JES 11, I have only played Commonweath once but did not get the same feeling of quality as KH.  There were some interesting holes but there were changes being made which caused some controversy.  Not been to Yara Yara.

Kingston Heath is a wonderful course on a pretty ordinary setting.  Be interested to see what others think in this part of the world.

Kingston Heath is a pretty good course on a fairly ordinary piece of ground, sand-based or not.  With the addition of some horribly out of place mounding on a few holes.

You could probably say most of the Sandbelt courses are better designs than the land.

I also played Commonwealth and Yarra Yarra, is it generally accepted that KH is a much better golf course than either of those? Do they also have slightly better land?

Generally accepted, yes.

But Commonwealth is on a slightly better piece of land. It has a little more variety of terrain than KH, although KH is probably a trifle hillier.

Jason,

I agree with you on Purgatory.  I live about 30 minutes away and always take 37 to Indy.  The site was just a flat cornfield, nothing.  Driving past during construction, was always interesting and commanded a "WTF are they doing there" as new mountains of earth were moved around.  But the course is fun (if you're a masochist), maybe a bit much, but is definately worth playing.

Ed, Those pictures make me want to cry. Just how perfect some of the grounds on which this sport is played upon.

Do you have a photo of the Maiden from it's original tee which was short left of the previous 4th green? Oh, please do tell me you do!

Tommy,

Sadly no. But I do requests and I will take a picture on my next visit.

Ed

JES II:

I admitted as such. Simple differences in opinion. Be nice to see others do what you suggested when the circumstances have arisen. I'm still waiting on a few.

I've played more than the just the tourist allotment of courses from across the pond. If people see RSG as links land of the highest quality then a pair of good glasses is indeed in order. The course is a real test and I've opined on that aspect.

JES II:

RSG does have stellar golf at certain points during the round. I just don't see the overall land as rich as what I have seen with other links type sites. A so-so site doesn't mean in my mind that the land has no value. I originally included WF / West as an example from the States and while the land doesn't have the heave and ho of other Westchester County layouts the overall nature of the land does have its
moments -- see the downhill then upgill par-4 15th, as just one example.

In my visits to the UK I believe it's the courses of the beaten path that receive little attention that often have the better overall links land. While they may not have the capability in testing the very fine golfer -- say at The Open level (as RSG certainly is) they truly have some interesting moments. Tom Doak and Jim Finegan, to name just two, have chronicled their stories in different ways.

One last point - I have highlighted many times the contributions made by others on this site and I've personally posted corrections from my side without hestitation too. The issue is one of a quid pro quo and far too often when the record could have been balanced some of these same folks have responded in utter silence. Courtesy and respect are rules for the road and I certainly hold myself accountable -- I just don't want to be isolated on a one-way street though.

Paul:

I do have to work sometime -- the listing would take plenty of time to type here. As I said before -- I do concur with much of what Doak and Finegan, to name just two, have said on other links oriented sites throughout the UK and Ireland and many of the ones I have played in my personal visits there have been to those recommended locations.

I don't think any land that has a sandy soil can really qualify as "so-so land".  It has so many advantages over other types of soil that even a pretty featureless site can produce wonderful playing characteristics.  

Now, it's obviously not a given that a sandy site equals a great golf course.  But, if given the choice, not man people would choose a flat clay site over a flat sandy site.  

I'm not sure why anyone would choose a clay site over a sandy site. Clay has few advantages over sand in terms of turf maintenance.  

Would you rather have a flat site with sandy soil, or have a site with lots of elevation change and movement on a clay soil?

I'm not sure soil type matters as much as it used to, now that lots of fairways are capped with 3 or more inches of sand.  Obviously this isn't as ideal as a pure sand soil. I don't see any reason though why the fast and firm playing conditions associated with 'links' courses can't be recreated on all golf courses.  Ooh wait, I remember why, it's because most who golf are obsessed with lush, green (over watered) turf.

If HarbourTown has more than a 6 ft slope on any green, bunker or tee box I'd be surprised -- thus the use of trees, angles and small greens I suppose.  

TPC is my favorite on a former swamp.  

Surprised no other Florida suggestions isn't that the land of so-so sites.

move lots and lots of dirt, and create artificial features.  Given a big enough budget and earth moving allowance, a flat site is like a blank canvas, in which a designer could go wild with.

move lots and lots of dirt, and create artificial features.  Given a big enough budget and earth moving allowance, a flat site is like a blank canvas, in which a designer could go wild with.

Definitely at Shadow Creek.  But is that they did at Winged Foot West, Pinehurst #2, Kingston Heath, Muirfield or Carnoustie?  

Archies, is that all there is to it?  Throw a lot of money, move a lot of dirt, create artificial features?  

Kingston Heath is another excellent choice -- not only a flat site but a small one.  

Who guys, Philippe?