[Peter Pallotta]

JJ:  nothing bothers me more than people who will only go to play or look at ranked courses and not even bother to look at the course across the street as they speed away.  A truly mediocre course is not worth much time, but anything above a 3 on the Doak scale is worth your time and there must be 2000 or 3000 of those in the USA, less than half of which I've seen myself.

Tom makes a great point. And here's a practical example ..

I love The Toronto Golf Club's Colt course, and have been there to study and play it many times over the years. It's highly ranked here, in Canada. For too many years, I was remiss to go across the street to Lakeview - a Herbert Strong design that hosted a couple Canadian Opens in the pre-World War II era and is now a muni owned/operated by the city of Mississauga. What a mistake!

Lakeview's not on any rankings lists, nor is it talked about much in architecture circles. But the course has some of the sportiest holes and coolest greens in Canada. Seriously. In fact, it's an incredible set of greens that compares with any of the best courses up here and should be studied.

I instead used to play Lakeview often when I first took up the game (while staring longingly over at Colt's Toronto club across the street and imagining 3 hour rounds.) And one could argue that, while there are many reasons why for years Lakeview was always packed, one of the reasons was that a whole bunch of so-called "average golfers" who'd never heard of Strong or gca.com and who wouldn't think of studying "architecture" nonetheless knew intuitively that it was a cool and very "sporty" course. 

I've suggested this before, i.e. while the "average golfer" might not have the language/lingo that some of us here do, they can tell when a course does what a course should ideally do, ie. serve and challenge and engage a whole range of golfers and skill sets without beating anyone up.

I still remember how some friends and I -- who sometimes would play much more expensive and well known and modern courses -- would come back to play Lakeview and marvel at the greens, i.e. "man, these are tough greens"...an expression of how surprised we were that this inexpensive "muni" could somehow be better and more interesting than the talked-about CCFAD that were all the rage back then. 

Peter     

[Tom_Doak]

The reason you’re asking this question is because you haven’t played enough courses based on recommendations to know whose opinions you trust and whose you don’t. You’ll never know for sure whether a course is worth your time unless you play it, but most of us don’t have the time and money to play every course we happen across just to see if it surprises us or not. At this stage in your life, it might be worth your time to play a few courses that others have labeled as “mediocre” and see whose opinions you agree with, and whose you don’t.


Over the last few years, I’ve come up with about a dozen guys whose recommendations for where to play and where to avoid I trust. Along the way I played some real clunkers that came highly recommended, and stumbled onto a few courses that I really loved despite hearing criticism beforehand. It’s only through trial-and-error that you can really figure out which recommendations you should pay attention to, and which you should ignore.

The other reason to go, when in doubt, is that you have the potential to add to the discussion that way, by telling the rest of us whether or not there is something redeeming to see at a course we don't discuss much.  That's the thing that bothers me most about the top-100 tourists ... nobody really needs their take on courses that are already in the top 100, and they don't really have much to add, anyway.  It's the people who go see OTHER courses whose opinions add to the discussion.

[Dave Doxey]

 I find it interesting to play a mediocre course and to envision how holes could be improved with even small changes and a low budget.  Add or change a bunker.  Move a tee box.  Change a green contour a bit. Some grading changes or mounding.  Sometimes even just a change in fairway mowing.

 
I've played a couple of courses where I've had ideas, but would have loved to have heard simple improvement suggestions from experienced architects.  That would be a great learning experience, even though in most cases bringing in a consulting architect was well beyond the budget of the place, let along making any changes.  Still it's interesting to be 'course owner for a day'.

[Kalen Braley]

After reading all the responses, it seems like JJ kind of needs to clarify his original post..

As I see it John Mayhugh hit the nail on the head if its travel golf.  If one is going somewhere and only has limited time  there, why not seek out the best courses that you can?  99% of us only have so many bullets and trip budget money to spend.  If I was in a place like New Mexico for a weekend and only had time for two rounds, I wouldn't be seeking out the 3s and 4s, I'd be looking for the best in the area....(with the exception of, if 3s and 4s were all they had)

Conversely, if one is not travelling and just trying to explore their options in a 50 mile radius of where they live, then by all means you'd want to seek out and play everything in the area, even the 2s and 3s.... I've found a handful of fairly hidden, off-the-path quirky gems doing this over the years.

[BCowan]

I love The Toronto Golf Club's Colt course, and have been there to study and play it many times over the years. It's highly ranked here, in Canada. For too many years, I was remiss to go across the street to Lakeview - a Herbert Strong design that hosted a couple Canadian Opens in the pre-World War II era and is now a muni owned/operated by the city of Mississauga. What a mistake!


Lakeview's not on any rankings lists, nor is it talked about much in architecture circles. But the course has some of the sportiest holes and coolest greens in Canada. Seriously. In fact, it's an incredible set of greens that compares with any of the best courses up here and should be studied.- Jeff Mingay

Jeff gave some great points.  I also love to include Genius Loci in my views of courses I like to repeatedly visit.  I bet the course get looked over due to maint. reasons if it is a muni. 


 I find it interesting to play a mediocre course and to envision how holes could be improved with even small changes and a low budget.  Add or change a bunker.  Move a tee box.  Change a green contour a bit. Some grading changes or mounding.  Sometimes even just a change in fairway mowing. Dave Doxey

I couldn't agree more and I'm glad I'm not the only one that plays courses and thinks about these things.  Heck that is why i choose the course for the AAC, because the land was so good and there are only a few tweaks needed to help it out or one could go full boar with it. 
 

[Ben Malach]

I am of the belief that any new experience has value. We are all not blessed to have the Links of Scotland, the shores of Long Island or the windswept dunes of Nebraska in our backyards. But what we do have is lots of little adventures. These courses may not have the best or most interesting greens on every hole. Some holes might be down right boring. But the playing of these course teaches us something every time we go out. I have never come across a golf course without one half decent hole. When I find a course with 3 or 4 I feel a little joy. If the course has 9 or more I am ecstatic. We are treasure hunting. To not take risks and to follow what the books, magazines and raters say does make your life good and easy. But to find and add pages to that book is all the more exciting and better for the game of golf. It is personally why this summer one of my goals is to visit 30-40 courses in western Canada that I have yet to see some are big names like Sagebrush, Capilano and Calgary G&C. Others how ever are smaller such as Taber G&C, Paradise Canyon and Grande Prairie G&C.     


Good luck and happy hunting

[Ian Andrew]

JJ,

I thought about this some more and found a couple of examples to make a point.

1. Tom Doak has always been perplexed by how much both Jim Urbina and I love Western Gailes. Having your own experience and own opinion on this will be very instructive, particularly when you have the chance to question either side for what they love or find underwhelming.

2. I'm crazy for Fraserburg. It does not make many travel lists, but there are a couple of must see holes (IMO) that have influenced me heavily as a designer - they're out of the box ideas

I think you need to go see all the courses you can in a region, even the ones that don't necessarily grab your interest because you never know what will excite you. I made a trip to play all the courses in Wales a few years back and found that as rewarding as all the UK trips I've made (10 now). Southerdown, Pennard, St David's, Aberdovey, etc. are not Top 100 courses, but they sure do teach you lots of small lessons about golf architecture ... and they sure are fun to play

I find more new ideas from obscure links courses than I do rota courses ...

[Sean_A]

Ian


Yes, but, those are not average courses you mention.  Obscure does not equal average.


Ciao

[Ian Andrew]

Sean,

I don't think there is any value in intentionally seeking mediocre courses.

I can't afford to make the time or money to see everything ... so why seek something mediocre
So I tend to begin at the elite because I know I will likely gain more insight from doing so.

But as I've begun to peel into the next layer down and find just as many interesting ideas. But your right, in many ways, they too are still the elite from most people's perspective.

I grew up playing public golf in Ontario and I've played 90% of all courses within three hours of this city, Right down to the lay of the land mom and pop munis. That's close to 180 courses. There's very little of anything I do that draws upon any of those places. You are the sum of your experiences, but some parts are far more valuable to you than others.

It's why I suggested the ones that bring up the greatest discrepancy in opinion being the most valuable experiences to seek - as an alternative to the consensus greats.

[Kalen Braley]

Ian,

With your last statement in that post, are you saying that Bandon Dunes, which has got a wide variety of responses on complete ends of the spectrum...is more interesting to seek out/study than its neighbor Pacific Dunes which is pretty much enjoyed/highly prasied by everyone?

Thanks,

[Matthew Petersen]

Ian hits on one thing which is that even at some place totally out of the way, you never know what you'll find if you don't at least stop to look. Even on an unremarkable 2 surrounded by homes, sometimes you'll find a hole that you'll never forget. Maybe in a great way that makes you wonder how one wonderful hole could be on a  course with 17 stinkers, maybe in a weird way, maybe in a "there's potential here but it's not coming through" way. All of that is interesting.


I don't have the means or opportunity to see the great courses, even in my region. But I love golf courses (in some ways even more than I love golf). I have made an effort to play everywhere I can. I don't play a new course overtime I play, but if it's a feasible option, I love to. I've played a lot of stinkers (but then again it's not like I'm giving up the chance to play a 7 instead), but sometimes I find something fun. I totally think there's value.

[Ian Andrew]

With your last statement in that post, are you saying that Bandon Dunes, which has got a wide variety of responses on complete ends of the spectrum...is more interesting to seek out/study than its neighbor Pacific Dunes which is pretty much enjoyed/highly prasied by everyone?

There's a reason why courses have a strong consensus following ... because they are really fantastic.
Better to see them and try understand why than avoid them ...


So PD over the others.
It's the why that matters the most in figuring things out.
 
If you want polarizing IMO go and play Bandon Trails ...
No hole polarizes more than the short 14th

[Kalen Braley]

With your last statement in that post, are you saying that Bandon Dunes, which has got a wide variety of responses on complete ends of the spectrum...is more interesting to seek out/study than its neighbor Pacific Dunes which is pretty much enjoyed/highly prasied by everyone?

There's a reason why courses have a strong consensus following ... because they are really fantastic.
Better to see them and try understand why than avoid them ...


So PD over the others.
It's the why that matters the most in figuring things out.
 
If you want polarizing IMO go and play Bandon Trails ...
No hole polarizes more than the short 14th

Ian,

I would agree with your last post, I do think PD would be more interesting/valuable to seek out vs BD.

However, it was this specific statement you made from your previous post, that seemed to suggest the opposite:

"It's why I suggested the ones that bring up the greatest discrepancy in opinion being the most valuable experiences to seek - as an alternative to the consensus greats."

Unless I'm just reading that differently.

Thanks,

[Ian Andrew]

We all see a variety of courses before we ever choose to study architecture.
Nobody begins with Augusta or Pinehurst or Merion as their first experience.
So we have some sort of grounding.

We seek the better or best to understand what is possible.
And in most cases - why - the single greatest question that brings us here.

I do think the order of what you see will flavour your opinions on some courses

I do think its better to have a decent understanding before seeing courses that truly begin to push the outside edges on what's acceptable. It helps to understand what they were trying to accomplish. And respect/admire the desire to push rather than play it safe.

My comment was about - don't go seek mediocre because IMO its a complete waste of time.
I assume anyone on here has some grounding and some experience with better courses.

So if your looking to explore further after - seek the one that polarize opinion and form your own.
It will shape you, challenge your beliefs and force you to have an opinion you can back up

That's what I was trying to say with the highlighted quote we are discussing.   

[Peter Pallotta]

Ian - did you ever play Westview, the 27 hole public northeast of Toronto?

It was one of the first courses that I played with any regularity when I took up the game in earnest; and if memory serves it was the first place I had ever consciously encountered "architecture"

If you know the course, you know that it was truly a "home grown course", designed in the 50s by the owner of the land, Pops Nesbitt. And the 2nd hole of one of the 9s (I think it was the Homestead 9 but I may be wrong) took me back the first time I ever saw it, and I thought "this has been designed".

It's a 210 yard Par 3 to what is essentially -- or at least, seemed to me -- a reverse redan.  After I'd played a few much more expensive and highly touted CCFAD, I remember thinking that there were few holes on any of those courses that engaged me/appealed to me as much as that one created by fan/amateur Pops Nesbitt.

Like at Mississauga's Lakeview, which I would've played even more than I did back then except that it was always so busy, a total beginner like me could somehow sense at these modest/less well known courses that something really good was happening design wise

Peter   

[Kalen Braley]

We all see a variety of courses before we ever choose to study architecture.
Nobody begins with Augusta or Pinehurst or Merion as their first experience.
So we have some sort of grounding.

We seek the better or best to understand what is possible.
And in most cases - why - the single greatest question that brings us here.

I do think the order of what you see will flavour your opinions on some courses

I do think its better to have a decent understanding before seeing courses that truly begin to push the outside edges on what's acceptable. It helps to understand what they were trying to accomplish. And respect/admire the desire to push rather than play it safe.

My comment was about - don't go seek mediocre because IMO its a complete waste of time.
I assume anyone on here has some grounding and some experience with better courses.

So if your looking to explore further after - seek the one that polarize opinion and form your own.
It will shape you, challenge your beliefs and force you to have an opinion you can back up

That's what I was trying to say with the highlighted quote we are discussing.

Thanks for the clarification Ian, that makes perfect sense in that context.

Kalen

P.S.  I've certainly seen my fair share of mediocrity.  The course I learned on was the 9 holer at the old Tony Lema in San Leandro.  Back then, you only paid for the first two times around....and you could play for free the rest of the day.  It was fun doing a few 36 hole days!!

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I don't think there is any value in intentionally seeking mediocre courses.

I can't afford to make the time or money to see everything ... so why seek something mediocre
So I tend to begin at the elite because I know I will likely gain more insight from doing so.

But as I've begun to peel into the next layer down and find just as many interesting ideas. But your right, in many ways, they too are still the elite from most people's perspective.

Ian


I concur.  Most people have to be judicious in their choices for whatever reasons.  In the past few years I have come to the conclusion that often times what really separates the best from the next tier down is the grand setting, attractive aesthetics, history/reputation and perhaps a bit better conditioning. Lets face it, people fall heavy for that stuff and their opinion of a place will get a big boost because of this stuff.  All of these are important aspects of the experience, but don't help the design very much from a playing perpspective. There might in truth be one or two holes which swing a course from good to great.  But at least in the UK, this then places more pressure on conditioning to allow the great designs to sing properly. There are some great courses which I have never seen presented properly and in that second class state they are likely only fractionally better than a lot of unheralded courses, but certainly not world beaters as reputations suggest. 


There is a fair share of flotsam and jetsam out there in the back end of rankings and beyond which is extremely interesting and of high quality. Courses which often get over-looked because they don't have the extras and are likely a bit on the short side these days.  I played one such place last fall...Leckford Old. Fascinating course which I only heard of because of Paul Turner. It wouldn't make a top 100 GB&I, but if that sort of list were based solely on what is in the ground, Leckford Old certainly shouldn't be far off top 100.  The list goes on....these are courses which the movers and shakers don't see or if they do see them are often dismissed because they don't alter their top 100 lists. 


Ciao 

[Ian Andrew]

Peter,

Play Lakeview with nothing more than a rescue club.
I did that last time and now everything was in play and the approaches were more interesting with more club.
It allowed me to appreciate what it was like during the Canadian Open.

It is a great course worth anyone's time.


I have played Westview more than a few times, but not for at least thirty years now.
Too long to remember specific holes at this point.

The One's I remember most from those days:
 
Cherry Downs 3rd
Nobleton Lakes 7th
Don Valley's 3rd
Uplands 8th
Pickering's 7th
Georgetown's 15th
IBM's old par 4 13th
Allandale's opener
Lakeview's short 17th
Caledon's 16th
Flemington Park 2nd
Indian Wells 8th
Pheasant Run 4th
Royal Ashburn 16th

I may have  a hole number or two wrong on the last five, but you'll know the holes I mean

[Ian Andrew]

Sean,

I hear you on conditioning.

All I seem to get about Highlands Links is the emails about poor conditioning.
I've seen it and played it in worse conditions than anyone else likely has ... and still enjoyed playing.
It just meant I could use the ground, which I prefer and the greens were really slow.
But it's still a great course worthy of serious architectural reflection.

The well is very deep in the UK, the more I seek, the more joy I find.
I prefer the second tier to the top tier because that eye opening quirky hole is usually found on those courses
That is my quest ... to find those unique solutions

[Sean_A]

Ian


I can appreciate that you have an ulterior motive beyond fun which prompts you to seek out courses heard about on the grapevine.  Perhaps that is why it is easier for you to overlook conditioning...you can see what is meant to happen and deposit that knowledge into your bag of tools. For a guy like me, conditioning matters more because I am only there for fun.  Learning anything is a icing on the cake, but of the cake is crumbling and without sugar, the icing is cold comfort.

Normally, I would rather play a good course in top nick than a great course in ok nick.

Ciao

[BCowan]

Sean,

   I didn't peg u as a maint whore. I think maint level should somewhat be reflected in the greens fee.  I totally agree with Ian , I'm looking for something unique and cool.  I much prefer slow and firm to fast and soft.  Prefer sand/dirt to fancy crushed rock bunkers

[Sean_A]

Sean,

   I didn't peg u as a maint whore. I think maint level should somewhat be reflected in the greens fee.  I totally agree with Ian , I'm looking for something unique and cool.  I much prefer slow and firm to fast and soft.  Prefer sand/dirt to fancy crushed rock bunkers

I am not a maint whore, but I also don't like paying top whack for less than top whack conditioning.  Plus, it is so rare to play a course in great nick that I will take it all day long.  On the designs I like best the conditioning is incredibly important to the function of the design.  Its rare to see a course really humming...in my experience anyway.  Overhwelmingly, its a case of the conditioning is good or decent...acceptable, but also not allowing the design to flourish.  Give me a firm course with true greens at 9-10 and dry, patchy rough with inconsistent lies and I am happy as a pig in shit.


Ciao

[BCowan]

Sean,

   I didn't peg u as a maint whore. I think maint level should somewhat be reflected in the greens fee.  I totally agree with Ian , I'm looking for something unique and cool.  I much prefer slow and firm to fast and soft.  Prefer sand/dirt to fancy crushed rock bunkers

I am not a maint whore, but I also don't like paying top whack for less than top whack conditioning.  Plus, it is so rare to play a course in great nick that I will take it all day long.  On the designs I like best the conditioning is incredibly important to the function of the design.  Its rare to see a course really humming...in my experience anyway.  Overhwelmingly, its a case of the conditioning is good or decent...acceptable, but also not allowing the design to flourish.  Give me a firm course with true greens at 9-10 and dry, patchy rough with inconsistent lies and I am happy as a pig in shit.


Ciao

S,

  You basically have a similar outlook, accept u added the brit flair (nick and whack)  "pig in shit" not sure on that one

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,

what exactly do you mean by 'conditioning'? For me after the strategy of a course comes playing characteristics of the playing surfaces set against value for money. Aesthetics are not relevant.

Jon

[Sean_A]

Jon


Conditioning is mainly how courses are presented...the job Supers do.  Greens, fairways, rough, bunkers, tees...though I mainly care about greens and rough.  Unless the other stuff is terrible it doesn't bother me much...unless I am paying big bucks...then everything should be sorted properly.  Though I spose one could add fairway width, relationship between bunkers and fairways and rough as well...even though these may not be Super decisions.


Aesthetics matter to me because I take notice, but I am not a freak about it.  That said, I appreciate when bunkers look good, interior views are on offer, cut lines make sense or enhance the visual experience. Though, there can certainly be a cross-over of aesthetics also adding to playability.  Green cut lines for instance can make a huge difference as well as look much better...same for fairways.  The more I consider these issues the more I think conditioning, presentation, aesthetics and playability wrap around design to the point where its impossible to separate it all out. The inter-relationship between these aspects of golf courses is very intimate.  When a club gets it all humming its pure magic, very, very rare, but magic.


Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()