, thus producing golf holes with greater options.  It is not wise to waste a strategic resource by hiding it behind some trees just because it looks unappealing.  With tongue in cheek, be like Fazio and try to make it look natural.

Charlie

[Garland Bayley]

If manmade lakes and ponds are a necessity in many developments, why not utilize them in the strategy of creating interesting designs?  

Impossible, they are boring. They take away shots. How many shots have you made from the middle of a pond?

It is often in today's climate preferable for many architects to hide the irrigation pond out of sight to achieve an aesthetic effect, but could not the question be asked that the designer has been inefficient in utilizing the available natural/required resources to create strategy?  Honestly, a sand bunker is much more out of place in most inland environments than a flooded space of land.  

By all means a pond does not have to be a forced carry, but the excuse to say it doesn't fit into the landscape is but an opinion perhaps resulting in a lack of creativity?

Au contraire. It is the lack of creativity that uses the cheap trick of adding a pond.

 My home course (clay-based) hides the retention pond out of sight; all the while there could have been multiple opportunities to place it in lower elevation, thus producing golf holes with greater options.  It is not wise to waste a strategic resource by hiding it behind some trees just because it looks unappealing.  With tongue in cheek, be like Fazio and try to make it look natural.

Charlie

[Jim Nugent]

Rough so thick you spend far too much time searching for balls hit off the fairway (if you find them at all). 

Man-made water hazards.

Tom, is this one reason ANGC did not get a 10 in the CG?

[Paul Gray]

I confess to making a snap judgement about any course the moment I see a fountain. I've yet to have my opinion changed after 18 holes of golf.

[Ian Andrew]

Island Greens
I'll concede Pete and Alice "one" and perhaps Strong one, but that's it ...

as for the rest ... there is nothing clever or interesting about playing them

[Peter Pallotta]

Borrowing a bit from my own post on Sean's 'defending bogey' thread - 3 features that would prevent me from happily challenging a 5 handicapper (a much better golfer than me) to 18 holes of match play, straight up: 1. severly perched greens, 2. daunting forced-carries, and 3. fairway hazards as severe as the Church Pews or Hells Half Acre.

Peter

[Charlie Ray]

If manmade lakes and ponds are a necessity in many developments, why not utilize them in the strategy of creating interesting designs?  

Impossible, they are boring. They take away shots. How many shots have you made from the middle of a pond?

It is often in today's climate preferable for many architects to hide the irrigation pond out of sight to achieve an aesthetic effect, but could not the question be asked that the designer has been inefficient in utilizing the available natural/required resources to create strategy?  Honestly, a sand bunker is much more out of place in most inland environments than a flooded space of land.  

By all means a pond does not have to be a forced carry, but the excuse to say it doesn't fit into the landscape is but an opinion perhaps resulting in a lack of creativity?

Au contraire. It is the lack of creativity that uses the cheap trick of adding a pond.

 My home course (clay-based) hides the retention pond out of sight; all the while there could have been multiple opportunities to place it in lower elevation, thus producing golf holes with greater options.  It is not wise to waste a strategic resource by hiding it behind some trees just because it looks unappealing.  With tongue in cheek, be like Fazio and try to make it look natural.

Charlie

I disagree that a manmade pond cannot be utilized to create strategy.  If I am building a course in a sugarcane or corn field and want to recreate a Cape hole; then why not dig a pond.  It creates strategy in that the golfer has to determine how much to cut the corner.  And if that is not strategy I don't know what is.  Simply saying that all manmade water hazards are boring because they leave no possibility of a recovery shot is illogical.      High fescue leaves no chance of recovery, so to do gorges and cliffs, deep woods, and oceans;  I guess those are boring too?  Therefore the architect that employs these challenges must have no creativity.  Rubbish.
 
If I may, I believe your opinion and Doak's distaste of manmade water is more aesthetical.  You don't like how they look; and neither do I.  But to say they don't create strategy is false.  For better or worse,  water dominates the players mind when confronted with it.  Therefore, however a 'cheap trick' they may constitute, and often times the lesser designs rely overly on their penal nature,  they nevertheless when creatively utilized are a useful resource in the mind of a great designer.  
Charlie