Pac Dunes as 11 in US by Golf

[Evan_Green]

I've been thinking about this one for the last week and I'm still not sure how I feel about it. While I loved the course and certainly think it should be on the GOLF list, I have to say that I was surprised it was rated as high as it was. Sandwiched between WFW and NGLA is the upper echelon of the upper echelon. The course was great, but is it that great? Thats the question I've been asking myself, and I cant say that I know the answer yet.

Curious to hear what others thought about this rating.

[THuckaby2]

Evan:

I think we get too caught up in the minutia of these ratings.  Is Pacific Dunes a great golf course?  Yes, withut a doubt.  Is it equal to or better than NGLA or WF?  That seems like a stretch.  But does PD at 11 really mean it's better than No. 12?

I don't think so.  The point differences are so tiny... I think you could validly say that #11 is clearly better than #90 or whatever, but when it comes to one place away, well... In the immortal words of Todd Flanders, they are "equally good."

 

So the real question is does PD even belong as an equal to those around it - which I guess is what you are asking - sorry for my rant....

And to that I say, yes.  It is that good.  I'd put NGLA clearly above it, but that's because NGLA is at times my personal #1 in the world.  So throw that out, I am BIASED toward that wonderful golf course.

But it does seem "in place" with the others around it, to me anyway....

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

As you may be aware, I rarely get that worked up about rating issues. I'm more interested to hear details about a golf course and why I might enjoy spending time there.

Evan asks whether Pacific Dunes compares to Winged Foot or NGLA. Let me just comment on the Winged Foot example.

Candidly, I'll bet many golfers would prefer playing Pacific Dunes to Winged Foot any day. Winged Foot is a hard golf course that can easily humble most golfers. While undoubtedly great - I was reminded of that on a recent visit -I'm inclined to think it doesn't compare to Pacific Dunes when it comes to producing pleasure for the vast majority of golfers.

In this regard, I think Tom Doak has his head screwed on right. What really could be more important than producing the most total fun for everyone playing the course? If Tom borrowed that philosophy from Mackenzie, all the better. He made the right choice as far as I'm concerned.

Winged Foot is probably better if you want to conduct a severe test for the most elite group of golfers, but that is a pretty limited aspect of the game in my book.

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

Muchas gracias, that makes perfect sense to me.  I've never seen WF other than on TV, so this helps a lot.

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

One point to add about Winged Foot: I don't think television does it justice. That's because there is so much happening on the greens that television just doesn't capture.

It would be really cool to go to Winged Foot and take the tee to green part of the game out of the equation just to see how one might do. That is to say play a round without making tee shots or approach shots. Just assume you were playing this part of the game very well and place:

12 shots somewhere on the green and 6 somewhere around the green (including 3-4 in the bunkers).

I suspect you would wind up with a surprising number of three putts,not many up and downs and get a humbling lesson on how difficult Winged Foot can be even for the man with a world class game tee to green.

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

I had no doubt that TV did not do justice to WF... it rarely does for any quality course.  But that's very interesting re "greenside" game... I didn't know that at all, when I think WF I think treelined, long, tough.  Very good stuff - thanks.

My cousin played there awhile back and all he said was "BRUTAL".

TH

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Re:  WFW

The beauty of WFW is its difficulty in scoring in relation to "Old Man Par".  Many holes are just too ling to be reached in regulation by the 14-24 handicapper fron the whites - especially when playing as a par 70 with 9 and 16 as par 4's.  For golfers in this ability level, WFW tests the ability to chip and putt with the resulting stress-free bogey.  My 18 hcp mother has broken 90 a number of times.

For the uber-golfer, 440-470 par 4's are tough pars/easy bogies or worse.  All aboard the bogey train!!!  The only water is on 15.  Defensive, shoot away from the pin with anything more than a 7-iron golf.  Avoid the short side at all costs.  The stronger golfer's first putts will be exacting as opposed to the person who hit the 50 yard and in chip shot with a 3-6 footer for par.

WFW is much tougher on the par player than the bogey golfer.

KLP

[Evan_Green]

Gentlemen-

I played at Winged Foot a couple of weeks ago and thought that it was one of the greatest designs I have ever seen. It is a very difficult course- no question about it- but it is very fair. I played from the back tees and while the current back tees are not as difficult as a few of the new 06 Open back tees, I never felt overmatched by the course (unless you turn the par 5's into par 4's) from tee to green. If you miss a green- your chances of par are not good, but its not the kind of course you will make a lot of big numbers on (unless there is 4 inch rough of course).

I could definately see how WF could beat up a player not on his game and make for a frustrating day- whereas Pacific Dunes is much less likely to do that- you can hit some really bad shots and still end up in the fairway or on the green due to the size of the fairways and greens, however I believe the challenge at WF is superior to that of PD and that makes WF more appealing to me- not challenge in a stupid tricked up way- but fair honest challenge--- but i could see how PD could be more "fun" and why others would prefer to play it. Its all a matter of personal opinion what constitutes "great" whether its fun, challenge, fairness, history, architecture, innovation or whatever.