|
Post by alejandroacantilado on Feb 21, 2021 12:18:20 GMT -5
What are everyone's biggest course design pet-peeves that they often see?
I think mine (and this is really specific) is when people design a course with really firm greens but then don't allow for run-up shots. To me this is just tricking up a course (it's basically what the USGA often tries to do). This is especially true when some people attempt links courses- if your links course has a lot of forced carries you don't have a links course, you have a parkland course with links aesthetics. It's okay to have a couple of these shots if they are on short holes, but I've played a few links attempts that require shot after shot to carry bunkers and land softly. Not every course has to emphasize the ground game, but make sure your firmness matches your style of play.
Relatedly, when courses have soft fairways and firm greens this is irksome to me. Now you're just cheating. If a ball lands just short of a green it sticks, if it lands on a green without major spin, it rolls off the back.
|
|
|
Post by hallzballz6908 on Feb 21, 2021 13:07:21 GMT -5
Good post man. I can definitely identify with those points! One that sort of irks me is when designers place a center line hazard at 300 yards on a long par 4 leaving 2 fairways of about 25 yards on a hole where you need to hit driver to have a realistic chance at birdie. I like the strategy element of trying to create optimal angles but don’t care for penalizing a player for being long and straight off the tee.
|
|
|
Post by alejandroacantilado on Feb 21, 2021 14:13:37 GMT -5
Good post man. I can definitely identify with those points! One that sort of irks me is when designers place a center line hazard at 300 yards on a long par 4 leaving 2 fairways of about 25 yards on a hole where you need to hit driver to have a realistic chance at birdie. I like the strategy element of trying to create optimal angles but don’t care for penalizing a player for being long and straight off the tee. Yeah if the bunker is part of a strategy I’m fine with it, but if it’s just there to penalize on a long hole it’s silly. I think central hazards are great on shorter risk/reward holes, or if you have to decide which side to drive on for the optimal angle to the hole, but just played to penalize long drives they are annoying.
|
|
|
Post by mvpmanatee on Feb 21, 2021 14:58:06 GMT -5
I can bounce off of hallzballz6908 and saying that I can't stand a course when every hole has maximum protection at exactly 295 from the tee as a way to try to lengthen a course. It really rubs me the wrong way in the variety of the strategies. I don't mind when a long hole has a bunker at 300 but when every hole in the course has bunkers at 300 yards and nothing at 270, it gets old fast. Not every hole needs to penalize hitting driver.
|
|
|
Post by cd06 on Feb 21, 2021 15:03:17 GMT -5
On a technical note, sloppy fairway-to-green transitions annoy me to no end. Bunkers randomly dropped in fairway, especially shapes, have a similar effect. I'd say my biggest design peeve is overdoing it with no reason whatsoever - think of crazy split fairways or bunkers everywhere without a reason for being there. (That's just in 2k21 though. Don't get me started on real life architecture...)
|
|
|
Post by mvpmanatee on Feb 21, 2021 15:06:59 GMT -5
On a technical note, sloppy fairway-to-green transitions annoy me to no end. Bunkers randomly dropped in fairway, especially shapes, have a similar effect. I'd say my biggest design peeve is overdoing it with no reason whatsoever - think of crazy split fairways or bunkers everywhere without a reason for being there. (That's just in 2k21 though. Don't get me started on real life architecture...) I find the "crazy split fairways or bunkers everywhere" to be usually a case of rookie designers not fully grasping the strategy. I found it in myself, andd when I realized this it helped me grow, and I find it a lot in other rookie courses that I give feedback to.
|
|
|
Post by hallzballz6908 on Feb 21, 2021 15:43:55 GMT -5
Yeah you pretty much nailed my point alejandroacantilado and @mvpmanatee. I think center line hazards work very well on holes in the 420 - 460ish range where taking the risk with driver will leave the player a wedge to the green where missing the fairway will leave the player with a difficult mid-iron approach out of the rough. I guess it also depends on how wide the hole corridor is. If there’s enough room to leave the player a viable conservative option (usually at least 35 yards for me with driver) I don’t mind center line hazards on longer holes. I just see a lot of 480+ yard holes that are turned into “do or die” holes off the tee by poorly thought out hazards especially from newer designers. 9 times out of 10, long (480+) par fours are difficult enough simply due to the length of the hole and don’t need extra elements to add difficulty in the driving zone. Personally, I prefer hazards that penalize players for being too aggressive in seeking the optimal angle off the tee. For example, on a 495 yard par four where the best angle to the green is from the extreme right edge of the fairway, a 3 wood off the tee will leave the player with roughly 230 yards into the green. Not a very attractive option in my book! Not that players should be restricted from taking that option, but 99% of players are going to hit driver. A good driver will leave the player with about 160 -190 yards for their approach depending on conditions. Therefore, in order to give the player a fair chance at scoring, the fairway should be wide enough to offer some margin of error but it should be to the left (poorer angle) since the potential for scoring is decreased the further left the player goes. That way, the designer can place, fairly, whatever hazards they like to the right to penalize players that are too greedy in selecting their line of play from the tee. The same hole, with a center line hazard at 300 yards, penalizes players that miss by a small margin while rewarding players that miss by a larger margin. That, in my opinion, is poor design. The thing that frustrates me most, in this regard, is when I get to a hole that forces me to hit a “perfect” driver (narrow targets) in order to have a chance to reach the green in regulation, let alone having a chance at birdie. Center line hazards on these types of holes, unless really well executed or placed carefully to break up a stretch of easier holes, simply create an unnecessary level of difficulty. It’s not “wrong” per se, it just swings the character of a hole from strategic(fun and interesting) to penal(boring and frustrating) which is definitely not my cup of tea.
|
|
|
Post by mvpmanatee on Feb 21, 2021 15:58:27 GMT -5
I am not even a huge fan to be honest of the "hit driver for worse angle, or 3 wood for better angle" approach. Again I don't mind it once or twice on a course but I also see some designers do that. It usually goes hand in hand with the split fairway approach. It will be like "hit this longer specific shot for a certain angle, or hit this other specific shot for a certain angle" and I find that to get boring after awhile. No offense at all to what you were mentioning, but I find this can be abused.
I guess at the end of the day my design pet peeve is when a designer doesn't introduce variety in their strategies.
|
|
|
Post by hallzballz6908 on Feb 21, 2021 16:12:14 GMT -5
I can bounce off of hallzballz6908 and saying that I can't stand a course when every hole has maximum protection at exactly 295 from the tee as a way to try to lengthen a course. It really rubs me the wrong way in the variety of the strategies. I don't mind when a long hole has a bunker at 300 but when every hole in the course has bunkers at 300 yards and nothing at 270, it gets old fast. Not every hole needs to penalize hitting driver. To expand a bit on this point, I can definitely identify with the frustration here. I don’t necessarily despise courses that challenge driver on every hole, it just needs to be done in different ways in accordance with the strategy of the hole. One thing I think could really help newer and novice designers is the understanding that the driving zone is not restricted to the landing zone. There’s the roll out zone, the landing zone, and the corridor through which the ball travels. The fact that these zones change relative to course conditions also needs to be taken into account. Finding creative ways to challenge at least one of these zones (and sometimes all 3! 😈) is one of my favorite aspects of design. I personally find that the courses that challenge me to hit different types of shots (draws, fades, high, low, etc.) are the ones I return to most for additional rounds.
|
|
|
Post by mvpmanatee on Feb 21, 2021 16:17:54 GMT -5
Totally agree. I have noticed in myself over time that I find people overthink the tee shots on a golf course. I obviously like adding some strategy into every shot, but I have found over time that leaving most holes open for the player's decision, and throwing in just a couple of exciting risk/reward tee shots is a great formula. The tee shot in my opinion has always been overworked into too much strategy, as it can be easier for most designers to induce strategy via hazards than it is via green contouring!
I find myself going back to courses that don't overly punish tee shots, and I find that all of my favorite courses in the game have the best greens.
|
|
|
Post by mvpmanatee on Feb 21, 2021 16:18:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by trailducker on Feb 21, 2021 16:25:28 GMT -5
I am not even a huge fan to be honest of the "hit driver for worse angle, or 3 wood for better angle" approach. Again I don't mind it once or twice on a course but I also see some designers do that. It usually goes hand in hand with the split fairway approach. It will be like "hit this longer specific shot for a certain angle, or hit this other specific shot for a certain angle" and I find that to get boring after awhile. No offense at all to what you were mentioning, but I find this can be abused. I guess at the end of the day my design pet peeve is when a designer doesn't introduce variety in their strategies. I try and design the opposite once or twice a round. Hit driver to a dangerous area with a better angle or have a safer 3 or 5 Wood area but with a worse angle. I feel you should reward accurate driver play not punish it.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Feb 21, 2021 16:33:08 GMT -5
Biggest pet peeve?
Arguing that you intended greens, fairways, bunkers etc to be blind when in fact you either couldn't or didn't bother to sculpt a sightline. See 'Courses Not Approved' thread for numerous examples.
|
|
|
Post by hallzballz6908 on Feb 21, 2021 16:34:28 GMT -5
I am not even a huge fan to be honest of the "hit driver for worse angle, or 3 wood for better angle" approach. Again I don't mind it once or twice on a course but I also see some designers do that. It usually goes hand in hand with the split fairway approach. It will be like "hit this longer specific shot for a certain angle, or hit this other specific shot for a certain angle" and I find that to get boring after awhile. No offense at all to what you were mentioning, but I find this can be abused. I guess at the end of the day my design pet peeve is when a designer doesn't introduce variety in their strategies. Ah, yes. This is one of the quirkier strategies that I see being used more and more frequently by some of the more advanced designers. I personally feel that this one is more relative to the general dislike of the pitch shot by majority of players as I most often see this strategy utilized on shorter par fours where 3 wood = full wedge and driver = pitch. It’s an interesting strategy if it’s not over used (like you said) but it has to be well executed and very subtle to play well. All around though, I’m not really a huge fan of it either. Driver, being the most difficult club to hit straight (at least in theory😉) should, in most cases, be rewarded if executed properly. I’m certainly not opposed to making driver the less “sensible” option but I’m not a fan of being penalized for executing a proper drive. I guess what I’m saying is that if I decide to hit less than driver, I want it to be my choice, not the designer’s. Good topic for discussion!
|
|
|
Post by hallzballz6908 on Feb 21, 2021 16:39:15 GMT -5
Biggest pet peeve? Arguing that you intended greens, fairways, bunkers etc to be blind when in fact you either couldn't or didn't bother to sculpt a sightline. See 'Courses Not Approved' thread for numerous examples. Oh boy, not the “unintentional blindness” bit again lol 😂! I agree though. I’ll add “ people that b*tch when their course gets rejected” to my list of pet peeves!
|
|