what does your favourite/best course NOT have

[Peter Pallotta]

On another thread, Tom D and Sean A agreed that in evaluating a golf course the most important thing is to see and appreciate what's actually there instead of looking for/expecting what's not there.

So I'd be interested to read what you'd say about your favorite course or the best/highest ranked course you've played if we flipped that precept totally on its head:

If you turned a critical eye towards your favourite/best course and, instead of highlighting the many qualities and features it does exhibit you focused on what it lacked, what issues/drawbacks/weakness might you identity?

From the cheap seats here, the more famous and/or highly regarded the course (now) being criticized the better! Let yourself solely focus on its failings -- whether that might be a lack of variety, or an awkward routing, or just average Par 5s, or a disappointing finish etc.

Please give yourself permission to denigrate your beloved --- especially since we know you still love it and that others think very highly of it too, just as it is 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Peter,


This is exactly the reason Tom and Sean stated what they did.


I can find things lacking on every course in the world. And when I analyse golf courses in that way, it takes away some of the childlike wonder I used to have when playing a new course before I was involved in GCA.


So I try to avoid this approach at all costs, not always successfully.

[Tom_Doak]

The biggest misconception in golf architecture is the idea that every course should be for everybody.


Pine Valley, obviously, is not for poorer players.  When I've tried to point that out in previous threads, there are instantly defenders popping up to tell me I'm wrong there, that 20-handicaps always have a great time at Pine Valley.  Which may sometimes be true, but the reason they pop up is to tamp down the mere suggestion that PV isn't everything to everybody, which I have no problem with.


OTOH, Crystal Downs would be woefully short for professional play.  There is very little fairway bunkering that adds strategic interest.  But the course still has plenty of strategic interest without that bunkering, so who cares?  Only the people that insist on checking that box. 

[jeffwarne]

Grass

[Thomas Dai]

Sheep.
atb

[Sean_A]

Well, as I sit, my favourite two courses are Old Town and St Enodoc.  Of the elements of design I really enjoy....

Both are missing quality flatish holes. 

Both are missing are missing a terrific very short hole.

Old Town is missing a high quality very short par 4.   

No course (so far in my experience anyway, but I am hoping this will change one day) can tick all the boxes. As has been mentioned so many times previously, folks can forgive a lot if the whole is greater than its parts. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Ally - I admire people who can approach a work with the open eyes of a child but who can also, if need be and/or at the same time, evaluate a course by more rigorous standards.
I find I can either do one or the other: it’s either the beginner’s mind or the critic’s mind.
And I think if I were a panellist, that divide would only get wider — ie tasked with rating a course, I think my critic’s mind would kick in to the exclusion of anything else, almost out of a sense of duty.
Either that or I’d love everything and find fault with nothing....
I think it must be even trickier for professionals/architects: the critic’s mind (re other people’s work) needs to be set aside so that the creative mind (re your own work) can have freer reign to explore new ideas and solutions 

[Jim Hoak]

Most of my favorite courses are old and lack a great practice range.

[John Kavanaugh]

Width. You hit a bad drive and you will pay.

[Peter Pallotta]

Width. You hit a bad drive and you will pay.

I appreciate the post - but I think I know you well enough to know that this is not a criticism in your books.
That's okay, though. It's natural that a (former) club champion-type still identifies with that ethos, and likes to share it with the club pro over some V.O. 
 

[Joe Bausch]

A restoration.   

[Will Spivey]

Well, as I sit, my favourite two courses are Old Town and St Enodoc.  Of the elements of design I really enjoy....

Both are missing quality flatish holes. 

Both are missing are missing a terrific very short hole.

Old Town is missing a high quality very short par 4.   

No course (so far in my experience anyway, but I am hoping this will change one day) can tick all the boxes. As has been mentioned so many times previously, folks can forgive a lot if the whole is greater than its parts. 

Ciao

Sean, it's great to hear that Old Town in your top 2! However, I'm going to debate your contention that OTC doesn't have a high quality very short par 4. (Possible out here: "short" is a relative term, particularly in this day and age). IMHO, the 14th hole at Old Town is one of the finest short par 4 in the US. I've been meaning to create a thread on this hole, but here's my short version. The 14th (339 from the  tips, 322/blue, 317/white, 278/gold, 272/red), nicknamed "Old Easy" by the old timers at the club presents options and a great strategic challenge. There are birdies to be had for sure, but bogey or worse lurks at all times. From the tee the player is presented with two lines of play, the high side or the low side. Each offers advantages and peril.


From the high side, the player can see the putting surface and is playing down the length of the green. While there are bunkers right of the green, the real trouble is missing left. Did I mention the high side presents and lie with the ball above one's feet, promoting a draw? Compounding this, the back half of the green has a "false side" on the left, and a ball over-drawn will funnel off the green to a valley of sin (the same is true for balls coming up short).


The low side is wide, and offers the player a flat lie. However, from down below, the player cannot see the putting surface, and is playing in from an angle such that the green is very narrow. A ball hit too long will end up in the bunkers, creating a very challenging recovery. Balls too short gather to the already mentioned valley of sin.


The green, subtle by Old Town standards, is a true challenge. The front portion of the green contains a nearly imperceptible ridge that will affect every putt. The front middle is the "easy pin," sitting in a gentle swale.  The back has the dreaded funnel feeding balls left.


On a course full of great holes, number 14 is hands down my favorite. I hosted a GCA'er last summer and we had the course to ourselves. We played 14, then went back to the tee with the requirement that however we played the first time, we had to play it differently the second time. It was great fun.


Even for the WFU golf team, who can drive the green (sometimes with a 3 wood - just crazy), the miss left can spell doom.


Just my $0.02. I look forward to seeing you again the next time you're at OTC!

[Kalen Braley]

Me as a member

[Mike_Trenham]

Debt

[David Wuthrich]

Beverage carts, which is fine with me.

Riding as an option, also fine with me.
Formal cart paths, also fine with me.
Tee times, also fine with me.
Small shower heads, also fine with me.

[Peter Pallotta]

Just to be clear: I was hoping to get some concrete examples of the ways by which excellence is achieved *despite* the limitations as opposed to *because* of the attributes.   

I've actually played Crystal Downs. It was the neatest - and yet strangest -- thing to a) rarely get into any serious trouble off the tee because of bunkers or even rough...and yet score so badly! and b) to play the very furthest back tees on a course, and not have it feel too long for me...and yet still score so badly!

For me CD is the only course I've played where *distance control* with your irons/approaches is so critically important.  In a way, much of its strategic interest seems to come down to this: choosing where you need to be so that distance control on the approach shot is *not* so critically important!

I don’t know if that’s right - but after 6 years that realization just hit me. Until this moment, I’d been not so secretly wondering why everyone made such a fuss about its “strategy”! 

     

[Ian Andrew]

A great or even good 18th hole ...
My choice is Royal County Down

I don't dislike the finish, but it does feel like an anti-climax and is probably the least interesting hole.
But then again Cypress Point's finish never bothered me.

I've seen too many courses where you spend 17 holes getting to the 18th.
That's far worse for me on a conceptual level.

[mike_beene]

Muirfield, Oakmont, Old Course, Pinehurst 2 :water hazards consist of a ditch or two and are not forced on you.

[Sean_A]

For me CD is the only course I've played where *distance control* with your irons/approaches is so critically important.  In a way, much of its strategic interest seems to come down to this: choosing where you need to be so that distance control on the approach shot is *not* so critically important!

I don’t know if that’s right - but after 6 years that realization just hit me. Until this moment, I’d been not so secretly wondering why everyone made such a fuss about its “strategy”! 

Pietro

Wait, so you NEVER considered the idea that getting to a position in the fairway to approach the fat part of the green was important at least to consider?  In a nutshell, this consideration is what my home course lacks because the fairways overly dictate the angle of approach too often.  Sometimes it is due to narrow cutlines and sometimes it is due to fairways between dunes...so resolving human error in maintenance practice could probably do enough to improve the course quite a bit.  Of course, once narrow fairways are the norm, it is awfully easy to set greens which are best approached from the middle of the fairway...it would hardly make sense to offer a better angle from the rough...now wouldn't it...

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Coyotes.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - with CD, seeing each hole for the first time, I was trying to be thoughtful: I'd look out there and determine the angle from which the green opened up and/or was unprotected. But it never occurred to me -- during the round -- that this smart choice and safe angle wasn't necessarily either safe or smart in regard to the green itself, i.e. its contours and slopes.

(That the course isn't littered with fairway bunkers actually fosters this lack of insight, since it means that the usual risk-reward signs & signifers simply aren't there.)   

Yes, that angle of approach might have sometimes aligned with the green's orientation, i.e. the fat part or widest or longest part of the green; but again, I never saw/realized that the "margin of error" this angle afforded me might actually be the kiss of death! It lulled me into happily anticipating hitting greens in regulation instead of paying closer attention to distance control, e.g. to not going long or leaving myself on the high side, or even to sometimes not trying to hit the green at all. 

Now granted, with my skill level back then, my paying attention to distance control might only occasionally result in actually achieving it; but still, I would've been better off trying it. As it was, I left the course grateful and happy, but also demoralized. I'm not an excellent putter, but I do fancy myself a decent one -- and so I couldn't get over how badly I'd putted all day long. I mean, really, really badly, Sean. Dozens and Dozens of putts. Dozens. 

Peter

[Terry Lavin]

Debt

Great answer.  My club is the same way.  Over my thirty years, we've had the occasional Board that wants to build a new clubhouse, a new pool complex (even though the old one was rarely crowded), or some other capital project other than the golf course.  Fortunately, our local club culture of frugality with each others' money has prevailed.  In my time at Beverly, we've had exactly one assessment, of $2K per member for bunker construction. 

One of the clubs that I had been a member of for a number of years, on the other hand, currently has something in excess of $7 million in debt and just assessed the members a couple million to doll up the clubhouse.  In their defense, they racked up the debt at a time when everybody had money and the housing crisis and the other economic calamities hadn't yet occurred. 

Bottom line, some clubs have enough member wealth that they can spend freely without endangering the club's survival.  Unfortunately, we have a number of clubs in Chicago whose survival is questionable because of the combination of shrinking membership and huge debt servicing.

[Rick Lane]

Debt

Great answer.  My club is the same way.  Over my thirty years, we've had the occasional Board that wants to build a new clubhouse, a new pool complex (even though the old one was rarely crowded), or some other capital project other than the golf course.  Fortunately, our local club culture of frugality with each others' money has prevailed.  In my time at Beverly, we've had exactly one assessment, of $2K per member for bunker construction. 

One of the clubs that I had been a member of for a number of years, on the other hand, currently has something in excess of $7 million in debt and just assessed the members a couple million to doll up the clubhouse.  In their defense, they racked up the debt at a time when everybody had money and the housing crisis and the other economic calamities hadn't yet occurred. 

Bottom line, some clubs have enough member wealth that they can spend freely without endangering the club's survival.  Unfortunately, we have a number of clubs in Chicago whose survival is questionable because of the combination of shrinking membership and huge debt servicing.

Me too!   We are old, like Beverly, and our mantra is "no debt".   If we want something, we save for it, and we keep a healthy reserve too, because roofs leak and stuff happens.   One of the things we are starting to see is the younger members (who are paying $$ to get in) thinking debt would be OK.....want new stuff, spruced up clubhouse, and the older members pointing to the golf course as the place to keep investing, as that is (like the Bev) what makes the place special.  Theres another club in our town who built a huge clubhouse on a mountain of debt, so we try to keep that difference in culture stark so people can choose where to join.

[Peter Pallotta]

Rick, Terry -
I find myself wondering how many unintended consequences your clubs have avoided because of a commitment to low-zero debt.
I mentioned earlier how the relative lack of fairway bunkering at Crystal Downs seems to make it more interesting/strategic to play and not less. (Such bunkers can function as signs and signifiers of the key risk-reward equation; without them, a golfer has to pay closer attention and make even subtler choices.) But that's not an idea that I'd accept or that would occur (to me, at least) intuitively. If a club was willing to spend money it didn't have to make the course 'better', I wonder how easily some committee member might suggest new tees (or in the past, trees) or green re-contouring etc -- only to discover later that such changes didn't achieve their goal, but instead only added a big debt load onto members' shoulders.
To borrow from 'Cool Hand Luke' - "Sometimes a handful of nothing can be a pretty cool hand".
Peter   

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

A short drop shot par 3 at Prairie Dunes