[John Kirk]

The first aesthetics discussion is becoming very detailed and esoteric in nature.  I've got a new plan to discuss aesthetics.

Name two courses.  The first course is a course you find relatively unattractive, but you love the way it plays.  The second course is a course you find beautiful, but you found playing the course relatively uninspiring.

In other words, name one course that looks bad but plays great, and one course that looks great but fails to meet high expectations when played.  It's tough to be honest here, since criticizing great courses can be a dicey proposition.  I'll go first.

Looks bad, plays great:  Chambers Bay GC
Looks great, fails to meet high expectations:  San Francisco GC

Right now I have SFGC rated a Doak 9, ad Chambers Bay a Doak 7.  I think Chambers Bay is probably a more interesting golf course, with greater strategic considerations.  I may have to reconsider my ratings.

[Peter_Herreid]

Alright, I wade in with my nominations for each...

Looks bad, plays great---this is a tough one, because the "look" is clearly objective, so I might re-phrase it as "appears uninspiring", plays great, OK?

then I would nominate Holston Hills. 

the overall appearance when I was there would not immediately jump out and grab someone, and might be considered on the humble side, but after finishing there was definitely a strong desire to head right back out to the 1st tee, and the course played great!

Looks great, plays bad--Sahalee in any combination is a poster-child for this one.  It has a visual look that is breath-taking and arresting, yet I have found any combination of the 3 nines indistinct and unmemorable, and the course is situated in an architecturally unremarkable housing development as well...

[TEPaul]

"Name two courses.  The first course is a course you find relatively unattractive, but you love the way it plays.  The second course is a course you find beautiful, but you found playing the course relatively uninspiring."

JohnK:

For me I'm going to change your requirement or just change it some from unattractive to me to very surprising. The course I'm going to mention I did not find unattractive I just found some of its architecture to be remarkably "artistic" almost in the vein of caricature, particularly the bunkers and greenside bunkers because they were so clean and of such remarkably bold artisitc scale. I hadn't seen the place in about 25 years and I'm talking about Winged Foot. I didn't play it last month but I watched a ton of play and there's no question that architecture just plays incredibily well, strategically and otherwise for a lot of reasons including its architectural excellence and the way it's being maintained.

Actually, I was both so surprised by the aesthetic look of it combined with it's strategic playability I think it has forced me to seriously reconsider some of my previous beliefs and tenets about golf course architecture.

As for your second question--ie looks beautiful but plays uninspiring, I guess I'll have to think on that one for a while before answering but whatever it is I have to think it's just because of maintenance practices that don't contemplate or address any form of F&F.

In my opinion, thoughtful applications of F&F can do a world of good for way more golf courses and architecture than most have ever imagined.  I am aware, however, that on strictly or ultra modern aerial oriented architecture one has to be pretty careful on the F&F application particularly in various areas including greens.

[John Moore II]

Country Club of North Carolina Dogwood has a lot of 'stuff' for the eyes, but not a whole lot of strategy and such. Eagle Point fits that mold even better, now that I think of it.

Wilmington Golf Links does not look very good but its a lot of fun to play with a good variety of strategy and shots. Same with Pinehurst #3.

[Garland Bayley]

Looks bad, plays great - Rustic Canyon
Looks great, plays worse than one would expect - Old Works

[Kenny Baer]

Looks great and plays poorly:
White Columns; Alpharetta, GA.
Beautiful vistas; pretty white bunkers but there is just not much there there.
The Oconee Course at Reynolds Plantation; Eatonton, GA 
Same as above except even more so; beautiful land with very forgetable golf holes and a goofy routing.

Not quite so beautiful but plays great:
Long Shadow; Madison, GA.  Bunkering that acts as a magnet, many unforgettable holes; conditioning makes the course look less than ideal although it still plays terrific.

[Ed Oden]

Looks bad, plays great - I have two nominations, Huntingdon Valley and Yeamans Hall.  While I would never say either "looks bad", their aesthetics alone certainly do not hint at greatness.  I see no attempt at HVCC or Yeamans to present the course in conditions other than those which are the most strategically playable.  Those conditions in turn allow the architecture to shine through.  Fortunately, the core architecture at both clubs is outstanding and ideally suited for the fast, firm and often brown conditions that show it off.  A third course which also largely fits this mold is Palmetto.  But they do overseed, so I would place it a notch below HVCC and Yeamans.

Looks great, fails to meet high expectations - This category is much tougher for me.  There are a couple of courses that initially jumped to mind.  But upon further reflection, neither course exhibits poor architecture.  Rather, the aesthetics are so good that it is very hard for the architecture to match.  In both instances, I have great memories of the course and can't wait for a return invitation.  So I will nominate a course which is second to none in terms of aesthetics and conditioning but which I found to be entirely void of any inspiration: Coeur d’Alene.

Ed

[Jason Topp]

Looks Bad, Plays Great  -


Stoneridge - Stillwater, MN

Looks great/fails to inspire -

  Old Head

[Bart Bradley]

Looks bad/fun to play --Carnoustie

Looks great/mediocre golf -- Mauna Kea

Bart

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Looks great but disappointing----Prince course Kauai
Looks bad, play great----TOC

Looks great but disappointing----Torrey Pines
Looks bad, play great----Reynolds Park, Winston-Salem

[Nicholas Coppolo]

Am I the only one who doesn't care what a golf course looks like?
The most attractive courses to me, are those that look like they were thoughtfully crafted solely as a playing field for thought-provoking golf. 

If want to enjoy flora, I go to a botanical garden (not that that ever happens), if I want awe-inspiring nature, I go to a National Park,  if I want unspoiled coastline, I drive the PCH through Big Sur.

That being said: my 2 cents of the top of my head on courses I really know:

not conventionally beautiful but a real golf course:
-The Old Course (does anyone REALLY know this course)
-Riverdale Dunes

Cover photo but uninspiring golf:
-Hudson National
-Barton Creek Canyons

[Sean_A]

Its difficult to say KINGTON looks bad because of the stunning views, but the alpinization is quite funky and a bit jarring to the eye.  The course does play superbly though. 

Dare I mention MERION!  I am not keen on the rough pattern and the isolation of the bunkers.  This isn't to say the course looks bad, but there is a jarring juxtaposition which is hard to overlook.  That said, the course plays great and there is so much cool stuff there that the course shines through any negative aspects. 

A course I think looks superb, but fails to really excite me is PINEHURST.  I have been doing a lot of thinking about this place because its very perplexing why I am so so on it.  I think it comes down to the greens.  They seem much of a muchness to me and in a severe manner.

While I like this course a lot and think it looks great, there is no question in mind that TOBACCO ROAD doesn't play nearly as well as it should/could.  I think part of it is down to design with maybe a tad too much of the ground game cut off and part of it is down to maintenance with wet conditions which essentially cut off the intended ground game aspect.  I couldn't say its an opportunity lost because Tobacco Road is a bold statement based on sound principles, but....

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Look less attractive than most, play great:  surely Seaton Carew is the poster boy for this category?  I'd also add Hoylake and maybe even Muirfield (for quotient of playing well:looking good).

Looks fantastic, doesn't play so well:  Bamburgh Castle, Slaley Hall

[TEPaul]

JohnK:

Since I'm a fan of Max Behr's philosophies on architecture I believe I'm getting confused, AGAIN , at what exactly constitutes beautiful aesthetics (including in my own mind). He said something to the effect that a good architect should handle the land for golf in such a way that the beauty that lies beneath is exhibited. If I take that even semi-literally then how do I determine if there is beauty that lies beneath? Do you think I should bring my little pail and shovel and check out what lies beneath?

If anyone notices little holes in the ground that make no particular sense on a golf course it would probably be a safe bet to assume I'd been there recently checking if there is beauty that lies beneath.

But seriously, I guess I would say if I'm looking for some kind of aesthetic beauty in the architecture on a golf course I check out what I generally call "top lines." If and when I get better at this perhaps I will learn how to analyze "bottom lines" or even "all lines."

[John Kirk]

I like this question.  It makes the responder decide what he thinks is or is not beautiful.  It also makes them identify courses where they feel aesthetics and playability don't match.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I am sure to be blasted for both of mine nominations, but that is what opinions are for...
However before that.
John you mentioned that SF was somewhat diispointing yet still recieved a 9 on your Doak scale?
that puzzled me


For me..
looks great but then fails to deliver...Kingsbairns...
I just do not understand why it gets so much love on here, but again that is just my opinion.

the other way..
Merion's front 12 holes, all that great gold packed into what is not exactly attractive land...but gets a Doak 9.5 from me.
Controversial choices I know, but I am feeling that way today

[Jim Colton]

The Old Course isn't exactly eye candy but is a blast to play.  

We played True North in Northern Michigan this year and while it's a nice looking course, none of us were eager to ever play it again.

[John Kirk]

Michael,

After saying I gave SFGC a 9, I also said I may have to reconsider that.  It's just so beautifully laid out.  Perhaps it's the fact that the courses yields a lot of flop shot style recoveries, but a better way to describe my feelings is "it just doesn't quite do it for me.", which gives me wiggle room to accept that others may feel differently.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

John..
I know what you mean..sometimes you love a course give it a great rating and still cant quite figure out why it still did not make you tingle..
I think that is when we are spoiled.
We have been so fortunate to play great courses that it takes something simply spectacular to raise the serotonin level!

[TEPaul]

Michael:

The land of the first twelve holes of Merion may not be the most attractive (but it's funny I sure never thought of that---eg I guess sometimes one just looks at things the way you're so used to them) but basically those greens sites are awful good. The only thing I'd like to see different is #2 farther back (where Flynn proposed it) and #6 a bit farther back and right.

[John Kirk]

I had thought about Merion in the context on this discussion.  I've played it twice.  For me, that is a "great golf looks great" course.  I think it is stunningly beautiful.

[Kyle Henderson]

Looks bad, plays great: Stevinson Ranch.... Doak 6-7.

Looks great, plays bad: Edgewood ... Doak 5

[John Goodman]

Forgettable looks, a blast to play (or "Mary Anne"):  I'll second Seaton Carew and Carnoustie, and throw in Golspie.  I can't think of too many of these.  I'm not sure the ones I've named even qualify, truly.

Looks great, plays less than so (or "Ginger"):  I can think of a lot of these.  All of the Reynolds Plantation courses.  Pinehurst #7 and #8.  Troon North, Greyhawk.  Ballybunion Cashen.  Of all places, Muirfield, a study in design (esp bunkering) but whose holes largely recede from memory.  I think there are a lot of courses in the Ginger category.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()