So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective

[Matt_Ward]

It seems we are in the time frame where certain layouts are being seen as the optimum spots for majors -- Wisconsin is ground zero for one of them with the likes of The Straits Course at WS. I have played all the layouts connected to the Kohler location and have always left scratching on what the big deal is with the Straits course. Pete has done better in my mind but if one were to judge from the Golfweek ratings it appears people believe it's his best work.

I don't see much architectural qualities -- save for the proximity to Lake Michigan and the desire to provide a ton of make-up to what was completely devoid of any outstanding land characteristic.

Again, the factor in hosting a major sways people. There's little doubt there.

In my own personal assessments of courses -- The Straits would occupy a far lower position among what Pete has designed. Be interested in what others have to say and where they would place it among all the layouts they have played.

[Jud_T]

I don't see much architectural qualities -- save for the proximity to Lake Michigan and the desire to provide a ton of make-up to what was completely devoid of any outstanding land characteristic.

I believe the phrase is lipstick on a pig.     WS doesn't sniff my top 25 and I'm not nearly as well travelled as you are.  Doak 6-7 in my book.  Clearly if you take away the lake views, the imported sheep, Kohler's marketing muscle and a couple of majors it wouldn't be rated so highly IMHO.  Strong players seem to relish the challenge presented by the back tees, and folks who've never played a real links course seem to ooh and ahh, but I don't really get it either.

[RJ_Daley]

In my mind it isn't the great architectural design masterpiece that some characterize it.  But, it is a great pro or major venue competition golf course built for such.  For most every other golfer who plays there, I think it is more a trophy course to add to your bucket list, where the freight to play almost demands you praise it or you'd feel like a sucker to have forked out that much. 

It is a great construction/design course, taken in that competition context.  Pete Dye and his organization aren't chimps and don't design crappy courses, that I'm aware of.  It just needs to be viewed in the context of an extravagant design/build process to force tough competition at the upper levels of skilled play, IMHO.  It just isn't the sort of course most enthusiastic amatuer golf lovers I know would want to play day after day because a great golf architect designed a great course over interesting land where all the playing fun and aesthetic of a great walk through interesting land comes together in a rational accessibility for all comers. 

But, if you are one that would love to play it day in and out, and you can, have at it. 

[Mac Plumart]

Random thought derived from posts on this site and comments from others, as I haven't played the course.

But is it possible the way the course was built drives it up the ratings similiar to Shadow Creek?

Both were essentially man-made courses, Shadow Creek from nothing desert.  While WS had the lake.

So, when the architect creates this course from a nothing site, it is all the rave as it is an engineering masterpiece.  But over time, that novelty wears off and the course is simply what the course is.  Shadow Creek has been falling in the rankings as it is a pretty nice course, but not all the amazing.

Like I said, I haven't played WS...but I am wondering if that theory could hold some water. 

And yes, the majors definatley add to the aura of the course...if the course holds a PGA tour event it has to be good; and hell if it held a major, it has to be amazing.  Right?

[Jud_T]

I think you're on to something Mac.  Further example:  Our group of miscreants plans a trip every year.  We went to Kohler once.  We are not planning on going back.  WS is an easy drive for me but instead I just got off the phone to book another trip to Bandon....

[JMEvensky]

In my mind it isn't the great architectural design masterpiece that some characterize it.  But, it is a great pro or major venue competition golf course built for such.   
 

I agree and think this alone qualifies it as good architecture.It was designed to challenge the best players in the world.By this standard,it's very successful.

Wouldn't WS be comparable to TPC Sawgrass in this regard--"resort" courses designed for the best players but open to everyone?

[Jason Topp]

[

Wouldn't WS be comparable to TPC Sawgrass in this regard--"resort" courses designed for the best players but open to everyone?

Not to jump off topic but I think TPC Sawgrass is very playable for most.  The only forced carries are on 4, 9, 11 and 17.  4 and 17 are with a short iron in hand, 11 can be carried with anything from a wedge to a fairway wood depending on the player's route to the green.  9 is a short carry on the second shot of a par five from a very wide fairway.  It is only when one gets too agressive that the course bites back.

[Jud_T]

I think WS is also very playable assuming one plays the proper tees.  Someone who ventures back beyond their ability is in for a long day....

[Steve Burrows]

In my mind it isn't the great architectural design masterpiece that some characterize it.  But, it is a great pro or major venue competition golf course built for such.   
 

I agree and think this alone qualifies it as good architecture.It was designed to challenge the best players in the world.By this standard,it's very successful.

Wouldn't WS be comparable to TPC Sawgrass in this regard--"resort" courses designed for the best players but open to everyone?

I like these notions.  If a developer/client approaches a designer with a certain goal, and that designer produce it in spades, it is solid architecture.  Perhaps the intelligentsia may regard the golf course as one-dimensional, or lacking in playing options, or otherwise, but if it accomplishes what it set out to do (which we can assume is to host major championships), then all the other stuff is out the window. 

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think WS looks pretty good and would be nearer a Doak 8 IMO. On the negative, I think there are too many bunkers and some are just nonsense, but overall it looks from a TV perspective as way above normal PGA tour stuff and far more memorable than last years USPGA course or the one before that or that. I remember the 18th hole from several years back, 17th too, so it must make a reasonable impact. I think the normal golfers watching this will really like the course.

[Jud_T]

In my mind it isn't the great architectural design masterpiece that some characterize it.  But, it is a great pro or major venue competition golf course built for such.   
 

I agree and think this alone qualifies it as good architecture.It was designed to challenge the best players in the world.By this standard,it's very successful.

Wouldn't WS be comparable to TPC Sawgrass in this regard--"resort" courses designed for the best players but open to everyone?

I like these notions.  If a developer/client approaches a designer with a certain goal, and that designer produce it in spades, it is solid architecture.  Perhaps the intelligentsia may regard the golf course as one-dimensional, or lacking in playing options, or otherwise, but if it accomplishes what it set out to do (which we can assume is to host major championships), then all the other stuff is out the window. 

Steve,

I'm a bit confused.  Are you saying that as long as the GCA does what the client wants then it's solid Architecture?  What if the client instructs you to build a pile of sh*t with a golf hole in the middle? What if the client's a rich idiot who thinks he knows something about GCA?  I don't get it....

[Michael Barnett]

This strikes me as a very interesting question.  First, I have never played nor visited the Straits course (so please take my comments with a grain of salt), as such my view is framed only by what I have seen on television and read about the course.  Initially I was incredibly excited to see and play the course, and see what new it might have brought to Dye's remarkable and unique collection of courses (Harbour Town, Kiawah, TPC Sawgrass, PDGC, et al.), however upon repeated viewings I struggle to see what has been done here that is compelling and a must see (putting it in the Doak 8'ish category).

In no way is that meant as a slight; the simple accomplishment of delivering a championship quality course to an owner that requested it with such a remarkable amount of earth to be moved during the process (regardless of budget) is something that should be marveled it along the lines of what was accomplished with Shadow Creek (different goal of course).  Clearly there are many examples over the years of courses/owners which have failed in that very goal.  As such, I think many elements of the CG description of Shadow Creek are applicable here given their respective successes. 

However, to me the difference between good and great architecture, or a "special trip" vs. "being in the area" are pretty important distinctions at this level.  WS is not the first course to host multiple major championships, nor IMO is it the most interesting usage of its unique setting.  Finally, from a "shot value" perspective it doesn't strike me as adding something altogether new or interesting.  By no means do I think its a bad course, but I suppose that's why I'd probably put it in the good but not great bucket (like some on here) and gladly schedule my 2nd trip to Bandon (next June, can't wait ) before my first to WS.

[Steve Burrows]

Jud,

It's not as though the client asked a street urchin to build him a golf course; he asked Pete Dye, a man who is right up there as one of the greatest golf course designers in history, to build him a golf course that is capable of hosting major championships (again, I am only assuming that this was part of the business model).  Basing his decision to hire Mr. Dye on a nearly 50 year-old portfolio, a quality product of sound architecture was expected, and produced. 

Perhaps WS doesn't have the intangible charms of those other courses held in such high regard on this site, but this is compensated for in Mr. Dye's reputation of knowing how to challenge golfers, not just professional golfers, but ALL golfers.  Perhaps it's not everyone's cup of tea, but then again, neither is work by Frank Gehry, or Richard Meier.

[Phil McDade]

"...he asked Pete Dye, a man who is right up there as one of the greatest golf course designers in history, to build him a golf course that is capable of hosting major championships (again, I am only assuming that this was part of the business model).

Steve:

It was the entire  business model.

Within the next few years, WStraits will have hosted three PGAs and a Ryder Cup. I think Kohler got what he wanted out of Dye.

[Jud_T]

Phil,
That may very well be the case, but does meeting the aim make it by definition "solid architecture"

[Ted Cahill]

Jud said it well:  for folks who have not played a links course- it's ooohh and ahhh.  That was me.  Then I made my first visit to Bandon Dunes resort a couple years ago.  When I played WS after I had played Pacific Dunes, WS was not as impressive.  I think the costs of WS contribute to my more tepid view of it.  I love going to Kohler for a golf weekend, but I stick to the other three courses and usually go off season and get good deals on Meadows and the Irish.  I find I have as much fun on the Irish as WS for under a hundred bucks.   

[Matt_Ward]

Mac:

SC has never held a major nor likely will ever. The fanfare came from the "exclusive" nature that Steve Wynn so cleverly built for his customers to enjoy when coming to Vegas. The course has lost a good bit of that cache since MGM took over the joint.

WS, on the other hand, is Herb Kohler's shining star to host majors and from that singular standpoint it's a peach of a layout with all the room that a major site today needs.

I don't see the design elements that make it come close to what Pete has done at TPC / Sawgrass. The FL layout is well done and has only improved since its inception many years ago.

Pete just pushed dirt all over the place to create "the look" and "the character" for The Straits course. No doubt when you host majors and other big time events in the years to come you get people who automatically get sucked into believing great golf is there.

At the end of the day GW raters have the place in the top ten of modern layouts with other Dye courses trailing -- and in some cases trailing badly. I shae my head with such a clear error in judgement.

[Mac Plumart]

Matt...

you said; "At the end of the day GW raters have the place in the top ten of modern layouts with other Dye courses trailing -- and in some cases trailing badly. I shae my head with such a clear error in judgement."

But all the major rating entities have WS as the best Dye course.  That is what gets me about this whole topic.  Why so much angst for this course on this website, but so much love from all the raters.

Like I've mentioned before, I haven't played it...so I can't speak directly to it.  But I have played Kiawah Ocean, The Golf Club, TPC Sawgrass, Paiute Wolf, PDGC of WV, and Harbour Town.  And frankly, I love them all...but I do struggle to see that Whistling Straits is his best...but again I haven't played it.

Anyway, it is just weird the love/hate thing going on relative to rating entities and this site.

[Phil McDade]

Phil,
That may very well be the case, but does meeting the aim make it by definition "solid architecture"

Jud:

I haven't played it, only walked it extensively. My take is this (cliche version):

It is what it is -- a golf course designed exclusively to hold a major (and thus provide a fairly difficult test for the best players of the world). It's totally artificial, but so are alot of other courses that get kudos here and elsewhere (Dye's Harbourtown comes to mind).

I think it looks pretty cool, and demands a lot of today's Tour players -- some tough carries on tee shots, intimidating par 3s, a tough closer in 18, some heroic stuff on 17 and 13, some quirk on 6, 10, and 12. Tough greens to figure out. People rag on the price tag, but that's as irrelevant to me in assessing its worthiness as a piece of golf architecture as is its artificial nature.

Is is "better" or "worse" than some other major venues? Well, it's not Oakmont, but little else in this country is. For a long list of reasons, rehashed often here at GCA, the folks putting on majors (USGA, PGA) have boxed themselves into a certain type of course, and WStraits strikes me as lesser than some (Oakmont, Shinnecock), and better than others (Hazeltine, Torrey Pines, Baltusrol).

[Andy Troeger]

On one hand, I don't think Whistling Straits gets a fair shake on this website. The most common comparison is to Bandon which does no service to either facility as it appears they are rather different. Taken on its own, the Straits is a strong championship course with some great aesthetics. The par threes are strong, although a bit repetitive. The course has many bold features, and some strong par fours like the 4th and 15th. It has a good flow with many returns to the lake. I don't love the 5th hole but think its fine strategically and a reasonable compromise to get the course built. The 18th is not my favorite either.

Given all that, I don't think its Pete Dye's finest, and probably wouldn't be in the top five. I'd rather a return visit to The Golf Club, Blackwolf Run, TPC Sawgrass, or The Honors over Whistling Straits. I'd put it in the 100 Greatest, but perhaps in the bottom half, and think its a great championship venue. Its challenging for the pros, but reasonable to play for the rest of us if played at a reasonable yardage.

[Ben Voelker]

From my limited experience I would go with BR River over Whistling Straits.  I have played each course once, but find a much wider variety of holes and shot types are available at BRR as apposed to WS.  Its been years since I played at either, but distinctly remember enjoying 5, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 16 as very good holes at BRR.

At WS, the par 3's are cool, but are a bit limited in variety in my opinion, although I do like 12 in particular because of the huge variety of shots that can be required based on the pin position.  Its been long enough now that many of the holes run together, but I specifically remember 2 and 4 running together only a few weeks after playing!  Maybe Dye focused too hard on getting as many holes as he could n the waterfront.  That said, I do like 6, 10 and 12 in particular, but much of the course is a hodgepodge in my memory now

I don't know much about who the raters are and what their background is.  They are obviously playing all of the top notch courses, so this may not apply, but...I know as a public golfer and having been to a few of these places that the "major championship host" or even tour event host factor cannot be taken lightly for a public facility.  Many guys I have seen at these kinds of places (WS, Torrey Pines, Cog Hill) are just excited to get the chance to play where their idols do and would rate it highly no matter what the course presented.

[Matt_Ward]

Mac:

My bewilderment is not along w Golfweek but the other mags that seem to believe The Straits is some sort of architectural wonder. Pete has done better and frankly the major championship "bounce" is what really puzzles me. Too many layouts are getting "bounces" from hosting events but the overall architectural elements with many of them is not really special.

I don't doubt the scale of The Straits and it's wherewithal to host a 2010 major.

But, if anyone really sees the layout as a bonafide top 50 course in the USA then their overall portfolio of courses played is quite limited.

[Fred Yanni]

Matt,

I have played between 9-12 rounds now at WS and still struggle how to classify this course.  Maybe by modern definition it is a links course.  Not that a links course by defintion requires a player to have the option to play shots along the ground into holes but I was shocked that the ariel game was required as often as it was and seemed to be the preferred option on most of the holes the first time I played WS.  They "feel" of the property is that you would have more of a variety of shot options, you really do not.  

From an architectural perspective, and I am far from an expert, IMO there is nothing that interesting to me on the property.  I do like the options to take the high route on the 11th hole (par 5) and the design of that green is pretty interesting with the run off points.  I do not like the changes to number 6 and the silly pot bunker and small right portion of the green.  If the hole was a drivable par 4 ok, but it usually plays into the wind.  I think the dune short right on 17 ruins the tee shot and gives the average player no resonable bail out option on the hole.  The 18th has been a mess since they plowed under the fairway to the left and gave the player no option to have a flat lie when playing their 2nd shot into the green.

I will never turn a round down there and Dye has done a solid job on the propoerty he was given.  There are a couple of initial wow moments when walking onto the par 3s (which are generally well done but all feel kind of the same).  But generally I struggle to remember most of the other holes which is not a good sign when I have played the course as often as I have.  For example, I played the Creek on Tuesday and can walk you through that entire course.  That course is very interesting from a architectural perspective.  

[Matt_Ward]

Fred:

Thanks for your insightful comments.

The Straits is not a links course -- it is a concocted muscular layout that overdoses with all the elements Pete and company can throw into the picture.

You are so right -- aerial is the way to go there.

The course also benefits from having Lake Michigan as a spectacular water backdrop.

The par-3 holes are garden varieties of the same shot value again and again -- although I do like the 17th albeit without any real bailout proviso as you mentioned.

Like I said -- clearly people -- and I mean raters of various types and pubs -- have elevated the course but if someone can specify for me what makes it so great to be rated among the top five modern by Golfweek, to name just one source, I'd love to know the reasons.

[jonathan_becker]

A couple of things that have kept with me about WS and haven't been mentioned yet on this thread are in regards to walking.  

First, I played the back tees and a lot of the walking areas were so tight off the tees that I had to keep my head down or I felt like I was going to trip.  A few times I was putting one foot in front of the other.  Also, when the ball is sprayed into one of the bunkers that are off from the fairway, it takes some time and caution to actually reach the ball.  I watched guys do this and it was quite an adventure on some of the holes.  The crazy part was that it wasn't a situation where they should have picked up and gone to the next tee, they just had to traverse all the bunkers and tight areas to get where they were going.  

In regards to the holes, my buddy said it best about #5.  When looking at the aerial he said, "It looks like #5 is a skin graft that is waiting to be rejected by the host."