SH v. WH Match Play (How close to do you think?)

[Tom Huckaby]

Sage counsel re playing scrambles.  

And being on the spine sure had to be the best choice - but what's cool about that green is that even then, it's not easy.  That is one fantastic green and green-site.  

TH

[George Pazin]

The results of the comparison might be silly, but there is more meat about each course on these comparisons then I think I've ever seen on here. Keep it up!

[Gene Greco]

My, my. All this bickering among kin folk!

Just goes to show everyone....

Bill Coore was right.

The Sand Hills regions of Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, South and North Dakota comprise the best land for golf courses in these United States.

[Tom Huckaby]

Exceedingly well said, Gene.

 

It's the holiday season - time for family arguing - er I mean gathering.

 

[John Foley]

I'm suprised by the lack of love the 3rd at SH gets. It was my favorite par 3 there. Watching the ball dissapear then re-apear on the massive potato chip of a green was awesome. You've got some great potential pins on that green. Do they ever play it front left? That would be a tough one.

One other note, I love the 9th @ Wildhorse, with the nasty bunkers left & the short grass right it's a very cool natural hole.

[Tom Huckaby]

JF:

No lack of love here for that great golf hole.  Like I say, I disagree with a lot of Dick Daley's assessments.  His preference for that #4 WH over #3 SH would be one of those.  To each his own for sure, and I don't need to get into family bickering again... just rest assured that love does exist for that hole.  I'm not sure I'd say it's my favorite par three there - #13 gets that honor - but it is a GREAT golf hole, just as you say.

And I too love #9 at WH - very neat hole, very natural, also kinda cool how it faces back at the clubhouse.

Come to think of it, what makes this whole exercise strange - and akin to family bickering or comparisons of wives, daughters, mothers - is that there is not one single hole I don't love among the 36 combined at these two courses.

TH

[RJ_Daley]

Huck, maybe another alternate way to play this match game would be if SH had the holes handicapped.  As we all know, they don't have the holes rated due to such variable wind conditions out there.  But, if they could perhaps take a sampling on a statistical basis from any member tournaments they might have conducted, using hole by hole scoring averages to assign a handicap, then match play them according to their degree of difficulty on the hole handicap rating basis, we might see a differnent picture of the comparison unfold.  

Start with this Tom, give me your hardest to weakest par 3 order at SH.  

On the card handicap, WH is:
#4 = 7
#13 = 8
#9 = 13
#11 = 16

I think that is whacked, and done before they put in the new back tee at 9.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Dick - are you not heeding the wisdom of Gene's post?  Do we really want this family bickering?  We all love both courses. That really ought to be enough.

But what the hell...

Remember allotting strokes to holes is not based on pure difficulty, but rather on where the higher handicapper needs the stroke more.  Thus par fives damn near always get the lower numbers, par threes the higher - based on the simple logic that the longer the hole, the more the higher 'capper needs the strokes as there's just that much more chance for him to screw up.

So if strokes are to be allotted at Sand Hills, well the par threes would all be among the higher numbers, just based on this.

I'm also not sure what degree of difficulty is going to prove.  I know you want to try to match apples to apples - I'm just not sure it can be done.  Mucci's words weigh heavily on me here as well - as remarkable in they are in their absolute perfection of personal inconsistency - yes, one must consider the walks from hole to hole, all other matters - the course as a whole - more than one ought to consider each hole as an individual entity.

But anyway, that's really weird how they are allotted at WH.  Typically front nine gets odd numbers, back nine even, or vice versa.  Did they really do it on a pure 1-18 basis?  That is unique.  It's also unique that they'd put #4 and #13 that high - neither hole is really that worthy of needing strokes that much.  Man I'd have to say 13 is WAY tougher than #4... you're talking 210 v. 150, more or less, aren't you?  I'd also call 9 tougher than 4...Those allotments are VERY VERY strange.  

As for Sand Hills, here's how I'd put it in terms of straight difficulty (hardest to easiest).  Others might disagree.

13
3
17
6

To me 13 is clearly the toughest - the others are all pretty equal.

Now as for GREATEST, I'd put it this way:

13
17
3
6

But also with the full belief that 6 is better than 90% of the par threes I've ever seen - because I do love that green.

That's how Sand Hills goes for me.

TH

[HamiltonBHearst]

The jet is gassed up, this sounds like an outing I may actually attend.  Two days both course.  Daley gets us on Wild Horse and Huckaby gets us on Sand Hills.

[RJ_Daley]

Bickering, Schmickering... what bickering?

How about this, match them by relative length?

SH 13 (216ysds) or 3 (216 yds) vs WH 13 (208yds).  SH wins on 13 but looses on 3 IMHO
SH 6 (198 yds) vs WH new back tee 9 (180yds).  WH wins
SH 17 (150yds) vs WH 4 (171) or WH 11 (128).  SH wins over both.

or

WH 9 vs SH 6 or 3, WH wins

You like 13 better than 17 at SH, I lean more towards 17 at SH as the best par 3.  What bickering?

[Tom Huckaby]

RJD - good stuff.  But why do I get the feeling that no matter how we work this out, for me it's going to come out in favor of Sand Hills, for you Wild Horse?

Which is really as it should be.  Truly almost as much as you love Wild Horse I do love Sand Hills, for many many reasons.  I'd put us as equals in course love, only since I live in CA and have yet to buy property anywhere near there, I cannot walk the walk like you and Adam can.

 

Hamilton - oh would that I had that type of power.  

TH

[RJ_Daley]

Well some of this goes back to which course are you going to want to play day-in and day-out.  Is there even one person that can realistically make that choice?  If so, he is my new hero.  I think an 8 and under handi might pick SH.  I will most likely never have that problem and so I'll stick with WH...

[RJ_Daley]

Ham, you can pitch a tent on my lot next to the maintenance shed...  Man, am I going to get out of this deal cheap!

[Tom Huckaby]

Dick - now here's something we can and ought to discuss.  I remain puzzled why you - and seemingly Adam - feel Sand Hills is so penal, and/or geared toward handicaps 8 and under.  Yes, the bunkers can be difficult there - but the fairways and greensites are all pretty generous.  Yes, from the back tees there are some very long forced carries on tee-shots - but these magically fade away from the middle or front tees.  I watched 13 year old Christian Greco play the course quite capably, as did super-senior Bob Huntley.  Sure neither played it as well as they might other courses, but I have to believe each had a blast playing the course.

Then re Wild Horse, yes the fairways are HUGE, but miss them and your ball is a for-sure goner - not the case at Sand Hills, where balls are generally found....

Thus I don't understand your take here.  

Or to put it better, I understand pure course love far better than I understand trying to base this on skill levels.

 

[RJ_Daley]

Tom, if the sole reason you find WH is penal is because you loose balls, then I suggest you take the full 5 minutes alloted to look for them.  I find most of my wayward balls there.  I can usually advance them back to FW.  I often can still try for something near the green.  Maybe you played WH at peak growing season and the rough was at its worst.  I tend to go out there in spring and fall after the first freezes.  I don't find the rough that bad then.  

The bunkers are much tougher at SH, and the carries are more intimidating.  The native grasses are much closer to green edges at SH than the wide cut fescue surrounds at WH.  With the average wind speed, and more demanding approach shots, I think SH is tougher by far.  But, the greens are perhaps a bit more confounding at WH.  Somehow as a ~12 handicap, I know I have a sub 80 round in me at WH (not yet however) and in 100 trys, I doubt it at SH.  So back to the under 8 probably likes and has a better outlook at SH... that is what I think.

[Tom Huckaby]

Well, I played WH both times in June.  Both times the grass was very high.  Cut that down and playability increases a LOT.  

I still don't get why you find Sand Hills so difficult as to make it less fun overall - which of course has to be the main basis for assessment on which course you'd want to play more often, right?

Yes, Sand Hills is a more difficult golf course than Wild Horse.  But neither is on the top extreme of difficulty, nor the low extreme of cup-cake courses.  Each can be suffered on, each can be played well.  I know this as each has happened to me on each course.

I will say this - the double diamond tees at SH are really for low 'cappers only.  I believe a high 'capper could survive and even enjoy a round from the tippiest of tips at WH.

But that to me is a very small point....

To me it comes down to this:  play the middle tees and SH is just a better course overall than WH, more fun in every way for every type of golfer:  more interesting tee shots, more choices on approaches and more demand as well, more interesting greens and green sites.  Obviously we're going to disagree on most if not all of those points - and that's just fine.  Yes it might be more difficult than WH at a similar distance, but is it SO difficult that the positives would get outweighed?

That I don't get.  Thus I get back to this just being based on course love.

 

I believe you could shoot a sub-80 round from the middle tees at SH, Dick.  You have the right imagination for it.  Now we just have to work on the confidence.

 

[RJ_Daley]

I think DY ought to get really pissed off at this thread and demand that you host me at SH every day for the opening month this coming season, and give me proper schooling on ever shot, every hole.  Then he should challenge, no dare me, to make the statements I have.

[Tom Huckaby]

 

That's what I was getting at in one of my jibes to Tony.  All in good fun.

But of course if you really do want to break 80 there, well allow me along for moral support - I'm good at that - but the real coaching must come from Mucci.  Man I find myself saying WAY too many nice things about him these days, but the man can course manage - one of the best I've seen.

TH

[Brian Gracely]

Dumb question....

Is there a maintenance reason the wooga at WH is so dense compared to SH, or is it just the difference in region?  

I agree with Huck that the wooga at WH is much more penal than SH (although I don't agree with him on several of his hole-by-hole assessments).  SH supplied with me enough balls for all of 2006.  I'm glad their members are rich and not interested in chasing balls off the wide fairways.

The key to playing at WH or SH is that "any Titleist is your Titleist if it ends up in the wooga".  Keeps the game moving along.

[RJ_Daley]

I wish Josh would jump on your question of the any maintenance reason for more hearty thick rough at WH.  My take is, mostly moisture and wind drift of irrigation.  The colder, dryer winter at SH promotes less ignition of broadleaf weeds in the native than WH.  The native grasses at WH just get more input than SH, whether by irrigation drift and fert migration to weather moisture and temp.  

It is great that they burn off native at WH each season.  But, as I understand it, burning does also tamp down the more wispy native Nebraska prairie grass species and favors more blue grass understory growth, adding to the effect of irrigation drift and fert migration.  

I love WH when the native is still charred from the burn, yet there are sparse new leafs of grass shooting up about 4-6".  That white ball stands out pretty good then, not many lost.

[Tony_Chapman]

My darned first post just disappeared on my keyboard, but I'm glad this has been a fun thread for you guys!!  

Huck, much like Mr. Daley, I think you have what appear to be more intimidating tee shots at SH. I'm not saying they are, they just look that way. At WH, only on the 6th do you really not know where it's going to wind up from the tee. It's much the same reason I shot 93 the first time at Tobacco Road and 79 the second. When I know where I'm going it's not so bad.

Also, mostly because I'm an idiot, I've never played the middle tees at SH. I've always been way back with the other morons in my group. And, for pete's sake, the day we were there, Crenshaw was playing the middle's. What am I thinking?

Huck you really should come to play Wild Horse when the grass is like this!!



That way you would find all of your arrent shots. Also, in response to Mr. Gracely this burning of the rough they do every year, may be the reason for the thickness. I'm told it promotes a healthier grass and they burn the front nine one year and the back nine the next.

I'm guessing they don't do any burning at SH, though I could be wrong.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tony -whoa - that's a hell of a look - looks like Hawaii volcano-land or something.

But yes, that does solve the playability issue.

And as for you grasshopper, jeez I believe we've settled the issue.  From the absolute tips - double diamonds - SH is indeed a very difficult golf course, one that can invite frustration.  It's fun to try those tees for masochistic one-time purposes, but over the long haul, take your cues from Crenshaw.

And thus assuming one does play the middle tees at SH, well... I still fail to see why the determiner of all of this is skill level.  I played awful at SH and enjoyed it... watched people who can't hit the ball very far love it... I remain scratching my head.

TH

[Tony_Chapman]

And thus assuming one does play the middle tees at SH, well... I still fail to see why the determiner of all of this is skill level.  I played awful at SH and enjoyed it... watched people who can't hit the ball very far love it... I remain scratching my head.

I don't think any of us said we didn't enjoy SH, in fact, I wouldn't agree with Dick in taking WH as my one and only over SH. I just think they are closer -- as far as greatness -- as most people give them credit for.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tony - understood.  And I didn't mean that you guys wouldn't enjoy SH either - I just find it odd that Dick (and Adam before) seemed to make this whole thing turn on skill level.  That is, high cappers enjoy WH more, low cappers enjoy SH more.  I still don't understand that.

And yes, they are likely far closer in greatness than most people would think.  But most people don't get over the low-cost-public v. higher-cost private issue.

I just find the whole thing unfair to Wild Horse, that's all.  You're asking to compare it to the best course on the planet (as I see it) or easily one of the top 20 (as basically every rating done recently has seen it).  The fact WH pales compared to it is thus absolutely not a knock.

Compare WH to all other US public courses... then we can rightfully sing its praises better, as we should.

TH

[Tony_Chapman]

I just find the whole thing unfair to Wild Horse, that's all.  You're asking to compare it to the best course on the planet (as I see it) or easily one of the top 20 (as basically every rating done recently has seen it).  The fact WH pales compared to it is thus absolutely not a knock.

Huck - I don't think it's unfair at all. In fact, I think this comparsion and thread is wonderful. You claim that a $30 course (on the weekend) is only a 6 and 5 loser to the Mecca, the Cathederal, the Numero Uno place to play golf on this planet. Don't you find that odd.

There isn't another course on this planet that -- for $30 -- wouldn't get beat 10 and 8. I, and some other architecture scholars on this site  , only claim it to be a 1-up loser.