The two most notable in this category from Australia must surely be the Ocean Course at The National, and the AGU's course, designed to host the national Open, Moonah Links (Open).

Such wonderful undulating sandy land, close to the coast, and almost always affected by winds. Both courses are less than inspiring. No great holes, no great sense of anticipation, and frequently questionable architectural practices.

The sense of excitement when walking the land prior to construction is no longer prevalent on either property. Both courses promised the world - and delivered an atlas.  

Matthew

Intended use of the course, budget, architect and era of construction all must be considered but for my money, I'd nominate Painswick in England as one of the worst of all time.

Goofy golf at it's peak! Completely artificial and unplayable!

For a course that comes close but could be better, I'd agree on Friar's Head.

How about a course that might have been more highly thought of but has lost ground because of the current explosion in distance? I'd nominate Harbour Town. It has been reduced to a boring layup course for good players.

I'm certain that it is an experience and entertaining, as long as serious competition isn't involved. Too much luck involved for, as you stated, my tastes.

The question originally posed was if the course is as good as it could have been. In that context, I would still contend that the answer is no, and that the course's chief attraction is it's unusual nature.

Everyone's definition of good is different. I respectfully accept your definition--for you.

Matthew:

agree with your assessment of National Old. I do like the old course however.

Have not played it but heard from relibale sources that Fox Harb'r in Atlantic Canada could have been a lot better considering the piece of property they had to work with.

There is a course between Vancouver and Whistler called Furry Creek -a mountainside site with some great views -too bad the course stinks

For a course that comes close but could be better, I'd agree on Friar's Head.

 

John,

   I couldn't disagree with this statement more. All too often a new course comes along and garners considerable hype, attracting those humans acting like insects who buzz and hover all around it, many ready to praise, and a ready few to criticize. Bandon, Dallas Nat'l, Black Rock and of course, Friars Head come to mind. All of these places have opened in the last few years and have met, or exceeded that fate. All mentioned have had part glorious property, part slightly more pedestrian.

In the case of Friars Head, you mention that it "comes close" but could have been (or used its land) better. HOW? What part would you have changed? Would you have chosen to keep the course off the farm flats and solely on the bluffs? If so, How could you ever have achieved and 18 hole layout?

Should Ken Bakst have asked Bill Coore to pile earth down near Sound Ave. to create something artificial? If you, like many, think the transition holes aren't "the best use" or the the holes in the flat's not "special enough," or even the finishing holes less than perfect (perhaps, but they are unique and naturally carved out of the existing land), then where else on the property would you have routed them? Should Pebble Beach be considered a design failure for having it's inland holes? Remember, a course can only be as good as it's land and turf and very rarely (Perhaps only Sand Hills come to mind, among the moderns) are architects given so much land and latitude that they can ignore some measure of convention or orientation.

This thread is about design failing (presumably to any degree) to match the quality of the land. Friars Head, IMHO, just doesn't suffer from that. Sloping bluffs that rise from pancake flats don't permit either feature to be ignored or allowed to exclude the other. If anything, FH is coup d'grace of design for using its available land and extracting most of the highest qulality out of its topography.

A much, much better example of really poor design sited on otherwise high-quality land is the nearby Bridge GC , in Bridgehampton. It borders on tragic what occured there. The elevations, vistas and abundance of sloping sand-based turf there should have yieled something very, very special. Instead, it gave us no more than a highly-manicured goat track that is repetitious, uninspiring, and lacking in both style and strategy. Like him or not (and there are plenty who do), Rees near butchered that property and the result is glaringly evident. Only its fine conditioning works to hide some of that.

Other prime examples of design failure on quality land might well include The Links at Spanish Bay, The Preserve (Carmel), Kauri Cliffs, or Torrey Pines. Each of these has wonder topography that are occupied by mediocre and uninspiring designs.

A mention of a place like Friars Head just doesn't belong here. One might potentially concieve of a better hole (I can't but that's just my opinion) somehwere on its property, but measured on its whole, the design neither misses, nor comes up short on matching its quality land.

   

John Kendall,
I would like to hear how or what you think would have been a better way for Friar's Head to take advantage of its given land.  Please describe in great detail. Please.

John Kendall,
I would like to hear how or what you think would have been a better way for Friar's Head to take advantage of its given land.  Please describe in great detail. Please.

Tommy,

   They could have built a castle fit for an emperor! Could have built a "potato-themed" mini golf course (hit it through the eye) . Could have added an outdoor casbah instead of the practice green. Could have built a brothel in place of a clubhouse .....well you get the message!

Steve Lapper,

Your post above is one of the best I've seen here delineating the differences between a great site with a mediocre course.

However, at the risk of incurring the wrath of the Gods...

Friars Head, very similar to Pac Dunes, is only held back from the top 10 in the world by the simple fact that the par threes are the weak link.  Each course has one great one (11 at PD, 10 at FH) but the rest don't measure up.  

Ok...I'm ducking now..

Steve Lapper,

Your post above is one of the best I've seen here delineating the differences between a great site with a mediocre course.

However, at the risk of incurring the wrath of the Gods...

Friars Head, very similar to Pac Dunes, is only held back from the top 10 in the world by the simple fact that the par threes are the weak link.  Each course has one great one (11 at PD, 10 at FH) but the rest don't measure up.  

Ok...I'm ducking now..

Mike,

 Duck & Weave right now!

I do understand your point and consider it very well taken. Although I very much like the mix of one-shotter's at FH (I may be the only one here who thinks 17 is a very, very good hole) it is fair to note that they may not equal the selection found at a number of those in the top ten.

Certainly Shinny, CPC, ANGC, PVGC all have a better and broader range of threes. I'd argue that the like of Merion, WFW, Pebble, Pinehurst and Oakmont don't carry that delineator. Granted they deserve their rankings (or near to it) based on the range of their par 4's & 5's, but all it really does is point out that each course's strengths need to go beyond exceeding expectations and instead excel well beyond its peers to achieve a top, top ranking.

Leaving the rankings behind, there is little argument that can be effectively made or evidenced that a track like a Friars Head or Pacific Dunes failed to use its land in a vastly superior fashion to most others. Any amateur can critique a spectacular parcel for failing to yield one more hole of perch or vista, but it can be damn near impossible to find an acceptable and workable routing that permits the owner/operator to present 18 holes that start and return to the same place.

Let's measure the whole women....not just her face, legs or bosom.

Tommy,

 John is likely still working on getting north of Sound Ave! Last I heard, he was carrying Ree's umbrella and doing the "serpentine"...ala the In-Laws!

Mike,

That's way too much detail.  I think you're overwhelming the readership with minutae.  Can't you edit this post down a bit and still get the message across  

John:

Congrats on sticking to your opinions, even though you are about to have the house fall on your head.

You will be pleased to know that the management eventually decided you were right about your first point, and they have removed all the trees around both the ninth and seventeenth greens, as well as a lot of those to the left of the sixteenth fairway.

About your point (5), however, I have to inform you that the ocean is on the other side of Long Island.  I'm sure they would have liked to cut more of the trees along 15 green, 16, and 18, but environmental regulations precluded it.  We have been a bit more lucky about the same regulations at Sebonack, just because of the changes in elevation along the water's edge and the less dense vegetation on the bank.

from Steve Lapper
John,

   I couldn't disagree with this statement more. All too often a new course comes along and garners considerable hype, attracting those humans acting like insects who buzz and hover all around it, many ready to praise, and a ready few to criticize. Bandon, Dallas Nat'l, Black Rock and of course, Friars Head come to mind. All of these places have opened in the last few years and have met, or exceeded that fate. All mentioned have had part glorious property, part slightly more pedestrian.

In the case of Friars Head, you mention that it "comes close" but could have been (or used its land) better. HOW? What part would you have changed? Would you have chosen to keep the course off the farm flats and solely on the bluffs? If so, How could you ever have achieved and 18 hole layout?

Should Ken Bakst have asked Bill Coore to pile earth down near Sound Ave. to create something artificial? If you, like many, think the transition holes aren't "the best use" or the the holes in the flat's not "special enough," or even the finishing holes less than perfect (perhaps, but they are unique and naturally carved out of the existing land), then where else on the property would you have routed them? Should Pebble Beach be considered a design failure for having it's inland holes? Remember, a course can only be as good as it's land and turf and very rarely (Perhaps only Sand Hills come to mind, among the moderns) are architects given so much land and latitude that they can ignore some measure of convention or orientation.

This thread is about design failing (presumably to any degree) to match the quality of the land. Friars Head, IMHO, just doesn't suffer from that. Sloping bluffs that rise from pancake flats don't permit either feature to be ignored or allowed to exclude the other. If anything, FH is coup d'grace of design for using its available land and extracting most of the highest qulality out of its topography.

A much, much better example of really poor design sited on otherwise high-quality land is the nearby Bridge GC , in Bridgehampton. It borders on tragic what occured there. The elevations, vistas and abundance of sloping sand-based turf there should have yieled something very, very special. Instead, it gave us no more than a highly-manicured goat track that is repetitious, uninspiring, and lacking in both style and strategy. Like him or not (and there are plenty who do), Rees near butchered that property and the result is glaringly evident. Only its fine conditioning works to hide some of that.

Other prime examples of design failure on quality land might well include The Links at Spanish Bay, The Preserve (Carmel), Kauri Cliffs, or Torrey Pines. Each of these has wonder topography that are occupied by mediocre and uninspiring designs.

A mention of a place like Friars Head just doesn't belong here. One might potentially concieve of a better hole (I can't but that's just my opinion) somehwere on its property, but measured on its whole, the design neither misses, nor comes up short on matching its quality land.
 

Steve- PERFECT

everyone is entitled to their opinion and I'm glad this site is open enough to give individuals the freedom to voice their opinions.  I could not disagree more with John's criticisms (or Mike Cirba's).  I think the transitions from dunes to open fields is every bit as good as Cypress Point in the flow and mood changes elicited during the round.  Mike Par 3 #4 is great for its angles to the green.  #8 great for its amazing greensite where you can putt back to the hole or facing it from the same spot and make both attempts (or look silly on both).  #17 with the tree removal is a butt puckering short iron at a perfect place in the round (ala Sawgrass). I can go on and on but not in this thread.  I'll end by saying there is nothing I don't like about Friars Head.