We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Golf course design

MSEASU

MSEASU

Well-known member
Albatross 2024 Club
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
12,105
Reaction score
21,257
Location
Gilbert, AZ
Handicap
6
I was having this discussion with a high level golfer the other day, what do you think makes a good design versus a bad design? For me:

Bad-
Start or end with a par 3
Short par 4 with no bailout
All par 3’s are similar
No variety
No safe miss on a green approach shot
Being forced to tee off with a shorter club and having to hit your approach with a longer club
Never having a flat lie even in the middle of the fairway
Fairway bunkers with high lips
Too many blind tee shots

Good-
Variety of holes, doglegs, long holes , short, play downhill and uphill
Holes play differently based on conditions, wind, etc...
Risk, reward
Course uses the natural landscape
Built for walking
No gimmick holes
Options on how to play hole
A memorable 18th hole
Starting off with a moderately easy hole
 
I’m fairly new to golf (a few years in now) and I am having a chicken and the egg struggle with this topic as I get more courses under my belt. I originally thought of a global pros/cons for courses but then I began to realize there are different styles and within style A option 1 would be well suited but in Style B option 1 is not an efficient design imo (style and option generic here). And I find myself rating options within a style as the framework. I also find myself agreeing that there should be different styles of courses and that there also should be different options that fit in well with one or more. As a totality those options bring together the styles that I am coming across. Hence chicken and the egg symbiosis.
 
I agree with almost all of the OP's lists for both good and bad designs.

I would like to add a couple on the Bad List:

Bad:

1. The first hole is also the hardest hole on the course (long par 4s, invariably uphill too). 3 examples (all in CA): Knollwood in Granada Hills, The Ridge in Auburn, and Tilden Park in Berkeley. I would add another one: Auburn Valley in Auburn (while not uphill, the green is super tough.)

2. Bunkers in the middle of the fairway when there are already troubles on both sides. E.g. Boulder Creek in Boulder City, NV.

OP, do you consider the island hole (No. 17) on TPC Sawgrass a gimmick hole?
 
aceinspace said:
I agree with almost all of the OP's lists for both good and bad designs.

I would like to add a couple on the Bad List:

Bad:

1. The first hole is also the hardest hole on the course (long par 4s, invariably uphill too). 3 examples (all in CA): Knollwood in Granada Hills, The Ridge in Auburn, and Tilden Park in Berkeley. I would add another one: Auburn Valley in Auburn (while not uphill, the green is super tough.)

2. Bunkers in the middle of the fairway when there are already troubles on both sides. E.g. Boulder Creek in Boulder City, NV.

OP, do you consider the island hole (No. 17) on TPC Sawgrass a gimmick hole?
Click to expand...

Tilden, early in the AM with all that fog.... hate the opening hole. I think it is more visually tough than it really is though.
 
Let's see....fairway bunkers with high lips....well count Old at St Andrews bad....No safe miss on approach, don't agree. Short par 4 no bail out....It's short.....No flat lie....many great courses have no flat lies if they were built minimalist. A few blind tee balls are fine...Gimmick hole? Most any great course has a few template holes...Agree best courses are built to incorporate walking option, Many great courses have stellar starting holes. Great finisher is best, Variety par 3's yes, but as tees get deeper...tough to also incorporate variety if they are all 200 plus. Some risk reward is key. Variety of holes...that helps but again what is the natural setting. Conditioning...what is the standard for collars and intermediate cut and rough? Your best courses are pristine and consistent. Green contours...A few diabolical and a few with much character and the green predominantly is reactive to the nature of the hole....ie...if it's a short par 4....the green should be very testy...Alternatively like so many things you learn.....The instruction book says do it this way and many of the best did it the exact opposite...Good discussion. We all have our opinions... The worst feeling is when you have such high hopes prior to playing a place you have on your bucket list.....only to arrive and it fails to live up to your expectations. And many times your 2nd/3rd loop points out things you missed the first time....
 
Common ones that annoy me:

1. Having a bunch of 200+ yard par 3s on sub 7000 yard courses.
2. Long holes that don’t offer enough room to hit driver/3w.
3. Bunkers in the middle of average sized fairways.

I have a lot more, but these are by far my biggest annoyances. FWIW I’m definitely a course design snob.
 
GolfTravelDude said:
Let's see....fairway bunkers with high lips....well count Old at St Andrews bad....No safe miss on approach, don't agree. Short par 4 no bail out....It's short.....No flat lie....many great courses have no flat lies if they were built minimalist. A few blind tee balls are fine...Gimmick hole? Most any great course has a few template holes...Agree best courses are built to incorporate walking option, Many great courses have stellar starting holes. Great finisher is best, Variety par 3's yes, but as tees get deeper...tough to also incorporate variety if they are all 200 plus. Some risk reward is key. Variety of holes...that helps but again what is the natural setting. Conditioning...what is the standard for collars and intermediate cut and rough? Your best courses are pristine and consistent. Green contours...A few diabolical and a few with much character and the green predominantly is reactive to the nature of the hole....ie...if it's a short par 4....the green should be very testy...Alternatively like so many things you learn.....The instruction book says do it this way and many of the best did it the exact opposite...Good discussion. We all have our opinions... The worst feeling is when you have such high hopes prior to playing a place you have on your bucket list.....only to arrive and it fails to live up to your expectations. And many times your 2nd/3rd loop points out things you missed the first time....
Click to expand...
Yup, am afraid bunkers with high lips, no even fairway lies, blind shots and no safe miss would scupper most of the links courses within range of me!
 
I do not like courses where the main defense is length and narrowness. There are some all time greats according to the lists that are designed this way. Those courses are just hard. Give me a course that gives you options and I will have a lot of fun and I might end up with a birdie.
 
Bad - hundreds of yards between holes that require a cart ride and absolutely prevent walking.

Bad - tee box where you are at risk of getting hit by an errant shot From more than 1 direction.
 
Two things that I find bad in design:

1- Early par 3’s, slows down play
2- Long par 4’s with trouble around the green, the distance was the holes defense

One thing I like in design:
1- short par 4’s with heavily guarded greens, forces you to be precise and not just bomb and gouge.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
That's a pretty good list... but I'll take a course that has 200+ yard par 3's no problem. I'll hit driver on each one... or 3w. No biggie because if it's too much past 210 yards, I can't hit it that far anyway.:LOL:
 
MSEASU implied it with bad item #6, but not being able to hit driver on a par 5 drives me nuts.

I'm more acceptable to a blind tee shot (providing that a slight miss is still able to be found, not 3 foot tall fescue six inches off the edge of the fairway) as opposed to a blind approach. Nothing worse than having to guess at a yardage, swing away and hope.
 
@jdtox remember when we played Reflection Bay and thought the finishing holes for both nines were reminiscent of Hammock Beach?

Well they're both Nicklaus designs...
 
Some of the best courses I've played challenge your strategy on every shot.
-courses that take advantage of elevation and hilly fairways.
-2 tier greens
-variety of left and right doglegs
-bunkers, water, uncut tall grass, large trees on dogleg holes at the corner

My preference for the hardest hole in the middle of the round.
I dislike finishing holes that are Par 3....I always want one more driver chance to finish off the round.

Above all else, are designs with a great distance between tee & green making walking impossible.
 
My ideal design offers up a reasonably friendly opening hole (par 4 or 5) so as to avoid as much as possible the horror of a lousy start. Like par 3's with lots of variety to them and each a different distance to the previous - but none so long that most folks needs a 3-wood (so less than 200 yards). Even really short par 3's that are well designed can be a lot of fun. Risk/reward holes should be included. The final hole should be a really interesting one where even fun matches between buddies can set up for an exciting finish (island green par 5's are my favorite). No stupid roller-coaster greens - did you hear me Jack ?? .... just create a fun layout where all clubs are required and birdies are possible even for the duffers. You can toughen the layout with quite a few tee box offerings. I'd design courses that are fun and do not overly contribute to slow play. But then again I'd also cure cancer and hunger and poverty if I could....
 
Last edited:
DataDude said:
I do not like courses where the main defense is length and narrowness. There are some all time greats according to the lists that are designed this way. Those courses are just hard. Give me a course that gives you options and I will have a lot of fun and I might end up with a birdie.
Click to expand...

You always have the option of playing a shorter set of tees.

There was a course, now closed, that we loved but, it had several design flaws. 1st hole was a 520 yard par 5. Wide, generous fairway. You could 3 foursomes spread out on it. The 2nd hole was a 190 yard par 3. Instant bottleneck! The back 9 started out the same way with a 440 yard par 4 that played like a 5 because the approach was well uphill. This was followed by a 210 yard par 3! Another bottleneck! The hardest hole on the course was #16, a 430 yard, dogleg right par 4, with trees from tee to green and a very narrow fairway. If you didn't hit a perfect drive, you had no chance! #17 was a shorty par 4 that took the Driver out of your hands. And #18 was a par 3 of about 150-160 yards. It's like, "Hey! We need an 18th" So they shoehorned one in there.
 
MSEASU said:
Good-
Variety of holes, doglegs, long holes , short, play downhill and uphill
Holes play differently based on conditions, wind, etc...
Risk, reward
Course uses the natural landscape
Built for walking
No gimmick holes
Options on how to play hole
A memorable 18th hole
Starting off with a moderately easy hole
Click to expand...

I agree with everything on this list for a good course - other than I'm unsure of what might be considered a gimmick hole.

A par 5 at my home course has an elevated fairway with giant bunker at the top. Not sure if it could be considered a gimmick hole or not, but a lot of players hate it. I kind of like what it offers for choices off the tee. I can tell you that a "perfect" drive is often rewarded with a second shot from out of that bunker.
 
I sometimes come back and edit my posts as I think of other aspects.

One thing I dislike VERY much are cart paths where they come into play in critical areas.
Especially around the green where if you bounce it off the path with a miss that isn't all that bad and pay the price for it. (n)
 
I'm mainly in the "no physical danger to person or property" camp. Anything else is fine, really. Not being annoyed by odd hole design is a skill. I just don't want my optimal play to be flying it over a playground.
 
I agree with a lot that has been posted already. I will add in when the course is really just a subdivision with fairways as back yards. I don't mind houses around a course necessarily, but when the course has to put OB stakes 10 yards off the fairway, kind of saps the enjoyment out of it for me. Especially considering the penalty for hitting OB, nothing like hitting 3 off the tee because you pushed your drive 15 yards to the right of the fairway. I also don't like the thought of plunking someone that is just chilling in their backyard, adds a little extra stress to the tee shot :D
 
My main pet peeve is courses that are so tricked up/gimmicky that you feel like you're playing an upsized version of miniature golf or some crazy video game. I don't want to feel like I have to hit my tee shot through a flaming hoop over a den of hungry tigers and putt on a rollercoaster through a windmill and into the dragon's mouth.

Bad:
Long forced carries off the tee, even from the shorter tees.
Combined green complexes (two greens in one, being approached from opposite directions)
Pot bunkers anywhere but immediately adjacent to the green
Forced difficult shots with no bailout option
Par 3s in close proximity to each other (creates backups)
Thick rough right next to the fairway, where if you miss the fairway by even six inches you're probably looking at a lost ball.
Thick rough on blind shots, where you can't see/track your ball and have no idea where it went in.
Ridiculous pin placements on slopes where if you don't hit the hole/flagstick, you're going to have a 10-foot comebacker
Houses right against the sides of the course

Good:
Risk/reward options
Graduated rough (the bigger the miss, the bigger the potential penalty)
A reasonably easy first hole for a good start
A great finishing hole (preferably a par 5)
Contoured greens that require some green reading, but have a fair pin placement (see "bad" above).
Variety so it doesn't feel like you're playing the same hole over and over
 
MSEASU said:
I was having this discussion with a high level golfer the other day, what do you think makes a good design versus a bad design? For me:

Bad-
Start or end with a par 3
Short par 4 with no bailout
All par 3’s are similar
No variety
No safe miss on a green approach shot
Being forced to tee off with a shorter club and having to hit your approach with a longer club
Never having a flat lie even in the middle of the fairway
Fairway bunkers with high lips
Too many blind tee shots

Good-
Variety of holes, doglegs, long holes , short, play downhill and uphill
Holes play differently based on conditions, wind, etc...
Risk, reward
Course uses the natural landscape
Built for walking
No gimmick holes
Options on how to play hole
A memorable 18th hole
Starting off with a moderately easy hole
Click to expand...
I agree with just about everything here.

I'll add anything with a long forced carry from EVERY tee box. Golf should be a game for everyone. You should have to lose a ball just because you can't hit it a long way.

I find that munis are guilty of most of the bad things more than others. Out here, a lot of munis play close to 7000 yards from the "mens tees" (as so many call them) and even further from the tips. I guess that's ok, and I'm happy to move up a box or two, but munis here are, in a vast majority, played by hackers who love to get drunk. They can't play 7000 yard tees! They also seem to be filled with 200+ yard par 3s....
 
Good
- first hole is an easy par 4
- use of the land's natural terrain
- playable for all skill levels
- flat tee boxes
- walkability
- at least one good short par 4
- diverse par 3's
- good drainage
- risk / reward options, different ways to play the same hole, designs that make you think

Bad
- forced carries
- man made features, such as lakes,
- long distances between green and next tee box
- par 3s that are realistically too long for most golfers
 
have played one or two desert courses where the tee shot forces you to either fly it 300 or lay up with about 180 maximum available until trouble - thus most folks are forced to lay up and then find themselves with a very long approach shot to the green - and if it's into the wind the par 4 becomes a 5 in reality.... so definitely a stupid design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top