We've launched the new forums! Read more here

What makes a course "fit your eye"?

I am not able to generate much distance anymore thanks to the aging process so I prefer a course that is not in excess of 6300 yards that requires a golfer to plan and execute quality shots to score well. I will not complain if the course also does not have any doglegs right.
 
Last edited:
I also wanted to add: well maintained greens. I like fast greens a lot. If you're greens aren't maintained well we are not going to get along.
 
From the title I thought this was more about what is pleasantly appealing to the eye (aesthetics pleasing ) like the surroundings and such like trees, or fescue, hills, or flat etc..
But it seems what we are talking is more about what appeals to our golfing preferences and/or what favors our game. Two different things imo.

as for aesthetics I enjoy the traditional park setting of trees and moderate slope vs links, or wide open, or extremely hilly etc.
As for what I prefer to golf is a good mix of distances with a few shorter and few longer while most mediocre. Same for a few easy, few harder, and most mediocre. Dog legs are nice too. Super long par 3's are ridiculous imo but so are shorty ones, so one long, one shorty and the others in between. Nothing real tight but don't like wide open golf either. So as my trend goes on for me its a nice mix of a little of everything but not too much of anything. Is there such a place?
 
I certainly prefer generous fairways, but feel mildly comfortable with narrow ones too. I just want to be able to see part of the fairways, I'm not a fan of blind tee shots.
I don't mind challenging green complexes, just show me the trouble. Don't try to trick my eye. The thing I hate most about most Nicklaus courses is not that there is always trouble around the greens, but the fact that sometimes its hidden. From your approach you may not be able to see a 10 foot drop off just left of the green into a tightly mowed run off or worse.
 
arydolphin said:
I just remembered one other thing before I hit submit: give me a pretty easy opening hole. A course that I played last week has a par 5 to start that is one of the toughest tee shots on the entire course. That hole causes the majority of players trouble, and the pace of play is terrible because people are struggling on that first hole. I think the first hole should ease people into the round, instead of being a really tough hole, save that for 17 or 18.
Click to expand...

As for starting on a par5 I really don't see the difference. I (and i also believe many) can start off great or poorly on any first hole. As for that pace? Imo its going to be the same whether that hole is #1 or if its #2. That same speed bump will hit every group the same whether its on 1, or 3, or 7.
And just maybe its not the poor tee shots but instead is the poor recovery decisions people make form that point which then causes the delay. And/or if that par5 is not reachable in two for most people anyway than perhaps a shorter, little safer and tad higher percentage first shot is what more people should take in the first place. Not only would that help any possible pace issue you mention but also help ease you in to your round just as you wish for. I don't know any of this for certain and am really just speculating because I don't know the hole but I do know people. And in general very many tend to make poor decisions.

But I don't believe any first hole should be one of the easiest on the course so it can "ease" us in to our round. A course imo is what it is, we have to face the harder holes on the course no matter what. And if I wish to be eased in then I should get there early, stretch, warm up and swing and maybe hit a warm up bucket. And/or take an iron or whatever off the tee and plan on playing the par5 with 3 shots (if I make them). Not picking at you here at all but just don't agree we should be eased in to anything. And I'm a 16+ capper, you are far better than me and still I don't feel a course should ease me in. I should be able to play the hole and if I cant do well enough then perhaps I needed to make better decisions prior to playing and/or on the tee and ruing the hole or I'm simply just not that good anyway. If I were, I wouldn't be a 16+ capper.
 
I like second shot golf courses. Tee game isn't as important but the greens and around the greens are challenging. I also like elevation change but not to where you are blind going into the green. Everything else im OK about. Tree lined or plenty of hazards I'm game.
 
Trees, bunkers, water: Less is better.

I'm OK with "tricky" greens, as long as there are plenty of fair pin placement options.

I like a bit of room off the tee, but not excessively "wide open".

I like to see different "flavours" of the 3 hole types (par 3, par 4, par 5). e.g . a good mix of straight/long/doglegged/short/tighter/wider/ etc.

I'm not a fan of extreme elevation changes.

I like the course to have a natural flow from hole to hole - no backtracking, or long hikes to the next hole.
 
Miller Time said:
Wide open, pine-tree lined fairways. Gettable par 5s with a good drive. Receptive greens.
Click to expand...

This and
elevation changes
forced carries

What I do not like is a course without trees and a lot of blind shots or a bad layout so you don't know where you need to go. Target golf is also a pet peeve of mine.
 
I like courses to have a good mix of holes and not to have all the par 3 holes the same kind of length - a course I used to play had 5 par 3's, all between 155-165yards

I don't like courses that are wide open 'grip it and rip it', I prefer a course that makes you think about every shot and use a number of different clubs off the tee, whether that be due to trees or hazards, but I don't like it when you have to take something like a 7i off the tee followed by a 4i into the green

Water and sand don't bother me as long as they are used sensibly to enhance the hole and not just as a lazy way to force players into particular shots
 
I like elevation changes, protected greens, and water.

I like courses where all the holes "feel" different. Too many times I play courses where the holes seem to run in with one another and only a couple are memorable.
 
I like courses that are lacking dogleg right holes. If I get on a tee knowing I have to fade the ball to have a decent approach shot, I'm pretty much a cooked goose. I'm better off hitting an iron off the tee and playing for at worst a bogey on those type holes.
 
Left-to-right tee shots! I've played a lot of Arnold Palmer courses, and they seem to lay out very nice for me.
 
One thing I don't like the most are courses where there is little or no separation between holes that run along side each other. You know, the type where people are spraying the ball all over from two fairways over and no trees or fescue or whatever. Basically a giant open field that they squeezed a golf course into. There is just no character and no integrity to such places.
 
If I could play a course that only had right to left doglegs I would be set with my draw/hook.
 
That's like asking, do you think that girls hot?...and then, why? I don't know, I just know! lol

I'm not sure if it's a combo of the layout and views, or just the way a hole is designed, or both....probably both.
 
I like wide open fairways on some of the holes, but also tree-lined on some. It keeps you from swinging all out with driver. Another thing is a blind or hidden green from both tee box and 2nd shot. This makes it hard, unless you are familiar with the course.

Deep rough is aggravating. Some course superintendents say "it's traditional", but really they are lazy. When the grass is chest deep 3 inches off of the fairway, and you lose a ball, it slows down play considerably.

Another pet peeve is : losing a ball in the middle of the fairway.

Our local course Is mowed well. But, there are small areas the size of a frisbee about 2 inches deep. After they mow, there is still grass in clover down in these holes. You can bust a 250 yard drive down the middle, and spend 5 minutes stomping grass and clover to find your ball.

Jack
 
LeftySean said:
I like the course to have a natural flow from hole to hole - no backtracking, or long hikes to the next hole.
Click to expand...


This right here, and these seem to be prevalent "features" on recently built courses. I understand each designer wants a"signature" look and feel, but that usually tends to sacrifice walkability first and playability overall in extreme cases, where you have a long cart ride between every hole.
 
I like aesthetics, well kept tee boxes and greens aswell as a well put together layout. I don't like walking 200 yards between holes and various different fairway widths, when they're all the same size its kind of a turn off to me. Elevation change is nice as long as its practical, I also like unique holes with forced carries and well placed hazards.
 
I'm a pretty picky player and generally don't return to courses I don't like, but am EXTREMELY loyal to a course that fits my eye.

If I had to pick a designer, I'd say Palmer or McBroom.
I love:
- openness and options off the tee. I hate having to hit a 235 yard perfectly straight shot on every hole.
- holes that are framed by something
- different length par 3s
- elevation change without being gimmicky
- amazing tee and green conditions
- trees that are seen but only in play with a really poor shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top