This Course Sucks

[Bucki1968]

Okay, here is another one of the interesting, pointless conversations had after a recent golf round at a course that we don't play that often. Me: "This course is tough".  Jim: "this course sucks". Steve: "This course has too many stupid holes". Me: "Why does it suck?" Jim "Fairways are too tight, greens are less than a year old and the ball won't stop, has some really bad holes." Steve: "The first hole is really bad. Water on right, out of bounds left,  have to hit driver because it's 560 yards. Brutal start."

I can go on and on but you get the idea. My question is: What makes a course suck or just be no fun to play? I'm going to try to do a poll but not sure how to pose the possible answers to question.

[mohearn]

Pretty easy going about courses, but one of my things that bugs me is when the staff (i.e. management) doesn't seem to care.  I've literally stopping going to a place here where they never empty the trash cans, have muddy water in the ball washers, etc.  Just bugs me... Or range mats that are threadbare, cracked range balls. 

 

But... they are busy and won't miss me, so c'est la vie

[boogielicious]

This is a tough poll because reasons can vary. Sometimes layout is the culprit. We played Deer Ridge Golf Club in Ohio last year as a TST outing. The layout was weird in the front nine with nine blind shots. Two on the opening hole! This slowed play down and make it frustrating. The course was in good shape though but the front nine soured the experience.

Cost and conditions kind of go hand in hand. If it’s pricey, the conditions and upkeep better be good. Dog tracks are never really fun.

Tough layouts are okay if the course has a yardage book to help. It can be challenging and still be fun.

[mcanadiens]

For me, it's usually got to be a combination of things that makes a course garbage.

Playing a goat track isn't the worst thing ever, but don't charge me like I'm playing a top-flight course.

Pace of play issues can happen anywhere, but if a course makes it a habit, there better be some redeeming features if I'm going to be back on a regular basis.  Rudeness from staff members is another that will require some real offset to forgive.

 

[Piz]

The pace of play is the deciding factor for me.  I don't care how nice the course, or the staff, or the facilities are.  If it takes 5 to 6 hours to get in 18...I am not going back.  

[pganapathy]

For me there are a couple of reasons I find courses "garbage".  Bad maintenance and course conditions, bad treatment by the staff, a general apathy by everyone involved and finally a course that is overpriced for what it offers

[klineka]

Layout is a big one for me. There are a couple courses around me that have creeks running perpendicular to the hole on 530-550yd par 5s that span from like 260-280 off the tee, right where a solid golfer's tee shot is likely to be landing. That forces you to hit 3 wood off the tee, which forces everyone into a 3 shot par 5. 

And the courses are out in the middle of nowhere, they're not hosting high-level amateur or college events so the number of people who can carry the creek is very very low. 

I don't think every par 5 should automatically be reachable in 2 shots, but at least make me think about if I want to try and get there in 2 or not if I hit a good tee shot. The fact that I know even if I hit 2 perfect 3 woods I still will have 30-50+ yds for my 3rd shot doesn't make the hole very fun IMO.

I'd much rather see the fairway narrow at 260-280, maybe a couple trees or something, and have the creek intersect the hole closer to the green, maybe like 20-30 yds short of the green. That way I can lay back off the tee if I want and play it as a 3 shotter, or I can take on a little more risk, hit driver, but then the question that is asked if I hit the driver solid is "can you carry a creek thats 230 yds away with your 2nd shot"

I enjoy courses that have holes with risk/reward, that let you play the hole multiple ways rather than forcing everyone to play the hole the same way.

For me personally I'd rather play a course that is in worse condition (within reason) but a layout that I love and that is fun vs a better conditioned course but a layout that I hate/isn't enjoyable.

[Darkfrog]

Two biggest factors for me are conditions, and pace of play, in that order, so those were my votes.

I mostly play municipal courses, so my standard is pretty low for conditions, but there's a certain threshold of crappiness I won't accept. Luckily for me, most of the nearby courses I play, including my home course, are well maintained considering what I assume is a smaller budget.

Pace of play is important too. A lot of the public courses around me can have extremely high volume of players, especially on the weekend, and 5+ hour rounds aren't unheard of. So if I am playing a course known for slow play, I make sure to be in the first group out.

Layout is a distant third. I'm always excited to play a course with cool layout designed by a well known architect, but it just doesn't make that big of an impact on my enjoyment of playing golf. My home course has some quirky elements to it, but nothing stupid or frustrating. Some other courses around me are quirkier, and do have some stupid hole designs, but it doesn't stop me from playing there.

[dennyjones]

I voted "conditions".  That will give me pause to return if the course is terrible shape.   

I don't like courses with blind shots and usually avoid them too.

[Double Mocha Man]

Courses with more than a total of 5 houses lining the fairways suck.  There's a nearby Arnold Palmer designed course that is challenging and I used to play alot.  Over the years so many houses were built that it now feels as if I'm playing through peoples' backyards.  I don't play there anymore.  It's a housing development and oh by the way, there's a golf course there somewhere.

[darthweasel]

there is a course I play quite a bit that has a 4 hole stretch where I despise 3 of the holes.

#10 is a slight dogleg left with OB left, trees cover the left edge of the dogleg and if you overshoot the fairway you are in the trees. It is more than possible to be in the left third of the fairway and have low overhanging trees force a punch shot after you hit the fairway.

#11 from the 6300 tees is a 440 yard par 4 that has water at a diagonal that often means I am taking 6i at most off the tee, then hitting a 3h or even 3w as my approach...and likely looking to get on in three as it is just too long a shot for the typical player at this course. 

#13 is a par 5 with a sharp dogleg left about 150 off the tee and towering trees that mean I routinely tee off with an 8i.  

Yet I play the course all the time because, although those holes are not the type of golf I enjoy, they are nevertheless fair. Hit to the right center of fairway one with a 230ish yard shot and you have a clean approach to a very puttable green. #11, the fairway past the creek is exceptionally wide and if you land in the sand left of the green, pretty much your own fault. Get past the trees on 13 and only one tree right of the fairway and sand left of the green are in the way, so bang away with long clubs. I don't like the holes, but they are playable.

Contrast that with the (rightfully) closed Skamania Lodge. The fairways were narrow and trees so close to the edge they had, on the scorecard, a note saying if you hit into the woods drop one clublength from edge with one stroke penalty. I know a guy who lost 22 balls in one round...playing a 2-man scramble. Not only were the holes unfun, they felt extremely unfair. Blind shots, forced carries, narrow fairways and no room to miss. Gorgeous scenery...but that course, for me sucked. 

Demonstrating how subjective it is, that course has always been in my playing partner in those 2-man scrambles top 5 and usually top 2 or 3...so i have learned that for a course to suck so bad I will not play it, there has to be nobody playing with me that particular day. I would never choose Skamania or any course like it...but I will play it if the people I am golfing with want to. Doesn't change my opinion...that course sucks to me, but different people like different stuff. 

[Big C]

I think you hit on most of the key reasons. I selected your first three choices above. Goofy layout, poor conditions and poor pace of play are all going to negatively affect my perception of the course. 

I'm probably more forgiving of a poor layout than I am the other two, simply because bad conditions and slow pace signal to me that the course simply doesn't care about the golfer experience. 

[ChetlovesMer]

I'm with @klineka on this.

As@klinekasaid if the course forces everyone to play the hole the same way I'm not a fan. I really like courses that offer interesting risk/rewards. 

 

[Esox]

I have only played two courses with really bad layouts (Other than the usual pasture with up and back holes). I have played a couple courses with trees creating a canopy over the fairway, requiring things like a tee shot on a 380 yd par four, and the ball has to either stay under 40' or fly over 90' high for 125 yards starting 50 yards off the tee.  Just stupid.

 

[Bucki1968]

I have found that I can even enjoy playing a cow pasture course. There are a couple in the area that have good layouts, they just are not usually in great shape. Pace of play and having the course dictate what shots I have to hit are probably the two biggest ones for me. It's boring having to play the hole the same way every time. 

[TourSpoon]

22 hours ago, klineka said:

For me personally I'd rather play a course that is in worse condition (within reason) but a layout that I love and that is fun vs a better conditioned course but a layout that I hate/isn't enjoyable.

Exactly! I can get over the conditions but the layout makes or breaks it for me. 

[iacas]

I voted for everything except "I didn't play well."

Tons of things can ruin the experience. Bad design, bad conditions, bad vibes, bad pace of play, high cost…

[CarlSpackler]

For me it's condition unless it is beyond the control of the course (i.e. - drought, excessive rain, frog plague, etc.) I am not including goat "traps" as my friend @missitnoonancalls them. They suck by definition.