Most Overrated Modern Courses (post 1990) ?

[Andy Troeger]

David,
I wonder if Engh appeals to low handicaps (I have no idea what your game is like) that have a chance to attempt some of the heroic shot options that are present on the par fives and occasionally on other holes. I can see how short hitters wouldn't care for them as much as I do because playing station to station eliminates the strategy that the long hitter can attempt. I know you mentioned that before, but the "heroic" aspect of Engh's designs is something I like that you didn't seem to care for.

As Kalen mentioned, I like how Engh often uses five par threes and five par fives--it seems to create additional variety when compared to courses that have as many as 12 par fours.

[Tim Gavrich]

Arcadia Bluffs is easily the most overrated course I've ever played.  A horrible routing: Par 5 Par 3 Par 5???    

JWinick--

Are the two par fives in that section of the course especially similar in length, or was the situation of the holes in relation to each other convoluted or awkward?  The Upper Cascades course at the Homestead finishes 3-5-5-3 and works routing-wise, IMO.

For me, the two most overrated courses I can think of are both in the Myrtle Beach area: TPC Myrtle Beach and Grande Dunes.  TPC has three nice finishing holes that come on the heels of 15 fairly bland holes.  The course is always in pretty nice shape though, which is of chief importance to most golfers who journey to the Grand Strand

Grande Dunes, dollar-for-dollar, is horribly overrated.  I've never played a course where ambiance was so obviously the focus, rather than the golf course.  The holes by the Intracoastal Waterway are the only ones of consequence.  Rulewich did a much better job at Crumpin-Fox.

I'm as big a Mike Strantz fan as anyone, but True Blue kind of disappoints me when I play it.  The fairways and greens are so huge that it's just not that difficult for a lower handicapper.  I've played mediocre golf there and missed one fairway and three greens.  Caledonia is the clearly superior course.  I think that when they renovated True Blue a couple years after it opened in order to make it more playable, they went overboard.

[Mike Nuzzo]

JW
What is wrong with a par 5,3,5 sequence?
Maybe it doesn't work there, but if the land yielded such a routing I wouldn't think twice about doing such.
Cheers

[Tim Bert]

JW
What is wrong with a par 5,3,5 sequence?
Maybe it doesn't work there, but if the land yielded such a routing I wouldn't think twice about doing such.
Cheers

I was thinking the same thing.  I don't mind a nice 3 hole stretch without par 4s as long as it flows.  It may not be the most common, and if the holes are not good then it may not work, but if it fits then why does the sequence matter?

Surely no more "wrong" than a 3,5,3 (Pebble Beach and Ballyneal) or a 5,5,3 (Cypress Point) or 3,3,5 (Pacific Dunes) - and those all seem to work. 

[JWinick]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a 5-3-5 stretch on a golf course.  But, the first three holes?   In addition, Par 5s and Par 3s can often clog golf courses so I think it's a terrible way to get you into the flow of the game.   

[DMoriarty]

Kalen,

Thanks for your thoughtful response.   I still get the feeling you think my concern is about aesthetics.  It is not.  It is about the best way to create interesting, unique, and fun golf holes.   While Engh's manufactured style certainly produces a manufactured look (in my opinion) it also produces a much less interesting course on which to play golf.   It is all just too controlled and straightforward for my tastes.  It was repetitive and boring.  A slog.  No interesting use of ground slope (except arguably on the greens)  No interesting use of the ground game.  Rough as the main hazard throughout.  The strategy was not so much strategy but more a reward for a long tee shot.  These aren't comments on the aesthetic, but on the golf.  And while some credit him with quirk I see none whatsoever.  It is all exactly as it is on the cad.

Also Kalen,  you have said a few times that given a choice between manufactured and fun on the one had and minimalistic and boring on the other you would take the former.   I would too if that was the actual choice, but when we are talking about really good or great courses, I don't think we ought to have to make that decision.  Again Rock Creek is a good example.  It does not seem to be overly manufactured, and every single shot is a thrill.  Never a slog even on foot for 36.  

But that being said,  I disagree that we are talking about manufactured and fun at Black Rock.  Where is the intrigue?  Where is the quirk?  What is left to discover after 10 rounds or even 1 round?  

This is really my only beef with your comments on BR.  I get its not your style but don't see why you feel the need to go out of your way to slam it again and again and again.  And even though you may disagree with GD and where they placed it, I would bet you agree with most of the other courses that GD has on its top 100 list, so they must be doing something right?

I'll bet I disagree with more than you would imagine.  And with no disrespect meant to any individual raters, if Golf Digest is doing anything right it is despite the methodology, not because of it.  

P.S.  Kennecot Copper Mine, the largest in the world is only 20 minutes from my house as well.

Interesting.  I thought the world's largest copper mine was in Chile.   At one point there was photograph of Butte in the Guinness Book of World's Records under the heading "Richest Hill on Earth."  Then the hill became what was once the largest open pit mine on Earth.  Now it is just one of the largest hazardous waste sites on Earth.   But maybe we could do a whole Engh course with open pit mines as his green sites?   Sluice Box Fairways and Open Pit Green Sites.   It he builds strip mined driving ranges at least we'll have a consistent theme.  



__________________________________________________

David,
I wonder if Engh appeals to low handicaps (I have no idea what your game is like) that have a chance to attempt some of the heroic shot options that are present on the par fives and occasionally on other holes. I can see how short hitters wouldn't care for them as much as I do because playing station to station eliminates the strategy that the long hitter can attempt. I know you mentioned that before, but the "heroic" aspect of Engh's designs is something I like that you didn't seem to care for.

I think his courses may appeal to better golfers who also happen to be long hitters (I've heard that this is Engh's game.)   But I don't think we should judge golf courses by their appeal to a narrow range of golfers.  Is it really a strategic course is the strategy is more about how far you can hit your tee shot than anything else?   And where is the risk element on this first shot anyway?   It is just blast away, and if you want blast away again.   Meanwhile the other 95% of golfers slog it around.  Great architecture challenges and interests a wide variety of golfers, not just those who drive it 300+.

As Kalen mentioned, I like how Engh often uses five par threes and five par fives--it seems to create additional variety when compared to courses that have as many as 12 par fours.

To my mind, variety is more a factor of the shots one is hitting, the lies, the challenges, the choices.  I see very little of this type of variety at Black Rock.  It is all about hitting it down the sluice box and then hitting it again.

[Andy Troeger]

To my mind, variety is more a factor of the shots one is hitting, the lies, the challenges, the choices.  I see very little of this type of variety at Black Rock.  It is all about hitting it down the sluice box and then hitting it again.

David,
One of my favorite sayings is that what we see depends mainly on what we're looking for. I see a great many different challenges and choices at Black Rock. That you don't see it doesn't mean its not there.

[Bill Gayne]

Stonehouse in Toano Virginia. A Strantz course that I think opened as a top 100 course in America and might have one a best new prize.

[Matt_Ward]

I find it so amusing that people can extrapolate from one course and then broad brush a designer to make some generalized comment(s) about that person's capacity to design interesting and challenging layouts for a wide spectrum of players. Jim Engh's style has certainly evolved and his recent works have demonstarted that in my mind.

Places like Four Mile Ranch in Canon City, CO is one example -- Harmony just south of Fiort Collins is another. It would help matters if people would place in some sort of context their findings. I'm not really keen when people brand a style on an architect because they have only played one or two layouts from that person's hand.

Even his earlier works -- Blackstone in Peroia, AZ is solid -- ditto, of course, the rightful fanfare that Lakota Canyon Ranch has received --although I do respect the detailed and fair critique that Jim Franklin has provided.

I also love when people throw Rock Creek into the mix -- the layout in Montana is truly one of the finest courses inthe USA and when thrown into the mix -- the issue is not whether other courses can rise to the standard of Rock Creek -- but can such courses still be worthy of one's time and attention to play them when in the area. Rock Creek is a solid 9 on the Doak scale for me -- if a course happens to be a 6,7 or 8 that doesn't mean that such courses are dogfood or completely lacking in any real merit.

Look, let's be a bit more honest -- some people are driven by the name of the person designing a course. If "X" person designs it then the feeling going in from some folks will be that "S" course must then be a wonderful layout. Of course, these same folks will quickly fire back that that is not the case and on and on it goes. Name brands work in the regular consumer world -- golf architecture is not that different.

One other thing -- those who like Black Rock are not then becoming defenders of what Digest has done. I like BR but I don't see the course being the 27th best in the USA. There are other examples I could easily insert into the mix as well -- many of which are far worse than what BR offers I might add from the ones I have played and a number of them are "classic" type courses that have been hanging in the ratings for far too long simply because of their collective years being opened. The age of a course has little to do with its qualities and sometime people on this board have amnesia on that front.

I do agree that courses should not be judged to their wherewithal to attract only certain type players or those capable in playing one particular shot. The better Jim Engh designed layouts provide a platform for a wider range of players and their overall capabiltiies are judged with that in mind. I base that conclusion on having played a fair sampling of his work (15) and feel that early elements which were true have now been tempered in a number of most recent cases.

Of course -- I am making the assumption that minds are open in recognizing that distinct possibility.

[DMoriarty]

To my mind, variety is more a factor of the shots one is hitting, the lies, the challenges, the choices.  I see very little of this type of variety at Black Rock.  It is all about hitting it down the sluice box and then hitting it again.

David,
One of my favorite sayings is that what we see depends mainly on what we're looking for. I see a great many different challenges and choices at Black Rock. That you don't see it doesn't mean its not there.

And that you see them doesn't mean that they would be there for a different caliber of golfer.  For example, didn't you just say that some of the challenges really applied more to the big hitter?
_________________________________________________

I find it so amusing that people can extrapolate from one course and then broad brush a designer to make some generalized comment(s) about that person's capacity to design interesting and challenging layouts for a wide spectrum of players. Jim Engh's style has certainly evolved and his recent works have demonstarted that in my mind.

Matt,  As usual you are off on your own planet here.   I haven't said a word about any other course but Black Rock.  That you feel the need to repeatedly cite what you view Engh's growth and improvement as a designer tells me that deep down you agree that Black Rock isn't all that good. 

Besides, the only ones here claiming he uses templates from course to course (as opposed to templates within the same course, like at Black Rock) are those DEFENDING Black Rock and Engh.   If his supporters disagree with you here, maybe you ought to reconsider your position.

I also love when people throw Rock Creek into the mix -- the layout in Montana is truly one of the finest courses inthe USA and when thrown into the mix -- the issue is not whether other courses can rise to the standard of Rock Creek -- but can such courses still be worthy of one's time and attention to play them when in the area. Rock Creek is a solid 9 on the Doak scale for me -- if a course happens to be a 6,7 or 8 that doesn't mean that such courses are dogfood or completely lacking in any real merit.

Throwing Rock Creek into the mix is reasonable.   We have given supposed mountain courses a big break when it comes to our expectations and Rock Creek shows us that we need not.  Plus, in terms of the West, these courses are almost neighbors, and given Black Rock's extraordinary rating, the comparison is inevitable.  But I am talking about extraordinary architecture.  Not courses you might play if you are in the area and don't mind cart ball or a concave, overly manufactured course in an otherwise nice setting.   

Look, let's be a bit more honest -- some people are driven by the name of the person designing a course. If "X" person designs it then the feeling going in from some folks will be that "S" course must then be a wonderful layout. Of course, these same folks will quickly fire back that that is not the case and on and on it goes. Name brands work in the regular consumer world -- golf architecture is not that different.

What are you talking about?   Rock Creek is excellent no matter who designed it.  And visa versa for Black Rock.

[Kalen Braley]

David,

If you're up to doing a hole by hole analysis of Black Rock, I'd be willing to go thru each one and describe what I saw, what decisions I made while playing, and why I liked or disliked each hole.  I certainly didn't find it boring, even if some of the green complexes were reptitive.  As for discovery I would be just as engaged in exploring BR as I would be on any other top notch course.

P.S.  I'm not even close to a long baller, and I played from the long tees with Andy and Jim and I had a blast even if a couple of holes beat me up.

P.P.S.  I do in fact have courses like Pacific Dunes, RCCC, and Wine Valley higher on my favs list as I tend to enjoy naturalistic and fun courses the most!! 

[Ben Sims]

To stay with the C & C theme, Saguaro is in the same boat.

Chris,

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Saguaro is special for what it's not.  I loved the way it interacted with the ground.  And what you would call boring, I called understated and well designed.  The desert golf genre didn't need another We-Ko-Pa Cholla or Troon North Monument.  So it's not Bandon Trails or Friars Head, so what.  It provided new playability to desert golf.  And it that role, it performs beautifully.

[Andy Troeger]

David,
Both Kalen and a member that joined us for the back nine enjoyed the course immensely despite not being anywhere near a long hitter. The member who knew the course better than any of the rest of us loved the 16th as well despite being able to hit a drive about 200 yards. Just because the holes are interesting for the long bomber doesn't mean there aren't options for everyone else.

[Matt_Ward]

David:

Excuse me -- as usuall for you -- again you decide to insert words into my mouth and anyone else that differs with you.

Black Rock is a fine golf course and I would certainly recommend it for those who want to play a different style / presentation course.

You say "deep down" I don't feel that Black Rock "isn't all that good (course)" Rubbish.

I simply said it's not my pick to be 27th best in the USA. Got it now.

The course has plenty of solid holes and I'd be more than happy to go into detail -- likely I have written such elements before on previous threads. David -- you are the guy who threw BR under the bus in its entirety. You see nothing worthwhile about the course.

You then throw Rock Creek into the discussion and say Black Rock doesn't match up to that stellar layout. No foolin ! Rock Creek is one of the finest golf courses in the USA from the ones I have played. The standard isn't whether BR is at the Rock Creek level -- but whether BR has design elements that are special and worthy of play and even repeat play.

David, FYI -- all architects should try to evolve in their overall work. To keep on playing the same version of the same type of course gets old real fast. Plenty of the classic type courses have this theme but many on this board have no issue with that. So be it -- preferences can be quite narrow and I respect that. However, people who can have a much wider view will certainly see quality contributions from the manner by which Engh has evolved. Evolution in thinking for me shows real growth and understanding. Dogmatic preferences are clearly your prerogative. If you should play any other Engh course I'd be interested in your comments to see how such course(s) stack up against Black Rock. I'm assuming you have such an open mind to that possibility.