News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why don't we discuss the work of Tom Weiskopf?
« Reply #25 on: March 09, 2006, 01:30:15 PM »
Is having 6 Weiskopf designs in Golfweek's Top 100 Modern a mistake then?

Seems like people are lukewarm.  I've not seen any of his designs in person, and thought that with six, he must be pretty darn good.

For comparison - C&C have 7, and Hanse (one with Geoff) and Doak have two each.

Craig Van Egmond

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why don't we discuss the work of Tom Weiskopf?
« Reply #26 on: March 09, 2006, 01:37:32 PM »

I only see 5, what am I missing...

 30. (29) Double Eagle Golf Club (p) 7.35
Galena, Ohio
Tom Weiskopf and Jay Morrish, 1991

 45. (23) The Rim (p) 7.10
Payson, Ariz.
Tom Weiskopf and Jay Morrish, 1998

 55. (40) Forest Highlands Golf Club (Canyon) (p) 7.00
Flagstaff, Ariz.
Tom Weiskopf and Jay Morrish, 1989

 80. (88) Lahontan Golf Club (p) 6.76
Truckee, Calif.
Tom Weiskopf, 1999

 99. (NR) Seven Canyons Golf Course* (p) 6.62
Sedona, Ariz.
Tom Weiskopf, 2003


Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why don't we discuss the work of Tom Weiskopf?
« Reply #27 on: March 09, 2006, 02:47:09 PM »
My bad...  5 there are.  Thanks.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why don't we discuss the work of Tom Weiskopf?
« Reply #28 on: March 13, 2006, 01:47:02 AM »
I notice Doak has Forest Highlands at an 8.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Matt_Ward

Re:Why don't we discuss the work of Tom Weiskopf?
« Reply #29 on: March 13, 2006, 09:15:52 AM »
Doug S:

Yes indeed -- I did like Indian Springs, I believe, it's in Mechanicsburg and was designed by Jack Kidwell. I did like the course and from the public courses I have played in the greater Columbus it's quite good and worthy of a visit for those who can't access the private layouts in town.

I also concur with your take on Double Eagle -- how the course ever find itself in the top 100 is tied likely to the people connected to the club rather than the qualities of the design.

Like I said before -- Lahontan and Silver Leaf are both well done and few people have likely played them. In many ways the Weiskopf approach is to fly below the radar and few people have played a wide array of courses to get a read on what he is doing from a solo perspective since the Moorish union dissolved.

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why don't we discuss the work of Tom Weiskopf?
« Reply #30 on: March 13, 2006, 10:58:05 AM »
I'd pretty much have to agree with Redanman and Matt Ward. His work is above average but misses something.

I thought the Rim was outstanding, but only played it once.

Played Catamount a dozen times and tired of it, played his Vail course twice, pretty well impressed on the first play and dissappointed on the 2nd.

Double Eagle is all about conditioning but I thought the 4 ravine holes on the front were excellent and Forrest Highlands was probably really good when it was first done.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2006, 10:59:14 AM by cary lichtenstein »
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

mark chalfant

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why don't we discuss the work of Tom Weiskopf?
« Reply #31 on: March 13, 2006, 12:46:21 PM »
Dan : Ive only played  Silver Leaf in  AZ. , and I thought it was excellent. It had strategic bunkering, very cool greens, and a great variety of par fours. The par fives were also stellar with wonderful angles.Very natural and scenic.IMO, a solid 7.5 on the doak scale

David Neveux

Re:Why don't we discuss the work of Tom Weiskopf?
« Reply #32 on: March 13, 2006, 12:53:03 PM »
I have played Forest Dunes(roscommon, mi) twice.  It is a very very good, tough golf course.  I would agree that the topography is of a mild flavor.  The greens are generally speedy and the course is always in great condition.  I definitely plan on playing it again this summer.  I will take some pictures and provide a more detailed report at that time.  Their practice range however is fantastic.

Ted Kramer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why don't we discuss the work of Tom Weiskopf?
« Reply #33 on: March 13, 2006, 02:58:16 PM »
I'd pretty much have to agree with Redanman and Matt Ward. His work is above average but misses something.

I thought the Rim was outstanding, but only played it once.

Played Catamount a dozen times and tired of it, played his Vail course twice, pretty well impressed on the first play and dissappointed on the 2nd.

Double Eagle is all about conditioning but I thought the 4 ravine holes on the front were excellent and Forrest Highlands was probably really good when it was first done.

Double Eagle looked really nice on Shells WWOG.

-Ted

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back