[JNC Lyon]

Since I have a limited resume of top courses, I have to take any chance I get on this board to discuss the few great courses that I have played.  Therefore, in light of the recent reviews of the these two nearby yet drastically different layouts, I am posing the question: which is better?  Do the great holes at Kiawah set it apart? Or do Raynor's classic features and superb routing at Yeamans make it preferrable?  Please discuss.  Personally, I give the edge to Yeamans Hall.  While the Ocean Course seems a bit disjointed at times, Yeamans Hall has a consistent feel and flow that make it a joy to play.

[C. Squier]

I agree 100% with your assessment.  I loved the Ocean Course, but Yeaman's Hall is pure fun.  At YH, fairway is fairway and rough is ROUGH. 

YH's intangibles are cool too.  The driveway in is like a time warp and the coffin sized showers with one knob (cold...freezing cold) in the quaint locker room are an experience in itself. 

[Brent Hutto]

That's like asking whether a dish of Chocolate ice cream is better than glass of Montrachet. Most people would like both but they aren't directly comparable because they're different things.

[Anthony_Nysse]

I really dont think that they are comparable. OC is modern, on the ocean, has hosted major tournaments, has solid maintenance practices, relies on an ocean breeze every day while YH is old, rough, was undiscovered for years, is conditioned like a $20 muni and relies on it's greens as a defense. I'll really never understand all the love for Yeamans even though i've played there 6-8 times. I think that CC of Charelston is a better track.

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Colonial CC
Ft. Worth, TX

[John Blain]

JNC_Lyon,

Isn't Seven Oaks better than both of them

[jeffwarne]

I really dont think that they are comparable. OC is modern, on the ocean, has hosted major tournaments, has solid maintenance practices, relies on an ocean breeze every day while YH is old, rough, was undiscovered for years, is conditioned like a $20 muni and relies on it's greens as a defense. I'll really never understand all the love for Yeamans even though i've played there 6-8 times. I think that CC of Charelston is a better track.

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Colonial CC
Ft. Worth, TX

Tony,
If that's the case, clearly the world needs more $20 munis.

Given 10 plays I'd go Yeaman's 5, CC of C 4 and TOC 1.
Minus the couple Ocean views (if you jump) it's not even my favorite at Kiawah.

[Sean_A]

That's like asking whether a dish of Chocolate ice cream is better than glass of Montrachet. Most people would like both but they aren't directly comparable because they're different things.

Brent

I disagree.  Golf courses have far more in common than not and thus should be comparable.  I think folks put too much weight on the differtences of places as an excuse to say they can't be compared - its a cop out. 

For my part I think the quality of each course and the quality of the day out are very well matched.  Assuming access isn't an issue I would play them each about 5 out of 10 as a visitor.  Mind you, it may take me a few dozen years to get five plays in at Kiawah considering the cost!  The 4s at Yeamans are better than Kiawah's, but the 3s and 5s at Kiawah are better than Yeaman's.  I prefer the green sites/surrounds of Kiawah to Yeaman's, but Yeaman's has more interesting putting surfaces in total.  I prefer the Yeaman's fairway troubles to Kiawah's, but both do well at presenting favoured angles.  I don't worry too much about conditioning.  Yeaman's was scruffy, but that isn't a bad thing, in fact I admire it and think it works well at Yeamans.  That said, Kiawah's greens were superb and I really couldn't expect any better.  All in all, I think its a draw, but like I said before, I think I could learn to love Yeamans if given enough whacks at it.  Still, I call 5-5 out of 10.

Ciao

[Jerry Kluger]

Sean: I don't think your comment about cost was fair.  Yeaman's is private so either you were given free access or some reduced fee, or you played with a member who bore the brunt of the cost through initiation fees and annual dues.

[BCrosby]

That's like asking whether a dish of Chocolate ice cream is better than glass of Montrachet. Most people would like both but they aren't directly comparable because they're different things.

Brent

I disagree.  Golf courses have far more in common than not and thus should be comparable.  I think folks put too much weight on the differtences of places as an excuse to say they can't be compared - its a cop out. 

For my part I think the quality of each course and the quality of the day out are very well matched.  Assuming access isn't an issue I would play them each about 5 out of 10 as a visitor.  Mind you, it may take me a few dozen years to get five plays in at Kiawah considering the cost!  The 4s at Yeamans are better than Kiawah's, but the 3s and 5s at Kiawah are better than Yeaman's.  I prefer the green sites/surrounds of Kiawah to Yeaman's, but Yeaman's has more interesting putting surfaces in total.  I prefer the Yeaman's fairway troubles to Kiawah's, but both do well at presenting favoured angles.  I don't worry too much about conditioning.  Yeaman's was scruffy, but that isn't a bad thing, in fact I admire it and think it works well at Yeamans.  That said, Kiawah's greens were superb and I really couldn't expect any better.  All in all, I think its a draw, but like I said before, I think I could learn to love Yeamans if given enough whacks at it.  Still, I call 5-5 out of 10.

Ciao

Sean - If you don't like Brent's comparison, how about ranking a collie as a better dog than a poodle.

We make fun of those sorts of comparisons at dog shows. But isn't that  exactly what is going on with golf course ratings? We are making cross breed comparisons.

It might make some sense (but only some) to compare dogs of the same breed (think golf courses of the same era). But much beyond that, rating systems lose me.

Bob

[Sean_A]

That's like asking whether a dish of Chocolate ice cream is better than glass of Montrachet. Most people would like both but they aren't directly comparable because they're different things.

Brent

I disagree.  Golf courses have far more in common than not and thus should be comparable.  I think folks put too much weight on the differtences of places as an excuse to say they can't be compared - its a cop out. 

For my part I think the quality of each course and the quality of the day out are very well matched.  Assuming access isn't an issue I would play them each about 5 out of 10 as a visitor.  Mind you, it may take me a few dozen years to get five plays in at Kiawah considering the cost!  The 4s at Yeamans are better than Kiawah's, but the 3s and 5s at Kiawah are better than Yeaman's.  I prefer the green sites/surrounds of Kiawah to Yeaman's, but Yeaman's has more interesting putting surfaces in total.  I prefer the Yeaman's fairway troubles to Kiawah's, but both do well at presenting favoured angles.  I don't worry too much about conditioning.  Yeaman's was scruffy, but that isn't a bad thing, in fact I admire it and think it works well at Yeamans.  That said, Kiawah's greens were superb and I really couldn't expect any better.  All in all, I think its a draw, but like I said before, I think I could learn to love Yeamans if given enough whacks at it.  Still, I call 5-5 out of 10.

Ciao

Sean - If you don't like Brent's comparison, how about ranking a collie as a better dog than a poodle.

We make fun of those sorts of comparisons at dog shows. But isn't that  exactly what is going on with golf course ratings? We are making cross breed comparisons.

It might make some sense (but only some) to compare dogs of the same breed (think golf courses of the same era). But much beyond that, rating systems lose me.

Bob

Bob

How do you decide on whether or not you want to return to a course - toss a coin?  In some way or another you have criteria in which you compare courses to make judgements of whether or not you want to return. Some pass and some fail based on whatever your criteria for a good course is. 

Ciao

[BCrosby]

Sean -

As with dogs, I have preferences about golf courses. But as with my preferences about dogs, my preferences about golf courses are, basically, subjective and purely my own. 

When I think about assigning number values to those preferences over a wide range of dog breeds or golf course types, my head explodes.

Rankings - to be real - need a universally accepted set of criteria that provide a basis for ranking measurements. Those mearuements are where the rubber meets the road. For example, companies are ranked by sales, golfers by scores, strongest man contests by weight, and so forth.

Those kinds of measurement criteria are absent when it comes to ranking golf courses. For the same reasons that they are absent in dog shows.

People like some courses more than others. I think that is about as far as you can push the idea of course rankings.

Bob

[Ed Oden]

I really dont think that they are comparable. OC is modern, on the ocean, has hosted major tournaments, has solid maintenance practices, relies on an ocean breeze every day while YH is old, rough, was undiscovered for years, is conditioned like a $20 muni and relies on it's greens as a defense. I'll really never understand all the love for Yeamans even though i've played there 6-8 times. I think that CC of Charelston is a better track.

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Colonial CC
Ft. Worth, TX

Tony, I find it interesting that you consider CC of Charleston a better track than Yeamans.  I see it the other way by a fairly wide margin.  In my opinion, the front nine at CC of C really holds it back.  Other than the 3rd hole and maybe the 7th green, there isn't much to get excited about on the front.  It seems to me that the weakest hole on the front side at Yeamans (perhaps the 2nd) is arguably as good as any hole on the front at CC of C.  While the back side at CC of C is terrific and has some truly unique features (the green at #11, the berms at #15 and the lion's mouth at #16), I am not convinced taken as a whole it is any better than the back nine at Yeamans.  Regardless, even if you feel the back nine at CC of C is better than Yeamans, I can't see the gap is anywhere near enough to make up for the disparity on the front.  What do you see about CC of C that separates it?  Is it the conditioning/presentation or the design?  Thanks in advance!

Ed

[Brent Hutto]

Being a statistician...in particular one who deals every day with people trying to measure stuff that might or might not end up being measurable...I am more willing than most to accept my inability to compare two thing even if they share some basic attributes. For my part, there are courses I've seen which can be meaningfully compared to the Ocean Course. The one that comes to mind first is Spyglass Hill and I would have a hard time choosing between them, perhaps something like 6 Ocean Course and 4 Spyglass in the popular way of assigning values to such things.

Of the many good, bad and indifferent things I can say about a golf course I consider the statement "In my opinion, the Ocean Course and Spyglass Hill can be meaningfully compared" to be a contingent fact of my experiences there. No different than saying "I think the greens at Spyglass run very true, especially considering their mix of grasses" or "To me the Ocean Course has enough width to handle almost any winds you're likely to encounter there". But to get to the point, there are other statements I could make such as "I can't see any basis for comparing the experience of playing the Ocean Course to playing Huntercombe". That is also a contingent fact of my experience at those two courses. Huntercombe is not "trying" to be the same experience as the Ocean Course and therefore I do not consider value comparisons between them valid.

Imagine a PGA Tour player who played in the Ryder Cup at Kiawah. Maybe he also played up at Yeamans Hall during a visit a few months before the Cup matches. Ask him "Which of those was the better course?" and I'll bet he ends up giving you an assessment of how much he enjoyed playing the Ryder Cup vs. how much he enjoyed his day being shown around Yeamans by the members. He will not be trying to imagine what it would have been like to play team matches in front of thousands of screaming partisans at the little club up Hwy. 17, will he? Now imagine a 70-year-old guy who was a member at Yeamans Hall for decades before they even built the Ocean Course. He knows every nook and cranny of those greens and can shoot a canny 79 there in his usual foursome but down the road at Kiawah he'll be playing from the front tees and if there's any wind, trying to keep his score in the 80's if he's lucky.

I judge or compare courses based on what I think they're trying to be. As a test of my golf game and grinding ability under the most links-like challenge I can find within a couple hundred miles drive of my home I rate the Ocean Course very highly and in fact would place it at the top of that list, easily. As a home course to play every Saturday and Sunday in a $10 dogfight it can't touch the course at my club back home.

[Sean_A]

Sean -

As with dogs, I have preferences about golf courses. But as with my preferences about dogs, my preferences about golf courses are, basically, subjective and purely my own. 

When I think about assigning number values to those preferences over a wide range of dog breeds or golf course types, my head explodes.

Rankings - to be real - need a universally accepted set of criteria that provide a basis for ranking measurements. Those mearuements are where the rubber meets the road. For example, companies are ranked by sales, golfers by scores, strongest man contests by weight, and so forth.

Those kinds of measurement criteria are absent when it comes to ranking golf courses. For the same reasons that they are absent in dog shows.

People like some courses more than others. I think that is about as far as you can push the idea of course rankings.

Bob

Bob

You will get no argument from me that golf design is about preference and therefore subjective.  However, I don't see how that prohibits any discussion about comparative merits between courses.  I don't think many people get too oot with this sort of thing or try to treat it like fact with the possible exception of Matt - tee hee.  And I know that everybody who plays a lot of different courses has some sort criteria for what is pleasing or desirable - even you.  Personally, I would never want everybody to sing from the sheet where design is concerned.  I have no interest in some sort of master list of best to worst, but I am interested in opinions.  Every once in a while someone says or shows something which grabs my attention and comparing courses is one tool to help illustrate similarities and differences.

For instance, when I was looking through the pix of Camargo I couldn't believe how different the fairway play looked from Yeamans, yet this was meant to be the same guy designing both.  If we can compare works of the same archie whose works are vastly different, what is the difference by comparing works of different archies?

Brent

Its interesting that you try to judge courses based on what you think they are trying to be.  I would never look at a course this way.  I only really care about the final product in front of me, what extras the place has to make my day a better one and what it costs.  In short, I am more interested in what the club and course provide as a day out rather than a deep architectural analysis.  Architecture is neither good nor bad - it just is.  I don't know nearly enough about all the ins n outs of almost every course built to try and guess what was intended.  Sure, I can have an opinion on the matter, but it is more or less just to amuse myself - I don't put any store in that opinion.   

Ciao

[JNC Lyon]

I really dont think that they are comparable. OC is modern, on the ocean, has hosted major tournaments, has solid maintenance practices, relies on an ocean breeze every day while YH is old, rough, was undiscovered for years, is conditioned like a $20 muni and relies on it's greens as a defense. I'll really never understand all the love for Yeamans even though i've played there 6-8 times. I think that CC of Charelston is a better track.

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Colonial CC
Ft. Worth, TX

I would be interested to hear what aspects of the conditioning you found so repulsive at Yeamans Hall.  Personally, Yeamans Hall is the best-conditioned course I've ever played.  Certainly it is not immaculate in the sense of Augusta National.  However, the day we played, the course was firm and fast.  You could play all sorts of high short irons or low long irons into the greens.  Lies around the greens were very tight and made you think twice flopping a wedge.  The greens were fast and very true--some of the best I've ever played to be sure.  The course is certainly rough around the edges.  The rough is textured and patchy.  However, I think that is exactly how a golf course is supposed to be.  Golf is an outdoor sport--it is not meant to look like Center Court at Wimbledon.  The textures at Yeamans Hall fits the setting perfectly.  The golden brown marshes and the draped Spanish moss match the light greens and browns of the fairway and rough perfectly.  Anything more is superfluous.

Regarding Yeamans Hall 'relying on the greens as its defense:" isn't this true of every great course?  I assume you must not like Augusta National or Winged Foot much either.  Defending par at the greens is ideal because it affects all golfers equally.  Every golfer must deal with the green and its surrounds before holing out, whereas fairway hazards are out of play for a certain portion of the golfing population.

[Anthony_Nysse]

I really dont think that they are comparable. OC is modern, on the ocean, has hosted major tournaments, has solid maintenance practices, relies on an ocean breeze every day while YH is old, rough, was undiscovered for years, is conditioned like a $20 muni and relies on it's greens as a defense. I'll really never understand all the love for Yeamans even though i've played there 6-8 times. I think that CC of Charelston is a better track.

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Colonial CC
Ft. Worth, TX

I would be interested to hear what aspects of the conditioning you found so repulsive at Yeamans Hall.  Personally, Yeamans Hall is the best-conditioned course I've ever played.  Certainly it is not immaculate in the sense of Augusta National.  However, the day we played, the course was firm and fast.  You could play all sorts of high short irons or low long irons into the greens.  Lies around the greens were very tight and made you think twice flopping a wedge.  The greens were fast and very true--some of the best I've ever played to be sure.  The course is certainly rough around the edges.  The rough is textured and patchy.  However, I think is exactly how a golf course is supposed to be.  Golf is an outdoor sport--it is not meant to look like Center Court at Wimbledon.  The textures at Yeamans Hall fits perfectly of the setting.  The golden brown marshes and the draped Spanish moss match the light greens and browns of the fairway and rough perfectly.  Anything more is superfluous.

Regarding Yeamans Hall 'relying on the greens as its defense:" isn't this true of every great course?  I assume you must not like Augusta National or Winged Foot much either.  Defending par at the greens is ideal because it affects all golfers equally.  Every golfer must deal with the green and its surrounds before holing out, whereas fairway hazards are out of play for a certain portion of the golfing population.

JNC,
  So many of your comments are simply your opinion. You beleive that the golf course was the best conditioned course you've played. Just because it's F&F and brown, with tight cut chipping areas doesnt mean that it's finely conditioned, in my eyes. Keep in mind, I do this for a living, so finely manicured is probably MUCH different in my eyes than yours. I know that Yeamans Hall is a different experience that most golf courses, with their dirt road entrance, old style clubhouse and the low keyness of the low country. I also know that they budget doesnt over flow with money, either. It's more about the experience at Yeamans, than it is able being part of a great club. It's like Ballyneal-A smaller % of golfers like that kind of golf. I am not one of that percentage. That doesnt' do it for me. I'd rather play Friars Head, Kinloch, Pine Tree, Point O Woods, Shinnecock, Long Cove or Winged Foot.
    Keep in mind, that I am a HUGE Raynor fan, intend to name my dog that someday. The coastal/commom bermudagrass roughs,  that are as inconsistent as the highways in Michigan, to me, are not fair for a golfer. The level of detail isnt the strongest, weeds are allowed to be, nearly everywhere. many of the bunkers are not defined well enough for my liking. I've played there in spring, summer and fall and have found the greens to be VERY thin. But, so many on this site get off for this type of golf. I'm just not a fan. I think that Palmetto GC is a much better track, along with CC of Charleston. In fact, I'd rather play Cassique, Bulls Bay and even Cheorkee Plantation.
   CC of Charleston, I believe, is a better restoration. To me, that is a much more enjoyable course, better angles and more options, better conditioning. I think that the flow of golf holes are better as well. I like the 2nd, short par 4, along with a neat little par 3, 3rd. $5 is a neat little par 5 with angled bunkers up the entire right side along with a par 3 that plays near the water. I dont think that par 3's at YH are even in the class of those ot CCC. I think that there is much more diversity and better angles than of those at YH.
  Again, just another mans opinion.

[C. Squier]

Anthony, I thought the difference between the fairways and rough were perfect.  Hit it in the fairway, you likely have a perfect lie.  Hit it in the rough, you have an indifferent lie.  It may be sitting nicely on a tuft of grass, it may be in the middle of a weed.  A small penalty for hitting it there.  But the rough is very fair, you'll never hit it in a spot that is not recoverable, nor is it so difficult that older or higher handicappers will find themselves lost.  Will Yeamans Hall be on a glossy cover of a magazine?  Probably not, but it plays so well as a golf course...which I think is the point. 

CPS

[JNC Lyon]

Anthony, I thought the difference between the fairways and rough were perfect.  Hit it in the fairway, you likely have a perfect lie.  Hit it in the rough, you have an indifferent lie.  It may be sitting nicely on a tuft of grass, it may be in the middle of a weed.  A small penalty for hitting it there.  But the rough is very fair, you'll never hit it in a spot that is not recoverable, nor is it so difficult that older or higher handicappers will find themselves lost.  Will Yeamans Hall be on a glossy cover of a magazine?  Probably not, but it plays so well as a golf course...which I think is the point.  

CPS

I totally agree here.  I'm sure the maintenance budget at Yeamans Hall isn't anywhere near some of America's premier clubs.  However, the conditioning is all you need to make the course fun.  Weeds, while I'm sure they are unacceptable at many top clubs, are okay by me if they are in the rough.  It's rough, no? It's not supposed to be predictable or even-handed.  If you drive it off the fairway, you are taking your chances with getting a good lie or a horrid one, just as you take your chances driving off the fairway into the unraked waste areas at the Ocean Course. The fairways are firm and crisp, which are, for me, the most fun type to hit iron shots from.  The greens were firm when we played, and they were as fast and true as any greens I've played.  I think the trend today at many clubs is to overdue maintenance: fly mowers on grass bunker faces, greens double-cut and rolled daily, watering rough areas that never come into play.  I could go on and on.  It seems a colossal waste of money that could spent on restoring a classic layout, which is exactly what they did at Yeamans.

Tony Nysse: I totally appreciate that you have been a superintendent at some fantastic clubs.  I am sure you know much more about maintenance techniques than I do.  I just don't think clubs need to do more than they have to make the course fun, fair, and beautiful.  While many courses exude a plush, manicured feel, Yeamans has a rugged beauty that I find much more appealing for what is, as I said before, an outdoor sport.

[JNC Lyon]

JNC_Lyon,

Isn't Seven Oaks better than both of them

Of course!

But in all seriousness, although the Ocean Course is a better golf course in terms of variety and strategy, I can (and do) play Seven Oaks every day, whereas I don't think could say the same thing for the Ocean Course.

Yeamans Hall, on the other hand, is brilliant as a daily home course.  You have to see it to fully appreciate it.

[Anthony_Nysse]

opps...

[PCCraig]

I think if Yeamans and TOC had a baby it would look alot like the Cassique course just off the Kiawah Island.

[Bruce Wellmon]

For what it's worth I celebrated my 50th birthday at YH last year. Opened a 1967 bottle of scotch on #9 tee. Let a few groups play thru.................

[Tommy Williamsen]

YH is charming, old world with interesting holes but not as demanding as th3e Ocean course. The Ocean course is a bully waiting to pummel and punish any stray shot.  The golf experience is totally different at each course.  I like both experience.  Yet,if I had to pick one to play. it would be the ocean course.  You just have to pick the right tees for the weather and your ability.

[K. Krahenbuhl]

For what it's worth I celebrated my 50th birthday at YH last year. Opened a 1967 bottle of scotch on #9 tee. Let a few groups play thru.................

Sounds like my kind of party...well done Bruce.

[Sean_A]

I find it interesting how folks are saying TOC is brutal.  Playing like for like yardages (we probably played about a 6300 yard course), I didn't find it any harder than many links in the UK and there are certainly some in the UK I think are tougher.  Now it may be true that the course ratchets up significantly from the backs than from the middles and that it is harder from there than any UK links, but there is a reason the backs are called Tournament tees and very, very few folks have any business stepping back there.  Judging from the caddies comments that 5.5 hour are normal, perhaps the back tees should just be closed unless proper flat bellies turn up.  I didn't play particularly well and putted poorly and I reckon I came in with about an 84 which included two triples from the middle of the fairway (seriously unforced errors!).  I understand that wind is the major ingredient in difficulty at Kiawah and that I had a calmish day, but those fairways are designed very well to allow for wind and are wider than nearly every top links in the UK that I can think of.  One aspect of the wind is that (I think, but could be wrong) when prevailing it is an up down wind with very little crossing wind - this would make a huge difference on difficulty as cross winds are far more difficult than up and down winds.  What are folks impression of the direction of he prevailing wind?

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()