[Steve Lang]

   I thought this thread's title was about 99% of Florida Golf, not the top 10-20..

[Jim_Kennedy]

Matt,
You can call me stupid all you like, it doesn't change the fact that you are a biased writer who is overly invested in promoting courses in the west at the expense of those in the south. You have repeatedly used the same kind of tactic employed by homeboys when they are trying to promote their favorite architect over another, i.e., denounce everything/everyone to raise up your man/point.  

If you were really practicing balanced golf reporting you wouldn't need to stoop to the trashing that you have heaped on Florida.  

[Kevin Lynch]

  I thought this thread's title was about 99% of Florida Golf, not the top 10-20..

Yeah, it seems like the thread split somewhere in the middle.

Not presuming to speak for the OP, but I think he was intentionally hyperbolic, with respect to the 99% figure (and probably the "0" as well).  Seems like the Title worked in inflaming the Residents, some responding by listing the elite courses, leading to that portion of the debate.  Elite is elite in whatever state - and you can argue Seminole vs. "Insert Course Here", but it's hard to use "elite" as a cross-cut sample to judge a state.

On the other hand, I'm focusing more on the "average" course - not 99%, but the middle of the bell curve (say the middle 50-60%).  In that area, I think it's simply objective observation to admit Florida is handicapped by topography.  I'd further claim Florida is handicapped by population density, leading to more house-lined courses, which is my own personal bias.

[Mike Sweeney]

On the other hand, I'm focusing more on the "average" course - not 99%, but the middle of the bell curve (say the middle 50-60%).  In that area, I think it's simply objective observation to admit Florida is handicapped by topography.  I'd further claim Florida is handicapped by population density, leading to more house-lined courses, which is my own personal bias.

Doak Scale:


http://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/features/the_doak_scale.aspx

3. About the level of the average golf course in the world. (Since I don’t go out of my way to see average courses, my scale is deliberately skewed to split hairs among the good, the better and the best.)

Kevin,

Just trying to be helpful as I don't know your level of knowledge about this Discussion Group, but if try to have a discussion or a golf outing on a Doak 3 average course around here, you will be pretty lonely. 

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

I didn't call you any such thing -- I simply penned my father's line. If you say I"m bias be sure to include other including the likes of Tom Doak for his comments in CG too. I have a preference for certain golf -- no less than you or anyone else for that matter.

Again, let me point out because either you have a blindfold over your eyes and/or cotton in your ears -- I have saluted a number of FL courses and said they are worthy of a play when there. How many times must I type it Jim before you finally understand it? The simple fact which you again ignore and ignore -- is that the sheer bulk of what calls itself golf in FL is really repetitive junkfood golf -- predictable designs that are forced fed around many times clutter oriented housing sites with an over reliance on H20.

I don't agree with the title of this particular thread -- FL doesn't have any more Doak 0 courses than other locations. It simply has an overwhelming number of courses that are fairly forgettable and not worthy of much acclaim. For those people who enjoy such courses I say they should enjoy them to the max. If such courses float your boat I say enjoy them to your hearts content.

Jim, you don't know me from adam -- but I am more than fair on what I believe constitutes quality golf. FL is a diversion because of the weather that everyone else faces at this time of year. There are courses of quality there and at the very top, top top -- there are 3-4 worthy of national acclaim from the portfolio of courses I have played in my lifetime thus far. I just don't see the state as being especially noteworthy if the goal of the person playing golf is to spend there time on layouts that truly our utterly compelling from a nationwide perspective then they will be straining to find such places there.

[Dean Stokes]

Dean,

What's wrong with having one set of criteria for all courses? How else can they be judged? If anything, having a different criteria for Florida does a disservice to the, perhaps few, really good courses that are there...As for land, have you ever played Lawsonia? Essentially an average piece of Wisconsin farmland with phenomenal green complexes....Sure maybe it's a Doak 6, or 7 post tree removal, but I dare you to name a half-dozen better courses in Florida...

There is nothing wrong with having one set of criteria. I (in my opinion) don't believe it is worth comparing Florida golf with Northern golf. I have maintained that theory for the entire time I have lived in Florida. I do not disagree with anybody that courses with elevation change are much more fun to play than flat courses.

However, I have played many good golf courses in Florida that are challenging and fun. Many that have very good green complexes that challenge your iron play and putter. I have not played Lawsonia so I cannot comment on that golf course, nor do I care if it is a Doak 4,5,6 or 7. I will make my own mind up how good the course is.


I would 'dare' to name several good courses in Florida that I would enjoy playing everyday and that I would not be worried about taking any of you to.

[Kevin Lynch]

On the other hand, I'm focusing more on the "average" course - not 99%, but the middle of the bell curve (say the middle 50-60%).  In that area, I think it's simply objective observation to admit Florida is handicapped by topography.  I'd further claim Florida is handicapped by population density, leading to more house-lined courses, which is my own personal bias.

Doak Scale:


http://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/features/the_doak_scale.aspx

3. About the level of the average golf course in the world. (Since I don’t go out of my way to see average courses, my scale is deliberately skewed to split hairs among the good, the better and the best.)

Kevin,

Just trying to be helpful as I don't know your level of knowledge about this Discussion Group, but if try to have a discussion or a golf outing on a Doak 3 average course around here, you will be pretty lonely. 

Thanks for the link, Mike.  Yes, I have already picked up on the Doak Scale in my short time here.

I wasn’t “focusing” on the average courses in this thread because I prefer to discuss those courses.  Since the OP was taking about “99%”, it seems like the lower end of Doak’s scale needed to be brought into the discussion.  .  I guess I should have worded it as I was “commenting” on why a flatter state like Florida is more likely to kick out a higher percentage of Doak 2s & 3s. 

To put it in Doak’s terms, states like NY have an advantage to get them closer to a 4 (“at least some scenic interest and decent golf”), by virtue of topography.  As such, it seems like the “Bell Curve” for a state like NY is going to be shifted to the right on Doak’s scale vs. those in Florida (holding the quality of the GCA constant).

The reason I mentioned Tampa Palms in my other post wasn’t to intentionally discuss a low Doak course.  Rather, I was trying to see if I was missing something about that course that locals appreciate.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

Agreed, but, that's what they're comparing the Florida courses to.

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).

That's part of the problem, you're comparing courses designed for a specific purpose, a specific user, and that user is the Northern golfer who hasn't played in 3 to 6 months or more.

Those "Florida" or "Resort" courses were designed to be user friendly to the golfer who hasn't played in 3 to 6 months, they weren't designed to be a challenge worthy of the best golfers in the world.  They were designed for OLDER golfers, male and female, golfers who would NOT want to face a supreme test day in and day out. 

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.

That's ONE golf course...... repeat ONE golf course

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.

Have you played Emerald Dunes ? 
Emerald Dunes was a public access course which I would imagine is as good as any public access course you're going to find throughout Western NY

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.

It's not an inherent handicap when you understand that the golf courses are secondary to the homesites.

The developers DIDN'T make the golf course the priority, the GOLF COURSE is a collateral benefit, not the main attraction.
You have to undertand how and why most courses came into existance, then interpolate the quality of the architcture in the context of the targeted user

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.

Same density ?
Other flat sites don't have another golf course for another 25 miles.
Just look at Google Earth from Juno Beach to Miami and 5 miles inland, all you have is golf courses.
How could you expect to avoid replication if the courses are built for the same end user.
That's why I suggested that you have to evaluate PRIVATE GOLF COURSES, not courses for residential or resort play.

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).

[Jud_T]

 

[Kevin Lynch]

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.

Agreed, but, that's what they're comparing the Florida courses to.

Again, that’s what Matt may be trying to compare, but my perception of this post was talking about the “totality” of courses, not just the upper echelon.  And ultimately, I’m more interested in what I may be able to access easily.  But don’t just limit it to snowbirds like me, what does the Golf in Florida offer the average resident? Consider the 30 something that doesn’t make 6 figures a year to join a private club, but wants to play an interesting course that’s not designed for retirees? (By this, I’m not saying Florida can’t meet that need, but just giving you a different perspective than what you propose below).

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).

That's part of the problem, you're comparing courses designed for a specific purpose, a specific user, and that user is the Northern golfer who hasn't played in 3 to 6 months or more.

Those "Florida" or "Resort" courses were designed to be user friendly to the golfer who hasn't played in 3 to 6 months, they weren't designed to be a challenge worthy of the best golfers in the world.  They were designed for OLDER golfers, male and female, golfers who would NOT want to face a supreme test day in and day out. 

OK – I can understand your point.  These courses weren’t built to be interesting or challenging.  That’s fine, but I guess that doesn’t exactly refute the (less hyperbolic) premise of this post, that there in an overabundance of such courses in Florida.

However, more important to consider is that not every person who comes to Florida is retired or hasn’t swung a club in 6 months.  I’ve traveled there to visit my relatives in May / September / December, or been there on business at various points.  It seems that demographic has a difficult time finding an affordable, accessible option.


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.

That's ONE golf course...... repeat ONE golf course


I think you misread my statement.  I’ve played a number of public-access courses (not a huge amount, but enough for the similarities and sameness to hit me).  I mentioned the ONE Private Club, to illustrate that I have played more than just public access courses in my attempt to find something stimulating. 

And that one was built to be a supreme test (hosted Champions Tour).  However, I found the same problems at that course (uninspiring and repetitive, with the same “green fronted by pond” challenge on 6 of the back 9). 

But, like I said in a separate thread, I’m willing to chalk that course up to a bad-design anomaly.




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.

Have you played Emerald Dunes ? 
Emerald Dunes was a public access course which I would imagine is as good as any public access course you're going to find throughout Western NY


Well, like you said – “was” is the operative word there.  I just looked online and saw it was taken Private several years ago and had foreclosure actions taken in May 2009.

The EDGC site didn’t list the actual green fees, but I saw several sites indicating something in the $250 range.  Now that may be a nice course, but $250??  In peak season, I’ll play the local Hurdzian course or one of GD’s US Top 5 New Publics (Ravenwood) for $65.  A Nationwide Tour Resort Course for $100.  But setting aside WNY, when I travel to Cleveland, I can play a Stanley Thompson for $50.

I just don’t seem to have the same luck finding an easily accessible good course, which may be in part because so many courses are built for the retirees (like you said), or the cost to find a decent one is so high because it takes a remarkable amount of effort converting the Florida Topography into an interesting design.

I’ve never denied that good courses exist in Florida, just that it’s much harder to find given the “end user” factors you described.


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.

It's not an inherent handicap when you understand that the golf courses are secondary to the homesites.

The developers DIDN'T make the golf course the priority, the GOLF COURSE is a collateral benefit, not the main attraction.
You have to undertand how and why most courses came into existance, then interpolate the quality of the architcture in the context of the targeted user

Again, if this is a discussion about the quality of architecture, I really don’t have a beef.  Believe me, I respect that it is so much more difficult to create something in Florida and understand that the goal was different. 
I’m not condemning the architectural work – just noting that those factors, combined with the topography leads to a higher concentration of disinteresting courses in Florida (but certainly not the 99% of Doaks 0s).



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.

Same density ?
Other flat sites don't have another golf course for another 25 miles.
Just look at Google Earth from Juno Beach to Miami and 5 miles inland, all you have is golf courses.
How could you expect to avoid replication if the courses are built for the same end user.
That's why I suggested that you have to evaluate PRIVATE GOLF COURSES, not courses for residential or resort play.

Again, if your point is that you need to get to Private Courses to find a quality challenge (or pay $250 for Public Access), then I think we have fundamentally different assumptions.  Not every person has access to these courses.  Are these people to be ignored?  Perhaps it would be safe to say that other states are more “user friendly” to travelers and those FT residents with less than 6 figure incomes.

It doesn’t sound like you’re refuting that there’s a high concentration of these uninteresting courses relative to other states (for the valid reasons you listed), just that you can’t make the types of blanket statements made by the OP.  In that case, I would have to say we agree.

Patrick,

I hope you recognize that that I’m not just trying to be inflammatory towards you.  I joined this board to expand my knowledge and get different perspectives on topics.  You have given me a different perspective about things I have noticed (i.e. the end user and targets of the courses).  I hope you can appreciate a different perspective as well (i.e. the non-retiree visitor w/o access to Private Courses).

Hopefully I will be pleasantly surprised in one of my future visits.

[Tom_Doak]

A flat property should not preclude an archie from building a very good course.  I would say a flat property with a small budget might be a problem if a quality course is the goal.  When was it that folks decided that flat land equals average/poor golf? 

Ciao

Sean:

It's the combination of flat land and a very shallow water table that makes building good courses in Florida so difficult.

Difficult, but not impossible.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kevin,

My point is that you can't compare courses designed for different end users.

You can't compare a WFW to a course within a residential community or hotel or resort property.

If you're going to make a comparison between the WFW's of the North, then that comparison has to be with the same type of course in Florida, a private course.

Mike Sweeney,

Sleepy Hollow, Sebonack, Fishers Island and Garden City aren't golf courses within a residential community, they're private clubs, and as such, shouldn't be compared to resort courses or gated community courses in Florida.

Try apples to apples, not apples to orangutans

[Sean_A]

A flat property should not preclude an archie from building a very good course.  I would say a flat property with a small budget might be a problem if a quality course is the goal.  When was it that folks decided that flat land equals average/poor golf? 

Ciao

Sean:

It's the combination of flat land and a very shallow water table that makes building good courses in Florida so difficult.

Difficult, but not impossible.

Tom

Yes of course.  My point was more directed at the mis-perception of golfers thinking flat golf necessarily can't be very good golf. 

Ciao

[Jud_T]

Pat,

Aren't Pebble, Pac Dunes and Pinehurst #2 resort courses?

[Mike Sweeney]

Mike Sweeney,

Sleepy Hollow, Sebonack, Fishers Island and Garden City aren't golf courses within a residential community, they're private clubs, and as such, shouldn't be compared to resort courses or gated community courses in Florida.

Try apples to apples, not apples to orangutans

Pat,

Oops, you skipped over Whipoorwill. Feel free to join my wife in saying, "Yes Mike you are right." 

Sleepy, Sebonack, Fishers and Garden City were are started with real estate components.

1. I have an old friend who lives inside the gates of Sleepy with his wife and kids - in a house, not the clubhouse.

2. Fishers had a huge resort hotel attached to it, that had a mysterious fire. It was started by the Olmsted brothers who were the Toll Brothers of that era, and today you still go through the gates to get on the club property. You do realize that all of the east end of the island (houses, golf course, beach club) is the Fishers Island Club?



3. Garden City started as a public course. The golf course was built to help sell lots in Garden City. Do you need a page number to the advertisement in your Club history book that states "lots and villa plots for sale on easy terms" ? 

4. Pat if the search engine worked here, I could pull up old threads where YOU questioned the placement of the Sebonack cottages.

The old dead guy courses evolved into what they are today because of wars, depressions, recessions and other long term issues.  How is this not relevant to what is going on today in Florida and other places? In some way or another, real estate was factored in when they were building all theses courses, yet they all turned out great.

[Jud_T]

 

[Kevin Lynch]

Kevin,

My point is that you can't compare courses designed for different end users.

You can't compare a WFW to a course within a residential community or hotel or resort property.

If you're going to make a comparison between the WFW's of the North, then that comparison has to be with the same type of course in Florida, a private course.

Again, Patrick, I'm not trying to compare WFW to residential courses in Florida.  I understand that these have different end users.

Whether Residential or Resort Courses are inherently limited is a different subject, which it seems like Mike Sweeney is willing to take up with you.

But when it comes to the non-6-figure golfers visiting another state, my experience is that Florida is extremely limited for those golfers (at least compared to other states I’ve visited).  The public access golf in Florida is non-descript, which is not a statement you can easily say about Ohio or North Carolina.  Again, I may be pleasantly surprised to discover otherwise, but I think your own statements indicate that this demographic is largely overlooked, and courses are built to suit home-owners or kept “easy” for resort golfers.

If you want to talk “apples-to-apples,” I think a Stanley Thompson design in Ohio for $50 holds up very well against a $250 Tom Fazio design like Emerald Dunes.

[Kevin Lynch]

OK, Jud.  I'm a Newbie, so I have an excuse to ask this.

What are you saying with that emoticon?  I'm missing the sentiment, but I'll gladly chalk it up to my inexperience here.  Care to enlighten a Newbie?

[Mike Sweeney]

If you want to talk “apples-to-apples,” I think a Stanley Thompson design in Ohio for $50 holds up very well against a $250 Tom Fazio design like Emerald Dunes.

Kevin

Your playing the wrong courses. Go play Deltona, Sugarloaf and Highlands Reserve. All were less than $50 durung the holidays and I would guess they would match up with Ohio publics. Bill Steele my partner at Sugarloaf from Columbus would know better. World Woods and Mission Inn would probably be just north of $50.

[Jud_T]

Kevin,

It just means that I retracted something I had written after further reflection...Not a comment on you at all.....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Aren't Pebble, Pac Dunes and Pinehurst #2 resort courses?

Jud,

You might not be aware of this, but, none of those courses are in Florida.

They're destination golf courses in California, North Carolina and Oregon, and none of them are gated residential communities.

[Dean Stokes]

If you want to talk “apples-to-apples,” I think a Stanley Thompson design in Ohio for $50 holds up very well against a $250 Tom Fazio design like Emerald Dunes.

Kevin

Your playing the wrong courses. Go play Deltona, Sugarloaf and Highlands Reserve. All were less than $50 durung the holidays and I would guess they would match up with Ohio publics. Bill Steele my partner at Sugarloaf from Columbus would know better. World Woods and Mission Inn would probably be just north of $50.

Why not throw in Victoria Hills while you are there. The Arthur Hills course at LPGA I remember being fairly good also.

[Dean Stokes]

Kevin,

I think i am correct in saying Emerald Dunes is private and when it wasn't, did it really get to $250 a golfer?

[Jud_T]

That's why I suggested that you have to evaluate PRIVATE GOLF COURSES, not courses for residential or resort play.

Pat,

I know you were just referring to Florida courses, just playing a bit of devil's advocate.....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Sweeney,

Sleepy Hollow, Sebonack, Fishers Island and Garden City aren't golf courses within a residential community, they're private clubs, and as such, shouldn't be compared to resort courses or gated community courses in Florida.

Try apples to apples, not apples to orangutans

Pat,

Oops, you skipped over Whipoorwill. Feel free to join my wife in saying, "Yes Mike you are right." 

Sleepy, Sebonack, Fishers and Garden City were are started with real estate components.

That's not true, and it's disengenuous for you to equate residential community golf courses in Florida with the courses you cited.
One does not have to be a resident of Fishers Island in order to be a member of Fishers Island.
And, being a resident of Fishers Island does NOT convey membership at the golf course.

1. I have an old friend who lives inside the gates of Sleepy with his wife and kids - in a house, not the clubhouse.

Your argument fails because living within the gates DOESN'T automatically convey membership at Sleepy Hollow
And, those living outside the gates CAN be members of Sleepy Hollow ?
Does you wife know how to get in touch with me ?

2. Fishers had a huge resort hotel attached to it, that had a mysterious fire. It was started by the Olmsted brothers who were the Toll Brothers of that era, and today you still go through the gates to get on the club property. You do realize that all of the east end of the island (houses, golf course, beach club) is the Fishers Island Club?


One does not have to be a resident of Fishers Island in order to be a member of Fishers Island golf course.
And, being a resident of Fishers Island does NOT convey membership at the golf course.[/b][/size]



3. Garden City started as a public course. The golf course was built to help sell lots in Garden City. Do you need a page number to the advertisement in your Club history book that states "lots and villa plots for sale on easy terms" ? 

Once again, you have your facts wrong, or, at the very least, convoluted.
One did not have to be a resident of Garden City in order to play the golf course and residence in Garden City did NOT convey membership to the golf course.
Garden City GC was not created as any part of Stewart's purchase and development of 7,170 acres

4. Pat if the search engine worked here, I could pull up old threads where YOU questioned the placement of the Sebonack cottages.

Mike, the cottages are NOT owned by the members, they're a club convenience made necessary because of Sebonack's relatively remote location and the lack a quality nearby hotels.  Youre attempt at comparison fails miserably.
Please have your wife call me the next time you THINK you're right.

The old dead guy courses evolved into what they are today because of wars, depressions, recessions and other long term issues.  How is this not relevant to what is going on today in Florida and other places? In some way or another, real estate was factored in when they were building all theses courses, yet they all turned out great.

It's different because the demographic is radically different.
Residential community golf in Florida essentially targets retirees, older men and women, and vacationers who can afford resort prices.
You don't see an abundance of  young couple with three kids living in those residential, gated communities.
There's NOT the broad spectrum of members at a residential gated community in Florida like there is with the membership at Winged Foot and other clubs used in the comparison.
Have your wife call me collect.

People like you who think you're right are annoying those of us who really are

Have your wife call me on my 24/7 toll free hotline

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()