Paul:
Par-5 holes are fundamentally a part of the troika of holes you should find at a top course. I'm not saying that a facilty must have four par-5's but if a course lacks any of them then yes, I would weigh that against it's overall standing. On another point -- let me remind you that I thoroughly enjoyed the quirky Pennard when I visited Wales last September, to name just one example. People who seek to pigeonhole me on course preferences will be sadly mistaken in a number of instances.
Paul, architecture to me is not simply some "artsy" concept. It is defined by its ability to create an interesting and solid array of shots and holes. SH has a number of them -- it also possesses it's fair share of the ordinary. My point was that other Jersey courses -- that are no longer than SH -- are in so many ways just as interesting -- possibly even more interesting.
Paul -- help me stop laughing when you seek to defend the par-5's at SH versus those at Plainfield. If you think it's even remotely close then we are in different worlds -- not just states. Yes, the green at #10 is quite nice but where's the real demand on the 1st or 2nd shots? It's a good long par-4 --that I will concede. As a par-5 it's simply low level filler between the 9th and 11th holes.
We see the par-3 situation differently. I have Plainfield with a tiny edge. The par-3 3rd at Plainfield is solid -- you might not have remembered the delicious bunker that guards the left side of the green for those who pull their approach away from the H20 -- great architecture because of where it's places and the demands it intensifies for players who bail out to that side. The 6th green is a well done Ross hole. It looks easy but few come away with a birdie. The 11th is a great short par-3 -- nuff said. The long par-3 14th can be a real bear -- I have even said that at full length the hole may be too demanding. I concede the greatness of SH's 2nd hole -- the 8th is also good. The 12th is simply overrated IMHO and the 16th is no better than Plainfield's 6th.
The situation with the 17th and 18th at SH is also quite clear to me. Clearly, the "architecture" aspect supersedes the "golf" aspect for you. The 17th and 18th at SH are simply lame holes for a course that begs for a really thrilling finish.
Matt
Great architecture is about having holes and shots that draw you back time after time. Not whether it has par 5s or not. Or is that too artsy fartsy for you?
That's the trouble with some rankers, they've been programed too much as to what constitutes great golf architecture..with their little categories. Thank goodness the great architects of the past didn't have such constraints.
So the 10th at SH is a good par 4 but a poor 5. That makes no sense. It's simply a good hole.
You're still wrong on the par 3s. I never compared the 5s at SH and Plainfield. And you still conveniently ignore 13-15 at Plainfield.
I always play the courses, if I can. It's not some esoteric appreciation of architecture. I'm just not really concerned about par, slope, rating...
What exactly is lame about the 17th and 18th at SH? I suspect you just find them too short for your
own game. Like the 18th at Portmarnock, definitely a fine links finisher, but too short for you as I recall. Either it's a really tough finish, or it's lacking in your book.
PS You still haven't answered Mike's question as to how the ranking differs from your own. The list does seem to be awfully close to your stated preferences in threads on GCA; particularly in the top spots.
You can have the last word.