Worst 'Best' Site

[Paul Gray]

To be the ying to Frank's yang, what is the worst site you can think of which has a truly great golf course on it?

[Keith OHalloran]

If it has a truly great course, can the site really be that bad? And if it has a truly great course, would I be qualified to judge the land prior to the course being built?

[Tom_Doak]

My stock answer to this question for years has been Oakmont, mostly because the soils are tough.  The site is steeper than you'd like, and it's not very pretty.  It's certainly the least appealing site of any of the courses that get a 9 or a 10 in my book.


Royal Worlington & Newmarket is unremarkable at first glance, too, but it's sandy and there were indeed some cool features.

[Phil Lipper]

Tom
How about Shadow Creek? Its on what most would view as a bad site, but they threw enough money at it to create a great environment.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom
How about Shadow Creek? Its on what most would view as a bad site, but they threw enough money at it to create a great environment.

Sure, if you're going to count that.  Personally, I think that if you've got an unlimited budget it lends a lot of appeal to the land in question. 

[Josh Tarble]

I have always thought Cape Kidnappers must have been an extremely tough site.  Sure, it's spectacular but seemed like it would have been so hard to put together a cohesive routing. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom
How about Shadow Creek? Its on what most would view as a bad site, but they threw enough money at it to create a great environment.

Sure, if you're going to count that.  Personally, I think that if you've got an unlimited budget it lends a lot of appeal to the land in question. 

Not to mention that every comp ass critic in the world treks to play the course because of its location.  The location of Shadow Creek trumps it's flatness.

[Tom_Doak]

I have always thought Cape Kidnappers must have been an extremely tough site.  Sure, it's spectacular but seemed like it would have been so hard to put together a cohesive routing.

Not at all.  The first time I was out there, it wasn't clear if it would be practical to get across one of the ravines, because we couldn't get past a fenced-off area.  [That was the ground for the 4th green and 5th hole ... turned out it was wide enough to work.]  But most of the place was grazed down by sheep and looked like a golf course.  In fact, four of us [myself, Bruce Hepner, Eric Iverson and Brian Slawnik] PLAYED 15 holes one day just as we were starting the shaping, one of my all-time most fun days of golf.


There are about 13 holes out there where there was no earthmoving at all, just a bit of shaping for the greens.  There were a handful of holes that required major work:  4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, and the first half of the 16th.  The last half of the 7th hole is some of the biggest cut and fill work we've ever done.

[Frank Kim]

Ying,
How about Lido?
 
Yang

[Josh Tarble]

Tom, very interesting.  With all the ravines I never would have guessed that.  Never would have guessed on 7 either, that is certainly one of the more extreme holes out there. 

[Paul Gray]

Ying,
How about Lido?
 
Yang

Dear Yang,


I'm afraid my first hand knowledge of golf in America extends to a driving range in Florida, but thanks for joining my thread. 


Yours Sincerely,


Ying

[Sean_A]

Controversial answer because most wouldn't consider Little Aston a great course...but there you have it.  I think its great and the site is absolutely nothing special.


Ciao

[Ryan Coles]

Sean


Little Aston and a couple of others aside, why does the UK do parkland so badly?

[Jim Nugent]

Winged Foot West has the reputation of a fantastic course on a somewhat ordinary site. 

[Sean_A]

Sean


Little Aston and a couple of others aside, why does the UK do parkland so badly?

Ryan


I think part of the problem is perception.  People think of links first and heathland second when GB&I is on the table.  There are some very good parkland courses such as Little Aston and Blackwell that don't get their due. In the right hands (with people wo are willing to spend money) Blackwell is as good as many of the best US parklands. 


Money....in the US they spend far more on presenting a course...over the course of 20 years this can make a huge difference. 


Another issue is that in reality, most of the heathland courses are really parkland with some heather and better drainage than your average parkland.  Many of the big gun US parkland courses don't have to worry anywhere near as much about drainage because many close in the winter and they have bigger green staff to sort out problems that occur with heavy rain.  So part of the issue of drainage is only a big time headache for courses open 12 months a year in an area which has winter.  I don't think a lot of Americans properly appreciate this.


There are far more parkland courses in the US than in GB&I...the US bound to have far more gooduns.  Plus, in the US the parkland courses are the championship courses...so a different level of design was involved...and I think there wa a trickle down effect.  In some cases, the courses were so damn difficult back in the day that today they have stood the test of time and are now damn good for the club golfer. 


Many of the heathland and links courses had "name" people behind them compared to parkland efforts.  So the chances were that at least one good archie at some point had his hand in the design.  I don't think this is nearly so much the case for parkland courses. 


Finally, the US had a load of good archies working its land and with parkland being the main canvass.....


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

At the top of a hill on the English-Welsh border there's a golf course much admired herein that at first glance from the valley below you most likely would not have thought was a suitable location for an 18-hole course, let alone a much admired one, yet CK Hutchison placed one there.


Alligator and snake invested swamps and deserts wouldn't seem ideal but there are plenty of courses on such sites now.


Atb

[Frank Kim]

Paul,


I'd be happy to show you more than that driving range here in the US.  You have an open invitation with me.


Frank

[Tim Martin]

Wannamoisett sits on an unremarkable 104 acres with little elevation change. That said Ross still knocked it out of the park.

[Frank Kim]

At Dallas National Fazio took some severe land with wooded canyons and rock formations and transformed it into a walkable course with a decent routing.  Of course he sand capped the course for drainage since it had a clay based soil.

[Ryan Coles]

Sean


Little Aston and a couple of others aside, why does the UK do parkland so badly?

Ryan


I think part of the problem is perception.  People think of links first and heathland second when GB&I is on the table.  There are some very good parkland courses such as Little Aston and Blackwell that don't get their due. In the right hands (with people wo are willing to spend money) Blackwell is as good as many of the best US parklands. 


Money....in the US they spend far more on presenting a course...over the course of 20 years this can make a huge difference. 


Another issue is that in reality, most of the heathland courses are really parkland with some heather and better drainage than your average parkland.  Many of the big gun US parkland courses don't have to worry anywhere near as much about drainage because many close in the winter and they have bigger green staff to sort out problems that occur with heavy rain.  So part of the issue of drainage is only a big time headache for courses open 12 months a year in an area which has winter.  I don't think a lot of Americans properly appreciate this.


There are far more parkland courses in the US than in GB&I...the US bound to have far more gooduns.  Plus, in the US the parkland courses are the championship courses...so a different level of design was involved...and I think there wa a trickle down effect.  In some cases, the courses were so damn difficult back in the day that today they have stood the test of time and are now damn good for the club golfer. 


Many of the heathland and links courses had "name" people behind them compared to parkland efforts.  So the chances were that at least one good archie at some point had his hand in the design.  I don't think this is nearly so much the case for parkland courses. 


Finally, the US had a load of good archies working its land and with parkland being the main canvass.....


Ciao

Sean

Correct on all fronts in my opinion.  Very well analysed.

[Greg Gilson]

I thought of Kingston Heath straight away. Great course?....sure. Wonderful sand base....sure.

However, block is quite small and boxy. Also, apart from basically 1 relatively small undulation its totally flat. They did (and still do) a great job with that.