I play RTJ’s Tanglewood NC course fairly frequently because it is inexpensive and because I live only a mile away. For me, an aging 18 handicapper, it is boring.
Shouldn’t a measure of greatness for a course (and architech) be how easy or difficult it is to figure out how to score? I probably wouldn’t understand TOC after a dozen rounds, but it only took two rounds to decipher Tanglewood. At least it did for a duffer like me.
The only Doak course I have played is Dismal Red. No single strategy works on all the holes there. I would enjoy playing it over and over to discover the best ways (FOR ME) to play each hole.
Tanglewood is penal if you are wild and has about fifty* sand bunkers surrounding each green. For a duffer the strategy is simple, especially since the greens require an aerial approach.
All one must do is play safe off the tee, lay up short of the greenfront bunkers and chip as close as possible for a par putt or an easy bogey. So a duffer can score – but it is still boring. If Tanglewood is a decent example of an RTJ course than I am not impressed.
Am I “out of bounds” here? Is the ability to “solve” a course a decent measuring stick for rating it?
*Possibly exaggerated