If you were given the job of a golf architect tomorrow, what would you introduce to your designs to `trick em up`? ...me , I`d go for some of those pot-bunkers like the 17th at St. Andrews...
If you were given the job of a golf architect tomorrow, what would you introduce to your designs to `trick em up`? ...me , I`d go for some of those pot-bunkers like the 17th at St. Andrews...
Sorry to disappoint you but I wouldn't "trick up" anything. My design would call for a blend of power and finesse with several different options on how to play each hole. I would design this course with the "average golfer" in mind (I would want it to be well received as well as profitable :nodsmiley ) but have options that would include golfers of all abilities.
I personally have never found it much fun to play a "tricked up" course and I rarely, if ever, play that course a second time. I don't play golf for a living so I want to have fun when I play. I'll pay top dollar to be "challenged" but won't give two cents to be tricked.
BTW I don't think Mother Nature will take too kindly to you accusing her of tricking up St Andrews!
I like courses that show the golfer pretty much everything he or she has to know from the tee and from the fairway. Holes where it's all right there for you to see. I think that was one of Donald Ross's design principles. I think I might rely on the golfers to trick themselves up by putting in some risk-reward choices that might appeal to their greed for a low score.
However, I also like Alistair MacKenzie courses. As I understand it, during World War I he became impressed with the art of camouflage, and incorporated visual deception into a hole's design. So, out of respect for Dr Mackenzie, I might use an occasional false front on a green, or maybe put a bunker about 20 yards in front of a green in such a way that, from the fairway, the bunker looks as if it's directly in front of the green. Players might mis-club that way. But I wouldn't do anything that a golfer wouldn't figure out after playing the course a few times, to acquire "local knowledge."
I agree with Jim & LG. I enjoy a tough layout as long as you can see what you're getting into. There's nothing worse than paying top dollar only to have your good shots eaten up by some architect's hidden "challenges". If I have to play someplace 4 or 5 times before I have a good idea of where & how far I'm supposed to hit it, well once is too many. BDR444, I was with you until you got to the blind shots. I hate 'em. The infrequent times that I do hit one stiff, I want to see the result.
...hmmm, perhaps trick em` up isn`t the best choice of words . Let`s say what `signatures` would you introduce to your designs that would add to the challenge of the course? Even subtle, changes like wide-toothed trap/bunker rakes can make a difference .
Maybe "trick em up" was a bad choice of words. For instance, I would never put a trap or tree in the fairway. I don't think golfers should ever be punished for hitting a fairway.
Also, bunkers should allow the golfer a chance to advance the ball. If they're greenside the golfer should be able to get on the green with a good sand shot.
My signature would be free, cold, drinking water and paper cups at every tee.
I would make a course that overall, pleasing to the eye, I would make sure it would be in the best condition possible, fast greens, and make it somewhat challenging, a slope of around 140 from the tips would be pretty good and I will have to copy someone, I will be putting cold water on Every tee just like GenErr
... Let`s say what `signatures` would you introduce to your designs that would add to the challenge of the course?
Smallish greens--all fairly level or tilted to accept a shot--and tee boxes that are perfectly level and as beautifully maintained as putting surfaces. :nodsmiley
I'm sorry. I just noticed that you want design elements that "would add to the challenge of the course"!
Winding stream with natural native grasses running across and longside many fairways, but perfectly visible from the teeing ground.
Last edited by valeogut : December 20th, 2004 at 10:04 AM.
Reason: forgot "challenge" element!
I would never put a trap or tree in the fairway. I don't think golfers should ever be punished for hitting a fairway.
Trees in the middle of the fairway my #2 pet peeve on course design. I play a couple with them & one is a 469 yard par 4... like that alone isn't tough enough. I'd have some two-tiered fast greens, all-carry, well-trapped par 3's... none over 200 yards. Reachable par 5s, with demanding 2nd shots for the big hitters. It wouldn't be too long with risk/reward aspects for the big hitters...fairways would tighten up with traps/hazards at 270-310. Yes & a ditto on cold water & cups on every hole, although I've taken to bringing my own after being disappointed so many times in that respect. Oh and my #1 pet peeve on course design - any greens-keeper who cuts a hole on the side of a hill would be strung up by the nearest tree(just kidding card... sort of ).You should be able to stop your ball in the general vicinity of the hole with a well struck putt from anywhere on the green.
Extremely angled greens and the all new V green so that the ball never lands near the hole no matter how good you are a chipping. And Id ad the dreaded wind mill from put put just for fun
December 19th, 2004, 08:23 PM
My design would call for a blend of power and finesse with several different options on how to play each hole. I would design this course with the "average golfer" in mind (I would want it to be well received as well as profitable :nodsmiley ) but have options that would include golfers of all abilities. 
If I have to play someplace 4 or 5 times before I have a good idea of where & how far I'm supposed to hit it, well once is too many. BDR444, I was with you until you got to the blind shots. I hate 'em. The infrequent times that I do hit one stiff, I want to see the result. 
my #2 pet peeve on course design. I play a couple with them & one is a 469 yard par 4... like that alone isn't tough enough. 
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
