Don,
I guess I might be even speaking of some of the interesting terrain that is just North of PGA West, and now compromises Country Club of the Desert. It may have not been total A+ quality dunes as you have mentioned about Rancho La Quinta, And we are not just talking about the RTJ II course but the Jerry Pate course as well, which were A+ dunes)
I seem to remember the PGA West area to be a menagerie of more mild dunes, date palm orchards and just dead flat land, but that was so many years ago, and who am I to argue with a local?
Shooter,
We all have very differrent eyes which we see things. My eyes and tastes are sometimes a bit more snobby and most of the time can get me in trouble.
For a golf course to be GREAT, it has to embody a lot of principles from the GREAT courses of the British Isles. These are the courses that taught us the game and how it is/was supposed to be played--the features of these courses and the way to utilize them are the spinal column of strategic play. They are both naturally formed and naturally refined, meaning that over a period of time, evolution is a master stroke in the ability to project even further man-made features that have been refined or at least partially inspired from natural occurances. It can be the most barren of deserts to the most pristine forested parkland--a golf course has to breath like its natural surroundings to be GREAT. (Picture Talking Stick North and then Banff. Then picture Pine Valley and then Cypress Point. These are GREAT courses that utilize their natural surroundings to the fullest, and it is a broad spectrum of tastes.)
A GREAT golf course is one that take complete advantage of its natural surroundings by taking advantage of its natural beauty. Even Dr. MacKenzie teaches us this in The Spirit of St. Andrews. It offers thrilling and intriguing play in forms of deception and perception. This maybe the best evidence I have in describing how housing devlopments don't work when it is situated on the golf course in sight, in plain view.--this is why PGA West doesn't work for many--the housing.
But, even with the housing, I can say, and always have that PGA West is one of my favorites in regards in its abilities to entertain. Everyone always knows they are going to have their hat handed to them, and the ones that think otherwise usually hate the course beyond repair. Its a wonderfully constructed golf course, fun to play but, and even more, a testament to the men who shaped all of those mounds.
Most of the people that are members at PGA West as well as people frequent the desert regulary don't like playing it all of the time. Why is this? I can only say that because of the recipe of the course itself, getting beat-up is not always the best entertainment. the course is designed mastefully by someone that knew how to pray on any weakness, anytime during the round.
In a movie analogy, Citizen Kane is a GREAT movie, while Men In Black is a good one. It can never be described in the same class of GREATNESS as Citizen Kane because of the very different architecture of the two movies, although I think both movies are entertaining. Would you find that the two are comparable? Coinsdier that Citizen Kane is a masterpiece in most movie critques simply because it just wasn't ground breaking cinema, it was also controversial. Look at some of the camera angles and close-ups that Wells used. It was perfect, and even in that time, he could have made the film in color, only chosing to buck the movie moguls of the day and making it in every shade of gray, from the blackest black to brightest white, possible.
That is my view of GREAT, GOOD, MEDIOCRE, and of course, BAD.