What turns people off to a golf course?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I imagine that being too tough would be the thing that would turn most folks off to a course.  Combine too tough with lack of charm, aesthetics or strategic interest would be the next most likely candidates to do so, no?

Or stated another way, is there any course out there that is considered great that not many people really like?

Can a course that is too difficult for most people to play be considered great?

[Matt Vandelac]

When I play a course that feels like it's obvious the architect was not a golfer or was just trying to be quirky or cute in a effort to be unique I don't go back willingly.

[JMEvensky]

Can a course that is too difficult for most people to play be considered great?

Yes,especially if it was built in the Golden Age.

WFW is too difficult for most,irrespective of tee markers chosen.There's too much precision required--at least for those poor dumb card/pencil schmucks.

However,time and history have given WFW untouchable status (rightly so,IMO).No one could possibly claim that WFW was too difficult to be considered great without being blasted from all sides.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I imagine that being too tough would be the thing that would turn most folks off to a course.  Combine too tough with lack of charm, aesthetics or strategic interest would be the next most likely candidates to do so, no?

Or stated another way, is there any course out there that is considered great that not many people really like?

Can a course that is too difficult for most people to play be considered great?

Jeff- Everyone has different evaluation methods to 'their' greatness. If you look at the worlds best courses they are generally the more difficult ones, so perhaps there is even a case that difficult courses lead to greatness.

Carnoustie is the one that comes to mind that is great but incredibly difficult, I imagine most people like playing it infrequently, but maybe if you lived in Dundee you might choose somewhere else.

[Wade Whitehead]

I don't believe most people care as much about architectural merit as we'd like to think.

Curb appeal (e.g. running on time, nicely-presented shop, decent food at the turn, attractive driving range, and at-least-moderately friendly staff) are just as important to most avid players I know.  As long as the course is in "good" condition, design or strategic interest falls secondary or worse.

I'd play a great design, firm and fast, without a clubhouse or locker room at all.  That makes me plain weird among most of the guys I know.

WW

[RJ_Daley]

For me, it is overly and inconsequentially landscaped grounds that have nothing to do with golf.  I am not a fan of any course that has more emphasis on perfectly cultivated flower landscaped areas at most tees, and along cart paths, and such.  Often, when you peel away all the extra landscape features, you get a bland and lifeless golf course with flat and boring fairways, round and flat greens, and inconsequential bunkers.   Flower boxes, pools of water with water works recylcling the 'plumbing' and walls and rock gardens everywhere is a yawn and a pass it by proposition for me.

Too tough in an obviously tricked up manner, like multiple narrowed corridors bordered by repeated water hazards, and OB or too many trees either from original terrain not grubbed out enough or planted to be aerial hazards are turn offs.  Parade of homes courses generally are a let down, very few are arranged in such a way as to not have endless rooflines be a distraction.  

I rarely dislike or get automatically turned off by courses too hard from a multiple or busy contoured greens or FW aspect, unless too much length AND contour make it consistently near impossible to have a reasonable chance to get to a green in regulation with good play.  The occasional hole along the way where strategy is the well done lay-up is fine with me, just so it isn't hole after hole requiring prudent lay-up.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I don't believe most people care as much about architectural merit as we'd like to think.

Curb appeal (e.g. running on time, nicely-presented shop, decent food at the turn, attractive driving range, and at-least-moderately friendly staff) are just as important to most avid players I know.  As long as the course is in "good" condition, design or strategic interest falls secondary or worse.

I'd play a great design, firm and fast, without a clubhouse or locker room at all.  That makes me plain weird among most of the guys I know.

WW

You are spot on about very few people actually care about the architectural merits, but it has to be a reasonable course. Condition of the course would be the main reason why people choose not to go there, price would be a big factor, people like value. This all assumes it has a good location.

[JC Jones]

I don't believe most people care as much about architectural merit as we'd like to think.

Curb appeal (e.g. running on time, nicely-presented shop, decent food at the turn, attractive driving range, and at-least-moderately friendly staff) are just as important to most avid players I know.  As long as the course is in "good" condition, design or strategic interest falls secondary or worse.

I'd play a great design, firm and fast, without a clubhouse or locker room at all.  That makes me plain weird among most of the guys I know.

WW

Exactly.  Like when I hear people knock Kingsley because of the clubhouse.  So what if it is a double wide, its a world class golf course and thats all that matters.  Personally, I hope they never change it.

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

I know its cliche, but courses such as Pine Valley and Oakmont are unanmouisly considered great despite thier brutal nature to score well.

[John Moore II]

For the majority of golfers, courses need to be fun to play. Reasonably challenging, 'nice' looking and some kind of scenery. They can't be too challenging, or too easy or in poor condition.

But the major turn-offs for golf courses are very difficult scoring conditions, poor turf conditions and just plain boring. I think that generally goes for all courses.

Let me ask this: Oakmont is regarded as exceptionally hard, no? Were any of you to walk up to a course, not knowing anything about reputation or supposed greatness, and shot 10-15 shots higher than you do on your normal course, what would you think? I think few among you would walk off saying "damn, that was a really great course." No, the course beat you down and you'd likely say it was overly difficult and not want to return.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kalen,

I guess the third question in there was a bit off. I know that most famous courses are famous because they have proven difficult. Maybe we should focus on the first two questions.

IMHO, a course like PV offers more respite than Oakmont, and more aesthetics to boot.  Something akin to Oakmont or Carnoustie is a course I think many would tire of - getting beat up hole after hole, with few if any breather holes and average scenery.  I think the average handicap is very low at Oakmont, for good reason. If you can't play, you don't join there.

A few Dick Wilson and RTJ courses are the same - Cog Hill, Firestone, etc. where nearly every shot is a test of accuracy with little respite.

I agree with JohnK above.  I think most players prefer interest to difficulty.  Most people want to shoot within a few strokes of their normal score, even when playing a more famous course.  Granted, a once in a lifetime experience will skew that view a bit, and a golfer probably doesn't think they can figure out a Pine Valley in one try anyway, but they know they won't likely get a second chance.

[John Moore II]

Jeff Brauer: What would people think of Oakmont, Pine Valley, WFW, etc. if they knew nothing of history and didn't really know it was "once-in-a-lifetime?"

[Jerry Kluger]

Jeff: My answer would have been different had I not seen CommonGround GC in the Denver area.  Previously, I believed that most golfers do not like significant contours in the greens or tough angle approach shots but CG changed all that.  It is a municipal course on a fairly flat piece of property but Tom Doak renovated the course and the greens have significant contours and there are demanding strategies to properly play many of the holes, yet the public loves it.  I played it last summer during the week and it was packed - the only problem is that my round took nearly 5 hours.  I don't know if I could play at that pace on a regular basis but if I could get out early it would certainly be enjoyable.  

So now my answer is pace of play can turn off people.  I also believe conditioning can turn off people.(The conditioning at CG was fine.)

[Chuck Brown]

Right.  Pace of play is, I think, the biggest turn-off.

"Difficulty" in and of itself might not be; but courses with lots of possibilities for lost balls, and for forced carries, are the kinds of difficulties that I think are turnoffs.  (See above, re: pace of play.)

And let's be real; "expense" is the biggest turnoff.

I've not said anything new.  How many classic-era architects have already said it; the best designs are ones that challenge the best players and yet leave average players room and an avenue to approach the green?

[John Moore II]

Chuck: if the course was free to play, but took 6 hours and was terribly difficult, would anyone really come to play?

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

I thought about your response and I think you've sort of answered your own question.

Last summer, I played Idaho Club...and while it was hands down the most difficult course i've played, I didn't mind because it was drop dead gorgeous. While I likely wouldn't join the club, if I lived in the area I would make the effort to at least play it a few times a year if I had access. But if it was a tough brute and not aesthitically pleasing, perhaps I would have felt different and never wanted to return.

So perhaps the key is, if you're going to build a beast of a golf course, at least make sure its purdy and has lots of waterfalls!!   

P.S.  I never had so much fun and such a great time losing so many golf balls on a course than I did at the IC!! Of course it probably helped to have had great company too

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

I used to thoroughly enjoy making the trek from Northern NJ to Bethpage and to play the Black. I did that trip endless times with a range of friends and new friends made from playing there.

The issue that curbed my appetite ?

Simple.

The death march to play the place.

When rounds are close to six hours you don't have golf -- you have gridlock.

No golf course is worth that much time to play it. Golf without a steady pace should simply be called FLOG.

[David_Tepper]

1) Long Forced Carries
2) Long Treks From Greens To Tees

[Jeff_Brauer]

This kind of gets into the "every day course" vs the "destination course."  People need an out of the ordinary course to travel long distances to play it.  But, they still want interest and don' like getting beaten up too often.  If a course is too tough, I think they play it once to add it to their list and then look for other new experiences.  I think there is a magic blend in there - like the Bandon courses - that are tough, but actually more interesting than tough.  If they are relentless, then its because of the wind conditions that day, which I think golfers understand.

JKM - I think I answered your question.  The once in a lifetime experience would probably factor in history, I think.  Even then, I think many wouldn't join a club as tough as Oakmont or PV.  Mot golfers want fun, not real tournment challenges.

I think most of us architecture buffs forget how much convenience, expense, and speed of play influence the vast majority of golf round purchases.

Pete Dye once attributed the success of Pinehurst to the fact that you couldn't lose a golf ball there and he is right.  More than difficulty, I think adding the extra expense of a dozen balls to a round is a killer, moreso than three putting 18 greens.

There is that old story about some female members telling the gca that the ninth hole - a par 3 witha  frontal bunker they couldn't carry and was too deep to get out of - ended their round.  The gca said if he had known that, he would have done it on the first hole.  Not PC, of course, and not good gca.  But, it goes to show one unattainable forced carry is enough to stop people from playing a course if they can't make it.

[Jonathan Cummings]

I believe Jimmy Urbina did Common Ground.  It's right in his back yard and Tom was off (mostly in Scotland) during the Common Ground redo.  I had lunch and dinner with Jim last summer and he is quite proud of CG.  JC

[Mac Plumart]

Given the phrasing of the title, I take this to mean what turns the greatest number of people off concerning a golf course...along those lines...


Affordability...

Pace of play...

Course being too difficult or too easy...depending on your personal desires for a particular round.

Conditioning



To elaborate more...

If most people could play a 3 hour round, pay less than $50, shoot a score than brings them pleasure, and not have a putt thrown off line due to a bump on the green...I think they would be happy. 


To elaborate on the score issue...some people want to post a score that is low.  They think they played well and it makes them happy.  HOWEVER some like a challenge.  For instance, a friend of mine plays every new course he visits from the tips.  He is a 3 handicap, so he is very good...but not great.  However, he likes a challenge.  He played Kiawah OCean and Seaside at Sea Island from the tips.  Heavy ocean air 20 to 30 mph winds...scrub it...the tips baby!!!  He usually shoots in the 70's...but not these times.  But we still talk about it.  it brought him pleasure and he can't wait to go back and do better.

So...to each their own.

I peronally like undulations and contours on greens.  I dislike flat table tops.  But that is just me.

Good topic!!!

[Ben Kodadek]

I don't believe most people care as much about architectural merit as we'd like to think.

Curb appeal (e.g. running on time, nicely-presented shop, decent food at the turn, attractive driving range, and at-least-moderately friendly staff) are just as important to most avid players I know.  As long as the course is in "good" condition, design or strategic interest falls secondary or worse.

I'd play a great design, firm and fast, without a clubhouse or locker room at all.  That makes me plain weird among most of the guys I know.

WW

You are spot on about very few people actually care about the architectural merits, but it has to be a reasonable course. Condition of the course would be the main reason why people choose not to go there, price would be a big factor, people like value. This all assumes it has a good location.

Agreed.  On Friday and Saturday, I had a chance to play two golf courses in the Orlando area that I had always heard very good things about: Southern Dunes and Orange County National.  I had tried a number of times to make it out to these courses, but it just never worked for my schedule.  Needless to say, I was excited at the chance to see these two facilities.

Unfortunately, I was let down by both of them.  Strangely enough, everyone else in our group loved them both.  They were both green as could be not only from tee to green, but EVERY blade of grass on the property!  Every single bunker was perfectly maintained (particularily at SD, where bunkers BEHIND tee boxes were raked on a daily basis) and the rough was maintained at the exact same height throughout the property.  

While there were a number of holes that I did enjoy, I couldn't stop thinking about the money being wasted on the appearance of the golf course, while still getting mudballs in the middle of the fairway at OCN.

Therefore, what every other person in my group raved about...I was turned off by.

[Jason Topp]

Things that have made me dislike a course:

1.  Deep rough - I enjoy Hazeltine when the rough is reasonable.  When it grows for a tournament it just reminds me over and over of my limitations as a player.  I already know my limitations.

2.  Narrow courses with OB/water/ or underbrush on both sides - I don't mind narrow courses nearly as much as narrow courses with no hope of a recovery shot.  I do not mind trying to recover from trees as long as they are sparse enough that there is some chance of recovery. 

3.  Courses that require conservative play - I can score well on some tight courses by laying up off the tee all of the time but what fun is that?  I at least want a reasonable option to hit a driver on most holes.

[George Pazin]

I imagine that being too tough would be the thing that would turn most folks off to a course.  Combine too tough with lack of charm, aesthetics or strategic interest would be the next most likely candidates to do so, no?

Or stated another way, is there any course out there that is considered great that not many people really like?

Can a course that is too difficult for most people to play be considered great?

Too tough doesn't always bother me, it depends on HOW it is tough.

[Lyne Morrison]

Jeff, nicely captured it in a nutshell - ‘too tough with lack of charm, aesthetics or strategic interest.’

I think the majority of golfers enjoy an intelligent challenge. Unreasonable forced carries, awkward lay-ups, heavy rough, narrow fairways, lost balls, slow play, difficult to manage bunkers and second-rate green surfaces diminish the overall experience.
.
.
.

terrible coffee does too   : )

Cheers - Lyne