Recently I got into a conversation about golf courses with a guest at work.

She was a member at Shoreacres, and we got to talking about Raynor and his some of his courses.  However, talking about Shoreacres intrigued me a lot.  The course runs through natural ravines and has some highly original holes, as I have heard, even though the course does have some templet Raynor holes.

For a while I was intrigued by the course looking at Ran's old review.  Recently, the review was updated with new pictures and write ups, and now the course intrigues me even more.  Blind shots, shots over ravines, a cool looking version of the road hole, and other cool features.  The second hole looked pretty cool too, seemingly quite dauning to a back pin.

Having already talked with a couple people about the course,  wonder if others have anything to add about the place.

How does it difer from other Raynor courses?

Are his template holes (especially the par-3's) at Shoreacres some of his best?

Is Shoreacres one of Raynor's most original courses?

Being in the same area as Chicago Golf Club, are these perhaps the two best Raynor courses within 100 miles of each other?

Simply put, for me the course looks really cool and intriguing.  I would love to hear some other thoughts.

Jordan:

We have done consulting work at Shoreacres for 12-15 years now.    

What I like the most about it is that there are enough natural features to make some interesting holes in addition to the usual templates.  The short par-4 11th and the par-5 15th are two of the best holes on the course, and neither is a hole that I've seen on any of Raynor's other courses [though it's possible that the 15th is some adaptation of Raynor's Prize Dogleg].  Their Redan hole is also unique -- it looks awkward but it works quite well.

Kyle:

We also consult at Camargo and the two courses are fairly comparable. Camargo is at a bit larger scale, it takes up more property and the ravines are bigger and deeper and there are some hills (whereas the bulk of Shorecares is on a relatively flat plateau intersected by ravines).  I think that Camargo has the better set of par-3's by a shade, but I'd rank them the same overall.

That guy probably likes courses that are hard.  One thing I'll say, for now, is that there is no doubt in my mind that Shoreacres is by far the easiest course on anybody's Top Anything list that I, personally, have played.  

To me, though, that is not necessarily a bad thing.  It's probably a very good thing.  Not every great course has to beat your brains in.  The beauty of Shoreacres is in its breezy flow and its throwback character, not its challenge.  Yes, there are challenging shots.  But there are simply fewer than most Top ___ courses.

Very well said.  Shoreacres is easy....very easy.  Modern equipment has made the par 5 on the course medium-length par 4s.  

That being said, for reasons I can't put into words, it is the finest golf course I have ever played.  I don't know exactly why I love it so much....I just do.

That being said, for reasons I can't put into words, it is the finest golf course I have ever played.  I don't know exactly why I love it so much....I just do.

I agree 100%.  I don't think a tee time at CPC, PV or AN would give me the morning butterflies as much as one at Shoreacres does.  There is something magical about the place.

CPS

I'd say Shivas puts it about right. I can't say it's the greatest course I've ever played, but it is a neat place.

The Redan is a big hole. The back right mound really stares at you, and a ravine on the left is a death sentence if you pull hook your attempt at the back left flag.

The Biarritz has a huge, huge green.

The short hole is interesting, it's like a small push up green but down into a ravine.

I thought the road hole was pretty uninspired, but not a bad hole.

The most interesting holes to me were 2, 11, and 13.

And most odd of all, especially given its name, there are no holes on the shore, even though there could have been

#2 looks like a crazy good hole.  I would love to try and get close to a back left pin there.

What about 15?
Ran seems to admire that hole in his review.
It definitely looks original.
Any thoughts on the hole, which for facts sake is 520 yards long, a good distance for half par.

Shivas,

It still looks awesome right.
 

Maybe I'll play the course with nothing but my irons.  I hit my 3-iron about 220, so that would be perfect!

Is Shoreacres one of those "easy par, hard birdie" courses?  I always say that I like more challenging courses, but not every course needs to be a Carnoustie.  I have no problem with courses that are challenging because you have to think about where you are putting the ball if you want to set up a good look at birdie, but give you a lot of leeway off the tee and on your approach and still allow par.  Its just a different type of challenge compared to one that makes you really work for a par to make up for a misplayed shot.

I meant other than those.  I consider any hole that I'm going to have a mid iron or less to after a decent drive as a par 4, regardless of what the scorecard says.

Quote from: Doug Siebert on July 30, 2007, 12:01:45 AM

Is Shoreacres one of those "easy par, hard birdie" courses?  

No, all the par 5s should be (very well could be) birdied by anyone carrying a handicap under 8.

At 520 yards, is #15 the shortest par-5 on the course?

If anyone has ever played Shoreacres and then Chicago GC in short order on the same trip, the contrast between the intimacy of Shoreacres and the expansive prairie at Chicago is amazing.  Also, at Chicago, the template holes seem to stand out, while at Shoreacres it is the originality of 11, 15, and a few others that does.  Also the air conditioning.

Was Shoreacres considered easy when it opened?

George, the best players were only carrying the ball less than 200-yards at the time.

Would that be like playing the course using a 4 or 5 iron off the tee today?