News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Kalen Braley

  • Total Karma: 1
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #75 on: January 06, 2019, 11:35:06 AM »
I know this site is always going to care about rankings, because we care about golf courses...

But every year I always get the giggles seeing people lose their minds with why such and such system is broken and "here's how to fix it". Its just the nature of the beast that any rankings is going to suspect at best, not due to using a numerically based system or how many raters are involved, or even who does the rankings....but because of the subject matter.

Trying to objectively rate golf courses is a fool's errand, akin to trying to rate the best paintings, the best tacos, the best verses in the bible, or the best national park.

By all means thou continue to let the fur fly and jam that square peg in the round hole!  ;)

Jeff Schley

  • Total Karma: -1
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #76 on: January 06, 2019, 12:31:54 PM »
So true Kalen..... I mean who cares what the order is right?  They are all great... squabbling over a hundredth of a point here and there..... I'm not picky.... I see a whole like of Doak 9's and 10's right here. I don't think any of us will be too choosy.  Although I'm always partial to Miss Venezuela. ;D

"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice your gifts."
- Steve Prefontaine

Jeff Schley

  • Total Karma: -1
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #77 on: January 06, 2019, 12:43:16 PM »

A couple neat facts from the GD site on this year's ranking:
 
    No. 15 Friar's Head and No. 46 Ballyneal are the only two courses that have risen in each of the last five rankings.
 
 
    Architect Tom Fazio boasts the most designs in the top 100 (13), including No. 26 Shadow Creek. Pete Dye and Donald Ross are next with nine.
 
 
    Gil Hanse boasts the most redesigns in the top 200 with 15, including No. 6 Merion.
 
 
    The 1920s produced more 100 Greatest Courses than any other decade with 25, including No. 10 Fishers Island. The 2000s were next with 19.
"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice your gifts."
- Steve Prefontaine

Kalen Braley

  • Total Karma: 1
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #78 on: January 06, 2019, 12:43:21 PM »
Amen Jeff,  although interestingly enough Miss USA is the least best looking in that pic.

But yes...Wowsers...  :o :o   ;D
« Last Edit: January 06, 2019, 12:45:19 PM by Kalen Braley »

Ira Fishman

  • Total Karma: -1
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #79 on: January 06, 2019, 12:43:35 PM »
Maybe it's not the system that's flawed, maybe it's the concept. And if so, you can't fix the concept by improving the system. Tweak or abandon the criteria, replace 1000 panelists with 50 architects or 100 writers/critics, rank the courses in sets of 10 (with no distinctions within any one set), the concept still remains the same, ie that many opinions are more accurate than one opinion; that expert assessments are less biased and clear-eyed than those of amateurs and neophytes; and that the marginalizing (through number-crunching) of 'outlier' courses is a positive function of the concept, instead of its greatest flaw/weakness. If I were an architect aiming to scale the sunlit uplands of golf course architecture and to strive for/achieve the transcendent, I sure wouldn't want to have my work experienced & judged by a 'concept' that so preferenced pre-existing thinking over the new, or that seemed purposely designed to dismiss the outlier as a mistake. Indeed, I suppose such a concept almost guarantees that the transcendent would never be recognized or appreciated, or that it would even ever see the light of day. (And if that were the case, would I even try as an architect, or even think to try, for that new sunlit upland?) As I suggested once in a long ago and much disliked thread, I think that 'we're living in conservative times'.
 



Peter,


I am not sure whether or not we live in conservative times when it comes to art, music, building architecture, or literature. However, I do think golf course architecture
tends toward the conservative both for valid and less valid reasons. On the valid side, golf courses serve a specific function of enabling a sport that itself is prescribed by a specific set of rules. Those facts constrain how unbridled a golf architect can be. This is true even when compared to building architecture where the architect has more flexibility in how to achieve function both in design and use of materials. I also think there is validity to golf’s general commitment to tradition and respect for historic courses. As I noted in another post, the interaction between player and playing field is more complex and impactful in golf than other sports.


On the last valid side is the fact that golf in the US at least has been a sport for the better off and many of the clubs with wonderful courses were designed to be the preserves of the elite. Elites tend to be more conservative because they have more to protect from change.


And believe it or not, I think this point is relevant to the GD rankings. There is a high correlation between the scores on the Ambience criteria and how old and exclusive the club is or perhaps was. There is in turn a correlation, although less strong, between those high Ambiance scores and those that score well on Conditioning. If Jeff has more spreadsheet time, it would be interesting to see how the rankings might change if those two criteria were eliminated.


Ira
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 08:31:53 PM by Ira Fishman »

Kalen Braley

  • Total Karma: 1
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #80 on: January 06, 2019, 12:49:44 PM »
Ira,


You bring up an interesting point about conservative golf courses.  I've never thought about it this way, as applied to the course not the nature of the club culture, unless this is what you meant.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2019, 01:22:17 PM by Kalen Braley »

John Kirk

  • Total Karma: 3
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #81 on: January 06, 2019, 12:52:06 PM »


Thus Pine Valley is a HUGE outlier when it comes to shot values, which remember is 25% of the overall total for it is doubled from the original 12.5%. Here is the data set sorted highest to lowest and you can see not many lower ranked courses jump those in front and vice versa for this category.

Rank   Course   Shot Values
1   Pine Valley   8.9455
2   Augusta National   8.6669
4   Shinnecock Hills   8.6307
5   Oakmont   8.6228
6   Merion G.C. (East)   8.4923
3   Cypress Point Club   8.4596
8   National G. Links of America   8.3341
11   Winged Foot (West)   8.2819
9   Sand Hills   8.2561
7   Pebble Beach    8.255
14   Chicago   8.1367
16   Muirfield Village   8.1359
13   Crystal Downs   8.1353
12   Seminole   8.1067
10   Fishers Island Club   8.0976
23   Riviera   8.092
20   Oakland Hills   8.0822
22   Oak Hill    8.0748
27   Prairie Dunes   8.0732
37   Bethpage Black   8.0622
19   Los Angeles CC   8.0591
18   The Country Club   8.0536
15   Friar's Head   8.0453
29   Pinehurst No. 2   8.0362
24   Kiawah Island (Ocean Course)   8.0254
34   Southern Hills   8.008
21   Whistling Straits   7.9975
33   The Olympic Club   7.9885
17   Pacific Dunes   7.986
25   Wade Hampton   7.949
28   The Honors Course   7.9359
...

I would love to see someone try to explain in words why they think Muirfield Village has better shot values than Pacific Dunes.  I haven't played Muirfield Village, but I don't believe it for a minute.

On a different subject, I'd say a general issue with the Golf Digest list is exclusivity bias.

Tom_Doak

  • Total Karma: 12
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #82 on: January 06, 2019, 12:56:19 PM »

 Seems to me that most just decide how the place "moves" them and it should be the same in golf.


Then they should write a bit about the courses that "move" them, and spare us the obligatory top 100 list, where we wonder which courses they didn't like vs. which courses they haven't seen.

Jeff Loh

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #83 on: January 06, 2019, 01:00:10 PM »
That's disgusting

Peter Pallotta

Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #84 on: January 06, 2019, 01:09:19 PM »
Very good post there, Ira, as per usual.
Yes indeed: the 'conservatism' in gca is in the main a positive - i.e. it has produced a 100+ exemplary golf courses both classic and modern, all of which continue to provide the very thing that the art-craft is meant to provide -- a quality game of golf.
But I think that when you formalize the assessment of such courses through a concept (as per above), you perforce enable & celebrate too fixed a conception of what constitutes top flight gca & an exemplary field of play.
And in that sense, the system is essentially 'conservative' - ie it preserves and reinforces the status quo. Now again, given that our leading architects are producing such wonderful work and that this work is being recognized, the 'status quo' has proven to be a genuine positive for all golfers, of all kinds. But I do think it worthwhile to toss out a 'proviso' now and again.
Best

 

JC Urbina

  • Total Karma: 1
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #85 on: January 06, 2019, 10:40:45 PM »
I am impressed with the number of top 100 golf courses Gil has been involved with, the work at Wing Foot and LACC that I got to play last fall were off the charts.


For years Gil's work was done in complete anonymity, now after years of work by both Gil and Jim and staff they are finally been recognized for their efforts.


I also saw the work Coore / Crenshaw did at Shinnecock and after spending time with John Jennings touring the course, I can now enjoy this classic course more then ever before. Well done!


This course is deserving of its lofty status, maybe soon Number 2 or 3 after my all time favorite NGLA which in my opinion should be number 1




Tommy Williamsen

  • Total Karma: 3
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #86 on: January 08, 2019, 07:47:34 PM »


Thus Pine Valley is a HUGE outlier when it comes to shot values, which remember is 25% of the overall total for it is doubled from the original 12.5%. Here is the data set sorted highest to lowest and you can see not many lower ranked courses jump those in front and vice versa for this category.

Rank   Course   Shot Values
1   Pine Valley   8.9455
2   Augusta National   8.6669
4   Shinnecock Hills   8.6307
5   Oakmont   8.6228
6   Merion G.C. (East)   8.4923
3   Cypress Point Club   8.4596
8   National G. Links of America   8.3341
11   Winged Foot (West)   8.2819
9   Sand Hills   8.2561
7   Pebble Beach    8.255
14   Chicago   8.1367
16   Muirfield Village   8.1359
13   Crystal Downs   8.1353
12   Seminole   8.1067
10   Fishers Island Club   8.0976
23   Riviera   8.092
20   Oakland Hills   8.0822
22   Oak Hill    8.0748
27   Prairie Dunes   8.0732
37   Bethpage Black   8.0622
19   Los Angeles CC   8.0591
18   The Country Club   8.0536
15   Friar's Head   8.0453
29   Pinehurst No. 2   8.0362
24   Kiawah Island (Ocean Course)   8.0254
34   Southern Hills   8.008
21   Whistling Straits   7.9975
33   The Olympic Club   7.9885
17   Pacific Dunes   7.986
25   Wade Hampton   7.949
28   The Honors Course   7.9359
...

I would love to see someone try to explain in words why they think Muirfield Village has better shot values than Pacific Dunes.  I haven't played Muirfield Village, but I don't believe it for a minute.

On a different subject, I'd say a general issue with the Golf Digest list is exclusivity bias.


So you feel qualified to comment on MV even though you have never played it?
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

James Brown

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #87 on: January 08, 2019, 08:54:33 PM »
For discussion purposes.

GD’s definition of Shot Values for the current rankings: 
How well do the holes pose a variety of risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?

And they changed the category definition going forward:  How well does the course present a variety of options involving risks and rewards and require a wide range of shots?

« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 10:32:50 PM by James Brown »

John Kirk

  • Total Karma: 3
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #88 on: January 08, 2019, 09:44:28 PM »


Thus Pine Valley is a HUGE outlier when it comes to shot values, which remember is 25% of the overall total for it is doubled from the original 12.5%. Here is the data set sorted highest to lowest and you can see not many lower ranked courses jump those in front and vice versa for this category.

Rank   Course   Shot Values
1   Pine Valley   8.9455
2   Augusta National   8.6669
4   Shinnecock Hills   8.6307
5   Oakmont   8.6228
6   Merion G.C. (East)   8.4923
3   Cypress Point Club   8.4596
8   National G. Links of America   8.3341
11   Winged Foot (West)   8.2819
9   Sand Hills   8.2561
7   Pebble Beach    8.255
14   Chicago   8.1367
16   Muirfield Village   8.1359
13   Crystal Downs   8.1353
12   Seminole   8.1067
10   Fishers Island Club   8.0976
23   Riviera   8.092
20   Oakland Hills   8.0822
22   Oak Hill    8.0748
27   Prairie Dunes   8.0732
37   Bethpage Black   8.0622
19   Los Angeles CC   8.0591
18   The Country Club   8.0536
15   Friar's Head   8.0453
29   Pinehurst No. 2   8.0362
24   Kiawah Island (Ocean Course)   8.0254
34   Southern Hills   8.008
21   Whistling Straits   7.9975
33   The Olympic Club   7.9885
17   Pacific Dunes   7.986
25   Wade Hampton   7.949
28   The Honors Course   7.9359
...

I would love to see someone try to explain in words why they think Muirfield Village has better shot values than Pacific Dunes.  I haven't played Muirfield Village, but I don't believe it for a minute.

On a different subject, I'd say a general issue with the Golf Digest list is exclusivity bias.


So you feel qualified to comment on MV even though you have never played it?
Yes, I saw the pros play it on TV for over 20 years.  It's a beautiful parkland course.

Firm turf, and strong, variable winds without protection from trees help make a good sandy seaside course have better shot values than a good parkland course.
You've played them both.  What do you think?

Mark Pritchett

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #89 on: January 09, 2019, 09:44:12 AM »
I've played them both and from a golf perspective it is closer than most on here would care to admit.


MV has a great Par 5's and the short 14th is really fun. 


Love the par 3's at PD.   


Pacific Dunes has the ocean which gives it an advantage, though MV is beautiful as well.


I would rather play MV on a daily basis. 

jeffwarne

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #90 on: January 09, 2019, 09:51:18 AM »
   


Pacific Dunes has the ocean which gives it an advantage, though MV is beautiful as well.


I would rather play MV on a daily basis.


Bad call as you'd be sitting out MV Nov 15-April 15 and PD is open and playable mostly year round :)
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Tommy Williamsen

  • Total Karma: 3
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #91 on: January 09, 2019, 10:21:51 AM »

So you feel qualified to comment on MV even though you have never played it?
Yes, I saw the pros play it on TV for over 20 years.  It's a beautiful parkland course.

Firm turf, and strong, variable winds without protection from trees help make a good sandy seaside course have better shot values than a good parkland course.
You've played them both.  What do you think?



I understand that we can learn a lot about a course by watching others play it. It is poor substitute for playing it though.There are a bunch of courses that I have seen on TV for years. Playing them is different than watching pros play them. My game is really different than theirs so how I play the course doesn't resemble their play. I wonder how you would feel about PD if you only knew how a touring pro played it.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 10:23:31 AM by Tommy Williamsen »
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Tom_Doak

  • Total Karma: 12
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #92 on: January 09, 2019, 10:26:34 AM »
For discussion purposes.

GD’s definition of Shot Values for the current rankings: 
How well do the holes pose a variety of risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?

And they changed the category definition going forward:  How well does the course present a variety of options involving risks and rewards and require a wide range of shots?


I like that change.  I wonder whether it will really be applied by all of the panelists used to the old definition, but long-term it will make an impact.  For one:  Pacific Dunes will crush Muirfield Village on the "wide range of shots" required.   :D

Ryan Hillenbrand

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #93 on: January 09, 2019, 10:52:39 AM »
I agree with you Tom. The way I understood shot values was if a hole has a risk/reward option, there is also a safer/smarter option. Often this option is for the mid to higher handicap who maybe doesn't have length and accuracy at all but could run up a 3 wood onto a par 4, for example.

I haven't played MV, but based on this definition I would think Pacific Dunes comes out ahead. From TV, Muirfield Village looks to have a lot of creeks, traps, and heavy rough guarding the greens.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2019, 11:50:15 AM by Ryan Hillenbrand »

Kalen Braley

  • Total Karma: 1
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #94 on: January 09, 2019, 12:22:06 PM »
Not to be a stickler on "Shot Values"...

But when raters are determining this score, the definition does not include things like location, views, or how often the course is open....thats for other categories.

I suspect John may be correct here as I've both played PD and seen MV on TV countless times....and seem to have the same inclination.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 12:23:56 PM by Kalen Braley »

Nick Ribeiro

Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #95 on: January 09, 2019, 01:34:38 PM »
For discussion purposes.

GD’s definition of Shot Values for the current rankings: 
How well do the holes pose a variety of risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?

And they changed the category definition going forward:  How well does the course present a variety of options involving risks and rewards and require a wide range of shots?


I like that change.  I wonder whether it will really be applied by all of the panelists used to the old definition, but long-term it will make an impact.  For one:  Pacific Dunes will crush Muirfield Village on the "wide range of shots" required.   :D


This change will also take Pine Valley out of the top 10??? Pine Valley is one forced carry after another with very limited shot options.. That course is one of the hardest courses there is forcing you to execute shots hole after hole, but that is why its so awesome! In my mind anyway....

John Kirk

  • Total Karma: 3
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #96 on: January 09, 2019, 05:02:31 PM »

I understand that we can learn a lot about a course by watching others play it. It is poor substitute for playing it though.There are a bunch of courses that I have seen on TV for years. Playing them is different than watching pros play them. My game is really different than theirs so how I play the course doesn't resemble their play. I wonder how you would feel about PD if you only knew how a touring pro played it.
Hi Tommy,
While both being long-time members of GCA, I can't remember a time where we debated an issue.


I was intentionally a bit sarcastic when I commented about watching the pros play Muirfield Village.  Kidding but not kidding, or I have heard it called, "Kidding on the square."  Watching TV is no substitute for playing the course, or even watching a foursome of mortal golfers play a round.  However, since I've been around here a long time, I felt like you should know that I know that.

When I first saw the list of courses with the highest GD shot values, I noticed two things.  The ranking of highest shot values closely correlates with the total course ranking.  Second, the shot values at Pacific Dunes were rated notably lower (29th overall) than other courses in the top 25.  I chose Muirfield Village (12th in shot values) somewhat randomly because its shot values score was much higher.

I will restate my case for Pacific Dunes.  In twenty years of watching the Memorial tournament at Muirfield Village, I can't remember the players ever altering the trajectory of their shots.  On television, it looks like a course that requires long, straight drives and high, soft approach shots.  The presence of several strategic water hazards on the course make high, soft approaches on those holes mandatory.  Furthermore, I haven't been to Ohio, but typically courses east of the Mississippi River receive most of their 40 or so inches of annual rain in the summertime, and therefore much of the playing season features softer than ideal playing conditions.

As Sand Hills slowly rises in the ratings each year, Pacific Dunes seems to have stagnated.  Although Sand Hills has always been rated a smidge ahead, ten years ago the two were essentially 1A and 1B among modern courses.  The design variety at Pacific Dunes is hard to match.  It still may be Tom Doak's best design I've seen for pure variety.  Does any course in the world feature four consecutive par 4s with greater playing variety than holes 6, 7, 8 and 9?  Played in the four primary directions of the compass, they possess vastly different approach play requirements.


If Golf Digest is defining shot values, through the use of words and guidance, in a manner that ranks the shot values of an Ohio parkland course over a first class, sand-based, windy and bouncy golf course, then there's something wrong with the definition.  A sandy, windy course compels the player to consider trajectory and curve on most shots that aren't greenside plays.  Seaside golf is a more complex game with more demanding shot requirements.

Thanks for hearing me out, and I'm sorry if the hint of sarcasm was off-putting.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 06:58:49 PM by John Kirk »

Tom_Doak

  • Total Karma: 12
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #97 on: January 09, 2019, 05:27:28 PM »

And they changed the category definition going forward:  How well does the course present a variety of options involving risks and rewards and require a wide range of shots?


This change will also take Pine Valley out of the top 10??? Pine Valley is one forced carry after another with very limited shot options.. That course is one of the hardest courses there is forcing you to execute shots hole after hole, but that is why its so awesome! In my mind anyway....


Nick:


You've hit on the problem of Shot Values, which is, nobody knows for sure what they are talking about.


For some people, the definition of Shot Values boils down to "hit a good shot, or pay for your miss."  Those people, obviously, love Pine Valley like you do.


But I would think Pine Valley would still do very well under the definition of Shot Values above.  You're going to have recovery shots anytime you play a course, and the variety of recovery shots you have to play at Pine Valley is much more interesting and complex than on 99.9% of other courses.


There are also quite a few shots at Pine Valley that offer daring options.  Do you try to play it into the green on #1 or just lay up to the front edge?  [Or the same on #5.]  Do you try the big drive to the right on #6, or play safely to the left?  Where do you try to play the tee shot on #8, or #12, to give yourself the best chance of holding the green?  Do you go for the second shot on #13 if you haven't driven it to position A?


To me, too many raters [and for that matter, way too many architects] think about golf as point A to point B, and apparently don't watch where people wind up on the golf holes.  I can assure you that a lot of them don't see point A one time in 18 holes!

Lou_Duran

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #98 on: January 10, 2019, 06:43:17 PM »

If Golf Digest is defining shot values, through the use of words and guidance, in a manner that ranks the shot values of an Ohio parkland course over a first class, sand-based, windy and bouncy golf course, then there's something wrong with the definition.  A sandy, windy course compels the player to consider trajectory and curve on most shots that aren't greenside plays.  Seaside golf is a more complex game with more demanding shot requirements.


Without arguing GD's SV definition, I can easily come to a different conclusion- that it might not be the panelists' evaluations or GD's instructions that are wrong.


I have played MV, PD, and SH.  I understand your opinion re: PD's shot requirements.  Perhaps you possess a wider array of shots; maybe your aesthetic favors links; it could be an admiration for the architect and a resulting halo effect.  Or maybe your subjective evaluation of golf courses is superior to the average of 50-75-100 panelists who submitted a vote.


Me, I see PD and MV as two very different courses.  The former surrounded by astounding natural beauty, full of quirk, and rather unconventional.  A club course suitable for a wide array of golfers.


The latter, MV, was designed to hold top level tournaments.  While it doesn't offer the same ground game options as PD, it is not just a high fade approach course as you suggest.  Controlling trajectory, direction, and distance are all key,  Yes, it rewards a variety of well-executed shots, and it can punish severely just the marginally off.  Due to typically ultra-fast greens, the approach shot and the short game are under constant pressure.  MV is not a course that would be enjoyed by nearly as many golfers as PD, but I don't think that is what GD is attempting to measure.


BTW, I am a big fan of SH, a more forgiving course than MV, but more complete than PD, IMO.  I have more fun there than at the other two.  But if I was damned to only play all three, I'd be ok with that.


As to seaside golf being more complex, that's highly debatable.  I would agree that it is more interesting, but I have played a lot more golf in Ohio and the middle of the U.S. than on the links.  Perhaps I would grow weary of the heavy winds and rain.

John Kirk

  • Total Karma: 3
Re: Golf Digest New US Ratings Now Available
« Reply #99 on: January 10, 2019, 07:35:00 PM »
Hi Lou,

I can think of one shot at Muirfield Village where it would be common to try to flight the ball down a bit, the approach shot on #14, in order to minimize the spin of a full wedge shot.
If you have the patience, could you give another example where a golfer might consider hitting the ball lower at Muirfield Village?
A small clarification.  Please note I did not say "high fade", which is a common comment about Nicklaus courses.  I have no idea whether that complaint is justified or not.  I said "high, soft approaches".
Where you see quirk, perhaps I see character, and great shot variety.  Thanks for the response.  Setting someone up for the coveted 100th reply.  Next one starts a new page!