Jim's question has a marital equivalent: "Honey, does this dress make me look fat?"
Only a fool would answer his wife honestly or criticize a member's golf course, particularly when it's outstanding. Perhaps I'm the man for the job.
First, on any scale I'd give Ballyneal an 8. Off the top of my head that puts it in a small class including, among others, San Francisco Golf Club.
I played only one round at Ballyneal in its infancy on a cool late fall day in the company of Adam Clayman. It ranks among the ten most enjoyable rounds I've ever played. I understand one of Golfweek's rating criteria is the "walk in the park test." I'd give Ballyneal a 12 on their scale of 1 to 10. I found the golf course to be seamless - from the first tee to the 18th green and every step (even between holes) in between, accomodating or challenging depending upon the golfer's disposition or aptitude. I like to just hit the ball, find it and hit it again. Adam's old caddying skills were priceless as his comments were of the nature "you're about 170 out, favor the left side." I so enjoyed the fellowship of a kindred spirit. As for my round, I misssed only one fairway, hit all par threes and did not suffer a double-bogey until a pathetic three putt at the 17th. I don't remember what I shot but it approximated 83.
I offer the following comments, more as observations than criticisms:
In direct disagreement with Bart, One Man could argue that there are few, if any all-world holes at Ballyneal. The Other Man could also answer that there are no indifferent or let-down holes either. While my instincts tell me that there are 18 good to very good holes there, my overall impression of Ballyneal is that the whole exceeds the sum of the parts. In my view, that's high praise.
What One Man might call "seamless," the Other Man might dub "sameness." The Other Man might well draw a different conclusion after playing the course several times.
One Man might attempt to define the course as a "third shot course," claiming that the key to scoring well at Ballyneal is the pitch or more often the lag putt. One Man could support that argument by noting that the slow green speeds and inconsistent turf in the course's infancy circumvented the architect's intent (as if the clueless One Man can discern what Tom Doak intended after one round).
One Man might argue that the free flowing teeing ground without markers is a gimmick, having no precedent in the evolution of golf course architecture and too radical a departure from tradition. The Other Man might note that the One Man might appreciate this elastic element if he played the course day in and day out.
One Man might argue that the bunkers, while beautiful and indigenous, neither demand nor dictate strategy. The Other Man might reply that they are indeed frilly and One Man is known to have a ridiculous affinity for runway tees.
One Man might argue that the extreme width is too accomodating and therefore devoid of strategy from the tee. The Other Man might retort that multiple plays are required to understand the advantage one gains in approaching specific sections of the greens form various points in the fairway.
One Man might opine that the golf course is devoid of heroic shot requirements. The Other Man might rebut that the devil is in the details, to be revealed one at a time after years of multiple rounds.
One Man might say Ballyneal's a 7 or 8. The Other Man might give it a 9 or even 10. When it's all said in done, both men would enjoy a little table fellowship after a round there, acknowledging their good fortune at having the privilege to play there, be it one or one hundred times.
Finally, One Man might be greatful that an invitation has been extended to return for a few days to fully enjoy and appreciate the architecture. Having already admitted above that he's a fool, One Man might never accept this invitation.
Mike