I too enjoyed Mr. Whitten's review. He seems to understand the essence of the course. Also having played there quite alot, I found some of his observations to be quite amusing. A few quick comments:
-- Proof that Mr. Whitten is much less observant than Mr. Klein-- Mr. Whitten did not mention the row of houses a couple of hundred yards behind/left of the 4th green. Surely if he had seen this atrocious encumbrance, he'd have thought it worthy of mention in his critique.
-- the photo is of the 11th green, not the 13th. (It was taken before the fire, so perhaps Mr. Whitten wrote the review based on a past visit.)
-- Mr. Whitten commented that every green on the course is surrounded by a uniform bentgrass apron. The eighth has no apron at all, but instead has thick rough. Also the aprons are by no means uniform in size or shape.
-- I dont think I agree with his characterization of No. 3 as a "drive and pitch hole." It is a drive and do whatever you want hole. In certain conditions the bump and run might be the only way to have a good chance at keeping the ball on the green.
-- That being said, I dont agree with Tommy that a way to improve the No. 3 is to make the green narrower. Because of the aprons, the actual green shapes and sizes are often not that important on the approach. In fact, depending on pins, my target is often off the green on a number of holes, including No. 3. If No 3. was narrower, I'd play the same shots . . . I'd just plan to putt more off the fringe than I do now.
-- The esteemed Mike Hendren had very similar comments as Mr. Whitten about the bent collar shortly after KP III. I've never seen this as contradictory to the natural, low-profile style of RC because, unlike cookie-cutter bunkers, the closely cut apron highlights the natural flow of the land. But the point of view is interesting nonetheless.
With apologies to those who were there, or know without a shadow of a doubt, I don't believe the course itself caught fire, but rather the surrounding hillsides and the wash area running down the center of the course...the fairways/rough/greens were mostly if not completely untouched...so ultimately, like Ron mentions in his article, its little different than Wild Horse burning down the "wooga" every year or two...
Ryan, please pardon me if I am misunderstanding you . . . If one considers in-play native vegetation to be part of the rough/course, then quite a lot of the course burnt. For example, the wash down the center comes into play on 11 holes. Nothing irrigated burned, but most of what was not irrigated did burn.
I think perhaps Dan was just pointing out that it is a little ironic that Mr. Whitten would suggest that the course needed more irrigation to prevent damage from a flash fire. After all, a major fire burned through last fall and now one can hardly tell. Even an expert eye like Mr. Whitten failed to notice (assuming he has been there since.)
Likewise, Mr. Whitten's suggestion regarding the need for a flood channel might be serious overkill. As Geoff says above, this flood was pretty rare, in that it contained the topsoil (silty sand) from tens of thousands of acres of burnt mountain slopes and canyons bottoms. Even with the severity of the situation, the course only lost about a week of play and only one hole needed major repairs (regrassing the first fairway on No. 7.) I would say that cost of some sort of channel far outweighs the future cost of a potential flood, especially when one considers that the circumstances which lead to the flood are very unlikely. An east coast course would be glad to only loose a week or so to weather! Should we put bubbles over all those courses to keep the weather out?
A photo of the 14th fairway a few days after the fire:
