Pet hates in course routings

[Ally Mcintosh]

There should be no rules. Let’s get that clear at the outset… But there are some routing decisions that are not best practice… and then there are just pet hates (or dislikes) that are usually quite individual.


This thread is about the last of those.


Ben Stephen’s doesn’t like 3 or more par-3’s in the same direction (the inspiration behind this thread).


I don’t usually like 3 or more holes playing back and forth beside each other in succession.


That’s my pet hate. What’s yours?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Par threes that feel the same, or even par fours that feel the same (and the closer they are to one another, the worse it is).

Change the length, or the shape of the green and the bunkers or whatever around it, change the angles or shape of the hole, the elevation changes… something.

[Kalen Braley]

Par 3 related...

Where you either have to walk all the way back to the tee from the prior green (think 7 and 8 at Olympic), or when you play the par 3, and then have to come all the way back for the next tee.  (7th and 8th at Thanksgiving Point)

[Adrian_Stiff]

As you say there are no rules.
* denotes if I have broken them



Pet hates;
Crossing Holes *
Holes side by side running in the same direction
Consecutive Par 3 holes *
Par 3 Start *
Par 3 earlier than hole 3 *
18th green not visible from the clubhouse *
9th hole not close to the clubhouse *
Walks of more than 100 yards to the next tee *

[Paul Jones]

I do not like it when I am hitting 6 iron or longer into all Par 3.


I do not like it when I have to walk back up the fairway to get to the next tee.

[David_Tepper]

Interior out of bounds. Very steep uphill par-3's to a green that is totally blind.

[Sean_A]

Pet routing peeves

Not starting and finishing near the house...ties into long walks between holes.

Final holes finishing into the sun. Sherwood Forest bugs the shit out of me for this.

Too much cross wind design...though too much is largely dependent on lack of width. Portrush bugs the shit out of me on this point.

Blind shots with a lack of space. It should almost, almost be a rule that if a shot is blind the ball can't be lost.  County Down bugs the shit out of me on this point. Though to be fair, this is a maintenance issue. Same for above, but it's so stupid it must be mentioned .

Consistently using creeks as a perpendicular hazard. That's bugs the shit out of me about West Hill.

Exacting sharp doglegs.

Ciao

[Tim Martin]

Man made ponds that have no irrigation value.
Too many dog legs turning in the same direction.
Overly long green to tee walks.
Par threes as a set playing from roughly the same yardage.

[Joe Zucker]

Par 5s where I can not hit driver off the tee.  I'm perfectly happy playing par 5s where driver is likely the wrong decision, but it frustrates me when driver is not an option at all because the fairway/landing area stops at 200 yards or whatever.


Regarding par 3s, at least one par 3 should be under 150 yards from the back tees.

[mike_malone]

Parallel holes in same direction
Only two par fives over by fourth hole


Reminder:  It’s pet peeves about routing not just golf holes.

[MCirba]

Par 4 holes that require a longer approach shot than the forced layup drive.   

[Thomas Dai]

Par-3’s that are all the same length
Forced carries
Forced lay-ups
Lack of fairway width
Long par-4’s and par-5’s that are straight up hill
First hole into the morning/rising sun
Last hole into the evening/setting sun
Walk backs to next tee
Parallel holes with trees in between


That’ll do for now.
Atb

[Charlie Goerges]

As you say there are no rules.
* denotes if I have broken them



Pet hates;
Crossing Holes *
Holes side by side running in the same direction
Consecutive Par 3 holes *
Par 3 Start *
Par 3 earlier than hole 3 *
18th green not visible from the clubhouse *
9th hole not close to the clubhouse *
Walks of more than 100 yards to the next tee *

Thanks for bringing some context to this. Pet hates, but you do them anyway. Just as it should probably be. De-emphasize these types of "rules of thumb".

[Ira Fishman]

Wow, some long lists.


A tree and bunker protecting the same line of play. Pine Needles is a favorite course, but Number 17 is not a good hole. Now, Jay Mickie will claim hypocrisy because of my view of the tree on MP 4, but the tree and bunker do not sit on top of each other.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Not all of the things on this thread are primary routing considerations. Some are caused by secondary decisions once the skeleton of the routing is set.


But Adrian’s post shows that golf design is always a series of compromises and knock-on effects. There are so many “pet hates” in routing that you will never get a good solution if you constrain yourself to avoiding them all.


When I am actually routing, I dislike going up, down, up. I will avoid that over many or most of the things stated in the above posts as I like the golfer to go on a journey and that configuration often makes me feel like I am treading water on the land. Other architects will not feel so strongly about that. But will - for instance - feel really strongly about not starting with an east facing hole or finishing with a west facing hole. Whereas I won’t ever compromise a good routing to avoid those aspects.

[Padraig Dooley]

Long par 3 as the second or third hole, it just grinds down the pace of play.

Downhill finishing holes into the setting sun, or even just a finishing hole into the setting sun.

[Ira Fishman]

Not all of the things on this thread are primary routing considerations. Some are caused by secondary decisions once the skeleton of the routing is set.


But Adrian’s post shows that golf design is always a series of compromises and knock-on effects. There are so many “pet hates” in routing that you will never get a good solution if you constrain yourself to avoiding them all.


When I am actually routing, I dislike going up, down, up. I will avoid that over many or most of the things stated in the above posts as I like the golfer to go on a journey and that configuration often makes me feel like I am treading water on the land. Other architects will not feel so strongly about that. But will - for instance - feel really strongly about not starting with an east facing hole or finishing with a west facing hole. Whereas I won’t ever compromise a good routing to avoid those aspects.

Ally,


I take your point about routing versus secondary features so I amend mine to read more than one sharp dog leg in a routing.


Ira

[Tim Martin]

A tree and bunker protecting the same line of play.

I have seen the tree and bunker as well as a creek and tree guarding the same line of play. Both are head scratchers.

[Rob Marshall]

A tree and bunker protecting the same line of play.

I have seen the tree and bunker as well as a creek and tree guarding the same line of play. Both are head scratchers.

When I played a lot of tournament golf I used to have dreams about standing on a tee box with nowhere to tee it up because there were tree branches hanging over the tee box so I either had no backswing or no opening in the branches to hit the ball thru.


I don’t see this as routing but there is nothing worse than having to hit a bunker shot over a high lip and keep it below tree branches just outside the bunker. Innisbrook has a few of those. Just stupid IMO.

[Matthew Rose]

This may only apply to those who grew up playing a lot of public and municipal courses built during a certain era, but I really dislike it when a course appears to be routed to a formula. Maybe because I played a lot of Robert Bruce Harris courses growing up and became familiar with the "perfect par" rotation that he did, but I was never a fan of that. I also felt like applying that regularly produced a sense of sameness across many courses that I played, to a point that I could actually predict the pars of holes on a scorecard before I even looked at them.

I guess I hate the idea of forcing a pattern of hole pars into a given routing.

As a corollary from this - the mirroring of finishing holes. 9 and 18 are parallel to each other, perhaps separated by the same lake, perhaps playing to a shared green. It's even worse when they do it with 8 and 17 as well. I've seen several courses where 8 and 17 were more or less identical par threes right next to each other.

I guess the TLDR version of this is - get away from formulas and rotations and have some variety.

Oh, and a +1 to forced lay-ups and another to courses where every par three is 200+.

[Jason Topp]

I am not a fan of more than one par five number 1, 9, 10 or 18.  Some courses have two or three.  Not sure I have seen four.   I don’t mind the holes.  I just find that they often lead to a steady diet of par fours somewhere else.  If the par fours are great, that is fine but they usually are not.

Holes that run back and forth or at 90 degree angles.  Our front nine is that way but I should not be routing courses because I have never come up with a better solution.  The best routed courses seem to often fan out from the clubhouse. 

I am not a fan of turning around and walking backwards.  It disrupts the flow of the round.  There needs to be some spectacular reason to do it.   

I know why it happens but I hate it when courses have one green, a par three and then a tee near the ocean.   That is not a course on the ocean but a housing course with a postcard opportunity.

If the holes are great, I can overlook all of these.

[cary lichtenstein]

Trees overhanging the right side of the tee box, trees in the center of the fairway, trees requiring you to hit one specific shape shot, water on both side of the landing area, sand traps in the center of a green, greens that repel shots 50 yards down the fairway.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Par 3 related...

Where you either have to walk all the way back to the tee from the prior green (think 7 and 8 at Olympic)

I may be wrong, but possibly the new layout for #7 under the Hanse plan will mitigate that somewhat.  Agree that it is a terrible layout currently.

[mike_malone]

I am not a fan of more than one par five number 1, 9, 10 or 18.  Some courses have two or three.  Not sure I have seen four.   I don’t mind the holes.  I just find that they often lead to a steady diet of par fours somewhere else.  If the par fours are great, that is fine but they usually are not.

Holes that run back and forth or at 90 degree angles.  Our front nine is that way but I should not be routing courses because I have never come up with a better solution.  The best routed courses seem to often fan out from the clubhouse. 

I am not a fan of turning around and walking backwards.  It disrupts the flow of the round.  There needs to be some spectacular reason to do it.   

I know why it happens but I hate it when courses have one green, a par three and then a tee near the ocean.   That is not a course on the ocean but a housing course with a postcard opportunity.

If the holes are great, I can overlook all of these.

Jason,
There goes your invite to Rolling Green which has 9 and 18 as fives. But there are three par threes on the back which soften your concern for too many par fours. We do have a unique routing of 7 and 9 as fives and 17 and 18 as well.
You’re invited anyway and I’ll let you decide if the par fours are good enough.

[David Kelly]

Blind shots with a lack of space. It should almost, almost be a rule that if a shot is blind the ball can't be lost.  County Down bugs the shit out of me on this point. Though to be fair, this is a maintenance issue. Same for above, but it's so stupid it must be mentioned .

I liked the course but, OMG, Perrenporth.