Reading the recent issue of Links they are touting WN as easily the best public golf in the Seattle area. Also, the hypester goes on to say WN is reminiscent of the great English heathland courses. Any validity to this?

Sean,
   What aspects at WN are lacking that keep it from being a better course in your opinion?
    What about the "heathland" part?

Ed,

Having never played a heathland course, I can only speculate based upon what I have read , what that means.  WN was built with more of a Pine Valley motif in mind, with playable waste areas through much of the golf course. It was clearly built as a tournament course, as much was written about trying to lure an Open here in the future.  It is on a relatively flat piece of ground, with minimal elevation on just a couple of holes.  Water is in play on about 5 holes (don't believe that is a feature on Heathland tracks).  There are a couple of stinkers in my mind.  On 10, it is OB right with a large waste area that narrows very quickly from the left.  When the NCAA regionals were there, almost everyone took driver way left over the waste area into the 18th fairway, then approached from there with a short to mid iron.  There is a waterfall behind 14, which is a 3 wood and a pitch over a pond.    There are some good holes.  17 is a good par 5 with a 2 risk reward shots, (a cape style drive, plus a second over water) Eight is a drivable par 4 over water, where the safe play left leave a delicate pitch over a bunker.

In terms of making it better, I don't know, maybe some more interesting greens and more memorable par 3's ( I have played it 10 times and I had trouble remembering them all and I have a great memory for courses), as they are all a bit blah. One uphill, one down hill, two flattish. Overall it is just kind of uninspiring, a coourse that could be replicated anywhere. Frankly, I think a course down the street (Druid's Glen) may have a better layout...

I agree with Sean and Pat that, certainly in terms of routing and how the holes fit on the land, Druids Glen has much more going for it than WashNat.  On a personal level, I have always found the overall experience at Trophy Lake to be much more enjoyable than either McCormick Woods or Gold Mountain.  I think Trophy Lake may be the best public-access example in this area of a course which takes best advantage of its surroundings.

Washington National is a decent course, great conditioning and yes it is cartball.
 

It has some really great holes.  It also has some really weird holes.  I can assure you it is not heathland, that is a fact.  It can be extremely long from the tips, but I do not even think the Huskies always play from back there.  It is like 7500 yards and some holes require 260 yard carries to the fairway which is pretty hard.  The greens are huge, and very undulating, some are good, some are downright boring.  So overall, it is a good course but not the best in Seattle or the Northwest.

I dont know if Druids in necassarily better, but Gold Mountain is.
A Doak 4 probably, and GM is about a 5.

Pat, Gold Mountain the most overrated??  I love that course.

Aldarra is one of the better Tom Fazio designs I've played. Good routing, with an interesting mix of holes. Far and away the best conditioned course year round in mostly soggy Seattle.

It's also one of the few, if not the only course in the NW that still has bent grass fairways and greens. When I was there they were doing Poa control in several areas, but the greens were still bent, very rare to see in the NW as Poa usually takes over fairly quickly.

And yes, Jordan, our views of Gold Mountain's Olympic course differ. It's a good track, just not a very memorable one for me. Different opinions are what make the world great! I hope we're still friends!

Of course Pat.
 

We need to get another game together...