News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Eric Franzen

  • Karma: +0/-0
The course not so beautiful
« on: February 22, 2007, 10:18:47 AM »
What makes a beatiful course? Well, that has been discussed a couple of times as I can recall. But there must be a bunch of courses out  there with very questionable esthetical values of all kind (extremely manufactured features etc,) that really delivers the goods when it comes to strategic challenges and the over all fun factor... Any examples?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 10:19:41 AM by Eric Franzen »

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2007, 10:24:13 AM »
Eric,

If asked about beautiful courses, most golfers would cite Cypress Point, Pacific Dunes et al.

Personally, I have a real fondness for places like Garden City and Lytham & St. Annes: scruffy courses in urban settings.

There's a certain beauty about that kind of environment too.
jeffmingay.com

Tom Huckaby

Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2007, 10:25:50 AM »
Hi Eric:

This has been discussed before indeed, and in many different ways.  ;D

I believe the main example of a great course with little redeeming scenic value was a course in England with nuclear reactors dominating all of the long views... internally it wasn't ugly or anything, but the external views left a lot to be desired.  And still it was a very good golf course.  I'm sure someone will remember which one I'm thinking of.

And there likely are others as well.  Strategic values and fun shots to be played will always make for an overall fun course, no matter what the scenery shows.  That being said, as my friend Ryan Simper says, there is value to what one sees in between shots.

BTW I have no answer as to your first question:  what makes a beautiful course?  Beauty is indeed always in the eye of the beholder.  I know what's required for me, but I wouldn't dare presume it's the same for others.

TH


Eric Franzen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2007, 10:30:26 AM »
Jeff and Tom,

Thanks for posting away on the subject.

I came off a bit blurry there. I was actually thinking more of estethical values in design features on the actual courses. Hideuos bunkers, weird mounds, questionable lakes etc.

« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 10:31:19 AM by Eric Franzen »

John_Cullum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2007, 10:32:16 AM »
There are some horrible buildings around Prestwick (although I am not that impressed with Prestwick, but I certainly must be wrong about that.)

I understand the views at Silloth are pretty bad.
"We finally beat Medicare. "

Tom Huckaby

Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2007, 10:32:16 AM »
Eric,

If asked about beautiful courses, most golfers would cite Cypress Point, Pacific Dunes et al.

Personally, I have a real fondness for places like Garden City and Lytham & St. Annes: scruffy courses in urban settings.

There's a certain beauty about that kind of environment too.

That's interesting, Jeff.  I haven't been to either of those courses - and I would definitely first cite seaside courses when asked about beauty - but I get how those "scruffy" courses can have a certain beauty also.  I just never thought of it that way.  Good call.

It's funny too - I rip my home course (Santa Teresa, local San Jose muni) all the time... but the last time playing there, I found myself marvelling at its beauty, discussing such with my playing partners.  It can best be described as a scruffy course in a suburban setting.  But it sits up against some pretty darn beautiful hills... There are some truly inspiring views, if one is inclined to see them.

TH

Tom Huckaby

Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2007, 10:38:17 AM »
Jeff and Tom,

Thanks for posting away on the subject.

I came off a bit blurry there. I was actually thinking more of estethical values in design features on the actual courses. Hideuos bunkers, weird mounds, questionable lakes etc.



Aha.  So you want to stick the Muccian internal course esthetic.

Hmmm... seems to me that would be pretty tough to overcome.  Hideous bunkers and weird mounds are almost certainly going to mean weirdness/stupidity in PLAY, no?  Since how the holes play is indeed paramount, I'm not sure how one could overcome that and still make for fun.  An example on Ryan's thread - 3 at Monarch Beach - is an extremely stupid hole that retains some value because it's near the ocean, and thus allows for ocean views and seaside feel.  That is not what you're asking for.  Examples of ugly internal features that still allow for a fun overall experience are gonna be pretty tough to find, I think.

But... there must be courses where defined water hazards are god-awful swamps and sloughs and the like... where bunkers aren't particularly pretty, but function well strategically.....

I thought of one!

A local favorite around here:  Metropolitan Golf Links, Oakland, CA.

The external views are the Oakland airport - no joy there.  Internally, there is a lot of mud in the water hazards and none of them are particularly inspiring to look at.  The bunkers aren't going to win any beauty awards either.  But that being said, there are a LOT of fun and challenging shots to be played, many strategic choices to be made, and it is an overall damn fun course.  It's a Getka fave, which given his impossibly high standards should say it all.

This is a fun exercise....

 ;D

SB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2007, 10:38:18 AM »
Most new housing development courses fall in this category.  There can be plenty of strategy, and good design all around, but get knocked here just for having houses in view, even though most are completely out of play.  How often do we hear about courses like Troon North that "used to be great until they built houses".

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2007, 11:40:13 AM »
Tom,

I guess the views at Santa Teresa are on a day to day basis, depending on how much smog/haze/crap is in the air.  But after a nice storm rolls thru and knocks all the crap out of the air, those views are likely jaw dropping.

As to Metropolitan, when I played it, it was a tale of 2 nines in my book.  Many of the holes on the front 9 were fairly uninteresting in my book, but on the back 9 there are indeed some neat holes. And if they stopped watering it so much and let it play fast and firm, it would make it play so much better.

As to this thread, there is no doubt that oceanside courses have a huge advantage.  Even 18 on the old course at half moon bay, with all the bad modifications they made to that hole, it is still an amazing view.

Tom Huckaby

Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2007, 11:55:11 AM »
Kalen:

You have my home course assessed pretty much correctly, although the smog and haze is never all that bad - not compared to SoCal anyway - and I doubt even on the best days I'd call the views I was enjoying "jaw-dropping."  They are nicer than one would otherwise think, that's all.   ;D

Re Metropolitan, right on re all of that.  I too like the back nine a lot more than the front.  But there are fun shots to be had on the front as well... and I've never played it anything but firm and fast... haven't been there in a year or so... damn that sucks if they've overwatered it.  Benham was there a few days ago - perhaps he will chime in.  In any case firm and fast was one of its main redeeming qualities when I was playing it semi-regularly.

In any case, I do think it works for purposes of this thread... no particular beauty but fun nonetheless.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2007, 12:08:52 PM »
Tom,

I played it last October and a few of the greens were squishy and most were pretty slow.  The fairways seemed OK, but I wouldn't characterize them as firm and fast.  I did like that the holes played in many directions requiring you to play different shot types with the prevailing afternoon winds.

I was pleasantly surprised with the course and really liked the par 5 10th hole....


Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2007, 12:14:39 PM »
I should cite the Road Hole at St Andrews as being dominated by a hideous hotel (and before that by railway sheds) and the green is not pretty in itself, being a very artificial looking raised pimple, but what a hole!  People travel the world just to see and play that weird monstrosity.  

Silloth is not too badly sited - there's a flour mill at one end, but the rest is in lovely country.  Maybe you're thinking of Seascale which is dominated by the nuclear plant of Sellafield alongside which 11th and 12th holes run.  I remember knocking my ball into a stream on the 9th (one of the best holes on the course) and wondering if what went into the stream as a white Pinnacle would be fished out as a pink Ping.  

The surroundings of Seaton Carew and Hartlepool are both industrial in the extreme, yet SC is a fine course and Hartlepool has some lovely holes amidst the dunes.

I wonder if the enormous bunker on the 4th at Royal St George's might be an example of a frightening bunker (at least to feeble mortals such as I who are very unlikely to clear it with our drives, second or even third shots) which is at best curious, being a cross between a children's sand pit and an outsize coffin, but it is undoubdtedly striking!

At risk of offending Tommy Williamsen, I'd say that Royal North Devon doesn't exactly strike me as handsome, yet there is no denying the appeal of the course.  The famous Cape Bunker looks like something a very bad crafstman would cobble together with a few redundant pieces of packing cases.  Yet who has not been thrilled at the sight of it when first standing on the 4th tee?

The far end of Hayling, running out to the 13th, is pretty miserable with its attendant holiday shacks and a ghastly flat-roofed extension in black on the house just through the back of the green, but what a hole that is, too!

I don't know whether they are still there, but there were some gigantic chimneys dominating the course at Royal Dublin.  

And then there are sleeper-faced bunkers in general which are always going to look unnatural, yet which seem to be an essential feature of replica holes trying to recreate links originals (where they also jar with the natural landscape).
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 12:17:48 PM by Mark_Rowlinson »

Tom Huckaby

Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2007, 12:16:01 PM »
Kalen - that is a bummer re the conditions.  Oh well.

I think 10 is a very good hole also, particularly once one figures out how much to cut off on the drive.  I like 11, 12's a neat shorty par 3 with a cool green, love 13, 14's pretty darn great, 15's ok, 16 I cited in my best holes list sent to SJ Merc - love the alps part - 17 is good risk-reward.. 18 is a decent finisher....

Yep, that's a darn good back nine!

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2007, 12:25:25 PM »
That back 9 is fun and yes the 14th is really a great hole.  I played it during the end of the day so we had some nice long shadows amd made the course extra pleasing to look at.

Speaking of Johnny Miller courses, I just played one of his courses last weekend here in Utah and took pics of it. He considers it as one of his finest works so we'll see what the site thinks.  I'll get those organized and posted soon.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 12:30:16 PM by Kalen Braley »

Ed Tilley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2007, 12:25:38 PM »

I understand the views at Silloth are pretty bad.

There is an old (disused) factory that is a bit of an eyesore. Apart from that though Silloth is in an idyllic spot with far reaching views to the Lakeland mountains and across the Solway firth to Scotland. It's also a great course.










Aidan Bradley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2007, 01:07:17 PM »
Mark, you are correct about Royal Dublin as off the Summer of '06.

Below are examples off "Beauty" and "The Beasts"......




Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2007, 02:04:39 PM »
Mark Rowlinson wrote: "At risk of offending Tommy Williamsen, I'd say that Royal North Devon doesn't exactly strike me as handsome, yet there is no denying the appeal of the course.  The famous Cape Bunker looks like something a very bad crafstman would cobble together with a few redundant pieces of packing cases.  Yet who has not been thrilled at the sight of it when first standing on the 4th tee?"

RND is an anomaly. Standing on number one you wonder, "Where is the golf course?" When you play 4-15 you get a feel for its greatness but you are right that it is not the most attractive of places.  Its attractiveness is its diversisty.  From the bumps and holows of number six to the sea rushes at ten to the green site on 13 it looks beautiful to me.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2007, 03:20:44 PM »
Having Aiden's input from the eye of a photographer is valuable to this discussion, I think.  It all depends on what the focus and field of vision is, along with the lighting.  The perception of beauty or visual aversion is in the mind and desrie of the beholder.  

Anotherwords, you can be looking down a corridor of the field of golf, FW and immediate surrounds in the rough, and see great beauty and strategy comprised of the so called hideous features - mounding, bunkers, odd lakes and ponds and swamps, if they are presented in the proper conditions of light.  Yet, if the long views and environment come into the field of vision, you might see the factories, iron works, etc.  Even those long views of junky urban scapes can be photographed in certain light conditions and such and present a sort of surreal or etherial setting that people would find beautiful and artistic.  

I think the opposite is also true.  You can photograph or just look with your naked eye and focus on a field of view of what is otherwise - generally considered a beautiful golf course or hole, but see it at high noon with heat waves rising off the fairway, and not see any beauty in it, but rather an univiting and harsh landscape.

Maybe you have to look for the good, and recognize the ugly, and be able to adapt as necessary.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #18 on: February 22, 2007, 04:05:11 PM »
I think Montrose has this quality. The town is really gritty, and it shows especially when you turn away from the dune back toward town.

Eric Franzen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2007, 03:42:34 AM »
Lots of interesting stuff in here.  Mark and Tom really nails it with intriguing examples of design features that looks questionable but still adds something to the strategic experience of the hole.

I started to think about the subject due some very funky looking manufactured containment mounding on my home course in Sweden. No, that feature doesn't interfer with the strategy of the holes in question, but there must be a lot of them out there that looks like cr*p, but still works very well in the overall scheme of the hole.

Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2007, 06:52:44 AM »
I can't locate the thread but ther was one on here a year or two ago about Swansea Bay which was championed as a fun course despite playing under motorway arches and with a factory background.  

Don't you play under an aqueduct or something of that ilk at Tryall in the Caribbean?  

I think someone drove a motorway and bridge through Royal Queensland - did it ruin the course?  

Hunstanton is one of those links on which there are few glimpses of the sea.  The very strong 17th and 18th holes are marred by a row of somewhat inelegant beach huts off to the right of the fairways and the automatic traffic lights that now prevent golfers playing to the 18th green if there are bathers making their way to the beach.

I don't remember what effect the graveyard at Ballybunion had on me, as I was in my young teens when I played there in the mid 60s.  The course (there was only one then) was then, I presume, played in a different hole order.  But there's a graveyard on a hole at Hexham (a very handsome course, for the most part) on which you play up to a raised green beside a graveyard, reminding the golfer not to take too long on his putt.  But the most exciting hole at Hexham is the last, a short, downhill par-4 to a green beside the Spittal, a handsome old country mansion which serves as the clubhouse.  Just off the fairway to the left, very much in range of my left-hander's slice) is a collection of potting sheds and greenhouses in which the estate's early vegetables, fruit and salad crops were grown.  Acres and acres of glass just waiting for my slice!

There are many courses of which I can think on which a shot somewhere is aimed at one church spire or another, but the two courses I most think of in this respect are St Enodoc and TOC.  Play TOC with a local and he'll tell you on many a hole to take aim on this spire or that tower.  The trouble is that I don't know which is the Presbyterian Church, which the Catholic Chapel and which the Methodist - it's not just St Rule and St Regulus for the locals.  

The 10th at St Enodoc would probably be deemed unfair (for someone of my modest length) or simply too jolly difficult if it weren't for the romance of taking distant aim on the doorway to the little church in which Betjeman is buried.

At Brancepeth Castle a number of holes are enlivened by views of or even aiming at the little church.  The castle is too austere and overpowering to add pleasure to those amazing long par-3 holes at the turn.

The presence of the church beside the 12th green at Burnham and Berrow surely adds something to that hole even if it doesn't contribute to the playing strategy.

Many of our seaside courses are blighted by the proximity of caravan sites, but I can think of two courses blighted by ammunition factories - Alsager and Shaw Hill.  neither is of any great architectural merit, but it can be somewhat off putting to reach the top of your backswing at the very moment they decide to let off a controlled explosion with a loud BOOOOOMMMMM.  Such hazards are not visible - nor are the machine gun ranges at Strensall, alongside which is the admirable course of York Golf Club.  Many a backswing has been shot to pieces with an ill-timed burst of fire.

The drive at Conwy's 18th is blind over banks of gorse towards an angled fairway.  The club flagpole (where it is today) is the line for avergae players, tigers taking the more dangerous right-hand route over more of the gorse.  When the marina was being built a number of the contractors were given some sort of attractive playing deal and they made all sorts of useful contributions to the upkeep of the course, but they helped themselves, too.  They constructed a tall silo in which to store their ready-made concrete.  It stood about half a mile beyond the perfect line off the 18th tee (the flagpole then being elsewhere) and they helpfully painted a large white arrow on their silo on the precise line for a perfect drive.

At Maesdu a little railway line runs between it and North Wales.  Two or three holes are played alongside the railway and tales of bouncing the ball off a railway track back onto the course abound (similar to those from Prestwick).  But there's something rather endearing when, waiting for the green to clear in order to play your second shot, the old-fashioned semaphore sugnal arm clunks into the away position just as the green clears.  How that railway should be brought back to St Andrews - steam operated, of course!

I'm sorry to those of you who have heard this before, but I grew up playing golf as a boy at Lilleshall Hall in Shropshire, a nothing-special Colt course of puny length.  The 9th hole was a dog-leg played towards a distant fence before the fairway turned abruptly right and uphill to the green (actually quite a strong hole).  Beyond the fence were some of the extensive grounds of Lilleshall Hall a sports training facility, then the best in the land.  In those days I could easily clear the fence with my drive and the greatest pleasure was to hit the little corrugated iron hut in which the coaches sheltered as their charges laboured on the pitch.  I was playing there in 1966 when my father advised me not to reach for the driver but to take a 3-iron for safety (I could hit a mean 3-iron in those days).  The players at that moment on the pitch were the England football squad preparing for their only Wolrd Cup win.  What if I had taken out Geoff Hurst?

The proximity of housing can easily mar a course for me.  I have no problem with the houses alongside the 18th at TOC, and I don't really notice those beside the early holes at Royal Dornoch, but they do not enhance Royal Lytham.  Many commentators have criticised the domestic backdrop of Royal Liverpool, but I rarely notice anything other than the course here.  But it's poor old Moortown for whom you have to feel sorry.  Most of the losses to their original MacKenzie course have been caused by neighbouring golf courses either selling up totally (Moor Allerton) or parting with some land (Sand Moor).  The fear of a sloppy left-hander such as I slicing into someone's bedroom has caused a number of excellent holes to be lost.  Unfortunately they are not even handsome houses - cf Pasatiempo.

TEPaul

Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2007, 12:58:08 PM »
"What makes a beatiful course? Well, that has been discussed a couple of times as I can recall. But there must be a bunch of courses out  there with very questionable esthetical values of all kind (extremely manufactured features etc,) that really delivers the goods when it comes to strategic challenges and the over all fun factor... Any examples?"

Eric:

There sure as hell are all kinds of courses out there with all kinds of odd and questionable esthetic values that sure do deliver the goods in play---and by that I do mean strategically and fun factor too.

There are so many examples I could never list 5% of all of them.

That's one of the oddities and drawbacks of this website,  in my opinion---eg a course has to look right, ie look "natural" to most on here for them to even admit it has architecture that's strategic and fun to play.

But you ask what makes a course beautiful?

The answer to that is in the realm of art, and just as in other expressions of art, golf architecture probably needs a very broad spectrum of esthetics and esthetic values to satisfy the esthetic and artistic appreciation of everyone out there.

That's part of the "Big World" theory in effect---"Golf and golf architecture is a great big thing and there should be something out there to satisfy and accomodate everyone."

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #22 on: February 23, 2007, 01:16:57 PM »
Mark, when we played Delamer Forest, the pro, Ellis, said that in the summer the course was beautifully brown.  I suspect that few folks would see that as beautiful.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Mark Bourgeois

Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #23 on: February 23, 2007, 01:34:17 PM »
Mark R.,

Your two posts speak(sic) of a life well-lived!

Mark

Eric Franzen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The course not so beautiful
« Reply #24 on: February 24, 2007, 06:05:46 AM »
Eric:

There sure as hell are all kinds of courses out there with all kinds of odd and questionable esthetic values that sure do deliver the goods in play---and by that I do mean strategically and fun factor too.

There are so many examples I could never list 5% of all of them.

That's one of the oddities and drawbacks of this website,  in my opinion---eg a course has to look right, ie look "natural" to most on here for them to even admit it has architecture that's strategic and fun to play.

But you ask what makes a course beautiful?

The answer to that is in the realm of art, and just as in other expressions of art, golf architecture probably needs a very broad spectrum of esthetics and esthetic values to satisfy the esthetic and artistic appreciation of everyone out there.

That's part of the "Big World" theory in effect---"Golf and golf architecture is a great big thing and there should be something out there to satisfy and accomodate everyone."

Well put.

I find different values in different kind of music. That's why my Ipod contains everything from Miles Davis to Slayer. My taste is also very diverse when it comes to GCA, and I am equally intrigued by courses like Shadow Creek and Royal West Norfolk. Both of them will probably (haven't played them yet...) rock my world in their own special way - as an outstanding piece of art in their specific genre.

Good music might sometimes be horrible produced. But a good song is still a good song. Same thing applies to GCA, at least in my twisted world.

Mark R,

Many thanks for sharing all of this.