[JJShanley]

As the snow falls in Notre Dame, I've spent a little while putting together an itinerary of golf courses that I haven't played before for an early-May 2016 golf trip.  (I've a week off between finishing my campus job and my STEM buddies' graduation.)  I've planned on playing several courses in a particular region of the Midwest that GCA folks would likely visit if they visited the city in question, but also at least one other that DG members have panned.


I ask the question, however: should someone in my position -- a student of GCA still in the elementary stages of his education -- play these courses to better appreciate the excellent work that other architects have left us?


The Doak Scale may have already provided a gradated answer to this question, but I can't help thinking that these mediocre course have something to teach me, even if their error serves as the only example.


(I use the word "mediocre" as a catch-all to describe courses that, among other failings, didn't make the most of the terrain, have goofy routings, or simply offer little interest.)

[Doug Siebert]

Shouldn't you want to see some of the courses he gives a low rating to and articulates reasons why it deserves that low rating? I would think learning what doesn't work in golf architecture is just as important as learning what does.

[JJShanley]

Doug,


That is (I think?) my point.  That playing such courses helps me understand what doesn't work. 


That said: I haven't seen the original CG, and the volume examining the Midwest won't arrive until later this year, so I have no idea about what Mr. Doak thinks of each course.

[Joe Bausch]

IMHO you should absolutely see mediocre courses.  It gives you perspective!

[Peter Pallotta]

JJ -

I sometimes wonder what has more variety, greatness or mediocrity.  Sometimes I think that if you took 10 great courses, they'd all be different, i.e. they'd be great in 10 different/unique ways; but that if you took 10 mediocre courses, they'd all be mediocre in exactly the same way. Other times, however, I find myself thinking the exact opposite.

Of course, this here is an example of a mediocre post. I don't think anyone could learn anything from it, except perhaps what not to do/post.   

[Tim_Weiman]

As the snow falls in Notre Dame, I've spent a little while putting together an itinerary of golf courses that I haven't played before for an early-May 2016 golf trip.  (I've a week off between finishing my campus job and my STEM buddies' graduation.)  I've planned on playing several courses in a particular region of the Midwest that GCA folks would likely visit if they visited the city in question, but also at least one other that DG members have panned.


I ask the question, however: should someone in my position -- a student of GCA still in the elementary stages of his education -- play these courses to better appreciate the excellent work that other architects have left us?


The Doak Scale may have already provided a gradated answer to this question, but I can't help thinking that these mediocre course have something to teach me, even if their error serves as the only example.


(I use the word "mediocre" as a catch-all to describe courses that, among other failings, didn't make the most of the terrain, have goofy routings, or simply offer little interest.)

If a person decides they really enjoy golf architecture as an art form and wants to see as much of the great courses as one can, it is best to think of this as a lifelong quest. The only exception would be people with the time and means to just take off for a couple years and do nothing but go visit golf courses.


That said, there is nothing wrong with seeing courses that are good or very good, but maybe not among the very best. For example, I found my one visit to the Warren course very enjoyable and probably a place one could learn quite a bit from.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Of course... You need to see different things to know what the difference is. And sometimes you have just got to see for yourself.


Mediocre is not the same as uninteresting.

[Ian Andrew]

I think your better off seeking something polarizing rather than mediocre.
There's far more to learn at a course like Tobacco Road - even if it doesn't meet your taste.


I'd rather find novel solutions to difficult problems and know my alternatives.

[JJShanley]

JJ -

I sometimes wonder what has more variety, greatness or mediocrity.  Sometimes I think that if you took 10 great courses, they'd be all different, i.e. they'd be great in 10 different/unique ways; but that if you took 10 mediocre courses, they'd all be mediocre in exactly the same way. Other times, however, I find myself thinking the exact opposite.

Of course, this here is an example of a mediocre post. I don't think anyone could learn anything from it, except perhaps what not to do/post.   

I'll leave the discussion of the great courses to those among us with greater experience of such venues.  I will say that Camargo, which I played in July 2014, got me excited all of a sudden.  It happened sometime during the back nine.  Perhaps hitting wedge to a few feet on 11 helped, #humblebrag, but I suddenly realized "I may not know right now why exactly I like this, but I do."*


But when I review my list of courses to select those I'd consider mediocre, I give that designation for a variety of different reasons.


A local, modern course that I played last season just doesn't have much topographical interest.  Whoever designed it didn't do much to offer interest.  Another modern course that I played in the late-1990s just outside Edinburgh just has some downright goofy holes, on an interesting enough site.  Another modern Edinburgh-area course doesn't strike me as suitable for a golf course. 


As things stand I don't see a common theme among those three mediocre courses.  (I may one day, with the benefit of hindsight.)


*Part of my love for Camargo involves simple chronology.  I had hand surgery in November 2012, the specifics of which might have prevented me playing golf decently or at all.  I took comprehensive exams the following fall, which left little time for golf.  My round at Camargo demonstrated how much I loved the game, but also that I could actually still play it. 

[JJShanley]

Ian: You make a great point about polarizing.  I'd place those courses in another category entirely.  I suspect I'd like Tobacco Road.  I thought about getting down there during my trip to Duke last fall, but the logistics didn't work out.


Perhaps these comments have helped me better define "mediocre."  The course in question had a decent reputation here until they made changes to build houses.  It ruined what some on this board thought an exciting hole towards the end of the round.


Jaeger: I agree that mediocre doesn't mean uninteresting.  That distinction helps better define the characteristics about which I've generalized.

[Terry Lavin]

Just keep playing and keep reading. Less typing may help, too!   

[Nigel Islam]

Just keep playing and keep reading. Less typing may help, too!   

So true! We make it so complicated sometimes here.

[John Kavanaugh]

I played at golf for thirty years before I played my first top 100 course, and that was because I joined it. The best thirty years golfing a ball of my life.

If you follow the critics they will make you one. Just be a happy ignorant golfer till you're too old to know better.

There is a story of a graduate of Notre Dame living a great life, with a great family, playing golf with his friends at a great club. Just think, that could be your story.

[Tom_Doak]

JJ:  nothing bothers me more than people who will only go to play or look at ranked courses and not even bother to look at the course across the street as they speed away.  A truly mediocre course is not worth much time, but anything above a 3 on the Doak scale is worth your time and there must be 2000 or 3000 of those in the USA, less than half of which I've seen myself. 

[Sean_A]

JJ


I would think in the course of your golfing life that mediocre courses will be encountered; I don't see a need to target mediocricity. 


Discover opinions you trust when trundling down the back alleys of golf.  You will find some of your favourite courses this way and likely alter your architectural opinions along the way.  You will also find courses which make you wonder what the trusted opinion sees that you don't.


Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

It depend how you score mediocre. The mediocre course in the CG will still be scoring 6-ish so well worth seeing. If you mean poor then that is another matter though one mans poor is another mans good so how will you know about a course until have seen it for yourself.

[Niall C]

IMHO you should absolutely see mediocre courses.  It gives you perspective!

That is absolutely true, and there is no reason also that you can't enjoy them. I often find that courses that wouldn't bear a mention in any architectural discussion, still have some outstanding bits of design even if the overall course is nothing special.


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

How do you know what's good or bad without also sampling what might be in the middle? Most courses whether broadly classified as good, bad or mediocre have some features or holes worth experiencing whether that experience is of the "that's nice" or of the "ugg, to be avoided" sort.
Atb

[Jeff_Mingay]

JJ:  nothing bothers me more than people who will only go to play or look at ranked courses and not even bother to look at the course across the street as they speed away.  A truly mediocre course is not worth much time, but anything above a 3 on the Doak scale is worth your time and there must be 2000 or 3000 of those in the USA, less than half of which I've seen myself.

Tom makes a great point. And here's a practical example ..


I love The Toronto Golf Club's Colt course, and have been there to study and play it many times over the years. It's highly ranked here, in Canada. For too many years, I was remiss to go across the street to Lakeview - a Herbert Strong design that hosted a couple Canadian Opens in the pre-World War II era and is now a muni owned/operated by the city of Mississauga. What a mistake!


Lakeview's not on any rankings lists, nor is it talked about much in architecture circles. But the course has some of the sportiest holes and coolest greens in Canada. Seriously. In fact, it's an incredible set of greens that compares with any of the best courses up here and should be studied.

[Phil McDade]

JJ:


I wrote about this course a few years back:


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41510.msg880761.html#msg880761


It's a neat little course near Rockford IL that I visited largely because a GCA poster said it was a "short and sporty" place where he learned the play the game.


Some might view it as mediocre, and it's definitely not hard -- some might characterize it as a "beginner's course." I can't imagine it would be viewed higher than a Doak 3. Thus some may dismiss it out of hand.


But it's an interesting course from an architectural standpoint -- whoever designed it simply laid out 18 holes on the lay of the land, creating some blindness and quirk, as well as decent variety. There is also some interesting use of mounding around the greens and some built-up greens that make for challenging recoveries for the golfer who misses on an approach shot.


To me, it has more architectural interest than a lot of courses I've played.

[JJShanley]

Thank you for these comments!  My thoughts may seem a little cryptic, but I didn't think it necessary or appropriate to name the allegedly mediocre courses in public. 


On that note, I'll attempt to clarify further.  I didn't mean "Top 100 courses nationally" v. everything else.  I've played two of the former variety in the last two seasons after very gracious invitations.  Those courses make up a tiny fraction of my golfing calendar.  I enjoy them but don't ever expect to play them.


I imagine the upcoming v3 of the CG will examine several of the courses on my itinerary.  I imagine that someone has listed them in something like a "Top 50 Courses You Can Play in Michigan."  Given what I've read of them on here, I'd play 6 of the 9 regularly if I lived 100 miles further north of my current location, even given my grad stipend.  I think greens fee range from $19 to $57, given what I saw posted on their websites over the weekend.  One (a municipal course) sounds like a Michigan version of Braid Hills in Edinburgh, which I love.


The remaining three probably fall into the category of looking nice, but not having much going on architecturally.  In fact, they're the most expensive green fee.  Those are the courses that I wonder whether I should play.  Should I bother visiting this sort of course?

[JJShanley]

There is a story of a graduate of Notre Dame living a great life, with a great family, playing golf with his friends at a great club. Just think, that could be your story.

Rudy: The Director's Cut.  ( I consider Rudy the ultimate access whore.  I watched the movie once, just to keep up appearances.  Never again.)

[Jason Topp]

What I do not find interesting are mediocre courses that are modern and have had most of their character bulldozed out.

However, here are some categories of "mediocre" course that I find interesting:

Low budget, often rural designs:  Such courses often need to deal with a difficult land feature and do so in interesting ways that sometimes work and sometimes do not.  Westwood Golf Course in Newton, Iowa has an 11th hole on low lying ground with a big muddy creek running down the middle of the fairway and then wrapping around the green.  It is an extremely intimidating hole but one must decide off the tee whether to hit an iron to the left - leaving a very difficult longer approach to a green with water wrapping around it or hit driver/3 wood to an area between water and OB, leaving a straightforward pitch. 

Original 9 hole courses with another nine added later  I mean the kind where each nine is completely different from the other.  Such courses provide a window on how thoughts about the game changed over time - sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.

Old Courses in GBI off the tourist rota   I cannot recall a single such course that I did not find interesting in some way.

Courses with a different mission  There is a facility on an odd piece of land near a former home that is designed to introduce people to the game.  It has a terrific practice facility and a surprisingly interesting executive course.


   

[John Mayhugh]

It's hard to answer your question without understanding what your educational goals are.

I think most of us have already played enough poor or mediocre courses to know what one is.  There's an opportunity cost to play more of them.  Sure, if a friend of mine invites me to play somewhere that doesn't offer a lot of interest, I'll still say yes.  But if I'm planning a trip, why wouldn't I try to see the best (by that I mean the most interesting) courses that I can see?  I'm never going to have the time and money to play every course that I really would like to see.  No sense in wasting a day on one that doesn't appeal to me.

If your goal is to be an "authority" on a certain area, then you need to have played everywhere.  Otherwise, play what looks worth playing. 

[Jason Thurman]

The remaining three probably fall into the category of looking nice, but not having much going on architecturally.  In fact, they're the most expensive green fee.  Those are the courses that I wonder whether I should play.  Should I bother visiting this sort of course?

The reason you’re asking this question is because you haven’t played enough courses based on recommendations to know whose opinions you trust and whose you don’t. You’ll never know for sure whether a course is worth your time unless you play it, but most of us don’t have the time and money to play every course we happen across just to see if it surprises us or not. At this stage in your life, it might be worth your time to play a few courses that others have labeled as “mediocre” and see whose opinions you agree with, and whose you don’t.


Over the last few years, I’ve come up with about a dozen guys whose recommendations for where to play and where to avoid I trust. Along the way I played some real clunkers that came highly recommended, and stumbled onto a few courses that I really loved despite hearing criticism beforehand. It’s only through trial-and-error that you can really figure out which recommendations you should pay attention to, and which you should ignore.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()