Let-Down Links

[Mike Hendren]

Rephrasing the "Reputation vs. Reality" thread:

In what reknowned course were you disappointed and why?

I'll go first:  Shoal Creek.  The architecture did not match the aura and championship history.  Very low profile fairways and bunkers for Nicklaus contrasted with surprisingly built-up putting surfaces.  The vaunted risk/reward par fives in reality were fairly routine three-shotters.  

Mike

[Jeff Fortson]

Atlantic & The Bridge


Both are five star, ultra-exclusive private clubs on the east end of Long Island with perfect course conditions, great staffs, and huge initiation fees and dues.  The only difference between the two is that The Bridge is on a more interesting piece of property with better views, in my opinion.  

Both of these clubs have everything going for them except for giving me a memorable golfing experience.  I can recall a few holes on each course but only one hole on each course etched itself in my brain.  The rest of the holes seem to blend into each other in a most boring way.  I hate to say it, but the courses offer very little strategy and TOO MUCH containment.  I can recall one hole looking like the valley on the Death Star that Luke Skywalker flew down in Star Wars.  I guess that is MEMORABLE but not ENJOYABLE.  

Maybe I should restate my opinion.  Both courses were beautiful, unenjoyable  (from a playing standpoint), and far from engaging in strategic terms, IMHO.


Jeff F.

[Mark_F]

Royal Birkdale

This has to be the most arse-numbingly boring big-name course imaginable.

12, 15, 16 are okay, but the greens (in 1996) were pretty uninteresting, the scrub on the dunes feral, and all the holes seem the same - around the abse of a dune.

And they have the gall to charge 75 quid for the privilege.

[Mike Hendren]

Is my thread this bad or is this a taboo subject?

Curious Mike

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike Hendren:

Nothing wrong with the topic.

My biggest letdown came years ago at Firestone. My host took me over to the North course because he felt that would be much more enjoyable to play than the more famous South.

Later we toured the South. He was right. The North was a pleasant surprise and the famous South seemed quite boring, even the especially famous 16th.

[George Pazin]

My biggest letdown was Mystic Rock, Pete Dye's course at Nemacolin Woodlands where the 84 Lumber Classic was held earlier this year. My readings left me with the impression that Pete's courses were playable from the correct tees. I guess they think I should be playing from the first set of tees. This was probably a maintenance issue. The rough was the worst I've ever seen - I lost several tee shots that rolled slightly off the fairway.

Curiously, one of my friends attended the 84 Classic & said the rough looked rather short & harmless (I was having fun in NM so I can't confirm from personal observation).

[Jeff Fortson]

Mike,

Unfortunately, there are few people that frequent this website that are willing to publicly criticize a course or architect.  Even though I am in the golf business, I feel a greater obligation to share my thoughts on course design above protecting my name.  If someone or a body of people want to disassociate themselves from someone who is willing to speak their mind on course architecture, then who would want to work for them anyway.

I use this website to learn about GCA, opinions of others about GCA, and to share my own opinions about GCA.  If that keeps me from getting a job or making friends with people, fine.  I wouldn't want to work with people or be friends with those that would hold my opinions against me in reference to GCA.  

I think people are afraid to to hurt others feelings, which is understandable.  I can accept architects not saying much about others work as that would be "bad-form" and slightly unprofessional.  I think if we criticize courses or architects without getting personal then I think it can be very constructive.  It is when people get personal that it gets out of control.

Lighten up folks, this isn't the Security Council of the UN.  


Jeff F.

[Jeff Goldman]

Jeff F.

There was a thread on this subject a couple of years ago that got a lot of responses - even Ran chimed in.  Unfortunately, beyond a vague recollection of Muirfield, Winged Foot East, and Troon, I can't remember what got mentioned a lot.  

As for me, I haven't played many renowned courses, and wasn't disappointed in those I did play.  The biggest disappointment this year was Brown Deer Park in Milwaukee.  I played it when I was a kid for a pittance, and now it costs $85 for a nonresident because of the GMO (at certain times you can play meadow-valleys at BWR for less).  They also killed the par 3 5th green, which used to be perched up with a huge back to front tilt.  Now, a nondescript flat green to the right of the original with little interest or trouble.  Big snobs too now.  Yuck.

Jeff Goldman

[Jeff Goldman]

Come to think of it, I was disappointed at one place - Beverly CC.  Barely missed making it to the top of Heartbreak Hill on 7 (and having the ball run down 40 yards), missed my only decent birdie chance on 8 (with a helpful read from Paul Richards), and scored a crowd pleasing 9 on 18 after trying and failing to get out of the woods with a couple wacks to hit three figures.    The course was tremendous - unbelievable for someone used to Chicago's usual flatland - and the greensites stunning.  My golf was REALLY disappointing.  

Jeff Goldman

[Brian Phillips]

My biggest disappointment is also Royal Birkdale.  The holes are so boring and the greens are very boring.

My biggest dissappointment on a course not played is Muirfield.  I walked the course this year and cannot understand the fuss.  Two of my best mates played it after we walked the course and they said it was worse to play it than to actually walk it.

Brian

[Robert Thompson]

I'd say to date my biggest letdown was Oakland Hills -- interesting greens, but the rest of the course is just a typical parkland layout. Not exciting or well defined -- it simply becomes hard when they grow the rough long for events....

Robert

[Kevin_Reilly]

Relative to expectations (which were high), I was disappointed with the "new" Harding Park.  Reviews in the first month after opening were universally great, but even though I liked what I saw, I couldn't help but wish that more was done with parts of the front nine (3, 4, 8, 9) and back (11, 14, 15, 17).  Each played the same as before, and while the maxim "it ain't broke" surely applies, this was a chance to improve a lot of ordinary holes (all of the above with the exception maybe of 14 and 15 which were good holes already).

Conditioning was also worse than I expected, and I'm sad to say that things have not improved there.  Play has increased (no more 10 minute intervals between tee times when we played last week) and as such the course is showing more wear.  Also, the 4 hour round we played months ago was now 5 hours because groups are no longer metered off the first tee.

So while I'd enjoy playing Harding any time, it is a disappointment compared to what it could have been.  

PS, the Chronicle mentioned that it might be proposed as a US Open site in 2012 or some date like that, and I think that is totally unrealistic....the course is far too short.

[Cory Lewis]

My biggest letdown was easily Tobacco Road in NC.  After playing Caledonia, New Kent, and Stonehouse I was extremelly eager to play the newest Mike Strantz masterpiece.  It was far from a masterpiece as some holes like the 9th bordered on ridiculous.  I thought Strantz had a chance to do something special at Tobacco Road and created a "gimmick" course of a first class nature.

[THuckaby2]

Let downs can only come along with high expectations.  So even courses that turn out to be let-downs aren't typically BAD... they're just not as great as you thought they would be.

So for me, they don't happen often, but they do occur... among those where I've felt let down are:

1. The new Harding Park - I agree completely with Kevin.  They just could have done so much more... Improved conditions are great, but why do I feel we got a ground rule double when a grand slam was possible?

2. Troon North Monument - lots of hype, less substance.

3. Half Moon Bay "Old" course - one neat hole on the ocean, mostly condo-canyon golf for the rest.

TH

[Michael Dugger]

Most of you know what course gets my vote so I won't even bother mentioning it.

[Bob_Huntley]

Muirfield, Muirfiel, Muirfie, muirfl, muirf, muirr......you get my grist.

[S_Salme]

Players who slam Muirfield really have no clue about subtle architecture and substance.  And also what's involved in actually "playing" the course.  They're usually too obsessed with eye candy features found at courses like Kingsbarns and Cypress.  

[RJ_Daley]

I actually can't say I have been let down much.  Either I have really round heals and fall for anything, or I just pre-choose where I want to play well, and have received some great invites...  I guess I'd have to say my biggest let-down was probably Torrey Pines before the renovation in about 1994.  Once I got by the visuals of the setting, I didn't walk away thinking it was all that much.  I haven't played it after Rees Jones' work, but have seen some of it.  That nest of eyecandy stairsteps of bunkers on 13 is not appealing, visually.  But, I do think the appearance of other changes and added playing interest "seems" like an improvement.  I'm thinking I wouldn't be quite as let-down now, with the remodelling.  I sure wouldn't say no to a proposal to play it again.

[Brian Phillips]

Salme,

That's a pretty strong statement.  One of the guys that played Muirfield that I talk about has worked in the golf design business for many years.

The other owns two golf courses in England.

I am working as a golf course architect (not saying I am any good though)

I presume you have played Muirfield, Kingsbarns and Cypress to make such a statement.

Muirfield is very much a 'good' players course and if you are wide or short it is not a good course.  Now Kingsbarns can be enjoyed by my granny...is that not one good sign of a course..

I think Kingsbarns has a hell of a lot of strategy and it is not just an eye candy golf course.  I have not played Cypress but are you implying that Cypress is an eye candy course?

Brian

[S_Salme]

Brian

So your friends own and build golf courses, doesn't mean they can appreciate subtle architecture.

Grannies would prefer Muirfield to Kingbarns, and by a good margin.  Thee walk is much easier and they wouldn't be wild enough to get into the high hay.  Would most grannies like putting those severe greens at Kingsbarns?  (18th!)  I don't think so.

You are wrong about Muirfield being a poor course if you are short or wide.  The mixture of hazard placement makes that statement nonsensical:  cross and wing hazards placed with maximum variety.

My comments about Kingsabarns/Cypress were simply to illustrate that players who diss Muirfield are those that usually only appreciate the obvious spectacular courses.

[THuckaby2]

Muirfield, Muirfiel, Muirfie, muirfl, muirf, muirr......you get my grist.

Bob:  you're just mad because their club is older than yours.  

TH

[John Foley]

Troon North - Too many houses.
Wild Dunes - Too many houses.
Spanish Bay - Enviromentally sensative area's, some very booring holes.
 

[Bob_Huntley]

S.Salme,

You wrote;

 "Players who slam Muirfield really have no clue about subtle architecture and substance.  And also what's involved in actually "playing" the course.  They're usually too obsessed with eye candy features found at courses like Kingsbarns and Cypress."

I am not quite sure who you are, but I did note that you are classified as a new contributor, congratulations on joining a most collegial group.

I cannot say that I find your comment to be accurate or indeed, very polite. How many times have you played the three courses mentioned? Give me an idea so that I can discuss the merits of each and why, in my opinion,one is worthy of my own personal acclamation anf the other not.

[Brian Phillips]

'You are wrong about Muirfield being a poor course if you are short or wide.  The mixture of hazard placement makes that statement nonsensical:  cross and wing hazards placed with maximum variety.'

The first hole requires a carry of 170 yards to just get to the fairway.  We watched a foursomes use ten to fifteen minutes to play from the tee to the fairway...

The rough at Muirfield is ridiculously difficult so if you are playing poorly and you are wide then you are guaranteed to lose a couple of balls...

I agree with you about the cross bunkering.  But it is still a golf course for very good golfers. You can say yes, it was designed to be like that but so was Pine Valley but that is still way way more fun than Muirfield.  Muirfield is very tight.

'Grannies would prefer Muirfield to Kingbarns, and by a good margin.  Thee walk is much easier and they wouldn't be wild enough to get into the high hay.  Would most grannies like putting those severe greens at Kingsbarns?  (18th!)  I don't think so'

Grannies would definately would love to putt on Kingsbarns...I presume you have been to the ladies putting green at TOC?  There is your proof that even crap, old non players love mad greens.  The 18th isn't that bad, the ninth is more undulated.  Didn't realise that undualted greens are bad..?  I agree the walking at Muirfield is easier...

'My comments about Kingsabarns/Cypress were simply to illustrate that players who diss Muirfield are those that usually only appreciate the obvious spectacular courses'

How the hell can you say that.  You don't know me or my pals that played Muirfield.  I wouldn't say that Gullane is spectacular but I prefer it to Muirfield.  

Have you played Muirfield, Kingsbarns or Cypress..?

'So your friends own and build golf courses, doesn't mean they can appreciate subtle architecture.'

And who is say that you know they don't?  

I think I know them better than you do...and they do appreciate subtle architecture.  One of the is Irish and loves links courses and the subtleness of links designs and the other owns a course that is very subtle.

Muirfield is a good course for good players but no one has explained to me what is sooo good about it for the average crappy player.

[Marty Bonnar]

Like Brian, for me there was very little TQ (Tingle Quotient) when we went to visit it. Apart from the two massive holes on 17(?), it seemed rather pedestrian and quite bland actually. (Did I mention I trod in a dog turd also....?)
Compared with many of the other links courses I've seen and played it doesn't even really feel like them. Not the right turf, sounds, smells even. Give me Dunaverty any day....

Martin.