Roger, After re-reading all of Pat's posts, I realize that he is listing the reasons why he thinks the raters don't praise the course as highly as others. (more specifically, it looks like just me, fighting this one out, since some of them who also did rate it high haven't added any input here. Since it not just my, but ALL OF OUR accused "over-rating" of course, that was called into question, I'm quite surprized.)
All of the reasons Pat has listed are more then likely the cause. I do in fact remember that Pat really enjoyed Inniscrone when he played there. In fact, I think he was quite taken with the architecture, more specifically the bunkering.
I hope I'm getting this right Pat and not speaking out of turn.
The grass around the bunkers is GREAT stuff, and if they don't understand it, then how come it is understood so well at a course, say like Royal County Down?
Changing the 10th to a par 3? Brad Nycum, the former DOG for National Fairways thought that there were some changes needed for the course to sort of fix it. I totally disagreed with that thinking. Fix is not a good word, but, very slight minor changes that didn't involve an owner that knew little of the game could actually be a good thing. I don't think that there is a course out there that could say that it was perfect when it was finished. (other then Cypress Point or Friars Head!) Especially when GREAT natural features are being used, and the elements of tee or bunker placement become useful tools. Knowing Gil and Co. they strive to tie-in their work as much as possible to the nature of the entire ideal. (I hope this make sense.) It truely takes an artistic and a sceintific touch to do this. Most of the time things work, but their is going to be a little idiosyncracy that needs more, and I say this in bold-block capitals--REFINEMENT. For all of the GREAT architecture going on at Inniscrone, I'll take the idiosyncracies anytime! In fact, when I called up Redanman, back in PA., shortly before Rustic Canyon opened, I screamed to him on the phone--I have my very own Inniscrone! In fact it might be even better! Its mine, all mine!
I can't think of one feature at Inniscrone that looks artificial or at least un-natural, with the exception of the resevoirs near #2 and 18, and which they had no control over. Still, does it affect the architecture and playability of the course? NOT ONE BIT!
Pat brought up another point that bares discussion. the 16th hole.
At first, I found the 16th hole to play sort of clumsy. I didn't care for the postioning of the tee; As you probably know, they had to avert an old road, and foundation for a historic house down about 100 yards and down the hill. The bunker guarding the sub-terrained green, is magnificent, as was all of the masterful shaping or lack of shaping of the side-hill of the alternate route. I must admit that I was pretty lame for not really seeing the integrity of the hole at first. But after talking to Geoff Shackleford, after he had returned it all sort of opened up for me. It was a perfect example of using the methodology of Quarry Hole at Merion, only suited in a very difficult area where both eco and historical preservation was needed. The hole wasn't the typical, put somethig simple in there and get the player out of there as quick as possible and make it look pretty like most architects would have opted. The hole simply requires some pretty bold and convincing play, but you have choices (options) aplenty.
I can say with all earnest that other then my love for the phenominal 12th, the 16th may be the one hole that makes me want to return to Inniscrone the most. Here is a modern golf hole that inspires me. A perfect example of golf architecture and the natural features becoming so memorable, the Wayfarer can hardly wait to return.
This is why I rate Inniscrone so highly.