Does a mediocre seaside course beat a great inland one every time?

[Mike Tanner]

That's the gist of a one-liner penned by George Peper in the Winter 2010 issue of Links magazine in which he channels the spirit of the late sportswriter Jimmy Cannon.

I've not played a lot of seaside courses, the Ocean Course at Kiawah being the notable exception, but I know many of you have. So what do you think? Does a great inland course always come up short compared to a mediocre seaside course? Examples, please.

[Tim Pitner]

Mike,

Not many in this group are going to agree with that sentiment. 

Examples off the top of my head include:

Barona Creek over Torrey Pines;
La Purisima or Rancho San Marcos over Sandpiper;
Bandon Trails over Bandon Dunes (although I wouldn't call BD mediocre). 

Truth is, in the U.S., outside of Monterey, Bandon and Long Island, the seaside courses aren't generally that good. 

[Jaeger Kovich]

Not a chance.

Perhaps a little extreme, but Find me some mediocre seaside courses that you would play before:
Pine Valley
Oakmont
Augusta
Sandhills

[Sean Leary]

For Joe Q Public it does for sure.

[Bill Rocco]

Mike,

Not many in this group are going to agree with that sentiment. 

Examples off the top of my head include:

Barona Creek over Torrey Pines;
La Purisima or Rancho San Marcos over Sandpiper;
Bandon Trails over Bandon Dunes (although I wouldn't call BD mediocre). 

Truth is, in the U.S., outside of Monterey, Bandon and Long Island, the seaside courses aren't generally that good. 

Eastward Ho! Country Club, Chatham, Cape Cod Massachusetts. There are a few great courses on Nantucket and Marthas Vineyard too.

[Anthony Gray]

  I agree. Give me something......the water always does. Memorable.

  Anthony

[Bill Rocco]

bump

[Joe Bausch]

For Joe Q Public it does for sure.

I agree Sean.

[Kevin Pallier]

Does a great inland course always come up short compared to a mediocre seaside course? Examples, please.

No - "great" v "mediocre" will by definition be different - at least in my eyes......

[Anthony Gray]

For Joe Q Public it does for sure.

I agree Sean.

  I agree.

  Joe Q Public

[PCCraig]

To the untrained eye it sure does. I can think of a lot of "seaside" courses in FL, GA, SC, etc... that have one or two holes with view of the ocean that dupe John Q public into paying $200+ to play based on ads in Golf Magazine of their one "great" golf hole (which usually forgets to include the row of condos on the other side of the hole).

[Ronald Montesano]

Sean Leary and Joe Bausch,

Whom are you to speak for Joe Q. Public?  On what do you base your assertions?

I cannot speak for Joe Q. Public, but I know many non-architecturally inclined golfers who prefer the drop-shot tee ball found at mountain courses over any other.  I can't recall a seaside mountain course on any recent thread.

I find it quite condescending, quite "GCA Man's Burden" to pretend to speak for the impossible-to-identify Joe Q. Public.

[Ally Mcintosh]

For Joe Q Public it does for sure.

I agree Sean.

  I agree.

  Joe Q Public

I couldn't disagree more....

For those who appreciate good golf on good turf with good ground movement, maybe... But I'd still take a great heathland over a mediocre links... "Joe Q Public" in Britain and Ireland actually quite often prefer clay based, ultra-green American style courses with plenty of lakes...

[Ross Tuddenham]

I would disagree.  Great implies better than very good, good, ok and not bad.  To me great means the very best courses in that category.  For that quote to hold true the likes of Aberdour or even the castle course would have to be better than great courses like Ganton, Walton heath (old) or Woodhall Spa. 

Not sure anyone would agree with that?

[JNC Lyon]

  I agree. Give me something......the water always does. Memorable.

  Anthony

I agree to a certain extent.  A course with a water view always gives you something a little extra.  Hell, it does not even have to be the Ocean! A bay or lake works well for me.  The integration of the water inherently makes a course more appealing.  A round on a sunny day, with the water shimmering nearby, is almost impossible to beat.

From an architectural standpoint, a seaside course will always have what an inland course does not have: WIND.  Th most fascinating thing about seaside golf is that holes change wildly from day to day.  15 at the Ocean Course will be the easiest hole on the course one day and the hardest the next.  17 at Sandwich, oft considered a beast of a par four, was very straightforward the day I played it.  Why? the wind was dead behind me, and it was a respite after brutes at 11, 13, and 15.  A seaside course will always have a variety that an inland course does not.  From that standpoint, seaside courses are always preferable.

That being said, seaside sites tend to make architects lazier.  They do not need to impress the golfer.  The golfer is already impressed by the views and the land.  And I do not think Joe Q. Public would play Torrey Pines over Augusta if they had the choice.

I think I would agree that "all other things being equal, seaside courses are preferable to inland courses."  I would not answer 'yes' to the thread's question.  That does not mean, however, that the answer is definitely 'no.'

[Tim Nugent]

Define "seaside".  As posted earlier, many courses (Turtle Point and Wild Dunes come to mind) have only a couple holes theat are seaside, the rest are so inland, you could be a hundred miles from the shore.

To the ? my answer is NO.  I play the golf course, no the scenery.  Therefore, I would take a great course over a mediocre course anyday.  Those that wouldn't aren't golfers, they're tourists.

[Mark Pearce]

No.  Even a quite good seaside course does not beat an excellent inland one.  So Crail, for instance, does not beat Ganton.  The best seaside courses normally beat the best inland ones.  They may always do but since I haven't played the very best US inland courses I can't judge whether they beat the best links.  The best inland UK courses don't, that's for sure.

[hick]

Having grown up with a view of the ocean all my life i would not agree with that. I would rather play a great inland golf course on a nice summer day than a ho hum seaside course, and would actually prefer it as its a change for me.

[Matthew Petersen]

Not a pure comparison based on the actual question, but I'm reminded of the day I played the Plantation course at Kapalua. I played with a gentleman who told me he visited Maui at least once a year, but it was his first time out on the Plantation. Meanwhile, he had played Kapalua's Bay course multiple times. He admitted the reason was that the Bay course features a cliffside hole--I think it's the fifth, a par 3 that plays over the ocean. He admitted by the back nine of the Plantation that he'd really been missing out.

But, such is the draw of even a single hole that actually plays over or next to the ocean, even vs. a great course with spectacular ocean views on every hole.

[Brad Tufts]

Sean Leary and Joe Bausch,

Whom are you to speak for Joe Q. Public?  On what do you base your assertions?

I cannot speak for Joe Q. Public, but I know many non-architecturally inclined golfers who prefer the drop-shot tee ball found at mountain courses over any other.  I can't recall a seaside mountain course on any recent thread.

I find it quite condescending, quite "GCA Man's Burden" to pretend to speak for the impossible-to-identify Joe Q. Public.

There are exceptions to every rule, but I think if most non-GCA caring golfers liked the drop shot over the ocean, the term "ocean whore" wouldn't exist.  You never hear "drop shot whore" or "mountain golf whore," and most public courses get away with charging more if they are on the ocean as opposed to inland.

Regardless, I would say no to the question posed in the thread title.

[Mark Arata]

I would rather play Prairie Dunes over Torrey Pines by a 9 - 1 margin,......and if the general public has even heard of Prairie Dunes (which is debatable), they would probably feel the exact opposite........

[Sean_A]

By beat it I assume you are talking about wanting to play it more.  For me, it is a no, but for it depends on price.  I will acknowledge that Oakland Hills is a great course, but I would rather play the likes of Shiskine anyday if I have to foot the bill. 

Ciao

[Thomas McQuillan]

Pine Valley or The Links at Spanish Bay.The Links at Spanish Bay is a mediocre seaside course and Pine Valley is a great inland one.A great course beats a mediocre one no matter where it is situated.

[Tim Martin]

Everyone loves ocean views regardless of the activity(running,biking,flying a kite etc.). In golf I would take the superior inland course every time because I can always go back to the seaside course without my clubs if I`m interested in the view.

[Mike Tanner]

Define "seaside".  As posted earlier, many courses (Turtle Point and Wild Dunes come to mind) have only a couple holes theat are seaside, the rest are so inland, you could be a hundred miles from the shore.

To the ? my answer is NO.  I play the golf course, no the scenery.  Therefore, I would take a great course over a mediocre course anyday.  Those that wouldn't aren't golfers, they're tourists.

I can't speak for Mr. Peper, but I'm fairly certain he intended seaside courses to be read as traditional links courses.

The provocative aspect of the statement is what makes it interesting to me. I think one's response to it has a lot to do with personal experience with both types of courses.

I've never been overseas to play the links in Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales. Haven't played any of the great inland courses so often discussed in this forum either.  So if I had one round to play and had to choose between a course like Seminole and a second-tier links in Scotland, I'd opt for the great course. But with lots of playing experience with both types, I might choose differently.