Top Courses that disappointed

[outofboundz]

Just played Lake of Isles North, one of the Troon courses at Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut, which was on the Golf Digest "top100 courses you can play" list in 2017.

 

Service was impeccable. Course conditions and layout not so much. Greens were pretty rough, a lot of damaged spots. Many also weren't smooth. A lot of tee boxes were uneven, and the par 3 boxes looked like the tee markers hadn't been moved in a week.

 

Layout, there's a lot of up and down, which is fine, but there are a lot of fairways where it's almost impossible to have an even lie. I had at least half a dozen holes where I hit a perfect drive, right into the hole's designed target landing area, and had the ball substantially above or below my feet, with no flat ground anywhere nearby where it could have been different.

 

They also seemed to be under the impression they were hosting the US Open that week. There was only one cut of rough, and that was generally at least 4 inches deep right off the fairway. There were two holes that I hit the ball no more than 5 feet off the fairway, and had a good look at where the ball landed, but was unable to find the ball in the rough.

 

I played there for the first time last summer. We had the last tee times of the day (Saturday) and had to deal with lots of unraked sand traps and unfixed ball marks. Unfortunately, the course gets its fair share of play from people at the casino who don't care about cleaning up after themselves and I was pretty bummed. I don't remember a lot of rough spots on the greens, but at that time of the day, they definitely weren't rolling smooth.

 

Later in the summer I had the opportunity to go back and play the North and South during the week, early in the morning and was much more impressed... It also helps that I didn't pay anywhere near as much as I did the first time I played. There are many other courses in CT that I would much rather play again/play for the first time, but if a group of friends was heading down to Foxwoods for a weekend I wouldn't be opposed to giving it another shot.

[raynorfan1]

Oakland Hills South renovation plan announced today:

 

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/golf/2018/07/13/oakland-hills-south-course/782155002/

[moonlighthruthepines]

Pinehurst #2.

 

Would much rather play #8 again.

[coomdaddy]

Played Valhalla 4-5 times. It's nice but past the first experience there, nothing to write home about.

[MMB1500]

The Belfry (Brabazon) and Celtic Manor. Two Ryder cup courses which, though in nice nick, I didn't think were anything special.

[Malvern]

The Belfry (Brabazon) and Celtic Manor. Two Ryder cup courses which, though in nice nick, I didn't think were anything special.

 

Add the K Club to that list, not really where you want to play in Ireland unless you are an aficionado of parkland.

[MMB1500]

The Belfry (Brabazon) and Celtic Manor. Two Ryder cup courses which, though in nice nick, I didn't think were anything special.

 

Add the K Club to that list, not really where you want to play in Ireland unless you are an aficionado of parkland.

 

Agreed. Going to Ireland to play parkland golf is like going to a strip club for the conversation.

[adschus]

Royal Portrush. Course was in fine condition but the caddies were horrible and the staff lacked compared to all the other NI courses I played at. Felt more cattle like than a guest of a reknowned course.

[CDM]

The Belfry (Brabazon) and Celtic Manor. Two Ryder cup courses which, though in nice nick, I didn't think were anything special.

 

Add the K Club to that list, not really where you want to play in Ireland unless you are an aficionado of parkland.

 

Agreed. Going to Ireland to play parkland golf is like going to a strip club for the conversation.

 

What ...? I thought that is why you go to strip clubs... to exchange “cooking recipes”. =)

[dhc1]

The Belfry (Brabazon) and Celtic Manor. Two Ryder cup courses which, though in nice nick, I didn't think were anything special.

 

Add the K Club to that list, not really where you want to play in Ireland unless you are an aficionado of parkland.

 

Agreed. Going to Ireland to play parkland golf is like going to a strip club for the conversation.

 

What ...? I thought that is why you go to strip clubs... to exchange “cooking recipes”. =)

 

How about cheap legal/medical advice as the girls are all working their way through law/medical school?

[stevopagolf]

Ballyneal-good, but not great course. Most likely a victim of too much Doak hype.

 

Double Eagle-living off of exclusivity, nice place and course, but no business on a Top 100 list.

 

Philly Cricket-Wissahickon Nice enough, but on my Philly trip it was easily #5 of 5 courses played.

 

Dormie Club-what a mess, hopefully the new owners get it where it could/should be.

 

Old MacDonald-too wide?

 

What 4 courses in Philly easily bests Wissahickon?

[eboettne]

Pinehurst #2.

 

Would much rather play #8 again.

 

The amount of people that say Pinehurst #2 to this question make me put it all the way at the bottom of my courses to play list. What is it about the course? Is it just completely unremarkable outside of the greens?

[duffer987]

Pinehurst #2.

 

Would much rather play #8 again.

 

The amount of people that say Pinehurst #2 to this question make me put it all the way at the bottom of my courses to play list. What is it about the course? Is it just completely unremarkable outside of the greens?

Rack-rate? Because there is a feeling it's 'overrated' relative to other top whatever courses people have played? Especially with the other old-school Ross courses in the neighbourhood?

[davep043]

Pinehurst #2.

 

Would much rather play #8 again.

 

The amount of people that say Pinehurst #2 to this question make me put it all the way at the bottom of my courses to play list. What is it about the course? Is it just completely unremarkable outside of the greens?

I haven't seen anyone specify just what they don't like. I do enjoy it, but I can understand why others aren't excited. Its not as scenic as many courses, many of the holes are pretty level. The fairways are wide enough that its not difficult to find one. On the other hand, the green complexes demand good shots, and punish poor ones, sometimes punish even "average" shots. A drive in the wrong part of the fairway can make a shot to the green much more difficult. Its easy to shoot a high score without really understand what you did wrong. And of course, its pretty dang expensive, I know that factors into many people's opinions. That's my take, anyway, and I really like the course.

[az2au]

Pinehurst #2.

 

Would much rather play #8 again.

 

The amount of people that say Pinehurst #2 to this question make me put it all the way at the bottom of my courses to play list. What is it about the course? Is it just completely unremarkable outside of the greens?

Before the redesign it was the most boring course in the world relative to ranking and now I love it. It used to be wall to wall green and you'd either be in deep rough or in the fairway. There's nothing worse than that from a lack of imagination standpoint because you'd just hack it out back into play the majority of the time. No thought, no strategy. Now you can often make a play if you miss a FW. It might be a sucker play but it is there. I love the course and after saying I'd never go back after the first time have been back multiple times post renovation.

[DoubleorQuits]

Ballyneal-good, but not great course. Most likely a victim of too much Doak hype.

 

Double Eagle-living off of exclusivity, nice place and course, but no business on a Top 100 list.

 

Philly Cricket-Wissahickon Nice enough, but on my Philly trip it was easily #5 of 5 courses played.

 

Dormie Club-what a mess, hopefully the new owners get it where it could/should be.

 

Old MacDonald-too wide?

 

What 4 courses in Philly easily bests Wissahickon?

 

That I played:

 

Rolling Green

Aronimink

Merion

White Manor

 

That I would expect to:

Stonewall

Huntingdon Valley

Philly CC

Manny's

Saucon Valley

Lancaster

Gulph Mills

Lehigh

[stevopagolf]

Ballyneal-good, but not great course. Most likely a victim of too much Doak hype.

 

Double Eagle-living off of exclusivity, nice place and course, but no business on a Top 100 list.

 

Philly Cricket-Wissahickon Nice enough, but on my Philly trip it was easily #5 of 5 courses played.

 

Dormie Club-what a mess, hopefully the new owners get it where it could/should be.

 

Old MacDonald-too wide?

 

What 4 courses in Philly easily bests Wissahickon?

 

That I played:

 

Rolling Green

Aronimink

Merion

White Manor

 

That I would expect to:

Stonewall

Huntingdon Valley

Philly CC

Manny's

Saucon Valley

Lancaster

Gulph Mills

Lehigh

 

I have played a good number of the courses listed. It is kind of like picking who is the most beautiful super model.

 

If I were to put the courses that I have played in the Philadelphia Area I would put them like this:

 

Tier 1

 

Pine Valley

Merion

Aronimink

Saucon Valley-- Old and Weyhill

Philly Cricket Wissahickon

Lehigh

 

Tier 1A

 

Stonewall Old (Best Recent addition)

Huntingdon Valley

Saucon Valley Grace

Hidden Creek

The Ridge at Back Brook.

 

Have not played Rolling Green, I hear the greens drive you nuts. I have heard that Manny is struggling a little bit. Heard raving reviews of Lancaster. I always have turned down playing Militia Hill at Philly Cricket to play Wissahickon, I will have to give it a whirl!

 

Thanks for sharing!

[DoubleorQuits]

Thanks Stevo. Also wanted to reiterate that I think PCC-Wissahickon is good, however it is in a tough neighborhood to stand out. The Philadelphia area is so stacked with great courses, it is an embarrassment of riches!

[TUGolfer06]

I don't think I'd include Saucon Valley, Lehigh or Lancaster with the Philly courses. Saucon and Lehigh are part of the Allentown/Bethlehem/Easton metro area. Lancaster is more closely tied to the Harrisburg area imo.

 

I would definitely include Pine Valley and Trump National however. Those two are easily part of the Philly metro area.

[Dancin]

Royal Portrush. Course was in fine condition but the caddies were horrible and the staff lacked compared to all the other NI courses I played at. Felt more cattle like than a guest of a reknowned course.

 

At many courses over there the caddies are often local members just trying to get some money, so that doesn't surprise me at all.

[az2au]

Royal Portrush. Course was in fine condition but the caddies were horrible and the staff lacked compared to all the other NI courses I played at. Felt more cattle like than a guest of a reknowned course.

 

At many courses over there the caddies are often local members just trying to get some money, so that doesn't surprise me at all.

I haven’t been to Portrush in a few years but that didn’t used to be the case there. They did have several different levels however. I would guess that this is still the case as Portrush has a bit different of a membership profile than Portstewart or Castlerock which are both nearby. At those you’ll get member caddies.

[stevopagolf]

I don't think I'd include Saucon Valley, Lehigh or Lancaster with the Philly courses. Saucon and Lehigh are part of the Allentown/Bethlehem/Easton metro area. Lancaster is more closely tied to the Harrisburg area imo.

 

I would definitely include Pine Valley and Trump National however. Those two are easily part of the Philly metro area.

 

Most people if they are traveling to the area would lump Allentown/Lancaster in the Philly area since it's just an hour or so away. All the courses are members of the Golf Association of Philadelphia but locals for sure would see a distinction. We are blessed with a lot of great courses!

[Roadking2003]

Pinehurst #2.

 

Would much rather play #8 again.

 

The amount of people that say Pinehurst #2 to this question make me put it all the way at the bottom of my courses to play list. What is it about the course? Is it just completely unremarkable outside of the greens?

 

It's just not memorable.

 

And the Crenshaw "restoration" just restored the fairways and rough. The greens were not restored. So you have a 1930s golf course with 2018 greens. That's not how it was originally designed.

 

But be careful. Criticizing the best course designed by Donald Ross will get you burned on this board.

[TUGolfer06]

I don't think I'd include Saucon Valley, Lehigh or Lancaster with the Philly courses. Saucon and Lehigh are part of the Allentown/Bethlehem/Easton metro area. Lancaster is more closely tied to the Harrisburg area imo.

 

I would definitely include Pine Valley and Trump National however. Those two are easily part of the Philly metro area.

 

Most people if they are traveling to the area would lump Allentown/Lancaster in the Philly area since it's just an hour or so away. All the courses are members of the Golf Association of Philadelphia but locals for sure would see a distinction. We are blessed with a lot of great courses!

 

The CC of Scranton is part of the GAP as well but we're about 2.5 hours from the city. But I get what you're saying to a point. Easton, PA is nearly as close to Staten Island as it is Philly. Just a very condensed area filled with great golf.

[FairwayFred]

Pinehurst #2.

 

Would much rather play #8 again.

 

The amount of people that say Pinehurst #2 to this question make me put it all the way at the bottom of my courses to play list. What is it about the course? Is it just completely unremarkable outside of the greens?

 

It's just not memorable.

 

And the Crenshaw "restoration" just restored the fairways and rough. The greens were not restored. So you have a 1930s golf course with 2018 greens. That's not how it was originally designed.

 

But be careful. Criticizing the best course designed by Donald Ross will get you burned on this board.

 

This is completely untrue.

 

The restoration brought the course back to the period in the late 30s just after the "browns" (original non grass greens) were redone and turned into actual greens. The greens were mostly kept faithful to Ross design over the years while the scrubby waste ares were turned into rough by a later owner. The restoration work was mostly noticeable in the fairways and bunkers which obviously changed dramatically but the greens were also completely rebuilt and in a couple instances the contours restored where they had changed. The whole course is original. You clearly don't know anything about the restoration or history of the place which is fine it would just be nice if you stopped talking like you do.

 

FWIW I'm not a huge fan of #2 or Donald Ross who I think built a ton of better than average courses with very few (none?) truly great courses. #2 is a very enjoyable round but there's many other places id rather play.

[raynorfan1]

Pinehurst #2.

 

Would much rather play #8 again.

 

The amount of people that say Pinehurst #2 to this question make me put it all the way at the bottom of my courses to play list. What is it about the course? Is it just completely unremarkable outside of the greens?

 

It's just not memorable.

 

And the Crenshaw "restoration" just restored the fairways and rough. The greens were not restored. So you have a 1930s golf course with 2018 greens. That's not how it was originally designed.

 

But be careful. Criticizing the best course designed by Donald Ross will get you burned on this board.

 

This is completely untrue.

 

The restoration brought the course back to the period in the late 30s just after the "browns" (original non grass greens) were redone and turned into actual greens. The greens were mostly kept faithful to Ross design over the years while the scrubby waste ares were turned into rough by a later owner. The restoration work was mostly noticeable in the fairways and bunkers which obviously changed dramatically but the greens were also completely rebuilt and in a couple instances the contours restored where they had changed. The whole course is original. You clearly don't know anything about the restoration or history of the place which is fine it would just be nice if you stopped talking like you do.

 

FWIW I'm not a huge fan of #2 or Donald Ross who I think built a ton of better than average courses with very few (none?) truly great courses. #2 is a very enjoyable round but there's many other places id rather play.

 

While I usually disagree with Roadking, I think there’s a fair criticism of the “restoration” genre that we’re seeing when it comes to greens.

 

If you “restore” the contours of a Ross green, but have a target speed (call it 12) more than double what Ross would have expected, how can you argue that the course reflects the architect’s design intent?

[FairwayFred]

Pinehurst #2.

 

Would much rather play #8 again.

 

The amount of people that say Pinehurst #2 to this question make me put it all the way at the bottom of my courses to play list. What is it about the course? Is it just completely unremarkable outside of the greens?

 

It's just not memorable.

 

And the Crenshaw "restoration" just restored the fairways and rough. The greens were not restored. So you have a 1930s golf course with 2018 greens. That's not how it was originally designed.

 

But be careful. Criticizing the best course designed by Donald Ross will get you burned on this board.

 

This is completely untrue.

 

The restoration brought the course back to the period in the late 30s just after the "browns" (original non grass greens) were redone and turned into actual greens. The greens were mostly kept faithful to Ross design over the years while the scrubby waste ares were turned into rough by a later owner. The restoration work was mostly noticeable in the fairways and bunkers which obviously changed dramatically but the greens were also completely rebuilt and in a couple instances the contours restored where they had changed. The whole course is original. You clearly don't know anything about the restoration or history of the place which is fine it would just be nice if you stopped talking like you do.

 

FWIW I'm not a huge fan of #2 or Donald Ross who I think built a ton of better than average courses with very few (none?) truly great courses. #2 is a very enjoyable round but there's many other places id rather play.

 

While I usually disagree with Roadking, I think there’s a fair criticism of the “restoration” genre that we’re seeing when it comes to greens.

 

If you “restore” the contours of a Ross green, but have a target speed (call it 12) more than double what Ross would have expected, how can you argue that the course reflects the architect’s design intent?

 

That's a fair point and one I generally agree with however it's a completely whole different argument. That argument holds true for just about every old course with somewhat original green contours.

 

Also if you read what he wrote his complaint was that they didn't restore the greens which isn't true. I've never seen a green restoration that simply brought green speeds back to where they were in the 1920s or 30s.

[caniac6]

Pinehurst #2.

 

Would much rather play #8 again.

 

The amount of people that say Pinehurst #2 to this question make me put it all the way at the bottom of my courses to play list. What is it about the course? Is it just completely unremarkable outside of the greens?

 

It's just not memorable.

 

And the Crenshaw "restoration" just restored the fairways and rough. The greens were not restored. So you have a 1930s golf course with 2018 greens. That's not how it was originally designed.

 

But be careful. Criticizing the best course designed by Donald Ross will get you burned on this board.

 

This is completely untrue.

 

The restoration brought the course back to the period in the late 30s just after the "browns" (original non grass greens) were redone and turned into actual greens. The greens were mostly kept faithful to Ross design over the years while the scrubby waste ares were turned into rough by a later owner. The restoration work was mostly noticeable in the fairways and bunkers which obviously changed dramatically but the greens were also completely rebuilt and in a couple instances the contours restored where they had changed. The whole course is original. You clearly don't know anything about the restoration or history of the place which is fine it would just be nice if you stopped talking like you do.

 

FWIW I'm not a huge fan of #2 or Donald Ross who I think built a ton of better than average courses with very few (none?) truly great courses. #2 is a very enjoyable round but there's many other places id rather play.

i heard an interview with Pete Dye, and he spent a lot of time with Ross when he (Dye) was stationed at Ft. Bragg near the end of WW2. He said the original greens were sand, and converted to Bermuda in the 1930s. They were not mounded as severely as they now are. Ross said they did not have good top dressing equipment, and a big pile of sand was dumped in the middle of the greens, and worked out to the edges. Over time, they became more mounded.I worked at a Ross course, and played others, and have never seen greens as severe as Pinehurst # 2's greens. As far as the scenery at #2, I lived in the Sandhills for a couple of years, and they are an acquired taste. There are not many places I'd rather be than the Pinehurst area.

[FairwayFred]

Pinehurst #2.

 

Would much rather play #8 again.

 

The amount of people that say Pinehurst #2 to this question make me put it all the way at the bottom of my courses to play list. What is it about the course? Is it just completely unremarkable outside of the greens?

 

It's just not memorable.

 

And the Crenshaw "restoration" just restored the fairways and rough. The greens were not restored. So you have a 1930s golf course with 2018 greens. That's not how it was originally designed.

 

But be careful. Criticizing the best course designed by Donald Ross will get you burned on this board.

 

This is completely untrue.

 

The restoration brought the course back to the period in the late 30s just after the "browns" (original non grass greens) were redone and turned into actual greens. The greens were mostly kept faithful to Ross design over the years while the scrubby waste ares were turned into rough by a later owner. The restoration work was mostly noticeable in the fairways and bunkers which obviously changed dramatically but the greens were also completely rebuilt and in a couple instances the contours restored where they had changed. The whole course is original. You clearly don't know anything about the restoration or history of the place which is fine it would just be nice if you stopped talking like you do.

 

FWIW I'm not a huge fan of #2 or Donald Ross who I think built a ton of better than average courses with very few (none?) truly great courses. #2 is a very enjoyable round but there's many other places id rather play.

i heard an interview with Pete Dye, and he spent a lot of time with Ross when he (Dye) was stationed at Ft. Bragg near the end of WW2. He said the original greens were sand, and converted to Bermuda in the 1930s. They were not mounded as severely as they now are. Ross said they did not have good top dressing equipment, and a big pile of sand was dumped in the middle of the greens, and worked out to the edges. Over time, they became more mounded.I worked at a Ross course, and played others, and have never seen greens as severe as Pinehurst # 2's greens. As far as the scenery at #2, I lived in the Sandhills for a couple of years, and they are an acquired taste. There are not many places I'd rather be than the Pinehurst area.

 

I agree I've played a ton of Ross and I've never seen greens built up quite that much or nearly as severe around the edges. I've definitely seen alot more interior contour. The main difference as I understand it was Ross lived at #2 and tweaked the course constantly until he died in 1948 while most of his designs he never returned once opened. Plus I know they did their best to restore the greens to the contours that were there when Ross was alive which is definitely the hardest part of this type of work as there is generally very little original information about green contour and aerial pics obviously don't capture it.

[DandyDon]

1. Torrey Pines South- has a few nice ocean holes, but otherwise slightly above muni conditions. If I played it at the local rate I would be overjoyed, however, there is no way that course is worth 2 bills....

2. Erin Hills- I enjoyed this more than Torrey, but the prices (think it was 370 with caddy) was too much. Not too many memorable holes, but it was a very pleasant day of golf.

3. Wolf Creek- I actually like the tricked out course in and of itself. However, I have now played it 3 or 4 times, and it is damn close to a 6 hour round every time with the way it backs up....I will not play it again unless I can be the first or second off.

4. Pasatiempo- Luckily when I have played it, I have played it at greatly discounted prices. I would never pay 250 for it....

 

Just so you guys don't think I am just being cheap, I love the Bandon courses, Whistling Straits, King Barnes, Muirfield Old Course even though they cost a pretty penny...