Great courses that divide our opinion

[Ally Mcintosh]

Reading Ran’s Sunningdale profile, it reminded me that amongst those that have played a lot of heathland golf, The Old course is without exception at the top or near the top of the pile. There appears to be nothing divisive about the course, nothing macro that splits opinion. Hence it is – correctly – extremely highly rated.

What makes a course universally loved?

Or more specifically, what are examples of great courses that divide opinion amongst those on this website? And why do they divide opinion? Do the only courses that seriously divide opinion fit at either end of the scale? For example, the outrageous design of some Mike Strantz courses, the outrageous topography of some big dunes courses or the too subtle (read boring) test provided by some of the flat, championship layouts? Are the only courses that are loved by us all the ones that sit somewhere in the middle?

[Mark Pearce]

Ally,

Perhaps the best example is Muirfield.  It gets a 10 in the Confidential Guide and many rank it amongst the top 10 or so courses in the world.  It is lauded for a brilliant routing and excellent bunkering.  It is a links that is never criticised for being unfair and one which manages consistently to identify the best golfers in the world.  Many others don't get it at all.  It is criticised as flat and featureless, over-bunkered, too narrow and as having rough that is too punitive.  I love it but know others really don't (ran included, I believe).

[Sean_A]

Mark

At least for me, Muirfield is a bit too clinical in its test.  Their isn't enough whimsy to carry me aong for the entire ride.  Like some American championship courses, Murifield is pure bred championship golf.  No question in my mind that Muirfield is great, but also not loved by me either.  I guess greatness comes in all sizes and shapes so it isn't enough to inspire some.  

Ally

On the flip side of Murifield is Deal.  Its not loved by the typically non gcaer.  Perhaps that is due to the difficult beat back to the house.  This part of the course screams championship golf, but there is a fair amount whimsy to even out the test...perhaps this is what endears deal to gcaers...the design balance.  

I was also thinking the opppsite of Murifield in terms of to easy.  Mid Pines is loved by gcaers, but doesn't garener huge respect elsewhere...not nearly to the degree as on here anyway.  Perhaps people see Mid-Pines as too easy?  

The course which stands out for me is Pennard.  GCAers obviously love the place...enough so that it nearly made the top 100 world in the Unofficial GCA.com Rankings.  Pennard doesn't register for any other world ranking.  I can only assume gcaers love the whimsy and accept that the course can play brutally difficult or fairly benign, but never exactly easy.  With the new tees, the course can play just about as difficult as any very good amateur would care to handle.   BUT, I am still not convinced that Pennard is truly a great course.

So far as dividing opinion on this site, Tobacco Road does it just about as well as any course. Though I can't really think of a great course which creates this division to the degree that does TR.  Maybe Kiawah?  Of course, much depends on one's notion of what is great.

Ciao

[Phil McDade]

Augusta National is pretty divisive.

[Giles Payne]

For me I think that Hankley divides opinion. A lot of people love it but I think that somehow it is an opportunity missed. It has some fantastic holes but overall it did not set my heart racing. From my memory I thought that the greens were not as interesting as they might have been. I played Walton Heath last year and it made me wonder why Hankley could have been with its outstanding site. I know this is probably heretical but .....

[Mark Pearce]

For what it's worth Giles, I agree on Hankley.  I had very high expectations when BUDA went there and came away thinking that it could be so much more.  Brilliant land, great views, good course but not the great course it should be.  I can't think of so many courses of that perceived quality that require so little thought to play.  Not that it isn't difficult, it's just that on almost every shot it is obvious what you should be trying to do.

[Bill_McBride]

I have been astonished to hear some refer to Royal Porthcawl as "mundane."   It's very high on my list of great courses. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

I have been astonished to hear some refer to Royal Porthcawl as "mundane."   It's very high on my list of great courses. 

I'm with you Bill.

Phil - I think Augusta mainly divides opinion because of the way it has evolved. I'm not sure anyone disagrees that the bones of the course is a great one - or do they?

All - Are all the non-divisive great courses ones that sit somewhere in the middle between extreme (design or land) and mild (design or land)?

[Mark Bourgeois]

There are a lot of old courses that should be more divisive than they are. TOC and Pine Valley come to mind, with possible others including Cypress Point and NGLA. Essentially any old courses that were bold, even departures from norms, in their time.

Time, reputation and the ability of modern communication to influence and congeal opinion around a point of view combine to create a gauzy hagiography of these courses that make it hard if not impossible to actually see them as they are for us, individually.

[Adam Lawrence]

For what it's worth Giles, I agree on Hankley.  I had very high expectations when BUDA went there and came away thinking that it could be so much more.  Brilliant land, great views, good course but not the great course it should be.  I can't think of so many courses of that perceived quality that require so little thought to play.  Not that it isn't difficult, it's just that on almost every shot it is obvious what you should be trying to do.

I think that those who rave about Hankley tend to be the ones who place views and prettiness over anything else. It is a very, very beautiful place, but the lack of interest in the greens precludes it from being top rank. But you only have to peruse any course ranking to know that beauty elevates a course up the lists.

[Peter Pallotta]

There are a lot of old courses that should be more divisive than they are. TOC and Pine Valley come to mind, with possible others including Cypress Point and NGLA. Essentially any old courses that were bold, even departures from norms, in their time.

Time, reputation and the ability of modern communication to influence and congeal opinion around a point of view combine to create a gauzy hagiography of these courses that make it hard if not impossible to actually see them as they are for us, individually.

Very true. And let's not forget that we often forget (or simply don't know, even with some of the co-temporaneous reports at our disposal) what it was really like to actually play/experience Pine Valley in 1920. To put it another way: the great modern courses that today's 10 handicapper raves about are the 'playing equivalent' of a PV or NGLA or Cypress only because they have been purposely designed NOT to play/be experienced the way those classic courses originally did.

Peter  

[jeffwarne]

If Kidd built TOC today, what would it score?

[David Stamm]

I think Pebble Beach can be divisive. The argument of course being that it has "too many weak holes" and benefits from it's spectacular locale too much to garner a fair architectural assesment. I say rubbish to all of that.

[Bill_McBride]

For what it's worth Giles, I agree on Hankley.  I had very high expectations when BUDA went there and came away thinking that it could be so much more.  Brilliant land, great views, good course but not the great course it should be.  I can't think of so many courses of that perceived quality that require so little thought to play.  Not that it isn't difficult, it's just that on almost every shot it is obvious what you should be trying to do.

I think that those who rave about Hankley tend to be the ones who place views and prettiness over anything else. It is a very, very beautiful place, but the lack of interest in the greens precludes it from being top rank. But you only have to peruse any course ranking to know that beauty elevates a course up the lists.

We played both Hankley Common and Liphook during a recent Buda Cup.   Hankley was indeed beautiful with the surrounding acres of heather, but Liphook was far ahead in terms of interest.   

[Carl Rogers]

Not within this group, but hasn't TOC been controversial to some?  Or are those individuals dismissed as the great unwashed vulgar throng?

[Jason Thurman]

This all depends on what you mean by "great" and "divisive." Some people think Pebble Beach is overrated, but nobody really dislikes it do they? Tobacco Road has people who truly love it (me) and people who truly hate it, so it fits the mold.

It seems like Alotian and Shadow Creek elicit pretty strong feelings...

Not within this group, but hasn't TOC been controversial to some?  Or are those individuals dimissed as the great unwashed vulgar throng?

[BHoover]

Muirfield Village seems to be rather polarizing around here. The par 5s seem to be well liked by most folks, but from there the views diverge. It's called a tournament course as opposed to a good members' course. The par 3s are polarizing, the bunkering is controversial, etc.

I love it, for the record.

[Terry Lavin]

I think Pebble Beach can be divisive. The argument of course being that it has "too many weak holes" and benefits from it's spectacular locale too much to garner a fair architectural assesment. I say rubbish to all of that.

David, you stole my thought -  for the easy holes, the non-links factor, the tinkering, and of course the price. 

I would add to this adroit analysis the fact that the golf shop staff at Pebble Beach is almost uniformly snotty to the point of being almost unwelcoming.

[Phil McDade]

Phil - I think Augusta mainly divides opinion because of the way it has evolved. I'm not sure anyone disagrees that the bones of the course is a great one - or do they?

Ally:

I'd agree that it's most current iteration is probably the most divisive. But -- my study of the course (I haven't played, as few here have, so take this w/ as many grains of salt as you deem appropriate) is that it has long generated divided opinions. Among the criticisms: it favors an aerial game; it's overly penal on and around the greens while less penal off the tee (moreso 50 years ago than perhaps today); it favors a draw on many tee shots and shots into greens; it generally favors the player w/ length off the tee (under tournament conditions, as opposed to regular member play); it lacks a great gambling short par 4.

I hasten to add I don't agree with all of those criticisms-- it is more penal in and around the greens vs. off the tee, but to me that's part of the course's great ying and yang. But, I'd say the course under tournament conditions (the Masters) has certainly shown a propensity to favor long hitters, and arguably those who play with a draw vs. a fade (Trevino's long-time critique of the course may have been influenced by his relatively weak performances there, but I do think it has some merit).

[Mark Pearce]

I would add to this adroit analysis the fact that the golf shop staff at Pebble Beach is almost uniformly snotty to the point of being almost unwelcoming.

It wasn't something I said, then?

[Charlie Ray]

In my profession I adhere to the adage that if everybody likes what you are doing than you are doing something wrong.  Good design should challenge peoples’ conception of quality.  Tobacco Road is constantly been thrown around on these pages because of its polarizing qualities.  Unfortunately with our subjective view of the good,  isn’t it impossible for a ‘great’ course to be divisive.  Thus, I pose the following  question:

   What are some of the examples of features/designs that architects have to soften or strengthen in order for them to appeal to the majority?  In other words what would create more ‘Wow’ factors but instead get left on the drawing board because they would be too polarizing?

[Niall C]

Ally

If a course is divisive, can it truly be called great ? I mean, by saying it’s great when clearly some think it’s not, are you not basically saying all those that disagree that it’s great are wrong ? For instance, if there is a body of misguided individuals who think a course great but there are also those with clear headed analytical skills who know fine well that Castle Stuart the course isn’t that good, can that later body of intelligent and knowledgeable individuals be wrong ? Surely they can’t both be correct.

Yours helpfully

Niall

[Mark Jackson]

I feel that many of Pete Dye's designs would fall into this category. Whistling Straits, TPC Sawgrass, Harbour Town, etc. all have been subject to strong feelings on both sides.

I thoroughly enjoy Harbour Town. I don't know if I would consider it "great" (that is a very elusive term to me that doesn't really capture or explain much about what its being used to describe). Almost everyone has recognized its importance in the timeline of golf architecture as a reaction to the RTJ style, but the course's detractors often respond that it as too tight, that the greens do not have enough interest, or that it suffers from poor conditioning at certain times of the year.

[Paul Gray]

Reading Ran’s Sunningdale profile, it reminded me that amongst those that have played a lot of heathland golf, The Old course is without exception at the top or near the top of the pile. There appears to be nothing divisive about the course, nothing macro that splits opinion. Hence it is – correctly – extremely highly rated.

What makes a course universally loved?

Or more specifically, what are examples of great courses that divide opinion amongst those on this website? And why do they divide opinion? Do the only courses that seriously divide opinion fit at either end of the scale? For example, the outrageous design of some Mike Strantz courses, the outrageous topography of some big dunes courses or the too subtle (read boring) test provided by some of the flat, championship layouts? Are the only courses that are loved by us all the ones that sit somewhere in the middle?

If we knew that, we'd have a science. 

[Ken Moum]

One really important factor that comes to bear on this subject is that folks who don't like "great" courses are inclined to simply shut up about it around here.

You'd have no difficulty finding people who don't like TOC, N. Berwick, Pine Valley, etc. but if they do come around here they'd be insane to talk about their feelings.

As I have said too often, I don't have the mental stamina to play really hard golf courses on a regular basis, they just wear me down.  I have proven to myself that I can get around most of them, but the strategy I have to employ to do so is BORING.

K