What makes a golf course Good

[ginrin]

After reading many reviews about golf courses,it would be interesting to hear what makes a golf course good.Too many reviewers don't seem to grasp the concept of Links courses to Target to Stadium type.Having said that I much prefer a Parkland type course with lots of trees and water to make accuracy and touch very important.I will get slammed but The Old Course does'nt do it for me and I would prefer to play Sawgrass.That does'nt mean the Old Course isn't good but I would prefer something else.What really stands out to make a course great?

[slightdraw]

I have read dozens of books on course architecture and am always driving to see and play new ones. I think that there are several factors that make a golf course good. 1) How many holes can you remember a month afte playing it? A variety of challenging scenic holes should stick in your mind after. 2) Were you challenged? Did the course have balance in terms of shot values? In other words, were you presented with different shots with different margins for error allowed for a bad or good shot? Lastly, I think that a good course should look like its always been there, not manmade, that is the ultimate compliment for an architect- see Paintbrush.

[callawaycrazy13]

I dont think it is possible to answer this question and have the answer pertain to all players. Everyone looks for something different in a course. Personally I like a course that flows (doesnt have holes that are the same) and makes me think of what shot I want to hit next. I dont enjoy just grabbing my driver and hitting it as hard as I can. But some people do.

IMO what makes a course good starts from the moment you check in. A bad exp in the proshop can make even the greatest course seem like a bad day.

I have also heard and read in books that designers have a few things they like to put in for ex a reachable par 5 in two, a drivable par 4, a three shot par 5, a long and short par 3, etc.

In the end I think it all depends on what the golfer is looking for. I am sure you have read varied opinions on many courses on this forum.

[landlord]

If I use every club in my bag I usually end up thinking highly of the course. Variety is important -- doglegs going both ways, for instance -- and no more than 2 or 3 layups off the tee (the rest being driver). I enjoy having to shape a few shots too.

Too many (Ontario) "link-style" courses get boring fairly quickly. The course might be well maintained and visually attractive -- Copetown or Angus North come to mind -- but to me it's ultimately boring when every hole looks a lot like the last one.

In mid-November, however, my main requirement is that it be open. :cool:

[LowPost42]

For me, a good course is any one I'm playing!

But I've heard that what makes a course really 'good' or not boils down to the greens. If they roll true and are consistent hole to hole, then the course is good. This comes from people with handicaps much lower than mine.

[goshawk]

Personally, many things constitute a "good" course. I suppose the primary consideration for me is a good experience upon check-in. If the course employees are pleasant and genuinely want to help make your day memorable, that's a heck of a good start.
Course-wise, variety is very important. Hitting driver and wedge on every par 4 can get boring very quickly. Both long and short par-3's and par-5's are a good addition. Dog-legs aren't necessary, but a nice plua. Course conditions are very important: dried out fairways and hard greens a definite minus. Another huge plus are consistent greens, all of which running the same speed on the meter.
As someone already posted, it's just about impossible to design a course that's going to be pleasing to every golfer.

[RobertThompson]

While no group will ever exactly agree upon what makes a great golf course, there are a lot of factors that make a course great that are really not in dispute.

One thing, in my mind, is that you have to separate the experience from the golf. A couple of people here have spoken about pro shops and check ins. I don't think this has anything to do with making a course great -- it does impact the experience and would colour my perspective on a club. But that's something different. There are plenty of great golf experiences to be found even in Ontario -- Redtail, Oviinbyrd, Bigwin, Goodwood, Coppinwood -- but that is different from necessarily having a great course.

Great golf is memorable. He offers options -- so holes aren't so defined that there is only one way to play them. Great golf offers variations -- holes that don't repeat. Typically these courses also have terrific aesthetics -- the location is superb, the land is unique with remarkable natural features. The greens offer fascinating contour and take time to learn, both for putting and approaches. In many instances I think great golf also has to be translatable from mid and high handicappers to low handicappers. In other words, the course has to be enjoyable regardless of playing level.

These are just factors that go into making a course great. In a Canadian context, truly great -- not just good -- courses are infrequent. I think Jasper and Banff are great, as is St. George's and Devil's Paintbrush in Ontario. I think Highlands Links is great -- but was even greater before trees took out many of the options. I think Doug Carrick's new Humber Valley has the potential to be great.

There are lots of "good" courses, but greatness is not common.

[ginrin]

Great reply RT,it seems that how one plays the game has a marked influence on the type of course that one likes.(fade or draw).Condition seems to impact most golfers and difficulty others.It seems like if you were asked to play only one course, your opinion is usually fixated on the few around the GTA because of variety,conditions,tradition and golf experience.

[rbaker]

The less trees I have to hit the better! Links style for me! I will deal with the fescue, but I have a hard time when my ball is sitting at the bottom of a tree trunk!

RB

[abz-pete]

Phillip,

While it's natural that your preference is for Parkland style golf, I would respectfully suggest that you haven't had much experience of true Links golf. The Old Course is the most fascinating course I've ever played. I've been fortunate enough to play there about half a dozen times and after each round I'm desperate to play it again, because of what I've just learned. It's an amazing golf course, with risk/reward options on virtually every hole.




After reading many reviews about golf courses,it would be interesting to hear what makes a golf course good.Too many reviewers don't seem to grasp the concept of Links courses to Target to Stadium type.Having said that I much prefer a Parkland type course with lots of trees and water to make accuracy and touch very important.I will get slammed but The Old Course does'nt do it for me and I would prefer to play Sawgrass.That does'nt mean the Old Course isn't good but I would prefer something else.What really stands out to make a course great?

[notso]

"What makes a good course design" is a whole lot different than "what makes a grea golf experience".
For example, Deerhurst Highlands is a beautiful design. It is also well kept and very scenic.
My last two experiences there have been terrible. Staff and policies will dictate how pleasurable a golf outing can be more often than layout.

[golfnguru]

Phillip,

While it's natural that your preference is for Parkland style golf, I would respectfully suggest that you haven't had much experience of true Links golf. The Old Course is the most fascinating course I've ever played. I've been fortunate enough to play there about half a dozen times and after each round I'm desperate to play it again, because of what I've just learned. It's an amazing golf course, with risk/reward options on virtually every hole.


From my experience, most people in Scotland find links golf boring and would prefer to play at Gleneagles and Loch Lomond.

"What makes a good course design" is a whole lot different than "what makes a grea golf experience".
For example, Deerhurst Highlands is a beautiful design. It is also well kept and very scenic.
My last two experiences there have been terrible. Staff and policies will dictate how pleasurable a golf outing can be more often than layout.

Can you enlighten? Deerhurst is one of my favourite courses.

[RobertThompson]

From my experience, most people in Scotland find links golf boring and would prefer to play at Gleneagles and Loch Lomond.


I think there's no truth to the above statement, and ABZPete, a member at a links north of Aberdeen, will likely dispute your contention. There is a links in practically every seaside town -- so if the Scots don't like playing them, why are there so many? As for good inland courses, sure Gleneagles is a fine course, and Loch Lomond is strong, but pick another that matches either? So there's two good inland courses, and what, about 100 great links?

[caddishack]

Courses that keep me challenged and not bore me I suppose would be a good thing. The views surrounding the course and the views from the tee boxes themselves aid in the "goodness" of a course as well. A good assortment of designed holes are always a good thing as well.

Another question might be "What makes a golf course BAD?"

[abz-pete]

From my experience, most people in Scotland find links golf boring and would prefer to play at Gleneagles and Loch Lomond.
I've no idea what your experience is, but that's quite a statement! I can accept that some people don't like Links golf, but how is it boring?

Links golf gives you more options - from 50 yards out you can use a wedge or play a bump and run shot, sometimes a putter might be the correct play.

I would contend that any course that forces you to play target golf is "less interesting" than Links golf.

[Frank101]

From my experience, most people in Scotland find links golf boring and would prefer to play at Gleneagles and Loch Lomond.


Righhhhttttt...I guess thats why almost every town is focused around their links golf club and Gleneagles is being criticized like crazy as a Ryder cup venue.

I'm not Scottish...but I can say your wrong with 100% certainty.

[golfnguru]

I think there's no truth to the above statement, and ABZPete, a member at a links north of Aberdeen, will likely dispute your contention.


You're entitled to your opinion, but you seem to have omitted any facts to back up your position.

The opinion of someone from Aberdeen is hardly reflective of the Scottish golfing population.


here is a links in practically every seaside town -- so if the Scots don't like playing them, why are there so many?


FYI, most people in Scotland don't live in seaside towns. These are holiday destinations and as such provide the golf courses for the tourists who go there. Did you know that the beach at St. Andrews was a very popular desitination for tourists? Since these courses are on the seaside the courses are links. Why are there so many "faux links" courses being built in Ontario? Is it because we like the links golf style so much, or is it because they are cheaper to build?


As for good inland courses, sure Gleneagles is a fine course, and Loch Lomond is strong, but pick another that matches either? So there's two good inland courses, and what, about 100 great links?


Sure there are lots of great links, the land is perfect for it but get real 2 good inland courses and 100 great links courses in Scotland. Are you saying that Gleneagles and Loch Lomond are not better than 80 % of these so called great links courses.

I am not saying that as far as excellent links courses that Scotland doesn't have an abundance of them although I think Ireland has more of the top links courses for scenery.

Links golf is a novelty for people from North America and therefore it is an enjoyable change. Play links golf everyday and see if you wouldn't long for some Muskoka type golf.

BTW, I am from Scotland (although I now live in Canada). Although that doesn't make me an expert, I think my opinion may have at least as much weight than someone who just knows people from Scotland and gets free trips to play golf there.

Righhhhttttt...I guess thats why almost every town is focused around their links golf club and Gleneagles is being criticized like crazy as a Ryder cup venue.

I'm not Scottish...but I can say your wrong with 100% certainty.

Mr Know-it-all troll strikes again.

Read some of the replies to your other posts before you post these ridiculous things.

Name me all the links courses in Glasgow.

[RobertThompson]

You're entitled to your opinion, but you seem to have omitted any facts to back up your position.

The opinion of someone from Aberdeen is hardly reflective of the Scottish golfing population.


FYI, most people in Scotland don't live in seaside towns. These are holiday destinations and as such provide the golf courses for the tourists who go there. Did you know that the beach at St. Andrews was a very popular desitination for tourists? Since these courses are on the seaside the courses are links. Why are there so many "faux links" courses being built in Ontario? Is it because we like the links golf style so much, or is it because they are cheaper to build?



Sure there are lots of great links, the land is perfect for it but get real 2 good inland courses and 100 great links courses in Scotland. Are you saying that Gleneagles and Loch Lomond are not better than 80 % of these so called great links courses.

I am not saying that as far as excellent links courses that Scotland doesn't have an abundance of them although I think Ireland has more of the top links courses for scenery.

Links golf is a novelty for people from North America and therefore it is an enjoyable change. Play links golf everyday and see if you wouldn't long for some Muskoka type golf.

BTW, I am from Scotland (although I now live in Canada). Although that doesn't make me an expert, I think my opinion may have at least as much weight than someone who just knows people from Scotland and gets free trips to play golf there.



Mr Know-it-all troll strikes again.

Read some of the replies to your other posts before you post these ridiculous things.

Name me all the links courses in Glasgow.

Wow. A bit overly aggressive in tone, don't you think? You made a very grand blanket statement and I was intrigued at how you'd back it up. Free trips to Scotland. I wish. Been three times, paid for all three. And I've played about 30 courses there -- all but three were seaside. None of them made me long to play more Muskoka golf -- they just made me want to see Lundin, Leven, Brora, Machrihanish and the like.

And yes, I liked the Kings course at Gleneagles plenty. But it wasn't as good as Muirfield, or Berwick, or Dornoch or Cruden Bay or Turnberry. And yes, I enjoyed Loch Lomond, but it doesn't hold a candle to any of the previously mentioned courses.

In your estimation, my good sir, what inland courses in Scotland are the match of Kingsbarns or Prestwick or even the likes of Montrose or Nairn? Which ones? Cause I can't think of any.

Anyway, this is getting off the point. I would argue that Gleneagles Kings course is a very good golf course. Not great, but very close.

In your estimation, GolfNGuru, what is a great course and why is it so? That's why I'm intrigued at getting at -- what floats your boat and why? I think that's what the thread is about -- not getting pissy about whether someone thinks parkland is better than linksland. Tell us why that's the case.

[ginrin]

Hi Peter,you are probably right about my links experience and maybe you'll invite me over to play these links.My real problem with certain linkstyle courses is the inevitable bad bounce you get from a prefectly played golf shot and same for less than stellar swings.My understanding of the game of golf is really limited and more enlightenment would be welcomed anytime.Links golf is certainly a different game that has frustrated me since it is hard to practice at the range.

[golfnguru]

Wow. A bit overly aggressive in tone, don't you think? You made a very grand blanket statement and I was intrigued at how you'd back it up. Free trips to Scotland. I wish. Been three times, paid for all three. And I've played about 30 courses there -- all but three were seaside. None of them made me long to play more Muskoka golf -- they just made me want to see Lundin, Leven, Brora, Machrihanish and the like.

And yes, I liked the Kings course at Gleneagles plenty. But it wasn't as good as Muirfield, or Berwick, or Dornoch or Cruden Bay or Turnberry. And yes, I enjoyed Loch Lomond, but it doesn't hold a candle to any of the previously mentioned courses.

In your estimation, my good sir, what inland courses in Scotland are the match of Kingsbarns or Prestwick or even the likes of Montrose or Nairn? Which ones? Cause I can't think of any.

Anyway, this is getting off the point. I would argue that Gleneagles Kings course is a very good golf course. Not great, but very close.

In your estimation, GolfNGuru, what is a great course and why is it so? That's why I'm intrigued at getting at -- what floats your boat and why? I think that's what the thread is about -- not getting pissy about whether someone thinks parkland is better than linksland. Tell us why that's the case.

Did I say that the parkland courses in Scotland were better than the links courses?

No.

To play a great course in Scotland, it has to be a links. Scots can play links anytime that's why they would prefer to play a different style of course. Same thing as North Americans who are not exposed to links golf. I don't think one style is better than the other. A course that has scenic value and is challenging but not unfair is a good course in my opinion.

BTW Berwick is in England, North Berwick is in Scotland. If your going to drop names at least be correct.

[Frank101]

Mr Know-it-all troll strikes again.

Read some of the replies to your other posts before you post these ridiculous things.

Name me all the links courses in Glasgow.

I don't know it all and again never said I have, I'm simply relaying the general opinion I got from everyone I met over in both Scotland and Ireland.

I've spent a month between both and you meet alot of people in a month. Not only have I never heard anyone say they think links courses are boring, but every Scottish and Irish golfer I met said they believe the links courses to be the backbone of Scottish and Irish golf.

I've played alot of golf around Glasgow and off the top of my head I can name a bunch, I don't want to get in a "who can name the most links courses in Glasgow" match with you, but suffice to say I bet I can name more than you think.

Either way, you need to calm down....If I can't be confident in my opinion...what can I be confident in?

[golfnguru]

Hey RT,

Is there anything more frustrating than trying to discuss golf courses on this site with someone like golfnguru that obviuosly doesn't know anything?

Yes reading posts from people who think they know everything.

Please post the cost of building the last 5 parkland style courses versus the last 5 links style courses adjusted for inflation and ignoring land value since you know how much it costs.

I don't know it all and again never said I have, I'm simply relaying the general opinion I got from everyone I met over in both Scotland and Ireland.

I've spent a month between both and you meet alot of people in a month. Not only have I never heard anyone say they think links courses are boring, but every Scottish and Irish golfer I met said they believe the links courses to be the backbone of Scottish and Irish golf.

I've played alot of golf around Glasgow and off the top of my head I can name a bunch, I don't want to get in a "who can name the most links courses in Glasgow" match with you, but suffice to say I bet I can name more than you think.

Either way, you need to calm down....If I can't be confident in my opinion...what can I be confident in?

Frank, if you can name one links course in Glasgow, it will be one more than I can.

Since your 100% certain that Scots don't like anything but links, read this http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/destination/2007/10/scotland

[Frank101]

Yes reading posts from people who think they know everything.

Please post the cost of building the last 5 parkland style courses versus the last 5 links style courses adjusted for inflation and ignoring land value since you know how much it costs.



Frank, if you can name one links course in Glasgow, it will be one more than I can.

Since your 100% certain that Scots don't like anything but links, read this http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/destination/2007/10/scotland

I never said they dont like anything but links...I said they don't say they are boring.

[RobertThompson]

Did I say that the parkland courses in Scotland were better than the links courses?

No.

To play a great course in Scotland, it has to be a links. Scots can play links anytime that's why they would prefer to play a different style of course. Same thing as North Americans who are not exposed to links golf. I don't think one style is better than the other. A course that has scenic value and is challenging but not unfair is a good course in my opinion.

BTW Berwick is in England, North Berwick is in Scotland. If your going to drop names at least be correct.

Pardon me. NORTH Berwick, more commonly referred to by most golfers as simply "Berwick," pronounced BEAR-IK. Did I pass your test yet?

And if the Scots -- as you say, love parkland courses so much, why are their so many great links and so few great parkland courses? I can name maybe five or six strong parkland courses -- Blairgowrie, Boat of Garten, Gleneagles (King and Queens), The Carrick, Gullane -- but not many more. On the other hand, every little Scottish seaside town seems to have a quirky links.

All of this is getting off the point as to the initial question -- what is a great golf course?

Guru -- in your estimation and experience, what is the best course in Scotland that you played and why? Oh, and as for Glasgow links -- there are none, largely since Glasgow is inland. In fact, there are no great courses in Glasgow -- Loch Lomond is north, and all the great links are south.

[Big Shooter]

...for me, although it is somewhat 'subjective', a lot depends on how I'm 'feeling' that day....what I mean is, if I really want to play, like the course, and play well, I'm going to probably LIKE the course alot!! :)

[TourIQ]

After reading many reviews about golf courses,it would be interesting to hear what makes a golf course good.Well I know what I do not like. For example the cow pasture I call my home course rarely cuts the grass on the range or even waters it. I had a NCAA player visit with me a month ago and I had to tell them to cut 1 path on the range so she wouldn't have to hit out of the rough. After 1 quick cut it was still 2 inches thick, but I guess this is better than hitting off of 4 inches of rough. When I told the greenskeeper to just cut one path he looked at me like I was stupid. Her comment to me was their cattle pastures back home have less grass then our range.

[Bellyhungry]

In my opinion, a good course has the following attributes:

-allows both high- and low-handicappers to enjoy
-allows more than one way to play
-minimalist in its design; nothing visibly artificial and contrieved in its design or in its aesthetic

[golfnguru]

Pardon me. NORTH Berwick, more commonly referred to by most golfers as simply "Berwick," pronounced BEAR-IK. Did I pass your test yet?

And if the Scots -- as you say, love parkland courses so much, why are their so many great links and so few great parkland courses? I can name maybe five or six strong parkland courses -- Blairgowrie, Boat of Garten, Gleneagles (King and Queens), The Carrick, Gullane -- but not many more. On the other hand, every little Scottish seaside town seems to have a quirky links.

All of this is getting off the point as to the initial question -- what is a great golf course?

Guru -- in your estimation and experience, what is the best course in Scotland that you played and why? Oh, and as for Glasgow links -- there are none, largely since Glasgow is inland. In fact, there are no great courses in Glasgow -- Loch Lomond is north, and all the great links are south.

I have answered the question about the seaside towns having links in a previous post.

I have answered the question about what I like in a course in a previous post.

If North Americans like Links so much why are there so many great Parkland courses and so few great links? Use the answer you come up with for this question to answer the question about why Scotland has so many great links.

Dornoch was my favourite course in Scotland.

Sorry, but most golfers do not refer to North Berwick as Berwick. I will recant this statement if you show me proof, which is unlikely as it doesn't exist.

BTW its pronounced Berrick not Bear-ik.

I have a new found respect for your editor.

[RobertThompson]

I have answered the question about the seaside towns having links in a previous post.

I have answered the question about what I like in a course in a previous post.

If North Americans like Links so much why are there so many great Parkland courses and so few great links? Use the answer you come up with for this question to answer the question about why Scotland has so many great links.


BTW its pronounced Berrick not Bear-ik.


There are plenty of good links in the U.S., but to answer your question, links require a certain type of sandy soil and proximity to the sea. For whatever reason, these courses and the type of land needed for them are infrequent in the U.S. I don't think it is because of a dislike of links golf -- take National Golf Links, Shinnecock, Maidstone, and Fishers Island as examples of North American links built in the early days of golf in the U.S. that are clearly links. I think it has more to do with population and land patterns.

By the way, what is the difference between "Berr-ick" and "Bear-ik?" It is pronounced the same way. Thanks for the correction though -- I'll run right to my fine editors and let them know of the distinction.

As for the topic at hand, "what makes a golf course good," apparently you have nothing to contribute there. Your mindset on the matter would be intriguing to hear.

[landlord]

I think he means something like "Burrick." Correction welcome.

BTW, I find it hard to believe that a pleasant chat about what we like about golf and its venues, a subjective topic if there ever were one, can deteriorate so rapidly into hard feelings and ad hominem remarks.

How much do you guys think your opinion is worth, anyway? Credentials certainly count for something, whether it's where you were born or what you do for a living, but it ain't everything.

[Golfgeek]

Seems to me that what makes a golf course good is variety of holes and terrain coupled with the unmeasurable "feel" that the course delivers to the player. The course also needs to have difficulty built in...it can't be too easy but I think that is obvious.

Here's a contrast to illustrate my point. Both Paintbrush and Eagles Nest are terrific links style courses in my opinion. However, Paintbrush has something more...it transports me to Scotland or Ireland and somehow involves the player mentally and emotionally. Unfortunately, this is where Eagle's Nest comes up short...it feels a bit antiseptic and contrived. Angus North is the ultimate in contrived links...it simply doesn't work on any level (no matter what Davis does to it:))

I guess I would also contrast St. George's with any one of Angus South, Glen Abbey, King Valley, Copper Creek, Lionshead, etc. They just don't have the same feel as St. George's although they are all fairly good parkland layouts. In this case, I wonder whether course age and tradition produce this feel more so than the layout itself but we'll never fully answer this question. However, will any of them ever achieve the status of St George's? I doubt it.

That's my 2 cents...

[cldale]

Since the thread is supposed to be constructive rather than destructive:

I think almost any course can provide an enjoyable experience, provided the course is decently maintained, provides a variety of shots, and includes some architectural eye candy of some fashion, whether that be beautiful trees, scenic coastal views, or exquisitely kept grass.

I don't think the non-golf extras (club house, staff, etc) really matter much to me, so long as the marshals are not rude or doing a poor job maintaining pace of play.

One particular thing that does drive me nuts though, at no point during a round should I see or hear a hiway or adjacent road. When I am out on the course I like to forget about the rest of the world for a couple hours and enjoy where I am. Hearing traffic on nearby roads isn't really conducive to that experience.

[hogannut]

What makes a good golf course great is if it met and exceeded the expectations of the player. One could make an argument that Cresthaven is a great course, and if they had an enjoyable experience there and felt it was time and money well spent there is no need to debate in any further.

I actually enjoy Cresthaven when I play it because I usually play it with my son and we have some "quality" time together. For me.....that $50 or whatever I spent on green fees is worth every penny to walk with my son and play on a course with less than average greens, hydro towers all around me and the constant noise of the 407.

[callawaycrazy13]

Why does it seem every thread gets reduced to people arguing that the other persons opinion is not valid. It goes back and forth and the original question deemed important enough for us to answer in the first place is forgotten and now irrelevant to the discussion.

I didn't totally agree with Robert Thompson's statement that you have to separate the golf from the experience in the proshop but thats fine i said my piece and took what he said and maybe that will allow me to be a little more open minded. At the same time am I going to get on him because he doesnt agree with something I said?? I dont think so.

Remember... opinions are like a....... everyone has one and they all stink!!!

[Big Shooter]

One particular thing that does drive me nuts though, at no point during a round should I see or hear a hiway or adjacent road. When I am out on the course I like to forget about the rest of the world for a couple hours and enjoy where I am. Hearing traffic on nearby roads isn't really conducive to that experience.

Precisely, and that's a BEEF I have with Eagles Nest!!:(

[RobertThompson]

I'm legitimately interested in hearing what people have to say on the matter -- more so than arguing about why links courses are better than parkland!:)

Are the high-end courses, Angus, Copper, EN, BH and the like, better than lower-end properties? I can tell you that I think Timber Ridge, for example, is in the same league at a much lower price. If anyone cares, I'll explain my thinking...

And I think there's a difference -- at least to my way of thinking -- about the club I'd like to belong to and the course that club plays on. Perhaps that's too fine a distinction to some, but it is important to me.

[Jeffc]

here's my likes

- a variety of holes where I don't feel like there are more than a couple similar.
- difficult, yet fair
- courses that let you hit driver the majority of the time (and allow you to get in a rythym with it)
- unique designs on holes without being tricked up
- elevation changes
- a natural feel to them (not too pristine or fake)
- strong finishing hole

[Section ThirtyOne]

Here are my thoughts on what makes a great golf course:

1. Conditioning - This goes a long way with me, as i've played a number of courses that others really liked, only to think "Yes, that would be a great course IF the conditions were better."

2. Challenging greens - Memorable courses for me almost always have greens with undulation. Flat greens seem boring, but ones with undulation get my imagination going. A golfer should be left with a long, difficult putt if they miss the proper portion of the green... not a dead flat 60-footer. Greens like the ones i'm speaking of also offer variety, like the hole could play much much differently depending on where the pin is located.

3. At least one or two GOOD short par 4's. Again, this gets the imagination going, and can make for an interesting turn of events in a close match.

4. Par 3's that vary in length. Does every par 3 from the back tees REALLY have to be over 210 yards? It gets very boring after a while, and a mid-length par 3 (145-175 yards) can bring forth the same challenge with an interesting green (see point 2) and/or deep bunkers and/or other hazards.

[hoganapexplus]

In no particular order.
1. A variety of hole lengths. Not every Par 4 at 400 yards, some Par 5's reacheable in 2 for a long hitter.

2. One outstanding memorable hole where when you mention it every one who has played there instantly recalls it.

3. Conditioning to a certain extent but it is not the highest rank.

4. Greens that make you think about how to come in and how to putt. Not necessarily huge undulation but challenging(like Cobble Beach)

5. Some or many holes with excellent routing or scenery that draws the eye and makes it memorable(again Cobble Beach with the views of the Bay)

6. Sufficient buffer between holes and other distractions such as roadways as was mentioned. Osprey is great for this.

7. Amenities are low on the list but add to the course in my opinion. A good checkin, halfway house etc are all part of the course and can fill a need or leave you wanting.

8. Price point can make or break a round for me as I only make a few trips in a year. If the dollars make the course seem like a deal all the better, but if I feel underserviced for what I paid, then I will not be as inclined to rave about the course.

[Hacksaw]

1. Variety - sameness gets old by no. 6;
2. Authenticity - employ the locale's natural topography (e.g. no resort courses in Timmins);
3. Adequate spacing and protection - between greens and tee-boxes (a walker shouldn't need a shuttle to get to no. 17.) and fairways;
4. Quiet surroundings - no A320s overhead, boomboxes from area highrises, or intercontinental highways cutting through the course.

[Sandbagger]

Let me put a different slant on things aside from layout and challenge, links or not.

A golf course is great for me if.......

The tee boxes are flat, and have sand boxes at the side.

The tee boxes have survey markers of every colour.

The yardage makers are colour coded and clearly visible.

The greens are consistent.

The fairways have a good loam to sand soil ratio in order to take proper divots, unlike Greater GTA hardened clay, and they have seen water on a consistent basis.

The traps have Ohio White sand or some othe equally consisitent sand in the traps.(no lumps when dry).

The course has a Marshall who is pushy enough to order slow players to let faster players play through.

The course has properly ringed marker GUR areas, drop areas.

The flags are coloured in order to reflect the position, (shallow, mid, or deep).

Frankly, I don't care about a Course's prestige or exclusivity....as long as I am not asking where is the blazes is something that should be there.
(Played more than my share of exclusive....big deal)!

If it has all those things it is great...most of them, it is good...none of them, it is a Cow Pasture!

And there are lots of places masquerading as Golf Courses.:rolleyes:

[dekker]

Good staff and good conditioning are what I care about. A patio bar& grill is all I need.
The "Cathedral" clubhouse looses me completely.

[Mok]

everyone is subject to their opinion, you may not agree with others, please refrain from personal attacks :)

[Frank101]

grass

[RobertThompson]

everyone is subject to their opinion, you may not agree with others, please refrain from personal attacks :)

I'm perplexed. Where were the personal attacks? I didn't see them. Some debate maybe -- personal attacks? Hardly.

[davevandyk]

i would say the most important thing for a good golf course is variety. Obviously i want the standard things of a $70+ course like good greens, nice fairways and a tough track, but i need variety. My favourite courses are the ones that i can think back to the round and think that there wasn't 2 holes that looked the same.

To use an example, i like Copetown but i feel some of the holes are very similar, but on the other hand i really love Lochness cause i feel that every hole is different from the next. Not bashing Copetown as i know a lot of people like it, but Lochness really gave me the instant feeling that as soon as the round was over, i wanted to just go back out and play again, eventhough the day we played was raining and only about +8.

That is what seperates a good course and a great course for me, the feeling that although i am tired, i still would go back out and play another 18 in a flash.

[Merlot]

Wow. Just read all the posts. A great course for me needs alot of things. A good course needs just a few like good conditions, specially fast smooth greens and a fair variety of holes with good tee box options.

Links courses are great but if that is all I ever had to play, i wouldn't play as much. I love old parkland style courses like St.Georges, Hamilton Toronto and Weston and at times play a bit links like being able to run the ball up to many of the greens. Muskoka courses are nice but sometimes a little overdone and overrated IMHO.

Coopercreek and Beacon Hall mix it up nicely.

2 Great short courses are Braeben and Royal Woodbine. Both very different but a challenge even though they are quite short. (6400 yards). Actually, in one way they are alike. HIT IT STRAIGHT!