[ed_getka]

Tom P,
   Nice job thus far, looking forward to the rest.

[ed_getka]

[quote
                                                         
  Prairie Dunes just may be the most sophisticated application of some of the best architectural “principles” I’ve ever seen anywhere. And in a general sense here’s why, as well as some reasons I was so impressed by things I didn't expect;

1.   Many to perhaps most of the holes (whether Perry or Press) use diagonals, angles and “turns” of all kinds on the main body of holes as well as around greens and their surrounds.

2.   Combined with the green shapes and internal contours of the course these diagonals, angles and “turns” just constantly flow in such an overall natural look in and of themselves and with everything else out there. In a phrase, this kind of thing creates what I might call total architectural elegance in both small and large ways. The bunkering very much becomes part of this “over-all”.

I stress those two points above because not only do they combine to look so good in a natural sense out there, but they are also the “principles” of architecture that make golf and great courses play so strategically, so multi-optionally in the context of any golfer’s game. With only a few exceptions, the par 3 2nd and 10th, one feels he can create his own roadmap in play with both conservatism combined with a little creative “makeup” next. And in a real way, I think that’s what good golf architecture is all about.

Tom H,
    The last few lines sum up quite well what makes PD so much fun. It is not "tons of fun"  in the pure joy context  of  some courses, but I would imagine for a challenging test of golf this has to be about as much fun as one could expect to have. You are not being confronted with impossible shots with no margin for error over and over again. You always feel like you can actually play your game here, you just need to pay atttention to  what you are doing. The gunsch may appear to be a straightjacket  in the pix, but in reality you are going to  have to hit a pretty wayward tee shot to get in it, with a few exceptions being #3 tee shot, #7 tee shot, #9 tee shot  (at least  for my game). Second shots on #7 and 17 (par 5's) can also bring the gunsch into play but it still needs to be a pretty bad shot.
   In short, PD is fun within the context of being a great challenge of golf. You don't finish with a headache, you just want to get back to the  first tee, because you are convinced you can actually play the course  better than you just did.
   Okay, I'm done badgering you now.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom H:

This is starting to be like the Stone Eagle thread, except you haven't even played this course!

What makes Prairie Dunes not so relentless as Shinnecock is that it's quite a bit shorter.  There are several excellent short par-4's; a couple of excellent shorter par-3's; and there are only two par fives and they're both short.  So, even the average golfer should not be straining and flailing away with long clubs and putting the ball in the gunch all day.  I've played the course several times and never lost more than one or two balls, and often none at all.

Now, if somebody is having a bad day with the driver, failing to get it airborne or hitting big slices into the wind, Prairie Dunes can be hell.  But so are most great courses under those circumstances, with a few exceptions like National and St. Andrews and Royal Melbourne.

[Adam Clayman]

First of all, I've suggested that the club should get rid of those really wide first cut rough swaths on most of the holes. If they did that it isn't going to necessarily make the course play easier or keep golfers out of the gunch but in my opinion if a golf course gives golfers some serious and really penal gunch and also some really wide and accommodating fairway area to compensate for it they should begin to figure out some modicum of strategy to suit their game to stay out of the gunch.

Tom, It struck me that the club wants it their way and most of that justification is to keep people from bounding into the gunk, which they could do with less rough to stop them.

It's one of that guise of making it easier but calling it harder for ego's sake.

[Tom Huckaby]

TD:  This is a bit like the Stone Eagle thread in that it's me against the world, yes.  But that's the extent of the similarity.  Because yes, at Stone Eagle, I had played the course twice, and just made what I thought was a simple comment about it, only to be taken to task by many here.  No problem, it was fun.  But in this one, given I haven't played it, I am trying to gain understanding from those who have.

And to that end, I do appreciate all the efforts.  But try as you all might, I still can't make the connection between "relentless" and
"tons of fun."  Those are just two different things, in my personal way of looking at the game.  I just plain don't dig "relentless" and thus I can't see that I'd ever have tons of fun at Prairie Dunes.

Losing balls is just one part of it, btw.  But I think we've gone as far as we can.  I've tried to explain my take, no one seems to buy it.  Oh well.  Obviously you all who have played it no the course far far better than I, looking at it from afar.  But what you don't know better than me is what I like and don't like about golf courses.... so telling me I'd for sure enjoy it, or I'm wrong or whatever, well... that I can't buy either.

So... uncle.

TH

[Craig Van Egmond]

Sir Thomas of Huckaby,

        If you can play 18 at Prairie Dunes and not immediately want to go to the first tee and start over then you  are messed up dude.  Its a little slice of heaven in Kansas.  I know its hard to compete with those mindless slogs Blackhorse and Bayonet, but come on!!  

[Tom Huckaby]

Craig:

You miss the point, as basically everyone has.

I can play a course I hate and still want to play more.  Hell I'd keep playing at THE RANCH in San Jose if I have the hall pass.

So it's a given I'd want to play at least 54 holes a day at Prairie Dunes.  

And I am not a messed up dude - not about this anyway.

I just have a very difficult time equating "relentless" as this course has been described, with "tons of fun" as it's also been described.  Those two things just cannot possibly equate, as I see this game of golf.  I have a hard enough time hitting range balls correctly; relentless golf courses are just not my cup of tea.

So that's it, bottom line.  

TH

[Craig Van Egmond]

Sir Thomas,

              I must admit that I did not read the entire thread, merely enough to give you some crap on a Monday morning.  I wouldn't use either "relentless" or "tons of fun" to describe Prairie Dunes, more like thrilling or invigorating. I have had very few lost balls in my rounds there and with your game you won't be seeing any of that gunch anyway.   If you ever make it to Hutch you better call me and we'll have dinner and you can tell me all about your round.

             I've been meaning to get back up to Hutch anyway, wanted to play Cottonwood Hills, but I have lost my desire after the initial reviews from GCA, so I may just have to go to Newton and check out Brauers new course.

[Sean Leary]

TH,

I get it.  You don't find courses where you stand on tee boxes even remotely worried about losing golf balls fun, particularly if it is fairly often during a round.  It may be great, and you'll still love it, but it doesn't meet your idea of fun of the highest order. I can respect that. Personally I like being challenged  to hit a straight shot a few times during a round.

Where does Pacific Dunes fit on your fun meter? Granted I normally play the back tees, but I lose balls at Pacific Dunes as often as at Prairie Dunes. Holes 1, 7, 15, 16 and 18 have a reload/ lost ball pucker factor equal to what I feel at Prairie Dunes. Just curious, as I haven't played the fun courses you mentioned..

[rjsimper]

Where does Pacific Dunes fit on your fun meter? Granted I normally play the back tees, but I lose balls at Pacific Dunes as often as at Prairie Dunes. Holes 1, 7, 15, 16 and 18 have a reload/ lost ball pucker factor equal to what I feel at Prairie Dunes. Just curious, as I haven't played the fun courses you mentioned..

That's kind of what I was getting at earlier as well when I brought up 2 at Pacific Dunes.  Surely from the backs, 1, 2, 4, 7, even 8, 13, 15, and 18 (which is over half of the non-par 3 holes) have some serious pucker factor in them, none of them any better than the worst at Prairie Dunes.

I've given up long ago on trying to convince him that it's objectively tons of fun.  It's not my purpose to do that, but I can certainly say it's tons of fun FOR ME, and for a guy who sprays it to say that about a course reputed to be narrow and punishing, I think that's high praise.

Relentless, as I've said, is both physical and mental - Olympic Lake again, because the procedure is simple to think through but difficult to accomplish - hit ball far, hit ball straight, hit ball close, hit ball in.

Prairie Dunes is tons of fun for the GCA guy in the way that solving equations or a tough Sudoku quiz is fun for a math geek, or that mixing chemicals is fun for a mad scientist - it makes you think, and that's an exciting prospect.

It's not like a 5 year old getting pushed on the swings.  If that's what you equate "tons of fun" to be, then I would agree with you that PD is not.

Our definitions of tons of fun may differ, but for the GCA types, I believe more here share my opinion than yours.

(not that there's anything wrong with that )

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:  don't get too carried away.  Of course I like a challenge - hell, that's what the game is all about.  The most fun golf hole I have ever played is #16 Cypress Point, and of course losing one's ball is VERY much on one's mind standing on that tee.  So no, it's completely wrong to say:

You don't find courses where you stand on tee boxes even remotely worried about losing golf balls fun, particularly if it is fairly often during a round.

What I don't find can possibly be "tons of fun" is where TOO MANY shots if poorly struck are a "stroke irrevocably lost."  I don't particularly like "relentless" courses, at least not that I could ever call them "tons of fun."  For me courses that could merit that descriptor would relent a little... that is, a poor shot would not mean certain death, either via lost ball or otherwise.  A poor shot might mean a very much worse angle, or some other punishment doled out more slowly and indirectly - that to me is tons of fun.  Shot after shot where failure means immediate punishment is not my idea of tons of fun.  And as I read about and see pictures of Prairie Dunes, it just seems there is too much of this to allow it to be "tons of fun" in my world.  The fact person after person describes it as "relentless" or the like is really end of story, for me anyway.

You ask about Pacific Dunes though - I do find that to be tons of fun, for sure.  Hopefully you can understand why.  it's not in any way relentless (except in a very strong wind, which of course makes damn near any course relentless).  To Doak's credit, that course does relent a little, here and there.  And that's what makes it tons of fun... it's still one hell of a challenge to try and figure out, but very few poor strokes there are immediately and irretrievable lost.  THAT is tons of fun... to me.

So Ryan, I get that trying to solve the puzzle that is Prairie Dunes could be very fun.  I just see way too much punishment for failure to do so.  Perhaps this is what I have incorrect - but if you keep calling it "relentless", then well.... I have a hard time getting past this.

I love trying to figure out golf courses - hell, that's really what it's all about for me.

I also like having a chance if I make a mistake.

And I believe I'm far from alone in this opinion.

Not that there's anything particularly good about that.  

 

[rjsimper]

Okay but let me just add this one fact which I think is not included here.

An errant shot, even badly so, does not necessarily result in a lost ball at Prairie Dunes - far from it.  Keep that in mind, there is plenty of playable Simperville, I promise.

[Tom Huckaby]

Sir Thomas,

              I must admit that I did not read the entire thread, merely enough to give you some crap on a Monday morning.  I wouldn't use either "relentless" or "tons of fun" to describe Prairie Dunes, more like thrilling or invigorating. I have had very few lost balls in my rounds there and with your game you won't be seeing any of that gunch anyway.   If you ever make it to Hutch you better call me and we'll have dinner and you can tell me all about your round.

             I've been meaning to get back up to Hutch anyway, wanted to play Cottonwood Hills, but I have lost my desire after the initial reviews from GCA, so I may just have to go to Newton and check out Brauers new course.

Craig - what's silly about the whole thing is that there's literally zero chance of me every getting to Hutchison, KS.  So this is all rather theoretical.  But yes, the issue really boils down to Ryan (and others) trying to call it both relentless and tons of fun, and that's hard for me to understand.

[Tom Huckaby]

Okay but let me just add this one fact which I think is not included here.

An errant shot, even badly so, does not necessarily result in a lost ball at Prairie Dunes - far from it.  Keep that in mind, there is plenty of playable Simperville, I promise.

The I guess it's really not relentless?

You could have just said that a week ago and we might have avoided all of this.

 

[Sean Leary]

TH,

See here is where I think you are missing the relentless part of this conversation. Why PD is relentless is only in small part because of the gunch. I think it is relentless mostly because the greens are very difficult to hit and keep on the green, even for very good players. It is great fun to chip and putt there (My partner in the member-guest shot 75 hitting 3 greens) and there are some shots that you have a sand wedge in your hand (Like the third shot at 17) and are just plain flummoxed and it has nothing to do with the gunch. There is a huge place to miss on almost every hole, just like Pacific Dunes.

Here is what I would compare it to. The tee shot on 14 at Pacific in a 15 mph breeze.  Short shot, no chance of losing a ball, but a very difficult shot because of what lies left and right. As long as you hit a very good shot. you are fine.  Or the approach at 6 at Pacific from 100+ yards out, same thing.

What I do agree with you on is that there are no holes where it literally doesn't matter how far you hit it off line into Simperville, so that part is relentless.  You have to concentrate on every shot, which to me, makes it a great test of golf.  There are no shots out there where you can not pay attention for your distance and direction.

I know there is little chance of getting you there, but you do have an open invite. Maybe you can use it as a warm up round for your favorite course on one of those trips when you have the Yahoo jet

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:

See, this is where many seem to misunderstand my point here.  When I say I see the course as relentless, it's not all about the tee shots - far from it.  In fact, what has me less enthused about the course (in terms of it being "tons of fun") is exactly what you say:  it's relentless "because the greens are very difficult to hit and keep on the green."  Combine that with what someone else just told me in an IM - that it's one of the great tests of short game in American golf - the bunkers and rough around the greens are very difficult - then combine that with all the gunch off the tee, plus the constant relentless descriptions.....

And you have a course that's just too much, for what I see as tons of fun.  You all keep trying to pin me down about individual aspects, but it's the totality that has me having a hard time seeing tons of fun.

My eyes also are having a hard time allowing me to believe "there's a huge place to miss on every hole", but I guess the pictures must be lying to a large extent.  That happens.

But still, put it all together, and I just plain have a hard time seeing this course as tons of fun.

So I appreciate the efforts you and many others are going to here... and I most definitely appreciate the open invite... but getting me to change my mind on this has about as much chance of happening as I do getting keys to the Yahoo jet.

Ain't gonna happen.

 

[George Pazin]

Pretty funny - Huck's debate with Sean definitely parallels our discussions on Friday. I, too, misunderstood Huck's ideas on relentless, thinking he was referring to the lost balls in the gunsch, but also found out that he was in fact referring to the exacting nature of the rest of the test.

I was - am, really - willing to make an exception for testing courses that have exceptional design elements, but Huck pointed out I might just be blinded by the other elements at these clubs, such as Prairie Dunes, Oakmont, PV, Shinney, etc. While I'd like to think otherwise, I'm honest enough to admit to myself that I might just be that biased.

I was also objective enough to admit to Huck the course I've found most fun in my limited travels - it's as close as I've seen to a course designed to fit both my game and my idea of how the game should be played.

We also agreed that if I revealed this preference, it would elicit all sorts of hoots and howls in protest from the treehouse.

 

[Sean Leary]

Huck,

You certainly are stubborn and I appreciate that

Have you played desert golf in Arizona? Where the desert comes into play both left and right?  In pictures or on TV, the grass always look much narrower than it actually plays, right? Very similar at PD.  

Let me ask you this.  Can any course with longish rough be great fun to play?

[Tom Huckaby]

George:  your secret remains safe with me.    But thanks, that does sum things up.

Sean:

Gotcha re the look.  I shall have to trust that the pictures of PD do indeed lie, as those of desert course do from time to time.  Fine example there.  But to answer your question.. well... I find very few absolutes to be true in golf, that is never say never....

But I would say that a course with very long rough would have a hard time being "great fun to play" as I see this crazy game.  Hacking out, searching for balls, etc. just isn't my idea of golf fun.... and nor are shots around greens that have no chance to get close.  Oh, a little of that can be fun... but to much of it and the fun lessens a lot.  For me anyway.

TH

[Sean Leary]

TH,

My friend John Kirk thinks that it is too hard to be great fun as well, so what you are saying certainly has merit. It certainly is not everybodys cup of tea, and for a long, VERY wild player it may be too much. You are neither of those things, and I think that you would in fact have great fun.

My final word on this.  Ryan thought EXACTLY what you think before he went there, and after playing there, it was very different than what he thought. That alone I would think would cause you to have an open mind should you ever end up there...

[corey miller]

the rough at prairie dunes is very playable.  it is not hack it out like Wf or Bethpage.

[Tom Huckaby]

TH,

My friend John Kirk thinks that it is too hard to be great fun as well, so what you are saying certainly has merit. It certainly is not everybodys cup of tea, and for a long, VERY wild player it may be too much. You are neither of those things, and I think that you would in fact have great fun.

My final word on this.  Ryan thought EXACTLY what you think before he went there, and after playing there, it was very different than what he thought. That alone I would think would cause you to have an open mind should you ever end up there...

As if Ryan hasn't pointed THAT out to me about 15 times already.  

But he also hasn't moved from using the "relentless" term for the course.  He also told me the scores he shot.  So although of course in the wildly unlikely possibility that I did ever place this course, I would indeed try to have an open mind; but given the scores he shot, and the continued descriptions of how relentless the course is for many different reasons, I can come up with many other explanations for why Ryan would say the course is "tons of fun."  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for the most part... but his takes before and after seeing the course do not close the door on this for me.

And reading John Kirk's take makes it swing back open, to be honest.

 

But the main thing is this:  Ryan is Ryan, and I am me.  Do you really expect we see golf courses the same way?  He's a young stud who hits the ball 1000 yards.  I'm an old fat guy who can't hit it out of my shadow.  Infer, and conclude.

 

[brad_miller]

How about back to TE Paul and the rest of his thoughts. Having a thread about a course (with over 90 odd posts) where the most posts are made by someone that hasn't played the course is ......!  Huck how about standing down?  But know that if you ever make it to Hutch you will have a ball unless it is 110 in the shade.

[Tom Huckaby]

How about back to TE Paul and the rest of his thoughts. Having a thread about a course (with over 90 odd posts) where the most posts are made by someone that hasn't played the course is ......!  Huck how about standing down?  But know that if you ever make it to Hutch you will have a ball unless it is 110 in the shade.

Brad:  consider me as "stood down," and yes let's get back to TEP's great thoughts on this fantastic golf course.  Just before I go, please understand that you are now about person #12 to completely miss my point:  there's no doubt I'd have a great time if I ever did play this course, but then again I have fun wherever I go, even at the worst of golf courses.  No, the issue remains how a course that so many describe as relentless can also be tons of fun.  That I don't get, and as you can see, never will.

Standing down, and happily so... that is until the next person challenges me....

 

[Adam Clayman]

Huck, I'll take a stab at it.

IMO, the greatness of Prairie Dunes lies mostly in the greens and the flow of the fairway contours. It's aesthetic doesn't suck, either. As with many of the best courses,(and people) they are not perfect in every single way. But, and a big butt, the sophistication of the challenge is hightened to such a level that the flaws become negligible. On the putting greens you maynot see much, but there's much to be seen. Clearly, it's a great architect's ability to be able to get into one's head and make them think. Make them be aware of the ups and downs, the sides and the slopes. This is what great GCA does.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()