News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike_Cirba

Re:Wild Horse vs. Sand Hills
« Reply #25 on: February 15, 2006, 09:48:39 AM »
Jerry,

As I'm sure you know, both destinations are so remote that they require a real leap of travel to get there.  That being the case, the courses had best be quite special.  

Sutton Bay has the same challenge, as well, I'm guessing.

That being said, it's probably true that the average golfer would venture to the middle of nowhere, Nebraska to play Sand Hills, but might not do the same for Wild Horse.  Given that, it still does not diminish Wild Horse for me as a great course.  After all, Dick Daley makes frequent trips to WH and loves it so much he's got property there.

Your next question is largely a matter of perspective.  Myself, I am fascinated by seeing various courses designed by multiple designers so if I'd played neither, and all things being equal, I'd opt for the 3 at Bandon.

However, all things aren't equal.  With money and time, you could play Bandon anytime.  The private nature of Sand Hills is such that if you receive an invite, you'd better get your butt on a plane!  ;D

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wild Horse vs. Sand Hills
« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2006, 09:55:26 AM »
Mike: I appreciate your input and I would like you to expand on your comments concerning PV - exactly what has happened to the course which has you so down on it - I'm probably going to see a friend who has been club champ there a number of times and I'd like to run your comments by him.  

Mike_Cirba

Re:Wild Horse vs. Sand Hills
« Reply #27 on: February 15, 2006, 10:15:03 AM »
Jerry,

I must admit, I feel like the man who lives in paradise and complains that the clouds are too fluffy.  As a Philly/Delaware Valley guy, I'm blessed with local proximity to just a wealth of wonderful golf courses, including two in everyone's top ten.

To criticize PV in any way seems almost blasphemous, especially around here, but I also think that myths are meant to be questioned and valid opinions offered, even if it rattles the china at the dinner party.  Stealing Tom Doak's line about great art needing debate and criticism to remain vital, I've probably said more than I should in the past about practices at some of the local shrines.  

However, I truly believe that any worth I may have on this board is simply that people know I'll call it as I see it, right or wrong, controversial or not.

My quibbles with PV are minor, but let's remember that we're trying to split hairs in contrasting and comparing some of the greatest of the great.  In and of themselves, these things don't make PV less than a great course, but in my opinion, do make it less than it could be.

I also believe that this is what virtually every other GCA guy from the region would tell you privately after a couple of beers.  ;)

First, the trees;  even with many removed over recent years there are still way too many impeding former trails and avenues for golf.  Case in point is #12, where the hole could be markedly improved by clear-cutting the whole lot of them out to the ridge.  As it stands now, there is only one way to play the hole, and any temptation for risk/reward is off the table because a forest has overgrown that side.  Similarly, trees cut off the hole left side approach of #13, and walking around the course I defy anyone to find less than 500 trees that stand where bunkers, waste area, or even fairway once stood.

Next, the former sandy wilderness waste areas.  The once feared pits of doom, where literally anything could happen due to their raw and uncertain nature, are GROOMED with a Sandpro daily.  Rakes are the logical next step.  Areas of vegetation that used to be sprinkled randomly throughout now exist only in patterns wide enough to drive machinery through.  More formalized bunkers that were plainly "unfair", such as the left side of number 10 where a play backwards or sideways was often the option have been widened, and groomed in a way where the ball will always roll down to the bottom, instead of in an awkward sidehill, downhill, or uphill stance.  One can literally find as much ruggedness in bunkering at faux imitations such as World Woods than exists presently at the Valley.

Finally, a handful of the new tees, such as the abominable elevated altar at 14 are incongruous, or require play that differs from historical lines.  

All in all, not much when one considers the overall greatness of the holes there, as well as the wonderful flavor of the club itself.  However, as I said, it's not what it could be and it's probably not what it should be, in my opinion.  

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wild Horse vs. Sand Hills
« Reply #28 on: February 15, 2006, 11:25:48 AM »
If I see my friend next week I'll try and get his thoughts - I will be very interested in seeing what he thinks as he has been openly critical of the amount of play the course gets and I think that some of the concerns you have might be a result of the amount of play and how much of it is guest play.

A_Clay_Man

Re:Wild Horse vs. Sand Hills
« Reply #29 on: February 15, 2006, 11:37:30 AM »
it's probably true that the average golfer would venture to the middle of nowhere, Nebraska to play Sand Hills, but might not do the same for Wild Horse.  

Mike, You can never go wrong with qualifiers like "probably" and "average" golfer.

While it is only a tiny quibble, I would say that the average golfer who seeks out new and interesting public (affordable)designs, does get in the car and treks to Gothen city.

I have met such, here at Pinon Hills, while on their travels. They love golf and cant' afford the hoity toity CCFAD's.
Another reason that Gothen City gets average players is it's prox to I-80.

Like I said a small quibble almost semantical, BUT, when you see an average Joe, after playing a course like WH, they are forever altered due to their limited exposure to those design styles most found in metro areas. ;D

Mike_Cirba

Re:Wild Horse vs. Sand Hills
« Reply #30 on: February 15, 2006, 11:45:03 AM »
Adam,

That's exactly why I used qualifiers like "average" and "maybe".  

Because I know there are nuts like you and me who would drive 8 hours each way to play courses we're excited about!  ;D

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Wild Horse vs. Sand Hills
« Reply #31 on: February 15, 2006, 03:49:26 PM »
Mike Cirba,

I could, but, what would the point be ?

Suffice it to say that they're good holes that fit well with the others.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Wild Horse vs. Sand Hills
« Reply #32 on: February 15, 2006, 03:56:01 PM »
Mike Cirba,

I could, but, what would the point be ?

Suffice it to say that they're good holes that fit well with the others.

Patrick,

I daresay they're great holes and I'd be hard pressed to name a group of 3 par fives that are better.

I'd really like to hear which par fives you think are superior, even if you just want to submit 3.