[Tom_Doak]

This Tom Weiskopf / Jay Morrish course continues to be a mainstay of the top 100 lists -- even the recent blogger's list.

How come?

I played it a year or so after it opened, because a friend of mine, Terry Buchen, was the superintendent at the time.  Most of the attention paid to the course in the early days was because of its immaculate conditioning -- they were the first course to Stimp the tees to pat themselves on the back, and the greens were lightning-quick in the days before A-4 bentgrass.  The course was nice and quiet, but to me, not distinguishable from other Weiskopf and Morrish layouts except for the lack of housing.

But how does it hang on in the lists now that other clubs have caught up on the conditioning front?  Has anyone even played the course in the last ten years?  What do you guys say?

[Paul_Turner]

stimp the tees? I thought that was a myth/joke.

I heard a very positive report on Double Eagle from my mate Mark Chalfant this week, so hopefully he'll chime in.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

I played it several years ago when at Jack's event at Muirfield Village.

I am flabbergasted that the course was rated from the get-go.

Agreed -- the shape is immaculate but where's the beef in terms of compelling architecture? Other courses since then -- as you correctly noted, have equaled what they in terms of the turf quality discussion item.

Clearly, there must be people who still see "something" with the course -- I too would like to know just what that "something" is they keep recognizing because there are other Weiskopf courses (by himself) that can make a claim for national consideration.

[Joel_Stewart]

I've never played it.  

With that said when it first opened I watched the Shell's WWG match between Weiskopf and Gary Player.   I kept waiting and waiting for something interesting about the golf course.  It never came...  I could be wrong but it didn't come across that great on TV?

[Jed Peters]

Speaking of stimping the tees.

When I was out at MPCC a couple weeks ago, I swear their tee boxes were some of the finest I've ever seen.

LOL.

[Ronald Montesano]

Granted I have played only two Weiskopf courses (Quail Hollow in Ohio and Cedar Creek in Michigan) and missed the one (Forest Dunes in Michigan) that I wanted to play, but no shot at either course gave me pause to consider how fortunate I was to be in that place at that time.  I note Double Eagle's place on the lists only for its proximity to my home (inside five hours, I believe) but have no desire to play it.

[Doug Sobieski]

I had this conversation yesterday at lunch. I've always felt that it was one of the most overrated courses I've seen (at one time in the Golfweek top 10 modern). It's got some of the most plain, user friendly greens in existence. It's very rare to have a significantly difficult putt. Par 3's are fairly plain. Several par 4's that cross ravines perpendicularly (no strategy, just a forced carry). I doubt that women would find the course very enjoyable for that reason.

I truly believe that people are so overwhelmed by the experience and conditioning they lose sight of the golf course itself. If it wasn't for the exclusivity and conditioning, I doubt it would be considered in the upper tier in Columbus. I made special trips out there the first couple times I played it, but I don't know that I'd get up early just to see it again.

[Tom_Doak]

Doug:

The greens there are the flattest I've ever seen.  Weiskopf used 0.5 percent surface drainage on them in many cases.  I had a number of 50-foot putts the day I played that I tried to read six inches outside the hole, and consistently missed them on the "high" side.

Is the conditioning still "over the top" by 2009 standards?

[Richard Hetzel]

One has to wonder how many of those courses, including Double Eagle remain on the list due to their "exclusivity factor". I have never played Double Eagle, but a friend has and when queried as to how it was, he replied, "Expletive incredible.".

[Tom MacWood]

I think courses are often given bonus points for being ultra private (or way out of the way). Its human nature with raters. I think Double Eagle benefitted from that early on. I also think there is certain mystique with courses in Columbus, as bizarre as that sounds.

[Jerry Kluger]

Naturally, raters are influenced by other raters and want to continue in their position as raters. What does this mean? Simply that once a course is highly rated future raters do not want to disagree with what has been published by the magazine and they fear that if their rating is significantly different from earlier ratings that they will be perceived as lacking knowledge or judgement. 

[cary lichtenstein]

Naturally, raters are influenced by other raters and want to continue in their position as raters. What does this mean? Simply that once a course is highly rated future raters do not want to disagree with what has been published by the magazine and they fear that if their rating is significantly different from earlier ratings that they will be perceived as lacking knowledge or judgement. 

I agree. If raters are totally honest with themselves as well as others, they are always afraid of being dumped because when their ratings are reviewed by the commander in chief, downgrading courses like Pinehurst #2 and Seminole are serious no no's, even if they don't like em.

[Dean Stokes]

So if raters are scared to perform their ratings accurately in case they get fired, the ratings are as I have thought for a long time, worthless.

As for Double Eagle, if it is owned by a bazillionaire, it's in superb condition and it costs a small fortune to join, then sure it fits in the top 100

[Brian Laurent]

Because the rating criteria allows for it.  If it were based on design of the course alone, it may not be as high on the list...but with aesthetics, conditioning, ambience, etc part of the ratings, it makes the cut.

Todd Voss, the current super, continues the tradition of outstanding conditioning and the exclusivity of the place certainly adds to the mystique.  I'll be interested to see what if any changes are made at the club given the current economy and the passing of Mr. Mac a little over a year ago. 

[Lou_Duran]

OK, I'll be the contrarian here.  I think DE is a wonderful club course.  It has plenty of length, turns, twists, rumples, variety, and if these are the friendliest greens in the world of golf, I must be one really bad putter (33 putts on a near perfect day).  It held my interest throughout the round and it certainly challenged me (86) on every shot.

There are a bunch of "Top 100" courses whose ranking can be reasonably challenged based on one's peculiar tastes and preferences.  I may not put DE in the top 50 modern, but the differences between 51 and 250+  are not that much even subjectively, not to say anything about applying objective standards.  I prefer the Big Four in Columbus to DE, but if I had the opportunity to have a go at it again, I'd be there in a sultry mid July-day, this time already in long pants.

 

[Matt_Ward]

Lou:

Quick question -- have you played other Weiskopf / Moorish designs or even solo efforts made by Tom since his split with Jay?

How do they stack up against DE ?

The issue is not whether the course is a good one -- the issue is whether it should remain among the elite now -- given the passage of time since it opened.

Would your big four all make a top 100 listing as well ? Candidly, I don't see all the fuss about Scioto but I have not been back to the place since the changes were made. I plan on being in the Columbus area towards the end of September and I hope to be at least able to walk the course to see what's been done on that front. I'm assuming you would include the Scarlet Course at OSU ?

[Kenny Baer]

I played DE almost exactly a year ago; the conditioning was phenomenal even by today's standards; the greens were almost as if they had never been played on, you could not find a ball mark.  It is the only course I have ever played that changed out my spikes before the round because they did not want any foreign seed on their course; I think the real reason is that they were afraid some versions of the "soft" spikes were to rough on the greens; the spikes they put in my shoes were equivalent to wearing a tennis shoe.

I would like to play it again as there is only so much you can gather out of 1 play.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Naturally, raters are influenced by other raters and want to continue in their position as raters. What does this mean? Simply that once a course is highly rated future raters do not want to disagree with what has been published by the magazine and they fear that if their rating is significantly different from earlier ratings that they will be perceived as lacking knowledge or judgement. 

I agree. If raters are totally honest with themselves as well as others, they are always afraid of being dumped because when their ratings are reviewed by the commander in chief, downgrading courses like Pinehurst #2 and Seminole are serious no no's, even if they don't like em.

Cary - there are two kinds of downgrading, one OK one not so OK.  If you don't like a specific course and give it a low mark no one compiling the lists is going to question your grade.  On the other hand if you appear to give low marks to most courses you play than you are introducing bias in the lists.  Bias is calculable and needs to be addressed for the integrity of any list.

JC

[cary lichtenstein]

Naturally, raters are influenced by other raters and want to continue in their position as raters. What does this mean? Simply that once a course is highly rated future raters do not want to disagree with what has been published by the magazine and they fear that if their rating is significantly different from earlier ratings that they will be perceived as lacking knowledge or judgement. 

I agree. If raters are totally honest with themselves as well as others, they are always afraid of being dumped because when their ratings are reviewed by the commander in chief, downgrading courses like Pinehurst #2 and Seminole are serious no no's, even if they don't like em.

Cary - there are two kinds of downgrading, one OK one not so OK.  If you don't like a specific course and give it a low mark no one compiling the lists is going to question your grade.  On the other hand if you appear to give low marks to most courses you play than you are introducing bias in the lists.  Bias is calculable and needs to be addressed for the integrity of any list.

JC

JC

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is there are courses out there that are rated highly that have no business having those ratings and everyone knows it. Raters are afraid to honestly rate those courses for fear of getting dumped. So they rate it high, and defend those high ratings with somekind of intellectual bullshit.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Cary - based on my experience, I'll just have to differ with you.  JC

[Jeff_Brauer]

Hey, another ratings thread, disguised as a Double Eagle thread!  Whoda Thunkit?

Not much to add. I played DE years ago when Terry B was super and it was super. I don't recall the greens as being that flat for the green speeds they attained, but I was impressed with the overall design.  Of course, maybe it was because of maintenance, or maybe it was because I reconnected with Terry after not having seen him for a while, and we became good friends again that day.  So, it was a nice day all around.  Can that affect impressions of gca?

I am a rater for the Dallas Morning News.  I actually go out of my way to rate in an iconoclast manner.  Of course, I think the historical ratings they use mean its really slow to change.  If national mags don't have a history weighted system, perhaps the peer pressure to rate as others rate is how they keep their lists from changing year to year.  Given the critiques whenever a list does change, I think they all want some sort of continuity.  Would you read a list that changed out half its courses every year and then brought half of those back the next year?

In the interest of disclosure, I am scheduled to have dinner with Jay and his wife this week or next, so I will get his reaction to this thread and the course overall.  If its anything printable, I will let you know!

[Joel Zuckerman]

I've played 'em all in Columbus, and DE is a solid notch below Muirfield, The Golf Club, Scioto and OSU--Scarlett IMO.  I think it's a fine course in general, but doesn't belong in any listing of Top 100 Courses.  In fact--there's a cool Lanny Wadkins GC called Pinnacle (fairly new) in greater Columbus...which some might feel will relegate DE to the 6th spot in town.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()