News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2006, 06:24:58 PM »
Ian,

Highway #2 - one of Canada's busiest roadways - is in clear view from a number of holes at Wolf Creek. The property's pretty good, yeah. But the highway definitely downgrades the SETTING.
jeffmingay.com

Jon Spaulding

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2006, 06:26:02 PM »
Ian:

The nuclear plant I was thinking of was right on top of the course... off in the distance is one thing, right there next to you has to be a bit disconcerting, as Geoffrey explained.

Re courses on landfill, we have quite a few here in CA... and while the odor is rarely nice, the scenic views are sometimes not bad at all... there's a fave of some of us NorCals called Shoreline GL that is downright pretty in some parts, going right up against the Bay....

TH

Hey Tom, how about Gleneagles as a decent course in a dangerous setting? If this is a relative scale, I think that would be in the running.....Unless the stories about people getting mugged on the lower holes is a rumor to keep people away.
You'd make a fine little helper. What's your name?

Tom Huckaby

Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #27 on: December 04, 2006, 06:28:31 PM »
Jon - great call re Gleneagles in the dangerous category... it has to be a winner.  Those stories are NOT just rumors.

That being said though, in terms of scenery it's not that bad...


Geoffrey Childs

Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2006, 06:33:18 PM »
Ian:

The nuclear plant I was thinking of was right on top of the course... off in the distance is one thing, right there next to you has to be a bit disconcerting, as Geoffrey explained.

Re courses on landfill, we have quite a few here in CA... and while the odor is rarely nice, the scenic views are sometimes not bad at all... there's a fave of some of us NorCals called Shoreline GL that is downright pretty in some parts, going right up against the Bay....

TH

Huck- Shoreline GL in Palo ALto is the posterchild of this topic.  If you like the smell of methane gas and the feeling that you need to go through a decontamination shower at the end of a round then this is the place for you. Once was enough back when I was living there.

Tom Huckaby

Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2006, 06:43:50 PM »
GC:

I lived in Mountain View for a few years and have played Shoreline a LOT.  Your one round there must have been on a methane release day... It's typically not that bad at all.  It's also a pretty darn good course... John Krystynak plays it a lot more than I do these days, he can attest.

It is built on landfill though, and on those bad days, well... one just tries to stay upwind of the release points.

 ;)

Jay Flemma

Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #30 on: December 04, 2006, 07:04:20 PM »
Adam - Nice catch on the Rawls Course...good one...get you a beer for that one.

Ian and Noel - yes, I stand by my thoughts on Bethpage...its superb routing and low fee - especially for locals - make up for the fact that the terrain is merely average.

Its not the mts of NM or CO, the tall pines of Carolina, the coast, the sand hills, etc...yet it succeeds mightily...

Phil_the_Author

Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #31 on: December 04, 2006, 07:33:33 PM »
Jay,

Sorry, I must ask if you actually have ever walked on Bethpage Black, ESPECIALLY the front nine, after you stated, "yes, I stand by my thoughts on Bethpage...its superb routing and low fee - especially for locals - make up for the fact that the terrain is merely average."

The Red, Blue and Yellow are all on mild terrain, but not the Black.

I really wonder what you think as to the terrain that Pinehurst #2 is built on if you think that the Black's is "merely average."
« Last Edit: December 04, 2006, 07:36:07 PM by Philip Young »

Dave Bourgeois

Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #32 on: December 04, 2006, 07:39:06 PM »
Wow..... Bethpage's setting being average seems like a stretch.  In all the courses you have played I find it hard to believe that you do not have a better example.

The scale of the course alone is very impressive and if you combine that with the lack of housing and rolling landscape you get a winner IMHO. Also, the quality of the other golf at the park when combined with the Black makes the "setting" outstanding. I get a tingly feeling every time I roll up the driveway.

I haven't been to Bayonne, but is it close to many of the industrial areas?  I know the water is an asset, but there is a bunch of unsightly stuff in that neck of the woods.  

Jamey Bryan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #33 on: December 04, 2006, 07:50:54 PM »
East Lake in Atlanta qualifies somewhat.  The land is certainly good, but before Cousins took over and redeveloped the area, there were many muggings on the course.  Friends who were members "back in the days" said they supported machine gun emplacements on the perimeter.....

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #34 on: December 04, 2006, 08:40:29 PM »
I forgot one! Lossiemouth, on the northern coast of Scotland down the road from Nairn, right next to an RAF base, and you have to duck during the flyovers. Good and loud! A regular poster here has visual evidence, I believe.....

Andy Troeger

Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2006, 09:57:22 PM »

Its not the mts of NM or CO, the tall pines of Carolina, the coast, the sand hills, etc...yet it succeeds mightily...

Jay,
I'm guessing you didn't mean it that way, but there are a heck of a lot of GREAT settings for golf courses that are not in any of the locations you mention.

Wayne Freeman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #36 on: December 05, 2006, 01:00:18 AM »
Well it's certainly not the best course in a bad setting, but Liberty National in Jersey City definitely qualifies as the most expensive course in a bad setting.  Costing about 60 mil to complete, it's pretty good, with some really dramatic views of the Statue of Liberty.
   How about Shadow Creek?-  completely manufactured out of flat desert.

Paul Payne

Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #37 on: December 05, 2006, 10:25:14 AM »
I have three votes:

1) I have to agree with Shivas on Harborside. Couldn't pick a worse or more unlikely site, a (toxic?) waste dump in south Chicago. It took one creative pitchman for that one.

2) Greywalls. Stunning views now but before the course NOBODY would have imagined a golf course on that property. I know, I used to hike there.

3) Whislting Straits. Lakeshore yes, but a bland flat industrial tract. Who would have imagined a bumpy quasi-links setting. This could have been a disaster in the wrong hands.


Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #38 on: December 05, 2006, 10:56:27 AM »
Paul,

Interesting that you mention Greywalls. I know of an associate of a well know architect who toured that property years ago. Following his tour, he told the club there's no way a decent golf course could be built over that ground!

I haven't see the course finished, but I understand DeVries proved him wrong!
jeffmingay.com

Greg Tallman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #39 on: December 05, 2006, 11:05:36 AM »
I have mentioned this course before. Would not consider it great but it was a lot of funa and excellent terrain for a course.

Cayacoa CC just outside Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. I don't know of any settings much worse than Santo Domingo.

Jay Flemma

Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #40 on: December 05, 2006, 05:59:31 PM »

Its not the mts of NM or CO, the tall pines of Carolina, the coast, the sand hills, etc...yet it succeeds mightily...

Jay,
I'm guessing you didn't mean it that way, but there are a heck of a lot of GREAT settings for golf courses that are not in any of the locations you mention.

right...what I was saying is that even though sawgrass and bethpage are not in the mts of NM or CO...etc., they still succeed as great designs...

Doug Ralston

Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #41 on: December 05, 2006, 07:22:19 PM »
It seems blatantly obvious. Sand Hills was built on those ugly sand hills! No tress, no water, just scrub and sand and bouncy property. Yet they did quite a creditable job with it. Congrats!

Just think what they could do with a nice mountain and lake site!  ;)

Doug

Kevin Pallier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #42 on: December 05, 2006, 08:31:10 PM »
My home course Wollongong (NSW), is pretty good considering it borders a sewerage treatment works. On the other side it has the ocean - it's a bit of a trade-off...

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #43 on: December 06, 2006, 12:43:05 AM »
Geoffery:

My reference to Seascale was not on the course itself, or the land, but its setting, as Paul's original post wondered. I personally think houses can be a visual detriment to a course, although some very fine courses -- notably WF West and Merion East -- are situated on land where you can airmail a 5-iron into somebody's front lawn/bedroom window.

Would Brora/Dunaverty/Portnoo count since they double as cow pastures? Pennard too?


WF West doesn't have any homes that encroach upon the golf course.  I don't recall any hole on the course where there is any risk of a stray golf ball. I believe the closest home sits well back behind the 3rd green.  The only hole at Merion where the homes are anywhere close is the 7th hole/ 8th tee shot.  

WF East has some homes pretty close--to the right of #1 fairway, right of #5 fairway (I've been in that guy's back yard), #14 to the left the fence for the house is right next to the greenside bunker.

On WF West, #10 its really pretty hard to even see the house behind the green and I don't think too many people air mail that green!  I do think there is a house left of #15 green but overall WF is a beautiful setting.

East Lake in ATlanta is bad--not just the neighborhood which has improved 1000% but the noise from around the course--sirens, music, etc. can still be distracting.

Royal Liverpool isn't a great site--I think I remember seeing some type of industrial area or cranes from a port when I was on holes 8-10 but I can't be certain :P

Royal Porthcawl was near a public beach or resort kind of place.  It wasn't so bad until I spotted a few Welsh ladies crossing the links to get to the beach--I am certain they were not representative of the rest of the ladies in Wales, but, DAMN, they needed some sun!! ;D

Peidmont Driving Club in Atlanta is beautiful and I don't know if this counts, but it is located right near the busiest airport in the US--Hartsfield-Jackson and the constant noise from the planes is unbelievable--I guess you just get numb to it?!  

Bob Jenkins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #44 on: December 06, 2006, 01:02:47 AM »

Mesa Verde Country Club, Costa Mesa, Ca.

Power lines over the 6th hole. Loud and ugly but a really good short par four hole.

One of the typical southern California concrete rivers runs along several holes. Great garbage dump along the edge of the river.

The course, however, is great. Subtle greens, decent length, variety and more. Usually in great conditions. Tony Lema became Champagne Tony at Mesa Verde. Now a high end private club in Orange County. Really high end.

Never thoought you'd ask.

You are welcome.

Bob Jenkins

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:best courses in bad settings
« Reply #45 on: December 06, 2006, 01:22:22 AM »
Not sure this is a good course, but Royal Woodbine in Toronto has to have one of the worst settings.  It's in a river valley (flood plain) with steep 30 foot walls on the side of the valley rising up to industrial areas with factories, warehouses, a brewery, rental car lots, major highways, and hotels all looming over the course.  And, it sits 800 yards or so from the end of runway 24R at the Toronto international airport.  Consequently it's always kind of noisy; and scenic it's not.

But, it's a decent course - tight, watery, and tree lined.  The routing of the course up and down the valley with tees perched on the sides of the valley walls is such that the neighbouring buildings are not usually in danger.