Bigger, but not better

[Paul Richards]

It was refreshing to read Bradley Klein's critical review of the newest RTJ Trail layout, the Schoolmaster course.

In the July 15th, 2006 issue of Golfweek, under the America's Best banner, Brad wrote "Bigger, but not better."  It's a description of how the Golfweek Raters rate the golf courses of America.

Having played a couple of the RTJ Trail courses, I have to concur with most of what he wrote here, especially this line:

>>"...I was dismayed by the vast scope of the course and how unsettled it looked.  For all the dirt they moved around, little of it looks like it's in the right spot."

Brad gave the course an overall score of "4", when a course needed a 6.62 to make the 2006 Top 100 Modern list of America's Best.


It is truly refreshing to see a golf writer actually 'tell it like it is' instead of the usual offering of flowery and lovely prose telling us about the 'latest and greatest' offering by this mogul or that architect.



Perhaps someone can post the link, but I just have seen it in hard copy form so far.


 

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

It is funny the title of this thread and Brad's review, because my perception over the past ten years is that the biggest-scale courses generally have won all the prizes.  Most panelists seem to favor bold bunkers and big vistas; in fact it is difficult for me to even think of one modern course which could be described as "intimate" in its scale.

But it is good to see that not every review in GOLFWEEK has to be positive.  Still, I'd be surprised if the editors allow a second "downer" review in the next ten ... this could be a token choice to prove that they aren't just selling ads.

[Bill_McBride]

The earliest RTJ Trail courses are much better in terms of playability for all than the newest, in my opinion.  The design in general is skewed toward "shock and awe" and it really doesn't feel cohesive or approachable.  There is none of the "hard par, easy bogey" for which RTJ the original was famous.  It's much more "hard par, harder bogey," and I think that's part of a marketing plan to entice Northerners down to Alabama!

Actually, for the highest level players (LPGA and Nationwide Tour), it appears most of those courses are "easy par," as they have pretty much ripped them up during their championship events there.

[Paul Richards]

Tom

Thanks for the response.  A couple points:

>It is funny the title of this thread and Brad's review

The title of this thread probably would have made more sense if I had included Brad's next line:

>>"There's something out of kilter with a golf course this big, and I'm not just referring to the back-tee yardage of 7,971 yards."

And:

>But it is good to see that not every review in GOLFWEEK has to be positive.  Still, I'd be surprised if the editors allow a second "downer" review in the next ten ... this could be a token choice to prove that they aren't just selling ads.


Agreed.  However, keep in mind, that, like you, I'm sure Brad doesn't get 'forced' to see a lot of dog-tracks.  At this point in your career, you probably get to play a Shoreacres or a Crystal Downs rather than Peter Jans National and I'm sure that Brad visits places that he perceives are good golf courses, so regardless of the 'selling ad's' notion, he probably sees a lot more "7's and 8's" than "4's" anyways.


Cheers!