The standards for Worly are different -- no one here that I've seen (including myself) has claimed that the course isn't good. But it's viewed as great -- perhaps the best 9-hole course in the world, and a Doak 9 (lacking a 10 only because it's 9 holes, as Tom himself has said). Subtle or not (and I'm a huge fan of subtle, and a known critic of the too-bold and over-the-top design -- see my comments on Wild Horse, Flossmoor, Blackwolf Run River, and a few others), I see little at Worly that distinguishes it from any number of other 9-hole courses I regularly play.
Phil,
How did you manage to determine that the standards for Mildenhall are different?
You haven't played the course. You are judging it based on photos, and that is hard to do with more subtle features. Why, exactly, do you think those of us who have actually played the course are incapable of assessing its merits and honestly rating it? Where does our supposed bias come from?
John:
This entire website is set up to judge courses based on photos.
Sean questioned why folks (presumably on this thread...) weren't assessing the course as good. My comments on this thread have readily acknowledged what appears -- from photos -- to be a good course, perhaps even very good.
But Doak gave this thing a 9 -- for a 9-hole course, that's as high of a rating as he'll give (and I am generally a fan of Tom's assessments of courses, both in the Confidential Guide and here on GCA; he and I are of similar views on Milwaukee CC, to cite one example -- admittedly he knows that course better than I as Renaissance has done work there). There are other writings out there that have labeled Worly as perhaps the best 9-hole course in the world, and generally the best in GB&I.
That you and Sean view it differently than me -- in terms of its worthiness of high praise -- shouldn't come under criticism; we're all here for the exchange of frank commentary on golf courses. Your (yours and Sean's) views certainly carry greater weight than mine, since you've both played it, but I'm fine with that. If we limited all commentary on this site to things only seen or played in person, the site would be poorer for it. I think you and Sean are perfectly capable of assessing its merits; I just don't see why it should come in for such high praise.
My aim in commenting on it -- based solely on photos -- is partly to prompt better arguments from those who have played it on its merits. So far, I've read little of that, other than Sean's view of it as a 7 (down from Doak's 9), and commentators saying, essentially, you have to see it to appreciate it (which, few people seem to say about a course like, e.g., NGLA, a course full of subtlety -- according to those who have played it -- yet also one whose architectural bonafides are readily apparent to anyone who's viewed photos and writings of its extensively, as I have.)
And it's not like I'm out there, all alone, in thinking this course might be over-rated. Note the commentary on this thread:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,48309.0.html and read Finegan's take on the course in
All Courses Great and Small -- those folks have played the course, and their views are more in line with mine than those of you and Sean.