We’re going in a slightly different direction for this Friday’s Alternate Shot.

BRENDAN PORATH: Joseph, without getting navel-gazy, let’s talk briefly about our now four-month-old Design Disasters experiment over on the ‘Gram.

It’s not a platform where we spend much time expounding on what we find or collating some larger insights. There seem to be certain areas of the country that predominate. I have some theories why but would like to hear yours, too.

There are also some predominant causes for the “disasters.” Maintenance is often as much a cause of the disaster as design. Cart path placement. Weird bunkers. Sharp doglegs for unforced reasons. Routing misadventures, especially getting around or over a major land feature. Boundary usage is a complete mess — we’ve found so many courses running into equines, airports, ball fields, and clubhouses. These are just a few of the common themes but given the overflowing inbox, we’re only scratching the surface, and our exploration will continue with ample new lands to discover.

What are some of your takeaways from this experiment so far?

JOSEPH LAMAGNA: Wow, Brendan. Honestly so many takeaways. If you’re ever looking to make some enemies on the internet, mispronounce the name of a city and then proceed to dump on someone’s favorite golf course. Ideally in a Southern state. They love it! 

I’ll offer a few insights so far.

There are a lot of bad golf holes in New Jersey. It makes sense. Wealth in the area equals high demand for golf, the land is expensive and may not always be the most conducive to building a golf course, and the property taxes are high. New Jersey has plenty of great golf courses, but it also has a bunch of crammed, truly offensive golf holes.

Trees and people’s affinity for trees (i.e. objection to cutting them down) is definitely the biggest cause of Design Disasters. We’ve received some hilarious golf hole submissions, featuring 50-200-yard long chutes off the tee where players must thread a 10-yard gap in the trees. Those holes weren’t disasters from the start; tree growth created that problem. We could show 20 such examples from the Pacific Northwest. And we could dedicate an entire feed to Canadian submissions, both for tree and non-tree related reasons.

My other takeaway is probably a little more interesting and…invigorating? Touching? I’ve enjoyed observing people’s reactions to the disasters, especially if the hole or golf course is dear to them. People find delight in either our criticism or defense of their golf course in the comments 90%-95% of the time. Often both. Comments to the effect of, “Love this place but this hole made me want to quit golf” are much more common than hostile comments. The overwhelming majority of people are good-spirited and well-intentioned, and they handle criticism with class and maturity.

The remainder of people get upset because they want to defend their golf course, which is also fine! It’s a reminder of how many people love this game and how many golf courses enrich people’s lives, even when they have flaws. It’s kind of nice to watch someone stand up for their local muni where the grass between a running track and the goalpost in the end zone of a football field is in bounds on the seventh hole. Oh, and also on that golf course, on the first hole, you can hit it over an elementary school swing set on your second shot, but taking the line over the swing set on the first shot is forbidden. That’s actually the rule! I love that someone is ready to go to war online for that golf course.

Ok sure and there’s like 1% of people who say “Well you guys just hate every hard hole because you suck.” I have no positive takeaways from that cohort.

It’s been a fun experiment, and it’s a great way to learn about primary causes for disastrous golf holes, have a good laugh at ridiculous golf features,  and see people express their – often very funny – opinions about golf courses all over the world.

BRENDAN: I am glad you hit on some of these reactions. Honestly, most often my own reaction to these holes is to be charmed. I appreciate the eccentricity, even if disastrous, more often than not. The only ones that truly offend, anger, and create some critical scorn are the high-priced courses at a resort or vacation area where you’re paying an exorbitant sum for some irresponsible or thoughtless punch in the face.

A concept I’ve been struggling with over the last year or so is the “monotony of purpose” in so much of the golf course building boom of the last few years. It’s awesome to see so much work getting done out there and I am happy for the designers and builders. It’s less awesome that so many of the courses are for remote, private clubs built by billionaires or for remote resorts that are both booked for years and quite pricey or inconvenient for the average golfer. There was a recent tweet thread on this similar point that led with, “Destination golf has been ruined, maybe permanently” and contained some points I generally agree with and have struggled reconciling over the last year. I think building new courses is great – expansion for the private few, the pricey resort – is still expansion and an increase in the supply of (hopefully) interesting and good golf design. 

The “middle” – something open and accessible but not the sweetheart muni golf – tends to get ignored or is simply not workable with current construction costs. But this is where maybe the most demand exists. Design Disasters often represents this middle – the place where a person open to driving somewhere convenient and paying a reasonable amount of money can play. They’re not private and accessible in location and cost, whether it’s $75, $150 and up, or dirt cheap. So I appreciate these spots as much as any, while often being charmed by the absurdity of some of these holes that proud locals often send in for review.

This piece originally appeared in the Fried Egg Golf newsletter. Subscribe for free and receive golf news and insight every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.