Here is another criterion to clarify the purpose of my first post:
Has no shot at being ranked one of the best courses in its country or state.
Greg Gilson:
None of the courses you mention qualify as "Good Bad" courses. The only one I have played of the four is Royal Cinque Ports, which has several great holes, several good holes, and zero "bad" holes. It hosted a British Amateur in 2013, is perennially ranked as one of the best courses in England, and in my view qualifies as a merely "great" course. I haven't played the other three, but from what I understand they would all be classified as somewhere between "good" and "great." They have all been featured in one or more books on Golf Architecture, and three of the four would probably find their way onto a well-traveled golfer's top 25.
The "Good Bad" course I'm thinking of isn't on anybody's list. It's not a course that most people have heard of or hold in high regard. It's not a course that is an under-appreciated classic. It's probably not even a course you love wholeheartedly. It's that guilty pleasure, that Varsity Blues or Tokyo Drift of golf courses that you know is "bad" by most objective measures but still has parts that appeal to you.
I think Jim Sherma's list gets at what I'm looking for here. I have played Tumblebrook, and it definitely fits the bill. It's nearly a cow pasture, but the greens at 4 and 5 are worth the stop and the $10 greens fee.