[Ben Sims]

I have never played the course, but I will say this about what I saw on television.  I thought it was awful.  1200 bunkers?  The "pond hole" looked like Myrtle Beach putt putt.  Lazy shaping, outlandish features, max penalization of marginally poor shots.  These were the hallmarks of nearly every visual I saw over the weekend.  I also thought it was laughable how the CBS coverage seeked to "remind" the viewers that we were seeing a links golf course.  As if they were hoping to convince us of how great it was.

As a tournament, I think it was compelling.  Mostly due to the story lines of the twenty-somethings and in the end, Johnson's unfortunate mistake.  But don't kid yourself, this is no major quality golf course.   Based on TV coverage, I can't see how this course is top 10 of any list.  And I think it's very unfortunate that this same tournament will be back in 2015.  There are far more deserving and appropriate golf courses. 

Rant over.  And that said, TD makes a great point about how all WS has to do mathematically to be a top 10 course is have average scores of a reasonable range and not a bunch of 10's. 

[Scott Warren]

I think it's astaounding to read some of the comments in this thread and others by people who have never seen the golf course in the flesh.

Ben:

But don't kid yourself, this is no major quality golf course.   Based on TV coverage, I can't see how this course is top 10 of any list.

I just can't see how you can make either of those two claims having never been there and expect to be taken seriously, not least of all by the Golfweek raters who have been there and have rated it as they have (either positively or negatively).

[Rob_Waldron]

I have played The Straits and absolutely loved it. An interesting comparison is Erin Hills. The Straits is 100% contrived in the mind of Pete Dye from a completely blank slate while EH was carved out of more natural terrain by Hurzan, Fry and Whitten. Which takes more imagination and is better? It is difficult to argue. At least on a site with some topo you can incorporate holes into something that is alrady there. I think it may be more difficult to create something interesting from the blank slate. Chicago Highlands was designed by Art Hills from a blank slate and I think it is very imaginative. The better course is in the eye of the beholder. I enjoyed all three of these courses and cannot wait to return. BTW I even enjoyed the Irish COurse at WS. YOu can have the two courses at Blackwolf Run...They are no caomparison to WS.  

[C. Squier]

I have never played the course, but I will say this about what I saw on television.

Great, can't wait for your armchair analysis.  After that, please let us know how the new Domino's pizza tastes and if Angelina is really hotter than Jennifer. 

I thought it was awful.  1200 bunkers?  The "pond hole" looked like Myrtle Beach putt putt.  Lazy shaping, outlandish features, max penalization of marginally poor shots.

I sincerely hope you're not talking about DJ's drive on 18.  He hit it off the planet.

But don't kid yourself, this is no major quality golf course.   Based on TV coverage, I can't see how this course is top 10 of any list.

Perhaps you should start a new list.  One where visiting and playing the actual courses is prohibited.

 And I think it's very unfortunate that this same tournament will be back in 2015.  There are far more deserving and appropriate golf courses.  

Such as?  Please try to limit to ones you've actually seen.

It's a shame Dustin Johnson didn't have a shot in the playoff because his head was in his ass.  It's another shame Whistling Straits is getting trashed b/c of it.  While certainly not my favorite modern course, it definitely has it's place and there are plenty of arguments that put it right where it is.

[Fred Yanni]

I have logged 10+ rounds at WS and I would say this, WS is a great golfing experience but in my opinion not a "elite" golf course.   I wonder if the Golfweek raters have played the course that often.  I can see where upon just one or two playings there is certainly a feeling of breathtaking beauty and a bit of a "wow" factor.  However, on repeat playings I was surprised that many of my inital thoughts  about the course were incorrect.  

I thought the course would play more like a seaside links course, especially with the steady wind on the site.  Upon repeat playings the ariel game is really the preferred method of play and what the course generally allows.  This lack of optionality I found on repeat playings was disappointing.    

My general feeling was that all over the course the player was overly penalized for pretty minor misses.  This was especially true to the right of 4 where steep faced bunkers surrounded by unplayable rough guarded a hole where the length of the hole was the true challenge.  The average player's bailout to the right had the most severe penalty.  The same was true on 17 with the huge bunker that guards the right side of the green.  

My guess Ran is that the raters have not logged nearly the time necessary to properly evaluate the course and got caught up with the eye candy of the place and did not take the time to  understand the playability factor of the course.  


  

[Jerry Kluger]

Ran:

I think your question is perhaps influenced by your recent experience at Bandon.  The two courses at Bandon which are most influenced by the wind are Pacific Dunes and Bandon Dunes, both of which allow the vistas to be the eye candy and the course to seem natural and give the golfer some comfort.  The golfer needs the comfort of width on such a windy site which I also recently saw at Chambers Bay and which you do not see at WS.  One of the players was interviewed yesterday and said that the golfer has to focus on the play of the hole and try to ignore the distractions such as the dozens of bunkers on each hole.  I cannot imagine that there was any reason for all of those bunkers other than eye candy, and perhaps controversy.  If the course played as a true links course it would be unplayable and that is what I believe is your underlying problem with WS.  I guess my conclusion is that in the end eye candy makes for good ratings.

[Michael Huber]

Without being on the maintenance staff, it is hard to comment on how difficult it is to maintain. In fact it may be quite a breeze with so much of the course covered with Low Maintenance Fescue grasses and bunkers that don't get raked?


I would also contended that your argument for the course not being natural and man-made is a bad thing. NGLA is certainly not natural, not in look or creation. And you can argue that W.S. looks more natural than most courses out there anyway, would you call the look at Okamont, natural? I don't think, but its still great.

So the question is, why is it not #3. I am not saying it is, but you have to come up with a more substantial argument.

Great post Ryan and I agree with a lot of what you have said.  I don't see how WS's transformation from flat turd empty military site to big, bold golf cousre can be anything but a bad thing. If the architect and Kohler decdided to leave the site flat as a pancake, would the GCA treehouse be so complimentary of the course?  I'm just not buying it.  

That said, I can see why many would think it is over the top and in your face.

[Brad Klein]

Tom, don't be ridiculous. There are 100+ raters who have made their judgments on Whistling Straits on their own. 

[Jerry Kluger]

Clint: I have not played WS but I have played Chambers Bay where they will be playing the US Am this month and the US Open in 2015.  It is arguably a manufactured course on a windy site and let me suggest that you observe the contrasts between the two.  CB was designed to play like a links course, i.e., firm and fast with plenty of width.  CB doesn't have the eye candy of WS - to me, CB works better but let's continue the discussion after this month. 

[Matt_Ward]

Noel:

You are 10000000000000% right on The Irish -- and it is a zero.

The same motif is copied with The Straits. The difference?

It's not the course but the idea that because a major(s) have been there -- then ergo the course MUST be rated high.

Too many raters are enamored with the major championship validation sing / song.

The Straits is a solid testing course -- is it a top ten among all modern courses? Not among the ones I have played.

Where would the Straits rate for me?

Likely in the bottom half of a top 100 modern.

Cary:


Read you rcomments -- top ten among courses ?

How do you square that? "Must play?"

[Garland Bayley]

I think Whistling Straits shows how brilliant of an architect Pete Dye is. Ask yourself if anyone else could create something like it. Where does it say in life that in order to be good, it has to be natural.  I guess alot of plastic surgeons would be out of jobs if the majority of the public followed that rule.
...

Cary,

I have news for you. The majority of the public follows the rule that it is better to be natural than cut up or injected by a plastic surgeon. The plastic surgeons are not making their money from the majority of the public, but from a small percent of the public.

More news for you. I believe many architects could create something like Whistling Straits given the budget he was given (unlimited). But why would they want to?

[Garland Bayley]

Tom, don't be ridiculous. There are 100+ raters who have made their judgments on Whistling Straits on their own. 

Let's see. The person who gives WS the highest possible marks for "naturalness" is asking Tom not to be ridiculous. As they used to say on Laugh-in, "Very Interesting".

[George Pazin]

Ran:

As you know, I am a GW rater, but I have no idea how WS got its ranking. I have never played the course. I make it a policy never to comment on a course I have not played, no matter how many times I have seen it on TV. I'll just say this. I have no interest in playing the course. I have seen enough of Pete Dye's goofy bunkers on other courses.

Jim

Thanks for sharing this, Jim. I wonder if posters' choices of play cause a significant impact on its rating.

[C. Squier]

Clint: I have not played WS but I have played Chambers Bay where they will be playing the US Am this month and the US Open in 2015.  It is arguably a manufactured course on a windy site and let me suggest that you observe the contrasts between the two.  CB was designed to play like a links course, i.e., firm and fast with plenty of width.  CB doesn't have the eye candy of WS - to me, CB works better but let's continue the discussion after this month. 

Jerry, my post wasn't to persuade anyone to where WS should fall in the ratings, but to point out that rating from one's recliner is ridiculous.  

I've played both, I prefer the architecture of Chamber's Bay.  They are very different golf courses, however I'd disagree CB doesn't have plenty of "eye candy".  

[Jerry Kluger]

Clint: I would argue that eye candy is common in golf course architecture but too much of a good thing can lead to disaster. 

Cary:  I might consider the Ocean Course as brilliant but WS is lunacy.  Is the world a better place because of cosmetic plastic surgery? Do you think that WS can compare with Pacific Dunes - put them next to each other and one will be totally incomprehensible.

[Ben Sims]

I have never played the course, but I will say this about what I saw on television.

Great, can't wait for your armchair analysis.  After that, please let us know how the new Domino's pizza tastes and if Angelina is really hotter than Jennifer. 

I thought it was awful.  1200 bunkers?  The "pond hole" looked like Myrtle Beach putt putt.  Lazy shaping, outlandish features, max penalization of marginally poor shots.

I sincerely hope you're not talking about DJ's drive on 18.  He hit it off the planet.

No, not at all.  Elkington's tee shot on 17 comes to mind though. 

But don't kid yourself, this is no major quality golf course.   Based on TV coverage, I can't see how this course is top 10 of any list.

Perhaps you should start a new list.  One where visiting and playing the actual courses is prohibited.

Yes my comments were secondhand based on my opinion of visuals presented on television.  There is NO crime in that.  I haven't rated the course officially for anyone, so this is an opinion based on what I saw.  Get over it.  I can garauntee you this if I do play it and rate it one day, I will be fair.  But based on what I saw on TV--oh the humanity--I am not impressed and slightly off put by the severity and abruptness of the green surrounds and decidedly extraneous use of bunkers. 

And I think it's very unfortunate that this same tournament will be back in 2015.  There are far more deserving and appropriate golf courses. 

Such as?  Please try to limit to ones you've actually seen.

That's not the subject of this thread.

[Phil McDade]

I am not impressed and slightly off put by the severity and abruptness of the green surrounds and decidedly extraneous use of bunkers. 

Ben:

Kinda like Pine Valley?

[Garland Bayley]

Ran:

As you know, I am a GW rater, but I have no idea how WS got its ranking. I have never played the course. I make it a policy never to comment on a course I have not played, no matter how many times I have seen it on TV. I'll just say this. I have no interest in playing the course. I have seen enough of Pete Dye's goofy bunkers on other courses.

Jim

It seems to me that for rating systems to have any meaning, you are exactly the person we need to get out there and rate the place. If there is any valid argument to letting raters play for free, allowing those with contrary opinions to play for free so you get their opinions too seems to me to be a most valid one.

[Ben Sims]

I am not impressed and slightly off put by the severity and abruptness of the green surrounds and decidedly extraneous use of bunkers. 

Ben:

Kinda like Pine Valley?

Well that puts me in a conundrum now doesn'it it?

Let me ruminate. 

[jim_lewis]

I suppose I should elaborate on my earlier post.

In the past decade or so, I have traveled to most every state in this country to rate courses for GW. Many of the courses I rated are famous, but many are not. I traveled extensively to see courses that I had no particular interest in playing, but I think that is the duty of any rater. On two occasions I made plans to go to Kohler, but had to cancel for family reasons. Now I have reached an age and my game has reached a point where I have no business playing and rating very hard courses. If I can't play the course decently, I don't think I can rate it fairly and accurately. I now travel primarily in the South where I live. Long marathon golf trips are a thing of the past for me. Most of my rating trips are 2-3 days. A few years ago I would have gone to Wisconsin and Minnesota and played 8-10 courses in one trip. No more.

WS looks too hard for me. I'll let the younger guys rate it. I try to never have a preconceived opinion of a course I am rating. I just don't think I could maintain that standard with WS. I'll take the couple of thousand dollars that a trip to WS would cost and apply it to several shorter triips closer to home.

[Fred Yanni]

Phil,

IMO the penatly for a small miss at WS is more severe than PV.  Maybe it is because PV has more room off the tees or PV has better design around some of the greens that kick the ball towards the green like left on 5, right on 2, left on 15.  I do think the severity of the penalty at WS when compared to the severity of the miss is worse than a similiar miss at PV.  

Also I am sure I don't know every bunker at PV but I am curious where all the extraneous bunkers are at PV, some examples would be helpful.  I may be wrong but The bunkers at PV all seem to have a real purpose.  

Thanks

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, don't be ridiculous. There are 100+ raters who have made their judgments on Whistling Straits on their own. 

Brad:

I was only responding to Michael Whitaker's post that your review of the course was the justification for it being ranked so highly.  In fact, as you say, that's only YOUR opinion, and does not explain why 100 panelists think so highly of the course.

I'm inclined to think that Cary nailed it by saying, "Is it number 3? I don't pretend to know, but it certainly belongs in the top 10 of modern and a must play for everyone."  If that's the prevailing opinion, then it's as high as it is partly by default.  But then, I've never been as impressed by championship courses as others are.  I respect them; I am amazed that Pete Dye can build a course that can handle Bubba Watson's game equitably.  But that doesn't mean I would find it fun to play.

[George Pazin]

...But then, I've never been as impressed by championship courses as others are.  I respect them; I am amazed that Pete Dye can build a course that can handle Bubba Watson's game equitably.  But that doesn't mean I would find it fun to play.

Does it? Handle Bubba's game, I mean. I almost feel like it penalizes the bombers.

I am all for promoting thoughtful play. I'm not at all certain that courses like this do so. Cautious play, sure, thoughtful play, not so sure.

[Tom_Doak]

George:

I didn't see any of the tournament at all; I was on vacation in Montana.  But, looking at the leader board, I think you would have a hard time making the case that the bombers were unduly penalized.

[George Pazin]

No fair using objective facts to undermine my argument!

You're right, of course, but part of me thinks that this type of course penalizes the long guy, and the bombers just go past that, and will be penalized in the future.

Gotta think about it more...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()