...how would it be perceived?

Based on the reception of the two stunning coastal courses in Oregon, one appreciates the importance of a magical setting and Eastward Ho! enjoys this   in spades (see its course profile).

For those interested in the name game, does it have a famous architect? Tick.

For those who view golf as ideally being an uninterrupted walk through nature ala Sand Hills, Eastward Ho! passes with flying colors.

For those impressed by the merits of the figure eight routing of Whistling Straits and The Ocean Course at Kiawah, same applies here.

For those impressed by the width and ground game options at Friar's Head, same applies here (Eastward Ho!'s 5th fairway is 60 (!) yards wide at one point). Bouncing a shot onto the 9th green has to be on the game's great shots.

For those impressed with the range within the two shotters at Rustic Canyon from its tiny two shotters to the huge 14th and 16th holes, same here.

For those impressed by a stellar collection of one shot holes like (I assume) Casa de Campo, Eastward Ho!'s collection is arguably within the dozen finest in the world.  

For those of us impressed with the wild, rugged topography at The Kingsley Club, the topography at Eastward Ho! is the equal to any, including such northeast classics as Yale and Fishers Island.

Similar to Hidden Creek which remains a delight to play to play day-in, day-out, one would never tire of a frequent game at Eastward Ho! Its challenge is the sort that inspires the golfer to become better and invent shots rather than being a merciless mugging that wears one out. And like Hidden Creek, a quick 18 carrying one's own bag can be had in 2 1/2 hours thanks in part to the close green to tee walks.

Ala The Plantation Course at Kapalua, the wind can vary the play of the holes wildly from day to day.

Like Harbour Town, it has a bunch of easy to identify genuinely 'great' holes (4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18 and probably 7, 11 and 16 as well) and the course's character isn't length-based.

In short, Eastward Ho! shares many of the best attributes of the finest modern courses, many of which have generated great fan-fare (and rightly so) and achieved lofty rankings with the magazines (again, rightly so). I see in Tom MacWood's 1939 rankings that Eastward Ho! was ranked #92 in the world so clearly at that point it too was perceived far and wide as one of the game's finest.  

And if Eastward Ho! opened today, I can only imagine it again being perceived as among the country's most engaging places for a game. Yet, it opened eighty-some years and is off the radar screen for most folks.

Isn't it interesting how "the flavor of the month" works with golf courses?

Cheers,

To whom it may concern -- I've played Eastward Ho and agree it is indeed a unique and special place. A first rate "sporty" course that many would enjoy playing time after time even for the neandethal type of "modern" golfer I am stereotyped as.

I'd rather play it than Maidstone and Shoreacres.

As far as the architect...I'm not sure Fowler is a well known name in the US...certainly not as sexy as MacKenzie, Ross, Tillinghast or Raynor.

I don't think Thompson is a sexy name in the states, which is equally sad. Another possible example of the Confidential Guide factor, since several of his premier designs are excluded.

Some of it is antidotal. For example when Matt Ward first arrived on GCA he often quoted the book to defend his postion on a course. Mark Fine and many others rely almost exclusively on the Doak scale--IMO a reflection of its influence.

I also believe you can track the rise and fall of courses with their rating in the book. Courses like Crystal Downs, High Pointe, Stonewall, Cruden Bay, Cape Breton, Rye, Valley Club, Yale, Kawana, St.Georges, SFGC, Pasatiempo, Fishers Island, Camargo, Shoreacres, NGLA, Yeamens Hall, Garden City, etc. have either come out of no where or made a significant rise from their previous position.

A course that doesn't appear in the book--like Eastward Ho!--has very little chance...or at least that has been in the case in the past. If Banff or Jasper Park were given 8's in the book, is there any doubt they would make the World 100?

I do think there is a GCA factor....Lehigh is an example.

Ran- What's interesting in your original question is that "today" it might have a decent chance of being well received. Where just a few years ago, when the emphasis seemed to be on "championship" values, the course probably wouldn't have stood a chance. Of course this theory is completly reliant on your descriptions and inuendo about what it has to offer, having never been either east, a ward, or a ho.  

How would Eastward Ho! be perceived if it were on Long Island?

Matt
While it is fascinating to listen to a defense of your well rounded taste (for about the 25th time), I don't believe your taste was brought into question on this thread. A wee bit too sensative.

I have to admit that I wasn't chomping at the bit to play this course, but I had never looked at Ran's write-up. Holy cow! This jumps up into the top 10 of My Next Fifty.

Truly, this discussion is the best of Golf Club Atlas. Enlightenment.

I had the pleasure of playing Eastward Ho this summer. It is all the things Ran said except maybe that walk through nature is tougher than it looks. There is some great up and down the pike on this beautiful course. Did I say UP? Yes. It plays as long as any 6200 yard course I have ever played. Most of that is the topography combined with the wind. The course needs a little of the ole firm and fast though. As a friend of mine said "that course has grass which is a little too healthy". The green complexes took my breath away. I loved the contouring. It is a course that I would be proud and satisfied to play for the rest of my life.

Having played Eastward Ho! many times, I can confidently say it would be very well received if it opened today - if it were 7000 yards or more from the tips. When was the last time somebody opened a course of 6500 yards or less to any serious acclaim? If it doesn't have the length, it gets dismissed as an antique or quirky or "fun"...but not in the top tier. It's just too short.

Having said that, I wouldn't change a thing about the course. God, what a sweet place - the setting, the shot values, the variations of the topography and the elements - hard to beat that combination...anywhere.

Although its hard for me to imagine someone playing even 1-7 and not being blown away by this course, the masses would inevitably look to its length on the card.  

I'm blown away just by the pictures in Ran's course profile! (Of course, who can tell a thing from pictures?)

Speaking for "the masses": What is the evidence that "the masses" look at yardage as a critical factor?

I often hear people ask if a course they haven't played is any good; if it's hard; if it's fun; if it's well-done.

I don't think I've EVER heard anyone ask how long it is.

My guess is that owners and architects and developeers are much more interested in total yardage than "Joe Sixpack" and "Janie Wineglass" are.

Quite a few friends I know ask about the yardage every single time...

I misspoke.

What I should have said was not that I've never heard anyone ASK about yardage. I have heard that. I've asked that myself. It's interesting information.

What I should have said was that I've never heard anyone dismiss a course, before playing it, because it was 6,200 yards long from the tips and not 7,000.

The implication of SPDB's remark was: If it's a relatively short course, Joe Public will blow it off -- no matter the quality of its architecture. I could be wrong ... but I just don't believe that.

 

One of my very favorite courses is a par 69, Plymouth CC.  It's a fine Ross design with only one (great) par 5.  It plays about 6250 yards.  Drop me on the first tee there and I'll be about as happy as anywhere I've ever played.
Could it be people are afraid that they may have a day when they have all facets of their game working, have a career round and be on a less than championship length course, thereby lessening their accomplishment?
A crisply played half wedge from 40 yards to a tucked pin is a joy anywhere.  

First, to answer Ran's question: the architect would be run out of town, the green chairman would be drawn, the green committee quartered and the club president banished to the hinterlands.

Played Eastward Ho! two years ago on a clear, and very bright fall day. The wind had done a 180-degree from the day before - also another clear, bright day. Played one hole driver, 3-iron that one fellow in our group played driver, 7-iron the day before.

The ground contours are wonderful sending balls that land 5 yards apart in all kinds of directions.

The green sites are small and tricky. It should be noted that Brad Faxon spent much of his early days of golf playing here as well as R.I. Country Club. It is easy to see where his brilliant shortgame came from after playing the course.

If maintained firm, the greens on many holes would probably only accept run-ups.

It also has great quirkiness to it. The par-3 behind the clubhouse (No. 10?) would be enough to get more architects canned. When we played a badly mishit left-to-righter ended up on the green after slamming into the hill, while a ball that landed on the left side of the green and trickled off, didn't come to rest until 20 yards from the green.

In many ways I see similiarities between Eastward Ho! and Cruden Bay.