I don’t have a picture but I have long felt the 6th hole at Ballybunion may meet the criteria of being both ugly and great.
As for “ugly”, sure, one might argue that the placement of the green so close to the ocean disqualifies it from the ugly category. But, the tee shot basically offers a view of a trailer park. Not exactly very appealing.
Tim, would you say the same thing about the tee shot at 17 at The Old Course, or the general views of the town as you play back towards it?
I get that a "trailer park" is very different from the Auld Grey Toon, but why should the presence of affordable residences for tourists or locals be a demerit on the 6th hole at Ballybunion or the course in general? I reckon no one sniffs at the presence of the Hamilton Grand and its multi-million-pound residences. I haven't played Ballybunion, but I have played Lahinch, whose second hole plays straight at the town, a dense pack of homes. If anything, the homes add a sense of place:
This is a golf course that sits very close to civilization. Would it be a better hole if there were just a hill beyond? I don't think so; in fact, the opposite is more likely.
This is where the discussion of beauty in GCA makes me uneasy. If a subjective judgment of the exterior environment of a golf course can significantly influence judgments of its overall excellence, then I am worried that that tool of evaluation can unfairly disadvantage certain courses.
It's not that the surroundings of a course should never be considered at all. But I think it's important to consider whether we're letting "beauty" create bias.
In terms of on-course features and beauty, I think there is a similar overweighting, especially when it comes to bunkers. This becomes an element of the "groupthink" that has been pondered lately, IMO. Are chunked-out, lacy-edged bunkers inherently more beautiful than what RTJ or Wilson or Muirhead or Fazio or Dye built? My sense is a lot of people would say yes, on the grounds that they look more "natural" than other bunkers. To me, where and how it is situated is much more important.
Stylistic points like that strike me as affirmative choices by the architect(s), which need to be dealt with more than judged. It's an aesthetic corollary to Donald Ross' great line
"Here is the golf hole; play it any way you please." A golfer is entitled to an opinion about how something looks, but it doesn't excuse him or her from the task of trying to play the hole as efficiently as possible.
I also think the over-importance of "beauty" in GCA can take a weapon away from an architect's arsenal. There is a lot of potential intrigue in confronting the golfer on a visual level, potentially via intentional dissonance with the surrounding environment. I think this is why I'm drawn to Pete Dye's work - because it often feels that he intentionally built features - esp. bunkers - about which no one would ever gush, "They look like they've been here forever!" Maybe it's because his course sites were seldom naturally gifted, but I think the times where he leaned into strategies like intimidation and confusion have yielded some of the most stimulating situations I've ever been in on golf courses.
TL;DR - I don't care nearly as much whether or not a golf course is beautiful as I do whether or not it is interesting.