At what point does a “tough hole” becomes too tough?

How many times does a hole have to consistently play to 1 or 2 shots above par that it become a “design flaw” rather than an “ability” or “course management” problem?

Last year, I was a member at Jumeirah Golf Estates, home of the Earth course. This year, I am at Yas Links. Both courses are characterized by monster par 5 finishing holes, both equally tough, but for different reasons. The 18th at Earth, as you would have seen on TV, plays long, uphill with a creek all the way up the centre of a split fairway. The fairways are narrow and tend to suck balls toward the creek. The drive is all over water, the approach is to a blind green, and at around 600 yards (650+ for the pros) it’s a genuine 3 shotter.

At Yas Links, the 18th is a brutally hard dogleg left. You have to smash your drive over 300 yards to have any chance whatsoever of going for the green, but even the you’ll have to carry 230+ over the dogleg to hit the green. Miss anywhere, and your ball is lost. Failing that, you have to hit a sacrificial short iron to the corner and leave yourself anywhere from 180-220 yards in with your 3rd to a green surrounded by water and bunkers. For most players, that means reaching the green in 4, but even laying up is a tricky business. And at Yas, the wind can howl like no-mans-business.

Once you reach these greens, they both undulate and run at 10-11 on the stimp meter. They are surrounded by hazards, as indeed are both holes from tee to green.

I’m questioning whether these holes are too hard, and I’m doing it based on real scoring…my own, and that of my friends. I am currently a 7.9 handicap, and last year (at Earth) I averaged around 10. So i’m no mug with a golf club.

I have played Earth over 50 times. I have parred the 18th twice, bogeyed it 3 times, doubled it probably 6 times, tripled probably a dozen times and picked up the rest of the time. I have seen this hole birdied twice by my friends, but they have all played it a similar number of times to me and are all lower handicappers than i.

I have now played Yas over 20 times. I have never parred the 18th, bogeyed it once, doubled it once and the rest have been 8 or more. I have seen my mate birdie it, but that was because he pulled his drive and luckily left it as close as you can be to the edge of the fairway, giving him the shortest possible shot over the dogleg water. He then hit a “once in a lifetime” fairway metal onto the green and 2 putted. This weekend, my friends and I played Yas twice, and in 8 attempts we recorded 1 par, one bogey and six triple bogey and worse. Again, we are all under 10 handicap.

I’m not questioning whether these holes can be parred, birdied or eagled. They can, I know that. But for me these holes, based on the evidence of 4 sub-10 handicappers playing them a good number of times, is that they are simply too hard to par and, in that respect, are mis-designed. We have all played them in a number of ways, but both holes just punish even the slightest mistake, to make them all but unplayable at times.

I am getting really, really ****ing annoyed playing a decent round for 17 holes and then triple bogeying the last, knowing that, at best, you’re going to drop at least a shot and more than likely 2 or 3.

I’m all for having tough holes, and we regularly see holes at majors that play a shot over par. But as a 7.9 handicapper, I expect at worst to par a particular hole at least 20% of the time, and realistically I should be able to par most holes probably 30% over the course of a season. But at Yas, I am 0 pars from 20+ attempts, and on Earth I was 2 from 50+.
We did the “hard holes” debate the other week, so let’s no go over that again. But what are your experiences of where you feel a hole is mis-designed for one reason or another? Perhaps you think some holes are too easy? When does a hole become "too hard"?

Waht what do you think represents "misdesign or "bad design"?

That's a very good question! I think the answer will probably vary depending on the standard of golf you play to.

As you say, we've had the "hard holes" debate recently and don't really want to go through that again, but even I can see as a higher handicapper that the "hardest hole" I mentioned on that thread, I can see that it's not a design fault - just a very difficult hole for lesser players (though an easy hole for good players)

The one hole I can think of that I've played that I believe is badly designed is at Windlesome golf club on the Surrey/Berkshire border (?). Can't remember exactly which hole it is but I think it's the 9th. It's a par 5 that starts with a tee shot that is through a narrowish gap between two sets of trees and a pond which from memory is something like 170-180 yard carry (I've only played it off the yellows and it might be a bit less than that but it feels a long carry for me)

If/when you hit the gap and carry the pond, then it doglegs almost 90 degrees right and there is still 250-280 yards to go the the green, all uphill.

Once again, probably not too hard for a good player, but for someone like me (not a TOTAL hacker but not in the longer or straighter category) it makes it a really strange and difficult hole. Yes, I suppose I could lay up, then chip over the pond, then still have a long haul up the hill to get on or around the green in 4 or 5 shots, but it's the one hole I can think of that I've played over the years that I really have no desire to play again

There should be no such thing as a tough hole, if there is then it's badly designed. There should always be options on how to play the hole that makes it possible to make a birdie or par but maybe with an element of risk involved. There should also be a way of making an easy bogey for the higher handicapper that allows them to play to their handicap.

The hole described above by TEB sounds like a design nightmare. The stream down the middle should be maybe a third of the way down the fairway making one narrow fairway and one wider one. There should then be a real advantage going down the narrow side ie making it reachable in two or a longer route down the wider side taking the green out of reach in two. Then you have a tough risk/reward hole or an easier par/bogey hole.

It only becomes too tough when you can't play from a tee which is appropriate to your playing ability. There is nothing that says that all players can play the course from the same set of tees... that's just an anomaly of the brits in my opinion.

Having said that... If there is a stream in the middle of a fairway then aim at it. 99.9% of the time there is no way you're going in it. You'll fade into the right to left sloping area and fight that slope into the water or vice versa and still fight that slope on the other side.

I think LJ has it spot on that on brit courses design flaws come from the fact we genrally only have tee of the day and medal tees. The issue becomes apparent when players that usally would use tee of the day are then thrust into medal/competition play where they have to use the comp tees and holes are usually design to play entirely differently. Whereas having tees for ability levels can counteract this. There's a course not far from where we live they play an area open event each year, played in it once and thepro there is a former junior team partner of mine so have had few freebies there.

From memory it's there 6th hole and is 450 yards par 4, 2 fairway bunkers in driving range for most players, counter act that with the fairway also being tree lined at driving distance and a 200yard carry to the fairway over thick rough so if you saw it on paper not an issue however the hole is aptly named "Cardiac Hill" the reason everything is severly up hill from tee to green and the green is then elevated on top of that hill surrounded by bunkers. That and the fact its always into the wind due to the way the estuary is behind so wind come off the water. Basically you lose yardage for the tee shot due to the severity of the slope and factor in the wind to you can lose upto 30-40yards per shot dependant on conditions, so even for some one that could hit a driver in regular play 250yards into the wind they'd be lucky to hit it 210-220 and be left with that and more for an approach all uphill in to the wind to an elevated target, so for the average golfer double bogey is a regular occurence , this maybe 450yards on the card but as a par 4 due to elevation alone being ridiculous it's more like 500yards, and having played it with my pro friend and some other good am's in a 4ball you maybe get 1 par in the group i've never seen it birdied or even heard of it being birdied and it's only SI3... Definate design flaw on that hole that could be rectified by not having an elevated green on top of a hill!

So to answer TEBs question its when a designer takes no account of how the hole is actually going to be played and if in fact the design even gives the player a chance for par at least

What is the point of building an unplayable hole.

I sat on a planning committee once where a very posh hotel had applied for permission to build a course. Thier clientile were very rich businessmen/women from America and Japan working at two large worldwide businesses in that area.

Thier first hole had a 230 yard carry over water or a 9 iron layup.
I explained to the architect that after thier valued guests had lost 6 balls playing the first hole thier thoughts about the Hotel would not be too friendly.

This was his first commission and he actually blushed.

You do get the feeling that a lot of designers are trying to fit to many things into one hole to make it a "signature" hole which really is an americanised thing where we often hear in commentary this is the signature hole of the course and it has some ridiculous quirk to make it so and some designers have a real thing about trying to make things very USGA style in their courses and put too much into one hole making it not very playable for the majority that or they literally have no idea what to do with the land at their disposable so just put something in as filler with little though of how the hole will be played much like "Cardiac Hill" or the only other answer is they simply don't have a clue because they don't play golf enough

Maverick wrote:You do get the feeling that a lot of designers are trying to fit to many things into one hole to make it a "signature" hole which really is an americanised thing where we often hear in commentary this is the signature hole of the course and it has some ridiculous quirk to make it so and some designers have a real thing about trying to make things very USGA style in their courses and put too much into one hole making it not very playable for the majority that or they literally have no idea what to do with the land at their disposable so just put something in as filler with little though of how the hole will be played much like "Cardiac Hill" or the only other answer is they simply don't have a clue because they don't play golf enough

Is the full stop button broken on your keyboard Mav??

No but I went of in a tangent I forgot to breathe

I think Mav just laid out a 390 yard par 3 . . . . . . . . over water!

kwinigolfer wrote:I think Mav just laid out a 390 yard par 3 . . . . . . . . over water!

Don't get it! But then i'm severly sleep deprived thanks to useless pain killers and a teething 10month old baby boy!

Would I be right in thinking that most of these holes mentioned are of the low stroke index variety anyway, reflecting that they are difficult holes? Surely if that were the case then there should be little problem with them being so tough and it then brings in the question of a players' expectations for a hole.

For example, just because a hole is a par 5 it does not mean that it should be possible to get there in two and I've never played a hole that is not possible to reach in at worst one over regulation. Those holes mentioned in Dubai sure sound tough but they are far from unplayable if they are played with regard to the stroke index as much as the par - if you get a shot on the hole then why is there the expectation of getting there in 3 shots? Poulter showed similar to this when he criticised 17 and 18 at Wentworth for not being possible eagles now - I'm afraid that despite the well documented negative comments about Wentworth's changes, I found this to be ridiculous as surely making a hole play to it's par would suggest a well designed hole?

As long as the whole course does not contain holes that are very difficult net birdies, I don't see a problem with the odd hole being tough. The only stipulation is that the stroke index reflects it, which in general it usually does.

I'm going to speak up on behalf of the ladies Mrs Doc sometimes plays with me at my away course, which has 4 200 yard par 3's. These 4 holes are impossible for her to hit in regulation, and would imagine many other ladies. So they have to be played as par 4's obviously for the majority of ladies, which seems to defeat the object. 200 yards up a steep hill seems to be too much especially when the ladies tee is only a few feet in front of the mens.

"4 200 yard par 3's"

totally flipping insane.

Whats insane about the length of them?

What's more inappropriate is the lack of adequate teeing areas to allow players to move forwards if they can't get it there.

Doc wrote:I'm going to speak up on behalf of the ladies Mrs Doc sometimes plays with me at my away course, which has 4 200 yard par 3's. These 4 holes are impossible for her to hit in regulation, and would imagine many other ladies. So they have to be played as par 4's obviously for the majority of ladies, which seems to defeat the object. 200 yards up a steep hill seems to be too much especially when the ladies tee is only a few feet in front of the mens.

Similar thing at the course I spent my junior years at, par 3, 8th hole 210yards to front edge, 240yards to the back. 200yards carry over heather and gorse bushes. Got so bad at one point the ladies had to play all comps as stableford and all would "blob" the 8th, they wouldn't even tee off as they couldn't make the carry, or they would tee off with a range ball declare it lost and "blob"the hole. It meant the course had to do something about it and without removing the heather and gorse as they were not allowed to, they had to get an architect in who designed a short dog leg par4 that took them around a large portion of the bushes, meaning they had a short carry with a lofted club for an approach. That hole was truly unplayable for our lady members and many of the more elderly seniors

Also what is insane about 4, 200yarders! as long as their playable

Nothing wrong with 200 yard par 3's. Do you expect all courses to designed around the ability of a group of people who can't hit the ball a certain distance?
If you can't hit that far, then work on your chipping and putting.

Just because it's a par 3 it doesn't mean that EVERYONE should be able to get on in regulation. It's why golf is a CHALLENGE.

If nothing else 4 long par 3's on a course shows a lack of creativity and imagination on the part of the designer. A well designed 140 yard par 3 can be tougher than a 210 yard one.

I don't mind the odd 200+ yard par 3 but hitting that sort of distance with control is the reserve of the very, very able player.

i like clubs that have par 3s with a variety of lengths that will test club selection throughout the set of irons. hitting long irons into par 3s is fine, but to have to do it 4 times a round sounds very dull. i generally hit an iron on any hole less than 380 yards as it is, so par 3s offer a chance for something different.

I don't see an issue with long par 3's the one i mentioned above was still a par 3 for men but became a short dog leg 4, for ladies. Don't think it lacks imagination either you can be very creative with those distances. The argument that a par3 can be good at 140yds is valid but you can equally argue it is not enough of a test it's all down to 1 thing, hole design and the layout.

I don't see why it's an issue if the par 3's are all identical in length.

Say a course has a prevailing wind from the SW.

By having all of the 3's set between 190 and 210 yards with a variety of shapes to the greens and perhaps one that has some water... plus routing them in 4 different directions so that each of them has a quartering wind of some description you create variety using the elements and features areound the hole.

They will all play to different yardages despite being identical in length.

s_r,

i do have some expectations when it comes to course design.

i don't generally have much trouble hitting long shots, my 20st frame packs a fair punch.

i do work very hard on my chipping and putting, though i try to balance practice across all aspects of my game.

having not played the holes in question, it is very difficult to comment with complete conviction. however, my limited experience of clubs with long par 3s is that they are there to 'up' the difficulty of the course, rather than complement it.

back to your first point : i do have some expectations when it comes to course design. i accept golf is a challenge, however without a suitable level of variety, how can it be a classed as a comprehensive one?

You have my sympathies TEB. Those holes sound like they were designed by a numpty although, to be fair, the designer may have had some constraints put on them by some Emir with a small appendage.

But look at the variety you get in the (generally) 10 par 4s on a course. They will invariably range from 320-500 yards. Some will be uphill, others down. Some will be straight, some doglegs. Some demand a big drive and short approach, some the other way round. Par 3s should reflect the same variety...it'd be pretty dull if all par 4s were 440 yards, straight and downhill, right?

In the UAE it is common for a course to feature 2 or 3 long par 3s. For me, that generally means a 3/4 hybrid or a full 4/5 iron. If i'm on a par 4 with 200 yards to go after the drive, i don't expect to make par, and nor do i expect to automatically par any par 3 over 170 yards.

I've played par 3s that feature small greens, bunkers and water that are a nightmare, yet only play at 140ish.

navyblueshorts wrote:You have my sympathies TEB. Those holes sound like they were designed by a numpty although, to be fair, the designer may have had some constraints put on them by some Emir with a small appendage.

The designer of Earth was Greg Norman, and Yas is by Kyle Phillips. My understanding is that Norman like to create difficult courses, with big features, and at Earth he's slightly overdone it in my opinion.

The other 17 holes at Yas are quite stunning, and though tough, the 18th is still quite a sight to behold. Phillips puts Yas on a par (excuse the pun) with Kingsbarn. No small compliment that.

320-500 par 4s ... at our wee scottish courses, par 4s are generally 270-440 yards, with the odd 470 thrown in. sounds like they like em big in UAE!

Just because a hole is the same length it doesn't mean that it's going to be identical.

A par 3 is (usually) dead straight... but that's not the challenge. You could make two holes which are 200 yards exactly and make them play differently.

Assuming they are both on level ground. The first is protected by a swale on the right and a mound on the left. There is water short right of the swale and the green slopes from the mound to the water. The green is an upturned saucer and the ground in front is clear but slopes into the swale.

A hole like that would play to the strengths of a certain type of player.

Now. Another has a large green bisected by a tier. It slopes towards the player and is very wide and receptive. There are bunkers short left and right which are fairly deep.

That plays to another part of your game.


It's easy to discount a hole as being 'identical' to one played previously just because they are the same length. The same goes for par 4's... and par 5's.

The two holes in questionin the original post...

http://www.jumeirahgolfestates.com/earth-neighbourhood/golf/hole-by-hole/hole-18/

http://yaslinks.com/course#

ban_bam wrote:320-500 par 4s ... at our wee scottish courses, par 4s are generally 270-440 yards, with the odd 470 thrown in. sounds like they like em big in UAE!

Yes, they do! The average length of a UAE course, from the mens/club tees is probably 6900-7100 yards. From the pros, they're generally 7500+. I played a par 4 a few months ago that was, tee to pin, 524 yards (we played the pros tees). I'm very pleased to report that i parred it!

But the fact is that most of your smaller Scottish courses will play tougher, expecially when the wind is up.

I think that there's the other issue of what the course is being designed for. I'm guessing that the Earth course was designed almost exclusively for the tour in mind and the difficulty will reflect this. I've played the West Course at Wentworth a few times since the redesign and again that was not set up for the average golfer - a guy in our group shot 36 points last June and that was the highest stableford total for anyone on any of their society/corporate days since the redesign by 5 points. Again, it was designed to test tour players.

theeldestboy wrote:The designer of Earth was Greg Norman, and Yas is by Kyle Phillips. My understanding is that Norman like to create difficult courses, with big features, and at Earth he's slightly overdone it in my opinion.

The other 17 holes at Yas are quite stunning, and though tough, the 18th is still quite a sight to behold. Phillips puts Yas on a par (excuse the pun) with Kingsbarn. No small compliment that.

Surprised about Norman. Still, maybe I'll play them one day and it'll all become clear! I guess length in the UAE etc sounds worse than it is with the heat out there making a ball travel somewhat further than the same shot in 10-15° in the UK.

Sharrison - you're half right mate. Earth was in fact designed and 9 holes were in place before it was decided that it would host the World Championship. At that point, all Norman could do was introduce some additional hazards on the established 9, and tweak the other 9. Having played the course so many time, i can see a slight difference between the front and back 9s, subtle though it is.

NBS - yes the ball will fly further out here, but any additional length gained from the warm temperatures is cancelled-out by the fatigue that your body experiences playing golf in temperature anywhere between 45 and 55 degrees!

played royal musselburgh a couple of months back. the first 5 holes are par 4s all around or under 300 yards. they have different orientations, 2 of them are dog-legs.

hybrid, wedge, putting
3 iron, wedge, putting
hybrid, wedge, putting
hybrid, wedge, putting
3 iron, wedge, putting

great fun .... it really wasn't. never been so bored to be under par in my life!!

you make valid points, but 4 200 yard par 3s sounds dull to me.

i like to play courses which make me use every club in my bag. my old club was only about 5800 from the back sticks, and i rarely use my woods or mid irons around there. its all about long irons, wedge play, short game and putting. my new club requires me to use every club in my bag over the course of the round and consequently i feel more challenged. for the record the par 3s are various distances / orientations / elevations, and consequently make for enjoyable interludes during the course of the round:
2nd, 170, 8-5iron,
6th, 205, 6-3iron,
10th, 185, 7-4iron,
14th, 145, P-8iron

navyblueshorts wrote:Surprised about Norman. Still, maybe I'll play them one day and it'll all become clear! I guess length in the UAE etc sounds worse than it is with the heat out there making a ball travel somewhat further than the same shot in 10-15° in the UK.

Well if you're ever in this part of the world, then let me know. In just a few days i can show you some really great courses; Earth, The Majlis, Yas Links and Abu Dhabi National to name but a few.

Maverick wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:I think Mav just laid out a 390 yard par 3 . . . . . . . . over water!

Don't get it! But then i'm severly sleep deprived thanks to useless pain killers and a teething 10month old baby boy!

I have three kids the youngest is an 11 month old girl and for teething I have found a Benadryl works best. Either use a Q-tip or a clean finger, and rub it on the gums. And rather then waiting untill 4am till he is screaming, if he is teething rub it in before you put him down for bed.

I have no idea why benadry works as it is meant to be for alergies rather than a pain killer but if it works who cares... Google it and see what you think.

Er as for numbing your own pain, I have never found any painkiller better than an excessive amount of alcohol

We use anbersol on the 14 month little slug. It's very effective. We also push down hard on his gums to cut them a little. It helps the teeth through them faster.

Short sharp pain that makes him whinge for a bit... but in the end he's happier as the teeth come through more easily.

LJ wait till hes 18 and see if he remembers.
Back to topic The Bondhay course at Worksop is a Donald Steel designed nightmare.Bet he doesnt play it.far too difficult to enjoy in reality.ill play anywhere but would think twice about going back there

Seeing an article on architecture reminds me that His Excellency McLaren has not been on here recently.
He's a valuable contributor to these boards, hope he hasn't been moderated away? His perspective, however contrarian, is one we would be better off not losing, even if you don't like Doak.

Ban Bam, I didn't say anything about there being multiple holes of 200 yard for par threes, I was simply saying that there is nothing wrong with "A" par 3 of that length.
You could have a very easy 200 yard par 3, or you could have a very difficult 150 yard one, it's more to do with the design than length.

Golf is not supposed to be easy and hole length on it's own is not a barometer of difficulty.

Incidently, being 20st has nothing to do with how far you can hit it. All it means is that you eat too much

kwinigolfer wrote:Seeing an article on architecture reminds me that His Excellency McLaren has not been on here recently.
He's a valuable contributor to these boards, hope he hasn't been moderated away? His perspective, however contrarian, is one we would be better off not losing, even if you don't like Doak.

Noe he's not off in moderated land, maybe taking a break but haven't seen him post in a while..

nope, i've got bones like a dinosaur's ...

i also enjoy 'a' long par 3. my issue was with the quoted '4' 200 yard par 3s. i know length is not the only barometer of difficulty, just as eating is not the only contributant to being 20st[!]

Well that and lack of exercise

what would you suggest? could make for a good c4 documentary... s_r's 606v2 fat camp.

SR just because someone is 20stone doesn't straight away mean there a fatty, I could introduce you to a 21stone guy with a body fat ratio of less than 10%

Ban Bam, Care to deny it?

Mav, we all know that is the exception rather than the rule. If you are 20 stone, there's a exceedingly high chance you are fat, which of course the number one cause of is eating and drinking too much.

Anyway, it was merely a gentle prodding, rather than another anti fat crusade and Ban Bam took it as such (I think)

definitely carrying around some unnecessary weight at the minute. always do after i lose my 4 hrs a week badminton through the winter. i would point out that i have lost a considerable amount of podge before whilst labouring on greenstaff for a couple of summers about 5 years ago, but my weight stayed at 17 1/2 stone as i was carrying a fair bit of muscle. unrealistic to expect to get back to that kind of condition with my current work situation, but i certainly need to take steps to keep my 'summer' weight in control. for the record, i don't drink alchohol, i don't eat any particular unhealthy food, i probably take in too much carbs, pasta, bread etc and have an unforgiving metabolism. my wife eats just as much as i do but she seems to be able to burn calories with her mind.

No justification required Ban Bam, just a gentle ribbing.

no worries.
are you et al playing the alyth 36 this year. got my entry in - looking forward to revisiting the track again.