I'm sorry I missed this topic until now!
But reading through it (and I will read it again more carefully) I have to say I feel it's one of the most significant topics on Golfclubatlas for a whole variety of reasons!
And some of those reasons would include the extreme exclusivity of the club and also the entire undertaking of it. Another reason, and one that should be the most fascinating and also the subject that Golflclubatlas should concentrate on the most is the architecture of the course and its original "maintenance meld" that combined with the design, as explained by Jim Lewis.
This should be interesting to us since it appears to be a superlative case study in the outside edge or limit, if you will, of one end of the spectrum of both architecture and set-up (maintenance) that says a ton of interesting things about so many of the factors we discuss on this site--and many times we discuss it only in theory! It sounds to me as if Cherokee Plantation's golf course, at least originally, may have presented even the best golfer, in fact not in theory, many of those factors we discuss! And for that reason it should be extremely fascinating to us!
For posting this topic, particularly the analysis of the golf course, but also the background and make-up of the club itself, we should be very grateful to Jim Lewis!
But here are some of the other reasons I believe this topic is one of Golfclubatlas's most significant! And I'm fairly certain that many of GCA's contributors will hate me for mentioning these things!
The first and most important reason is it shows how we react to such a place as Cherokee Plantation that is without doubt unusual. We clearly have the opportunity to analyze a significant golf course and particularly the exact and detailed reasons of the effects of its apparent difficulty, challenge or severity on two of the world's top players. That alone is a most interesting subject as it is simply not something we ever see much of these days! A course that came close to embarrasing two of the world's best players!?. What more interesting subject could we ask for to study and analyze the architectural (and maintenance) reasons why? We have (had) the opportunity to analyze why and in detail!
But what do we do instead? We start to criticize those who put up the money to build the place! Instead of concentrating on the architecture and its related subjects we launch immediately into a social and economic commentary and critique of the people who built the place!
Whatever "value" or "worth" Cherokee Plantation is to those who put up the money and belong to it is certainly no concern of mine. The fact that a membership in the club maybe worth 100 times more to them than to me is of no concern either! And I hardly think that an unusual, extravagant and yes even ostentatious project like this one is going to ultimately upset the economics of golf or golf course architecture either. I have no idea of the fees and profit Steele might have made on this project but I'm quite certain he realizes that if it was excessive he likely will not be able to carry that fee and profit into his next project--wherever that may be!
So, I think we have or did have a unique opportunity to analyze a golf course, that even if it did miss the mark as to its "playability" for its members, is nevertheless a fascinating study in design just because of what Els and Duval were faced with there as well as how the club is tweaking its course back to reasonable playability for its members! That to me is a most fascinating subject to study and discuss--architecturally--and maintenance-wise! The very first question we should have been asking and discussing on this topic is, "Was it totally over the top architecturally and maintenance-wise and, if so, why? What if we came to the conclusion on close analysis that it was not?? That would be increbibly fascinating and instructive for many of the things we like to concern ourselves with in the study and discussion of architecture.
And the last reason is things like commentary on the analogies to the Enron situation is not going to help us be able to discuss this fascinating architectural subjectl! It's going to do the opposite for us! It's going to shut off--again--from us, any discussion with the club or anyone involved with it, like it has with so many of the other subject clubs we've treated on here in this manner!
Ultimately, this really hurts Golfclubatlas itself. Not getting access to play a course like Cherokee is probably simply an American reality! But it may not be so for getting access from the club or those involved with it to discuss it's architecture (and maybe even the project itself). That would certainly be my hope for this GCA discussion group with any golf club that has something about it that is interesting to the subject and discussion of architecture.
I don't think we really need to be accusatory and condemning of some of the people involved in some of these clubs like the Merions or Cherokees, simply for our own good. If we critique or even condemn some of the things about their course's architecture, and then leave it at that, that's much more acceptable and understandable, certainly to them!
I shouldn't even cite names but just look at Ran Morrissett's posts in this topic! He steered clear of the social and economic commentary posts and tried to steer this subject back to the point of this website. So did Turboe, it seems!
Personally, I think we should learn something in how best to contribute from guys like Tom MacWood and Mike Cirba who although they very well may have strong feelings about architecture, and do state them, at least they keep their feelings focused on architecture! We should too--certainly including me! It's a lot better for all of us to do that and it's much better for this site too!
I realize this post won't sit well with plenty of contributors who will get pissed at me--and maybe I deserve it! And I'm in no way denying that what RJ said is true; "But, we still have the freedom to be revolted and express such if we choose..."
Of course we have that freedom of expression on here--on the Internet! But let's see if we can't use that freedom of expression better to make this website better and more expansive, more far-reaching too--not less so!
Let's criticize the hell out of architecture if it seems to deserve it, but after the architecture the criticism should begin to end.