Golf Club Atlas

GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Peter Pratt on June 30, 2006, 11:26:30 AM

Title: Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Peter Pratt on June 30, 2006, 11:26:30 AM
Would it be worthwhile for Ran to profile a well-known golf course that fails the test of architectural brilliance? Would it be helpful--a learning experience for us novices--to have him assess how a golf course on a good piece of land didn't work and why it didn't work?

If so, which course would you nominate? Please bear in mind that I want him to choose a course whose shortcomings would be instructive. I don't want a bitch session.

In Michigan, a good choice might be Bay Harbor, a course I like a good deal but perhaps could've been better.
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: HamiltonBHearst on June 30, 2006, 11:31:43 AM


Sandpines. It does not look like he has profiled any Rees courses.
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Eric Franzen on June 30, 2006, 11:56:07 AM
...to have him assess how a golf course on a good piece of land didn't work and why it didn't work?

How about Doonbeg or Old Head?
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: John Kavanaugh on June 30, 2006, 11:59:46 AM
I love that Ran writes nice things about golf courses...we got enough "critics" on this site.
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Ted Kramer on June 30, 2006, 12:07:55 PM
I vote for for Lido.
I'd love to hear his opinion regarding 13-18.
I consider that closing stretch to be about as much fun as any that I've played anywhere.

Lido is a true prize muni. . .
I miss it more and more all the time.

-Ted
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Dan Herrmann on June 30, 2006, 12:49:15 PM
Phoenixville (PA), a Hugh Wilson 9-holer.

I'd love to see a compare/contrast between Phoenixville and Merion East.  Both have the same architect, but, obviously, the courses have quite a different pedigree.

Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: ForkaB on June 30, 2006, 12:58:34 PM
I'd rather that Ran mop up all the great courses that he hasn't profiled yet.

There are already a lot of relative clunkers in his list, but as John says, he's too nice a guy to say anything instructively negative.
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: John Kavanaugh on June 30, 2006, 01:03:49 PM
I will gladly send a copy of Robert Bain's Clans & Tartans of Scotland to the person who can come up with the most negative thing Ran has ever said about a course profiled on this site.(In the actual review of course)
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Tom Huckaby on June 30, 2006, 01:09:06 PM
I want that book,and this is a fun challenge.  So far, all I've found is this, from the Yale profile:


Yale remains to this day a colossus of a design, even if it is not maintained and presented in the manner in which it deserves.


Leader in the clubhouse?
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: George Pazin on June 30, 2006, 01:16:45 PM
I'd rather that Ran mop up all the great courses that he hasn't profiled yet.

There are already a lot of relative clunkers in his list, but as John says, he's too nice a guy to say anything instructively negative.

I'm always happy to find agreement with Rich, at least in the first part - I haven't played enough of the others to say if there are any relative clunkers.

My own personal preference for a course to be profiled would be The Rawls Course, as it's one of the few somewhat known courses I've played, and I'd like to see how his thoughts compared to mine.
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Eric Franzen on June 30, 2006, 01:18:35 PM
I want that book,and this is a fun challenge.  So far, all I've found is this, from the Yale profile:


Yale remains to this day a colossus of a design, even if it is not maintained and presented in the manner in which it deserves.


Leader in the clubhouse?

I'll make it easy and just link the whole profile on Augusta National. http://www.golfclubatlas.com/augusta000150.html

Game, set and match!
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: John Kavanaugh on June 30, 2006, 01:19:10 PM
I want that book,and this is a fun challenge.  So far, all I've found is this, from the Yale profile:


Yale remains to this day a colossus of a design, even if it is not maintained and presented in the manner in which it deserves.


Leader in the clubhouse?

Huck,

Even as jaded as I am...I find that to be a compliment of the architecture.
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Tom Huckaby on June 30, 2006, 01:21:23 PM
Eric - correct - you win - I skimmed over that, didn't read close enough.  Can I borrow the book some time?

JK - hey, all you asked for is the "most negative."  You didn't say it had to actually BE negative.
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Eric Franzen on June 30, 2006, 01:25:51 PM
"MacKenzie would have little time for today's sharp-edged, blah shaped bunkers as there is little attempt to integrate them into their natural surrounds"

Huck,

Sorry, I didn't know that "blah shaped bunkers" actually is used as a compliment in northern cali.  ;D

 
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: John Kavanaugh on June 30, 2006, 01:26:51 PM
Huck,

I am sorry but that ANGC review has me troubled...that Ran said "but fans of Alister MacKenzie would be better served to look elsewhere for a game."  has me questioning the validity of this site....and it only took me until lunch today.


    
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Glenn Spencer on June 30, 2006, 01:27:52 PM
Would it be worthwhile for Ran to profile a well-known golf course that fails the test of architectural brilliance? Would it be helpful--a learning experience for us novices--to have him assess how a golf course on a good piece of land didn't work and why it didn't work?

If so, which course would you nominate? Please bear in mind that I want him to choose a course whose shortcomings would be instructive. I don't want a bitch session.

In Michigan, a good choice might be Bay Harbor, a course I like a good deal but perhaps could've been better.


Yes, I would think that the Bay Harbor profile would be quite interesting.
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Tom Huckaby on June 30, 2006, 01:29:44 PM
JK - so what took you so long?

Eric - I revised my post. ;D
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: ForkaB on June 30, 2006, 01:32:37 PM
There is a course in St. Andrews, Scotland that Ran calls "old."  What a slap in the face!
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Glenn Spencer on June 30, 2006, 01:33:35 PM
However, what has been lost with time at Broadmoor are Ross's corridors of play, which have been severely compromised underneath hundreds upon hundreds of hardwood trees. The player on numerous occasions can be in a bunker off the tee and have no shot but to chip out as directly between him and the flag are one or more trees.

Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Robert_Ball on June 30, 2006, 03:05:46 PM
I will gladly send a copy of Robert Bain's Clans & Tartans of Scotland to the person who can come up with the most negative thing Ran has ever said about a course profiled on this site.(In the actual review of course)

John,

Take your pick from Ran's Bandon Dunes review...

"Will the first course at Bandon Dunes stand up to the scrutiny in the way that Pebble Beach and Cypress Point have for decades? No."

"Bandon's design weakness lies in the way the bunkers and surrounds often aren't fully and compellingly integrated together."

"...the authors must question the clumsy routing."

"Regardless, Kidd continues to refine Bandon Dunes (ironically, perhaps a sign that it wasn't as good as everyone initially thought)."


-Robert
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: John Kavanaugh on June 30, 2006, 03:07:50 PM
I will gladly send a copy of Robert Bain's Clans & Tartans of Scotland to the person who can come up with the most negative thing Ran has ever said about a course profiled on this site.(In the actual review of course)

John,

Take your pick from Ran's Bandon Dunes review...

"Will the first course at Bandon Dunes stand up to the scrutiny in the way that Pebble Beach and Cypress Point have for decades? No."

"Bandon's design weakness lies in the way the bunkers and surrounds often aren't fully and compellingly integrated together."

"...the authors must question the clumsy routing."

"Regardless, Kidd continues to refine Bandon Dunes (ironically, perhaps a sign that it wasn't as good as everyone initially thought)."


-Robert

We have a new leader...Ran towing the party line..gotta love it.
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Tom Huckaby on June 30, 2006, 03:19:34 PM
JK - hmmmmm... of course you are sole judge and jury here, but methinks Mr. Ball cheated a bit taking these out of context... the overall review re Bandon Dunes is pretty favorable... or at least it's not close to as negative as what Ran says about Augusta.

Sorry Robert.   ;D

BTW, Ran surely wasn't toeing any lines, not back in 2002..... methinks he created the line that since has been toed.

 ;D

Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Jay Flemma on June 30, 2006, 03:25:02 PM
Hiawatha Landing in Apalachin, NY

Great unsung course.  After that, Royal New Kent.  They are both excellent courses with alot to teach us, yet nobody has written about them in depth.
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: John Kavanaugh on June 30, 2006, 03:25:50 PM
Huck,

I think it is tow considering he pulls most of us alone with him.  Come on...You can surely find one more so I can send you this book.  It is in excellent condition but sadly is a 1968 reprint.
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Tom Huckaby on June 30, 2006, 03:28:15 PM
Huck,

I think it is tow considering he pulls most of us alone with him.  Come on...You can surely find one more so I can send you this book.  It is in excellent condition but sadly is a 1968 reprint.

Good point.  Tow it is.

And man I am searching but this ain't easy!  I can't imagine any surpassing the bastion of negativity found in the Augusta review, which has me so down I'm looking for a dog to kick.   ;)
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Tom Huckaby on June 30, 2006, 03:33:02 PM
OK, here's one.  Man that Ran sure is a sourpuss.  From Moonah Course at National Golf Club, Australia:


While this was another Prairie Dunes or Sand Hills situation in that numerous holes could be found, invariably any routing would yield a less than ideal hole or two, given such wild topography. (See 14 at Ballybunion, or 4 at The European Club or 2 at County Sligo as examples of holes you just have to put up with).


 ;D
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Tim Pitner on June 30, 2006, 03:34:00 PM

Take your pick from Ran's Bandon Dunes review...

"Will the first course at Bandon Dunes stand up to the scrutiny in the way that Pebble Beach and Cypress Point have for decades? No."

"Bandon's design weakness lies in the way the bunkers and surrounds often aren't fully and compellingly integrated together."

"...the authors must question the clumsy routing."

"Regardless, Kidd continues to refine Bandon Dunes (ironically, perhaps a sign that it wasn't as good as everyone initially thought)."

I always thought the "clumsy routing" line was a bit unfair.  I think Ran was referring to the transitions between 1 and 2, 6 and 7, 8 and 9 and maybe 12 and 13.  While these aren't seamless, I don't see how they're much different from the transitions between 8 and 9, 12 and 13, and 13 and 14 at Pacific Dunes, which escape any criticism.  Kidd has re-worked 6 and 17 and perhaps other holes too (and now No. 1 for different reasons) so that criticism seems fair.  
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Tom Huckaby on June 30, 2006, 03:35:35 PM
Tim - remember, Ran wrote that in 2002, well before there WAS a Pacific Dunes.

Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Tim Pitner on June 30, 2006, 03:38:39 PM
Tom,

I played Pacific Dunes in 2001.  And, my point really was that he seemed to be looking for something to criticize at Bandon Dunes and took a different approach at Pacific Dunes.  I could be wrong, but that's how I read his reviews.    
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Tom Huckaby on June 30, 2006, 03:41:52 PM
Tim - understood - I just thought you were critiquing the BD review on its own, looking for comparison to PD - which of course couldn't have happened when the BD review was written.

You do make a good point... but one I won't touch with a 29 and a half foot pole, as it's a little too "hot-button" for my tastes.  Read that to mean I've fought over it WAY too many times previously in here.

 ;D
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Tim Pitner on June 30, 2006, 03:45:31 PM
Tom,

I think I understand what you mean.  Technical point--I think Pacific Dunes opened in 2000; it was open for general play when I was there in 2001.  I think Ran's review of Pacific Dunes was also in 2002.
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Tom Huckaby on June 30, 2006, 03:47:50 PM
Tom,

I think I understand what you mean.  Technical point--I think Pacific Dunes opened in 2000; it was open for general play when I was there in 2001.  I think Ran's review of Pacific Dunes was also in 2002.

AHA!
Then I am patently full of shit.  Man time does fly.  Ok, Ran has no excuses for this.

TH, lofting that softball up there for someone to smack and use for a quote....

Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Tim Leahy on June 30, 2006, 03:50:38 PM
How about a review of Torrey Pines South prior to the Open scheduled there. On this site, this course always seems to start much debate and I'm sure we would all like to read Ran's review prior to the Open. Since he has already done Bethpage Black, I think Torrey would be a worthy comparison.
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on June 30, 2006, 07:47:18 PM
Your a year off in your dates.

Pacific Dunes opened for resort play in June of 2001. Some of us were fortunate to attend Tom Doak's Archipalooza event in March of that year, and we got to play the course, as it was still growing-in, but still very playable, and of course forever memorable.

It is my opinion that Ran's reviews that are the glue that hold this website and discussion group together. Their informative, insightful and 99% of the time, highly accurate from what one can expect when seeing a course for themselves before and after many times of playing it. His reviews don't rely on any  numbering system, which is also a fresh take on things.

If you really want to dig deep at a negative, look at the San Francisco Golf Club review.

You won't find it!

And that my friends should be the reason why John Kavanaugh should be sending me that copy of Robert Bain's Clans & Tartans of Scotland! ;)
Title: Re:Which less than great course should Ran profile?
Post by: Kenny Lee Puckett on July 01, 2006, 06:53:30 AM
Fernandina Beach Municipal Golf Course - All three 9's.

 ;D ;D ;D

JWK