- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What makes a golf course great?
Posted on 3/12/19 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 3/12/19 at 1:32 pm
Other than condition obviously. What aspects make a golf course great in your opinion? Scenery, style (links, parkland, desert), playability, green complexes?
Long and narrow off the tee or more open with options available?
For those of you that follow golf course architects, which ones do you consider the best and what qualities make you think they're the best?
Long and narrow off the tee or more open with options available?
For those of you that follow golf course architects, which ones do you consider the best and what qualities make you think they're the best?
17
Posted on 3/12/19 at 1:34 pm to icegator337
Long, narrow, long rough, penal, and unplayable, specifically designed by Rees Jones. Anything that doesn't manufacture high scores and is miserable to play sucks
This post was edited on 3/12/19 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 3/12/19 at 1:38 pm to icegator337
Width & angles for life
Posted on 3/12/19 at 1:41 pm to icegator337
having never played any courses outside of southern LA and only seeing pictures online, I would say scenery.
Posted on 3/12/19 at 1:58 pm to icegator337
A Seth Raynor design.
Posted on 3/12/19 at 2:21 pm to icegator337
I like options off the tee- 9 at The Bluffs.
I don't think there are a ton of well designed courses around here based on how a lot of golf course guys talk about courses. Doesn't seem like we are a width/angles kind of place.
I don't think there are a ton of well designed courses around here based on how a lot of golf course guys talk about courses. Doesn't seem like we are a width/angles kind of place.
Posted on 3/12/19 at 2:28 pm to icegator337
Not saying I play well out of them or avoid them at all, but I think pristine bunkers are the most aesthetically pleasing feature to a golf course.
One of my favorite Course designers is Tom Fazio. Fazio designed Squire Creek and his signature touch is that each hole is most intimidating from the tee box (you can see almost every hazard) but once you are on the green and look back to the tee box, you can't see the hazards. He was interviewed saying it's designed to give you a rewarding feeling.
One of my favorite Course designers is Tom Fazio. Fazio designed Squire Creek and his signature touch is that each hole is most intimidating from the tee box (you can see almost every hazard) but once you are on the green and look back to the tee box, you can't see the hazards. He was interviewed saying it's designed to give you a rewarding feeling.
This post was edited on 3/12/19 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 3/12/19 at 2:45 pm to icegator337
Scenery is cool, but what gets me going is interesting green complexes. Slopes, run-offs, having the option to either run/bump/pitch/flop etc. Also variety in the par 3's, not a fan of four holes all between 160-180 with little difference.
Posted on 3/12/19 at 3:14 pm to icegator337
A fair mix of hole difficulty helps a course. 6 easy, 6 average and 6 difficult holes is ideal. I think the player should be challenged, but should also have decent scoring opportunities. No one wants to walk off a course and feel like they got kicked in the nuts for 18 holes.
A short and picturesque par 3 along with a long and brutal par 5 usually stand out when you reflect back on a round. Course condition and fast smooth greens are the most important to me.
A short and picturesque par 3 along with a long and brutal par 5 usually stand out when you reflect back on a round. Course condition and fast smooth greens are the most important to me.
Posted on 3/12/19 at 4:44 pm to icegator337
the company we keep and conversations we have as we play along; and the steady stream of beverage carts coming around with engaging cart ladies (of legal age of course)...
Posted on 3/12/19 at 5:18 pm to icegator337
Attention to detail.
Posted on 3/12/19 at 7:59 pm to icegator337
I prefer park style courses.
I don’t think every shot needs a hazard or boundary stake.
Take bunkers for example. I think one by the green and one on side of fairway is plenty.
I don’t care for ponds just to slow pace of play down with multiple forced carries.
Have 1 par 3 that is 140 or less, 2 par 3s about 155-170, and one par 3 about 180-190.
Par 5s should be 480-510 so people potentially can reach them without being a really big hitter.
Par 4s should range from 280 (a pond to right of green, bunker left) to around 420 or so.
Some elevation changes are nice, but keep it very walkable.
I don’t think every shot needs a hazard or boundary stake.
Take bunkers for example. I think one by the green and one on side of fairway is plenty.
I don’t care for ponds just to slow pace of play down with multiple forced carries.
Have 1 par 3 that is 140 or less, 2 par 3s about 155-170, and one par 3 about 180-190.
Par 5s should be 480-510 so people potentially can reach them without being a really big hitter.
Par 4s should range from 280 (a pond to right of green, bunker left) to around 420 or so.
Some elevation changes are nice, but keep it very walkable.
This post was edited on 3/12/19 at 9:26 pm
Posted on 3/12/19 at 9:01 pm to icegator337
Optical illusions, fairways appear wide but in fact are narrow, a lot of water shots or marsh shots - particularly when a layup would likely cost you the par, ample heads and cold water on the course 
Posted on 3/12/19 at 9:23 pm to icegator337
Courses in which you notice something different almost every time you play. I've been fortunate enough to play two ancient courses in the Chicago area recently that have hosted US Ams, PGA championships, Western Opens, and the like, and every single time I play those courses, something new to the eye pops up that I hadn't noticed before - bunkering, angles, green features, you name it.
I think golf purists sometimes go overboard with the Golden Era architecture worship, but there is definitely something to be said about having to build a golf course without a bulldozer.
I think golf purists sometimes go overboard with the Golden Era architecture worship, but there is definitely something to be said about having to build a golf course without a bulldozer.
Posted on 3/12/19 at 10:34 pm to icegator337
Here are Alister Mackensie’s (Augusta, Cypress Point, Crystal Downs) 13 principles for ideal golf course design. I think he’s about got it nailed:
quote:
The course, where possible, should be arranged in two loops of nine holes.
There should be a large proportion of good two-shot holes, and at least four one-shot holes.
There should be little walking between the greens and tees, and the course should be arranged so that in the first instance there is always a slight walk forwards from the green to the next tee; then the holes are sufficiently elastic to be lengthened in the future if necessary.
The greens and fairways should be sufficiently undulating, but there should be no hill climbing. Every hole should be different in character.
There should be a minimum of blindness for the approach shots.
The course should have beautiful surroundings, and all the artificial features should have so natural an appearance that a stranger is unable to distinguish them from nature itself.
There should be a sufficient number of heroic carries from the tee, but the course should be arranged so that the weaker player with the loss of a stroke, or portion of a stroke, shall always have an alternate route open to him.
There should be infinite variety in the strokes required to play the various holes--that is, interesting brassie shots, iron shots, pitch and run up shots.
There should be a complete absence of the annoyance and irritation caused by the necessity of searching for lost balls.
The course should be so interesting that even the scratch man is constantly stimulated to improve his game in attempting shots the has hitherto been unable to play.
The course should so be arranged that the long handicap player or even the absolute beginner should be able to enjoy his round in spite of the fact that he is piling up a big score. In other words, the beginner should not be continually harassed by losing strokes from playing out of sand bunkers. The layout should be so arranged that he loses strokes because he is making wide detours to avoid hazards.
The course should be equally good during winter and summer, the texture of the greens and fairways should be perfect and the approaches should have the same consistency as the greens.
Posted on 3/13/19 at 7:09 am to icegator337
Personally I prefer a golf course that is not in the middle of a neighborhood. The course I play often is on a lake and while it's not in perfect condition it does offer a variety of lengths and has quite a bit of elevation changes.
I guess my short answer is scenery and variety makes a great course
I guess my short answer is scenery and variety makes a great course
Posted on 3/13/19 at 7:10 am to icegator337
I personally enjoy hills, especially on approach shots. Hitting down into a green is a blast. It gets even better when the scenery is top notch behind said down hill shot. Throw in a river and a few bunkers
Posted on 3/13/19 at 11:07 am to icegator337
A course that both is playable for both high and low handicaps. A course that makes the player have to make choices. A course that offers bailouts but with trouble. A course that follows the natural flow of the land.
And, as Nicklaus says, the first hole should never require a carry over water.
And, as Nicklaus says, the first hole should never require a carry over water.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News