Matt,

I heard equally about what you found at Sutton Bay as I did about what "could have been" at Sutton Bay, including alternative hole orientation and the balance of approximately 5,000 acres.  I respect your opinions and breadth of your travel & perspective - and haven't seen Sutton Bay to offer a specific opinion of my own.

In that light, my comments were not specific to your evaluation - but were general toward many course reviews/ratings, seemingly tainted by a "what could have been" or "what I would have done" opinion.  

I WOULD say, that I think if you were rating purely on what you saw, the issue of the "other" 5,000 acres may not have come up.

 

I mentioned the 5,000 acres of land because it appears to me that Sutton Bay had the wherewithal to do different routings that may have resulted in a layout that provided for a much more complex routing than simply the N-S direction or S-D of the wind.... [T]he routing selected minimizes the range of situations the golfer faces because it's either downwind or into the wind for either side of the course you play with the exception being the 1st hole and the final two.

Matt --

It's not "either downwind or into the wind." With all due respect, that's ridiculous!

Yes, the layout -- like many links, no? -- is *primarily* generally one direction out and *primarily* generally one direction back. But as Mark Amundson attempted to demonstrate to you in that "Golfing the Dakotas" thread, the individual holes at Sutton Bay include noteworthy directional variations within those primary prevailing directions. They're not in some straight, yardstick-like line!

Furthermore, and far more importantly: South Dakota, not at all uniquely, experiences winds from every direction: N, NNE, NE, ENE, E, ESE, SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW, WSW, W, WNW, NW, and NNW. So even if the Sutton Bay routing were due north and south, the course would, over the course of multiple rounds in varying wind conditiions, maximize the situations the golfer faces.

(I would guess that westerly -- from SSW to NNW -- winds would be the most common, over time, meaning that the Sutton Bay golfer would most commonly face varying crosswinds over most of the course. Mark Amundson can say if my guess is right or wrong.)

It appears that your criteria for excellence in routing demand around-the-compass variation within *every* round.

Why cannot a routing be equally excellent if it offers around-the-compass variation *over time*?

Surely Sutton Bay -- even less than most courses -- was not designed with the one-time, one-round player in mind.

Someone may have already pointed this out, but if playing is required to evaluate the merit of a course, how could anyone design a good golf course except by happenstance, since you can't play it until it's too late?    

Jeff,

You are making an assumption that I will not make.  Considering all of the contouring around and leading into a green, and its different pin areas, some obvious, many not so obvious, unless you play the variety of shots into that pin area and experience the slopes subtle and not so subtle, I do not think you achieve full appreciation of the design.  

Would your personal "Kelly Scale" concerning routing variety distinguish between a private course and one like SB designed primarily to be played only a few times a year by members, and more often, only once by guests?

Jeff --

As much as I'd like to have a scale named after me, I don't have any kind of Scale at all! No checklists, either! (And, no, I don't mentally rate a course every time I play it. I don't feel qualified to do so. What I do do every time I play is gauge how much pleasure the course gave me in playing it. I suppose you could call that a "rating," but I don't.)

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're drawing, but ...

I think of SB as a members' course -- to be played numerous times during each day of each visit, likely in varying conditions, both by the members and by their guests. (My guess is that Matt Ward's single round on a single day was a major exception to the rule out there.) Given that, the out-and-back routing works just fine, I think ... as it would for any private course.

I liked the routing at Sutton Bay just fine -- with one exception: I wish it were an easier walk -- as I said during the first Sutton Bay thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=6662;start (And, now that you guys are talking about hole locations: I wish Sutton Bay would cut a second hole in the afternoon, so that a person could play two different courses each day.)

Should a resort course have more directional variety? I don't know. What do you think?

I guess, though, maybe I'm something of a Routing Apostate. If a course has 18 interesting holes, of various lengths and appearances and shot demands, I don't lose much sleep about how an architect gets me to them. I very much enjoyed The Legend at Giants Ridge, just for example, even though environmental demands forced the architect (Lanny Wadkins, wasn't it?  ) to have many long cart rides between greens and tees -- diminishing the sense of the course as a *course*, as opposed to a series of 18 holes.

Would I prefer greater connectedness? Would I like The Legend even better if the tees were a hop, skip and/or jump from the greens? Yes, of course. Who wouldn't?

Dan,

I looked at the old picture thread.  The place is spectacular, and try as I might, I sure didn't see many holes with other obvious ways to route them.  So, while I defend Matt's right to evaluate courses any way he deems fit, I agree that the overall impression is too impressive to quibble. On the other hand, this is a golf course architecture site, so why not?

Generally, if I am doing a resort or public course, my tendency might be to line holes up with the wind, if any prevails, as those are usually a bit easier to play than constant crosswinds.  

As I mentioned on an earlier post, most sites have a dominant topographical or dimensional axis, and between that and fitting contours, which way the wind blows is somewhere down the line for any course.  After routing to the land, THEN, I look at those checklist factors.  They really come into play if I have two variations on a routing.  Most times, architects "go with the gut" and pick the routing that "feels better."  On occaision, one routing looks better on plan, but some analysis reveals that better length, wind, or sun orientation is achieved with another and I go with that one.

Given Sutton Bay is not primarily walkable there were an infinite diversity of routing options....

Dan K:

What's ridiculous?

Read what I wrote, Matt! I think I made it perfectly clear what I think is ridiculous.

No offense intended.

You have your opinion. I have mine.

Yes, I do have my opinion -- as you do -- but here's one deniable fact. The routing of Sutton Bay is essentially "out and back." That is a limited option given what else could have been done partner.

Yes, it is essentially out and back. And, as I said above, I have no problem with that, given that virtually everyone who will play the course will play it numerous times in numerous wind conditions -- producing a different course each time. Sometimes the out will be easier and the back will be harder; sometimes it'll be the opposite; oftentimes it'll be a crosswind out and an opposite crosswind back, or vice versa.

Here's another undeniable fact . . . partner: EVERY final routing is a limited option given what else could have been done.

I, for one, am quite unqualified to say what else "could have been done" at Sutton Bay, or if any of what "could have been done" would have produced a better golf course.

I see a great routing as a weaving of the holes together ... such ... that no matter the wind direction faced on a given day -- the totality of what you face will prove to be a constant level of greatness...

I'd think it'd be hard to judge whether Sutton Bay provides a constant level of greatness, based on a single round. But I guess you managed it!

I wonder how many courses in the world offer a constant level of greatness no matter the direction of the wind. I first thought of Pebble Beach -- but then concluded: That 8, 9, 10 stretch there sure does suffer from being laid out in the same direction, with the same wind on all three holes.

Are you honestly saying that if both nines at Sutton Bay had turned back on themselves, so that you faced that nasty north wind for exactly the same number of holes, but not in succession, Sutton Bay would be a *much* better golf course? Fine if you are. I disagree. A matter of opinion -- humble or otherwise.

Dan -- help me out -- if you have played Sand Hills -- how would you compare the two courses and which one (please no tap dance) would you say is the better course?

As I've said repeatedly on this site, I am not interested in either rating or ranking golf courses -- at least in the way you are. And I am not qualified to do so. I'm sure I've played fewer great courses than almost anyone else here.

Having said that:

I played Sand Hills (very badly) for two (very windy) days in the fall of 1996. I thought it was the most magical place on Earth. It ripped open my eyes as to what was possible, in terms of golf courses. It was as different from what I'd seen before as Manhattan is from Mullen. I've wanted desperately to return there ever since. For years, hardly a day passed, all year long, when I didn't have at least a passing thought of Sand Hills. The course (inseparable, in my mind, from the place) gets a solid 3* in the Goodale/Michelin system -- meaning that I would drop everything and go hundreds of miles out of my way to play there.

So does Sutton Bay -- and, later this fall, I will attempt to drop everything and drive hundreds of miles out of my way to play there. You've been there; you know that it, too, is a magical place, and a  wonderful golf course, and a person would have to be jaded and world-weary beyond belief not to thank his lucky stars that he's there.

If you forced me, upon pain of death or dismemberment, to choose one golf course or the other, my guess today (remember: I've played these places only once -- and would not be prepared to pass judgment on them even if I were the sort to pass judgment) is: I would choose Sand Hills. But if you forced me to choose one *place* or the other: I might very well choose Sutton Bay.

In either place, I'd be one blissful golfer.

Dan:

Appreciate your point of view but you entirely missed my point on how routing is so important an aspect in the merits / lack thereof of any course.

I don't doubt Sutton Bay is a marvelous course -- I don't hand out 7's on the Doak scale like candy. The issue is the connection and diversity of how the routing takes you through the property. It essentially goes one way and then the other. That is irrefutable.

The wind pattern is also quite straightfoprward because the holes are limited to a out and back formula -- minus the limited number of ones I previously mentioned.

I don't doubt holes can be marvelous as "individuals" but the essence of a course is the manner by which the architect takes you through the property and at the same strives to keep yuu off balance by moving holes in different directions so that the player doesn't face the same situation one hole after the other after the other.

I guess we can simply disagree. Regarding your Pebble Beach example -- you're right -- the long par-4's do follow a sequence of going the same direction.

Dan you said ... "If you forced me, upon pain of death or dismemberment, to choose one golf course or the other, my guess today (remember: I've played these places only once -- and would not be prepared to pass judgment on them even if I were the sort to pass judgment) is: I would choose Sand Hills. But if you forced me to choose one *place* or the other: I might very well choose Sutton Bay."

Dan -- talk about agonizing over a decision. You think i was asking you to give up your first born!

Yeah, I know ratings are disliked by people but choices are fundamental to plenty of things in life. I agree that Sand Hills is the better of the two courses -- the land, routing and variety of shot values you encounter there -- plus the uniqueness of the putting surfaces makes it for me one of the ten best courses in the USA.

Dan you also said, "Here's another undeniable fact . . . partner: EVERY final routing is a limited option given what else could have been done."

That's not so! The great routings come about because the folks involved ultimately decide how to best use their property. If anything is "limited" it's their thinking on the subject. Superior routings IMHO maximize all the key attributes of the property and make it a point to include holes that vary in length, configuration and direction. Dan -- that's not "limited" -- it's quite solid when carried out. If you were to check Shinnecock Hills you would find the kind of routing I am speaking about. The architect keeps the player guessing and there is no limited routing that only take you out one way and back the other.

I respect your opinion and I appreciate the agony you must have gone through to rate the courses in some sort of manner. Sorry to put you through such pain.

Matt,  I think you missed my question above.  How does your last post to me jibe with your statements to me and others that we cannot possibly understand a golf course from the perspective of a better golfer?

Regarding routing many of your comments are based on stiff and stereotypical assumptions, which are often wrong.  
For example, you assume that wind blows in a uniform direction across a couple hundred acres of land.   This is rarely if ever the case.  

My qualifications and experience for such an assertion?   I've been outside.  

You dont need a weather map . . . .

Dan K:

I don't doubt that Marsh and the folks at Sutton Bay "deliberate(d) duely and adequately about how best to use their property." That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on what was ultimately done. I just don't see how having seven continuous holes going in one direction and then having an equal number going the reverse direction is the best that one can come up with.

The same dilemma was faced by Crenshaw & Coore on deciding which "holes" to eliminate with their routing of Sand Hills. Ultimately, the final routing that was chosen was indeed a home run IMHO.

Dan -- help me out with this -- how many rounds must one have played before forming an opinion? Two? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? If the answer is more than one than reviews by people like Ron Whitten, Brad Klein, Tom Doak or any other person must be tempered according to some unknown number of total rounds to be played.

Dan -- you obviously detest ratings. So be it. However, life inevitably involves choices of so many types and itemizing courses to me provides a sense of which ones are preferred. I would still like to know if Sutton Bay is among your ten best golf experiences? Clearly, you must have favorites.

David M:

I answered your question -- whether it's to your satisfaction is something else and frankly unimportant to me. I review golf courses by playing them and by observing the play of others (sometimes higher or lower handicaps) -- when I'm local in my "neck of the woods" I routinely play with a mixed bag of friends of different playing levels. I also ask questions from the folks who are at the facility -- e.g., pro, GM or super. Sometimes if time permits and the course is really interesting I will schedule a return visit. End of story.

David -- do yourself a favor -- go to Sutton Bay and tell me I'm wrong after you play it. I'll be interested THEN to hear your comments about routing / wind, etc, etc. Not before.

Dan:

I don't have a "better idea" than the principals on what would be the "best" -- my point was that with 5,000 acres of land to work with a routing of seven holes going one way and seven holes going the opposite way really lacks the deepest sense of imagination or diversity that such unique terrain can provide.

Given your answers -- I guess it's possible that you might find a course that goes in a straight line for 18 holes to be OK?

Dan -- reviews can take place with less than multiple rounds. I don't doubt that multiple rounds can add to one's understanding for courses that don't reveal themselves so easily -- Pinehurst #2 is one great example that comes readily to mind.

Dan -- restaurant reviews -- like movie reviews -- are done overwhelmingly from a one-time perspective. I don't doubt that people can (and do) return and reassess things if the situation warrants. I've done that with course reviews and been happy to say so in print when I have faced a situation that called upon it. In my history of visits -- the number of times of those situations is generally quite small. I can't state a definitive number but it's far from being large if memory serves me.

Dan -- last question -- you say Sutton Bay is among your ten best golf experiences -- what are the other nine and did you play all of them at least two or more times before including them on your listing? Might it be possible that you have a few of your top ten golf experiences from simply the playing of one round?