Matt, Kevin, et. al.,
If I were to guess, I'd guess that a "northerners" view of Florida golf courses is mostly confined to those courses more readily accessable to a "snow bird/flake", rather than the many private courses, like the one's being used as the basis of comparison, such as Winged Foot.
And, many of those Florida courses cited are residential courses, such as Mountain Lake, rather than "stand alone" golf courses, which would be the equivalent of Winged Foot.
Hence, I believe the comparisons are flawed for several reasons.
# 1, the Florida sampling is far to small
# 2, the Florida sampling seems to be limited to clubs dissimilar in function and/or clientele from the benchmark
courses in the North.
# 3, Flat land, ie, TOC, is not a disqualifying factor for good architecture.
Conversely, one could ask: In Metro NY, name one good to great course associated with a residential community ?
Patrick,
I’m not trying to compare your everyday Florida residential course to Winged Foot – that would be absurd (and just to clarify, I’m from Western New York – the Metro NY area is a completely different planet).
To some extent, you may be right that the “snow birds” may have limited access to the private clubs, which may skew their perception. But, in a way, that’s kind of the point. When most people travel (whether visiting NY, NC or FL), they’re not getting onto the elite Private Courses.
I think the “negative perception” comes from a sameness and lack of interesting design in the “average” course that a traveler could play in Florida, when compared to the “average” course in other states (unless you love water hazards).
So, to your points:
1) I would admit that the sampling is small, but I have played both daily fee courses in Florida as well as a Private Club which has hosted a Champions Tour Event.
2) That may be true for some other posters, but my observations are based on your “average” public access in FL vs public access in other states.
3) I agree that it’s not disqualifying. However, I think it makes it much more challenging and requires much more effort by the GCA to make it interesting. If a GCA gives a “mediocre” effort in FL and a “mediocre” effort in an area with better topography, the FL course is simply going to be less interesting because of the inherent handicapping.
Taking Florida’s name out of the equation, the general theme here is that “Courses built in areas with flat topography will generally be less interesting than other areas.” It just so happens that Florida has an abundance of that topography relative to the number of Golfers. The same could be said about other flat states, but they generally don’t have the same density of golf courses to make the “sameness” so apparent.
Believe me, we have a number of horrific tracks up here in NY in flatter areas, it's just that they're fewer in density (and don't have the annoyance of water everywhere - my own admitted bias).