First a few disclaimers: 1) I'm fully aware that my opinion might be sophomoric and doesn't count for anything; 2) What Rob and others have accomplished at Sweeten's Cove is phenomenal; 3) I like hipsters, but I'm not one; and 4) I like a hearty debate provided it's civil.
Also, I'm fully aware there are three things one should never do: 1) tug on Superman's cape; 2) spit into the wind; and 3) criticize Rustic Canyon on a golf course architecture website. This thread likely adds a fourth, but so be it.
I played 27 holes at Sweeten's Cove on a gorgeous day Wednesday and left wondering why I thought it was cool and fun on my previous two visits. I don't understand how it is considered "great" by so many people, particularly the erudite Golfweek panelists who have it at 60th on that publications Top 200 Modern list.
Such a bold and perhaps contrarian statement deserves explanation so I'll give it a try. First, it's an inherently difficult site to keep dry. That's not necessarily problematic except the shaping and elevation of many greens feature a low spot in front. That element, notably at the 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 8th greens as well as right of the 6th green deters the ground game and yields a high concentration of divots.
The ground game is further hampered by the height and steep angles on all sides of most of the pushed up greens. The putter or bumped short iron (my favorite shot in golf from childhood) might be the default play of us mere mortals who couldn't kill a snake with a lob wedge but the greens are not receptive to this approach as any attempt to "get cute" and attempt to pitch or putt the ball close will likely yield an automatic ball return, often navigated through divots or alternatively a 30 feet come-backer for the first putt for the bolder stroke. I suspect I saw close to 50 such shots trundle back to the laughing golfer over the course of 3 rounds. It was amusing, but hardly fun.
A relatively small percentage of most greens are pin-able. In fact one can't help but notice how old cup cuts are generally clustered. Other areas more often conspire to work the ball away from the hole and even off the green rather than providing utility to approach the hole via an alternate route.
The left hand tier of the 8th hole simply doesn't work unless one can drop a dime from heaven. This green faintly conjures fond memories of a biarritz but the two elevations are much too high and orienting the green at a sharp angle to the fairway eliminates the joy of watching the ball disappear and reappear as the approach is played down the length of the green. It is possible that the hole simply ran out of real estate due to the proximity of the 9th tee but to site a traditional biarritz left of the current 9th tee would have been delightful. Similarly, the 9th hole would be truer to redan form if the tee was located well right in what is currently the 1st fairway. The current orientation of the 9th renders it an aerial hole for most regardless of whether the green is pinned left or right.
I think the course has become a hipster haven because it caters to the bomber who can be left with very short approaches at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th (front pin only) and 5th, particularly with the outstanding firm and fast fairways. Those are half par holes for any lengthy hitter who also knows his way around a sand or lob wedge. For such player the course offers a birdie fest and a low score unless one gets greedy at the 6th. I'm not surprised the white belt crowd flocks to the course from far afield.
I debated to make this post but am open to plenty of criticism so fire away. Just to make sure I alienate everyone equally, this course feels like it made its debut in the perfect environment, not unlike our most recent president. In my opinion, neither is great, but the timing sure was right.
Respectfully,
Mike