Kingston Heath? Just to get 18 holes on that property is exceptional, much less 18 of that quality.
Why?
There are three long par fives, there could have been less, a'la Rye or West Sussex.
There could have been another par three, or even two. Or three, a'la The Berkshire.
There could have been another short par four. Or two, or three.
If the ultimate object of a routing is to maximize the use of a site's natural features, whilst minimizing the inevitable tradeoffs that occur, has Kingston Heath done this?
After all, you cannot see where you are going on a number of holes.
Is there anything intrinsically special about the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 12th, 14th or 18th greensites that demand the course must be there as it is?
Surely a couple of the best holes there, 3 and 10, could have been built anywhere on that property.
Rich Macafee:
I'm not bagging Kingston Heath! And you won't hear a mention of Woodlands from me, although I can't vouch for that terrible James L character.