Mr Mucci - don't go pre-judging me and I'll stop doing it to you (I'm sure that you'll howl in green or blue when you read this

I didn't pre-judge you, I only asked you pertinent questions

easy walks and I am not a normal ambulator any longer

How would you describe the walk from # 2 green to # 3 tee ?
How about # 4 green to # 5 tee ?
# 5 green to # 6 tee ?

there is more water on the par 3's than I would like, but the greens are rather varied, so I suspect that you are proffering the idea that the holes are similar which they are not.

You didn't find the feature of water fronting every green
repetitive ?

You didn't find the yardages on the par 3's on the 6,716 Blue Course, of 170, 168, 165, and 167 similar ?

Or when playing from 7,560 or 7,113 did you fail to notice that ?

I would imagine that most members and guests would play from the Blue Course since the White Course drops down to
6,063 yards.

It is "of a certain style" not favored by this group. Imagine the possibilities The bunkers are smooth-edged, C & C or an old dead guy didn't build it but I will say that green contours do determine strategies.

I don't think smooth versus shaggy bunker lines determine the merits of a bunker or the strategies created by it.

It is a knock on the "preferences of the 1498" (today), not a Walter Hagen type comment.

Your "regular golf contacts" judging where you keep your handicaps are hardly "regular folks", sorry, they are an outlier group as much as "gca.com's 1498" are ...

The group of people whom I referenced, who you erroneously categorized, were comprised of a variety of handicaps, from 0 to the 20's, and were in no way connected to where I keep my handicaps.  They were golfers of all types.

And, why should someone's net worth or lack of net worth have any impact upon their handicap or their ability to assess a golf course ?

....... and ...... they are probably playing the wrong tees.  

No, they played the right tees.
The Blue Tees, which is some cases were ahead of the plates.

I find many golfers are stuck at the point of "I don't like it" when it's a case of wrong tee choice, bad breaks=bad golf design, you know the drill as well as I do.

True, but, this isn't one of those cases.

Given the choice of 6,063, 6,716, 7,113 or 7,560, 6,716 doesn't seem like a bad choice to me.

What do you think the carry over the water is on # 16 from the Black, Gold and Blue tees ?  Into a wind do you think anyone can get over it ?   And, there is NO option to land short of the water and play from that point forward.

It is a hard golf course, but a well-done one.

I'd agree, I think it's a very hard golf course.

Tree management is rather good.  

I'd disagree.
Someone planted trees too close to the bunkers.
It's only a matter of time before the roots are into the bunkers, breaking down the walls, causing maintainance problems and possibly injuring golfers.  In addition, leaves will collect in those bunkers causing lost balls and delays.

Whomever was responsible for planting them didn't know much about golf and trees.

They should all be moved far away from the bunkers.

A lot of golfers find water very pretty, I don't like it much, but I understand how it is used.

There's no disputing that water can be an attractive feature.

But, like everything else, redundancy can diminish its impact.
And, when you associate water with heroic carries, penalties, high scores and the desire to enjoy oneself while playing golf, you have to question its overabundant use.

Stop personally trying to attack me and just comment on the course if you like.

I didn't attack you, I questioned you about the golf course and your glowing assessment of it.
Certainly you shouldn't take offense to being asked how you arrived at your opinion or how you feel about certain architectural features.
But, if you're not comfortable with your assessment of the golf course I can understand your defensiveness.

The style is one I do like, but not "best" - personally I like more rolling terrain, more blindness, quirkier greens and a greater fun factor, but I appreciate other styles as well. I might call teh style "clean modern".  A style that I would say that Rees Jones often uses, BTW.

It's interesting that you mention that.
Some people drew a parallel to this course and some of Rees's courses.

I'd agree, there is a "style" associated with certain architects.

I personally like holes # 3, 5, 6 (great green and water works just fine here),

I also like # 5 and # 6 and thought the water usage on # 6 was terrific, but then, #7, a par 3, repeated the concept.

7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and most of 18, (the tee shot is droll).  

I don't want to go into detail, but, I thought that # 8 had great potential.  But, I wasn't enamored of its current configuration or orientation.

I like opening and closing on a par 5.

#11 is the least interesting to me. I'm not a designer, but I might have eliminated that practice area past it to provide more room for a longer hole.

This is what makes horse races.
I liked # 11.

And that's my opinion.

And mine too  

Frankly, I find Bedminster better than Baltusrol Lower but I don't know if that says more for Bedminster are less for the Springfield layout.