The Matt Ward Scale

[Steve_Lovett]

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.

 

[Matt_Ward]

Steve L:

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.

My review was not "tainted" -- I simply made an observation that the 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.

Sutton Bay is still an exceptional course but the routing element, for me at least, keeps it from being even rated higher.

David M:

You said, "Why are you (Matt) capable of understanding by observation and inquiry, but the rest of us are limited to direct experience?"

David -- I base the bulk of my opinions on what I experience through my playing of a course. I also go forward in observing those who play with me and their reactions to the course. I often ask questions of the people I encounter when making a visit. Often times the people I ask are the superintendent, head pro and GM, to name just a few. In a number of instances I make return visits to see if my initial comments are accurate. If they're off-based I say so.

I never make comments on a facility from simply walking a course or from observing photographs. I don't have that unique gift -- likely you and others do.

Noel:

I never said observation offers no meaning, but it is not as complete and comprehensive for me as actually playing the course. I humbly submit that to you for consideration. Until you play the course you don't know if the architectural elements are stragegically interwoven or merely visual stimuli with no bearing on the actual playing of the shot at hand or the hole in question.

Tommy:

I'll just leave it this way -- you have a particular sense of what great golf should be about. So let's just say we agree to disagree -- when / if you go to Sutton Bay I'd like to hear your comments.

Tommy -- I have pointed out in great detail the shortcomings of plenty of Tom Fazio, Rees Jones and Jack Nicklaus designs. I also have saluted some of their grand efforts as being worthy of attention for the top qualities they possess. I believe I'm capable of doing this because I have played no less than 50 of there respective designs over a range of years. Frankly, I think if you uttered a no-holds-barred compliment to a TF or RJ or JN course I think you might have convulsions.

Enjoy Tommy ...

[Dan Kelly]

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.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

I have always been humbled by what I learn from a course after multiple encounters whether playing or studying.  It seems impossible to know a course without many, many visits.  One course which I have extoled on this site has lost some lustre since playing a second time because it became apparant to me it lacked real strength in its strategic design, but did give the impression it had some real strong strategic designs because of the visual quality of the course.  That opinion may change after more encounters...starting to sound like Senator Flip-Flop...oops sorry David M.

I played one of my courses with a golf writer and on at least three of the pin areas that day, we only played 10 holes because of rain, I bounced my ball into a pin area that the writer did not know exisited, and may never had known had they not played with me, and if it was their only visit and the pins were not in those locations, certainly never would have known. For me those options to play two different shots to get into the same pin area is of high value in the strategic design of a course, and yet to the unfamiliar player could take time to discover.  Therefore, it seems that the raters may get a lot right, but they may not know what they missed.  If the ratings matter to you then this can be disturbing, otherwise it is an ammusing process that adds some fun to the game I guess but has no permanent value to me.

[Jeff Goldman]

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_Brauer]

Dan,

You wrote:

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*?

Good Point.  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?


Kelly,

Gawd, I would hope that most raters know enough to look around at other pin locations!  But, maybe not all do.....

Jeff,

Hmm, another good point!  That does support that you can learn a bunch about a course by walking and studying.  Whether or not you (or anyone) says so, I suspect that any evaluations or rankings are compared subconsciously to other courses in ones experience.  In other words, don't we all mentally rate a course every time we play?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

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.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Matt,
If and when I ever get to Sutton Bay, you most surely will. I will also have you note that none of my critiquing or opining has anything to do with that course.

[Dan Kelly]

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?

[DPL11]

This is just another example of why I hate ratings and rankings. Many months back Matt, in only a way that he can, basically told me that I must be blind to not be able to give a complete opinion (or ranking) on a golf course from 1 round.

Isn't the ultimate compliment to a golf course's greatness revealed by many rounds, and finding new design and strategy features every visit?

Sure, I can tell after one visit if its sh** or not, but different elements like weather, course conditions, my game (good or bad) are all factors I use in developing my opinion. How good it is comes with time and experience.

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

[Rick Shefchik]

It seems to me that the more interesting and topographically diverse the land, the fewer realistic routing options you have. Given a relatively flat piece of land, I'd guess you could make hole direction a priority, taking the prevailing wind into consideration as you go. But on a site like the Wilderness at Fortune Bay, I didn't sense there were a lot of alternative routing possibilities. The rock ledges incorporated into the fairways, for instance, certainly seemed to call for fairways that ran parallel to the ledges, rather than perpendicular -- though I suppose it could be considered interesting to have to play sideways away from a 20-foot rock ledge between you and the hole.

Sutton Bay looks like the same sort of site -- lots of hills, plus a rather large water feature, which limit the alternative routing possibilities. I hope I can see it for myself soon, but my guess is the wind direction isn't going to have a great affect on my assessment of the course.

[JakaB]

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

[Matt_Ward]

Dan K:

What's ridiculous?

The reality is a bit different than what you're saying Dan. The course offers a one dimensional routing -- out and back. The only exceptions being the 1st hole and the last two. You also said ... "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."

Dan -- the above statement speaks to your appreciation (lack thereof) of what a superior routing should be about IMHO -- no offense intended. Routing should encompass the fullness
of a given site and constantly alter what the player encounters -- with wind being part of that equation. A golf round is not 18 individual holes but the totality and juxtaposition of how they mesh together -- a superior routing doesn't provide a rudimentary map of  "either or" type golf. Sutton Bay features a routing similar to that of Troon. While Troon is still a fine course I personally believe it's routing limits it to a second tier below the classic links in the UK.
 
Rick S:

You say the wind velocity won't matter to you. Please tell me this AFTER you play the course and AFTER you experience the 25-30 mph with gusts of 35-40 mph I faced.  
The routing, with limited exceptions, is simply one dimensional -- out and back.

Rick -- the site has 5,000 acres of land. How does that limit routing possibilities? For someone who has not been there or played the course isn't your evaluation on what might be doable or not doable a wee bit premature?

Mr. Larson:

I said you can certainly glean a good number of things from making one visit provided you are attuned to what is there. I try to keep an open mind and after my playing the course and from observing the play of others in addition to a discussion with say the GM, pro or Super allows me to get a very good idea on what makes a course be what it is. Do multiple visits help deepen one's understanding? No doubt they do -- no less than one playing visit is MILES beyond those who think they can fathom the essence of a course from simply looking at photographs and / or walking the layout.

Let me just say this -- I can play Sutton Bay a bunch of times but the core routing of "out and back." That will forever remain the same unless they change it. If the predominant wind direction is either out of the south or north you face the one dimensional aspect I referred to previously. Does that mean the course isn't good? Not at all. It just means to me it's a limitation that could have been avoided if so chosen.

[Dan Kelly]

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.

[Matt_Ward]

Dan:

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.

You see holes as individualistic situations -- "a Routing Apostate" -- I see a great routing as a weaving of the holes together and for them to move in such a direction 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 -- variations being central -- from a course that ties all the individual experiences into a unique outcome.

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? If you can't assess Sand Hills please place for me Sutton Bay among the best all-time courses you have played. I would like to see sense of where you believe the course fits among the best courses you have ever played. Thanks ...

[Dan Kelly]

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.

[DMoriarty]

Matt.  

How does your last post to me gybe with your earlier posts where you told me that I couldn't possibly understand your 'good-player' perspective on Rustic?  

...starting to sound like Senator Flip-Flop...oops sorry David M.

Do you write these witty lines down as you listen to Rush, or do you hear them so many times that they stick with you?   Let's see . . . throw out a catchy but absurd talking point while avoiding forums where it may be exposed as rhetorical garbage.     Well I guess if it works for Dubja, why not?    

I admire your restraint in staying away from off-topic politics.

[Matt_Ward]

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.

[Dan Kelly]

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.

No, I didn't. Am I required to agree with you?

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.

Since you've never addressed *my* point, perhaps you missed it (I wouldn't presume to tell you that you had -- because, really, I don't know):

The diversity of Sutton Bay's routing will reveal itself over time, through multiple playings, in the various wind speeds and directions. Too bad you got to play it only once.

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.

Again, I say: I get your point! Really, I do. I just don't agree with it! I think 8, 9, 10 at Pebble Beach is a great stretch of holes -- and I wouldn't change my view of that greatness if 11, 12, and 13 had continued in the same direction!

Yeah, I know ratings are disliked by people but choices are fundamental to plenty of things in life.

Yes, they are -- but they're not fundamental to this, in my view of the world. There's absolutely no reason why a person like me should choose between Sand Hills and Sutton Bay, should rate one higher than the other, should rank one higher than the other! None!

They're both wonderful courses, in enchanted locations. I'll be *perfectly* happy playing either one of them, any time.

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.

I suspect you miss my point. My point is: Every final routing is but one (1) of an unlimited (unlimited) number of possible routings. It is, by definition, "limited" to that one routing.

Are you suggesting that (1) Graham Marsh and his partners at Sutton Bay DIDN'T deliberate duely and adequately about how best to use their property; and that (2) you know better than they do, based on having played one round there?

One word: Sheesh!

I guess we can simply disagree.

Thank goodness for that.

[DMoriarty]

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 . . . .

[Rick Shefchik]

Marsh says that type of routing was his initial desire. He writes, "Whilst it was achievable, it didn't offer the most natural golf holes or the easiest of walks. Eventually I decided to abandon this approach and concentrate on one 18-hole loop. I quickly became excited with this concept, as historically, out and back courses have had a significant impact on the game itself."

He goes on to discuss the positives and negatives of this approach. He says that some days, one of the nines would be "desperately challenging." But he concludes: "I pondered this on many occasions then thought to myself, so what, isn't this an experience in itself?"

On another thread, Mark Amundson said: "The decision was made long before we started that we would move no more earth than needed and would keep the site as natural as possible.  The natural landforms of Sutton Bay run north and south and there is a 300 ft. fall from the east ridge to the water, and that fall takes place in only a 1/2 mile at times.  To try and play golf holes in an east/west direction would have required huge earthworks, would have felt very odd, and was just not necessary.  As Tyler commented, there are many very rugged places on the site which were not conducive to golf and they had to be bridged.  We discussed at length trying to get the holes on the front nine and back nine going in different directions because of the winds and the only way this would be possible would have been to have returning nines with the start of the course out near hole 5 or 6.  Matt commented on the length of the drive to the first tee as a negative and doing returning nines would have added another mile or more to the trip.  The 18 hole loop at Sutton Bay speaks to traditional links golf, and were the absolute best 18 contiguous holes possible given the site, and the desire to leave things natural."

I can certainly understand how one 18-hole round into a strong, steady wind would make one wish for a routing that changed things up a bit, but given the explanations offered, I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the guys who had to make budget. They chose out-and-back over moving tons of earth, for practical reasons. If this means Sutton Bay isn't one of the greatest courses on earth, I think we can all live with that. It still sounds damn good.

[Matt_Ward]

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 Kelly]

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.

In other words: Yes, after playing one round there, you think you have better ideas than they do about the best use of their property. Fine. So be it. I officially doubt it -- but: So be it.

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.

Let me put it this way: A respectable restaurant critic would NEVER review a restaurant on the basis of one meal -- even a meal eaten in the company of several fellow-eaters with whom the critic has "shared."

Respectable restaurant critics know well, and respect this knowledge, that the experience of most restaurants varies from day to day -- meaning that several meals on separate occasions are required to generate the truest possible impression of the restaurant.

Every word of what I've said about restaurants is equally true about golf courses -- so, yes, I think the respectable golf-course critic, no matter how big a name he might have, should play a course more than once before forming and publishing an opinion. Twice is better; three times is better than that; et cetera.

I would still like to know if Sutton Bay is among your ten best golf experiences?

Yes. Easily.

[Matt_Ward]

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?