Unlike the holes at Clear Creek which have a high quality from top to bottom with great holes sprinkled among them, today we post Durban Country Club which hits some very high notes but also throws in more than its fair share of dullish holes for a course of its international stature. Not unlike The Australian in Sydney, this is particularly ironic because the clubhouse has photographs including one giant aerial from the 1930s that show when the course was in peak form. It is a shame when clubs struggle with the obvious but that's the way it goes, especially at larger clubs like Durban with its thousands of members.
With several current day architects producing such top drawer work, weak or indifferent holes standout more and more. In particular, the two par fives on the back at Durban have had their primary bunkers removed and the consequences of that a) lessen the playing interest considerably and b) make these two long holes feel like they don't belong on a dunesland course (i.e. the old Hell Half Acre bunker at the tenth at least brought the sandy element of the dunes holes to the flatter portion of the property).
A course that wants to be in the world top 100 simply can't have five or six such holes (please don't bother suggesting that The Old Course or Pebble do
). Today's best architects are getting so good at routing and so good at commanding big pieces of property that you just don't see clunkers being produced.
Also, as classic old courses are being restored, the weaker holes are the ones that are most improved as invariably they turn out to be the holes that were most tampered with. For instance, we go 'live' tomorrow with an updated Eastward Ho! profile where they have done great work over the past five years. In addition, it enjoys great topography
THROUGH all eighteen holes - not just ~2/3 of the course as at Durban. Tell me tomorrow why Eastward Ho! shouldn't be included in an upcoming version of The World Atlas of Golf!
Yes, the pressure is on Durban to do something. If people travel that far, there will always be a sense of disappointment if the course isn't nearly flawless, such is the hype in today's world. In a surprise, Durban came in a close second to Humewood on the GolfClubAtlas.com February trip when we all would have thought it to be a clear #1 before heading down there. Its great holes are great, no doubt about it, but its weaker holes are clearly inferior to those at Humewood. Throw in the commotion that comes from being near a large city and our group preferred the more spacious, quieter coastal setting at Humewood.
Still, look at photos of the eighth and seventeenth in particular at Durban and tell me you might not put them in your own eclectic world eighteen just as Pat Ward-Thomas selected Durban's third those many years ago. Essentially, we are talking the age old debate: would you rather play a course solid throughout though never quite thrilling (e.g. Baltusrol Lower) or a flawed great one (e.g. Bel-Air)?
Cheers,
P.S. One reason to go anywhere is to see different things and before Durban, I had never been to a course where many caddies don't wear shoes. My caddy was excellent and a true delight to talk with but it is still a sight I had never seen, have you?
