News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #75 on: August 13, 2010, 10:32:26 AM »
Phil, if the course is built to test the best in the world, why would I, a 10 handicapper, go there? I don't have the skills...

The course is very playable and fun as long as you choose the right tree. If you go too far back, it could be a long day.

I second this...most golfers (handicap 7-20) could probably play the course from the ~6300 tees and have a very fun day. If I had my choice I would play the 6700 yard tees. Back around 2000 I played it with a group of Chicago area pros and played it from the tips...made for a very LONG day.
H.P.S.

Matt_Ward

Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #76 on: August 13, 2010, 10:45:19 AM »
Guys:

Let me fill in the blanks for those of you who don't like to be pinned down.

When a course is rated #3 among ALL modern courses since 1960 it's no less than a 9 on the Doak scale.

The architecture is simply not present. It's demanding no doubt because you can get stiff breezes off of Lake Michigan but the Lake is mostly a set decoration -- removed from play and there for overhead type shots and the like.

It's also laughable that people would opt for WS and all its courses over the collection at Bandon. Someone will have to explain to me what remote connection the Irish Course at WS has with anything remorely close to a real links in Ireland. I'd give the layout a zero on the Doak scale for being just hideous.

Another myth -- the idea that a major validates a course's architecture is preposterous. The Straits gets the events because Kohler has unlimited funds and went ahead and built a mega muscular layout that can be adopted to the world's best with insane length and fairly predictable airport length fairways. The issue is that often times many raters and others fall for the common trap that hosting of a major means ipso facto course greatness. It doesn't.


Carl Rogers:

I don't know how many Pete Dye courses you have played but from the many I have played The Straits would not even SNIFF a top ten. The place is not about architecture and so many clueless raters always take the bait that hosting of a major validates what a course provides. It doesn't. Those who have some idea about design and architecture should know that. Especially if they have played a number of earlier Dye designs which are fun, interesting and always have an edge of mystery and eager to push the envelope.

The Straits is just a testament to positioning a course next to a major water body and then getting an architect to come in -- bull doze the crap out of it and add a zillion bunkers (an actual talking point in any telecast).

Carl, Golfweek says it's #3 among moden courses -- that's so funny because the premise is based on everything save for the item that matters most -- the overall architecture. Pete has done far better in my mind.


Steve Kline:

Well said -- too many announcers broadcast a big time view when they have played such a small portfolio of courses.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #77 on: August 13, 2010, 10:55:35 AM »


1.  Rob wondered aloud whether it made sense, with Bandon in his back yard, to ever venture to WS.  The answer for any sane person who's not a Pete Dye fanatic is no.


Jud,
The answer for YOU is no. Leave the rest of us out of it. I'd happily return to Kohler and think folks would be missing something by skipping it entirely, no matter their location.


Andy,

Just a refresher...

Doak 7- An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere within 100 miles. You can expect to find soundly designed, interesting holes, good course conditioning and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.

Doak 8- One of the very best courses in its region (although there are more 8s in some places, and none in others), and worth a special trip to see. Could have some drawbacks, but these will clearly be spelled out, and it will make up for them with something really special in addition to the generally excellent layout.


Unless the course is a Doak 8 it's not worth Rob travelling from the West Coast to see...Hey, it's a free country.  If you want to spend your hard-earned dollars at Kohler knock yourself out.  And, oh, by the way, I've got a nice piece of swampland for you to check out.... ;)


Matt,

Thanks for saying what I didn't have the balls to say about the Irish course.....

Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #78 on: August 13, 2010, 11:02:26 AM »
Jud/Richard:

Some background:

-- Herb Kohler got into the golf business primarily because guests at his 5-star resort in Kohler proper, the American Club, complained about the lack of golfing opportunites. He initially -- as Jay Flemma rehashes in his very good inteview with Pete Dye -- wanted to buy an existing course; failing at that, and with alot of land at his disposal nearby, he hired Dye -- who he knew by reputation -- to build the Blackwolf Run courses. Kohler made them public, and priced them well above what other high-end publics in Wisconsin were charging at the time; Blackwolf Run was viewed in most quarters of the golfing world in Wisconsin as an enormous financial risk. Very few folks thought it would take off and become successful; it did.

-- Even in its very initial years of play, BRun was viewed as a bit too quirky for a major championship, at least for the men (it hosted the US Women's Open in '98). Kohler, by now getting to know top officials at both the PGA and USGA, wanted to host a major. He began discussions with Dye, and the two of them -- who took golfing trips together to the UK and Ireland -- hit upon the idea of a course that would pay homage to, if not exactly play like, the Irish links they had played together. Kohler bought the old military base near Haven, up the road from Kohler, and told Dye: "Build me Ballybunion." Everything done at WStraits -- from the location of the site for the PGA and corporate tents, to the mounding surrounding various holes, to the routing of 8 holes along the lake for visuals -- was done with hosting a major there in mind (I'd note that Doak, praised endlessly here on GCA, frequently talks about choices and compromises he's had to make on courses -- Seaboneck being one -- because of his client's wishes; there isn't a single thing at WStraits  done that didn't fit with Kohler's desire to hold a major there).

-- Kohler, who really wanted a US Open at WStraits, compromised when the PGA offered him two PGAs and a Ryder Cup; Kohler still thinks WS is a candidate for the US Open @ 2020, and he has made a point of nurturing relations with both PGA and USGA officials throughout his golf-building career.

-- WStraits was always going to be a public model; Kohler's no dummy, and as folks like Doak have pointed out, the clear direction being taken by the USGA and PGA these days is hosting majors at courses in which those courses can turn around and market themselves to the golfing public as major championship sites. See Chambers Bay, Erin Hills, Cog Hill's attempt...

-- Are the Kohler-area courses in "competition" with the Bandons and Pinehursts of the world? I suppose they are; it's just a guess on my part, but I think Mr. Kohler -- a pretty savvy guyy -- thinks the success of Bandon is probably good for the success of his courses. But that's a business question, not an architecture question. You'd argue those other courses are better as pieces of golf architecture, and I have no real basis to argue that, having not been to them. But I know plenty of folks in Wisconsin who would (and have) readily plop down the bucks to play a course that's going to be hosting a Ryder Cup, and who also think flying across the country to a bunch of courses on a lonely stretch of the Oregon coast is, to put it mildly, crazy. Remeber, Jud, we're the outliers here.

-- Of course Dye was going to build courses with tees shorter than 7,500 yards; he and Kohler know the average golfer out there plays to a 10+ handicap. They presume there are golfers out there, even the 20+ handicappers, who want to fork over $$$ to play a PGA/US Open/Ryder Cup course; that's their business model, and more power to them if they can carry it off.

-- Jud: Did I say you said it's a "dogtrack?" No. Did I say it's a brutal track? No. I did say, from what I've seen of it in '04, and so far in '10, that it's a solid test for the world's best players in a major -- it's played about as difficult as Hazeltine and Sahalee in recent PGAs, tougher than Medinah, Valhalla, and Atlanta, and easier than Oak Hill, Oakland Hills, and Baltusrol.

-- Richard: I know of 20+ handicappers who have played WS and loved it; I know of 10+ handicappers who thought it was brutally hard and not their cup of tea. To each his own; some people think the National Golf Links are an antiquated tricked-up course, and would probably think similarly of Old Macdonald.

-- Does it make sense for Rob to travel to Wisconsin when he has Bandon in his backyard? Probably not, but you're comment was that Keiser "beat" Kohler "at his own game." My contention is that they are not playing the same game.


Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #79 on: August 13, 2010, 11:06:09 AM »
I played the course soon after it opened and like it better than most.  I can't really argue with those who feel otherwise, however.

Bearing in mind that I'm reaching back ten years or so for a single round:

Some weaknesses:
The siting of the clubhouse is responsible for the awkward nature of both the 9th and 18th holes as they play back along the two sides of the washed out valley.  Agree
The double-dogleg par five on the front with pond is totally out of character.  Agree
Few angled shot requirements, either from the tee or on the approach - i.e., the golf course is extremely linear. disagree.  There are many angled greens.  some because they are built that way and some because of the shape of the greens make them play that way.  18 is a good example of the latter. 
Turfgrass maintenance in front of the greens thwarts the ground game, which the architecture often otherwise favors.Agree
Ho hum internal green contours. I'm not sure what you saw. but here is ample movement in the green interiors.
Superfluous peripheral bunkering. Disagree.  They are no more superflupous than trees that are off the playing lines of a course.  Not everything on a course has to come into play.
Few centerline hazards.
Ballybunion inspiration without blindness?  Disagree.  There are blind shots off the tee and depending on the second shot placement, blind shots into a few of the greens.  There may not be as many blicnd shots but they are there.

 .

Mike



Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #80 on: August 13, 2010, 11:08:35 AM »
This from Gary van Sickle of Golf.com will really piss Matt off.  The course does look spectacular in HD.

"Location, location, location… Every time TNT shows a player putting with Lake Michigan in the background, how many tee times get booked at Whistling Straits? The truth is, the Straits looks as good as Pebble Beach and Torrey Pines from the ground and from the blimp. Give it another 10 years, another PGA Championship and a Ryder Cup, and the Straits is going to work its way into the top 10 of those top 100 golf course lists. Hey, I wrote before the inaugural 2004 PGA here that if you wanted to play the Straits, you should do it before the PGA gave it global TV exposure. Now it's even more true."




Matt_Ward

Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #81 on: August 13, 2010, 11:11:06 AM »
Phil B:

I agree -- the photos only suck in the ignorant. The raters should be above such a situation but alas they are not.

I don't bash the people there for the mktg and hype they are generating -- I do expect raters and the top tier mags to see through the puff puff type stuff.

Phil McDade:

Great info and the all rest.

Let's cut to the chase -- do you see The Straits as being #3 among all Moden Courses since 1960 ?

If not -- then where would you place it among other Dye courses you have played and a bit of why would help?

The concept of "links" has become so bastardized to mean absoluetly nothing. The Straits provides a distant look but the actual feel and playing characteristics of a real links are no where to be found.

Phil, WS and the orignal Blackwolf Run layouts are very expensive and while the service is quite high -- the pace of play is often dreadful as you get Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass types have a six hour picnic when playing there. For those seeking something of real architectural merit make a quick deotur and head for Green Lake and Lawsonia.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #82 on: August 13, 2010, 11:11:45 AM »
OK-here's an olive branch...I will go on record that I think Whistling Straights is a better golf course than Torrey Pines....Happy?  

Phil,

Good history, thanx.  And I agree that it's a good test for these animals, particularly if the wind gets up.  
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Richard Choi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #83 on: August 13, 2010, 11:29:08 AM »
Let me see if this analogy works...

To me, a links course that does not play like a links course is kinda like a race car that looks like an F1 car, but with Nascar chassis and setup to be driven in a Nascar race - nothing but left turns. I don't think anyone would argue that this car can still go very fast and would be very fun to drive, but it would leave you wanting because you expect an F1 car to handle like an F1 car.

I would have a very hard time justifying spending $400/round playing WS when I can play Bandon courses for close to half that (probably less than half when you factor in the lodging costs). Why would I go there and pay more to play something that just looks like something when I can play the real thing? If I want more American golf experience, wouldn't I just go to Pebble Beach?

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #84 on: August 13, 2010, 11:35:36 AM »
Matt:

I have absolutely no basis by which to compare WStraits' current ranking, relative to other golf mag rankings, or to Pete Dye's other courses. I don't get around much, and I find the entire rankings debate rather pointless and silly (as evidence by some magazines not putting Lawsonia on the top-10 list of publics to play in Wisconsin ???)


Tim Pitner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #85 on: August 13, 2010, 11:50:08 AM »
Forget Bandon--I can't figure out why Whistling Straits is rated higher than the Ocean Course.  Kiawah is the only high-profile Dye course I've played but, based on what I've seen, Whistling Straits seems to be a point of departure for Dye (maybe not the exact point) from where he went over the top, building hideous stuff like Pound Ridge and the course in French Lick.  Continuing the music analogy from another thread, sometimes a masterful musician goes off in an entirely unwelcome direction and loses you (like when the Rolling Stones went disco). 


Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #86 on: August 13, 2010, 12:03:51 PM »
The more I watch this course the more I like it and judging by the comments from our members, it has the most wow factor of any US major course for some years.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Matt_Ward

Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #87 on: August 13, 2010, 12:19:15 PM »
Phil M:

I agree w you -- but I do find meaning in the ratings when you have it done by knoledgeable people -- the existing systems of using people as a Gallup poll proves what can happen.

Tim P:

Well said -- the Pete Dye of later years has produced -- with few exceptions -- just over-the-top efforts. I have played Pound Ridge a few times and it proves your point very well.

Adrian:

"Wow factor" -- really. Based on what -- the location of Lake Michigan and the concept that hosting majors validates any course. What do you assign to Torrey -- another "wow factor."

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #88 on: August 13, 2010, 12:27:47 PM »
Can someone who has teed it at WS provide some info on their favorite holes from a GCA standpoint?

Apologies if there was a list of them earlier - I didn't see it.


Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #89 on: August 13, 2010, 12:32:19 PM »
Matt,  can't disagree at all that Whistling Straits is overrated at #3 on Golfweek's modern list.  I disagree that it reflects a lack of architectural acumen among that magazine's raters, however.  More likely, it's simply a logistical issue.  

One could argue that Whistling Straits was both an archectural and engineering marvel when it was constructed and perhaps was a large step in the modern evolution of golf course architecture - a relatively remote, big, bold golf course hanging out over a large visually endless body of water.  Images of the course captured the golfing public's fancy and quite frankly its lofty early ratings (as opposed to ranking) were well deserved and sensical in 1998.

We have since seen several golf courses produced on superior land with arguably superior architecture.  However, the rater who gave WS a 9 can't very well assign a 12 to Sand Hills, for example.  Moreover, as raters - not unlike  GCA posters continue to demonstrate an almost insatiable appetite for the "next big thing" fewer and fewer make the trek to WS and as a result the previous lofty ratings are not changed to the point of being statistically meaningful.    For example, a handful of 7 ratings will not change 50 or so 8's and 9's so the "rankings" remain unrealistically static.  

A great example is Rees Jones' Quintero, which has taken several years to migrate down the Golfweek Modern list, barely hanging on at 96  even though it's never discussed here and I'd have a hard time giving it more than a 6.  

My gut tells me that Whisting Straigts is a 7-8 course, not the 8-9 course the #3 spot suggests.  That's still rock solid, don't you think?

Mike

Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Matt_Ward

Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #90 on: August 13, 2010, 12:38:53 PM »
Mike:

The raters by and large are like cattle -- they graze and gravitate to what they believe is getting the largest bang -- courses that host major events get the buzz and hence the rater's attention.

Ask many of them have they EVER been to Lawsonia? If the answer is no -- and they have been to WS and / or Erin Hills then you know what they are listening to.

I don't buy your premise about when the course was built and what it provided -- other more significant layouts opened prior to WS -- see the likes of Shadow Creek, to name just one.

From all the courses in the States I have played the entire combination of courses at Kohler would be fortunate to sniff a top 50 position. The archietcture is mainly vanilla at The Straits -- just create long holes with great eyecandy in Lake Michigan and away we go.

Mike -- The Straits is not an 8-9 layout -- more likely a solid 6 -- tops 7 and I'm being quite generous in that. Too many people falvor their assessments based on TV and the majors they host. Pull that out of the equation and the rest speaks for itself.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #91 on: August 13, 2010, 05:28:11 PM »
Matt,
I have the Straits at a 7.  That said, it is still one of the greatest engineering feats in golf course design (right up there with Shadow Creek and Mauna Kea).
Mark

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #92 on: August 13, 2010, 05:56:51 PM »
Phil M:

I agree w you -- but I do find meaning in the ratings when you have it done by knoledgeable people -- the existing systems of using people as a Gallup poll proves what can happen.

Tim P:

Well said -- the Pete Dye of later years has produced -- with few exceptions -- just over-the-top efforts. I have played Pound Ridge a few times and it proves your point very well.

Adrian:

"Wow factor" -- really. Based on what -- the location of Lake Michigan and the concept that hosting majors validates any course. What do you assign to Torrey -- another "wow factor."
Based on majority opinion Matt. The majority are liking this course. For me, its exciting and the holes are more dramatic that some of the recent PGA venues we are dished. Torrey Pines, yep I quite liked that, but not as good as WS.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Andy Troeger

Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #93 on: August 13, 2010, 06:25:07 PM »


1.  Rob wondered aloud whether it made sense, with Bandon in his back yard, to ever venture to WS.  The answer for any sane person who's not a Pete Dye fanatic is no.


Jud,
The answer for YOU is no. Leave the rest of us out of it. I'd happily return to Kohler and think folks would be missing something by skipping it entirely, no matter their location.


Andy,

Just a refresher...

Doak 7- An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere within 100 miles. You can expect to find soundly designed, interesting holes, good course conditioning and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.

Doak 8- One of the very best courses in its region (although there are more 8s in some places, and none in others), and worth a special trip to see. Could have some drawbacks, but these will clearly be spelled out, and it will make up for them with something really special in addition to the generally excellent layout.


Unless the course is a Doak 8 it's not worth Rob travelling from the West Coast to see...Hey, it's a free country.  If you want to spend your hard-earned dollars at Kohler knock yourself out.  And, oh, by the way, I've got a nice piece of swampland for you to check out.... ;)


Matt,

Thanks for saying what I didn't have the balls to say about the Irish course.....



Jud,
I'm perfectly comfortable giving Straits an 8. I gave it 7.5 earlier in the thread, but if I have to use a round number then 8 is fine by me. Blackwolf Run River is at least an 8 for me, so that one's worth it too. The back nine at Meadow Valleys is worth seeing too, but the other 27 holes don't do much for me.

Richard Choi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #94 on: August 13, 2010, 06:55:55 PM »
I will say this about Whistling Strait. If I am going to watch a target golf (like the vast majority of majors are), I would rather watch it on a course like Whistling Strait, which far more interesting visually, than a course with trees lining every fairway.

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #95 on: August 13, 2010, 09:09:47 PM »
Richard:

I know I'm the resident homer here, but I'm finding the tournament a lot of fun to watch, with the kind of stuff that seems to be up the alley of the GCA cognescenti -- options on how to play holes, wind playing a big role in how holes are played (and how players attack them), some blind shots, variety in hole lengths (i.e, par 4s playing 330 yards to 500+ yards), a few others.

I'll be interested to see the West Coast version of a totally manufactured faux links course soon!

Brent Carlson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #96 on: August 13, 2010, 10:43:12 PM »
How good is WS from an architectural perspective?  I'd say it is what it is.  The course was extremely enjoyable for me to play.  Overall I would give it a 7.  The funny thing is I could not recall many of the holes after finishing the round.  But one thing you do not forget is the amount of interaction you have with the lake.  It seems like every par 3 is right on the water.  In addition there are a couple nice skyline approaches.

WS does not have the links turf of a Bandon course but the eye candy is phenomenal.  It's hard to describe but the course has an isolated, serene feel to it.  I know it shouldn't matter but the high cost of a game is a bit of a downer for me.    However Mr. Kohler has that right to charge what the market will give.

I would say it is a course that every serious golfer should play at least once, and maybe only once.

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #97 on: August 14, 2010, 08:41:59 AM »
I recall an interview with Pete around the time of the last PGA in which he indicated he had concluded modern technology had made length its own reward for tour pros - he was not going to double reward length with a better angle. Does that philosophy result in the downgrade many on here give the course?  I have never played it.

Matthew Runde

Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #98 on: August 14, 2010, 07:09:05 PM »
Bear in mind that I haven't played the course.

To me, the setup looks extremely penal, but with winding fairways that give the impression of a strategic course.  The fairways look like flat, narrow ribbons, and if you miss them, the penalty is considerable.  That explains why I haven't seen much variety in where players want to hit the ball.  Almost everybody aims for the same spot, and strategy comes into play only after somebody has hit into a bunker.  I did see a choice to go with a 3-wood, instead of a driver, off the tee, presumably because the fairway was so important to hit.

The green complexes look like the most strategically-interesting parts of the course, because they are large and have quite a few rolls.  Also, some of the areas around the greens are cut short, letting errant shots roll away from the holes.

Basically, it looks like everybody's walking a tightrope, out there.

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective
« Reply #99 on: August 14, 2010, 10:07:53 PM »
WS is not flat on many/most holes.  The slopes are designed at lengths to tempt the player to give it all they can to get to some narrow speed slotsas risk reward.  The penalties can be very steep if you miss.  The short and cautious players have a decent measure of width where they can bat it around.  As I said on the other thread, the very cautious higher handi player can play tick tack and lay-up constantly, giving up most times getting on the greens in reg, and probably walk away unembarrased.  But, who pays $500 schemoles for a chance to tickie tack around, when there are huge challenges and temptations facing you and giving you opportunities to hit those career shots?  The greens are quite well designed and are a good balance of subtle to obvious contours that play very much into your approach decisions. 

I find it very hard to flat out say it is not great architecture.  It is so different and was created for such unique purposes and vision by Kohler and Dye, that it just doesn't offer much chance to take a hard and fast stand on its overall greatness in the pantheon of widely recognized great courses now or historically.  Just my opinion...
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.