[John Kirk]

Besides the annual course rankings, my favorite feature in Golfweek are Brad Klein's course reviews.  Recently, Brad reviewed We-Ko-Pa (Saguaro).  I'd like to ask a couple questions, make a couple comments, and hopefully elicit a little general discussion about Coore and Crenshaw.

The course pictures I've seen look great.  Kind of flat, short green to tee walks, no water hazards, expert shaping and compelling strategic interest.  Plus the desert there looks very lush and filled with life.  Very beautiful!

This is a flat course, and Brad begins his review by praising the architect's interest and expertise with small elevation changes.

"Co-designers Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw are modest fellows who get excited about 1 or 2 feet of elevation change.  A lot of course architects can't even get going unless the site they are working on has elevation changes of 50 or 100 feet."

I wondered to myself whether this remark alludes to any architects in particular, especially Tom Doak, who has been building pretty hilly courses lately.  Tom Fazio gets excited about flat sites.

If I recall correctly, there's at least one long par 3, about #14 or #15, where there's a 40 foot drop over about 250 yards.  So the course probably does have a 50 foot elevation change.

I believe courses without elevation change have one primary shortcoming.  They fail to examine the player's ability to judge elevation change when approaching the green.  I mentioned this a few months ago in a different context.  When somebody (not Patrick M.) rebutted that Pine Tree, though flat, offered a complete examination of one's skills, I decided not to belabor the point and let it go.

On the other hand, I would argue that flatter courses make better ground game courses.  Neither uphill nor downhill shots lend themselves very well to running approaches.  A flatter course can use subtle undulation to great effect.  Of course, the better player plays in the air, unless its windy.


About your ratings, Brad, I have two comments.  The ten individual ratings add up to 84, or 8.4 per rating.  Your overall rating is 7.5.  I understand that overall and individual ratings are mutually exclusive, but that's a fairly big discrepancy, and I'd sure like to hear any comments you have about that.

I have several comments about your overall rating of 7.5.  I have a couple of friends who rate courses for you, and if I'm not mistaken, a rating of 7.5 means that you think this course should be ranked about the 40th best modern course in the country.  However, if all raters give this course a 7.5, it will debut at #26, between Wildhorse and World Woods (Pine Barrens).  Is it really that good?  Pine Barrens is very cool, but it didn't thrill me.  I haven't played Wildhorse, but I've heard it's sort of flat, with lots of wind and ground game considerations.

This is the second review I recall you using your own rating in the feature.  The other was Bandon Trails, which I believe you gave a 9.5-10, which means you must think it's one of 5-10 best modern courses (the cumulative rating for BT is currently about 8.1).  Lately I'm inclined to believe that Bandon Trails is a really great course, just a touch better than Friar's Head.  I like the three distinct ecosystems that the Trails traverses, and believe the shots presented are only slightly less interesting.  However, most Oregon visitors place Bandon Trails as the third best course at the resort.

Your ratings of We-Ko-Pa and Bandon Trails indicates you believe that Coore and Crenshaw are the best architects in the business by far, heads above the competition.  Your descriptions of the subtle undulations glow with admiration.  I believe your opinion is shared by most of our knowledgable members.  Golfweek places six C&C courses in the top 100 (at 1, 3, 17, 31, 58, and 78), and We-Ko-Pa and Colorado Golf Club will make eight.

My question to the group is:  Do we really believe this to be true, that Bill and Ben excel so thoroughly at design that they deserve eight spots on the list?  I would probably answer yes to this question, but the "glowing admiration" for every little undulation they create is a bit overblown.  Based on my limited experience (Trails, Friar's, Hidden Creek, and mighty Sand Hills), I think Coore/Crenshaw courses are substantially similar, with the exception of Sand Hills and Kapalua (Plantation).  To me, Sand Hills looks way different from their other courses.

There are 5-10 modern American architects with equal experience, with their own interpretation of shaping.  To paraphrase Ben Crenshaw's quote in the article, "In architecture, variety is the soul of the game."
 

[Bill_McBride]

Lately I'm inclined to believe that Bandon Trails is a really great course, just a touch better than Friar's Head.  I like the three distinct ecosystems that the Trails traverses, and believe the shots presented are only slightly less interesting.  

John, this is interesting.  I've only played each course once, walked each with a caddy.  In both cases I loved the way you go in and out of different environments, much similar to Cypress Point.

I didn't get three different environments at Bandon Trails, just dunes and "other."  What did you see as a third?

I thought the biggest differences that make me favor Friars Head greatly were (1) the much more dramatic nature of the dunesland at Friars Head, and (2) the transitional holes, the four par 5s that I have referred to as "escalators."  #2 and #11 take you down, #7 and #14 up.

I also felt the green contours were much bolder in general at Friars Head than at Bandon Trails.  

I thought there were a few holes around the turn at BT that were not as good as all the holes at FH.  Here's I'm thinking of #8, #9 and maybe #12 at BT.  There were no weaker holes at FH.

I'm really splitting hairs here because they are both obviously super courses, I just thought Friars Head was better when you thought about both courses.

[Jonathan Cummings]

I can't wait to see this place.  Bradley giving a couple of 10s to his category ratings speak volumes....

His 7.5 overall would do better than he suggests...it would probably place WKP in the top 50.

JC

[Mike_Sweeney]

My question to the group is:  Do we really believe this to be true, that Bill and Ben excel so thoroughly at design that they deserve eight spots on the list?  I would probably answer yes to this question, but the "glowing admiration" for every little undulation they create is a bit overblown.  Based on my limited experience (Trails, Friar's, Hidden Creek, and mighty Sand Hills), I think Coore/Crenshaw courses are substantially similar, with the exception of Sand Hills and Kapalua (Plantation).  To me, Sand Hills looks way different from their other courses.
 

John,

They seem to, on average, get the best land. If you look at their Bios, Bill Coore has a few courses prior to C&C that people probably would not jump on a plane to go see. They team up as a pair, build Sand Hills and now often get the best land in the US. I have always believed that great land is more important than great design. (Nobody needs to point out that Rees Jones course in Oregon  )

Of the three that I have played (SH, FH and Hidden Creek) to me they all play and look completely different. Yes some of the bunkering looks similar in some pictures Old Sandwich, Hidden Creek and some others, but what is the alternative? Put in average bunkers that have different looks for the very very small population that will play their courses?

Sugarloaf Mtn in Florida seems like it will be their first housing community since Cuscowilla so it will be interesting to see how it turns out. It definitely has elevation change.

[Bill_McBride]

Mike Sweeney, Cuscowilla is as low key and laid back as a "housing community" golf course gets.  I don't think there are more than 20 residences that actually border the golf course although more could have been built since October 2004 when I was there last for the first Dixie Cup.   And none of the residences - private homes and 3=bedroom "golf villas," were very close to the course.  It is a really cool look.

Cuscowilla was my first taste of C&C and is still one of my favorite courses anywhere.

[George Pazin]

Regarding the appearance of C&C's courses, is it really necessary for them to come out and build bunkers that look like someone else's, just to show that they can? Aren't they supposed to build the best course they feel possible? Should some client, who likely hired them based on seeing, playing and enjoying their other courses, end up disappointed with regular bunkers, just so they can prove their range?

Would building a more conventional looking course make C&C better architects?

People can develop their own answers to that, but I know what mine is.

[Eric_Terhorst]

John, a couple of comments on your remarks, which might be material for several threads!

"This is a flat course, and Brad begins his review by praising the architect's interest and expertise with small elevation changes."

True they seem to have this expertise, but one of their most-praised courses (and the only one I have played),  Bandon Trails,  isn't flattish.  In fact, my least favorite aspect of the course (which I'm sure has been discussed here before) is the arduous climb up to the 14th tee.  I like the hole, but getting there on foot is a slog.  The 16th plays significantly uphill.  The last few holes of BT make the golfer wonder if he really can get through 36 today, and surely make the caddies earn their pay!  So based on my experience C&C don't seem to be  flat-landers to a fault.


"Of course, the better player plays in the air, unless it's windy."

Huh?  In my experience the "better player" imagines and then executes a shot that is designed to achieve his goal, considering the conditions and the problem presented.  The "better player" should have both aerial and ground options in his arsenal and be willing to play either without prejudice.  Doesn't the game have a way of punishing one-trick ponies?



"My question to the group is:  Do we really believe this to be true, that Bill and Ben excel so thoroughly at design that they deserve eight spots on the list?"

They seem to be building a body of work that is well-respected, so why not?  Plus, from my ill-informed viewpoint it seems that they CHOOSE good projects, not "GET" good projects as Mike Sweeney suggested.   They were fortunate to win Sand Hills and were paid a song, but it's been all good for them since then because they did such a great job.  In reading about their courses it seems that their focus on strategy is the key thing people appreciate, not the fact that they (and we) are in love with undulation.

I note that Tom Fazio has 17 designs in Golfweek's Top 100 Modern, Pete Dye has 6 of the top 20 and 12 of 100, Nicklaus has 8 of 100.  Rees Jones has 4/100.  Are they all deserving of this level of praise?  

[Tom Dunne]

I haven't read Brad's review yet, but I'm not sure he's saying Saguaro is a flat or flattish course. I didn't find it to be flat in the least! The 36 at Talking Stick....now that's what I think of when you want to talk about a seriously flat golf course.

Saguaro has some really nice elevation change pretty much throughout, while remaining very walkable.

I posted some pics a while back. If I thought the search function would help, I'd give it a bump, but....

[Lloyd_Cole]

I just got my first paper copy of Golfweek in the mail, so this is my first Brad review in GW to scrutinise.
Brad, I don't know if you'll feel like addressing points raised here or not, but if so - It would be nice if the review format made it perfectly clear what the walking options were. Walking allowed at all times? At certain times? Or only if you take one of those power caddies which make a bad dog look good...
Your review clearly states that course is walkable, and the design certainly doesn't discourage it. But, if I'm going to go, I'm interested in the the position of the course management.

[Tom Dunne]

Lloyd,

Regarding walking, We-Ko-Pa offers three options, all at the same rate:

a.) Walk & Carry
b.) Walk with a speed cart (motorized trolley)
c.) Ride in a golf cart

[Lloyd_Cole]

Lloyd,

Regarding walking, We-Ko-Pa offers three options, all at the same rate:

a.) Walk & Carry
b.) Walk with a speed cart (motorized trolley)
c.) Ride in a golf cart

Great, and thanks. And that is as it should be, I believe.
My comment was addressed more to the format of Brad's pieces which could make this absolutely clear.

[Bryan Izatt]

To those who have played the new Saguaro course and also TSN, could you do a little comparative analysis of the two courses.  On whatever rating scheme you wish to use, does the new course match, outstrip, or lag behind TSN?  Why?  I'm curious whether the property alone, which has significantly more movement in it, makes the Saguaro Course a better course?  

[Tom Jefferson]

Bill McBride;

We at Bandon have always held that there are three distinct environments that the Bandon Trails course is routed through;
1) the dunes environment of holes 1, 2, 18; 2) the meadow holes of 3 through 6, & 14 through 17; & 3) the forest holes that start as you walk across the ridge between 6 green and 7 tee, and continue through #13.

The meadow community is dominated by the shore pine, madrone, and manzanita overstory, and the understory of Kinnickinnick, 15 or so wildflowers, and 5-10 native grasses.

To me at least, the routing of the course into and then out of these three plant communities is one of the strongest and most distinctive qualities of the Trails course.....that, and the complex, subtle, and very difficult to putt greens!

Regards from snowy Bandon,

Tom

[John Kirk]

I haven't read Brad's review yet, but I'm not sure he's saying Saguaro is a flat or flattish course. I didn't find it to be flat in the least! The 36 at Talking Stick....now that's what I think of when you want to talk about a seriously flat golf course.

Saguaro has some really nice elevation change pretty much throughout, while remaining very walkable.

I posted some pics a while back. If I thought the search function would help, I'd give it a bump, but....

Hi Tom,

I think you're right.  Brad is not saying that We-Ko-Pa is a flat course.  But his opening statement is clearly differentiating Coore/Crenshaw from other architects, who "can't even get going unless the site they are working on has elevation changes of 50 or 100 feet."  He's probably referring to elevation changes on individual holes.  It sounds to me that We-Ko-Pa (Saguaro) has an elevation range in excess of 50 or even 100 feet.

I wonder which other architects he is referring to.  I wouldn't press him to answer, but once you start moving 50 feet up or down on a hole, you are creating a difficult walk.

Here's the link. What a beautiful course.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=26986;start=msg509567#msg509567

[John Kirk]

Regarding the appearance of C&C's courses, is it really necessary for them to come out and build bunkers that look like someone else's, just to show that they can? Aren't they supposed to build the best course they feel possible? Should some client, who likely hired them based on seeing, playing and enjoying their other courses, end up disappointed with regular bunkers, just so they can prove their range?

I agree.  Jeff Bradley creates beautiful bunkers.  And why shouldn't they continue to feature a master bunker designer with a recognizable style?  There are similarities in his work from course to course, and I think I can readily identify a Coore/Crenshaw course.  This is especially true in how they transition the playing areas into the sand hazards.  But there are significant differences from course to course, too.  Hidden Creek has long, wispy fescues.  Friar's Head has some big, expansive, intricate bunkers.  I'm inclined to believe my initial assertion is about half wrong.

[John Kirk]

I can't wait to see this place.  Bradley giving a couple of 10s to his category ratings speak volumes....

His 7.5 overall would do better than he suggests...it would probably place WKP in the top 50.

JC

Like I said, Wildhorse is #25 at 7.51 and World Woods (Pine Barrens) is #26 at 7.44.

[John Kirk]

"Of course, the better player plays in the air, unless it's windy."

Huh?  In my experience the "better player" imagines and then executes a shot that is designed to achieve his goal, considering the conditions and the problem presented.  The "better player" should have both aerial and ground options in his arsenal and be willing to play either without prejudice.  Doesn't the game have a way of punishing one-trick ponies?


"My question to the group is:  Do we really believe this to be true, that Bill and Ben excel so thoroughly at design that they deserve eight spots on the list?"

They seem to be building a body of work that is well-respected, so why not?  Plus, from my ill-informed viewpoint it seems that they CHOOSE good projects, not "GET" good projects as Mike Sweeney suggested.   They were fortunate to win Sand Hills and were paid a song, but it's been all good for them since then because they did such a great job.  In reading about their courses it seems that their focus on strategy is the key thing people appreciate, not the fact that they (and we) are in love with undulation.

I note that Tom Fazio has 17 designs in Golfweek's Top 100 Modern, Pete Dye has 6 of the top 20 and 12 of 100, Nicklaus has 8 of 100.  Rees Jones has 4/100.  Are they all deserving of this level of praise?  

Terrific comments, Eric.

I stand by the first comment.  I'm a good player, about a 2 handicap presently.  If there's no wind, then 95-99% of the time I will hit a standard, aerial approach to a green, because it's more accurate.  (If I'm playing with Neil Regan, then we're putting.)  Every now and then, you might roll a long shot in there to be safely accurate, or hit a half wedge where a lob wedge might spin too much.  But the wind is by far the main reason to keep the ball low.

It really gives you something to think about, when Tom Fazio has 17 courses, and Pete Dye has 6 of the top 20, with 12 overall.  Mr. Fazio's work receives little praise here.  I haven't played a single Pete Dye course, and I need to further my education there.  I'd like to play Pete Dye Golf Club sometime while traveling between Pittsburgh and Richmond.  Pete Dye's work deserves more scrutiny here, worthy of a separate thread.

When you consider the fact that Fazio/Dye/Nicklaus/C&C have 43 of the top 100, it gives you great perspective on what makes a great course.  It's either great land or big money, or both.

Pop music is like golf courses in that some of the greatest songs are "one hit wonders", in which the artist makes one grand statement.  Does the Golfweek modern list recognize all of the one hit wonders of architecture?

[John Kirk]

One more comment.  I received an offline e-mail from a lurker, who said that if he were given 10 rounds, he'd play We-Ko-Pa 7 times and World Woods (Pine Barrens) 3 times.  I think he's right.  The pictures of We-Ko-Pa look fabulous.  No trees to block the wind, ground game options, lush, natural desert environment, beautiful long range views all around.  Is Pine Barrens that good, or did it garner its reputation as a Pine Valley facsimile?

[Jim Nugent]

When you consider the fact that Fazio/Dye/Nicklaus/C&C have 43 of the top 100, it gives you great perspective on what makes a great course.  It's either great land or big money, or both.

Lets expand the horizon beyond the U.S., and look at world rankings.  In GM's top 50 list, Fazio has 1/4 of a course (he gets partial credit for Oak Hill).  Dye has 3 courses, with the highest rated 41.  Nicklaus has 1/2 of a course, and from what I've read that is being generous: Desmond probably did most of the work.  C&C have 1.

Omitted from the discussion so far is the modern architect with the highest rankings of all.  Doak has 3 courses in the world's top 50.  Betcha Ballyneal makes the list at some point, and perhaps Sebonack as well.  Also bet some future Doak courses will rate high up there as well.  Seems like a real possibility that within several years, five, six or more of Tom's courses will be among the top 50.  

John, in your first post in this thread you suggested Brad places C&C far above the rest of the architecture crowd.  While I'm going strictly on what I read, I put Tom in that position.        

[John Kirk]

Tom Doak only has 2 courses in Golfweek's modern 100.  Let's assume Ballyneal makes the list, but not Stone Eagle, whose 6.60 rating in the recent best new courses of 2004-2005 would put it just off the list.  That makes 3.

Tom Doak only has 1 course in Golf Digest's U.S. list, and 2 on their best 100 non-U.S. list.  Coore/Crendshaw have 1 on Golf Digest's list.  Once again, Pete Dye is well represented on Golf Digest's U.S. list, with 8.  Jack Nicklaus has 4 plus two half credits on the U.S. list, and Tom Fazio has 12.

There's probably some bias at Golf Magazine, where Tom Doak has had a long time working relationship.  Maybe it's not bias, but a recognition of his expertise, that allows his courses to be considered seriously.  I'd say the same goes for Coore and Crenshaw.  When I ask my typical scratch playing friend, they know (and usually like) Fazio and Nicklaus, but haven't heard of Doak nor Coore/Crenshaw, unless they've heard of Sand Hills.

[D_Malley]

We-Ko-Pa offers three options, all at the same rate:

a.) Walk & Carry
b.) Walk with a speed cart (motorized trolley)
c.) Ride in a golf cart


so basically the golf cart rate is built into the price.  so if you choose to walk and carry, you are actually paying for the cart.  

[D_Malley]

so in my opinion the course may be walkable, but the fee structure does not encourage walking.

[Garland Bayley]

John,

Great thread! Let's hope it doesn't get sidetracked with comparative ratings.

Tom,

Thanks for the weather report from Bandon. It's snowing in Portland too, which means I cursed other drivers all the way to work this morning.   (I learned to drive winters in the Black Hills of SD. You know the place where you can't get down a 20% grade, because your bumper is pushing up too much fresh snow in front of you.   )

Brad,

We're waiting.  

[John Kirk]

I'm just about to venture out.  Very pretty today.  The snow is really powdery and looks slick.  Since I'm inexperienced, I'm that guy in the right hand lane going 40 miles an hour.

Back to the new course.  The pictures look to me that most everybody will hit at least one ball into the native.  The playing areas are not THAT generous.  65 acres of turf.  I'm trying to compare that to courses I know.  I think Ballyneal has about 65, and Stone Eagle has more, maybe 80-85.  If I'm way off on those numbers, someone will let me know.

[Doug Wright]

I'm just about to venture out.  Very pretty today.  The snow is really powdery and looks slick.  Since I'm inexperienced, I'm that guy in the right hand lane going 40 miles an hour.

John,

Take it from one who's seen many a 4 wheel drive vehicle (often rented) in the ditch off I-70 in the Colo mountains--4 wheels can skid on ice and snow just as easily as 2...

I can't take it any more here in the frozen wasteland, so I'm headed to the Valley of the Sun and playing this new C&C course Thursday. Will report back.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()