Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on July 22, 2012, 11:17:25 AM
-
on the ocean ?
I'm not enamored with Spanish Bay, but I know that others like it.
What about bad courses on bays or lakes, are there any bad one's ?
-
Of course there are - what does one have to do with the other? For example many American resort courses in FL or HI.
-
I'm not too pleased with Sandpiper. A great property that was not best used.
-
Of course there are - what does one have to do with the other? For example many American resort courses in FL or HI.
Kyle,
Could you name the bad courses on the water in FL ?
-
Of course there are - what does one have to do with the other? For example many American resort courses in FL or HI.
Kyle,
Could you name the bad courses on the water in FL ?
This one looks like a waste of time...
http://www.dunesgolfsanibel.com/golf/
-
The one in Rockland or Rockport Maine at Samoset is a wasted opportunity with some very weird holes both on and off the water.Very disjointed and forgetful
-
I'm not a fan of Bay Harbor up in Michigan.
-
Are any of those courses genuinely bad? Or are they just missed opportunities or poor designs given the property?
I can think of plenty of poor designs on good properties, but the resulting course is generally still better than average overall simply due to the boost it gets from a good location.
Bay Harbor, for instance, may be a missed opportunity to create a Top 30 course, but isn't it still a borderline Top 100 Modern?
-
Pat, I do not think there is a bad golf course anywhere. One can find good in all golf courses. I mean your boy Rees tries hard to do really bad ones. But there are a few moments worthy of the game even on his courses.
-
There are lots of bad courses on bays and lakes.
-
There are lots of bad courses on bays and lakes.
Sam,
Could you identify them and tell us if you've played them ?
Kyle,
Have you played Sanibel ?
-
on the ocean...?
There are many. Including 4 within about 8 miles of each other in Sydney... Bondi, Randwick, the Coast and St. Michaels. Considering NSW, right next door to St. Michaels, is currently ranked in the top 40 in the world indicates the potential that is wasted there.
Bondi is a lost cause, but the Coast and Randwick could be combined and re-made into a half decent course and St., Michaels needs an Ogilvy/Clayton makeover in the worst way.
-
Bodega Harbo(u)r
-
There are lots of bad courses on bays and lakes.
Sam,
Could you identify them and tell us if you've played them ?
Kyle,
Have you played Sanibel ?
Bad golf courses I've played on bays, Northshore Country Club in Portland, Texas is the first that comes to mind. It's a Von Hagge/Devlin on Corpus Christi Bay, the holes on the bay are not very good, including a par 5 that almost played like 3 islands with your tee shot, 2nd, and green.
As for bad courses I've played on lakes do you really want me to go through each one and give you a description?
-
I generally dislike this question. I think it depends on what a golf course aspires to be. My Dad only played golf because he loved me. He rarely played without me. When he did he went to one of the many "Mom and Pop" courses that dot the MI landscape. One was Oyler GC. On Fridays he could play 9 holes for $5. The course is laid out in an old orchard and some of the holes are so narrow carrying a golf bag was dangerous because of the trees it might hit. The greens were tiny and seldom fit the shot required. Some guy just laid it out on his farm. My Dad loved the place. The owners were nice and generous. They gave a break to junior golfers and seniors could walk it easily because it was flat. As a course it is dreadful. As a place of refuge it is great.
On the other hand I played the Nicklaus course at Hualalai on the Big Island last summer. It aspires to be a tournament course for the Champions Tour. After 9 holes all I wanted to do was leave the course. If I weren't playing with my wife, I'd have gone to the beach. Nicklaus put in tees and nondescript greens, left some lava that must be avoided and called it strategy. It is a dreadful excuse for a course.
Which course is worse? I'll leave it up to you.
-
Just because water tugs at your primordial heart strings, does not make the proximity to it, a great golf course.
Turn it around and ask if the great courses on the water are that great because of the architecture, or because people are so easily manipulated into feeling good about it, because it's on the water.
-
The one in Rockland or Rockport Maine at Samoset is a wasted opportunity with some very weird holes both on and off the water.Very disjointed and forgetful
Not too mention the kamikaze attacks on every piece of exposed skin when you get back in the woods... took two weeks for my ankles to return to normal shape.
-
Take away the views and I have Old Head down as a very average golf course. I am a sucker for views and the experience but even those could not redeem Old Head in my eyes. Is it bad? Well, no - but it's the worst course on an ocean I have played.
Exactly my take.
I played it when it was pretty new(1999).It was the first course I played in Ireland and I kept thinking that there must be more to links golf than this.
-
Anthony,
That coastline in Sydney is unquestionably the greatest waste of good land for golf in the world. It is staggering to think the land is so good and the golf is that bad.
It takes bad golf on the ocean to a new level.
-
Yes, at least one...
Half Moon Bay Golf Links – The Ocean Course, Arthur Hills (1997)
I am not a golf course architect and don't pretend to be one, but I would have to think that site had more potential than what we got.
-
.
-
Trump National in Palos Verdes is awful and right on the ocean. Spanish Bay is pretty poor those ESA's really hinder the ability to recover even when you can see and could hit your golf ball.
Sandpiper isn't a bad golf course, I think it a good golf course, it didn't however use the land to the best of its potential, so it certainly underachieved with the terrain that was there.
-
Mike C and Anthony B,
I have been going out to play The Coast with my dad a bit lately because it's cheap and is a pleasant walk, and every time I can't help but shake my head at what could be built on that land that comprises St Mick's, The Coast and Randwick.
The three courses measure a combined 300 acres. There is a pinch point between church and beach, which separates 10-17 at The Coast from the rest of the course -- that is a major impediment to a coherent routing, but with that as a border of two 18-hole courses you'd have about 110 acres on what's now Randwick and 11-17 of The Coast and about 190 acres on the parcel that houses the rest of The Coast and all of St Mick's.
The three courses have a combined 3.5km (two miles) of clifftop absolute seaside land, most of which already houses golf holes, so no impediments in that sense.
Given the location and terrain, it's hard to believe someone can't get two brilliant golf courses built in place of three fairly lamentable ones. Randwick's membership is extremely aged and I know times are somewhat difficult for the other two clubs. I wonder if the climate now doesn't make it a greater possibility than when Norman tried it some years back?
This is the site for those unfamiliar (https://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=-33.983118,151.250925&aq=&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=56.629449,78.662109&vpsrc=0&t=h&ie=UTF8&z=17)
-
Great call RE: Randwick and the Coast. Talk about underachieving.
Still, I reckon I would enjoy playing The Coast every day over The Cut, which is IMO, a pretty awful course and waste of good land.
-
This one looks like a waste of time...
http://www.dunesgolfsanibel.com/golf/
I've never seen so much water on a golf course map. Ermahgerd.
(http://www.dunesgolfsanibel.com/images/overview2.jpg)
-
In California you have Trump National Los Angeles which if not a "bad" course is definitely not a good one. Monarch Beach Golf Links is pretty poor.
David Kelly,
Pete Dye designed that course, which had the unfortunate incident where a landslide altered the course.
Have you played the course, pre and post landslide.
Would you tell us how Pete Dye designed a "bad" golf course ?
-
This one looks like a waste of time...
Kyle & Matt,
Have you played this course ?
Doesn't Pebble Beach have nine (9) holes on the water ?
http://www.dunesgolfsanibel.com/golf/
I've never seen so much water on a golf course map. Ermahgerd.
(http://www.dunesgolfsanibel.com/images/overview2.jpg)
-
This one looks like a waste of time...
Kyle & Matt,
Have you played this course ?
Doesn't Pebble Beach have nine (9) holes on the water ?
I only count 8 ( 4,5,7,8,9,10,17,18) did I miss one?
http://www.dunesgolfsanibel.com/golf/
I've never seen so much water on a golf course map. Ermahgerd.
(http://www.dunesgolfsanibel.com/images/overview2.jpg)
-
This one looks like a waste of time...
Kyle & Matt,
Have you played this course ?
Doesn't Pebble Beach have nine (9) holes on the water ?
I only count 8 ( 4,5,7,8,9,10,17,18) did I miss one?
http://www.dunesgolfsanibel.com/golf/
I've never seen so much water on a golf course map. Ermahgerd.
(http://www.dunesgolfsanibel.com/images/overview2.jpg)
4,5,7,8,9,10,17,18 and #6 fairway
-
Yes, #6 at Pebble Beach very definitely is on the water.
-
.
-
In California you have Trump National Los Angeles which if not a "bad" course is definitely not a good one. Monarch Beach Golf Links is pretty poor.
Pre and post, "if not a bad course is definitely not a good one."
Where did Pete Dye go wrong ?
-
Ocean Trails / Trump
IMO, the green complexes are not at all compatible with the clubs that are being hit into the various holes.
PB,
Yep forgot about that part on the right of 6
-
Kyle & Matt,
Have you played this course ?
Doesn't Pebble Beach have nine (9) holes on the water ?[/b][/size][/color]
http://www.dunesgolfsanibel.com/golf/
Pat,
At some stage it is possible to make a judgement without playing a course. I would be able to tell you that a course with 18 island greens would be bad without having played it, for example.
Likewise, It is reasonable to surmise that a course that has water bounding 18 holes and on 8 of those holes has water bounding both sides of the hole is bad without having to play the course. The fact that Pebble Beach has 9 holes bounded by water is not a relevant comparison, much like a course with 1 island green is not a reasonable reason to build a course with 18 island greens.
-
Ocean Trails / Trump
IMO, the green complexes are not at all compatible with the clubs that are being hit into the various holes.
How so ?
PB,
Yep forgot about that part on the right of 6
-
Pat,
At some stage it is possible to make a judgement without playing a course.
I guess you could make a "judgement" about how a meal tastes based upon how it looks in a poster, or how a woman is in bed based upon a photo of her, but what credibility would you assign to those evaluations ?
Charles Blair Macdonald, on page 295 of "Scotland's Gift" expressed his opinion on your question, in the negative.
I don't see how you can evaluate the play of a course without ever seeing it.
I would be able to tell you that a course with 18 island greens would be bad without having played it, for example.
That's a predisposed hypothetical where the assumption predetermines the outcome.
A hypothetical extreme doesn't make your case..
Likewise, It is reasonable to surmise that a course that has water bounding 18 holes and on 8 of those holes has water bounding both sides of the hole is bad without having to play the course.
I don't think it is reasonable since you don't know if the water actually comes into play.
After all you're just looking at a schematic which may or may not be accurate.
The fact that Pebble Beach has 9 holes bounded by water is not a relevant comparison,
Sure it is.
It shows that water flanking nine holes doesn't diminish the greatness of a course.
much like a course with 1 island green is not a reasonable reason to build a course with 18 island greens.
Again, another extreme hypothetical.
If each of the holes at PB had water on both sides, would the quality of each of the holes be that much worse ?
Would it depend upon whether the water is in or out of play ?
And by how much ?
Hypotheticals are worthless when evaluating a golf course.
-
I guess you could make a "judgement" about how a meal tastes based upon how it looks in a poster, or how a woman is in bed based upon a photo of her, but what credibility would you assign to those evaluations ?
If you need to eat either of the following to make an evaluation on the above, then you are an inefficient user of time.
(http://fitzaang.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/corn-dog-pizza.jpg)
(http://www.geogum.com/media/uploaded/posts/565e36b82c19cf76eb759b224428e7b7.jpg)
-
I guess you could make a "judgement" about how a meal tastes based upon how it looks in a poster, or how a woman is in bed based upon a photo of her, but what credibility would you assign to those evaluations ?
If you need to eat either of the following to make an evaluation on the above, then you are an inefficient user of time.
(http://fitzaang.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/corn-dog-pizza.jpg)
(http://www.geogum.com/media/uploaded/posts/565e36b82c19cf76eb759b224428e7b7.jpg)
David:
BRAVO. My whole family is laughing!
Yes, I agree...some things don't require the full experience to make a judgement.
Hoping your well...wishing I were back in Melbourne.
Bart
-
I guess you could make a "judgement" about how a meal tastes based upon how it looks in a poster, or how a woman is in bed based upon a photo of her, but what credibility would you assign to those evaluations ?
If you need to eat either of the following to make an evaluation on the above, then you are an inefficient user of time.
While neither of the two pictures below may not seem appetizing to you, there are those, not me, who would find them very appealing.
But, again, you've gone to an extreme.
The fact is, you don't know what the meal in the picture tastes like, you can only guess.
And that's what most who have never seen a golf course do when they attempt to evaluate it.
Reread page 295 of "Scotland's Gift"
(http://fitzaang.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/corn-dog-pizza.jpg)
(http://www.geogum.com/media/uploaded/posts/565e36b82c19cf76eb759b224428e7b7.jpg)
-
But, again, you've gone to an extreme.
Extreme examples are the only relevant examples because the golf course discussed is extreme in it's design. Water in play on every hole is extreme. Water in play on both sides of 8 holes is extreme.
Pebble Beach, by contrast, is no a relevant example because water in play on 9 holes is not extreme.
(http://www.dunesgolfsanibel.com/images/overview2.jpg)
-
But, again, you've gone to an extreme.
Extreme examples are the only relevant examples because the golf course discussed is extreme in it's design. Water in play on every hole is extreme. Water in play on both sides of 8 holes is extreme.
How do you know ?
You're only looking at a schematic.
You don't know how the course plays or how wide the corridors of play are.
Pebble Beach, by contrast, is no a relevant example because water in play on 9 holes is not extreme.
But, it is, because the water is really within the corridors of play.
(http://www.dunesgolfsanibel.com/images/overview2.jpg)
-
I can only opine on the first nine at Trump National on CA coast. It is on a piece of land that never should have been used for golf. And the design is boring back and forth on narrow terraces with outrageous contrived water features (not the Pacific). I feigned injury and happily left after 9.
-
I wish the typical golf course were as inventive as that Corn Dog Pizza. We'd have even more to talk about here.
-
In California you have Trump National Los Angeles which if not a "bad" course is definitely not a good one. Monarch Beach Golf Links is pretty poor.
Pre and post, "if not a bad course is definitely not a good one."
Where did Pete Dye go wrong ?
Where did he go wrong?
The land was really not suited for golf. The course resembles the terrace farming used in Italy.
The playing corridors are not wide enough and each hole has a concrete curbed cart path that runs the entire length of one side of the hole (usually the higher side) and is often in play.
The first hole has an incredibly annoying fake water feature that drowns out the Pacific Ocean.
Recovery shots are impossible if the fairway is missed by more than a few yards in places.
In addition to the stupid water feature four or five unnatural lakes were added to the property and are really out of place.
The course is unwalkable.
With the exception of the 1st hole all of the holes run either north or south which makes for a very boring routing.
Most of the holes play relatively straight.
The green complexes are pretty redundant, most of the greens are turned at around a 45 degree angle in order to make straight holes seem less straight.
Trump did have people come in and do some additional work on some green complexes to put more variety and interest in them but Dye's original green complexes were pretty boring.
The green contours are unnatural and often don't tie in to the surrounding land.
The course feels very unnatural and contrived.
-
There are lots of bad courses on bays and lakes.
Sam,
Could you identify them and tell us if you've played them ?
Kyle,
Have you played Sanibel ?
No - I have better things to do. Have you?
-
Kyle,
I don't offer evaluations of courses I've never played and Sanibel is one of them.
-
Kyle,
I don't offer evaluations of courses I've never played and Sanibel is one of them.
Do you believe that there can be bad courses on the water? If not, perhaps you should make a visit to Sanibel a priority this winter.
-
Bad courses on the ocean:
1. Mahogany Run (St Thomas)
2. Buccaneer GC (St Croix)
3. Mullet Bay (St. Maarten) perhaps only for condition... & politics
As for The Dunes on Sanibel I would say it falls under the question posed earlier... what is the intent? The intent there was to cram a public golf course onto a small island with environmental restrictions abound. For a good part of the "florida crowd" it is perfectly serviceable though I would not play it... head to The Bubble Room instead. The private club on Sanibel (Sanctuary) is not very good either. Heck the little course at South Seas Plantation on Captiva is the most fun of the lot.
-
Pat:
What is your definition of "a bad golf course"?
-
Pat:
What is your definition of "a bad golf course"?
And people complain that the quality of the topics and questions have gone down hill over the years !
-
Pat:
What is your definition of "a bad golf course"?
And people complain that the quality of the topics and questions have gone down hill over the years !
Yeah Carl, don't ask for a definition of a bad golf course, stick to scintillating, high quality questions like are there bad golf courses on the ocean.
-
David Kelly,
52 replies and 1,240 views would seem to indicate that the topic/question is more scintillating than most others, or hadn't you noticed those numbers.
Then I reviewed the last thirty (30) pages of topics and noticed that you hadn't contributed any scintillating topic/threads.
In fact, you hadn't contributed any topics/threads, not a single one in over thirty (30) pages.
Then, I went to the contributions section and saw that you haven't contributed a single penny to this site.
Not one measly dollar.
So before you open up your big mouth again, try contributing something to this site, intellectually and financially.
Nothing scintillating mind you, just something interesting enough to garner 1,240+ views and 52+ replies.
And while you're trying to think of something to contribute, you can send Ran a check to help support this site.
A "scintillating" check would be appreciated.
-
Pat,
Speaking for myself, I can say that five (5) of those views of this post are my own, because I am always curious as to what kind of crazy sophism and/or evasion you will implore during the course of a given thread, and with your last response you certainly did not disappoint. You have asked others on this thread to provide a rationale for their answer as to what constitutes a "bad" golf course. It seems fair that you do the same. It would help facilitate the discourse, as opposed to the defensive tirade that you chose to go on.
That notwithstanding, please put me in the camp that says "yes," there is a bad golf course on the ocean, as well as on bays and lakes (I am not going to identify any specific golf course, only answer the original question in the binary format in which it was posed), though I will say that my reasoning is primarily because I do not believe that bodies of water have any inherent impact on the physical structure/architecture of a golf course. The soils and terrain that surround bodies of water may well be conducive to "good" golf, but it is hardly a guarantee. I also believe the concept of "badness" to be such a personal matter that it is difficult to generalize outside of ones own opinion(s). In other words, I'm just not sure what answering this question (even if it was posed better) actually accomplishes. You seem to believe it is important, but won't tell us why.
-
Then, I went to the contributions section and saw that you haven't contributed a single penny to this site.
Not one measly dollar.
Merely a sidebar to this pissing contest,but you shouldn't always assume that all contributors are listed. Some people like to make donations anonymously.
Now back to your regularly scheduled pissing contest.
-
Pat,
At some stage it is possible to make a judgement without playing a course.
I guess you could make a "judgement" about how a meal tastes based upon how it looks in a poster, or how a woman is in bed based upon a photo of her, but what credibility would you assign to those evaluations ?
Charles Blair Macdonald, on page 295 of "Scotland's Gift" expressed his opinion on your question, in the negative.
I don't see how you can evaluate the play of a course without ever seeing it.
I would be able to tell you that a course with 18 island greens would be bad without having played it, for example.
That's a predisposed hypothetical where the assumption predetermines the outcome.
A hypothetical extreme doesn't make your case..
Likewise, It is reasonable to surmise that a course that has water bounding 18 holes and on 8 of those holes has water bounding both sides of the hole is bad without having to play the course.
I don't think it is reasonable since you don't know if the water actually comes into play.
After all you're just looking at a schematic which may or may not be accurate.
Pat's right. The schematic doesn't tell the whole story. The holes not bounded by water on both sides have water on one side and houses on the other.
(http://www.teejaywhy.com/jpegs/DunesGC.jpg)
-
Tom Yost,
Sort of like Pebble Beach ?
-
Pat,
Speaking for myself, I can say that five (5) of those views of this post are my own, because I am always curious as to what kind of crazy sophism and/or evasion you will implore during the course of a given thread, and with your last response you certainly did not disappoint. You have asked others on this thread to provide a rationale for their answer as to what constitutes a "bad" golf course.
Steve,
You seem to think that David Kelly is so inept that he's incapable of speaking for and defending himself.
I'm sure he's more competent than you seem to give him credit for.
If you could read with a scintilla of comprehension you would see that I questioned the evaluations of those who had never played the course/s they were panning. In other cases I inquired as to what made certain courses bad.
It seems fair that you do the same. It would help facilitate the discourse, as opposed to the defensive tirade that you chose to go on.
There was no defensive "tirade", and the use of the word "tirade" is simply your absurd, exaggerated attempt to misrepresent my responses, which were inquisitive in nature. Your rush to defend David Kelly is typical of your responses where you add nothing to the dialogue and topic at hand.
I'm sure you remember your last absurd foray to defend an indefensible position.
As to deciding what's fair, when you initiate a thread, you can decide what is and what isn't fair as the responses roll in. ;D
That notwithstanding, please put me in the camp that says "yes," there is a bad golf course on the ocean, as well as on bays and lakes (I am not going to identify any specific golf course, only answer the original question in the binary format in which it was posed), though I will say that my reasoning is primarily because I do not believe that bodies of water have any inherent impact on the physical structure/architecture of a golf course.
That's interesting. I wonder how many architects would consider an inland site the equal of an waterfront site ?
Have you ever been to and played Sebonack ? Cypress Point ? Pebble Beach ?
Does the ocean/bay add nothing to the play and architecture ?
Ask those who have played Sebonack what they thought as they approached the 11th, 12th and 15th greens, or how they felt when they teed off at #'s 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 17 and 18. Or how nervous they were on their approach to # 1 or their tee shot on # 18.
How many times have you heard, on this site, "if Pebble Beach was in Kansas" ?
The soils and terrain that surround bodies of water may well be conducive to "good" golf, but it is hardly a guarantee.
I never said it was, why are you implying that I did ?
I also believe the concept of "badness" to be such a personal matter that it is difficult to generalize outside of ones own opinion(s).
I would tend to agree with that, although I do believe that there are certain standards that may be undeniable.
In other words, I'm just not sure what answering this question (even if it was posed better) actually accomplishes.
What does answering any question on any thread on this website accomplish ?
It's a forum, a "discussion" group, nothing more.
You seem to believe it is important, but won't tell us why.
It's a topic of discussion, nothing more.
If you're not interested in the topic, don't read it, and more importantly, don't respond to it.