Is Sand Hills the greatest course in the US?

[Mike_Cirba]

...if not the planet?

Consider the following questions;

How many courses are more fun to play?

How many courses have such variety and design balance?

How many courses are buffeted by constantly shifting winds that swell to 30+ mph on breezy afternoons?

How many courses better accommodate the ground game?

How many courses have fairways that remind one of NGLA at its peculiarly undulating best?  The deep swales and sharp rises ensure anything but a level lie on most every hole.

How many courses have such fearsome looking hazards that play even more terrifyingly?

How many courses have such wonderfully open vistas, without a tree on the property, much less in play?

How many courses have such a variety of green complexes, each seemingly having always been there, and perfectly integrated into their surrounds?

How many course are as equally scintillating for both match-play and stroke play?

How many courses can match the set of other-wordly par fives?

How many courses have tougher starts than the first two holes?

How many courses have better finishing holes than 13-18?

How many courses have holes that can play completely differently from day to day, or round to round, depending on the elements?

How many courses are so totally devoid of direct evidence of the artificiality of man's hand?

How many courses have been built with such possible elasticity?  If the next generation of golfers average 400 yard drives, new tees could be added on virtually every hole to handle that situation.

How many courses accommodate and sometimes demand the use of the putter from 40 yards and in?

How many courses offer holes of such continual strategic interest and plethora of shot options?  

How many courses are so starkly beautiful, peaceful, remote, links-like, and spiritually uplifting?

How many courses borrow so many notes from the greatest symphonies ever produced in the game, yet somehow remain distinctively unique and wonderfully original in its own right?

How many courses do you not only never tire of playing, but make one purposefully defy physical limitations in some adrenaline-induced state of golfing euphoria to race against the coming of darkness and the end of the day?

How many courses have such a sense of timelessness?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike, While I have not been to Sand Hills, I hope that I can say, "Only one other that is superior."

Saying anything above it would be blasphemy.

[Michael Dugger]

Is it possible, Mr. Cirba, that you might be experiencing some of the afterglow of having just played there???  Sort of like thinking you are in love with a woman after having hooked up the night before.  

Either way, no doubt it is top ten, maybe even five, but that's not news to anyone  

[Mike_Cirba]

mdugger,

Good point, and certainly a fault to be aware of.  That's why I gave myself a week of reflection since returning before posting anything at all.

You mention that it's in the "Top 10, maybe Top 5", and hardly news to anyone.  Well, I guess what I'm asking is if you remove the historical cache that goes along with every other course at that level, what makes any other US course superior to Sand Hills based on the golf course alone?

[Michael Dugger]

Haven't been there, can't say for sure.  Haven't played nearly any of the greatest for that matter, so who am I to say.  Yet, at the same I time I fully hear what you are saying about the historical B.S.  Why do we all ooze over Pine Valley??  Of course the answer is purely subjective.  Perhaps as Doak mentioned in "The Guide" there is something to be said for how a course matures, or more importantly, exists over time.  I use the word exist because I do not know of a better way to try and get at what I mean.  What if the edges of the bunkers at Sand Hills begin to break down?  What if the turf quality begins to suck and the greens shrink.  All of these things are reasons many people point out that one club is not as good as another.  I'd like to think that Yeaman Hall is an example.  I guess you just cannot come out of the gate and be the top dog, it takes a little while.    Nevertheless, in my book the place rules.  Just like Pac Dunes.  So what if it is brand new.  Maybe it will not be as great in fifty years.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

mdugger, You bring up a valid point, but I have to bring up one myself. Apache Stronghold.

How is it Apache Stronghold can raise further up in the rankings when it has faced a multitude of agronomical problems in the past? Could it be that people are willing to overlook the agronomics and realize the potential of what great design is all about?

I would hope to think so.


No one would like to play on a perfectly manicured course then me, but ultimately I'll take great design over that anyday. I also think you really have to read into the how a golf course evolves into its environment. Merion once had this, I can assure you knowing a lot of the parties involved, so does the Sand Hills.

If a bunker breaks down, ican assure youthat it would be accepted as part of the evolution of a course that is designed to evolve. I would almost hope that most would welcome it, as this is where the greatness occurs in all design--nature at work.

Tom Doak has even said that Pacific Dunes #13 will more then likely someday erode away, because he too knows that the very NATURE that created the guideline that gave him that wonderful canvas to begin with, will evolve further. While that may sound distressing to some, we can only hope that it will never be in our time!:)

While miracle cures such as a storm wall on the 18th at Pebble or even the 11th of the Old Course, these things evolve as they should.

Let us be thankful for what we have been able to experience as GREAT golf and further our knowledge in the ways it does work. Just like the finest Cabernet I can get my hands on, it only gets better with age and refinement.

[GeoffreyC]

Mike - good post.

You forgot to ask what other course could better allow good players to play back tees one day and the next set of tees up the following day and present them with a totally new set of angles and landing areas and at the same time maintain the fun and challenge. I can't say I've ever played a course with that range of flexibility.

[A_Clay_Man]

Would that make Ocean Trails #18 the fastest to ever evolve the most?

And Golly as all Gosh I sure hope I will get to these great places like the middle of Ne. or Globe, or .. Rustic canyon.

I think the future looks bright with all these recent returns to a classical style that doesn't exist.

 And with posts like this one, the word will spread and then it will all change, just as Tommy points out.

[RJ_Daley]

The question of what Sand Hills will evolve to and how will that latter stage look was indeed the topic of some discussion at a recent dinner in the CH just one week ago.  One fellow conjectured that 100 years from now, there may be no Sand Hills.  It may become another chapter in Wexler's "Missing Links".  Well 100 years from now, there may be no polar ice caps and Sand Hills will again be the floor of the ocean...  But, had this question been put to me spring of 2000 I might have leaned the direction of erosion taking a ravaging effect and possibly some crazy weather series of events literally blowing the place away.  In fact this early spring a major arctic screamer devistated much of the turf on courses of that Sand Hills region including SH and WH.  But, that is just grass and grass can be grown again.  However, that previous spring, I visited the course prior to opening and found there had been some serious winter wind erosion and undermining of some of the major blow-out bunkers cutting under or into greensites.  In fact, I took a number of pictures of the worse of them.  But, I was glad to have the chance to see the course this early part of 2002 season.  I knew that Dan Proctor had been up there for several weeks working on bunkers.  I assume that the situation got even worse than what I had seen previously.  I can compare pictures of the damaged bunkers then and now a say that after Dan's work, they have NEVER LOOKED BETTER in the times I have seen the course.  The great thing about this comparison of photos, is that you would never know that anything was worked on just weeks after Dan has left.  Again, the artistry and craftsmanship of someone like Dan and who ever else was in on the work this spring is testiment to the notion that in deed, Sand Hills will be with us for many years to come if we can just keep Dan working and those polar icecaps from melting...

[Rick Shefchik]

How many courses this great do not have another course of similar quality -- or at least intent -- within a few miles of it?

Before playing Sand Hills, I recall reading Crenshaw's comment that there were some 500 golf holes in those hills, and he and Coore simply went about deciding which were the best 18.

As I played Sand Hills, I found my attention often diverted to those surrounding hills, which make the course itself that much more spectacular, and wondering when the next course, and the next and the next, were going to be designed and built nearby.

It still hasn't happened. It should.

[Dan Kelly]

Mike --

Beautiful description of Sand Hills' virtues.

And you didn't even mention the stars over Ben's Porch, or the coyotes' howling in its shadow.

I'm completely opposed to ranking golf courses from No. 1 through No. X (except for the purpose of selling magazines). Just seems silly, to me, to differentiate between, say, Sand Hills and Shinnecock Hills.

Isn't Mr. Goodale's Michelin system infinitely more efficient? (As he's explained it to me: 3*** = worth the trip, as the sole destination; 2** = worth a detour; 1* = worth playing.)

We can quickly agree that Sand Hills is 3***. And that so are all of the other courses that might be "No. 1" -- in the U.S., or on the planet.

Now, let's take all of the energy we can save by dispensing with rankings and talk about WHY they're 3***.

PS: I agree, as usual, with my colleague Mr. Shefchik. There's almost literally an unlimited number of golf holes in those hills, in every direction. Too bad that, unlike Long Island, Nebraska is so far from where the money is.

[THuckaby2]

Dan:  the "problem" with Rich's system is it's too easy.  Our Sand Hills host (Gene) and I late on my last night came up with 16 bona fide "courses that could be called the best in the world", each of which would likely meet Rich's *** category.  That took all of 3 minutes - we did it off the top of our heads.  What REALLY required the thinking caps, and spurred conversation, was then taking those 16 and ranking them!  Oh yeah, the differences are very slight, and each person's preferences and biases came out, but it was fun!

See what I'm getting at?  Just saying they're three stars is kinda boring.  And saying WHY they are 3 stars isn't much more interesting. "Because it's great" is more or less the answer each time, isn't it?

I'm kinda liking the hard questions these days.  Putting Sand Hills in a ranking for me was very difficult and actually required some soul-searching...

Mike has the "why" nailed above.

Now try this:  why is it better than Cypress?  NGLA?  Pine Valley?  

THAT is difficult.  THAT leads to some fun conversation.

BTW, I too gazed at the surrounding landforms and imagined many other golf holes - who wouldn't?  But I for one hope they leave things exactly as they are.  Perfection is tough to improve upon.

TH

[Rick Shefchik]

Tom H:

I wouldn't want to see another course from any vantage point at Sand Hills (except, perhaps, from Ben's porch, at twilight, after a long day and good Scotch, and by then you might not be able to see it anyway), but I would like someone to build a public course on the other side of some of those hills. Not to try to improve on perfection, but just to provide the world with another great golf course.

[THuckaby2]

Rick:

This makes great sense and altruistically, you are correct:  that land deserves another course that everyone can access.

However....

There's no way a public course that remote would ever work.  At the very least there would have to be accomodations - Wild Horse works because it's near Gothenburg and North Platte.  I just don't see how a public course that remote out by Mullen would be feasible.

And more importantly, totally selfishly and hypocritically, I just don't want ANYTHING to diminish the perfection that is Sand Hills.  Another course nearby would take away from the "feel", whether you can see it or not, at least I think so.  It's like saying Sand Hills should allow more guests - yes, more people do need to see the course.  But more people there would take away from how perfect things are now...

Those who've known me awhile can feel free to scold me at how hypocritical this is of me, Mr. Self-Proclaimed Public Course Golfer.  It's just... damn... having seen the inside of Sand Hills, this all makes sense...

TH

[corey miller]

Sand Hills is in the elite group (Tom H. says 16) that if someone were to say it is the best, they would get no arguement from me

[Mike_Sweeney]

So did any of you take your host suggestion and go to "Church" at Sand Hills?

PS. For those that may not understand, "Church" at Sand Hills is playing 9 holes alone at the end of a 36 hole day and after having a few cocktails on Ben's Porch. It is hard to describe the feeling of being in the corner of Nebraska with no cell phone coverage, no wife and no kids (both of whom I love). I must admit that I did take a cart as I had more than a few on Ben's Porch!

After my trip to Sand Hills last summer, I almost immediately joined a course in Ireland, as I wanted to create a similar experience for myself and my kids, and unfortunately/fortunately Sand Hills has all the members that they need.

Sounds like it was a great trip. It is what makes GCA a beautiful thing.  

[Craig Rokke]

I hope to some day to come up with an educated answer to Mike's question. In the meantime, great points of consideration, Mike, and some insightful posts as to why Mullen is such a special place!

[guest]

Can Sandhills really be considered to be the best in the world, when it's so fragile it can only cope with 50 rounds a day?  (And is only open for less than half the year)

[Mike_Sweeney]

Guest,

How long is the season at Pine Valley, maybe 7 months? Besides, the season at SH could be longer (I keep the North Platte weather on my home page, so yes I do track it), but it is not a place to go to when the weather could be iffy in April or October. The course is the only thing around for hundreds of miles (unless you count North Platte) and most people want to maximize their time there due to the logistics of getting there. The fragile nature of the course is not due to the amount of rounds during the season, but rather the harsh winters when the course could litterally get blown away. Think of a beach that erodes in the winter. That is Sand Hills. It is my understanding that they have done alot of "charting" of where the course first started, and where it ends up every Spring. I don't think they have done any work yet to move the course back to its original state, but I have no doubt that some Spring after a "100 year storm" they will have decisions to make when bunkers will have disappeared or moved.

Again it is hard to describe Sand Hills, and thus it is hard for a reader to imagine Sand Hills.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Sweeney/Guest;

The "fragility" and seeming temporal nature of Sand Hills makes it quite the ethereal and whimsical dreamland, and inevitably serves to illustrate that the course is somehow even more precious and worthy of reverence than one can scarcely imagine.  

[guest]

Mike

All the reasons you cite are clear limitiations of the course, to me anyway.  The very best courses should be played in "iffy" weather and should at least stand up to it;  courses that really change with the seasons and have be designed to consider these changes

Pine Valley would have a much longer season if the members wanted it; but it's a valid criticism there too, why shouldn't PV be played in freezing January? (with bumpy greens as long as there's no snow)

[Mike_Cirba]

guest;

Having played Pine Valley in March, I'm sure that it could hold up for play almost year round.  I'd imagine the same is true of Shinnecock, NGLA, Pebble, Cypress, or any other course that might lay valid claim to being the best course in the world.

This thread is not meant to demean those courses or any other course in the slightest, as they are all wonderfully superb places to play this game.

However, does it really matter that some climates don't support that type of extended play when citing and evaluating the architectural merits and unique qualifications of any particular course?  I know plenty of courses in the mid-Atlantic that are open year-round, and I'm thankful for that, but that doesn't make them somehow better golf courses, particularly in "off-season" months.

I'd be surprised if the members of Sand Hills feel somehow disadvantaged by only being able to play there 125 days a year.  

[Gene Greco]

Guest:

No one is playing golf at Banff Springs in the Canadian Rockies and Highland Links on Cape Breton Island in February.

Doesn't diminish the fact that they are world class gems in July and August.

[Josh Mahar]

Mike, I might have to print out your post so I can recite it to all of those people questioning me WHY Sand Hills is so good!!  Could not have been said better!!
None of you know the Sandhills from Oct. through April-- Not where you want to be playing golf!!!

[Mike_Cirba]

Josh;

You'll notice I didn't ask, "What course plays firmer and faster?"

Despite the running conditions of Sand Hills, I had already played the firmest and screamingly fastest course I'd ever seen on over 630 courses in the US and abroad the day before...at Wild Horse.  It is a true links...period.

Glad you enjoyed my post.