Following up from the 'Best Courses on inferior sites" thread,
are there any common elements among courses on really good property that don't live up to expectations?

I don't mean this to be an architect-bagging exercise, but is it because certain types of holes are missing?  Bunker shapes?  Unimaginative greens? Holes that are too similar?

Is it simply that some almost-but-not-quite courses simply need a semester at finishing school and no one can quite agree/fit in the time?

Should something as simple as bunkering make that much difference?

I know most people here would not have played The Legends Course at Moonah Links on the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria, but this is a pretty good course that should be thrilling beyond belief.  

It's a fairly undulating and hilly property with any number of high tee shots to fairways below, yet the bunkers are sort of a half-arsed effort to try and make pot-type bunkers fit in more naturally with the surrounds by being somewhat ragged, but the effect is awful - much like a balding man ripping great tufts of hair from his scalp in anger, then abruptly realising he doesn't have enough to spare.


It has some nice greens, but none out of this world.

It has some nice holes amongst the almost theres - 2, 4,10, 11 and 13 at least, if my sadly fading memory serves me correct, and yet on a few holes, there's no apparent strategy - flirting with bunkers brings no discernible reward, yet it does on other holes.  

Can bunkers be made 'better' at reasonable cost, or is that a once done, it's done type of thing?

Good piece???  Is that as in a good piece of ass, John?


In my not so humble opinion the problem rests with "designers" raping the existing features of the land in the name of "signature" design.

Sandpines is the poster child.  Great land, average course.

John B.

I wish you'd told me this before I blew my money on St Andrews Beach. What I've been thinking is perhaps THE top piece of land in Aus. is clearly a piece of crap that has yielded one of the most disastrously conceived, designed and executed courses in the history of Western civilisation.

Bugger.

 

Tom,

I was talking about the critics....I'll leave it to you to insult the architects..

Tom Doak:

This isn't meant to be facetious, but... surely they must?  

I don't eat beef or lamb.  But I sure know what a good piece of meat looks like. And more importantly, is supposed to.

Do you mean that some architects have a predetermined image of what a golf course should be/contain, and any piece of land that doesn't marry with that they can't work with?

I can say for certain that some of the sites I've worked with, and thought were outstanding, were not highly praised by other architects who looked at them before me.

Mr. Doak,

Without naming who those architects are, of course, I'd love to know what pieces of land you are referring to?

Please do not tell me Ballyneal, Cape K., or St. Andrews Beach or I will have to go throw myself off a cliff.

Michael:

I won't say which projects I was thinking of, but it wasn't the ones you named.

The only other architect who looked at Cape Kidnappers was Dave Harman, who designed Kauri Cliffs.  He did a routing which would have had even more "wow" factor than ours ... and quite a bit more earthmoving, I believe.  But he certainly didn't think it was a dull site.

The only other architect who looked at St. Andrews Beach was Ross Perrett, who naturally wanted to build it, since it was in his backyard.  I've never seen the routings he did.

No one got to look at Ballyneal but us.

I'm not going to go through them all until you narrow it down.  But it wasn't Pacific Dunes, either.  

I'm not going to go through them all until you narrow it down.  But it wasn't Pacific Dunes, either.  

Ok....where else have you been?  The desert project in Palm Springs?  Is it that "udder" one?

Lost Dunes?
Beachtree?

Am I getting warmer?

Is it in the U.S.?  

I think a great example of how good land and an absolutely awesome "site" for a golf course that had ready potential as well as a number of good reason a bad course could've been produced on it was that Ardrossan project I've mentioned on here before.

That's where I got to know Bill Coore. I pretty much had to have an opinion from him and pretty quick to report to my golf club to consider the move and I'd basically just met Bill and he wasn't exactly forthcoming with an opinion at first. Then he said the site was one of perhaps the most "instant maturity" he'd seen. The reason was this estate was a Fredrick Law Olmstead landplan of about 100 years ago with the most beautiful English style large landscape plan on it interspersed amongst a mansion and a number of spectacular old historic houses and a number of neat natural features.

The land was good but he said as beautiful as all this stuff is--eg the mansion, historic houses sprinkled around the massive English estate looking farm, things like that can and do create some serious "obstacles" sometimes in trying to figure out how to get a great course on excellent land around and through it all.

I think creating and finding a great routing and great holes is hard anyway on most properties but if you have to get it all in and around all this gorgeous stuff that could work so well with it there is far more potential to make mistakes and create a bad course than if it wasn't all there. But then Bill said on sites like that one there are always 3-4 real "obstacle areas" and how well you overcome those "obstacles areaa" is what can really make the course good or great or just break it! He said you just don't have the same kind of latitude on the routing amongst all that neat stuff going on compared to if it wasn't there.

John B:

I've no problems excusing ignorance at all, especially my own.    Of course, some, including myself, would say I have no choice in the matter.

To answer both yourself and George Pazin;

St Andrews Beach will have two courses, Gunnamatta and Fingal, plus a composite available to members several times of the year.  

The Gunnamatta will be for members and guests only.

The Fingal will be for members and guests, apartment owners (about 120), resort guests (a really neat, small, boutique eco resort/health retreat of 40-odd rooms) and corporate days.

You become a member by purchasing a share and hoping the committee think you're a good bloke, which in my case, of course, was a done deal.  

The Gunnamatta course opens for limited play in late December (Not sure what they mean by limited), with the 'proper' opening around Easter.

The Fingal course is scheduled to be completed around Christmas 2006.  

As I journeyed OS and was expecting to be away until after the opening, they took me around before I left.  All I've seen in full glory were 1-11, which are incredible, especially 6-11.
Someone else can perhaps fill anyone interested in on the remaining holes, as I've seen only photographs.  14 and 15, at least, look to be as least as incredible.

Well said, Mike Cirba

conceptually i'd say a good site is treeless ,flat, but can be drained ...and they just get better from there.

the only negatives that impact the product beyond this are inadequate budgets , lack of imagination , and incompetence.
....disasterous if all in equal measure