[Jeff Shelman]

Mike,

I don't have much to add that's all that new. I think Troy Burne is the best public in town, but you're probably talking an hour from Interlachen. I do like Legends more than some. I think Chaska is a better option than The Wilds. I think Rush Creek is pretty good, but their full retail price is kinda steep. I haven't played StoneRidge.

Dacotah Ridge is fine, but it's a long way to go considering the in-town options.

Also, I sent you a PM about another possible option if schedules work.

[Paul Payne]

Dan,

I have read your postings before where you have mentioned liking Stone Ridge or Troy Burne and on those I completely agree. That being said I stand by my comments on Rush and the Wilds.

I am a walker and part of what I enjoy is walking the course and studying the terrain. While I agree that the housing does not come into play much if at all on the Wilds, there are many holes where the housing feels like a corridor along the hole. In fact I have noticed that as the housing has grown in it actually diminishes your ability to see the contours of the hole. It is so lined up along both sides of the fairway on a couple of holes I am surprised they could sell that as a view. $99.00

As for Rush Creek I thought my comment was harsh when I wrote it but then I changed my mind. The conditions are great but the course is boring. There are a couple of holes I think are truly afterthoughts like #13, but what I found myself thinking was this; try and name one standout hole on that course. When you do, think about how it sizes up against any other good hole on a good course in the Cities. I just couldn't find a reall winner.  People like #18 but when you think about it #18 at Chaska is the same hole but is executed better in my mind. $99.00

Chaska and Keller are less than half the price and at least will get your blood pumping now and then.

What I get tired of is the way people pump those two courses as though they have much to offer beyond great conditioning. If that is all you look for in a course then I would gladly spend the money because especially Rush is almost always in beautiful shape.

[Dan Kelly]

As for Rush Creek I thought my comment was harsh when I wrote it but then I changed my mind. The conditions are great but the course is boring. There are a couple of holes I think are truly afterthoughts like #13, but what I found myself thinking was this; try and name one standout hole on that course. When you do, think about how it sizes up against any other good hole on a good course in the Cities. I just couldn't find a reall winner.  People like #18 but when you think about it #18 at Chaska is the same hole but is executed better in my mind. $99.00

Chaska and Keller are less than half the price and at least will get your blood pumping now and then.

What I get tired of is the way people pump those two courses as though they have much to offer beyond great conditioning. If that is all you look for in a course then I would gladly spend the money because especially Rush is almost always in beautiful shape.

Fair enough, Paul.

Rush Creek would not be the course I'd go to, if I had time for only a couple of the courses on my original list. It's almost certainly last, for me, on that short list -- which (in addition to the green fee) would explain why I haven't been out there in at least half a dozen years.

The Wilds -- I've never paid full fare for that one, either, which says something (about me, or about the course, or about both). It's a very good course for those 40-degree days when you pay 40 bucks for 18.

But back to horse races: I'll take 18 at Rush Creek over 18 at Chaska any day of any week. I really DISlike 18 at Chaska, in fact, after liking most of the rest of the course.

I liked Big Brown in the Belmont Stakes, too.

[Paul Payne]

Dan,

Your comments about the dueling 18's is interesting. I find that Rush actually looks harder but plays easier. The marsh along the left tends to make you play away from it. Because of that I tend to play it as a three shot hole.

What I have always liked about 18 at Chaska is that the combination of the elevation of your view, the cut of the fairway against the marsh, and the more sweeping curve of the edge of the hazard make it much more enticing to flirt with. As a result you have to keep your head otherwise you will bound into the drink.

I guess one thing I have always enjoyed about GCA is the lure and the illusion that can have a big impact on your game. I especially like the ones (possibly like 18 at Chaska) where even though you have been there before and you know better, you cannot fight the urge to shave just a bit off and go for it. Ouch!

Cheers.

[Dan Kelly]

What I have always liked about 18 at Chaska is that the combination of the elevation of your view, the cut of the fairway against the marsh, and the more sweeping curve of the edge of the hazard make it much more enticing to flirt with. As a result you have to keep your head otherwise you will bound into the drink.

I guess one thing I have always enjoyed about GCA is the lure and the illusion that can have a big impact on your game. I especially like the ones (possibly like 18 at Chaska) where even though you have been there before and you know better, you cannot fight the urge to shave just a bit off and go for it. Ouch!

What I *hate* about Chaska 18 is this: It ought to tempt me -- and it doesn't! Not one little bit.

The centerline bunker is too close to the water side for anyone who can't easily clear it. Only a fool would play to the marsh side. I play to its right.

Then, for players of average length, the fairway is pinched to almost nothing by the fairway bunker on the right. I play short of it. Then I have a third shot to the green.

For me, the hole is just absolutely no fun, because playing it is formulaic.

Maybe if one were considerably longer, the hole would play fun -- but if you're considerably longer than I am, that centerline bunker and that pinching fairway bunker won't even come into play! So why are they there?

The hole would be so much better for everyone if it just sat there, with only the hazard on the left, tempting EVERY player to bite off as much as he dared with each shot.

The bunkers ruin the hole.

Understand what I'm saying?

[Paul Payne]

Interesting,

I have to agree 100%. I don't think of myself as long but I usually do clear the bunker so the alignment off the tee is a different choice.

You are correct as well in that when the hole is played as three shots the second is a very short set up for the third because of the constriction of the fairway.

I'll give you this one.

[Jason Topp]

My suggestions:

Based on quality alone within an hour

1.  Stoneridge
2.  Troy Burne
3.  Chaska
4.   Wilds
5.  Willingers

I would avoid -

Rush Creek - $100 for a course on poor soil. Not as good as Chaska and double the price.

Legends - I think this one is way overpriced


If location (near Interlachen) is most important - not really the best area for public courses although it may be for private courses:

1.  Chaska
2.  Baker
3.  Gross


Low cost:

1.  Bunker Hills - best $35 in town.  Nothing outstanding design wise but good 60's style course on great soil usually in good condition.  3 nines of roughly equal quality with the West thought of most highly by the regulars and the North the least.   I would make no particular effort to play any specific combination.

2.  Keller

3.  Gross


Another one to think about is Edinburgh which is a RTJ housing course that presents a stern and unique test.  I like it.  If you do not like housing, lakes, tight courses or a lot of green undulation, skip it.  If you can enjoy a unique demanding test, consider it.

[Patrick Hodgdon]

I would avoid -
Legends - I think this one is way overpriced

...

Low cost:

1.  Bunker Hills - best $35 in town.  Nothing outstanding design wise but good 60's style course on great soil usually in good condition.  3 nines of roughly equal quality with the West thought of most highly by the regulars and the North the least.   I would make no particular effort to play any specific combination.

Jason what did you pay to play Legends in which you thought it was too much? What would you pay to play?

Also I don't really know how I forgot Bunker Hills myself. Good call and probably the best round under $40 in town.

[Dan Kelly]

Bunker Hills is the most straightforward golf course ever built. (At least the original 18 are.) What you see is what you get, hole after hole after hole.

I'm not saying it's no good, because Jason and Patrick are right: It's a good golf course always in good condition. I just find it a little ... uninspired, and uninspiring.

I'd take Keller (equally cheap, and much more interesting, IMO) over Bunker, if I could play only one.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()