How often do you play "average" architecture?

[Michael Huber]

I played today for the first time in about a month in a half, and it was at a a cheap course with greens fees of about $20 for 18 holes.  Obviously the course wasnt the most grandest of places, but quite frankly the I love the course for sentimental reasons.  Plus, there is somethign that is enjoyable about blasting a drive without recourse and then hit a wedge in.  Every course played does not have to be a architectual giant. 

With that said, I was curious to see how often the rest of the treehouses played at a local, affordable course that is about a slope of 110 and less than 6200 or so from the tips?  Once every few rounds?  Often? Never?  Does anyone else enjoy just being able to go out and play and not stress about bunkers and rough and hazards? 

[David_Elvins]

Michael,

I think you are making a bit of a generalisation here.  

On Saturday I paid $20 to play a par 69 course of about 5500 yards.   I loved it because some of the architecture was actually very good.  

A lot of cheap courses can have strong architecture, jsut like a lot of poor courses can have poor architecture.  In particular if you look past the fact that a short 'muni' course doesnt test every club in the bag, all you really need for good architectural value is interesting greens.  And any course can have that, but sometimes you miss it if you aren't looking. 

[Sean Eidson]

I do this about once per year, and it's often because I'm there for "sentimental" reasons.  For instance, last year I played Lions Municipal in Austin (Muny for those who know it).  I was playing with my Dad, Uncle, and brother in law.  They all know how to swing a club, but each play once a year or less.  

We played better ball of the three of them against my ball and it was a really fun match.  I played from the back (maybe 6000 yards) and they played from the whites.  The course was very firm and fast, without many hazzards.  They were more or less able to scratch out a bogey or better among them and everyone had a great time.  I had plenty of challenge to hit good shots and make putts and they didn't have to grind out a 9 or 10 when their partners were on the green.

I think there's a virtue in these courses in that they provide an accessible, affordable, enjoyable round for people who are new to the game or only get out a few times a year.  As proof of that, we spent $71 in prime time for four of us to play (two walking, two riding).

All that said, I don't seek these courses out to play for myself and will go back to the furthest tees if I have to in order to get a slope rating that approaches 120.

[John Moore II]

Sounds like my normal round. I can rarely afford (well, not exactly, I just don't LIKE to pay more than $50 for a round of golf. It just irritates me to spend that much) to play golf courses that are real architectural marvels. I think it makes you appreciate really good courses when you normally see 'just average' golf courses.

[Michael Huber]

Michael,

I think you are making a bit of a generalisation here.  

On Saturday I paid $20 to play a par 69 course of about 5500 yards.   I loved it because some of the architecture was actually very good.  

A lot of cheap courses can have strong architecture, jsut like a lot of poor courses can have poor architecture.  In particular if you look past the fact that a short 'muni' course doesnt test every club in the bag, all you really need for good architectural value is interesting greens.  And any course can have that, but sometimes you miss it if you aren't looking. 

Haha, yeah there is no question I am making a bigtime generalization here.  There is no question that you can find some seriously interesting holes on affordable golf courses.  Im painting with a broad brush here, I know, but a lot of quirk is kept around instead of plowed through when a course is built on a budget.

[Garland Bayley]

Slope 110 is not indicative of an "average" course. I would guess it to be indicative of freeway golf. Straight back and forth fairways with nothing of interest along the way. I actually think you have to search a bit to find courses with such a lack of interest to them. Hardly average. Perhaps a Doak 1.

EDIT: I guess I forgot to answer the real question. I play an average course 2 to 3 times per week year round. The operative definition of average here is a Doak 3.

[Rich Goodale]

My home club, Aberdour, is a below average course by any objective measure.  Par 67, 5424 yards from the tips (5096 from the daily tees), USGA slope of 118.  I play it more than any club, probably 50 times a year--30 competitive rounds, 10 with my wife and 10 by my own, later in the day or early in the morning.  I play another 50+ rounds a year at a total of 25-30 other courses.

Of all the courses I play fairly regularly, Aberdour is the hardest one on which to maintain a mid-single figure handicap, and one of the most beautiful to walk.  The architecture is not great, but there is not one hole on the course that is not interesting to play.

The more "great" courses I play the more I think they are highly over-rated compared to the average ones that I also play, particularly on a value for money (and time) basis

[Sean_A]

My home club, Aberdour, is a below average course by any objective measure.  Par 67, 5424 yards from the tips (5096 from the daily tees), USGA slope of 118.  I play it more than any club, probably 50 times a year--30 competitive rounds, 10 with my wife and 10 by my own, later in the day or early in the morning.  I play another 50+ rounds a year at a total of 25-30 other courses.

Of all the courses I play fairly regularly, Aberdour is the hardest one on which to maintain a mid-single figure handicap, and one of the most beautiful to walk.  The architecture is not great, but there is not one hole on the course that is not interesting to play.

The more "great" courses I play the more I think they are highly over-rated compared to the average ones that I also play, particularly on a value for money (and time) basis

Rihc

It doesn't sound like Aberdour is average!  Though I do agree that there are a load of courses not too far off in quality compared to the big guns that are still plenty good enough and good value for it. 

As for me, I don't think I play very many average courses in a year.  Certainly less than a handful of courses and games.  I purposely avoid them except for special reasons because though cheap, they are not good value. 

Ciao

[Jud_T]

In the states it seems, at least near me, that there aren't that many courses below 120 slope, even town munis, certainly not near 110.  And they're all 6500 yards +.  It would be nice if there were more options.  It would certainly help promote youth golf and the economics of the game.  But I think the vast majority of golf is played on "average" courses, perhaps even by a lot of folks lurking here.  The percentage of the golfing public who's home course is top notch, public or private, is miniscule...This is why things like this site are so important.  If a bit of GCA knowledge and taste is disseminated it can only help the game at all levels.  I'm shocked how average to poor most courses are, public and private, particularly in the states, and particularly those built in the last 50 years...Usually this is due to too little property, feeling the need to have a par 72 layout (god forbid you don't have exactly 4 par 3s and 4 par 5s), overambition and the "augusta" effect, but just as often its poor design, dictated by the developer and/or architect...There's nothing wrong with muni golf, my guess is in this economy, with the exception of a handful of big names or clubs in a few exclusive suburbs, those are the only courses that aren't really struggling...

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:

The last time I played golf at home it was at a little nine-hole course at Northport Point ... a very simple, short layout, although my associates built a bunch of bunkers out there a few years ago to give it some character.  I think I scored worse than at Riviera or SFGC on my recent trip -- and not just against the course rating, actually worse overall.  I just didn't focus as well as on a famous course.

[Kalen Braley]

Michael,

How often one does this probably in large part depends on where they live.  Here in SLC while there is nothing under $20 in the 18 hole range, just about everything else is in the under $35 category. All of my golf is very inexpensive and many courses are good quality layouts.  I've never spent more than $50 for a round of public golf here in nothern Utah and that includes some very good tracks like Thanksgiving Point, South Mountain, Hobble Creek, WingPointe, TalonsCove, Bonneville, Soldier Hollow, The Hideout, etc.

[Eric_Terhorst]

 In my experience a low slope rating and low green fees can be indicative of many things but don't guarantee boredom--for example, a short course in which the bunkers have never been installed can have a low rating, and can have lower green fees because of the lower maintenance costs.  Consider Spring Valley, the old Langford that's been featured here many times.  From the back tees, it's 6354, slope 119, rating 70.1.  It has 3 superb par 3s and 4 par 4s that are better than some at the famous Langford up at Lawsonia, even without the bunkers.  Fee $23 all day on the weekend, play dawn til dusk.

Go ahead and move up to the white tees--5,968yds, 68.3 115.  Especially if the pins are set in the most challenging locations, I'd bet most of us would struggle to get within 8 shots of our projected handicap score.

You can't know what the slope rating indicates until you play a course, but if all the elitists stay away after seeing a low slope rating and greens fee on a course's web site, that'll free up tee times for the rest of us....

[Tom_Doak]

There is nothing wrong with a low course rating and/or a low slope.  North Berwick (West) would probably have both.

[Garland Bayley]

There is nothing wrong with a low course rating and/or a low slope.  North Berwick (West) would probably have both.

Rating and slope go up and down in a strong correlation with length. I suspect that a course rated 72 with a slope of 110 (if possible) would be quite a boring affair. That rating would indicate a fairly lengthly course, whereas that low a slope would indicate nothing was there but perhaps flat fairways, flat greens, and next to no rough.

EDIT: Just to make clear, I think a low rating and a low slope would not be an indicator of any problem.

[Evan Fleisher]

I played today for the first time in about a month in a half, and it was at a a cheap course with greens fees of about $20 for 18 holes.  Obviously the course wasnt the most grandest of places, but quite frankly the I love the course for sentimental reasons.  Plus, there is somethign that is enjoyable about blasting a drive without recourse and then hit a wedge in.  Every course played does not have to be a architectual giant. 

With that said, I was curious to see how often the rest of the treehouses played at a local, affordable course that is about a slope of 110 and less than 6200 or so from the tips?  Once every few rounds?  Often? Never?  Does anyone else enjoy just being able to go out and play and not stress about bunkers and rough and hazards? 

Did just that yesterday with a (new) fellow GCA'r...Shawn Arlia.  Conditions here in the Cleveland area are deteriorating (weather-wise), but it was glorious just to get out, meet a fellow crazy, and spend 3.5 hours walking and chatting while we played.  The quality of the course (and the golf for that matter!) was less important to me than the experience of friendship and being outside.

Sure, its great to play on "above average" courses when the time/opportunity arises...but to me just getting out to play can often mean more than the course itself.

[mike_malone]

  Hardly ever do I experience "average" twice at the same course.I won't go back. My friends are good at finding very good architecture/cost courses which I get to play.

[Mike_Young]

I think some might be surprised at "the average course"  If we divide 16000 courses by 2 ten the average will have 8000 courses better than itself and 8000 worse.....hmmmm....if any of us play a course that is at least one of the top 100 in our state then we are well above average...
Any of you guys ever played those courses where the local dude keeps the grease under his side of his cart he keeps parked at the course....and every time he hits driver he greases the face....you talk about less spin...and no slice....
I've even seen one where the greens were mowed with a Jake two cycle rotary mower that had roller welded on front and back.....

[Adam Clayman]

I'm positive you can not correlate numbers based on the rating formula to the quality of architecture. Especially, If a high S/R implies an abundance of weak elements/features. i.e. ponds, trees and rough.

Eric, "elitist" doesn't quite capture it. But your gist is excellent.

[Carl Nichols]

Life's too short to play bad golf courses and drink cheap beer. 

[Actually, since I'd rather play golf than not, I'll play golf just about anywhere . . .  but since I have a limited number of rounds I can play, I'll always choose the better (and usually pricier) place if there's a choice.]

[Mark_Rowlinson]

In my experience of having played perhaps 1,000 courses in the UK there are far fewer poor average courses in the UK than there are good average courses, if you can cope with my non-mathematical definition of average. There are some really terrible courses, some which are poorly set up and some which are as dull as ditchwater, but of the pre-WWII courses it is very rare that there will not be two or three holes even on an otherwise uninteresting course that you would never tire of playing. But, as I keep saying, there is a whole raft of courses which might be ranked from 250-750 in the nation which are a sheer joy to play. Few of these will be as cheap as $20 - even Seascale and Silloth, two of the best-value courses in the country are more than that. But there are still many courses in the £20-30 range which can give great pleasure - Halifax, Shipley and Crosland Heath, for instance, all of which have been featured on GCA with a photo essay.

[Jud_T]

Mark, 

this brings up an interesting point, perhaps worthy of it's own discussion...I would contend that the average course in the U.S. is far worse than the average course in the U.K.  My guess is this is due to the fact that there are more courses here built after the golden age of GCA.  Or are we Yanks simply the ignorant clowns that many have always contended?

[Garland Bayley]

Life's too short to spend extra time traveling to above average courses when you can play the average course next door.
 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jud,
Speak for yourself. 

We have 6 times as many courses in the U.S., we can do 'average'.

[Mark Pearce]

My home course scored a 3 in the Confidential Guide, so I guess I play "average golf" 50-60 times a year.  Having said which, if that's average golf, I'm happy with average.

Have I mentioned before that in my opinion Tom Doak got North East England all wrong?

[Andrew Mitchell]

My home course scored a 3 in the Confidential Guide, so I guess I play "average golf" 50-60 times a year.  Having said which, if that's average golf, I'm happy with average.

Have I mentioned before that in my opinion Tom Doak got North East England all wrong?

My home course isn't in the Confidential Guide but I suspect (based on Tom's ranking of similar courses in Yorkshire) it would be a 3 or 4. Like you Mark I'm therefore playing average architecture most of the year.

I do vaguely recollect you mentioning once about Doak getting all of NE England wrong