[Dan Herrmann]

For me it's drainage.  It's a science that we never discuss, but course is doomed to fail if the architect doesn't get it right.

[Keith Doleshel]

Good point Dan.  I live in Northern California, where the weather is pretty good year round, but it is amazing how some courses here are pretty close to unplayable during the winter months.  It is almost as if drainage was an afterthought when those courses were built.  I imagine improved drainage techniques have come about since a lot of those courses were constructed, but still there seems to be little effort to improve it at many places.  I know its expensive, but the product offered at courses which have poor drainage is subpar at best.

[Ian Andrew]

Grassing Lines

They have the biggest impact on how a course plays, more than bunkers.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

How about quality of the rater experience?

[Mac Plumart]

Enjoyment by the masses.

[Mark Saltzman]

Grassing Lines

They have the biggest impact on how a course plays, more than bunkers.

+1.

[Ben Sims]

Enjoyment by the masses.

Stephanie Meyer has sold a ton of books and the Twilight Saga is an unabashed hit.  Does that mean it is better literature than something by F. Scott Fitzgerald? 

The masses aren't always right.  The market doesn't always dictate the best.  Popularity by the masses is just as shallow a concept as it was in middle school.

[Mac Plumart]

Not if you are building a business, Ben.

[Ben Sims]

Not if you are building a business, Ben.

Darn, I thought we were talking about course attributes.

[Mac Plumart]

Who interacts with the attributes of a golf course?

Why are golf courses built?

Who are golf courses built for?  If it isn't the masses, then your course will, at best, struggle to survive.

Therefore, my answer to the question of "What is the most under-rated course attribute on this site" is "Enjoyment for the masses."

If you don't agree, that is fine.  But you don't have to be a sophmoric jerk while voicing your difference of opinion...or do you?

[Dan Herrmann]

Mac, today, most courses are built to make a profit, so think your comment is correct.

[cary lichtenstein]

eye candy and golf carts

[Tim Nugent]

Hot beer cart girls

[Ben Sims]

Who interacts with the attributes of a golf course?

Why are golf courses built?

Who are golf courses built for?  If it isn't the masses, then your course will, at best, struggle to survive.

Therefore, my answer to the question of "What is the most under-rated course attribute on this site" is "Enjoyment for the masses."

If you don't agree, that is fine.  But you don't have to be a sophmoric jerk while voicing your difference of opinion...or do you?

Mac,

I don't know what you're upset about.  This is called debate.  Sarcasm and humor works to a point.  Anyway, we digress.  

The OP asked what course attributes are underrated.  I made an argument against your statement that "enjoyment by the masses" wasn't a course attribute.  You further cemented my point that confirming that popularity is a business issue, not a course issue.  

So, to reiterate.  Popularity means nothing to me.  Ballyneal nearly went under.  Yet it is the second best course I have ever seen behind NGLA.  So in my argument, the masses are woefully under educated when it comes to good golf.  Sheep follow mag rankings, buddy's opinions, etc. just like they believe everything on FoxNews and MSNBC.  Popularity is not a course attribute, it is a business attribute.  
 
I'll use a Dan King tactic.

1.  "Will it live?" is not the end question in the world of today.  I can assure you that some of the courses of mine that have survived are inferior to High Pointe or Beechtree, which were relatively affordable.  Survival is a more complicated question than (quality architecture / price) ... there are all sorts of other factors including location, competition, debt, management skill, etc.  -Tom Doak

[Mac Plumart]

Now that is a solid response.  Thanks, Ben.

I'm not 100% sure how to do what Dan King does.  But nevertheless, here is my response to what Tom said on the thread you quoted from...

1.  "Will it live?" is not the end question in the world of today.  I can assure you that some of the courses of mine that have survived are inferior to High Pointe or Beechtree, which were relatively affordable.  Survival is a more complicated question than (quality architecture / price) ... there are all sorts of other factors including location, competition, debt, management skill, etc.

Tom...I totally understand the complexity of the question.  In fact, I analyze aspects of this question every day...that is the business I'm in.  I disagree with you that "Will it live?" is not the end question in the world of today.  And there is no question that architecture is not the only aspect that determines if a course will "live" or not.

To your point on ego and money driving people to build golf courses, I agree.  At its core, people with this mindset just might be the reason I wanted to start this thread as those people might not get the point of golf.

But to your last sentence..."However, if you can try to create a great course WITHOUT spending more than the competition, maybe that will work."

I think you may have absolutley hit the nail on the head.  In fact, what ways can people get this done?

With that, I'm off to play some golf. 

 

[Sean Leary]

Fast greens....A green on the fast side makes a lot more greens more interesting than when they are slow than vice versa....

[Ally Mcintosh]

Another one for grassing lines...

[John Kirk]

I had all morning on the golf course to think about it.

The most underrated attribute is walkability, specifically, the quality of the course walk.

[RJ_Daley]

I'm also in the grassing lines camp, and add turf species and cultivar selection, in harmony with a suitable and compatible maintenance meld.

Maybe that points to the talent of the Super, as an underrated attribute- if that is an attribute and not a decision management factor.

[Phil McDade]

I'd agree on drainage -- rarely discussed, and little understood, it is one of those things that's hardly noticed when done well and can ruin a hole when done poorly.

[Bart Bradley]

I think this group under-rates ROUTING.  Far too often, it seems that we get focused on pictures of holes but not how they connect together.  Several on this site praise Tobacco Road, for example, but the back nine routing is a mess.

For me, the two most important criteria to determine great golf are ROUTING and the GREEN COMPLEXES. 

Bart

[jim_lewis]

Agree with drainage and routing:

Placement and depth of bunkers.

recoverability

[Joe_Tucholski]

My vote goes to general course conditioning. 

It makes sense as the site is about the architecture, but whether most people want to admit it or not a course needs to be in good condition to be considered “great.”

I appreciate there are threads about the local courses run by a farmer in the fly over states and threads about the hidden gems.  That being said I feel it’s safe to say there are numerous people who would not visit (or at least would not think as highly of) a course where the tees are torn up, the greens have numerous ball marks, the divots in the fairways are not filled, and other general conditioning is not at a high standard.

[Michael George]

Enjoyment by the masses.

Stay hot Mac.  You are 2 for 2.  This site discounts successful golf courses sometimes with "most golfers do not understand good golf."      

I think part and parcel with that is the other attributes of a club other than the golf course.  A great club with great people is really important and rarely discussed here.  For example, there are several golf courses in northeast Ohio that I enjoy more than my club's course, but I honestly wouldn't belong to any of them over my club.  Just don't need to deal with the "high society" issues that really hinders a lot of places.

[David_Elvins]

The importance of great architecture's ability to challenge the best players.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()