Dr. B's Course Review of the Week - Installment 2 --WHISTLING STRAITS

[Bart Bradley]

Installment #2.…

Whistling Straits

Attributed to: Pete and Alice Dye 1998

Location:  Haven, Wisconsin

What makes it great:  

Whistling Straits has amazing shaping and “faux-dunes”.  Visually, the course is inspiring and tries to evoke the emotions felt by visitors to the great courses in the dunes of the UK and Ireland.  It is a remarkable testament to the designer’s ability to create dramatic land forms from a relatively featureless site.  Many of the holes offer amazing visuals and are fun and demanding to play.

What makes it unique?

The short par 4 6th has an amazing green.  Imagine a far back right hole location to this green which was changed just last year!









What makes it NOT so great?

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the course does not play like a true links course.  The angles and design of the holes do not encourage the ground game.  Aerial shots rule the day.  

The par 5 Fifth hole seems substantially out of place.  The retention pond and character of the hole do not seem congruous with the style of the other holes.  



There are too many bunkers, some of which are substantially out of play…although they do add to the overall visual drama of the place.

Overbunkering and Drama:





What is something else unusual? SHEEP!




My visit:  September 2009

My overall rating:  7.5

Rating Trend:  DOWNWARD -- Newer courses such as Pacific Dunes and Kingsbarns  have surpassed Whistling Straits in their ability to mimic the links-land experience.

Can't wait to hear your opinions.

Bart

[Kenny Baer]

Bart, great stuff, keep it up. Unfortunately I haven't been yet so can't give any feedback. Looking forward to what others have to say.

[Jud_T]

Pretty much spot on IMHO.  Is WS becoming a bit dated already?

[Ed Oden]

Bart, thanks for another solid review.  I think your views are right on the money.  The revised 6th green is unbelievable.  I don't remember it looking anything like that when I was there many moons ago.  Is the back right part entirely new?

[Bart Bradley]

Ed:

I wish I could tell you what all changed.  I didn't see the green in its previous incarnation and Ran's profile shows only a close-up of the front bunker.  The green, as it is now, is severe and IMO cool!

Perhaps someone has a picture of the green before the changes?

Bart

[Michael Huber]

Does anyone else think that Whistling Straits would be a different course if it was built in 2008 instead of 1998? 

[Phil McDade]

Does anyone else think that Whistling Straits would be a different course if it was built in 2008 instead of 1998? 

Not really.

WS is the product of two -- and only two -- people: Herb Kohler and Pete Dye. They are two enormously talented and driven people, who have given a lot to the game, but neither one suffers from a faint ego, and what is there is what those two wanted the course to be.

[Anthony Gray]

 Thanks again Doc. I like the new bunker on 6.I believe the knock on the hole was that it played shoort and needed some teeth.Looks like they found it.What a great joy pulling off a shot fro in there.Always looved 5 when most everybody hates.Tee ball to the left second to the right and pitch to island.WHAT IS NOT TO LOVE? A very unique hole.Again GIVE ME SOMETHING.In the clughouse each hole should have some memorable to discuss and these two holes posted meet that criteria.Fun course period.And derserving of majors.

  Anthony

[Bart Bradley]

 Thanks again Doc. I like the new bunker on 6.I believe the knock on the hole was that it played shoort and needed some teeth.Looks like they found it.What a great joy pulling off a shot fro in there.Always looved 5 when most everybody hates.Tee ball to the left second to the right and pitch to island.WHAT IS NOT TO LOVE? A very unique hole.Again GIVE ME SOMETHING.In the clughouse each hole should have some memorable to discuss and these two holes posted meet that criteria.Fun course period.And derserving of majors.

  Anthony

Anthony:

The aesthetics of number 5 do not match the rest of the course.  There are 2 lakes on the hole.  How do you see those relating to the other architecture?

For me, "WHAT IS NOT TO LOVE?" is the jarring contrast with the surrounds.

Bart

[Greg Krueger]

Bart, I have not played or been to WS but could the design of #5 be considered good because it gives
the course some variety? Or is it that out of place where it just does not fit?

[Kevin Lynch]

Ed:

I wish I could tell you what all changed.  I didn't see the green in its previous incarnation and Ran's profile shows only a close-up of the front bunker.  The green, as it is now, is severe and IMO cool!

Perhaps someone has a picture of the green before the changes?

Bart

Here is a scan of a "film photograph" (remember those), from 2006.  It looks like they added a portion of green to wrap around the huge "Death Bunker" that was in the front middle (or right middle, depending on your angle).  This bunker is one where the caddies bet you that you couldn't get on the green in one swing.

[Kevin Lynch]

What makes it NOT so great?

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the course does not play like a true links course.  The angles and design of the holes do not encourage the ground game.  Aerial shots rule the day.  

The par 5 Fifth hole seems substantially out of place.  The retention pond and character of the hole do not seem congruous with the style of the other holes.  


There are too many bunkers, some of which are substantially out of play…although they do add to the overall visual drama of the place.

1)  I think Ron Montesano raised this on another thread, but I think we need to let go of the notion that these are "supposed" to be "true-links."  Let it be what it is, rather than compare it to some arbitrary notion of what it "should be."  It's Pete Dye's course built on a piece of land that was transformed to give a Coastal Ireland "feel".  So it emphasizes an aerial game in a number of places - it's just a different challenge.  Some places you need to play the firm & fast game (placing drives / layups), and in others, you're demanded to test your mettle and pull off an aerial shot.  It's an amazing accomplishment to create something like this out of an abandoned Air Force Base.

2)  Have to agree about number 5.  We finished the hole and each of us were just puzzled what it was doing on this course.  So be it - I'd rather the course be walkable than require a 600 yard cart ride to the next tee.

3)  I have no problem with the excessive bunkering - it's meant to give the illusion that wind and nature created sand pits everywhere among the dunes, and the course was routed among them (rather than vice versa).  I thought it was visually stunning and can't wait to get a longer look this week.

[Terry Lavin]

WS is fake, artificial, contrived and wonderful.  It is a welcome respite from the tree-lined parkland golf courses that dominate the Midwest and a most worthy site for tournament golf.  If the wind blows and the course dries out, the pros will have difficulties.  If not, it's bombs away!

[Mark Smolens]

The fifth hole is there because of wetlands requirements, not because Mr. Dye wanted to build that hole on this course (I believe he spoke about this in Jay Flemma's recent interview which was linked to a recent thread). Though I have enjoyed playing WS in the past, the cost has risen so much that I have not been there in a number of years.

[Phil McDade]

To amplify what Mark wrote, state environmental regulators raised concerns with Kohler/Dye about a small wetlands area along the coast that would be eliminated to route one of the coastal holes. The course, built during the Bush I era of "no net loss" of wetlands, needed to include some new wetlands to compensate for the loss of wetlands along the lakeshore. Thus, Dye and Kohler agreed to route one of the inland holes around some newly created wetlands -- hole #5. Yes, it does stand out, and is somewhat out of character with the rest of the course. But Dye has said the 5th is the hole that essentially allowed WStraits to be built -- without it, he said the course would have had significant routing issues.

[PCCraig]

Ed:

I wish I could tell you what all changed.  I didn't see the green in its previous incarnation and Ran's profile shows only a close-up of the front bunker.  The green, as it is now, is severe and IMO cool!

Perhaps someone has a picture of the green before the changes?

Bart

Here is a scan of a "film photograph" (remember those), from 2006.  It looks like they added a portion of green to wrap around the huge "Death Bunker" that was in the front middle (or right middle, depending on your angle).  This bunker is one where the caddies bet you that you couldn't get on the green in one swing.

The new 6th green is really pretty cool IMO but also very extreme and hard. Last time I played I hit a PW a little short-right of the right portion of the green, shortsiding myself. Made a nice double bogey on what used to be an easy birdie hole.

As much as the lakeside holes get all the attention, I think #6, and esp. #10 are my favorite holes on the course by far.

[Sean_A]

I like the look of #5 and thnk the beach is certainly one of the few examples of sand next to water which works.  I really dislike the mega bunkering.  If Dye wanted natural areas he should have let these be waste areas with lips to help contain the sand.  Straits is not a course I shall seek out, but it does look interesting.  Thankx for the report Doc.

Ciao

[Carl Nichols]

Ed:

I wish I could tell you what all changed.  I didn't see the green in its previous incarnation and Ran's profile shows only a close-up of the front bunker.  The green, as it is now, is severe and IMO cool!

Perhaps someone has a picture of the green before the changes?

Bart

Here is a scan of a "film photograph" (remember those), from 2006.  It looks like they added a portion of green to wrap around the huge "Death Bunker" that was in the front middle (or right middle, depending on your angle).  This bunker is one where the caddies bet you that you couldn't get on the green in one swing.

The new 6th green is really pretty cool IMO but also very extreme and hard. Last time I played I hit a PW a little short-right of the right portion of the green, shortsiding myself. Made a nice double bogey on what used to be an easy birdie hole.

As much as the lakeside holes get all the attention, I think #6, and esp. #10 are my favorite holes on the course by far.

Those are my two favorite holes as well. On #6, I made the mistake of listening to my caddie and hit hybrid, rather than driver.  With the left-to-right tilt of the fairway, I ended up having a completely blind second shot of about 100 yards to a front right hole location.  I ended up getting completely lucky and pulling off the shot, but given that hole location, the clear play was to hit driver as far up the left side as possible to at least have a view of the pin, as well as a decent angle to the middle-back part of the green.  [Driver may be the play for all hole locations, but it's certainly the play for the front right one.]   

10 is just a great short par 4. 

[Phil McDade]

Carl:

The design of #10 played a big role in the '04 PGA playoff with Singh, Leonard and DiMarco. Both Leonard and DiMarco opted for the safer route right of the centerline bunker. Singh gambled and went left and long in the fairway, setting up a very short chip and a subsequent birdie the others couldn't match. One of my favorite holes on the course.

[Richard Choi]

For those of you who have played both WS and SH, I have a question.

They both have links style courses with bentgrass greens. Why does one plays more like a links course (SH) while the other one does not (WS)? Can you point out some architectural differences that cause that? It seems to me the both courses are very similar other than the construction method. Why do they play so differently?

[Jud_T]

Bottom line for me- $340 + caddy for WS is a no-go.  I'm not particularly known as a cheapskate and I have shelled out, and will likely continue to shell out,  even more to play certain famous courses,  but WS is not one of this elite list.  If moving a bunch of dirt and holding a few tournaments allows them to pack the tee sheet at this rate, then more power to them, but I can't in good conscience recommend this to anyone here compared with Pinehurst, Bandon, Pebble, etc....Oh, and I think that'd buy you 4 rounds up the road at Lawsonia, a course that wins 7-3 for me vs. WS.....  

[Phil McDade]

For those of you who have played both WS and SH, I have a question.

They both have links style courses with bentgrass greens. Why does one plays more like a links course (SH) while the other one does not (WS)? Can you point out some architectural differences that cause that? It seems to me the both courses are very similar other than the construction method. Why do they play so differently?

Richard:

I've played neither, but know enough about each to tell you that one of the single biggest differences is the underlying soils of each site. That, and annual rainfall.

[Bart Bradley]

For those of you who have played both WS and SH, I have a question.

They both have links style courses with bentgrass greens. Why does one plays more like a links course (SH) while the other one does not (WS)? Can you point out some architectural differences that cause that? It seems to me the both courses are very similar other than the construction method. Why do they play so differently?

Richard:

For me, it's all in the angles.

If a shot requires an angle which carries over hazards (bunkers), then the aerial game is required.  I'll post a couple of more pictures tonight if needed to show my point...but look at hole number 6 above (the second photo is taken directly from the left of the green....to approach that green the ball must be played in the air to the right side or you are going to have to deal with a 100 ft. putt...not exactly encouraging the ground game.

Bart

[Richard Choi]

I look at that hole and it looks pretty similar to the 16th at Pacific Dunes or 14th at Chambers or slew of other genuine links holes. It looks like there is a mound front left to work your ball to the right.

[PCCraig]

Bottom line for me- $340 + caddy for WS is a no-go.  I'm not particularly known as a cheapskate and I have shelled out, and will likely continue to shell out,  even more to play certain famous courses,  but WS is not one of this elite list.  If moving a bunch of dirt and holding a few tournaments allows them to pack the tee sheet at this rate, then more power to them, but I can't in good conscience recommend this to anyone here compared with Pinehurst, Bandon, Pebble, etc....Oh, and I think that'd buy you 4 rounds up the road at Lawsonia, a course that wins 7-3 for me vs. WS.....  

Jud:

Call me crazy, but I strongly believe that WS is a really really good golf course that is fun to play every once in a while (once every 5-7 years), even at that price. However I don't think I have enough fun there to strongly consider playing there any more than that. I actually like BWR more overall and find it alot more fun.

I do agree with you that after paying $100's of $$$ to play the Kohler courses, seeing what a great value Lawsonia Links on the same trip almost made me puke!