[Matt_Ward]

During my recent trek thru Oregon I passed from Bandon via Eugene on my way to Bend and the Nicklaus creation at Pronghorn.

I've played Eugene twice -- although I only walked it this time because of a tight schedule -- and have to say I am frankly shocked that the course gets all the attention it does. Trent Jones did a nice job in resurrecting the layout but I don't see the aspects that many must be seeing. The trees still engulf much of the course and the shotmaking virtues are decent / good but nothing rising to the level of national acclaim -- how Pronghorn finishes behind it in the Digest State Rankings is quite puzzling.

I wonder how others from Oregon or guests who have played ti size up the course and its standing?

There is much better Trent Jones work with the likes of the Dunes and Spyglass -- I don't see Eugene being remotely near that level of quality.

[Sean Leary]

Matt,

With golf in most of the NW, you are going to get big trees and a lot of them.  It happens, and a lot of people like it that way. Not the treehouse per se, but the people that live here. With the exception of a couple of holes (11 comes to mind), do you think that the trees really come into play?  Nowhere near as much as say Sahalee. To me they frame the holes more than anything else

As far as a golf course, I think it is a very good, walkable members course that can play very difficult. Is it Top 100, maybe not, but before there was Bandon, Eugene was the undisputed King of Oregon. Sometimes that lingers with the raters and it affects the rankings.  The USGA loves the place (2008 Womens Am will be there), so maybe that plays into it as well.

For me, once you get out of the Top 50 or so, 51 to 300 isn't that much of a difference, and I would say it's in there somewhere.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

It might be in the top 51-300 that Trent Jones ever built, but not in the country, unless every region gets a certain allocation.  I'd have to agree with Matt as far as Eugene goes.  Can't remember if I gave it a 5 or a 6 on the Doak scale ... but there are a lot of those.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Ward,

It's called regionalism, and Eugene isn't the only course to benefit from it.

It's a dilema for those who compile the ratings of golf courses.

Don't most raters rate what's nearest and most accessible to them ?

Is Pumpkin Ridge any different ?

Would either course be in the top 10 in the Metro NY, Philadelphia, Boston or Chicago area ?

[Sean Leary]

Tom,

I must be wrong if you are agreeing with Matt.

I think that my "very good" comment fits in with a Doak 5 or a 6, and I do think that it is ranked as high as it is because it always has been.  Doesn't make it right, but Matt asked why I thought it was ranked so high.  I'm interested in what the the Portland Peters think about it...

[Sean Leary]

Patrick,

Do you think that Stonewall is significantly better than Witch Hollow? I'm comparing those two because I don't want to compare modern vs classic. I find them comparable.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:  I don't believe Mr. Mucci has been to Stonewall.

My book is probably the only place where Stonewall has been rated equal to or ahead of Witch Hollow.  [Or maybe in the GOLFWEEK ratings, I only know they're both in there somewhere.]  Pumpkin Ridge has received all kinds of national recognition, because there wasn't much else to talk about in Oregon when it arrived on the scene.  Stonewall's arrival was much less heralded because of its neighbors.  You see them as comparable, but that's not how they are thought of generally.

[Sean Leary]

Tom,

My point is that Stonewall is at least around the top 10 in the Philly area.  Clearly we don't have any where near the number of excellent courses as the major metropolitan areas, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't compare at all.

It seems each makes one of the two major lists, (or used to) but not the other, and they were built around the same time.  That is why I compared them.

[Mike Erdmann]

I'll agree that Eugene is quite overrated, and Pumpkin Ridge has historically been rated too high in the past.  Regionalism has a LOT to do with it.  Tom has a great quote in his Confidential Guide in regards to NW courses: "...their standard-setting "classic" courses, like Columbia Edgewater and Waverly CC in Portland, are so weak by comparison to Eastern or California classics that a 7 in my book is a 10 as far as anyone in Oregon or Washington knows."  The same holds true for modern courses here in the Pacific Northwest as well.  Up until Bandon came along recently, there really wasn't any exceptional modern architecture in the NW, and that worked to the advantage of courses like Eugene and Pumpkin Ridge.

As for Eugene, I think the accolades come from the setting.  The golf holes themselves just aren't strong enough to justify a ranking as high as it holds.

[peter_p]

If it's Top 100, maybe the last ten. Tradition of holding USGA and top west coast am tourneys has held it up in the ratings. Being tweaked to 7000 yds (why for a women's am?). Good walk in the park, Doak rated a 5. Conditioning very much dependant on the season. Provides definition of embedded balls half the year. Weak 5s, good 4s where you have to work the ball both ways. None of 1st, 9th or 18th is outstanding.

All things considered, strike my first sentence. I've only travelled two hours from home to play it 3 times in 30 years, and two of those were comped  (not as rater).

[Matt_Ward]

Wow -- Tom Doak actually see eye-to-eye -- will wonders cease?

No doubt the explanation / info posted by Mike E is right on target. The numbers for rating purposes skew higher in the Pacific Northwest so that a 7-8 there is really only a 3-4 possibly a 5 tops on the national scale.

Pat is quite correct -- the aspect of regionalism is certainly in play here. No doubt people have pride with Eugene because it was the center point for all golf discussion until the recent explosion of courses in the state.

From all the courses I have played in the States I don't see Eugene making the top 250-300 nationwide. The intensity of courses from the I-95 quadrant stretching from DC to Boston is simply too good and there are a vast number of courses that are vastly underrated nationally simply because of a lack of exposure and quite a few of these layouts are not your typical private clubs.

Eugene still has far too many trees. Yes, I know they have taken down a good number -- I first played the course about 20 years ago and in my second play visit (about 8 years ago) I could see what differences had happened. On my recent walk through visit the openings for sunlight were certainly there but at the end of the day the land, bunker positioning / style and the totality of the shot values pales in comparison to the likes of anything you find at Bandon and clearly against the likes of Nicklaus / Pronghorn.

I would place certainly place Witch Hollow ahead of Eugene for overall quality.

Oregon is one state that has rapidly ascended the scale of "go to" states because of recent openings. Eugene is part of the past -- not it's shining future though IMHO.

[Lance Rieber]

Matt, I agree it probably shouldn't be rated so high, I do think the have a strong showing of par threes.  I always remember those more than the other holes.  The scope of courses in the northwest has grown so much,  Eugene is falling behind quickly.
Lance

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()