I am not sure if the summary is correct that the course was easy for the very low handicaps, frustrating for the 3-8 handicap, and more playable than Mr. H. says for the higher handicaps. If that IS the case, I will take it. I would have made it more frustrating for the 0-2 handicaps, too, but there wasn't enough room up on the hill to make it effectively longer.
Perhaps the 5-handicaps are MORE frustrated about the situation because they are getting bopped on both sides -- not only are the lower handicaps scoring well and telling them it's not so hard, but the higher handicaps aren't too bothered and are maybe even beating the 5's because the course has not gotten under their skin.
Of course, it's possible that the course really sucks and just that 90% of the players were sucked in by the stunning visuals of the place. Everybody but Huckaby, and his silent majority who aren't talking, that is.
[If there are people who are bad-mouthing the course in private but afraid to say what they think on the board, they should be ashamed of themselves, especially for leaving Tom H. twisting in the wind here. If there was more criticism of the course I would be more inclined not to ascribe it to one player's frustration -- and I KNOW you played one good round too, Tom, you've mentioned that already.]
Mr. Huntley: The one thing Mr. Huckaby said which is NOT true is that an off-line approach is severely punished on every side of every hole. It's not even close to that. The highest handicap player in the field e-mailed me to report that he lost one ball over two rounds. As for three-putts, they're out there on a lot of greens, if you get yourself more than twenty feet on the wrong side of the hole -- and there are a lot of deceptively large greens there which makes three-putting more common, i.e. you don't get many three-putts on small greens.