What are we suckers for?

[Bill_McBride]

I am a sucker for greens that are benched into a hillside.  Colt comes to mind. 

[Jason Thurman]

I think a lot of us are suckers for half-par holes that fall on the easy side - short 4s and reachable 5s. There's a fine line between a hole being fun because it's strategically interesting and a hole being fun because you get to putt for birdie regularly.

Personally, I've started to go the other way. I like half par holes that fall on the difficult side. I suspect that there's also a fine line between a hole being good because it requires well-thought and strategic play, and a hole being good because it's fun to pure a long iron and beat your opponent by two strokes. I'm especially a sucker for long par 3s.

[Steven Blake]

I am a sucker for firm & fast conditions. I cannot get enough ball roll!! Something about seeing the ball roll along the ground.

I am also a sucker for "sexy" bunkers.  Good examples are some of the bunkers at Rivera (how they used to look), the fairway bunker at #10 at Augusta, Royal County Downs furry bunkers, anything MacRaynor/Langford, and the beautiful works of art performed by C&C or Renaissance golf.

Steve Blake

[Dwight Phelps]

Walkability.

If two courses are otherwise equal, and one is more walkable than the other, I'll end up playing the more walkable track more often than not.

[Sean_A]

Get the conditioning right on a good course and it will be a match for any great course.   

Absolutely spot on in my view (surprise, surprise eh Sean?!). You start with the turf. Eveything else is secondary.

+2, +3 and +4

Why then do we criticize the great unwashed when they evaluate a course based on its condition ?

Because the "great unwashed" like courses slow and sloppy.  Additionally, the course has to be good for conditioning to make much of an impact and by good I was thinking Doak 5-6. 

Ciao 

[Rees Milikin]

Hidden gems...aka cheap muni's that have some history and decent design.

[Paul Gray]

Get the conditioning right on a good course and it will be a match for any great course.   

Absolutely spot on in my view (surprise, surprise eh Sean?!). You start with the turf. Eveything else is secondary.

+2, +3 and +4

Why then do we criticize the great unwashed when they evaluate a course based on its condition ?

Because they don't actually rate a course on condition, they rate it on appearance.

Just think about it for a moment. I spent last summer listening to people tell me the course was in a bad condition because the fairways were brown. So, one after another I tried to get them to realise that what they were describing weren't actually negative conditions but just an appearance their eyes had picked up on.

Time and again, when asked to reconsider what they had subconsciously swallowed from the industry at large......

"How were the conditions to play on though?"

"Actually, it was lovely out there."

It's really just old news to us but debunk the myth that good golf looks green and suddenly seventy five year old ladies begin to realise that they enjoy being able to run the ball along the ground.

[Bill_McBride]

Hidden gems...aka cheap muni's that have some history and decent design.

I played a course in NW Phoenix that definitely falls in this category - the 500 Club.   It gets that name from the nearby Arizona Speedway.  Very fun course, no housing, fun holes that meander up into the foothills.   Pretty reasonable for high season in Phoenix.  And a few walkers. 

[Stephen Britton]

Low mown turf all the way to a bunkers edge....

[Matthew Petersen]

Hidden gems...aka cheap muni's that have some history and decent design.

I played a course in NW Phoenix that definitely falls in this category - the 500 Club.   It gets that name from the nearby Arizona Speedway.  Very fun course, no housing, fun holes that meander up into the foothills.   Pretty reasonable for high season in Phoenix.  And a few walkers. 

I live pretty close, and like 500 Club a lot. But it's not named for the speedway (which is way down on the south side of town). One of the original owners is Tom Sneva, an Indy 500 winner. The name and logo come from him.

[Rich Goodale]

elevated greens

downhll punchbowl greens (e.g. 16 NGLA, 8 Dornoch)

[Mike Hendren]

Perhaps sucker wasn't the correct word.  I was thinking more of elements that dupe us into thinking the architecture is better than it is.

Carry on.

Bogey

[Joe Hancock]

Perhaps sucker wasn't the correct word.  I was thinking more of elements that dupe us into thinking the architecture is better than it is.

Carry on.

Bogey

That nullifies my previous answers.

I'm not smart enough to be duped. In the right company, I'll have fun anywhere.

Joe

[BCowan]

Walkability.

If two courses are otherwise equal, and one is more walkable than the other, I'll end up playing the more walkable track more often than not.

+1

[BHoover]

Walkability.

If two courses are otherwise equal, and one is more walkable than the other, I'll end up playing the more walkable track more often than not.

+1

Not sure I understand this.  What would be an example of two courses that are "otherwise equal"?  How is it possible for golf courses to be equal?  It's entirely subjective, so I think the premise is flawed.  The only way that two courses would be otherwise equal would for them to be exact replicas, with one that allows walking and another that is not.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for walking and I'd rather walk than ride, but I'm not sure it's possible to say that two courses are otherwise equal based solely on walkability.

[BCowan]

seriously?  for example two GD 4 star courses (one that allows walking and one that doesn't) or two Doak 5's.  

[BHoover]

seriously?  for example two GD 4 star courses (one that allows walking and one that doesn't) or two Doak 5's.  

Those are subjective rankings.  That doesn't necessarily mean they are "otherwise equal"...and I don't speak Doak code.  I'm asking for a specific example.

[Matthew Sander]

seriously?  for example two GD 4 star courses (one that allows walking and one that doesn't) or two Doak 5's.  

Those are subjective rankings.  That doesn't necessarily mean they are "otherwise equal"...and I don't speak Doak code.  I'm asking for a specific example.

I think what Brian is getting at (please correct me if I am wrong Brian) is that no two courses, regardless of their GD stars or Doak scores, provide the same experience. That is especially so if they are two courses you haven't seen before.

[BHoover]

seriously?  for example two GD 4 star courses (one that allows walking and one that doesn't) or two Doak 5's.  

Those are subjective rankings.  That doesn't necessarily mean they are "otherwise equal"...and I don't speak Doak code.  I'm asking for a specific example.

I think what Brian is getting at (please correct me if I am wrong Brian) is that no two courses, regardless of their GD stars or Doak scores, provide the same experience. That is especially so if they are two courses you haven't seen before.

That's pretty much my point--no two courses provide the same experience.  I just don't see how you can say that courses are otherwise equal, certainly not based solely on something so subjective as rankings or whatever the Doak code may be.

[BCowan]

The answer would be subjective.  Dwight was the one that brought it up.  Let say that SS Blue was cart only and Red allowed walking.  Dwight and I are going to play the Red course. 

[BHoover]

The answer would be subjective.  Dwight was the one that brought it up.  Let say that SS Blue was cart only and Red allowed walking.  Dwight and I are going to play the Red course. 

I wasn't singling you out.  I just saw that you agreed with Dwight's post.  I'm also not trying to be a pain in the ass.  I just don't see how two courses can be considered otherwise equal, unless you accept that it's truly a subjective standard.  Fair enough.

[jeffwarne]

Hidden gems...aka cheap muni's that have some history and decent design.

I played a course in NW Phoenix that definitely falls in this category - the 500 Club.   It gets that name from the nearby Arizona Speedway.  Very fun course, no housing, fun holes that meander up into the foothills.   Pretty reasonable for high season in Phoenix.  And a few walkers. 

Just played Encanto in Phoenix-charming old Bell course-good set of interesting greens-firm and fast conditions
flat , yet interesting-easily walkable
$22 to walk or ride   after 3 pm
Played a foursome-myself, low hdcp amateur, 16 hdcp and a 30-played in 2:50
Next day-myself, a 16, a 30, and a beginner-2:55 hrs
really all the golf I need

[Matthew Sander]

Perhaps sucker wasn't the correct word.  I was thinking more of elements that dupe us into thinking the architecture is better than it is.

Carry on.

Bogey

Bogey,

I think Peter touched on my weakness earlier in the thread. I can be a sucker for a cool visual, even if there is no there there. I'm not talking about waterfalls or gleaming white sand, but rather a unique landform, green site, etc. The result is usually good golf, but occasionally only an illusion or missed opportunity.

[Mark Pritchett]

seriously?  for example two GD 4 star courses (one that allows walking and one that doesn't) or two Doak 5's.  

Those are subjective rankings.  That doesn't necessarily mean they are "otherwise equal"...and I don't speak Doak code.  I'm asking for a specific example.

My guess is Ben means if he views two courses as being of similar quality (in his opinion) and one course does not allow walking and the other does, he will choose the walking course.  Seems reasonable to me.