Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Matt_Ward on August 11, 2010, 01:31:59 PM
-
It seems we are in the time frame where certain layouts are being seen as the optimum spots for majors -- Wisconsin is ground zero for one of them with the likes of The Straits Course at WS. I have played all the layouts connected to the Kohler location and have always left scratching on what the big deal is with the Straits course. Pete has done better in my mind but if one were to judge from the Golfweek ratings it appears people believe it's his best work.
I don't see much architectural qualities -- save for the proximity to Lake Michigan and the desire to provide a ton of make-up to what was completely devoid of any outstanding land characteristic.
Again, the factor in hosting a major sways people. There's little doubt there.
In my own personal assessments of courses -- The Straits would occupy a far lower position among what Pete has designed. Be interested in what others have to say and where they would place it among all the layouts they have played.
-
I don't see much architectural qualities -- save for the proximity to Lake Michigan and the desire to provide a ton of make-up to what was completely devoid of any outstanding land characteristic.
I believe the phrase is lipstick on a pig. ;) WS doesn't sniff my top 25 and I'm not nearly as well travelled as you are. Doak 6-7 in my book. Clearly if you take away the lake views, the imported sheep, Kohler's marketing muscle and a couple of majors it wouldn't be rated so highly IMHO. Strong players seem to relish the challenge presented by the back tees, and folks who've never played a real links course seem to ooh and ahh, but I don't really get it either.
-
In my mind it isn't the great architectural design masterpiece that some characterize it. But, it is a great pro or major venue competition golf course built for such. For most every other golfer who plays there, I think it is more a trophy course to add to your bucket list, where the freight to play almost demands you praise it or you'd feel like a sucker to have forked out that much.
It is a great construction/design course, taken in that competition context. Pete Dye and his organization aren't chimps and don't design crappy courses, that I'm aware of. It just needs to be viewed in the context of an extravagant design/build process to force tough competition at the upper levels of skilled play, IMHO. It just isn't the sort of course most enthusiastic amatuer golf lovers I know would want to play day after day because a great golf architect designed a great course over interesting land where all the playing fun and aesthetic of a great walk through interesting land comes together in a rational accessibility for all comers.
But, if you are one that would love to play it day in and out, and you can, have at it.
-
Random thought derived from posts on this site and comments from others, as I haven't played the course.
But is it possible the way the course was built drives it up the ratings similiar to Shadow Creek?
Both were essentially man-made courses, Shadow Creek from nothing desert. While WS had the lake.
So, when the architect creates this course from a nothing site, it is all the rave as it is an engineering masterpiece. But over time, that novelty wears off and the course is simply what the course is. Shadow Creek has been falling in the rankings as it is a pretty nice course, but not all the amazing.
Like I said, I haven't played WS...but I am wondering if that theory could hold some water.
And yes, the majors definatley add to the aura of the course...if the course holds a PGA tour event it has to be good; and hell if it held a major, it has to be amazing. Right?
-
I think you're on to something Mac. Further example: Our group of miscreants plans a trip every year. We went to Kohler once. We are not planning on going back. WS is an easy drive for me but instead I just got off the phone to book another trip to Bandon....
-
In my mind it isn't the great architectural design masterpiece that some characterize it. But, it is a great pro or major venue competition golf course built for such.
I agree and think this alone qualifies it as good architecture.It was designed to challenge the best players in the world.By this standard,it's very successful.
Wouldn't WS be comparable to TPC Sawgrass in this regard--"resort" courses designed for the best players but open to everyone?
-
[
Wouldn't WS be comparable to TPC Sawgrass in this regard--"resort" courses designed for the best players but open to everyone?
Not to jump off topic but I think TPC Sawgrass is very playable for most. The only forced carries are on 4, 9, 11 and 17. 4 and 17 are with a short iron in hand, 11 can be carried with anything from a wedge to a fairway wood depending on the player's route to the green. 9 is a short carry on the second shot of a par five from a very wide fairway. It is only when one gets too agressive that the course bites back.
-
I think WS is also very playable assuming one plays the proper tees. Someone who ventures back beyond their ability is in for a long day....
-
In my mind it isn't the great architectural design masterpiece that some characterize it. But, it is a great pro or major venue competition golf course built for such.
I agree and think this alone qualifies it as good architecture.It was designed to challenge the best players in the world.By this standard,it's very successful.
Wouldn't WS be comparable to TPC Sawgrass in this regard--"resort" courses designed for the best players but open to everyone?
I like these notions. If a developer/client approaches a designer with a certain goal, and that designer produce it in spades, it is solid architecture. Perhaps the intelligentsia may regard the golf course as one-dimensional, or lacking in playing options, or otherwise, but if it accomplishes what it set out to do (which we can assume is to host major championships), then all the other stuff is out the window.
-
I think WS looks pretty good and would be nearer a Doak 8 IMO. On the negative, I think there are too many bunkers and some are just nonsense, but overall it looks from a TV perspective as way above normal PGA tour stuff and far more memorable than last years USPGA course or the one before that or that. I remember the 18th hole from several years back, 17th too, so it must make a reasonable impact. I think the normal golfers watching this will really like the course.
-
In my mind it isn't the great architectural design masterpiece that some characterize it. But, it is a great pro or major venue competition golf course built for such.
I agree and think this alone qualifies it as good architecture.It was designed to challenge the best players in the world.By this standard,it's very successful.
Wouldn't WS be comparable to TPC Sawgrass in this regard--"resort" courses designed for the best players but open to everyone?
I like these notions. If a developer/client approaches a designer with a certain goal, and that designer produce it in spades, it is solid architecture. Perhaps the intelligentsia may regard the golf course as one-dimensional, or lacking in playing options, or otherwise, but if it accomplishes what it set out to do (which we can assume is to host major championships), then all the other stuff is out the window.
Steve,
I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that as long as the GCA does what the client wants then it's solid Architecture? What if the client instructs you to build a pile of sh*t with a golf hole in the middle? What if the client's a rich idiot who thinks he knows something about GCA? I don't get it....
-
This strikes me as a very interesting question. First, I have never played nor visited the Straits course (so please take my comments with a grain of salt), as such my view is framed only by what I have seen on television and read about the course. Initially I was incredibly excited to see and play the course, and see what new it might have brought to Dye's remarkable and unique collection of courses (Harbour Town, Kiawah, TPC Sawgrass, PDGC, et al.), however upon repeated viewings I struggle to see what has been done here that is compelling and a must see (putting it in the Doak 8'ish category).
In no way is that meant as a slight; the simple accomplishment of delivering a championship quality course to an owner that requested it with such a remarkable amount of earth to be moved during the process (regardless of budget) is something that should be marveled it along the lines of what was accomplished with Shadow Creek (different goal of course). Clearly there are many examples over the years of courses/owners which have failed in that very goal. As such, I think many elements of the CG description of Shadow Creek are applicable here given their respective successes.
However, to me the difference between good and great architecture, or a "special trip" vs. "being in the area" are pretty important distinctions at this level. WS is not the first course to host multiple major championships, nor IMO is it the most interesting usage of its unique setting. Finally, from a "shot value" perspective it doesn't strike me as adding something altogether new or interesting. By no means do I think its a bad course, but I suppose that's why I'd probably put it in the good but not great bucket (like some on here) and gladly schedule my 2nd trip to Bandon (next June, can't wait :D) before my first to WS.
-
Jud,
It's not as though the client asked a street urchin to build him a golf course; he asked Pete Dye, a man who is right up there as one of the greatest golf course designers in history, to build him a golf course that is capable of hosting major championships (again, I am only assuming that this was part of the business model). Basing his decision to hire Mr. Dye on a nearly 50 year-old portfolio, a quality product of sound architecture was expected, and produced.
Perhaps WS doesn't have the intangible charms of those other courses held in such high regard on this site, but this is compensated for in Mr. Dye's reputation of knowing how to challenge golfers, not just professional golfers, but ALL golfers. Perhaps it's not everyone's cup of tea, but then again, neither is work by Frank Gehry, or Richard Meier.
-
"...he asked Pete Dye, a man who is right up there as one of the greatest golf course designers in history, to build him a golf course that is capable of hosting major championships (again, I am only assuming that this was part of the business model).
Steve:
It was the entire business model.
Within the next few years, WStraits will have hosted three PGAs and a Ryder Cup. I think Kohler got what he wanted out of Dye.
-
Phil,
That may very well be the case, but does meeting the aim make it by definition "solid architecture"
-
Jud said it well: for folks who have not played a links course- it's ooohh and ahhh. That was me. Then I made my first visit to Bandon Dunes resort a couple years ago. When I played WS after I had played Pacific Dunes, WS was not as impressive. I think the costs of WS contribute to my more tepid view of it. I love going to Kohler for a golf weekend, but I stick to the other three courses and usually go off season and get good deals on Meadows and the Irish. I find I have as much fun on the Irish as WS for under a hundred bucks.
-
Mac:
SC has never held a major nor likely will ever. The fanfare came from the "exclusive" nature that Steve Wynn so cleverly built for his customers to enjoy when coming to Vegas. The course has lost a good bit of that cache since MGM took over the joint.
WS, on the other hand, is Herb Kohler's shining star to host majors and from that singular standpoint it's a peach of a layout with all the room that a major site today needs.
I don't see the design elements that make it come close to what Pete has done at TPC / Sawgrass. The FL layout is well done and has only improved since its inception many years ago.
Pete just pushed dirt all over the place to create "the look" and "the character" for The Straits course. No doubt when you host majors and other big time events in the years to come you get people who automatically get sucked into believing great golf is there.
At the end of the day GW raters have the place in the top ten of modern layouts with other Dye courses trailing -- and in some cases trailing badly. I shae my head with such a clear error in judgement.
-
Matt...
you said; "At the end of the day GW raters have the place in the top ten of modern layouts with other Dye courses trailing -- and in some cases trailing badly. I shae my head with such a clear error in judgement."
But all the major rating entities have WS as the best Dye course. That is what gets me about this whole topic. Why so much angst for this course on this website, but so much love from all the raters.
Like I've mentioned before, I haven't played it...so I can't speak directly to it. But I have played Kiawah Ocean, The Golf Club, TPC Sawgrass, Paiute Wolf, PDGC of WV, and Harbour Town. And frankly, I love them all...but I do struggle to see that Whistling Straits is his best...but again I haven't played it.
Anyway, it is just weird the love/hate thing going on relative to rating entities and this site.
-
Phil,
That may very well be the case, but does meeting the aim make it by definition "solid architecture"
Jud:
I haven't played it, only walked it extensively. My take is this (cliche version):
It is what it is -- a golf course designed exclusively to hold a major (and thus provide a fairly difficult test for the best players of the world). It's totally artificial, but so are alot of other courses that get kudos here and elsewhere (Dye's Harbourtown comes to mind).
I think it looks pretty cool, and demands a lot of today's Tour players -- some tough carries on tee shots, intimidating par 3s, a tough closer in 18, some heroic stuff on 17 and 13, some quirk on 6, 10, and 12. Tough greens to figure out. People rag on the price tag, but that's as irrelevant to me in assessing its worthiness as a piece of golf architecture as is its artificial nature.
Is is "better" or "worse" than some other major venues? Well, it's not Oakmont, but little else in this country is. For a long list of reasons, rehashed often here at GCA, the folks putting on majors (USGA, PGA) have boxed themselves into a certain type of course, and WStraits strikes me as lesser than some (Oakmont, Shinnecock), and better than others (Hazeltine, Torrey Pines, Baltusrol).
-
On one hand, I don't think Whistling Straits gets a fair shake on this website. The most common comparison is to Bandon which does no service to either facility as it appears they are rather different. Taken on its own, the Straits is a strong championship course with some great aesthetics. The par threes are strong, although a bit repetitive. The course has many bold features, and some strong par fours like the 4th and 15th. It has a good flow with many returns to the lake. I don't love the 5th hole but think its fine strategically and a reasonable compromise to get the course built. The 18th is not my favorite either.
Given all that, I don't think its Pete Dye's finest, and probably wouldn't be in the top five. I'd rather a return visit to The Golf Club, Blackwolf Run, TPC Sawgrass, or The Honors over Whistling Straits. I'd put it in the 100 Greatest, but perhaps in the bottom half, and think its a great championship venue. Its challenging for the pros, but reasonable to play for the rest of us if played at a reasonable yardage.
-
From my limited experience I would go with BR River over Whistling Straits. I have played each course once, but find a much wider variety of holes and shot types are available at BRR as apposed to WS. Its been years since I played at either, but distinctly remember enjoying 5, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 16 as very good holes at BRR.
At WS, the par 3's are cool, but are a bit limited in variety in my opinion, although I do like 12 in particular because of the huge variety of shots that can be required based on the pin position. Its been long enough now that many of the holes run together, but I specifically remember 2 and 4 running together only a few weeks after playing! Maybe Dye focused too hard on getting as many holes as he could n the waterfront. That said, I do like 6, 10 and 12 in particular, but much of the course is a hodgepodge in my memory now ;D
I don't know much about who the raters are and what their background is. They are obviously playing all of the top notch courses, so this may not apply, but...I know as a public golfer and having been to a few of these places that the "major championship host" or even tour event host factor cannot be taken lightly for a public facility. Many guys I have seen at these kinds of places (WS, Torrey Pines, Cog Hill) are just excited to get the chance to play where their idols do and would rate it highly no matter what the course presented.
-
Mac:
My bewilderment is not along w Golfweek but the other mags that seem to believe The Straits is some sort of architectural wonder. Pete has done better and frankly the major championship "bounce" is what really puzzles me. Too many layouts are getting "bounces" from hosting events but the overall architectural elements with many of them is not really special.
I don't doubt the scale of The Straits and it's wherewithal to host a 2010 major.
But, if anyone really sees the layout as a bonafide top 50 course in the USA then their overall portfolio of courses played is quite limited.
-
Matt,
I have played between 9-12 rounds now at WS and still struggle how to classify this course. Maybe by modern definition it is a links course. Not that a links course by defintion requires a player to have the option to play shots along the ground into holes but I was shocked that the ariel game was required as often as it was and seemed to be the preferred option on most of the holes the first time I played WS. They "feel" of the property is that you would have more of a variety of shot options, you really do not.
From an architectural perspective, and I am far from an expert, IMO there is nothing that interesting to me on the property. I do like the options to take the high route on the 11th hole (par 5) and the design of that green is pretty interesting with the run off points. I do not like the changes to number 6 and the silly pot bunker and small right portion of the green. If the hole was a drivable par 4 ok, but it usually plays into the wind. I think the dune short right on 17 ruins the tee shot and gives the average player no resonable bail out option on the hole. The 18th has been a mess since they plowed under the fairway to the left and gave the player no option to have a flat lie when playing their 2nd shot into the green.
I will never turn a round down there and Dye has done a solid job on the propoerty he was given. There are a couple of initial wow moments when walking onto the par 3s (which are generally well done but all feel kind of the same). But generally I struggle to remember most of the other holes which is not a good sign when I have played the course as often as I have. For example, I played the Creek on Tuesday and can walk you through that entire course. That course is very interesting from a architectural perspective.
-
Fred:
Thanks for your insightful comments.
The Straits is not a links course -- it is a concocted muscular layout that overdoses with all the elements Pete and company can throw into the picture.
You are so right -- aerial is the way to go there.
The course also benefits from having Lake Michigan as a spectacular water backdrop.
The par-3 holes are garden varieties of the same shot value again and again -- although I do like the 17th albeit without any real bailout proviso as you mentioned.
Like I said -- clearly people -- and I mean raters of various types and pubs -- have elevated the course but if someone can specify for me what makes it so great to be rated among the top five modern by Golfweek, to name just one source, I'd love to know the reasons.
-
A couple of things that have kept with me about WS and haven't been mentioned yet on this thread are in regards to walking.
First, I played the back tees and a lot of the walking areas were so tight off the tees that I had to keep my head down or I felt like I was going to trip. A few times I was putting one foot in front of the other. Also, when the ball is sprayed into one of the bunkers that are off from the fairway, it takes some time and caution to actually reach the ball. I watched guys do this and it was quite an adventure on some of the holes. The crazy part was that it wasn't a situation where they should have picked up and gone to the next tee, they just had to traverse all the bunkers and tight areas to get where they were going.
In regards to the holes, my buddy said it best about #5. When looking at the aerial he said, "It looks like #5 is a skin graft that is waiting to be rejected by the host." :D
-
I am one of the minority who simply do not get it.....
As a feat of engineering..superb..as a golf course..NO
Links ideals on steroids, doent play like a links due to the "green" factor.
Excessive bunkering for intimidation and eye candy...just overdone to the extreme.
As an architectural wonder..I dont get it.
To me it is just an example of deep pockets stretched to the limits to leave behind millions of tons of moved earth providng an intimidating golf course that grossly exagerates all that is good about links golf.
Again as a feat of what can be done with modern machinery..congratulations...but to me that is not what golf course architecture is al about...in the same vein as Shadow Creek in Vegas.
-
Seems like we're not in the minority. Where are all the guys who have WS in their top 10 on another thread?
-
Jud:
They've run for cover.
Like I said I'd love for a GW rater to explain how the layout makes the top five modern.
Clearly, something is amiss with that call.
-
Great thread with great information and opinions.
-
I have never played this course, but from the TV/Web coverage I notice a fairway leading up the left side of the creek on 18. I do not recall this from the Sr. Open/Sr PGA when it was played here just a couple of years ago. And it does not show up on the Google Earth image. Was this added in recently? And how much does it change the playing features of the hole given that a shot from that fairway would be played in to a much deeper/longer green?
-
John:
This strip of fairway was added for this year's PGA. It's designed as something of a risk-reward fairway option, in that it's quite skinny, but cuts off some of the dogleg and shortens the approach into the 18th green. This link has some additional info.:
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/golf/100170504.html
-
In my mind it isn't the great architectural design masterpiece that some characterize it. But, it is a great pro or major venue competition golf course built for such.
I agree and think this alone qualifies it as good architecture.It was designed to challenge the best players in the world.By this standard,it's very successful.
Wouldn't WS be comparable to TPC Sawgrass in this regard--"resort" courses designed for the best players but open to everyone?
All courses cannot be all things to all people.
If your objective is to create a course that is:
- visually stunning freely borrowing from the Irish Links (or the perception thereof)(you also have to pretend that Lake Michaigan is the Irish Sea)
- very hard for +6 handicap golfers (thus about unplayable for the rest of us)
- very expensive to build and maintain (no need to pay a mortgage)
- have world class amenities for Major Golf Championships
then WS is a very successful project.
-
Carl,
The question is not whether it is a successful project. It is. The tee sheet is full. The question is how good is it architecturally....
-
I am not going to get into the ranking of the course but will talk about its merit a bit. I think it is not only stunning but architecturally excellent. I have played the course three times. The last time was in 2003. I found the course demanding off the tee and yet the shots into the greens are more scary than difficult. The big undulating greens, however, do not automatically yield two putts. I found that I needed imagination around the greens and the ability to play within myself, because the penalties extracrted from poor shots is great. The setting is part of the the whole experience. I have played dozens of PD's courses and think it ranks up there with The Golf Club, Sawgrass, and the Ocean Course.
My biggest complaint is the grass on the fairways and in front of the greens. I'd go back in a heartbeat.
-
Tommy, great post.
Would you mind expanding upon this..."My biggest complaint is the grass on the fairways and in front of the greens"?
-
Carl:
The place is rated #3 by Golfweek in their modern listing of courses. ::)
All the items you mentioned have nothing to do with the actual design / architecture. I don't deny the place makes $$ and that it has the wherewithal to host a modern major in the year 2010. The issue is whether or not the place offers anything beyond the flash of overkill that Pete interjected onto the design.
Tommy W:
Surely you jest -- The Straits is in the same league with The Ocean Course, TPC / Sawgrass and TGC -- please -- tell me you're just joking Tommy. Pete did the "let's throw everything at them but the kitchen sink" with the design. The par-3's are roughly the same type of shot -- save for where the wind comes into play.
Tommy, just for curiosity sake -- are you a GW rater ?
-
When I played the course the grass in front of the greens was bentgrass and soft. Even when I hit a low running shot the grass in front of the greens ate it up. I don't know if that has been changed because I have not heard anyone mention it on the broadcast.
-
From what I can tell I don't think it has. There have been several shots that, if the grass were a firmer surface, would have chased up onto the green. I am thinking of the 3 wood Tiger hit at the par 5 16th...
-
Tommy...thanks!
Matt...you continuosly make statements like the one's above and frankly you are better than that...at least I hope.
Tommy voices a well thought out opinion and you belittle his opinion. Ok, fine. You disagree. Why don't you state why you think The Golf Club, Sawgrass, and The Ocean Course are clearly better in your opinion rather than trash other people's opinions without any supporting reasons. I for one would love to hear those thoughts.
You also bag on GW for having WS as the #3 modern course. Golf Magazine has it at #4, if the same time frames are used. I haven't checked Golf Digest, but I assume it is close. So, again...it seems all the major rating entities agree.
Much like my comments to you regarding your belittling of Tommy's opinion on WS, why not point out why all these major rating entites are wrong and you are right. Andy T. did a great job of detailing his thoughts as have others. Why not you? You are one of the guys on this site that have seen so much and have so much to offer, why not detail your thoughts?
EDIT...I just looked Golf Digest's modern ranking of Whistling Straits would be 5, if the same time frames were used.
-
Baker-Finch just called it Pete's best ever.....Personally I dont even think it is the best course AT THAT RESORT! I liked Blackwolf Run better.....
-
I've played virtually every Pete Dye GC of note, most more than once, (haven't been to French Lick) and find WS to be an excellent test, and well worthwhile---it's exciting, intimidating, visually dazzling and other-worldly in comparison to most courses.
It's completely different than: A) Anything else of Dye's design and
B) the type of courses that most visitors to Kohler will ever see.
I think that 2nd point is important, because in addition to it's major championship imprimatur, WS scores points because it gives domestic, resort-oriented golfers a taste or at least a feel, of what links golf is all about. (No---it's not going to make anyone forget Dornoch or County Down, but it's more authentic than say, the Paris Casino is compared to Paris.)
I might prefer to play Blackwolf Run, HTown, TOC, Golf Club, Teeth, Honors and PDGC on a more regular basis than WS..but I still think it's a tremendous treat, and one of the modern marvels of GC architecture.
-
I think WS is fantastic! What's not to love....really? If you're looking for old school, yeah, there are a million bunkers out of play and it's flashy. So freakin' what???
I think it offeres plenty above the "flash and overkill Pete interjected in the design." Maybe if you don't get caught up in the "flash" you'll see some interesting things.
I have to agree with the overall ranking, but don't we all agree that the (overall) raters get swayed by scenic stuff and the "flash." So that whole thing is out the window...we get it!
There's not one hole I find disinteresting out there. It's amazing, it's hard, they got what they wanted...enjoy it for what it is....or don't.
-
From what I can tell I don't think it has. There have been several shots that, if the grass were a firmer surface, would have chased up onto the green. I am thinking of the 3 wood Tiger hit at the par 5 16th...
Matt:
The course got more than 1-1/2 inches of rain Wednesday on top of an already wetter-than-normal summer in these parts. I think the course can play firm, but the run-up to the PGA -- although perhaps not as bad as Bethpage Black and the US Open last year -- has not been conducive at all to fast and firm conditions.
-
Watching this course on tv, I think I am warming up to it a bit. It looks intimidating, but perhaps it is more playable than it looks. Kiawah Ocean is that way, maybe this one is as well.
Frankly, a lot of Dye's courses make this saying ring in my head...
“It is important to make the golf hole look more difficult than it really is...if your mind convinces you that it really is
a difficult shot, you’re beat before you even take the club back.” – Mike Strantz
-
I think the course is playing very good. It actually requires thought on just about every shot, as opposed to the usual penal US Open set-up where you simply must hit the fairway or be punished. Anyone else hear Frank Nobilo's comments on the Golf Channel lead-in show where he discussed the US Open, Pebble Beach and course set-up and how so much of the US Open scoring and such depends wholly on course set-up and can be fairly well interchanged between courses? I loved how he seemed to imply the set-up on 7 was foolish given tour guys had basically no chance of getting it close. Sorry for the diversion. I really like the set-up at WS, it rewards good shots and punishes bad shots, is that not good golf?
-
John...
I think you touch on a HUGELY important point...at least in my opinion.
A great course (and a course still relevant given todays technology) doesn't need to be overly tricked up to challenge the best golfers. It just simply is always a great test of golf. WS certainly appears to be a great and relevant test. Perhaps that is where its greatness lies.
-
I really like the set-up at WS, it rewards good shots and punishes bad shots, is that not good golf?
Nope, that is good golf. However, great golf would reward good shots of various shape and kind and reward creativity, not force same shots and same strategy.
-
Richard...NICE!!!
-
It's very playable as long as you choose the right tees. I think the place is awesome and very interesting. It has great bunkering, cool greens, and gives the player different options on several of the holes. It's got a nice mix of short par 4s and long brutal par 4s. It has reachable par 5s and true three shoters. The par 3s may look somewhat similar but think they play differently from the redan #3, long and hard #7, short #12, and long downhill #17. You need to hit 4 different shots on each of those holes so I've never felt like the par 3s are repetitive. The fact that it doesn't play like a true links course is a non-issue in my mind. It's one of my favorites and I've played a lot of great courses both here and abroad so I think I've got a pretty good foundation from which to compare. It may not be everyone's cup of tea but I really don't get the sentiment that this is anything but a great golf course.
-
Carl:
Tommy W:
Surely you jest -- The Straits is in the same league with The Ocean Course, TPC / Sawgrass and TGC -- please -- tell me you're just joking Tommy. Pete did the "let's throw everything at them but the kitchen sink" with the design. The par-3's are roughly the same type of shot -- save for where the wind comes into play.
Tommy, just for curiosity sake -- are you a GW rater ?
Matt, I not at on the GW panel. I chose The Golf Club, The Ocean Course, Sawgrass on purpose. Could there be four more different sites than those three and WS? The Golf Club is intimate and very playable for most folks. Sawgrass may be Dye's best. It has it all. You need to be accurate off the tee and precise on the shots to the greens. While there is a lot of slope, the greens themselves are probably the most benign part of the course. They need to be. The Ocean Course is intimidating like WS but has more width than appears from the tee. As far as shot values, to use your terms, I think WS is its equal. As for the greens complexes themselves I think WS requires more diffferent kinds of shots than any of the other three.
As for the par threes, I will grant you that they are similar in that two run north to south and two run south to north along the lake. But that is where the similarity ends. The greens and surrounds could not be more different. So in terms of shot values they seem pretty different.
-
Phil:
I never said The Straits was a dog track -- just not THAT good to be rated just behind certain courses -- see the Golfweek Modern poll -- and ahead of so many other more deserving layouts.
Joel:
Simple question -- simple answer requested -- you see WS / The Straits as the best that Pete has done. Golfweek and Golf Mag seem to think so.
I don't see the course touching the deserved reputation of places like Harbour Town, The Golf Club, Teeth of the Dog, The Ocean Course, TPC / Sawgrass, to name just a few.
Mac:
Pete Dye hit his stride a number of years ago -- long before WS became a factor on the golf scene. The course is just overkill to the max with its usual rendition of stuff Pete did better from a number of courses years ago.
You say Tommy's opinion is "well thought out" -- please tell me what I missed? If you have played The Golf Club you will see vintage Pete Dye work -- the place is so private that few on this site or elsewhere discuss it. Ditto what Pete did to improve the nature of TPC / Sawgrass -- the course is more than just the famed island green 17th. Ditto what Pete did with his bold effort at The Ocean Course at Kiawah. The Straits is just a brawny layout capable in hosting the top players and you get the obligatory eyecandy with Lake Michigan.
Mac -- the ratings have taken the bait -- hook, line and sinker regarding courses that host majors. I would think that the esteemed Golfweek would know better -- I hold little hope for Golf Mag and Digest in that regard. Golfweek has it at #3 -- c'mon, if you layed The Straits you'd know what a farce that is. Pete Dye did plenty for modern design -- but the courses that have come down the pike in recent times -- save for a distinct few -- just don't much to the meter.
-
I just read an interview Jay F. did with Pete about WS:
http://www.pga.com/pgachampionship/2010/news/dye_qa.cfm
-
Nice post Matt. That is what I am talking about.
-
Watching it in beautiful HD, all I can think about is replacing my bathroom fixtures with some swell Koehler products. Off to Home Depot!
-
Matt:
I mostly agree with your sentiments about Whistling Straits. I posted my review of the course just a couple of days ago. I think it deserves credit as a very early "faux-links" course and for creating an evironment that is visually stunning. The par 3s are remarkably similar, as you stated. "Overbunkering" found its full definition at Whistling Straits. Too many of the approaches require aerial carry over hazards. The 5th hole alone puts the course behind others that have 18 unified, strong holes.
However, there are some very cool features. The new 6th green is unique and stunning. The 10th hole seems wonderful to me. I applaud that it is a walking course. I have encouraged others on this board to give their numerical rating of the course (with zero takers) and have gone on record as giving it a 7.5. In my opinion, it a course of distinction, one that would fall outside my world top 100, but would make the top 30-40 modern courses.
Just my 2 cents,
Bart
Dan:
The bathroom fixtures are a Doak 10 8)
-
Joel:
Simple question -- simple answer requested -- you see WS / The Straits as the best that Pete has done. Golfweek and Golf Mag seem to think so.
I don't see the course touching the deserved reputation of places like Harbour Town, The Golf Club, Teeth of the Dog, The Ocean Course, TPC / Sawgrass, to name just a few.
No, I don't think WS is the best of Pete Dye...I prefer Honors first/foremost, then probably PD GC, HTown, Teeth, Golf Club, Blackwolf Run, TOC...THEN WS. But--I still think WS is fantastic, and truly out-of-the-ordinary.
-
Bart,
I'll agree with you. 7.5. If I had to pick a round number I'd go 8, but its borderline between the two numbers.
-
Carl,
The question is not whether it is a successful project. It is. The tee sheet is full. The question is how good is it architecturally....
If you can say it achieves its design objectives with conviction, then its successful. There will be at best a marginal agreement on what we all care to measure.
Am I chomping at the bit to tee it there? Not really. A lot of other courses would come ahead of WS on my to play list.
Would an individual's play list be the criteria to judge the course?
-
I shouldn't say that I don't like the course; it is still one of the top few courses I have had the chance to play. I played WS in 2003 I think and BR two years before. What's interesting about WS is that there are very few holes that I can still remember much about what I liked/disliked and there are a few that I get confused with each other (2 and 4 in particular). This is much more true than with BR, which there are a number of holes I distinctly remember and like. BR River vs. WS I go 6-4 for BR.
On the other hand, the one of a kind setting does provide a boost in my opinion in that the experience as a whole is very unique in the world of golf, even if it is not everybody's cup of tea. I don't mind mind the excessive bunkering. Sure, most never come into play, but surely most are not groomed daily and they have the budget for it.
I am going to say I would give it a 7, which seems too low to be the third best modern course in the US, no?
-
Carl:
The place is rated #3 by Golfweek in their modern listing of courses. ::)
All the items you mentioned have nothing to do with the actual design / architecture. I don't deny the place makes $$ and that it has the wherewithal to host a modern major in the year 2010. The issue is whether or not the place offers anything beyond the flash of overkill that Pete interjected onto the design.
I am not worried about Golfweek.
The design was built for a series of reasons. In doing that a series of trade-offs were made. I think that is a good starting point to discuss the course. The fact that many of you have commented on this thread means that you are not buying into its design assumptions, premises and starting points.
-
With WS (in addition to TPC and HT) has Pete Dye proven that he is the BEST PGA Tournament architect of the modern era?
How does it play for everyone else?
That is what concerns me about WS from afar - It is VERY highly rated by Golfweek as Matt has noted which should probably compel one to take a trip there - but with Bandon down the road and four all world courses it is a struggle to travel to WI and pay the big bucks for a course that does not look very enjoyable unless you have + handicap ball control.
I am also put off by this "Irish links vibe" that they are perpetrating when it does not play like that at all, but I digress.
I spoke to a pro this week who said playing WS is absolutely exhausting - more mental than physical.
I think that is a complement - because it takes insanely hard courses to challenge these guys - but not sure that makes it a Top 5 Public in the country from an architectural perspective?
-
Rob,
From your location there's zero reason to ever go to WS over BD. Keiser has crushed Kohler at his own game.
-
Don't even try to convince me I am wrong about the following comment.
Let me start this by saying most everyone on this board see's golf design from ther same, or very similar perspective. Pete Dye is not the flavour of the week, so your brains are mostly all train not to like his style all that much.
The real reason for the lack of love for WS on this site is not because the holes are bad or it is a bad course, it is because it is not how you think the course should look. You think an Irish links should look and play a certain way. Whistling Straits is like an Irish links turned on its head. This makes your head hurt. You want it to look more natural and be more a traditional links.
I see WS kind of like a links painted by Francis Bacon. Then again, I do prefer surrealism to naturalism. I prefer david Lynch to Martin Scorsese.
I don't think WS is bullet-proof, but I do think it is an amazing effort with a lot of good golf holes.
-
Matt K...
Just so you (and really everone else) knows the reason I have so much interest in this thread is that every single Pete Dye course I have played I absolutely loved! And right now, he is by far my favorite architect. But I haven't played a few key architects courses yet.
So, what I am piecing together is should I go to Kohler next, probably later in the summer next year, and play 4 Dye courses (almost a sure thing I will love them) or try something new? Right now I am thinking try something new just to see what is out there, but I just want to make sure that isn't a mistake.
So, when you say, "Pete Dye is not the flavour of the week, so your brains are mostly all train not to like his style all that much."...understand that I, for one, am on board with Mr. Dye 100%.
-
Watching it in beautiful HD, all I can think about is replacing my bathroom fixtures with some swell Koehler products. Off to Home Depot!
What's funny is that when I was up there at the end of June we had a meeting with Herb. One of his marketing people said that what is really amazing is that Herb had discovered a way to have people voluntarily come up to his plant and fork down $300-$400 each to test out his plumbing products.
-
And right now, he is by far my favorite architect.
Mac,
This may call for another thread, but what are the key characteristics of Pete's courses you've played that places him as your favorite. I only have played the Ocean Course, and what really appealed to me there was how much thought I needed to put into my approach shots in terms of where was my miss. There seemed to be such a disparity as to what kind of shape you would be if you missed in the right spot vs. the wrong spot. As a bogey golfer I liked how it forced me to think, and it brought an excitement to the round that I quite enjoyed (the wind was benign that day...which probably helped the enjoyment factor as well...)
Thanks,
Jim
-
Baker-Finch just called it Pete's best ever.....Personally I dont even think it is the best course AT THAT RESORT! I liked Blackwolf Run better.....
Also, I heard Nobilo earlier in the week call it the best course of the modern era. Me thinks Frank has not been to Bandon, Sand Hills and a whole bunch of other places.
-
Rob,
From your location there's zero reason to ever go to WS over BD. Keiser has crushed Kohler at his own game.
Jud:
The continued comparisons by you and others on this thread between WStraits and the Bandon quartet is simply misleading, and disingenuous. What was the last tournament of any consequence held at any of the Bandon courses? The Curtis Cup? That's nice, but it's not exactly the world's top 100 golfers playing at 7,500 yards. I'll repeat it again for those who may have missed it -- WS was built entirely to host the PGA and other major tournaments. Everything I've read about Mr. Keiser suggests he developed the Bandon properties for what they've become -- a high-end destination resort that mirrors, as closely as one can probably get here in the States, the UK-links experience. That's not why Mr. Kohler built WStraits.
I know, I know -- "but how does it rate as a test of architecture?" Myself and others have tried to answer that, apparently to your continued dissatisfaction (you could at least attempt, as Matt Ward is doing, to get into some legitimate discussions about its merits vs. other courses). But that's OK; I'm not suggesting you and I will agree on that. I think it holds up well as a test of the best players in the world. You think it fails, because it's not Bandon. That's a specious argument, on your part.
-
Phil,
I've been sitting here trying to write something along the lines of what you just said. The resorts have entirely different purposes, especially the Straits Course.
Well done.
As a side note, having not been there recently I had forgotten how good some of the inland holes are at Straits, especially #9 and #10. I really like #9 green on a relatively short hole.
-
Phil,
Sorry if the criticism hits too close to home.
1. Rob wondered aloud whether it made sense, with Bandon in his back yard, to ever venture to WS. The answer for any sane person who's not a Pete Dye fanatic is no.
2. Did I ever say the course is a dogtrack? It's not. There are some very good holes, #10 in particular, and some heart-pumping tee shots. It's a wonder of modern construction techniques and has some pretty cool shaping. Am I biased against it because it's not minimalist and doesn't play firm/fast and is a faux links? I'll concede that point.
3. I disagree that it's a brutal track and only playable by very strong players and have said so. If you play the proper tees the course is very playable. I've scored well there, so it's not any bum beef on my part.
4. Are you saying the Mr. Kohler would be happy to close the course and only open it every 5 years for the PGA championship? I beg to differ. He may be a billionaire in the sh*tter business, but he's got quite a large investment in golf as well. And let's face it, he puts the American Club and it's 4 courses, of which WS is the jewel, out there in direct competition with the other big resorts in the U.S.; Pinehurst, Pebble and yes Bandon. It's the last on my list of these four on many counts.
5. Given point 4 let's look at it compared to Bandon. By the way, have you been there? Your're talking about a place that has 4 of the best courses in the country if not the world, all Doak 8's and 9's vs. a place that has a mishmash of Doak 5-7's. No contest.
-
Phil, if the course is built to test the best in the world, why would I, a 10 handicapper, go there? I don't have the skills...
-
Phil, if the course is built to test the best in the world, why would I, a 10 handicapper, go there? I don't have the skills...
The course is very playable and fun as long as you choose the right tees. IF you go too far back, it could be a long day.
-
1. Rob wondered aloud whether it made sense, with Bandon in his back yard, to ever venture to WS. The answer for any sane person who's not a Pete Dye fanatic is no.
Jud,
The answer for YOU is no. Leave the rest of us out of it. I'd happily return to Kohler and think folks would be missing something by skipping it entirely, no matter their location.
-
It is a mistake to think of WS as a faux links. It isn't and most agree wit that sentiment. It is indefinable except that it is next to the Big Lake, which makes one think of links golf. I know Herb Kohler want Ballybuniion, what he got was something else. But when you add up the setting, the variety of holes, the demanding tee shots, the exceptional greens and surrounds, it stacks up with some of the best courses in the country. Is it in my top ten modern or top fifty that includes classic courses? I don't know. I just don't find too many deficiencies.
-
I played the course soon after it opened and like it better than most. I can't really argue with those who feel otherwise, however.
Bearing in mind that I'm reaching back ten years or so for a single round:
Some weaknesses:
The siting of the clubhouse is responsible for the awkward nature of both the 9th and 18th holes as they play back along the two sides of the washed out valley.
The double-dogleg par five on the front with pond is totally out of character.
Few angled shot requirements, either from the tee or on the approach - i.e., the golf course is extremely linear.
Turfgrass maintenance in front of the greens thwarts the ground game, which the architecture often otherwise favors.
Ho hum internal green contours.
Superfluous peripheral bunkering.
Few centerline hazards.
Ballybunion inspiration without blindness?
Some strengths:
The 1st and 10th (Underrated) are great get-away holes, playing out toward the lake.
Scale.
Unimpeded vistas.
Generally extreme fairway width.
Double-figure 8 routing exposes all wind directions.
Expansive greens accomodate the weaker player and challenge the better player.
Nice skyline features, particular at the final par five.
Otherwise superfulous external bunkers offer a visually attractive landscape.
Flexible - challenging for the world's greatest players and playable for the mid-handicapper - no small feat.
Mike
-
Phil, if the course is built to test the best in the world, why would I, a 10 handicapper, go there? I don't have the skills...
The course is very playable and fun as long as you choose the right tree. If you go too far back, it could be a long day.
I second this...most golfers (handicap 7-20) could probably play the course from the ~6300 tees and have a very fun day. If I had my choice I would play the 6700 yard tees. Back around 2000 I played it with a group of Chicago area pros and played it from the tips...made for a very LONG day.
-
Guys:
Let me fill in the blanks for those of you who don't like to be pinned down.
When a course is rated #3 among ALL modern courses since 1960 it's no less than a 9 on the Doak scale.
The architecture is simply not present. It's demanding no doubt because you can get stiff breezes off of Lake Michigan but the Lake is mostly a set decoration -- removed from play and there for overhead type shots and the like.
It's also laughable that people would opt for WS and all its courses over the collection at Bandon. Someone will have to explain to me what remote connection the Irish Course at WS has with anything remorely close to a real links in Ireland. I'd give the layout a zero on the Doak scale for being just hideous.
Another myth -- the idea that a major validates a course's architecture is preposterous. The Straits gets the events because Kohler has unlimited funds and went ahead and built a mega muscular layout that can be adopted to the world's best with insane length and fairly predictable airport length fairways. The issue is that often times many raters and others fall for the common trap that hosting of a major means ipso facto course greatness. It doesn't.
Carl Rogers:
I don't know how many Pete Dye courses you have played but from the many I have played The Straits would not even SNIFF a top ten. The place is not about architecture and so many clueless raters always take the bait that hosting of a major validates what a course provides. It doesn't. Those who have some idea about design and architecture should know that. Especially if they have played a number of earlier Dye designs which are fun, interesting and always have an edge of mystery and eager to push the envelope.
The Straits is just a testament to positioning a course next to a major water body and then getting an architect to come in -- bull doze the crap out of it and add a zillion bunkers (an actual talking point in any telecast).
Carl, Golfweek says it's #3 among moden courses -- that's so funny because the premise is based on everything save for the item that matters most -- the overall architecture. Pete has done far better in my mind.
Steve Kline:
Well said -- too many announcers broadcast a big time view when they have played such a small portfolio of courses.
-
1. Rob wondered aloud whether it made sense, with Bandon in his back yard, to ever venture to WS. The answer for any sane person who's not a Pete Dye fanatic is no.
Jud,
The answer for YOU is no. Leave the rest of us out of it. I'd happily return to Kohler and think folks would be missing something by skipping it entirely, no matter their location.
Andy,
Just a refresher...
Doak 7- An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere within 100 miles. You can expect to find soundly designed, interesting holes, good course conditioning and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.
Doak 8- One of the very best courses in its region (although there are more 8s in some places, and none in others), and worth a special trip to see. Could have some drawbacks, but these will clearly be spelled out, and it will make up for them with something really special in addition to the generally excellent layout.
Unless the course is a Doak 8 it's not worth Rob travelling from the West Coast to see...Hey, it's a free country. If you want to spend your hard-earned dollars at Kohler knock yourself out. And, oh, by the way, I've got a nice piece of swampland for you to check out.... ;)
Matt,
Thanks for saying what I didn't have the balls to say about the Irish course.....
-
Jud/Richard:
Some background:
-- Herb Kohler got into the golf business primarily because guests at his 5-star resort in Kohler proper, the American Club, complained about the lack of golfing opportunites. He initially -- as Jay Flemma rehashes in his very good inteview with Pete Dye -- wanted to buy an existing course; failing at that, and with alot of land at his disposal nearby, he hired Dye -- who he knew by reputation -- to build the Blackwolf Run courses. Kohler made them public, and priced them well above what other high-end publics in Wisconsin were charging at the time; Blackwolf Run was viewed in most quarters of the golfing world in Wisconsin as an enormous financial risk. Very few folks thought it would take off and become successful; it did.
-- Even in its very initial years of play, BRun was viewed as a bit too quirky for a major championship, at least for the men (it hosted the US Women's Open in '98). Kohler, by now getting to know top officials at both the PGA and USGA, wanted to host a major. He began discussions with Dye, and the two of them -- who took golfing trips together to the UK and Ireland -- hit upon the idea of a course that would pay homage to, if not exactly play like, the Irish links they had played together. Kohler bought the old military base near Haven, up the road from Kohler, and told Dye: "Build me Ballybunion." Everything done at WStraits -- from the location of the site for the PGA and corporate tents, to the mounding surrounding various holes, to the routing of 8 holes along the lake for visuals -- was done with hosting a major there in mind (I'd note that Doak, praised endlessly here on GCA, frequently talks about choices and compromises he's had to make on courses -- Seaboneck being one -- because of his client's wishes; there isn't a single thing at WStraits done that didn't fit with Kohler's desire to hold a major there).
-- Kohler, who really wanted a US Open at WStraits, compromised when the PGA offered him two PGAs and a Ryder Cup; Kohler still thinks WS is a candidate for the US Open @ 2020, and he has made a point of nurturing relations with both PGA and USGA officials throughout his golf-building career.
-- WStraits was always going to be a public model; Kohler's no dummy, and as folks like Doak have pointed out, the clear direction being taken by the USGA and PGA these days is hosting majors at courses in which those courses can turn around and market themselves to the golfing public as major championship sites. See Chambers Bay, Erin Hills, Cog Hill's attempt...
-- Are the Kohler-area courses in "competition" with the Bandons and Pinehursts of the world? I suppose they are; it's just a guess on my part, but I think Mr. Kohler -- a pretty savvy guyy -- thinks the success of Bandon is probably good for the success of his courses. But that's a business question, not an architecture question. You'd argue those other courses are better as pieces of golf architecture, and I have no real basis to argue that, having not been to them. But I know plenty of folks in Wisconsin who would (and have) readily plop down the bucks to play a course that's going to be hosting a Ryder Cup, and who also think flying across the country to a bunch of courses on a lonely stretch of the Oregon coast is, to put it mildly, crazy. Remeber, Jud, we're the outliers here.
-- Of course Dye was going to build courses with tees shorter than 7,500 yards; he and Kohler know the average golfer out there plays to a 10+ handicap. They presume there are golfers out there, even the 20+ handicappers, who want to fork over $$$ to play a PGA/US Open/Ryder Cup course; that's their business model, and more power to them if they can carry it off.
-- Jud: Did I say you said it's a "dogtrack?" No. Did I say it's a brutal track? No. I did say, from what I've seen of it in '04, and so far in '10, that it's a solid test for the world's best players in a major -- it's played about as difficult as Hazeltine and Sahalee in recent PGAs, tougher than Medinah, Valhalla, and Atlanta, and easier than Oak Hill, Oakland Hills, and Baltusrol.
-- Richard: I know of 20+ handicappers who have played WS and loved it; I know of 10+ handicappers who thought it was brutally hard and not their cup of tea. To each his own; some people think the National Golf Links are an antiquated tricked-up course, and would probably think similarly of Old Macdonald.
-- Does it make sense for Rob to travel to Wisconsin when he has Bandon in his backyard? Probably not, but you're comment was that Keiser "beat" Kohler "at his own game." My contention is that they are not playing the same game.
-
I played the course soon after it opened and like it better than most. I can't really argue with those who feel otherwise, however.
Bearing in mind that I'm reaching back ten years or so for a single round:
Some weaknesses:
The siting of the clubhouse is responsible for the awkward nature of both the 9th and 18th holes as they play back along the two sides of the washed out valley. Agree
The double-dogleg par five on the front with pond is totally out of character. Agree
Few angled shot requirements, either from the tee or on the approach - i.e., the golf course is extremely linear. disagree. There are many angled greens. some because they are built that way and some because of the shape of the greens make them play that way. 18 is a good example of the latter.
Turfgrass maintenance in front of the greens thwarts the ground game, which the architecture often otherwise favors.Agree
Ho hum internal green contours. I'm not sure what you saw. but here is ample movement in the green interiors.
Superfluous peripheral bunkering. Disagree. They are no more superflupous than trees that are off the playing lines of a course. Not everything on a course has to come into play.
Few centerline hazards.
Ballybunion inspiration without blindness? Disagree. There are blind shots off the tee and depending on the second shot placement, blind shots into a few of the greens. There may not be as many blicnd shots but they are there.
.
Mike
-
This from Gary van Sickle of Golf.com will really piss Matt off. The course does look spectacular in HD.
"Location, location, location… Every time TNT shows a player putting with Lake Michigan in the background, how many tee times get booked at Whistling Straits? The truth is, the Straits looks as good as Pebble Beach and Torrey Pines from the ground and from the blimp. Give it another 10 years, another PGA Championship and a Ryder Cup, and the Straits is going to work its way into the top 10 of those top 100 golf course lists. Hey, I wrote before the inaugural 2004 PGA here that if you wanted to play the Straits, you should do it before the PGA gave it global TV exposure. Now it's even more true."
-
Phil B:
I agree -- the photos only suck in the ignorant. The raters should be above such a situation but alas they are not.
I don't bash the people there for the mktg and hype they are generating -- I do expect raters and the top tier mags to see through the puff puff type stuff.
Phil McDade:
Great info and the all rest.
Let's cut to the chase -- do you see The Straits as being #3 among all Moden Courses since 1960 ?
If not -- then where would you place it among other Dye courses you have played and a bit of why would help?
The concept of "links" has become so bastardized to mean absoluetly nothing. The Straits provides a distant look but the actual feel and playing characteristics of a real links are no where to be found.
Phil, WS and the orignal Blackwolf Run layouts are very expensive and while the service is quite high -- the pace of play is often dreadful as you get Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass types have a six hour picnic when playing there. For those seeking something of real architectural merit make a quick deotur and head for Green Lake and Lawsonia.
-
OK-here's an olive branch...I will go on record that I think Whistling Straights is a better golf course than Torrey Pines....Happy?
Phil,
Good history, thanx. And I agree that it's a good test for these animals, particularly if the wind gets up.
-
Let me see if this analogy works...
To me, a links course that does not play like a links course is kinda like a race car that looks like an F1 car, but with Nascar chassis and setup to be driven in a Nascar race - nothing but left turns. I don't think anyone would argue that this car can still go very fast and would be very fun to drive, but it would leave you wanting because you expect an F1 car to handle like an F1 car.
I would have a very hard time justifying spending $400/round playing WS when I can play Bandon courses for close to half that (probably less than half when you factor in the lodging costs). Why would I go there and pay more to play something that just looks like something when I can play the real thing? If I want more American golf experience, wouldn't I just go to Pebble Beach?
-
Matt:
I have absolutely no basis by which to compare WStraits' current ranking, relative to other golf mag rankings, or to Pete Dye's other courses. I don't get around much, and I find the entire rankings debate rather pointless and silly (as evidence by some magazines not putting Lawsonia on the top-10 list of publics to play in Wisconsin ???)
-
Forget Bandon--I can't figure out why Whistling Straits is rated higher than the Ocean Course. Kiawah is the only high-profile Dye course I've played but, based on what I've seen, Whistling Straits seems to be a point of departure for Dye (maybe not the exact point) from where he went over the top, building hideous stuff like Pound Ridge and the course in French Lick. Continuing the music analogy from another thread, sometimes a masterful musician goes off in an entirely unwelcome direction and loses you (like when the Rolling Stones went disco).
-
The more I watch this course the more I like it and judging by the comments from our members, it has the most wow factor of any US major course for some years.
-
Phil M:
I agree w you -- but I do find meaning in the ratings when you have it done by knoledgeable people -- the existing systems of using people as a Gallup poll proves what can happen.
Tim P:
Well said -- the Pete Dye of later years has produced -- with few exceptions -- just over-the-top efforts. I have played Pound Ridge a few times and it proves your point very well.
Adrian:
"Wow factor" -- really. Based on what -- the location of Lake Michigan and the concept that hosting majors validates any course. What do you assign to Torrey -- another "wow factor."
-
Can someone who has teed it at WS provide some info on their favorite holes from a GCA standpoint?
Apologies if there was a list of them earlier - I didn't see it.
-
Matt, can't disagree at all that Whistling Straits is overrated at #3 on Golfweek's modern list. I disagree that it reflects a lack of architectural acumen among that magazine's raters, however. More likely, it's simply a logistical issue.
One could argue that Whistling Straits was both an archectural and engineering marvel when it was constructed and perhaps was a large step in the modern evolution of golf course architecture - a relatively remote, big, bold golf course hanging out over a large visually endless body of water. Images of the course captured the golfing public's fancy and quite frankly its lofty early ratings (as opposed to ranking) were well deserved and sensical in 1998.
We have since seen several golf courses produced on superior land with arguably superior architecture. However, the rater who gave WS a 9 can't very well assign a 12 to Sand Hills, for example. Moreover, as raters - not unlike GCA posters continue to demonstrate an almost insatiable appetite for the "next big thing" fewer and fewer make the trek to WS and as a result the previous lofty ratings are not changed to the point of being statistically meaningful. For example, a handful of 7 ratings will not change 50 or so 8's and 9's so the "rankings" remain unrealistically static.
A great example is Rees Jones' Quintero, which has taken several years to migrate down the Golfweek Modern list, barely hanging on at 96 even though it's never discussed here and I'd have a hard time giving it more than a 6.
My gut tells me that Whisting Straigts is a 7-8 course, not the 8-9 course the #3 spot suggests. That's still rock solid, don't you think?
Mike
-
Mike:
The raters by and large are like cattle -- they graze and gravitate to what they believe is getting the largest bang -- courses that host major events get the buzz and hence the rater's attention.
Ask many of them have they EVER been to Lawsonia? If the answer is no -- and they have been to WS and / or Erin Hills then you know what they are listening to.
I don't buy your premise about when the course was built and what it provided -- other more significant layouts opened prior to WS -- see the likes of Shadow Creek, to name just one.
From all the courses in the States I have played the entire combination of courses at Kohler would be fortunate to sniff a top 50 position. The archietcture is mainly vanilla at The Straits -- just create long holes with great eyecandy in Lake Michigan and away we go.
Mike -- The Straits is not an 8-9 layout -- more likely a solid 6 -- tops 7 and I'm being quite generous in that. Too many people falvor their assessments based on TV and the majors they host. Pull that out of the equation and the rest speaks for itself.
-
Matt,
I have the Straits at a 7. That said, it is still one of the greatest engineering feats in golf course design (right up there with Shadow Creek and Mauna Kea).
Mark
-
Phil M:
I agree w you -- but I do find meaning in the ratings when you have it done by knoledgeable people -- the existing systems of using people as a Gallup poll proves what can happen.
Tim P:
Well said -- the Pete Dye of later years has produced -- with few exceptions -- just over-the-top efforts. I have played Pound Ridge a few times and it proves your point very well.
Adrian:
"Wow factor" -- really. Based on what -- the location of Lake Michigan and the concept that hosting majors validates any course. What do you assign to Torrey -- another "wow factor."
Based on majority opinion Matt. The majority are liking this course. For me, its exciting and the holes are more dramatic that some of the recent PGA venues we are dished. Torrey Pines, yep I quite liked that, but not as good as WS.
-
1. Rob wondered aloud whether it made sense, with Bandon in his back yard, to ever venture to WS. The answer for any sane person who's not a Pete Dye fanatic is no.
Jud,
The answer for YOU is no. Leave the rest of us out of it. I'd happily return to Kohler and think folks would be missing something by skipping it entirely, no matter their location.
Andy,
Just a refresher...
Doak 7- An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere within 100 miles. You can expect to find soundly designed, interesting holes, good course conditioning and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.
Doak 8- One of the very best courses in its region (although there are more 8s in some places, and none in others), and worth a special trip to see. Could have some drawbacks, but these will clearly be spelled out, and it will make up for them with something really special in addition to the generally excellent layout.
Unless the course is a Doak 8 it's not worth Rob travelling from the West Coast to see...Hey, it's a free country. If you want to spend your hard-earned dollars at Kohler knock yourself out. And, oh, by the way, I've got a nice piece of swampland for you to check out.... ;)
Matt,
Thanks for saying what I didn't have the balls to say about the Irish course.....
Jud,
I'm perfectly comfortable giving Straits an 8. I gave it 7.5 earlier in the thread, but if I have to use a round number then 8 is fine by me. Blackwolf Run River is at least an 8 for me, so that one's worth it too. The back nine at Meadow Valleys is worth seeing too, but the other 27 holes don't do much for me.
-
I will say this about Whistling Strait. If I am going to watch a target golf (like the vast majority of majors are), I would rather watch it on a course like Whistling Strait, which far more interesting visually, than a course with trees lining every fairway.
-
Richard:
I know I'm the resident homer here, but I'm finding the tournament a lot of fun to watch, with the kind of stuff that seems to be up the alley of the GCA cognescenti -- options on how to play holes, wind playing a big role in how holes are played (and how players attack them), some blind shots, variety in hole lengths (i.e, par 4s playing 330 yards to 500+ yards), a few others.
I'll be interested to see the West Coast version of a totally manufactured faux links course soon!
-
How good is WS from an architectural perspective? I'd say it is what it is. The course was extremely enjoyable for me to play. Overall I would give it a 7. The funny thing is I could not recall many of the holes after finishing the round. But one thing you do not forget is the amount of interaction you have with the lake. It seems like every par 3 is right on the water. In addition there are a couple nice skyline approaches.
WS does not have the links turf of a Bandon course but the eye candy is phenomenal. It's hard to describe but the course has an isolated, serene feel to it. I know it shouldn't matter but the high cost of a game is a bit of a downer for me. However Mr. Kohler has that right to charge what the market will give.
I would say it is a course that every serious golfer should play at least once, and maybe only once.
-
I recall an interview with Pete around the time of the last PGA in which he indicated he had concluded modern technology had made length its own reward for tour pros - he was not going to double reward length with a better angle. Does that philosophy result in the downgrade many on here give the course? I have never played it.
-
Bear in mind that I haven't played the course.
To me, the setup looks extremely penal, but with winding fairways that give the impression of a strategic course. The fairways look like flat, narrow ribbons, and if you miss them, the penalty is considerable. That explains why I haven't seen much variety in where players want to hit the ball. Almost everybody aims for the same spot, and strategy comes into play only after somebody has hit into a bunker. I did see a choice to go with a 3-wood, instead of a driver, off the tee, presumably because the fairway was so important to hit.
The green complexes look like the most strategically-interesting parts of the course, because they are large and have quite a few rolls. Also, some of the areas around the greens are cut short, letting errant shots roll away from the holes.
Basically, it looks like everybody's walking a tightrope, out there.
-
WS is not flat on many/most holes. The slopes are designed at lengths to tempt the player to give it all they can to get to some narrow speed slotsas risk reward. The penalties can be very steep if you miss. The short and cautious players have a decent measure of width where they can bat it around. As I said on the other thread, the very cautious higher handi player can play tick tack and lay-up constantly, giving up most times getting on the greens in reg, and probably walk away unembarrased. But, who pays $500 schemoles for a chance to tickie tack around, when there are huge challenges and temptations facing you and giving you opportunities to hit those career shots? The greens are quite well designed and are a good balance of subtle to obvious contours that play very much into your approach decisions.
I find it very hard to flat out say it is not great architecture. It is so different and was created for such unique purposes and vision by Kohler and Dye, that it just doesn't offer much chance to take a hard and fast stand on its overall greatness in the pantheon of widely recognized great courses now or historically. Just my opinion...
-
RJ:
Among all the courses you have played where would you place The Straits ?
Top three ?
Top five ?
Top ten ?
Top 25 ?
Thanks ...
-
It strikes me that any discussion of architecture begins with the site and ends with what happened. Seems IMHO that we have a waterside location with tons of sand trucked in to create a golf course. This type of creation is contrary to most architectural purists in that it is manufactured in its entirety, albeit it is waterside. There are many other locations where this good be duplicated. So is that type of architecture that we are discussing? A Pete Dye course that is waterside, not a hard and fast fescue bump and run course, it is what it is. Like Chambers Bay with imported sand to fill a gravel pit, not a real fan....I would rather find the golf course in the site instead of bringing it in. Thanks 8)
-
If we start knocking down course because they "truck in" sand from else where, we are not going to have too many golf courses left. Hell, do you think ANGC has crushed marble laying around everywhere to fill their bunkers?
FYI, the sand from Chambers Bay was used to build vast number of greens in NW. CB didn't have to "truck it in".
-
Likely The Straits go into the books for something -- just not what it had wanted to be remembered for !
-
.
-
Keiser has crushed Kohler at his own game.
What's the game? How do you win?
-
Love the architecture discussion as not all courses have beautiful architecture, however you can still play golf w or w/o great architecture; clearly Kohler is not a golf purist. @ Richard...not sure you understand that filling bunkers with sand is different than bringing in your whole golf course and everything else by truck and then shaping it to look like it was there before. WS brought so much sand in it will now be forever be remembered for ill defined bunkering as it was a manufactured course. CB is all fill, in that it was a gravel pit with a cliff to the water level with a bike path surrounding the edge, then filled at essentially an angle with sand shipped in from Canada. Briiliant idea by the county and a win win for all the joggers/bikers etc..., who used to look down at a big hole. There are few sites that provide the type of elevation changes that Augusta does and that were captured to provide such an excellent golf course. I'm not talking about Subair Systems and all that. Thanks. ;)
-
William,
I've read at least a few times how Pete Dye said that most of what they did at Whistling Straits was lower the land by the lake and use it to build up the land farther from the shore. I've never heard mention of trucking in lots of sand. Are you saying that's incorrect?
-
yes. thanks. :-X
-
Disclaimers:
- Never played WS. Walked it last Thursday.
- Been playing Lawsonia over 30 years. Love it (Links).
Reading the other posts on this topic, the key distinction seems to be what the goal of the architecture is. If the goal is to build a visually stunning course, hard by water, that can hold a major, then WS is right up there with any of them.
If the goal is to build a great course that tests all aspects of your game, that players of a wide range of HCP's can enjoy, that requires thought as well as skill if you want to score well, then look for another course.
Consider #6 at WS - a great test of skill. But there's no way to go after a pin on the right except from the air. If the green wasn't soft it would be literally impossible. The changes to this green since the previous PGA I think make it architecturally worse...
And the par 3's seemed to be too similar in distance as well, though perhaps this change if you play from different tees.
On a positive note, there are some darn good holes - #10 in particular.
And of course I find myself agreeing with Matt Ward and Phil McDade.
-
Tom:
Lawsonia Links is a must play for any golf design junkie.
It has all the elements players of all ability levels will enjoy,
The Straits is a 800-pound gorilla meant to handle the 1/10th of 1 percent of the people who play. No doubt the everyday player can move way forward and play the course at shorter lengths but the design pedigree that made Pete Dye the top architect in the USA for the last 50 years of the previous century is missing. It is the "let's throw everything save the kitchen sink" into the mix. Pete has a name and no doubt Herb K has done well in creating a golf complex that has few peers in terms of course offerings and the like.
The issue for me is that Golfweek -- a magazine that prides itself on understanding core golfers would rate such a layout higher than other more noted Dye designs. It is a fine course but no where near the #3 modern in the USA from the ones I have played.
-
Tom:
Lawsonia Links is a must play for any golf design junkie.
It has all the elements players of all ability levels will enjoy,
The Straits is a 800-pound gorilla meant to handle the 1/10th of 1 percent of the people who play. No doubt the everyday player can move way forward and play the course at shorter lengths but the design pedigree that made Pete Dye the top architect in the USA for the last 50 years of the previous century is missing. It is the "let's throw everything save the kitchen sink" into the mix. Pete has a name and no doubt Herb K has done well in creating a golf complex that has few peers in terms of course offerings and the like.
The issue for me is that Golfweek -- a magazine that prides itself on understanding core golfers would rate such a layout higher than other more noted Dye designs. It is a fine course but no where near the #3 modern in the USA from the ones I have played.
Exactly. :-)
-
It's too bad the "new" left fairway option at #18 really was not used by the players. The carry and the narrow landing zone provided was just not enough of a temptation for such a play.
I would have loved to have seen a somewhat shorter carry so that players might have taken the route.
Interesting how such an alternate option was not even used at all.