Battle of the Maxwells-C.Downs vs. Pr.Dunes

[NAF]

I've been debating these 2 courses in my mind since returning from Michigan a few weeks ago.  I consider C.Downs to be more Maxwellian than Dr. Mac despite the fact the good Dr.'s signature is evident throughout the front 9, I just can't get over the feeling that this is a Maxwell design though.  Since we knew he built it I feel this is a fair comparison.

In my opinion PD has the superior set of par 3s despite CD's wonderful 9th and cute 14th.  The 2nd and 10th at PD are all world.  I do like the 11th at CD but find it too controversial with the current maintenance meld

PD and CD halve their par 5s as #17 at PD is as good as #8 at CD in my book and #7 at PD equals the slog of #16 at CD.  I'm afraid #16 at CD just doesnt do it for me.  The approach shot has some merit but the first 2 shots are not inspiring.

The par 4s are where the meat of this argument takes place and I must admit I am perplexed.  It is here that Dr. Mac's influence takes place because playing holes 5-7 are so much fun at Crystal Downs and I can't say the same about PD.  Those 3 holes + #8 make for sporting golf and give an edge to CD.  Despite #1 and #2 being solid par 4s at CD and number 13 having an amazing green I find the rest of the par 4s pretty pedestrian (17 a good match play hole, 15 a cute short par 4) at CD.  PD meanwhile has solid par 4s throughout and on a match of cards pulls even with CD.  Holes like #1, 3, 4, 11 are terrific fun to play and #8 and #9 actually remind me heavily of the land at CD in spots.

Setup-Both courses have detrimental affects to fair play given their windy nature.  I found the gunsch at PD to be too penal in nature and in need of severe whittling back.  At CD the fairways seemed too narrow and there was a lack of chipping areas or recovery zones for missed approaches.

On a match of cards, I have PD winning 2up mainly because of the end of the round at CD.  PD's rolling sand terrain and dunescape may be the best land for golf I have seen in the US for a golf course.  The Downland nature of CD is also awesome.  I guess this is why the 2 courses are so close together in the rankings and I adore them both.  If given a choice I'd rather play holes 5-9 at CD over and over again but for a full 18 I'd give the nod to PD.  That being said, Traverse City is a much better place than Hutchinson Kansas especially with Doak and DeVries in the neighborhood.

[Chris_Clouser]

I agree with much of your analysis.  I can see though why people give Crystal Downs a slight nod between the hole.  Holes 12, 14 and 15 at Prairie Dunes are just a little too out of place on that course.  Sure the 17th at CD is quirky but it fits in so well.

I think if Perry had completed the 18 hole design or if Press had been able to follow the original design, you would be seeing Prairie Dunes as one of the top 10 courses in the country.  That terrain is without equal in the country, with the exception of Sand Hills possibly (I haven't seen it yet).  

The par fives would have been the current 17th with a dogleg from the tee with the shot going over the gorse and the current 5th would have been about 50 yards longer and run along the base of the dune to the fairway as it is today.  The par 3s would have been even better as the 4th hole would actually have been from the current 5th tee and a dropshot to a plateau green.  I have some speculation as to what the other par three would have been, but I'll leave that alone.

The par fours would have been all-world.  The 7th would have been a 440 yarder that played downwind most days.  The prize would have been the 3rd hole which was to be a combination of the 3rd today with the 4th.  Could you imagine hitting a shot from the fairway on 3 up to the 4th green?  That would have been perhaps an even better hole than the 8th.  

Something also tells me with the way that Maxwell liked to use axis and hub type routings that the back nine would have been totally different with perhaps holes 10, 17 and 18 being the last three holes of the round.  

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

You made your point in the other thread, and it is a good one, although misplaced (in my mind).  In any case, repetition is beneath you - I say that as a friend.

The issues there need not be overbroadened.  All Kevin, and me by agreeing with him, are saying is that courtesy to one's host is a wise thing, especially when he may or may not invite critique and the result might be that a gift to charity may be pulled in the future.  This whole "PC" thing - while damn funny - is now being taken a bit too far.

I said there, and I'll say it again here - you and everyone I know has this in mind, it's a given.  Critiques and discussion are very fair so long as courtesy to one's host is remembered.  I know you do this, and as I say, it is beneath you to take this to what is starting to seem sort of snide.

Which again, I say as a friend.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

I'm sorry if you're stung... I sure as heck didn't intend that at all and if anything, I think we DID have a frank and honest discussion about SFGC, with zero harm done.

The potential harm was all hypothetical - that is, what the sponsoring member might think if BILL ASPINWALL came in here after his round and did a hole by hole critique...

I trust you can see the difference.  No one has done anything "wrong" to date....

TH

[Steve_L.]

General thought (speaking for myself)...

Those of us who have found GCA relatively recently (see past 6 months) have not discussed Pacific/Bandon Dunes, Crystal Downs, Rustic Canyon or any other fine golf course ad-nauseum...  

Many enjoy the continued discussion and appreciate the reduncancy - it may not be redundant to everyone.

The redundant discussion is preferable to whether the discussion should or should not occur.

[T_MacWood]

Both are fabulous golf courses. They have a lot in common - almost sister courses.

The par-3's I'd put closer to a tie. The 10th at PD is excellent as is the 2nd and 4th. The problem with the 2nd and the 4th is their similarity. The 15th is the dog of either course. CD's 14 and 9 are in the same class as PD's best and they are unique. The 3rd is my least favorite three at CD, but still good. The 11th the most underrated - present green conditions should not penalize a great design.

The par-5's are also more or less a dead heat. The 8th at CD is the best par-5 on either course. The 16th the least good of a very strong group. Overall the 17th PD maybe a tad overrated although the approach is a blast. I think the 7th maybe more interesting tee to green.

It is very difficult to compare the par-4's. They both have one quirky hole - the 17th at CD and 14th at PD. I like both of these holes. PD 8 and 9 are great - over the waves of ground. #6 is another favorite. #13, #5, #6 and #7 are my favorites at CD. I do not think #18 at CD is a poor finish, I like that hole equally to #18 at PD. I think I would give CD the advantage on variety, a combination of very good longish par-4s and extraordinary group of medium and short par-4s.

I'd also give CD the advantage overall for the variety of the situation. The open holes on the front and #18 and the backnine holes through the Birches. Both are great courses with very intersting greens.

[brad_miller]

#'s 2 and 4 at PD are completly different holes when one factors in the wind, but then again according to one of the GCA doyens, Perry Maxwell didn't take this into account. #2 normally plays about 1 club shorter and with the "normal" SW wind plays for a draw into the wind, cross and against. #4 plays into the wind, cross and with. Normally and a cut shot works best. Is variety about shots played or just the look and setup of a hole?

[T_MacWood]

Brad
That is no doubt true about the wind. And the greens are also angled in opposite directions, but the basic design of the holes with their respective greens angled against the base of the dune present a very similar visual with similar yardages. They are more less mirror images of the same hole.

The variety of shots required is of great importance, but visual variety is also important. Especially if you are trying to differentiate between two outstanding designs.

[Tom_Doak]

I've always thought Crystal Downs was clearly better because its par-four holes are hands-down more interesting and more original.  This is to take nothing away from Prairie Dunes which I would also rate in the top 25 in the world.

[Tom_Doak]

P.S.  The "slog" of the 16th at Crystal Downs has been very underrated by the most recent visitors.  It's a three-shot hole where you have to hit three good shots.  If you miss one of the first two you'll have a long iron or wood to get home, to a green complex that gives you a chance but which is far from easy.

You guys must have played it into the wind and made a bunch of sixes and sevens!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Doak;

Guilty, as charged.  

It played LONG and into the wind, and your description of it requiring long, solid shots played consecutively is right on.  

However, it's also probably on the least interesting terrain on the course, offers little in the way of lateral strategy, and although the green is a good one, it take a LONG time to get there with not much to hold one's interest along the way.

In terms of routing, it seems to me that Mac/Max wanted to get the back nine out to the cool land (and view) of 13 & 14, and then had a long way back, realizing that they had to negotiate some very steep, severe land (17) along the way.

In a way, the 16th seems that it was the only way to get from there to here, especially considering the distance and terrain to be covered from the 14th green to the clubhouse.   

[corey miller]

Three tee to four green? Now that sound like a hole 420 yards?  Too nitpick a little, and I certainly do not want to offend my host but 2 and 4 play VERY differently and I do not believe are even similar visually.

Two plays as a short par three with perhaps the only difference in club a "where do I want to miss choice".  It also plays very much into the dune.

Four is has a much more open feel and plays to what seems to be the top of the same dune.  It also has a two club green  which generally calls at least two clubs more than #2.  Four actually feels more like second shot on #8 than #2 because they are both playing toward the sky at the top of the dune.

Didn't Perry Maxwell have 100 holes to choose the best 18 or was the reporter in 1937 Hutch paper pulling a NYT and making it up?

[NAF]

Tom Doak-

I respect where you are coming from on #16.  You have played the hole many more times than me (I've only played it 4 times) but that was just my opinion. I did state I enjoyed the green complex.  I think Mr. Cirba who just chimed in hit it on the head though.

One thing I'd like to ask you is with some of the recent things I've seen you write on recovery shots (Golf Architecture-the aussie magazine), don't you think CD could benefit from a change in maintenance to allow chipping areas, recovery areas for missed approaches.  When the native rough is up, it seems like a cruel taskmaster.  Perhaps it is meant to be, but could it be improved upon?

[GeoffreyC]

Non P_C Geoffrey Childs reporting.
Tom Doak
#16 at CD is in my opinion not much of a golf hole at all. We played it twice in different conditions. The first time was a bit downwind and the second into a good wind when a front came through and the temperatures dropped 15 degrees in a few minutes.

Yes, the drive requires you to hit the fairway to get the second within a short iron but what really long three shot hole is any different? If you dig a hole in a pasture and mow a 30 yard wide fairway 600 yards away you come up with the same requirement! The second shot again requires you to hit the fairway so that the approach to a very interesting green can be controlled.  BTW- I made par (at least the first time through).

I agree totally with Mike Cirba's interpretation of the routing even though he's only been there once. I'd take his eye for a course seeing it once over the average member who's played the course for 20 years (note - I'm absolutely not talking about Tom Doak here).

[Tom_Doak]

I'll stand by the fact that I think it's a really good three-shot hole.  Not every hole on an 18-hole golf course has to have alternate fairways and ten eye-candy bunkers; in fact it is a great relief when some don't.

Mike, you are right that the M&M boys probably routed the back nine around 13 & 14, and had to get from 15 tee to 16 green in two holes.  Anyone think they would have done better than the two holes they built?  Taken together, I think 15 and 16 are the perfect complement to the rest of the course.

P.S.  There is lateral strategy; if you drive it up the right side of 16 you get to hit your second shot up the gut of the fairway instead of slicing off the corner of the rough at the top of the hill.  And you can get to the left side of the fairway more easily to use the opening to the green, if you're going to have a long third.  Does it really need more lateral strategy than that?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

I'm as much for subtle, non-obvious, deceptive playing holes that eschew "alternate fairways and 10 eye-candy bunkers" as anyone.  I just don't see much in the way of preferred angles there given the length of the shots involved, but I'll think about it more given your description.  Thanks.

Actually, I did par the 16th in my second go-round into the really strong wind Geoffrey describes.  My 3-wood third shot found the right bunker (as did my partner), but we both managed to get up and down to a back pin.  

Could any of us have routed better holes on that stretch than the M&M boys, or could they have done a better job?  I won't even go there, but you'd have to admit that they had a bit of a quandary once they placed the 14th green where they did.  

[brad_miller]

Tom Doak, while I agree the 16th at CD is a fine 3 shot hole, I still would call it my least favorite par 5 in the PD/CD combo. If memory is correct think it took me 11 strokes in my 2 rounds. Is there a shot on this hole that one would enjoy playing over and over again? I could hit wedges into #17 at PD and #8 at CD all day long, for that matter I really enjoy going for PD's #7 in 2.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom Doak has a good point about good golf holes not requiring alternate fairways, eye candy or waterfalls (my addition). The 16th at CD is in fact as Tom described.  Does that take anything away from the golf course?  It's obviously up to the individual taste.

In my view holes 13, 14 and 15 are as good a stretch of golf as there is at CD and about equal to the great stretch of 5-8. As Mike described for the routing to include current 13-15, Mac had to get back to the clubhouse (somehow). I do think it was brilliant to have the semi-quirky short 15th followed by a long par 5 followed by the full blooded quirky short 17th. The "big picture" here is getting the best possible 18 hole golf course out of the property and we can rightfully ask if we think that was the case.  From my very limited study I would think Mac probably did that. That still doesn't make 16 a fine individual golf hole. The alternative I think is the view posed in Tom Fazio's book.  In that book he states that it is no longer necessary to put up with the need for joining or bridging holes in a routing. He states that he can create 18 great individual holes on any piece of land. I think we have here an example of the difference between two philosophies. Can a bridging change of pace hole add to the golf course as a whole without itself being a great hole?  In thinking about this I would say yes in this particular case. I would much rather have a contiguous routing with a flowing golf course then 18 created holes that are out of tune.

sorry for the free flow rambling.

PS- Tom- I do know of a 12 hole golf course that was built that way because the designer didn't think the rest of the land was up to the land hosting the 12 holes   . Are 6 bridging holes just too much?