The most important aspect of a golf course for you?

The_Architect

Recent rating discussions have me wondering what you all consider the most important aspect of a golf course? How would you place these in order of your highest preference to lowest preference:

A. Difficulty & Length
B. Design
C. Condition
D. Views

What constitutes a good design in your eyes?

Thanks.

soundsham

The_Architect wrote: »

Recent rating discussions have me wondering what you all consider the most important aspect of a golf course? How would you place these in order of your highest preference to lowest preference:

A. Difficulty & Length
B. Design
C. Condition
D. Views

What constitutes a good design in your eyes?

Thanks.

C

irish bloke

soundsham wrote: »

C

+1 on C

The others would be of equal importance, but condtion is the most important

BigChap1759

B
C
A
D

dvemail

C
All the way.

ThunderCat

Design is most important and Difficulty & Length can be gained and adjusted from good Design. The course has to be designed well enough to punish bad shots but allow the golfer the chance to recover. It also has to make the golfer think their way around and not be able to attack a pin from anywhere on the fairway but make them find the correct side of the fairway which will in turn make the pin accessable. Variety in the design is important too (ie not too many drop shot par 3's) as are the green complexes (ie on a long par 4 allow the golfer the chance to run the ball to the green rather than have to hit long irons/fairway woods over bunkers). Views are nice but not essential I feel. Carnoustie and Muirfield have no views to speak of but are great courses. Connemara Isles and the likes have great views but not a great course. And as for conditioning, it is important but a badly designed course in great condition is still a badly designed course.

Webbs

ThunderCat wrote: »

Design is most important and Difficulty & Length can be gained and adjusted from good Design. The course has to be designed well enough to punish bad shots but allow the golfer the chance to recover. It also has to make the golfer think their way around and not be able to attack a pin from anywhere on the fairway but make them find the correct side of the fairway which will in turn make the pin accessable. Variety in the design is important too (ie not too many drop shot par 3's) as are the green complexes (ie on a long par 4 allow the golfer the chance to run the ball to the green rather than have to hit long irons/fairway woods over bunkers). Views are nice but not essential I feel. Carnoustie and Muirfield have no views to speak of but are great courses. Connemara Isles and the likes have great views but not a great course. And as for conditioning, it is important but a badly designed course in great condition is still a badly designed course.

C for me.

A great designed course in bad condition just makes you frustrated

FixdePitchmark

C and then D.

Love to see the sea, and hear the calming noise.

The likes of Luttrellstown with poor fairways and St Margerts with hairy slow greens, would drive me mad.

But love to be on a links by the sea.

ronjo

C
B
D
A

rednik

C for me. Anytime I have played a course in bad condition I have never played well and would blame the course instead of myself. The first hole sets the game up and right from the start a course in bad condition makes for a very long round. It's very hard to judge your game in these conditions.

fearruanua

C a golf course in good condition is vital for an enjoyable round of golf. the rest is a bonus
B
D
A

Al0502

C - not enjoyable playing any course thats badly maintained

Kevinmarkham

ThunderCat wrote: »

Design is most important and Difficulty & Length can be gained and adjusted from good Design. The course has to be designed well enough to punish bad shots but allow the golfer the chance to recover. It also has to make the golfer think their way around and not be able to attack a pin from anywhere on the fairway but make them find the correct side of the fairway which will in turn make the pin accessable. Variety in the design is important too (ie not too many drop shot par 3's) as are the green complexes (ie on a long par 4 allow the golfer the chance to run the ball to the green rather than have to hit long irons/fairway woods over bunkers). Views are nice but not essential I feel. Carnoustie and Muirfield have no views to speak of but are great courses. Connemara Isles and the likes have great views but not a great course. And as for conditioning, it is important but a badly designed course in great condition is still a badly designed course.

I'm fascinated by the number of people picking Condition as the most important aspect. I'd be with Thundercat on this one - without a strong design, the condition is almost irrelevant. I wouldn't want to play a boring course no matter how good the condition.

True, I wouldn't be too enthused about playing a well-designed course in crap condition, so it is a balancing act, and you'd always hope that 'poor condition' is merely a glitch (badly timed top dressing/pole-forking)... poor design is harder to remedy.

Of the list of four, only Difficulty & Length wouldn't be important to me. If it's easy, revel in your birdie opportunities; if it's difficult, enjoy the reward of a great par.

As for views (or the general surroundings at least), they're important to me and certainly add to the experience...

B
D
C
A

plumber77

C then B

The_Architect

All but two have answered C. I may as well give up.

I'll ask another question about condition. For me, I agree that firm conditions are vital. Good drainage comes first. But as for slightly slower greens or a scruffy look, I really couldn't care less. All of that stuff costs money that could be better spent elsewhere.

You?

the_syco

A. Difficulty & Length
Although there can be a few short holes (max of three) to throw you off, most holes should be long. I'm there to play golf, not a par 3. It should be difficult so that it tests my ability, with water or forest hazards between me and the hole.

B. Design
Have played a par 3 where the first hole was great. The problem was that all the rest were pretty much the same, and the course became boring quickly. I preferred an interesting short par 3 than a boring long par 3 (there is no set length for a par 3, it seems). When I started playing on golf courses I go by the same preference and still prefer an interesting golf course than a boring one.

D. Views
Huh? I file "views" under design.

C. Condition
It's Ireland, and some courses aren't the best after rain. In saying that, I've played on a course whose greens have a rep of been like glass, and it's true. I dislike it. Lovely course aside from that though.

Another thing is that the rough should be rough and not overgrown.

Gophur

Bad greens will create a bad impression, regardless of anything else you do.

Fairness? A bad shot should not cost the recreational golfer more than one shot. There's no fun trying to extricate oneself from grass that could hide a Pygmy.

Mount Julliett is a fantastic example of a Golf Course than can cater for the serious and recreational golfer. 13th hole, for example. Every golfer wants to be able to have the chance to go for the green, over that water, within the limits of his skill. A 20 handicap golfer would like to have a 150 yd shot to the pin, but doesn't want a 200 yarder, for example.

dnjoyce

Gophur wrote: »

Bad greens will create a bad impression, regardless of anything else you do.

Fairness? A bad shot should not cost the recreational golfer more than one shot. There's no fun trying to extricate oneself from grass that could hide a Pygmy.

Mount Julliett is a fantastic example of a Golf Course than can cater for the serious and recreational golfer. 13th hole, for example. Every golfer wants to be able to have the chance to go for the green, over that water, within the limits of his skill. A 20 handicap golfer would like to have a 150 yd shot to the pin, but doesn't want a 200 yarder, for example.

Bad greens could be just a timing issue as Kevin alluded to - most every course has to pole-fork and sand at some stage, it could be just bad luck if you play it shortly thereafter - obviously if it's a constant theme then that's different.
Don't agree with the Mount Juliet example at all. A 20 handicapper will have two shots on the 13th, so he should be laying up short of the water - to allow him to have 150yards then the low handicapper would only have 100 yards etc. That's down to choice of tees and I would consider that completely seperate from design issues.

Gophur

dnjoyce wrote: »

Bad greens could be just a timing issue as Kevin alluded to - most every course has to pole-fork and sand at some stage, it could be just bad luck if you play it shortly thereafter - obviously if it's a constant theme then that's different.
Don't agree with the Mount Juliet example at all. A 20 handicapper will have two shots on the 13th, so he should be laying up short of the water - to allow him to have 150yards then the low handicapper would only have 100 yards etc. That's down to choice of tees and I would consider that completely seperate from design issues.

So, you disagree with everything I posted? Good stuff!

dnjoyce

doesn't mean you are wrong or that I'm having a go at you, just that I have a different opinion.

Mr. Larson

B. Design
D. Views
C. Condition
A. Difficulty & Length

B&D are paramount for me.

TheGrump

Design all the way.

A terrible layout in pristine condition is still a terrible course.
If I had a choice between Luttrellstown with questionable fairways or Elm Green in mint condition I would choose Luttrellstown every time.

slave1

C. Condition
B. Design
A. Difficulty & Length
D. Views

Assuming good design then the course has to be in good condition to be enjoyed by me, good design in integral to everything in a golf course and for me good design also includes a design which has pace of play taken into account e.g. movement from green to next tee and being able to tee off immediately and safely.
Difficulty is useless unless the course is designed and in good condition.
Views are pretty much irrelevant, nice if they are there but I would not pay extra for them.

irish bloke

TheGrump wrote: »

Design all the way.

A terrible layout in pristine condition is still a terrible course.
If I had a choice between Luttrellstown with questionable fairways or Elm Green in mint condition I would choose Luttrellstown every time.

Equally, terrible conditions on a pristine layout is still a terrible course!!!

The thing is a good condition course with a poor layout is still playable, where a good layout course in poor conditions is not....

I want to know when I get the time to play golf that the course is playable and I don't need to bring my wellies with me:)

PS:

Im not saying design is not important, im saying its not the most important...

PhilipMarlowe

Design for me all day.
Good design with below-standard condition is a frustration but it's one that can be overcome.

"Up the field" and "down the field" in immaculate condition is ultimately a source of boredom and something I would quickly tire of. No matter how manicured, it's still un-inspiring.

Difficulty and length I see as a function of design, not a stan-alone 'virtue'. The 12th at Augusta is harder IMO than a 230 yard par 3 with a few bunkers so length alone is not a 'factor' I'd consider. Like I'd see a course with 4 long par 3s as bad design or 1 with 4 similar mid-length ones as bad design too. The same with length just for length sake, making the game a slog.

For views, I think they are important because they are a source of distraction and I like to take in the whole experience when I am playing so a course with views will always beat a course that's limited on that front if all other things are equal.

But it all comes back to a fundamentally strong design in my opinion.

soundsham

The_Architect wrote: »

All but two have answered C. I may as well give up.

I'll ask another question about condition. For me, I agree that firm conditions are vital. Good drainage comes first. But as for slightly slower greens or a scruffy look, I really couldn't care less. All of that stuff costs money that could be better spent elsewhere.

You?

Unfortunately you didn't include any choice relative to pricing/value for money either.
I would have to take this into account , especially when golf is a discetionary spend

e.g. playing say Fota currently for €40 would mean I would be more lenient in looking at its winter condition than when forking out €70 or €100 a few years ago at peak season

But the reason I chose condition is of late I see most local courses aren't as well maintained as before ,due to costs no doubt

No matter what layout, design etc available
If the course isn't up to scratch I'd be looking for a reduced fee or some compensation

Webbs

Seeing all the C answers I wonder if people (myself included) are taking the OP question to mean a course you play as a one off or one you play as your home course all the time. The answers may be different in these respects.

irish bloke

When you buy a car the number 1 thing it has to be is functional.

Its no good having the flashiest car on the block with all the bells and whistles on it, if you cant drive it in the rain.

When designing a course, especially in this country, the number 1 aim for the design team should be for it to be functional all year round.

This should be a core requirement of the customer and the design should follow suit...

BigChap1759

Sorry, have to disagree with you there - the aim in my mind should be to built the best designed, challenging and inspiring course you can afford.

blue note

Condition and Design are both essential to the course. If either is poor it can spoil a round.

Views are nice, but something I'd just consider a bit extra - certainly not something I'd give much consideration to.

And difficulty and length - I'd slightly prefer courses to be on the long side - it can annoy me to have too many drive, wedge holes, but I've played some great short holes and I've enjoyed difficult and easy ones too.

Dormy

B a clear winner.

Surely difficulty and lenght are features of course design.

Views are a bonus but I would never play a course just because it has nice views.

Condition is a tricky one.
As long as greens are well kept and have a smooth roll then I'm happy.
Played a course in Portugal recently called Golden Eagle. It was a fine track but some of the surrounds and course were very poorly maintained( I think they are broke). Greens and fairways didn't look great but they were perfect to play on. I'd have no problem going back there.

What I like in a golf course is a decent mix of holes.
Short holes that appear easy but bite you hard if you mess up.
Longer holes with a bit less danger.
Also when i play a course for the 1st time its nice to stand on a given tee box and be able to picture clearly what is required to play that hole well.

A good course should have you using every club in the bag.
Courses that require driver/wedge/9 iron on most holes dont do it for me,
likewise I dont want to be hitting 4/5 irons to par 4's all day either

The_Architect

Dormy wrote: »

B a clear winner.

Condition is a tricky one.
As long as greens are well kept and have a smooth roll then I'm happy.
Played a course in Portugal recently called Golden Eagle. It was a fine track but some of the surrounds and course were very poorly maintained( I think they are broke). Greens and fairways didn't look great but they were perfect to play on. I'd have no problem going back there.

I like this answer.

Osgoodisgood

The_Architect wrote: »

Recent rating discussions have me wondering what you all consider the most important aspect of a golf course? How would you place these in order of your highest preference to lowest preference:

A. Difficulty & Length
B. Design
C. Condition
D. Views

What constitutes a good design in your eyes?

Thanks.

B
C
A
D

A good design is essential and like others I think Difficulty & Length is really a subset of the design. A mix of lengths and risk/reward holes with a couple of brutes to keep me honest is ideal I think. Views are of almost no interest to me, in fact I really don't take any notice!

jimmystars

Design and views for me.

I like at least 4 par 5s and the same amount of par 3s. Spread them out around the course and keep the round from becoming boring. I am always dissapointed when i turn up to a new course and see only 2 par 5s on the card.
I must say the surroundings do play a part for me as well. Its nice to be able to relax and enjoy the 4 hours.
Condition wouldnt bother me too much unless it was really unplayable as this can be just a factor of poor weather and can be easily fixed.

Unglika Norse

B. Good design is the b all and end all, without it you have some of the poor so called great golf course around today.

A. Difficullty and length are part of good design given the ground to work with. A course should be a playable challenge for everyone from given markers.

C. Condition is as has been said a tricky one, I don't know of any course that dosn't try it's best to be presented in as good a condition as it can be at all times, if it's half playable and I'm in good company that's good enough for me.

D. the views are the least of my worries, all I am interested in is what the architect has managed to get out of the layout, to be able to see a clearly defined landing area ahead of me is of more interest than watching the sun go down on Galway bay.

Given the current climate a lot of you guys may become disappointed in the condition of many of the courses around the country.

Dtoffee

B
C
D
A

Difficulty and length are pointless unless you have a good design. A good course should challenge you to have to think about your next shot all the time. It should be in good condition and have you use all the clubs in the bag ...... par threes should be under 175yrds and well protected, par 4s should always have a mix of long and tricky, par 5s should not be dog legs and should have strategic bunkers/water hazards.

The_Architect

Unglika Norse wrote: »

B. Good design is the b all and end all, without it you have some of the poor so called great golf course around today.

A. Difficullty and length are part of good design given the ground to work with. A course should be a playable challenge for everyone from given markers.

C. Condition is as has been said a tricky one, I don't know of any course that dosn't try it's best to be presented in as good a condition as it can be at all times, if it's half playable and I'm in good company that's good enough for me.

D. the views are the least of my worries, all I am interested in is what the architect has managed to get out of the layout, to be able to see a clearly defined landing area ahead of me is of more interest than watching the sun go down on Galway bay.

Given the current climate a lot of you guys may become disappointed in the condition of many of the courses around the country.

I like this answer even better, especially the first and last snetences.

irish bloke

The_Architect wrote: »

I like this answer even better, especially the first and last snetences.

Your obviously a designer and not a golfer who has to play on golf courses with drainage so bad it looks like Glastonbury the day after a festival.:)

The_Architect

irish bloke wrote: »

Your obviously a designer and not a golfer who has to play on golf courses with drainage so bad it looks like Glastonbury the day after a festival.:)

Draianage is a function of design and construction. It is fundamental.

I don't consider that to be part of conditioning in the sense above. Really I am talking about ongoing maintenance from quality of greens at one end to pruning the roses at the other.

conno16

A. Difficulty & Length - good variation required here. some holes to encourage scoring, some holes just to punish you for being a tosser.

B. Design - bigtime important. lets face it, nobody wants to find themselves on a course walking up-down-up-down a large field for 4 hours.

C. Condition - is also extremely important but golfer must face the reality that even the best of courses will not be in top shape 365 days a year

D. Views - always good to have the ocean beside you. if not, maybe some nice parkland. not a huge issue for me though as i prefer to concern myself with whats within the parameter of the course.

For me, in order of importance: B, C, A, D

irish bloke

The_Architect wrote: »

Draianage is a function of design and construction. It is fundamental.

As fundamental as it may be in the design, thats not the case in practice.

The_Architect wrote: »

I don't consider that to be part of conditioning in the sense above. Really I am talking about ongoing maintenance from quality of greens at one end to pruning the roses at the other.

For me I can enjoy any game of golf as long as the course is in good nic.
Design only really comes into it after that dependent on the amount of money you are willing to spend.

If you spend €10 on golf you will get to see cow sheds and hedges, if you spend €120 on golf you will see beautifully sculptured holes and views to behold...

Thats your choice, condition and upkeep are not.

The_Architect

irish bloke wrote: »

As fundamental as it may be in the design, thats not the case in practice.


For me I can enjoy any game of golf as long as the course is in good nic.
Design only really comes into it after that dependent on the amount of money you are willing to spend.

If you spend €10 on golf you will get to see cow sheds and hedges, if you spend €120 on golf you will see beautifully sculptured holes and views to behold...

Thats your choice, condition and upkeep are not.

With your first sentence I don't understand. If a course doesn't drain, it is the designer that you will looking up, not the greenkeeper.

As for the rest, you can have great design at low budget (somewhat site dependent) and very average design at high budget.

Quality does not equal quantity.

irish bloke

The_Architect wrote: »

With your first sentence I don't understand. If a course doesn't drain, it is the designer that you will looking up, not the greenkeeper.

Just because a designer incorperates good drainage does not mean the customer (course propriter) will purchase this. That factor boils down to budget in the end. Every course out there could have super drainage if the money was there.

The_Architect wrote: »

As for the rest, you can have great design at low budget

Not disputing that. You asked what was more important and condtion is for me is, as I cant control it. I can go to the best designed course in the world if i like.

irish bloke

Also can I ask is this a survey/market research you are completing for a project/design?

The_Architect

It's not a survey. I was just having a slow day and thought I'd open a discussion.

Generally the designer won't design any given drainage system until he has a direction on whether it can be afforded in the budget. But you are right - you can have generally good design with bad drainage where the wrong things are cut.

However, most bad drainage comes from wrong site, wrong slopes (bad design) and wrong specs (bad design).

Anyway we are arguing details. I just spend so much time talking about how our expectations on conditioning have to reduce that I thought I'd put it to this site for responses.