What courses get too much attention and are discussed too often on GCA?

[PCCraig]

Seems to me at least that on many threads, certain golf courses pop up (either in general, or specifically) consistently and often.

Thread about "Great Greens in Golf?" --> Responses with Merion, Kingsley Club, Pacific Dunes, Cypress Point, Ballyneal
Thread about "Quirkiest Holes?" --> Responses with Merion, Kingsley Club, Yale, Pacific Dunes, Ballyneal, Dismal River
Thread about "2nd Shots?" --> Responses with Dismal River, Cypress Point, Pebble Beach, Bandon Dunes, Sand Hills

I recognize that all the above courses are great, but is it just me or are responses to many threads here becoming predictable? Is it possible that too much attention is given to some of the courses listed above?

[Ronald Montesano]

Perhaps the interrogative should be "why" do certain courses get so much attention?

RE: Ran's missive on GCA in 2012...old-timers around here mix with young bloods. The OTs have done certain topics to death, but feel a rightful need to revisit these topics for the new arrivals, who have probably not read the previous 13 years' worth of threads.

We all feel the need to brag/boast/reveal (however you wish to frame it) that we've had the most glorious opportunity to bed one of the great courses of the world. Kinda goes back to teenage horniness, I guess...can't wait to tell da'boyz that you wuz with Darla and reached a new base.

Some on here view this as their contribution to scholarly research, seeking to create a volume of irrefutable evidence regarding lineage of golf courses or portfolio of architect.

That said, Merion, NGLA, anything by Doak, anything by Coore/Crenshaw, anything developed by Mr. Keiser, get done to death.

I think that the folderol on the New Course at St. Andrews should be the guiding principle by which we light our pathway. The old sock about "if the Old Course weren't next door, the New would be held in greater regard."

[Will MacEwen]

Pat, NGLA is another one - there are more. I think it's just a reflection of where most regular posters have enjoyed their best golfing experiences. If more participants on the discussion group posted, you would get a much broader range of responses, I think.

I also find that unless you have good pictures, you are best to reference courses that at least a good handful of other GCAers are familiar with. 

[JC Urbina]

P Craig.

You are correct, very predictable responses to many of the posts.


 

[Tim Pitner]

What gets me is when a thread about "underrated" or "surprising" courses or courses that "exceeded expectations" still manages to generate responses that invoke these same usual suspects.  People justify it by saying something like "I had high expectations for Ballyneal but, nonetheless, the course exceeded them."  Lame.  Try to come up with something more novel. 

[Brad Tufts]

Hi Pat,

I love all the new renaissance (non trademarked term here)-era golf designs that all GCAers love, but I have been surprised at how good some courses really are that were built by traditional anti-darlings of GCA.

Places like Laurel Valley, Cornell's RTJ course, Colgate's Seven Oaks, and Saucon Valley (x3) are awesome in their own right even though they weren't built in a Golden Era.  How soon until some of these become true classics like those of Ross, Tillie, and MacKenzie?  

We are only beginning to realize the contributions of RTJ Sr. and Dick Wilson after those reviving public interest in golf course architecture (think 80s and 90s) threw them out as runway-tee, fountain-pond, circle-bunker builders.

[Carl Nichols]

Places like Laurel Valley, Cornell's RTJ course, Colgate's Seven Oaks, and Saucon Valley (x3) are awesome in their own right even though they weren't built in a Golden Era.  How soon until some of these become true classics like those of Ross, Tillie, and MacKenzie?  

Brad,
Do you really think that Laurel Valley is that good? Between some pretty mundane holes and very wet conditioning both times I was there, I'd have a hard time putting it into the classics category -- though it would be interesting to see it under different conditions.
Hope you're well,
Carl

[Kalen Braley]

Pat,

Or could it be those courses are so highly valued/esteemed/thought of....because they do indeed have several holes that qualify when playing the "Best of <Insert Category>" game? If those golf courses didn't have terrific or memorable or one of a kind holes, I doubt they would have such lofty ratings/rankings.

All that being said...I do think only certain types of holes from certain type of courses are most often nominated.  Guys like Jim Engh, Jack Nicklaus, etc have built some terrific, fun-to-play, innovative holes that tend to get dismissed by most on GCA.com