Are bad courses still being built?

[Dan_Callahan]

I have played many courses over the years that were very, very bad. I'm thinking of the low-cost public courses that opened in the 60s and 70s—the ones with parallel holes separated by a row or two of trees, flat greens with maybe one or two round and shallow bunkers, poor drainage, and several forced layup, right-angle dogleg holes of about 350 yards.

Of the courses that I've seen that have opened in the last five years, that kind of unimaginative style seems to have disappeared. Even the courses I haven't liked were at least ambitious and had a "professional" look and feel.

Are the days of the truly "bad" golf course over? Has modern technology—both in construction equipment/materials and the accessibility of images of great courses via the Internet—caused this change? Is it the growth of "golf architect" as a profession? Or have I simply been lucky in missing new courses that are every bit as bad as those from the 60s?

[Craig Sweet]

Of course "bad" courses are still being built. Not everyone can afford to play on a course built by one of the gods of golf course architecture, nor can every community offer up the choice piece of land necessary for a high quality golf course.

But hey, its a golf course, people play it, they probably use older, cheaper equipment (and that should make some people here happy), and they are no doubt having fun.

[Dan_Callahan]

Craig,

What has been surprising to me is that recently built low-budget courses I have seen have been surprisingly good. They weren't built by an architecture "god" nor were any of them built on exceptional land. My sense is that expectation levels, for whatever reason, have been raised. The result is that—at least in my narrow experience—crappy courses that once proliferated (throughout New England, not sure about other parts of the country) are a dying breed.

One course that comes to mind is the Ledges in South Hadley, MA. Greens fees are under $30, the property isn't very interesting, and the architect, Howard Mauer, is not a name that gets bandied about very frequently on this site. However, there are a number of very interesting holes that obviously required some thought and creativity to build.  

[Craig Sweet]

Dan, I think in New England, and other places, where land is reasonably expensive, even a "low budget" course has to have the look and feel of the more expensive model in order to compete and be successful.

[Mark_Fine]

Dan,
Bad is a relative term.  I was at a course recently where they are contemplating some changes.  I asked a member what he thought of the golf course.  He said he felt the same way as most of the members and that the course was great just the way it was.  If most of the guys on this site saw the place they would beg to differ.
Mark

[Dave Bourgeois]

Mark,

That's a great point.  It is all about your perspective.    

[George Pazin]

To put Mark's point another way, bad is in the eye of the beholder. I don't particularly care for penal desert courses, or courses with tons of water, but many people, even many traditionalists on here, do like these courses.

The closest thing I've seen to truly "bad" courses are the many courses that are being shoehorned into nontraditional areas. I don't know if it's because someone wants to show he can do it, or because these areas are less of a battle regulation wise, or whatever. For example, there seems to be a mini trend to show someone can build a course on the side of a mountain, or a canyon, that isn't really suited for golf, at least in my humble opinion.

Some might argue that the mega dollar monoliths are bad as well, but as long as Tom, Kelly, Gil, paul, Jeff, Forest, Mark, Ian, Mike, Brian, etc., keep building reasonable courses, I'm content to not bash the monuments to ego.

 

[Dan_Callahan]

Aspirations on whose part? The architect's? The developer's? I have certainly been on courses where I had no idea of the aspirations going in. I also had no expectations as to the quality. However, at the end of the round there was no mistaking the blandness and failure of the design (see the Tradition in Windsor, CT or Southwick CC in MA).

There might be explanations for the course being bad: lack of budget (many Cornish courses would fit this category), uninteresting land, etc. My point is that of the courses I have seen recently, even budget restraints and land quality have been overcome by inventive/creative, intelligent design.

I think that perhaps while there have always been great architects at the top of the profession, the field is far deeper today. I have no real evidence or statistics to bear this out, but perhaps today the training is better, or the pay is greater and therefore attracts more talent. I don't know. And perhaps this observation is strictly regional. As I said, the heavy preponderence of courses I see are in the Northeast.

[Dan_Callahan]

anyone's aspirations, duh


if you still don't understand, go litigate something

Excuse me?

[Forrest Richardson]

George — Is a "non traditional area" a region...or a quarry...or an old asphalt plant yard...or a forest? Or all of these?

[Mike_Cirba]

Exhibit A:

ShoreGate in NJ.

Probably the only Doak "0", I've ever played.

[Sean_A]

I can't think of too many bad courses.  I think folks on this site can be overly harsh because they often compare against the best courses around.  Take The Belfry for example.  It usually gets hammered on this site as a two hole course.  How bad can the course be if it has two of the most exciting holes in major golf?  I am no fan of the Belfry because of price and drainage issues, but I couldn't honestly say it is a bad course.  I choose not to play it very often because I think there are better courses around to play.

I wouldn't even call Painswick a bad course despite the myriad of things wrong with the place.  It didn't live up to my preconceived notions based on what I read here, but was it a bad course?  Nah.

Ciao

Sean

[Mike_Cirba]

Although TPC Jasna Polana is damn close.

[Joel_Stewart]

Although TPC Jasna Polana is damn close.

Interesting that TPC Jasna Polana was mentioned because the TPC Valencia (Los Angeles) may be one of the worst courses built in the last 10 years.  Is there a connection between bad courses and TPC/PGA courses?

[Craig_Rokke]

Exhibit A:

ShoreGate in NJ.

Probably the only Doak "0", I've ever played.

Mike-
You'll be pleased to hear that the "visually arresting" Shoregate (along w/ Atlantic City CC) was mentioned in George Peper's  LINKS feature about courses deserving of more recognition.

[Yannick Pilon]

I think that bad courses are still being built today, but you probably won't see them in tourist areas.  

I feel they are mostly built in small communities by people who don't know much about golf course design, and don't have much to invest, let alone hire an architect to do it.  Its a shame, considering the investment required is still quite large....  But you know what,  most of the time, the people who build these courses are often very proud of what they did for their communities and locals usually play them, and most of the time, love them.

It's a bit sad to see that when you are a golf course architect.  But being who we are, we get extremely critical of the golf courses we see.  What we perceive as bad can be perceived by many to be very good....

However, the good side of this is, those courses are usually very cheap to play, and that's where a lot of people will get in touch with the game.  So in a sense, I feel they are good for the game....

Yannick

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

You'll be pleased to hear that the "visually arresting" Shoregate was mentioned in George Peper's  LINKS feature about courses deserving of more recognition.

Craig,

I actually laughed out loud when I read that.  I think Mr. Peper is a pretty good writer and seems to be a big fan of golf courses based on his books.  This opinion notwithstanding, I would just perhaps chalk it up to mind-altering hallucinogens on either of our parts because there is no way to account for such a distinction through simple "differing opinions".