What makes certain architecture bad?

I am very pro-water. It’s pretty much all I drink other than coffee (black, no sugar) which is mostly water

1 Like

Are you me?

1 Like


Punishing bad golfers with hazards that better golfers ignore.

Many holes where bunkers front the green.

Failure to use great natural features onsite.

Tiered greens are worse than greens with subtle internal contours.

Lack of appropriate tees for women or junior players.

Lack of strategic decision-making options (“should I go for it or play safe?”)


Am I? Maybe, maybe not. In an alternate universe maybe you and I are the same person.

Water is even better if you add a lot of sugar and secret flavorings, then carbonate it.


#BigDiabetesPharma wants you to think so.

Disclaimer, I drink one Coke or Dr Pepper a week and enjoy it immensely.

I can’t believe you liked that post. It’s actually terrible. I recommend highly against soft drinks even though I’m badly badly hooked on them.

I’m drinking a Topo Chico right now, so don’t think The Refuge never influenced anybody.



Hazards (recoverable like bunkers, not unrecoverable like water) should occasionally be targeted at lesser golfers so the can have the thrill of concurring an obstacle.

Agree on repetitive tiered green though some classic templates are cool. Also appreciate bold internal contours like Langford and Moreau built.

1 Like

On a serious note, the lack of variety is a big one for me. The example I have used in the past are the par 3s at Cog Hill #4 (which has hosted the BMW Championship). From the blue tees they are 182-194-194-184. They also look exactly the same.


I used to be a big soda person when I was younger before I discovered the Arizona Arnold Palmer or turned 21, basically now it’s glass of AP for lunch & evening & a beer at dinner

1 Like

What constraints was the architecture working under? I think long walks = bad simplifies it way too much. Now if the architect had options and chose to create a long walk, then yeah that is bad.

1 Like

Golf is a game meant to be played walking. A course that doesn’t provide an enjoyable walk isn’t a good course. That doesn’t mean that the architect didn’t do a great job with the constraints given, just that the project didn’t result in a good course.


I have 9 tiered greens on my course. One of them is triple-tiered.

I also have one par 5 that is incredibly frustrating for poor golfers, because it causes a layup at about 180 yards and better golfers (including me, a 9) completely ignore it if they hit a reasonably good drive.

And I have a good course, but those are pet peeves where architecture could be better. My course was designed by Desmond Muirhead & Larry Mize, and built essentially by the folks that build Nicklaus courses.

1 Like

I definitely agree. While I 100% enjoy courses more when there is a short distant from green to next tee and are easily walkable, I think more goes into whether a course is overall bad because of it

This weighs a lot for me. Not only not having to think on the tee in regards to just trying to hit the middle of the fairway on every par 4/5. Also, when there is little variance between the par 3s. One course I played a good bit growing up felt like you were playing the same hole on 3/4 par 3s, similar distance and bunkering on all 3. Even if they dont have crazy green complexes I think at least hitting 2-3 different clubs into the pars 3s makes them feel much more memorable.

We can agree to disagree on that one.

I think the mark of a good course is dependent on constraints. Sometimes we want to build golf on pieces of land that isn’t ideal. If we only build on ideal land - well that isn’t a possibility so not even worth considering.

1 Like

I agree that golf was made for walking, but I don’t think that means there can’t be exceptions. Some courses can be great and be spaced out due to the constraints of the land. I probably wouldn’t pick such a course as a home course, but doesn’t mean it can’t be enjoyable for the occasional round.

1 Like

A course can be good with some constraints, and an architect can do a good job with them. I don’t ignore them. However, walk ability is a prerequisite for a course to be good in my opinion.

I get plantar fasciitis, so I ride occasionally. My only gripe with cart-infrastructure is when courses sacrifice parts of holes for the sake of a cart path.


What would you consider sacrificing parts of hole? Just curious. I agree though that cart paths can get in the way at times. A nice alternative I’ve seen is the well maintained gravel paths. I know some tend to get beaten up and make riding a hassle, but when they are maintained they can be less intrusive than a typical concrete path.