Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: RDecker on February 06, 2003, 07:07:14 PM
-
I was glancing through the March issue of GOLF magazine in the grocery store the other day and I noticed that since George Pepper left they had changed the layout and added some new features... Then an interesting article caught my eye the author listed is a Hunki Yun and the topic was most overrated courses. I thought quickly of some of the names I might find as I scanned down the page (Bay Hill, anything with Trump in the name) but to my suprise the first course listed was Seminole. I was suprised to see it included then the other names I saw read like a GCA posters wish list. I wondered if anyone else has seen this and if there is any merit to this list or just the rumblings of a scribe trying to get noticed at a big corporate media stronghold like Time. Below is the list including it's authors comments for each course.
1. Seminole- it was all about Hogan. keyword was.
2. Pinehurst #2- fix ballmark near hole, walk 50 feet past, chip
back onto green: is this golf?
3. Baltusrol lower- if not within 30 minutes of USGA's HQ,
nobody would have heard of it.
4. Spyglass Hill- play first six holes 3 times.
5. Pebble Beach- Nine spectacular holes along the Pacific a
golf course does not make.
6. Sand Hills- What's the real challenge: the course or getting
there?
7. the Old Course- Sam Snead was right( as were Scott Hoch
and Lee Westwood).
8. Olympic (lake)- Beware Vertigo: sloping fairways only
Hitchcock could love.
9. Tie Royal Melbourne/The Country Club- both ratings are
for composite layouts, which don't exist
except for the ranking.
I have heard other people question Spyglass' place in the rankings and even a few people will dispute Pebble's total package but the rest of these, come on. Comments anyone.
-
Rdecker,
The comments, collectively, seem rooted in envy.
-
Wow- Ain't that a shame and a sham all in one. Thats got to be hard to do. I can't wait to hear about this guys favorites ::)
Let's see if we can guess his favorite list.
#1 that pueblo course where huckaby takes his daughter
#2 missing links at Mequon
#3 Clive Clarkes country club of the desert
#4 Shadow Mountain
#5 Dick Daley's hidden gem 8) with the horse trough surrounding the green.
#6 Whispering Winds
#7 Sandpines
#8 Bushwood CC
#9 Jackson Park Muni
#10 The Mad Russian
-
Forget the comments, he got two right at least - The Olympic Club and Spyglass are both over-rated, I'm not saying bad necessarily but Olympic Lake once ranked Top 20 in the World - C'mon!!
His comments about Royal Melbourne are amiss too and though the composite course is mostly played by professionals if he'd actually been he'd have RM West alone in his top few in the world.
Pebble is a great place and has several great holes and is among the Top few courses I've played but he may be right in saying that it is actually a tad over-rated (3-4 in world??), again his comments are absurd and if it is over-rated it certainly ain't by much.
The rest is ridiculous as I'm sure many others will chime in to explain.
-
If you don't think Seminole is in the US top 7-15 then you have not played enough great golf courses, it is hands down one of golf's great routings with many angles that add great strategic value. One needs to read AM 13 points, does Seminole fail in any?
-
I have not yet seen the article in the magazine, but the list appears more or less on point.
Balturol Lower is one of the most disappointing experiences I have had in golf. I don't know why the USGA has held any Opens there. The Upper course has far more charm, and its subtle breaks off the nearby mountain make for a most interesting round of golf.
Everyone I know who has played Pinehurst was disappointed, as was I. Good course, but few people would say it's great unless they knew it already had a high rating.
Sand Hills - I thought the experience of being there was magnificent, but I thought every hole looked the same. Not as good as nearby (400 miles) Prairie Dunes.
Seminole - No way it would be in the U.S. top 25 if it were not the club of choice for the upper class and if Hogan had not practiced there.
Old Course - Have played it several times. Leaves me cold based solely on the merits. But a great experience if you focus on its history.
Pebble and Olympic - Have not read the article, but I think they are both excellent courses. Maybe the author is off base in criticizing those two courses.
Royal Melbourne - Great set of greens and bunkers. Fairways are too wide, and there's not much interest in the course unless you are near the greens. Very good course, but not top 10 in the world.
Country Club - Author appears on point. Three holes from the composite course are great, but one of them is not even a real hole from the second course; is a combination of two holes. Rest of the holes are good, but not a top 10 course.
Conclusion - Author appears to know his stuff. Which courses does he think are underrated?
These four courses (among others) are underrated courses in my opinion: Yale; Dunes in Michigan; Cruden Bay; and Somerset Hills.
-
Jim Thomas,
Obviously you are relatively new to this website! :o If you had been around longer you'd realize that you'll have a lot of explaining to do if you are proclaiming in one post that Sand Hills, TOC, Royal Melbourne, and Seminole are among the world's most overrated courses without explaining in great architectural detail why you think so. In 2 years participating in this discussion group, I think yours are the first negative words I've seen uttered about these courses, and the others on the list have been the subject of some debate (especially Pebble and Olympic, which you say are your favorites on the list) but have received strong support here as well.
When you say about Pinehurst #2 "few people would say it's great unless they knew it already had a high rating", it makes me think you don't really know who you're dealing with here on GolfClubAtlas.com. I am not necessarily among them, but many of the posters here have some of the most comprehensive knowledge of what constitues great golf architecture, for whom things like ratings are of little interest.
Prepare for your credibility to be questioned (may be too late) unless you really start explaining yourself!
(By the way, how did you play at Seminole and Royal Melbourne?)
-
Hunki Yun was previously the golf writer for the Orlando Sentinel.
-
Let's see if we can guess his favorite list.
#10 The Mad Russian
!!! #10 !!! ???
The layout is a masterpiece and a template for every respectable golf course built after it. Much like the Parthenon.
-
ChrisB
You haven't been reading this website very closely!
A number of people have often expressed opinions similar to those of Jim Thomas's. I personally agree with his comments on the 5 courses on that list which I have played (Pinehurst #2, TOC, Olympic, Spyglass and Pebble Beach), and have said so, many times on this site. So have others. These criticisms/defenses tend to cause a firestorm of righteous indignation amongst the true believers which quickly fizzles out when the heretics try to bring the arguments away from sentiment and rhetoric and as close as possible to real on the ground experiences and "facts." I would never call it "bias"--just closed-mindedness.........
I also agree (in theory) with the criticism of the two "composite" courses (RM and TCC).
I'd also like to hear from other potential heretics who have been to those places which I have not, how much of the above criticisms of Baltusrol Lower, Sand Hills, Seminole are on the money.
-
Rich and others,
I sort of understand where the author of the magazine piece is going with this. I've had similar discussions with mates many times. A course needn't be bad to be over-rated. It just has to be thought of in more positive terms, than is really the case. In that regard, I believe that the listing of Olympic, and even, dare I say it, Pebble, is able to be defended.
Although I've not played it, the criticism of Seminole would appear to be very flimsy. The course and club boast immesurably more than a claim as Hogan's practice range, and a playing list of loads of Fortune 500 CEOs.
The criticism of Royal Melbourne, on the grounds of either fairway width, or on consideration of the composite course in judging criteria (as opposed to East or West in isolation), is something which I simply cannot accept.
Royal Melbourne is criticised by many because it isn't within the United States. Unfamiliarity with it is no excuse to downgrade it. The facts are firstly that the composite course can be played, and is routinely played. It exists, and many historians are now uncovering details which show that Mackenzie indeed had a hand in many, if not all of the East holes making up the composite layout. Secondly, the West Course could comfortably stand in as a substitute for the composite, in the World Top Ten. It boasts a skeleton neared by so very few courses. Green complexes matched by a handful, and so many other factors, see it rightfully enjoy a place within any considered version of the permier courses on the planet.
As for fairway width, well, don't start me...
Matthew
-
Matthew
You are very right in that nobody (at least me) is saying that any of the course listed are in any way "bad." Just "rated" too highly for their inherent quality.
I don't know about Seminole, and I respect the views of the people on this site that I have played with and respect that it is a great track, but I am always sceptical about how the ancillary aspects of the good and great courses (i.e. snob appeal--social or architectural) really affect our judgement. I am sure that people can talk eloquently about specific features of Seminole (say), but I do wonder whether or not they might say similar things if the course were designed by AN Other, rather than Ross, and the membership were made up of good old swamps boys rather than Waspish Snowbirds.
I'll never criticise Royal Melbourne (until I see it, that is.....), but I do think that it (and TCC) "suffer" from the fact that people seem to want to "rate" a "course" which only rarely exists, kinda like Brigadoon. I have no doubt from what I have read on this site that the West Course (and maybe the East?) would rate highly by itself. If I were in charge of the ratings, I wouldn't allow "composite" courses. And, do you think that the fact that MacKenzie's hand is evidenced there (even if through convulted sorts of archaeology, in some instances) counts for some of the course's (composite or real)appeal to "raters?"
As for "width", Jim Thomas is very wrong if he criticises RM for this and this alone. As I said on another thread (to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen), I know width, I have played a lot of golf with width, width is a good friend of mine.
Finally, please take that chip off your shoulder regarding the statement that RM is "downgraded" just because it is in Oz and not in America. I find it hard to believe that a course regularly in the world "Top Ten" is downgraded, and I am sure that RM would get whatever recognition that it desreves if it were more accessible to more of the world's discerning golfers.
Cheers
-
"You are very right in that nobody (at least me) is saying that any of the course listed are in any way "bad." Just "rated" too highly for their inherent quality."
Rated too high for their inherent quality, huh? Rated too high? Right! The thing that's rated too high is the raters, not the courses. The thing that's rated too high is Golf Magazine.
That magazine should derate Yunki Yuk and stick to things like Dave Pelz's 199 part putting lesson and the best places in Las Vegas for golf, gambling and how to meet people in a hottub.
-
I have only played Sand Hills and TOC on the list but I have a good friend on the course with me here in Edinburgh that has played Pinehurst #2 so I will give my true opinions of the courses.
Sand Hills - I travelled from Norway for over 50 hours to get to this baby and wasn't dissappointed. Now, what was I most impressed with? The course? Yes and no. The clubhouse? No. The food? No. I was most impressed with the ambience of the place. The total relaxation mode you body moved into whdn arriving there. Is the course a great test of golf? God knows I didn't play off the tips apart from a few holes with M.Clayton which I found tough.
I don't think that the holes all blend into one and each hole did have it's own character.
Look, I'll be honest. I had a great weekend spending time with some of my best mates and mentors discussing GCA so I think the place is great. The course is designed well, so what more do you want? A difficult course? or a really enjoyable fun to play course?
TOC - Now here is a course that at the moment I cannot stand! I have only played it twice and still can't get my head around what all the fuss is about. You hit left with the drive you get a tougher shot to the green, if you hit right and tight you get an easier shot to the green. Pretty boring strategy if you ask me! The thing that impressed me last time I played were the chipping areas around the green. They made you use your imagination. Now, As Rich can confirm, I haven't given up on the lady yet. I am going to play it as often as possible over the next 8 months to hopefully give an honest opinion of the place. I don't like St.Andrews all that much as I think the town has sold it soul and the place isn't Scottish anymore just commercial.
Pinehurst #2 - My pal worked here for a year so he played mot of the courses there and he doesn't rate #2 as high as some of the other modern courses. I will find out which ones he liked best next week.
Brian.
-
Tom
I missed that hot tub article. Could you please provide a URL?
-
Rich:
Just do a URL search for a golf magazine called Golf Magazine or a new golf writer called Yunki Yucki who this month discovered the term "golf architecture" and promised by next month he'll check out exactly what it means.
-
Tom Paul - I disagree with many of Hunki's choices, but to make fun of his name like that is at best childish and at worst smacks of racism. Hunki and I worked together at Golf Digest for a time, and he's a very nice guy with a good sense of golf. (He's of Korean extraction and played on the Columbia golf team, if memory serves.) I'm not trying to be politically correct, here, but I'd have thought you were above this sort of thing...
Cheers,
Darren
-
I hate to sound harsh, but, speaking of political correctness, I don't care for Chris B.'s attempts to strong arm our Mr. Thomas into the "party line." Mr. Thomas did all the explaining he needed to do on his opinions, based on his playing the courses, as opposed to a broad "everybody here knows" type statement.
I hope Mr. Thomas is not dissuaded from continuing his discussions based on his experience. If we documented the forum participants and how many of these courses they have each actually played, perhaps we could take Mr. Thomas' opinions over theirs, based on him having played those courses alone, no?
Regarding Pinehurst, I was not impressed the first time I played, although it was in '79, a period when the course had lost the pine needle roughs, etc. After playing four times, it is now among my favorites. It is subtle, and not the knockout type resort course many expect. Mr. Thomas, have you played it more than once?
I have heard people make comments similar to themes in that article before, on many occaisions.
-
Slag- I was under alot of pressure to come up with a tenth and all I could think of was the Mad ruski. Plus my out is that he could get lucky and pick one good one.
As for Hunki, I know his cousin dori. ;D
Plus, Sand Hills repetive? No flippin way. Yes you are forced to look out over the grass laiden sand hills hole after hole with those natural blowouts cowering in the distance and then having to deal with them up close and personal is quite monotonous, NOT.
And as for our beloved Pebble, I never thought of it as having only nine holes on the ocean I only thought 3 weren't. But technically he's still wrong as none are actually literally on the ocean but thier proximity is close enough to feel that way. :o
-
Saying courses are over-rated is easy - you just make your statement and really don't have to back it up with much... hell nearly all of the courses Hunki lists are on some top 10 in the world list, so it takes next to nothing to justify that they are "over-rated"; e.g. TOC only has two par fives, so for someone who loves par fives, voila, it's over-rated.
What's hard is defending a course you believe IS truly great.
I believe Sand Hills qualifies for that, but I have no rebuttal to Hunki (who really makes no specific critique) or to Jim Thomas, who claims all the holes look the same... I sure didn't see the holes there that way, but to each his own. I also find nearly everything else Jim Thomas says to be pretty damn spot-on....
The point here is that we all have our own tastes. Hunki has his, and that's cool. Unless you really get into great detail in discussions like this, it's all just brunettes/blondes/etc.
TH
-
Oops! Sorry guys--midnight posts aren't my best I guess. I'm not trying to force any "party line" onto anyone. All I was saying to Jim was: If you're going to throw out bold criticisms, back them up with more than just a sound bite! Retreating...
-
I haven't seen the issue yet, but I'm curious why they would have one of their editors list courses as "overrated" when GOLF Magazine's ranking of courses has them listed so high.
I would agree with most of Mr. Yun's individual criticisms, but they are very thin. Seminole can still be a great golf course, even though some people give it more credit than it would otherwise get because of the Hogan connection. Sand Hills does get brownie points for being so remote (Mr. Thomas is the one who said all the holes look alike, not Mr. Yun). Pinehurst #2 does punish those people who make all their ballmarks near the hole and don't figure out what they're doing wrong, but that doesn't make it overrated.
The only "criticism" I'd argue about is the one of The Old Course because there's nothing there ... he just says it's overrated.
-
I am inclined to disagree with virtually everything in the first post. There is a tiny grain of truth to his criticisms, but there are many far more glaring examples of "overrating", whatever that means. I guess the courses have to be well ranked in the magazine, or they can't really BE overrated, though.
-
Jeff's hitting on a point I'd like to expand. To be overrated, you first have to be rated. Often, a rating is affected by one's bias.
Is Duke good this year? Yes, for they are Top 10. No, not in comparison to the lofty standards at Duke.
Is Creighton good this year? No, they're GREAT! They are Top 25 out of 320 Division I schools and enjoying their best year in history.
An "overrated" course can still be much better than an "underrated" course.
Sand Hills is not Top 30 in America from Golf Digest. It is #1 Modern in Golfweek. One could probably argue that it is BOTH over- and under-rated if you look at both lists.
I think Hunki is just trying to stir the pot a bit.
-
John Conley --
If you want people to take your comments seriously here, I think it's time you delete that tagline about the Gophers on the hardwood!
We heard it here first -- and last!
Dan
-
Point taken, but I don't yet know what to write. Why are the Gophers so horrible this year? I actually thought they'd rest near the Top 10 and win the Big 10. As I predicted, everyone else has some weaknesses with Indiana shooting poorly on the road, Illinois being too young, Michigan State just not having the talent everyone assumes they go, and Wisconsin having no depth. But 4-4 for the Gophers with what I thought were skilled players at every position? Woe is us.
It'll be updated when I figure out what to put.
The good news is that they do look like a team with a chance to show late season improvement, so it may be about two weeks too early to write them off now.
-
With the constant direction towards equipment and lessons that GOLF takes, it is amazing that this is the only time they delve into architecture.
This list does a great disservice to these courses, if this is the extent of the critique. It feeds the belief among readers that the high-priced courses are overrated and not worth seeking out.
Six of his selections are in the Top 17 courses in the world; so simple adding a one-line critique is completely inadequate. It would also have been interested to see his top 10 courses, because it would have given some idea of his taste.
With 100 panelists, who the magazine deems worthy of rating golf courses around the world, it would have been interesting to seek their opinions.
-
I see no problem with the list -- mass circulation golf magazines need to run provocative stories to get people talking, and as long as they are not factually dishonest, they can be kind of fun.
And it seems to have been successful at starting a conversation here, so I'll join in: In my opinion, the holes at Sand Hills do NOT all look alike. I haven't been there in several years, but most of them still stand out quite distinctly in my mind. There are uphill and downhill tee shots and approaches, elevated greens, two-tiered greens, exposed greens, protected greens, straightaway holes, doglegs left and right, long and short par 4s, reachable and unreachable par 5's, etc. I really don't know how much more diversity you could fit onto a course situated in the middle of arid nowhere.
And I think that's why some may sense a sameness. It's not that the holes are similar; it's that everywhere you look other than the holes, the surrounding scenery is the same: rolling, rugged, ungreen sandhills.
Put an ocean, a river, a lake, a forest, a mountain or even some condos around the extrerior of the course, and the impression one would get looking around from each teebox would be quite different. As it is, the golf holes provide the visual interest. At least, they did for me.
-
And a quick off-topic note to John Conley --
The Gophers suck this year because they can't take advantage of their size superiority. Their guards are ordinary, shooting poorly from the outside and failing to penetrate and drop the ball off to Holman, Rickert and Bauer. The big guys aren't very strong, so they can't make the inside shots for themselves; Rickert and Bauer get frustrated, move outside and start bombing threes, and they don't make very many of them -- then there's either no one underneath to rebound when they miss, or they get blocked off the boards by stronger, quicker opponents.
To be honest, I don't think Monson has gotten the most out of this team, but it could be they're just not very coachable.
-
I haven't read the whole article but what I've read does not educate me. So, what's it in there for? To be funny and iconoclastic? Architecture is serious stuff. It ain't funny.
Humor is the last thing that should be incorporated into golf course discussion. How dare he!
I've only played one of those courses (quite blessed I was), but if I ever get to play any more of them I'll be sure not to give a darn about it's rating.
Adam TurboFoot, What about the Dungeness Golf Course with the crab theme bunker?
NCAA basketball rankings don't mean "SQWAAAT" That's what the tournament is for. Munson! Put Shackelford in!
-
Sand Hills - I thought the experience of being there was magnificent, but I thought every hole looked the same. Not as good as nearby (400 miles) Prairie Dunes.
Jim,
Now I really need to see PD, which is on my long-term list. As my host at SH said to me, Sand Hills is like playing on Mars, as you will never see a place like that anywhere on Earth. Maybe alot of the attraction of Sand Hills is the location for me, however I have to say that a large number of holes stick in my mind from a brief 4 day trip.
I have always been curious why they did not place the course near the river (name?) near the cabins, as it would have added a different element. I am sure there is a reason, just curious to know.
-
That's the Dismal river. But as Slag can attest it's more of a pathetic gorge.
-
The Dismal River was originally discovered by a Frenchman. He named it D' Small River. Well, no self-respectin' prairie pioneer's gonna be talkin' no French words lest there be an oak tree necktie, so, before the Tourism Board got word that changes were astirrin', it morphed into Dismal.
That's all documented in the Historical Revisionists Almanac.
Adam, Remember what we were talking about as we zoomed by that river... Awareness ! What a great detour it was and a portent for me of being lost for the rest of the day - blissfully, of course.
-
Wouldn't it be nice to see Golf Magazine and similar publications send a design savvy member of staff to each of the courses we've discussed, along with a sharp photographer, and publish a four page course review, once a month for the next ten months ?
I bet they'd sell more too.
Perhaps the magazine has already been denied special access to the courses in Hunki's list, and have subsequently come in for a bit of a serve...
Matthew
-
Muirfield, East Lothian.
-
If I had a few American courses to add to the thread I would start with these (there may be others):
Oakland Hills / South -- the young guns at last year's Amateur really showed how much the course has lost as being the so-called "monster" of all time. In my mind it's the Baltusrol of the Midwest (see Baltusrol below).
Medinah #3 -- the question is simple -- what has had more face / lifts -- Medinah #3 or Michael Jackson? I mean what version of the 17th hole are they working on now? The course has plenty of length, but fails miserably in the character and charm category. Also the quick turning dog-legs really become predictable.
Baltusrol -- I do agree with those who have picked the Lower. There have been some serious revisions to the course over the last few years to prepare for the '05 PGA, but the course does owe a good bit of its standing to its convenient location to the USGA and that the Golden Bear won two exciting Open there in '67 and '80. I do like the course, but I can see and agree with those who view it as being overrated. How the course maintained a top 30 position among the USA's best is truly mind boggling.
Spyglass -- I do like what was said. It's just too bad the layout / routing could not have been reversed so that the ocean views are part of the back nine. Still tough but so are a few steaks I've eaten.
*Torrey Pines / South -- I have not played the "new" version by Rees Jones but the original layout I did play was truly a major league disappointment. Here you have a course on the bluffs of some of the most eye-catching scenery you can find, but little, to nonexistent, strategy with them using that gorgeous topography.
Shoreacres -- I'm sure the course is loved by Raynor fans but for me the utter lack of terrain movement (minus one or two spots on the course) and the constant repetition of design copies from his other works make for an uneventful day. When I see this course listed in America's top 50 I know that those proponents are more into the charm aspect than in the real teeth of solid design and challenge. In my mind, you have the best of two exmaples that don't really work that are both in Chicago -- Medinah #3 and Shoreacres. The real course is Olympia Fields and kudos to Keith Foster for the work he's done there. The '03 Open should be something to watch.
Maidstone -- Minus the middle stretch of holes (the 9th is clearly supreme!) I've always found the course to be a big time questionmark. When people list Maidstone in the company of Shinnecock Hills and National I just have to start laughing. GD has Maidstone ahead of Bethpage Black and Plainfield in their top 100 listing -- please forgive my snickering. Give a course a fancy address (it helps being in the Hamptons!) and plenty of nice things can happen.
Southern Hills -- Here you have a course with great connections (USGA & PGA) that continues to land major championships. Minus the demanding 2nd hole (one of the toughest drives you can play) I don't see what all the fuss is about. Also, can someone explain to me how the 12th is rated among the great holes as stated by Hogan? One last thing -- how weird is the manner in which the 18th is set-up?
Colonial -- This is another one of the Hogan touted layouts that few really examine. Yes, you have to work the ball with the tee shot, but minus the big three holes in the beginning of the round (#3, #4 and #5) I don't see how the course is rated among the 50 best in America. Just because a course may be great for Texas doesn't automatically transform itself into the upper echelon. Give Colonial credit in one regard -- when I have covered the tournament they do have the best looking babes on the Tour there each May!
One last course to throw in -- Champions (Cypress Creek) in Houston. The most boring piece of land you can find with the same boring nondescript holes one after another after another. They can hold all the Tour Championships they want the layout is a dud in my opinion. How it landed the Open n 1969 is a credit to Demaret and Burke.
I can understand the feelings that some have Pebble but I disagree. Many people have played the course when it plays "slow." Play Pebble when the firmness of the turd is present and the wind freshens. The greens are like dots and the new 5th is a real tiger of a hole.
-
I too go for firm turds
-
mdugger:
At least at Pebble "turd" can be had for no less than $300 per round!
For those not seeing the humor I meant to say firm turf. ;D ;D
-
"Maybe alot of the attraction of Sand Hills is the location for me, however I have to say that a large number of holes stick in my mind from a brief 4 day trip." -- Mike Sweeney.
This quote really got me thinking ... how many courses are there which visitors play as much as Sand Hills when they go? My bet would be that if someone played Seminole or Pinehurst No. 2 four days in a row, they'd see the light on them a lot more clearly. But so few courses today get that kind of attention ... Matt Ward would see all of them in two days!
I think this is the hidden advantage for really out-of-the-way courses to make the rankings. When someone goes, they stay for long enough to understand more of the merits of the course.
-
I'll state the obvious, Tom--Aren't Bandon Dunes/Pacific Dunes a perfect example of this? Out-of-the-way, the entire complex condusive to repeat(ed) play over the course of a day(s), with the wind and/or tee and/or hole placement often lending a different feel to each from one round to the next...
I also think there is something to be said for the sense of anticipation that surrounds the effort to get to a remote place to play...
I would have a hard time imagining I could ever downplay too harshly a course I have made a considerable effort to get to--I guess that's why i should continue to bypass Sandpines going between Portland and Bandon!!
-
Tom Doak:
Thanks for the plug in getting around. I believe Alamo car rental may just change its "unlimited mileage" arrangement because of people like me. ;D
I don't doubt that playing a course in consective days can be a real educational experience because sometimes seeing a course only once can be subjected to a variety of factors (i.e. how and where the wind was blowing from, the particular pin location, how the player adjusts / plays etc, etc). Initial impressions can often say plenty but they may not always be the final word. Pinehurst #2, as you point out Tom, is a classic example in this regard because too many people want the "big show" production and if they don't get it right away may feel shortchanged. The greatness of Pinehurst #2 is in the minor details -- a quick tour of the course in one day may leave most people with the exception of those with a keen eye feeling a bit underwhelmed.
I went to school in South Carolina and must have played #2 no less than 25-30 times during my college days and with each succeeding round the glories of #2 slowly revealed themselves. In today's instant gratification world such a gem may often be underappreciated and misunderstood.
Often times the most overrated courses are those that are centered in some of the real hotbed areas for golf design and are able to link themselves up to being considered as a great design. I can think of a number of courses in the NY / NJ / CT area where this applies and I've posted at least two of them.
Yes, it's very possible that courses in the middle of nowhere can get plenty of overrated ink because nothing is around them, but I believe anyone making the claim that Sand Hills is overrated is really talking nonsense. Yes, getting there is a hurdle (try treking to Links of North Dakota!) but C&C put together a sterling layout of a wide variety of holes. When you're battling a gusting midwest summer wind you have to invent the full range of shots to have the opportunity to succeed. It's been said by others on GCA but I would really like to know the type of holes that didn't make the final 18 hole cut!
One last thing on this subject -- a course can be overrated and fall a bit from where it is assessed, however, it still may be a fine course. Overrated does not always mean that it's dogmeat.
-
I agree with the criticism of Brookline. There is a brilliant stretch on the front side and the neat par 5 that plays as 9 on the composite course, but there is much more that is ordinary. Ouimet's victory makes the place's history important, but a course's past should not dictate its place on various lists.
I am struck by the comments about repeated play. It seems to me that the wonders of a Ross course, whether it is number 2, Salem, Brae Burn, or the Orchards, only ever reveal themselves through repeated play. Contrast the experience of repeated play on one of these gems with the experience of repeated play on a highly rated desert track -- Ventana Canyon or Estancia -- and the difference between great design and "signature hole" design readily appears.
-
JMD, I'll have to disagree with you re: Brookline - even Hunki's article only says that TCC is overrated because the rating is for a composite course that is very rarely played by the membership (like, once a year, maybe). What holes out there do you think are ordinary?
I wholeheartedly agree with the bit about repeated play. Here's a good question: given unlimited time and money, would you rather play 100 golf courses of your choice once, or a random selection of 25 of those 100 courses four times each? I think you'd probably learn more about architecture by choosing the latter option...
Certainly the Old Course is the first course I'd think of where repeated play is downright necessary before you can begin to appreciate its merits - ANYONE can play TOC once or twice and come away glibly commenting that it's overrated...
Cheers,
Darren
-
The point about multiple play is very valid in my mind, like many things beautiful, those that end up being the most beautiful in ones eyes may not have been from the start or in golf terms one play.
Tom Doak, what might this mean for "The Confidential Guide"? :)
-
Mr. Doak raises a great point. If an individual thinks a particular course or a style of course is overrated then its
a pretty good bet his or her game doesn't fit that course.
If I had to guess Mr. Yun is a practitioner and proponent of target golf, the kind not rewarded at your St. Andrews or Seminoles. This would also lead to a discussion about cultural practices and modern interpretations of the original architects intention for fairway firmness and width...
-
To me, the most overrated golf course I have ever seen is the Links at Spanish Bay.
:-[ :'( ::) ??? :'(
-
BINGO!!!
RDecker wins the prize.
Indeed, my first reaction to this article was to instantly assess his personality type.
People who aren't enamored with Sand Hills are usually anal type A accomplished players who grow frustrated as a round progresses watching the slightly less skilled but more imaginative player compete as an equal.
Muirfield as opposed to The Old Course
Medinah.................Chicago Golf Club
Prairie Dunes...........Sand Hills
Shinnecock.............National Golf Links of America
The Bridge..............Maidstone
Olympic Club...........Cypress Point
Bruce Crampton.......Seve
You say everyone would want to play Cypress over Olympic?
You're wrong and I know more than one individual who states unwaveringly that Olympic is a better test for them and holds their interest to a greater degree.
Hard to believe but we're all different.
-
Gene:
Olympic Club is wonderful, but Cypress Point is the BEST golf course on the Earth!
remember:
there's Heaven,
there's Cypress Point,
and
there's everything else!!!!
-
Dr,
I think we can safely say you are a "right brained" kind of guy from your list above. ;D
-
Clearly another riddle in the enigma. But the truth is that respecting ones opinion is essential. Listening to it more than once is another story.
I sense things won't be Hunki Dori at Golf Magazine very long, unless, he is truely just stirring the pot and/or there are enough magazine buyers who feel similarly.
And Paul Richards- I didn't know Spanish was rated let alone over rated. Those of us who have traversed that property more times than memory serves, disagree, respectfully.
-
Mike:
You know me too well!
Paul:
Youre probably right. As I walked off Cypress I thought,"This is it!"
However, I felt the same at County Down, Sand Hills, Pine Valley, Dornoch and The Old Course.
One of the individuals I mentioned before lived in CA, played Cypress dozens of times, had 67 at Pebble from the tips and ran up to Frisco every chance he got to play Olympic just to see how good he was REALLY playing.
It was and still is his personal measuring stick. His eyes have a certain glow whenever there's the mention of Olympic. Its his favorite course in the world.
To each his own.
-
Matt Ward,
The reason that Plainfield is so underrated is because Baltusrol Lower has been so overrated.
Historically, Baltusrol Lower has gotten all the attention, all the raves, the USOPEN and all the New York Media and Golf Magazine hype about the course and the tournaments it has hosted.
For many years Plainfield members have bristled at being relegated to the shadows while Baltusrol has basked in the media spotlight, which translated into high ratings.
Ask yourself, who would dare go against the New York media and the golf magazines ?
Tom Doak is right about two issues.
A "destination" golf course receiving play over a few days, and the distance/remote factor.
Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes aren't courses you just happen to play because you're in town, passing through or making a connection. You have to make the trek for the specific purpose of playing the golf course. And, because the trek is extensive for most golfers, you just don't play one round and leave town. You stay for a few days and play as many rounds as your can. Even chimpanzees learn through experience, so the golfer comes away with more than he would with a single round.
Because the traveled golfer finds himself thrust together with like minded individuals, conversations about the merits of the course are standard fare at dinner and leisure conversations, adding to the information base and golfing experience.
What golfer, after traveling thousands of miles, spending money and playing for a few days, is going to declare that the courses he sought were less than fabulous ?
Noone is going to admit that the trek they made and the golf they experienced wasn't worth it, it's against human nature.
The wilderness influence is also a factor.
When you're from New York City, Chicago, Philladelphia, Los Angeles, Dallas and other city and urban sprawl environments the unencombered great outdoors has great appeal. It represents a radical departure from the environment we live in, and as such it's intoxicating.
Put apartment buildings and condos next to Sand Hills or bring Sand Hills into Queens and a good deal of that appeal would be lost.
Rich Goodale,
There are those who have felt that the ranking given to TCC is, dare I say it, a fraud. Not only is the composite course rarely played, but, the second hole is converted from a short par 4 to a par 3. The 9th and 10th holes are eliminated as is the par 3 12th which creates a Long walk from # 11 green to the 13th tee. # 14 is created by combining the par 4 1st and the par 3 2nd holes of the primrose nine into a par 4. The next hole is a par 5 converted to a par 4.
How any golf magazine could seriously rank a golf course that is practically non-existant is beyond me. I believe it is a concession to the Boston media and regionalism.
-
metroman
I've never played TCC, so my comment was only directed at the concept of a "composite" pseudo-course being rated. As one of my great-grandfathers was a member at TCC, I really shouldn't dis it anyway.........
-
In my opinion, the most overrated course that I've played, without a question, is PEBBLE BEACH (a few world-class holes, some good ones, and several real yawners). Firestone South used to be, but it has fallen down in the list over the years.
The most underrated of the well known courses are Long Cove and Scarlet. Both will test the game throughout the bag, and identify the superior player. LC is a joy to walk, specially late in the afternoon. If Scarlet would undertake a serious tree project and do some work on the bunkers and green surrounds, it could be right up there among the other three or four top courses in Columbus.
In terms of cost to build and to play, the best-value course that I am aware of is Wild Horse in Nebraska. At a cost of nearly $500 (with caddy), is there a worse value than the peerless PB?
-
There are those who have felt that the ranking given to TCC is, dare I say it, a fraud. Not only is the composite course rarely played, but, the second hole is converted from a short par 4 to a par 3. The 9th and 10th holes are eliminated as is the par 3 12th which creates a Long walk from # 11 green to the 13th tee. # 14 is created by combining the par 4 1st and the par 3 2nd holes of the primrose nine into a par 4. The next hole is a par 5 converted to a par 4.
How any golf magazine could seriously rank a golf course that is practically non-existant is beyond me. I believe it is a concession to the Boston media and regionalism.
Metroman, your last paragraph is terribly hyperbolic, and you've got some hole numbers wrong in the other paragraph, but even ignoring these things...let's analyze the TCC Composite Course vs. the regular 18-hole course:
--#2 (Comp) is an awkward uphill par-3 - a decent enough hole, but the green is clearly designed for pitches and short irons and not mid-to-long irons. #2 (Reg) for the members is a really neat drive-and-pitch par-4 that can be driven by the longest hitters at some risk.
--#11-12-13 (Comp) are the holes incorporated from the Primrose course: a claustrophobic par 4 over water that combines a par 4 and a par 3 from the Primrose nine; a very challenging par 5 converted to a par 4 with a blind second shot; and a downhill par 4 to a green sloping harshly from back-to-front. #9-10-12 (Reg), the holes that are eliminated, are a difficult uphill par 4 to a small, blind green (most players have to land the approach short and bounce it into the green from an uphill lie in the fairway); an awkward short par 4 to a semi-blind green; and a superb dropshot par 3 that Nicklaus once called the best hole on the property. #10 (Reg) is easily the weakest hole of the six, but #9 and #12 (Reg) are arguably better than the holes that replace them.
My point being, the ranking of the Regular Course shouldn't be much lower than the ranking of the Composite Course - for me, having played both the Primrose nine and the Regular course over 50 times apiece, they're about equal. So what's the big deal? I believe the reason given by the golf magazines for their rankings is that many raters (e.g. professional players) only ever see the Composite course. I'd just as soon see the Regular course ranked instead of the Composite, but to say that "concessions to the Boston media and regionalism" are being made is nonsense.
Cheers,
Darren
-
Adam:
Just to set the record straight, the Links at Spanish Bay has been a frequent guest on various Top 100 lists:
#24 in US - GM resort list - 1992
#12 in state - GD 1995
#95 in US - GD 1991
#54 public course - GM 1996
#48 public course - GD 1996
#10 in state - GD 1997
#99 in US - GD 1997
#97 in US Modern courses - GW 1997
#45 public course - GM 1998
#13 in state - GD 1999
#43 public course - GM 2000
#23 in state - GD 2001
#7 in state, public courses list - 2002 GW
#41 public course - GM 2002
(GD = Golf Digest, GM = Golf Magazine, GW = Golfweek magazine)
So, as you can see, various publications have rated the Links at Spanish Bay very highly.
Having commented on my thoughts on Spanish Bay in many previous threads, I won't repeat those comments. Suffice it to say that SB is perhaps the most overrated course I have EVER seen. Nothing about it deserves any of the accolades heaped upon it by the above publications. ??? ::) :'(
But that's just my humble opinion, for what it's worth. :-[ :P
-
While Shoal Creek continues to slide down various lists, it is still overrated. Peal away the history, lodging and ambiance and one is left with a good, but not great golf course.
Regards,
Mike
-
In my opinion, I'd have to say that Spanish Bay is most overly judged as being most overrated, or something like that. :) I think many people can't get past a) the course's trials and failures with different grasses, b) the environmentally sensitive areas, and c) the marketing of the course as a "Scottish-style Links" (in the grand American tradition) to see what a good course it is. Spyglass may be a marginally stronger course among those on the Peninsula, but given the choice between Spyglass and Spanish Bay I'd rather play at the latter. I guess SB is a love-hate kind of course, but I can't understand why so many people are moved to so actively hate it!
Cheers,
Darren
-
Hello there,
I am a first time poster, so here goes;
Being a Melbourne based Australian, I have a couple of idle thoughts on overrated courses. Whilst Melbourne is blessed with a sandbelt zone with quite a number of great courses, too many of them feel that they would vie to be among their top 3-4.
Royal Melbourne, Kingston Heath and Metropolitan seem to be the favourites of pros (I was a full time caddy from 1988-1993), whilst Huntingdale (thankfully now derided, when once it was proclaimed by some as almost the equal of the others listed above), and Commonwealth are those who's claims are a little out of their league.
Yarra Yarra doesn't make the top 3 due to it's praise being based on a small handfull of holes (the par 3s, and the 11th in particular), and Victoria has a few design limitations based on space that hold it back.
Throughout Australia, I find The Australian Golf Club the most overrated. A good course, but not one my nation's finest, and not re-designed within the character of the original.
I hate references to Royal Melbourne having too wide fairways or the fact that it is a composite course. There are now at least 15 times per year when the members routinely play the composite course, and many of them are as a result, more familiar with this routing than with at least one of the other permanent courses. A member friend of mine prefers West to East, and so playes East under once a month. He reckons he has now played composite far more often.
As for the fairways, they may be wide to hit, but not wide from which one wants to set up their approach shot. You can't merely hit the fairway anywhere, and then all have similar shots into the green. As most of you know, this is the very attribute that AM brought to Royal Melbourne that has probably resulted in it's exulted reputation in the first place.
Additionally, so many good courses built in Australia from the early 30s through to beyond Yarra Yarra and after the war, are due to the influence of Alistair and Alex Russell, and are ranked highly mainly because they successfully captured some of the Royal Melbourne strengths.
Now a daring comment from one who has not seen many top international courses first hand. Courses like RM, TOC and No.2 are often loved by some for exactly the same reasons they are hated by others. And that rarely, have many of the critics of these courses played them more than a handful of times. Admittedly, I may only get one chance in my life to go and play TOC, and I don't want to be left with the feeling that you can't enjoy it until you've played it ten times, and in different seasons.
Finally, I'd like to see Pebble Beach. Then I will know whether to respect it as it is ranked, or whether my hunch from afar is correct, that it is a spectacular resort course, with some great holes, but not worthy of anything better than a top 20 world ranking.
-
metroman:
Let me clarify a few things -- people who REALLY know golf would never have Plainfield under Baltusrol. I don't buy into the "one must follow the trail of others" as you infer about the power of NY media and the big time magazines.
Unfortunately, too many people place the fact of hosting major championships on a higher plane than the inherent architectural qualities of a given layout. I believe a great many people on GCA do not fall prey to this argument as others are wont to do.
As Editor of Jersey Golfer magazine we had biennial state ratings since 1996 and Plainfield has ALWAYS been rated the 2nd best course in the Garden State. The reason is simple: the qualities that Donald Ross are simply first rate stuff.
Let me say that I do like Baltusrol but logistics and the presence of a few USGA people within the membership doesn't hurt the club one bit. I can see the Lower course possibly claiming a top 100 position, but more towards the rear than the front.
P.S. I forgot to add one other course that meets the most overrated tag -- Saucon Valley in the Lehigh Valley area of Pennsy.
The Grace Course is just one long and hideous layout that is soooooo bad. I can't for the life of me how this William & David Gordon design course was rated among the top 100 courses in America for so long. Yes, the Old Course (which hosted two US Senior Opens) is a bit better but Saucon Valley clearly falls under the heading of "overrated."
What's really amazing is how such a fine layout down the street, Lehigh CC, has been virtually ignored, until recently by many others, who are supposed to know something about golf architecture. ;)
-
Matt
How does one determine if someone really knows golf....what is the criteria....who determines the critieria? Do you really know golf?
-
Darren:
As I stated previously, I am not much of a fan of the Links at SB. I also have written much on the topic of my dislike for it, so I won't rehash, but much of it has to do with what you wrote here:
>the environmentally sensitive areas, and c) the marketing of the course as a "Scottish-style Links" (in the grand American tradition) to see what a good course it is.
I am not a fan of in-course out-of-bounds. I do not appreciate paying over $200 in greens fees for my each of wife and I, as well as about $400 a night for the hotel room that gets me in, being told that I am playing a Scottish-type links course, and then being given a green-grass, soaking-wet, typical American course. To be honest, it would probably have cost me less to go to Scotland - and I would have gotten a Scottish-type links for real!
Also, I have been fortunate to have played golf with someone who was part of the design/build team at Spanish Bay. He told me of his extreme disappointment as well over how "wet" and "Americanized" it has become and he was glad to no longer be associated with it as well.
Also, IMHO, Spyglass Hill is a much, much better course. Just imagine if you could replace the first 4 or 5 holes at Pebble with the first 5 at Spyglass ....
-
Tonyt,
For mine, Metropolitan would have to be the most overrated course on the sandbelt. Good course? Yes. Equal to either Royal Melbourne course or Kingston Heath? Definitely not.
Victoria and Woodlands feature many more world-class holes.
-
Paul,
I am not a fan of in-course out-of-bounds. I do not appreciate paying over $200 in greens fees for my each of wife and I, as well as about $400 a night for the hotel room that gets me in, being told that I am playing a Scottish-type links course, and then being given a green-grass, soaking-wet, typical American course. To be honest, it would probably have cost me less to go to Scotland - and I would have gotten a Scottish-type links for real!
Also, I have been fortunate to have played golf with someone who was part of the design/build team at Spanish Bay. He told me of his extreme disappointment as well over how "wet" and "Americanized" it has become and he was glad to no longer be associated with it as well.
But this is my point - you shouldn't take the greens fee (for better or worse) or any marketing silliness (for better or worse) into account in evaluating the architectural merit of any golf course. I know you and others have written at length about SB before, but it seems to me that you are influenced too much by these sorts of things and can't see past them to the golf course.
In any event, if you think Spanish Bay is a "typical American course", we must be talking about different golf courses! :) I haven't played SB myself since 1992 (I probably played it upwards of 30 times before then, though, and I've driven past it as recently as fall of 2001), so I'm not familiar with current maintenance practices, apart from that the fescue experiment has been abandoned. Is the "soaking wet" aspect of SB entirely down to maintenance practices, or might it have something to do with the same weather that seems to drown out the AT&T every February (the current edition mercifully excepted)?
I hate in-course out-of-bounds, too, but principally the type that says a fairway inside of a dogleg on another hole is OB (because otherwise the best line of play would be down the wrong fairway) - that's clearly down to poor architecture. SB doesn't have this problem - each hole is relatively self-contained. It's really no different to playing a course with super-deep rough or desert scrub or thick trees that will automatically cause a lost ball. Sure, SB would be much better if there were fewer environmentalists in California, but the "sensitive areas" contribute to the aesthetics and the atmosphere and as such aren't totally worthy of derision.
Anyway, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I know I have personal reasons for liking SB that transcend the realm of golf course architecture. But I still think it possible that you're letting some peripheral factors color your view of SB as golf course architecture. Not that I expect to change your mind... ;)
Cheers,
Darren
-
Matt Ward,
The wilderness influence is also a factor.
When you're from New York City, Chicago, Philladelphia, Los Angeles, Dallas and other city and urban sprawl environments the unencombered great outdoors has great appeal. It represents a radical departure from the environment we live in, and as such it's intoxicating.
Put apartment buildings and condos next to Sand Hills or bring Sand Hills into Queens and a good deal of that appeal would be lost.
Matt,
I agree for the most part with two exceptions. Yale and The Bridge. Yale is on 750 acres and you never see or hear anything other than golf when you are there. I was lucky to play The Bridge last May, and there were only three foursomes on the course. Other than one distant house where I could hear a baby crying, it was "widerness". Obviously not the same at driving from North Platte to Mullen, but for 100 miles from Manhattan, it was amazing "wilderness", but like many others, I left wanting more.
-
Mike Sweeney,
Yale and The Bridge may give you a sense of the wilderness, but today they are in the hotbed of a hostile environmental arena. It's doubtful that Yale, like many "Golden Age" golf courses, could be built today.
Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes reside in a friendlier environmental wilderness where you can build mostly where you want, not where someone else tells you to build.
This usually results in a better golf course at the end of the day.
As for the Links at Spanish Bay, the developer seems to have compromised the golf course in favor of the hotel, but it was their money to spend, AND they had the huge luxury of some very good nearby golf courses that act as an attractive lure to draw customers. I wonder, if no other courses existed nearby, what SB would have looked like. If the golf course had to be THE DESTINATION draw, I suspect that a better golf course would have been built.
-
Lou Duran.
Your comments on Pebbble have given me apoplexy. As the host says to his guest who is beating him hollow and taking his money. "Look around, this may well be the last time you visit this place." ;D
For all the Spanish Bay loathers, count me in. A blank canvas that could have been another Cypress but was butchered.
-
God forbid that I should be responsible for causing harm to this site's second most beloved figure. I plead temporary insanity; probably blinding jealously brought on by watching the beautiful people luxuriate at PB while I am freezing my posterior in gloomy north Texas.
But really, the subject of this thread is "Most Overrated" and how many people truly believe that Pebble Beach is one of the top three courses in the U.S.? Personally, it would take several rounds at CPC before I would even think about giving up an opportunity to play there in order to play PB. But heck, Lanny Wadkins doesn't think that CPC is a very good course, so what do I know.
Is PB a great course? The setting alone goes a long way towards making it so. The condition that it is in for this year's AT&T appears to be ideal. And since Eastwood, Palmer, et. al. acquired the property things appear to be heading in a better direction. However, there's a wide range between the strongest and weakest holes, and it appears that part of its resistance to scoring is the condition of the greens, specially for the late rounds. I wonder which course is more difficult to play in strong winds, CPC or PB.
I do need to play PB in its current form to see if I can overcome my earlier less-than-positive experience there. At around $500 per round, I'll start saving my pennies now.
-
Lou, for God's sake, be careful and try not to trip. Backtracking like you are doing can be quite dangerous for someone your age.
-
RDecker:
I've read through this whole thread waiting for someone else to argue Bay Hill with you - no such luck.
I actually have Bay Hill on my "Most UNDERrated" list. Most people don't even put it in the Florida Top 5 anymore - I've enjoyed every round I've ever played there.
Unlike TOC (#'s 9 & 10), Pebble (#15), CPC (#18) and most others I've played, there are no holes at BH that I really dislike. A couple of yawners? You bet - welcome to Florida.
Lots of good holes, no bad holes, easy to walk (proximity of tees and greens), interesting green complexes - what's not to like?
I've heard Bay Hill was even better before AP started tinkering with it. I don't know the details on that (or even if that's true) but it suits me fine "as is".
To All:
Spanish Bay was a disappointment to me but it seemed more because of the environmentally protected areas than the layout.
Tom Doak's point about playing a course multiple times to really appreciate it is worth a thread all by itself. The more I play the 5 "all world" courses I'm privileged to play somewhat regularly, the higher they climb in my esteem. I can see that Pinehurst #2 is a perfect example of that "discover the greatness" phenomenon (I've played it but once) as is Merion. Pebble's "non ocean" holes (except for #15) have grown on me with each trip around. This is why most golfers "favorite" course is the one they play most often. Bobby Jones wrote about this somewhere but I can't find it just now.
BTW, more than a few good players believe National to be the ultimate overrated course. I don't agree but I can understand their point. It's not that difficult if you have a decent short game and its architectural genius is irrelevant to those for whom "great" means "hard".
-
Is it your counsel, counselor, that I should quit while I am already behind? Can the hole get any deeper? Someone take my cursed keyboard away. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa. PB is a most glorious place. So there. Now I have tripped backwards into the hole. Redemption is deep at the bottom. And I still have over a month to climb out.
-
Chipoat,
I think you've hit the nail on the head.....HARD
If NGLA was longer, those good players would redefine it.
It takes the insertion of the word "hard" for some golfers to see the light. Others see the brilliance of the architecture
immediately. There is so much to see that one's senses can become flooded or overwhelmed by hole after hole of great architecture.
As one learns, each hole is worthy of additional study to fully appreciate what CBM molded, melded and manufactured above Sebonic Bay.
Even more fun is the process of learning when and how to play a variety of unique shots on each of the holes
It's obvious that Winged Foot and Aronomink are HARD from the tips, it's also obvious to me that the architecture at NGLA is so much more diverse and interesting, and I like Winged Foot and Aronomink.
-
Chipoat,
I was not giving my opinion regarding Bayhill I have heard or read that some consider it overrated.
As far as some of the courses mentioned and supported or derided it seems like the courses can all be rated on different sets of criteria and all show differently. Some are obviously beautiful and have great routing through beautiful surroundings ( Pebble, Pac dunes) and some courses might be a thrill to play inspite of their inherent difficulty or ease. And some may be incredible to experience inspite of their surroundings or location. But to me the great thing about the game of golf is that all of these courses can coexist and we can all try them out and see which ones we like or don't like and then express our feelings in the grill room after and on websites like this. The other thing is we also all get to experience that thrill of playing shots we remember from watching tourneys on tv, reading about shots our heros hit years ago or even shots we played years past. No other sport affords it's fans and participants at all levels this opportunity. I'll never get to hit the fairpole Homerun Fisk hit in '75 but I can try shots Nicklaus or Tiger hit on the courses they hit em. Golf is the best.... Sorry I got alittle carried away.
-
Darren:
you said:
>But this is my point - you shouldn't take the greens fee (for better or worse) or any marketing silliness (for better or worse) into account in evaluating the architectural merit of any golf course. I know you and others have written at length about SB before, but it seems to me that you are influenced too much by these sorts of things and can't see past them to the golf course.
The gentleman I mentioned was part of the original design/build team. It was the original intention and, by all means, the plan was for the Links to play hard-and-fast. Unfortunately, the management chose to instead advertise this, yet they over-watered and Americanized the place.
He left totally disgusted because the Links was never set up the way it was intentioned.
Either advertise it as a links and let it play that way, or just tell the truth that "we are calling it a links course because there are no trees on many holes." :-[
-
T Havemeyer said:
"Matt
How does one determine if someone really knows golf....what is the criteria....who determines the critieria? Do you really know golf?"
Good question -- so I ask you a question -- do you believe Baltusrol / Lower is superior to Plainfield? I don't know of a single person on GCA who has stated that position. If you care to make the case please do so. I'd love to get a contrary point of view.
Baltusrol has played a significant role in hosting USGA Championships and the upcoming '05 PGA is the first major professional event at the club. My point was, and still is. that far too many people place an undue emphasis on a club's position / stature on whether or not they have held major championships. I believe Baltusrol / Lower is a good test, however, does it possess the most unique and gifted of architectural qualities when compared to others? I don't see it -- particularly when compared to what you find at Plainfield.
I base what people know golf by the positions they take on overall course assessment. I believe, despite having a ho-hum finishing hole, that the overall architectural qualities of Plainfield are self-evident -- the green structures are vastly superior to the Lower; the bunkering scheme is well done; there is a greater variety in terms of hole qualities; and I believe the manner in which the land is used for the course routing also runs to the benefit of Plainfield.
I have a great respect for the courses that exist in my home state of NJ, but when I see something so clearly as the comparison between these two courses I say so. Please help me understand your position and your real name fi you dare to post. ;)
-
Matt
I agree with your assessment, but I wouldn't have the arrogance to claim I REALLY know golf and those who disagree with my assessment REALLY don't know golf.
One more try....how does one determine if someone REALLY knows golf....what is the criteria and who determines the critieria? Do you really know golf?
-
Metroman wrote, "The reason that Plainfield is so underrated is because Baltusrol Lower has been so overrated."
How can this be? Is this a claim of discrimination against Plainfield?
Are other great courses similarly discriminated against because they don't host the Big Shows in golf -- Quaker Ridge, Pine Valley, the National, to name a few?
Any man has as much right to his own opinions as have I. However, I do know what I like and when I encounter something contrary to my ideas, but nevertheless liked by others, it seems a good Idea to consider the pros and cons whenever possible.
"There is no disputing tastes, as the old lady remarked as she kissed the cow." Certainly this must be applied to golf and its courses. The merit of any course should be judged by the satisfaction it affords to those who play it. It may not measure up to the standards of the most discriminating players but after all it all is a matter of taste.
During forty years I have probably trod as many golf holes as any man in the world, many of my own creation and many, many more designed by others. I know a good hole when I see one and I think I know a bad one, too. Some of the latter type obviously are atrociously faulty, others just over the border of mediocrity, while some apparently weak ones may be open to debate.
This writer was the golf architect for Baltusrol, and as such I confess my immense liking for my creation, the Lower and Upper courses. They were designed to be equally sought after as a matter of preference.
The secret of my championship courses is no secret at all, long, accurate second shots after long, placed drives. It was the same principle on the Lower in the 1926 championship, at Winged Foot in 1929; the Five Farms course at Baltimore in 1932 during the Amateur National, the Upper in the 1936 championship, and Bethpage in the 1936 public links championship.
My own observations in checking the play over such courses of mine as have been the scenes of National and Sectional championships have made me firmly convinced that the character of the one-shot or, par 3 holes has more to do in checking the assaults of the 70 breakers than any other factor.
A.W. Tillinghast
The Creator of Baltusrol
-
Most overrated, every boring, no strategy, courses by Tom Fazio, artificially built for 20 millions$ that look out of place, with pine in the middle of the desert and so on....
A proof it is overrated, it cost 500$ to play and it has no significant impact on the golf world...
Another thought, how about Augusta National with Fazio's changes... You have to frame the holes at Augusta!!! how can an architect doesn't understand the game like that....
-
Tilly,
A lot has happened since you were last in town.
Baltusrol gets the press, but the lower has become a driver/3-wood golf course, hole after hole. Even your beloved upper has been lengthened
Plainfield recently withdrew from hosting the USGA SENIOR OPEN for related reasons, yet Plainfield remains an excellent golf course while remaining in Baltusrol's media shadow.
Phillipe,
ANGC remains a superior golf course.
While it may be popular to bash Fazio and indicate the course is much worse because of him, understand that ANGC has undergone a great number of changes by a great number of architects/advisors over the years, yet it remains a terrific golf course.
-
and a superb dropshot par 3 that Nicklaus once called the best hole on the property. #10 (Reg) is easily the weakest hole of the six, but #9 and #12 (Reg) are arguably better than the holes that replace them.
A little clarification is probably needed for this quote. I'm pretty sure that the comment Nicklaus made (while walking from the composite 9 green to the composite 10 tee, which takes the player by the drop shot par 3 in quesiton), was something to the effect that the hole was "the greatest par 3 i've never played."
-
T. Havemeyer:
Pardon my perceived "arrogance." You're absolutely right -- why should one say something even if they treked to who knows how many facilities throughout the USA and particularly the greater NY / NJ area to say such a thing?
My comments were straightforward -- a great many people convey "greatness" primarily because a course has hosted several major championships. I believe people who really do know golf don't just look at that singular issue and do that. I view the crowd on GCA to be a bit more sophisticated in their approach -- just like you Mr. Havemeyer. ;)
I think I have some clue on what course analysis is about -- you may feel differently and if you do I say fine show me the contrary point so I can learn from it!
What's amazing is we agree on Baltusrol v Plainfield. Amazing -- right? That being said -- I believe when people do criss-cross the nation / world and they do provide salient comments I believe they have something to offer. I keep my ears open to those commentaries.
If you read my last post VERY CAREFULLY I did say I would be happy to hear a contrary view. My mind isn't closed. In addition, I did state that I have not heard from one person on GCA who did say that Baltusrol / Lower is the superior architectural design to Plainfield.
Let me venture an answer to your question -- I base someone's golf knowledge by the desire they have to expand their awareness level of the game. First and foremost, you need to have the passion to get out of the living room chair and play what's out there. Second, you have to have the ability to decipher what a course has and what it's missing. I believe I did that with the debate on Baltusrol v. Plainfield.
I take pride in being fair when I do course assessments. If you disagree so be it. Just provide your detailed commentary and I'd be happy to read it. Simple as that. That's the premise of GCA -- to learn and advocate positions.
-
Gene,
When I read Whitten's article, it reminded me of your post from way back when.
http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/americasgreatest/index.ssf?/courses/americasgreatest/gd200305leftrightcourses.html
Gene wrote:
People who aren't enamored with Sand Hills are usually anal type A accomplished players who grow frustrated as a round progresses watching the slightly less skilled but more imaginative player compete as an equal.
Muirfield as opposed to The Old Course
Medinah.................Chicago Golf Club
Prairie Dunes...........Sand Hills
Shinnecock.............National Golf Links of America
The Bridge..............Maidstone
Olympic Club...........Cypress Point
Bruce Crampton.......Seve
You say everyone would want to play Cypress over Olympic?
You're wrong and I know more than one individual who states unwaveringly that Olympic is a better test for them and holds their interest to a greater degree.
Hard to believe but we're all different.
-
While I don't doubt what Gene says is true, he speaks to such a tiny number of golfers. Maybe one in a thousand are scratch or better and would be more challenged by and consequently prefer Olympic over CPC. I have a wee suspicion that if both courses suddenly became available to all, the other 999 golfers would be lined up at the gates of Cypress.....
JC
-
Jonathan:
As would I!!!
But I'm NOT an accomplished player.
Don't be surprised when Saddam's body is found it is discovered his death was not caused by Allied forces but rather by one of my errant drives.;D
-
Gene my man, you can play with me anytime! I have lots of connections and can arrange for you and I to play Cypress together anytime you want..... (ahh, Cypress Bay in Norfolk that is... ;) )
-
Mike:
I can't believe you or anyone else reads(much less remembers) any of the vacuous slop I jot down here!:P
I was a Psych major and love to watch how different people receive various golfing experiences. Whitten's artical has a similar theme to what I had posted at an earlier date. I said Type A vs. Type B he says left or right brain.
Could it be Ron Whitten got his inspiration to write this artical in GD from the blather I wrote on GCA?
Nah.