I have absolutely no doubt that the Arden Course at the Forest of Arden Country Club and Hotel is a tough course. I also have no doubt that it does what it is set up to do, that is have lush, and often narrow fairways, copious water hazards and receptive greens. It's just that I didn't like it.

The back nine has attracted more praise, routed through drier land, but even here the two par fives and one of the par 4s require a carry over water. It's a deer park for Pete's sake - it doesn't need to be tricked up with artificial water. Indeed the front nine, which had watery hazards on most holes, actually only had one (the eighth) which required a forced carry over water. I suppose, with par threes carrying over water if it's good enough for Worplesdon it's good enough for the Forest of Arden.

The other thing which annoyed me is the overuse of doglegs. There's loads of land, so why create blind doglegs on short holes like the 2nd and 4th which only allow the very longest hitters to even contemplate going for the green off the tee? The second was an egregious example. The presence of high trees meant that the only shot which was possible off the tee was one of no more than 200 yards. The 4th was the same, though the green was visible through the tree trunks. I suppose the argument is that you plot your way around, but golf shouldn't be just about plotting one's way round; it should also be about encouraging risk.

And finally bunkering. The 6th had a direct line to the pin; there were a couple of sequential bunkers on that direct line. So the brave golfer should think - I'll challenge the bunkers because beyond them is lovely fairway and much shorter second. If the driver's not on song I'll go left and accept a much longer shot in. But no! Challenge the bunkers and rough awaits. The fairway only awaits if the bunkers are not challenged. That's the very opposite of strategic golf (see the 3rd at West Sussex for example).

A word about the Aylesford course. A shorter cousin, and much more forgiving off the tee than the Arden. In my mind rather more fun, because there was a go for it option off the tee on the shorter holes such as the 5th. It wasn't the safe play, of course not, but it wasn't a 0% option. Similarly the longer par 4s on the back (especially the 9th) had narrow gaps to get through if you felt your driving was good, and a commensurate reward for hitting a good shot and penalty for getting it wrong. Play shorter and a par requires a good chip and put (a reasonable option); go long and a par requires a 9 iron in and two puts (also a reasonable option).