[Andy Troeger]

I played the OSU Scarlet Course post-renovation and was incredibly disappointed. The other four MacKenzie courses I have played are all absolutely wonderful and have tremendous character. OSU Scarlet doesn't hold a candle to any of them. It is very long, penal, narrow, and dull. I'd rather play Longaberger   

Being hard or difficult doesn’t necessarily eliminate a course from being great. Oakmont, Pine Valley, Winged Foot, Oakland Hills are all examples of brutally difficult but great designs/courses. Scarlet is vastly superior to the University of Michigan course and is very difficult to compare with Cypress Point, Crystal Downs and even Pasatiempo or Meadow Club as they are all shorter and the land/climates are all very different from central Ohio. Scarlet has character; it’s just that character is more serious and hard on you than some others….sort of Woody Hayes-like….

I agree with your first comment, although I haven't played any of the hard courses you mentioned. I do like Wolf Run in Indiana which is very difficult, but to me it has much more character and variety than OSU Scarlet. Scarlet has some character and a few holes I thought were interesting, including #12, 16, and 17. Most of those were over the more interesting terrain that the property had to offer. I do think #12 would be better if there was more room off the tee. I just wish there was less emphasis on length and narrow fairways and more on interesting features. The bunkers might qualify, but there are so many that you just have to try to hit fairways and greens instead of really interacting with any of them individually.

Some of it comes down to personal preference--OSU Scarlet does what it was intended to do. Or at least it certainly appears to. I can think of worse places to play, but I would never consider it #1 anything. Hard doesn't disqualify a course from being good, but it also doesn't make it good.

[Richard Choi]

Scarlet is vastly superior to the University of Michigan course and is very difficult to compare with Cypress Point, Crystal Downs and even Pasatiempo or Meadow Club as they are all shorter and the land/climates are all very different from central Ohio.

Oh really?

I have never played played the Scarlet course but I have played the UM course probably over 50 times and I have yet to play a course anywhere that is "vastly superior" than the UM course.

Care to explain how the Scarlet course is so "vastly superior" to the UM course?

And why does the course being shorter make it difficult to compare? Pacific Dunes is pretty short for a "championship" golf course, but I have no problem comparing Pacific Dunes to any other "championship length" golf courses (which are all inferior in my opinion) that I have played.

Please, expound on your thoughts.

[JLahrman]

If anyone has used the practice facilities at OSU they know that they didn't have a posistive influence on these rankings.....or it wouldn't be # 1...

It wasn't mentioned for Ohio State's course, it was mentioned for another.  The range there is subpar, although I do like the four or five practice greens (I'm assuming they still have those?)

Like several others on this thread, the Scarlet is the only one of the top ten I played back when I was an undergrad at OSU from 1993-1997.  It was an above-average course with respect to difficulty under normal conditions, but when they wanted to put the tees back and hide the pins it was another story.  I played a couple of times right before US Open qualifiers and pro-ams, and it became damn hard.  I haven't played it since the redesign but if is now longer and the bunkers are deeper, it sounds like they can make it hard enough for anybody.

[Kenny Baer]

I have played OSU Scarlet 4x all since the renovation; I am pretty familar with the UGA course both before and after the DL III redo. 

The UGA course is much improved in both condition and overall quality, the old Bermuda greens were plain awful.  The DL3 team did an excellent job.

I really like OSU, it is one of the hardest courses I have ever played.  I am not familiar with the bunkering pre Nicklaus but now it is a true hazard, more often than not you are not getting anything more than a 8 or 9 iron on the ball.  The greens are also very interesting and have quite a bit of contour.  If they made the par 70 they could hold a US Open in a couple of weeks notice and the winner would be around even par.  With it as a par 72 the winner of the Nationwide event was -6 (I think) a couple of years ago.  The first par 5 on the front is great, the approach is similar to the 4th at Bethpage in that the best angle to come into the green for your 3rd shot is pin high on the left in this case, as BP it is on the right.  There are several "blah" holes though over some very flat ground that keep the course from being world class (at least to me).  I have no idea what "access" is like for the Texas course but for OSU you need to be affiliated with the University in some way, it is not public in the traditional sense.

[Chris_Blakely]

I am suprised that the Universityof Michigan's Stadium course is not on the list.  Whether it is or is not supperior to OSU's I don't know - when it comes down to anything OSU vs. Mich often times reason is thrown out the door between their grads.  But, 100% it belongs in the top 10.

[PCCraig]

Purdue-Kampen is a very impressive college golf course...but it's no Yale.

Besides, I actually liked U of Michigan's Mac-designed course better than the more hyped Ohio State version.

[Jud_T]

Agree with the U of M comment...definitely a fun track with some cool Mac greens!

[Matt_Ward]

Hate to bust the bubble of Big Ten fans but just like the football situatin -- on the golf front other courses have spouted up around the country that are quite good in plenty of ways. The Rawls Course is just one quick example and it's near the campus and open to all.

[Brian Laurent]

Sorry for arriving to the party a little late, Niall!

For anyone interested, here's a hole by hole look at Scarlet:
http://www.ohiostategolfclub.com/Scarlet-1-33.html

Being a Buckeye, I'm a little biased.  Having played the course literally hundreds of times pre-renovation and a few times post-renovation, I am not at all surprised by this ranking.  The course lost a bit of its luster as players continued to get better/longer.  One thing Nicklaus did is bring strategy back into play.  For example, number 7 which is a slight dogleg left,  used to have a cross bunker in the middle of the fairway...most players would just pull driver and bomb it over leaving just a flip wedge to the green.  Nicklaus blew up the cross bunker and replaced it with one which runs up the left side and forces the player to think about hitting iron and laying up short right or gives you the option to challenge the corner to leave you a short shot in.  

#4 was the most controversial hole during the renovation.  The old fourth hole was a good one, but as a par five had really become outdated.  For most good players, it was a driver/six or seven iron onto the green.  Nicklaus did a great job in utilizing available land and turning it into a nice risk-reward par five.  (I didn't like the hole at first, but it has grown on me!)

Anyone that thinks the course is too penal and does not provide enough variety/options, is playing the wrong set of tees!  It's a great test of golf for the college players and has received great reviews from Nationwide Tour players over the last few years.  



Niall..."Huh, Bud" have you seen the practice facilities lately?  A little different than when we were there!  Still not the best, but they've added several short game areas and improved the driving range.  They are also planning a new indoor facility which is needed to keep up with the rest of the programs up north.  If you want a wing named after you...they're looking for donations!



Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

[Andy Troeger]

Anyone that thinks the course is too penal and does not provide enough variety/options, is playing the wrong set of tees!  It's a great test of golf for the college players and has received great reviews from Nationwide Tour players over the last few years.  

Brian,

First off, Happy Thanksgiving to you as well and to everyone else out there 

I played the course from 6650 give or take--so length was certainly not a problem for me although one could certainly bite off more than they could chew. In terms of variety--just look at yardages from the Gray tees that I played.

3's: 159, 174, 172, 176
4's: 415, 427, 399, 379, 410, 402, 403, 403, 390, 353, 391.
5's: 538, 568, 505.

Out of that list, almost EVERY hole from those tees is a mid-length hole. Only the 12th at 505 par five and the 16th at 353 par 4 could be considered short and those are probably my two favorite holes on the course. If you move back to the tips then every hole adds 50 yards give or take. Looking through your link to the course validated my memory that probably 15+ holes have a bunker short left and a bunker short right of the green. Many of the fairway bunkers are on the inside of doglegs, especially on holes that turn left. Sometimes statistics like those can be overcome in terms of variety by interesting holes or greens, but not for me in this case.

There's a huge difference between being a great "test of golf" which Scarlet certainly is and being a great golf course, which IMO Scarlet is not.

[Jud_T]

Matt,

Clearly the Rawls and Warren should be considered on any of these lists...

[Tom MacWood]

I'm not surprised the Scarlet was voted #1, in fact I predicted the raters would love the course when they were in the midst of rebuilding it - it is visually striking and harder than hell. Personally I don't care for it; its too hard for me on a regular basis (and I'm not a bad golfer) and not that mentally stimulating. I preferred the old set up, even with its shortcomings, because that course was fun and challenging on a regular basis, and it had the potential of being completed as Mackenzie intended, neither is the case today.

The Michigan course is a completely different animal. The scale of the two courses has always been the biggest difference IMO - OSU course has always been a big course; Michigan much smaller and intimate. OSU was a half completed Mackenzie course that is now a Nicklaus course. Michigan is not, nor has it ever been a Mackenzie course; it was Maxwell course that is now a Maxwell/Art Hills course.

I have only played a few of the college courses, but of those Yale is by far my favorite. I'm not a big fan of the ND course.

[Chris_Clouser]

Pat Craig and Matt Ward,

What is it you like about the Kampen Course at Purdue?  The overwatered fairways where every drive has the opportunity to plug, the rough that offers the chance to lose any ball that trickles into it, the redundancy in the holes offered, or the very boring landscape.  I'm being somewhat sarcastic with that statement but I agree with Andy Troeger, I found the South course at Ackerman Hills much more enjoyable.  I think there could be some fun golf on the Kampen Course, if they would only allow the architecture to shine through instead of maintaining it as if it would host a US Open every day.  

To Kampen's credit there are some fine holes there.  The 4th is interesting on the approach, the 8th uses the artificially created slope on the left very well, the 12th seemed like a very acceptable hole.  I do like the stretch of 15 into the clubhouse as well.  But the course needs to be maintained differently to appeal to anyone more than once in my mind.  

For all of Mr. Dye's lip-service to the course, I would rather go over to Attica and play Harrison Hills or stay in Lafayette and play Coyote Crossing every day of the week and for the same price or less.  

But back to the point of the post.  I've only played 10 college courses and in that group I didn't even have Kampen in my top 5.  The Warren Course makes it though.  I have not played Karsten and Yale, but based on what everyone says about those two course my guess is that Warren my not stay in the top 5 if I played them.

[Sean_A]

I'm not surprised the Scarlet was voted #1, in fact I predicted the raters would love the course when they were in the midst of rebuilding it - it is visually striking and harder than hell. Personally I don't care for it; its too hard for me on a regular basis (and I'm not a bad golfer) and not that mentally stimulating. I preferred the old set up, even with its shortcomings, because that course was fun and challenging on a regular basis, and it had the potential of being completed as Mackenzie intended, neither is the case today.

The Michigan course is a completely different animal. The scale of the two courses has always been the biggest difference IMO - OSU course has always been a big course; Michigan much smaller and intimate. OSU was a half completed Mackenzie course that is now a Nicklaus course. Michigan is not, nor has it ever been a Mackenzie course; it was Maxwell course that is now a Maxwell/Art Hills course.

I have only played a few of the college courses, but of those Yale is by far my favorite. I'm not a big fan of the ND course.

Tommy Mac

Not to go tit for tat, but to give Art Hills design credit for UofM and not Dr Mac is a serious error. 

Ciao

[David_Madison]

Finley #7??? A boring slam it a couple of times, putt on a big, flat, fast green, and repeat. The old Flynn course had wonderful character, and was incredibly fun to play, but the new third-rate Fazio version is a yawn, except for the 10th hole, which is a goofy, terrible hole. Duke is okay, but 5th best? It's on a wonderful piece of rolling land, and it's a solid, strong big lay-out, but the course is typically soft, slow, and heavy, hardly ever in good shape. Neither of these courses has a fraction of the character of U of M's course.

[Wayne Freeman]

I couldn't let this one get by without putting in my two cents.  There's a reason Yale has been the only college course listed on the Golf Mag top 100 list for years  .....  none of the other college courses come close to measuring up.  I played the OSU course last year and agree that it was very tough and certainly a good test for the kids,  but from an architectural point of view it just isn't that great.  I played Duke over ten years ago and thought the layout had tremendous potential. Would be interested to hear how others feel about it.

[Tom MacWood]

Tommy Mac

Not to go tit for tat, but to give Art Hills design credit for UofM and not Dr Mac is a serious error.  

Ciao

Based on what? What did Mackenzie do at Michigan...is there any record of him visiting the site? The plan was clearly drawn by Maxwell and the work was carried out by PM's construction man. Do you think Art Hills did a good job at U of M?

[Sean_A]

Tommy Mac

Not to go tit for tat, but to give Art Hills design credit for UofM and not Dr Mac is a serious error.  

Ciao

Based on what? What did Mackenzie do at Michigan...is there any record of him visiting the site? The plan was clearly drawn by Maxwell and the work was carried out by PM's construction man. Do you think Art Hills did a good job at U of M?

Dr Mac was Maxwell's partner.  Dr Mac got the commission.  I also believe Dr Mac changed the original Maxwell plan - that is if he didn't already have a hand in the original design.  If you look at the map in Clouser's book, it is from a different hand than the map in Doak's book.  Finally, both maps list the course as a co-design.  I think you are right that Maxwell is responsible for a lot of UofM, but it think it is a proper co-design. 

I don't think Hills should get any credit for UofM.  He didn't really do much architectural work.  So far as what he did - it was ok.  I would rather have seen someone come in and properly restore the course, but there you have it.  The last time I was back there did seem to be a move (I don't know if this was to a Hills plan) to making bunkers bigger and a bit different in shape.  For my part, the biggest thing I would like to see is the removal of more trees.  Either Hills was too conservative or wasn't given the mandate to do so.  Bottom line for me, I don't know where all the money went because the course really didn't look much different after Hills was there.  The only really noticeable thing was the removal of trees.   Here is a very good old thread on UofM.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34505.0/

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

Sean
Where did you read Mackenzie got the commission and not Maxwell (do you have a date?)?  From everything I've read Maxwell was the person who had the relationship with Fielding Yost. Do you believe Colt deserves co-design credit for all the courses Alison designed in the USA? To my knowledge Mackenzie never mentioned Michigan in anything he wrote; nor did he ever take credit for the design in his advertisements. If you have found any information that positively proves Mac's involvement I'd be most interested.

[Matt_Ward]

Chris:

My issue is that Kampen -- despite the overwatered fairways has more compelling holes architecturally than either Scarlet or U of M. I'm not suggesting it's in the league with Karsten Creeek, Yale or The Rawls Course, to name a quick three of superior standing in my mind.

Chris, your issues are spot on in terms of day-to-day preparation -- just realize this -- the quality holes are there -- the folks running the show could do a better job in allowing them to shine even further. I too share your point on the issue of the rough and its overall depth and closeness.

Chris, if one were to use the preparation argument then Yale would have been thrown way back as well from a number of years ago. The architecture is there but it needed to be enhanced by some real TLC.

I never said Kampen was a top five for me -- but it would still grab one of the ten positions.

[Sean_A]

Sean
Where did you read Mackenzie got the commission and not Maxwell (do you have a date?)?  From everything I've read Maxwell was the person who had the relationship with Fielding Yost. Do you believe Colt deserves co-design credit for all the courses Alison designed in the USA? To my knowledge Mackenzie never mentioned Michigan in anything he wrote; nor did he ever take credit for the design in his advertisements. If you have found any information that positively proves Mac's involvement I'd be most interested.

Tommy Mac

Do you have evidence that the principal designer of Dr Mac's office had nothing to do with UofM?  If the map can be called an adverstisment, his name is clearly on both versions.  Was he a ghost designer?  Take a good look at the maps.  The Maxwell map has the far less bold bunkering pictured.  The map (after which I believe Dr Mac got involved properly) not only shows trademark Dr Mac bunkers, but also the very similar green style of CD's 7th is seen at UofM's 6th and to a lesser degree on the 14th.  Both of these holes along with #s 3, 4 & 5 were radically altered from the original Maxwell plan.  Though, it could be the case that Dr Mac used Maxwell's green-sites for #s 3 and 6.  There are also subtle changes in tee locations which alter angles and some 350 yards were added.  Of course it all could be coincidental, but it seems far fetched if you ask me.    

Ciao    

[Niall Hay]

Scarlet is vastly superior to the University of Michigan course and is very difficult to compare with Cypress Point, Crystal Downs and even Pasatiempo or Meadow Club as they are all shorter and the land/climates are all very different from central Ohio.

Oh really?

I have never played played the Scarlet course but I have played the UM course probably over 50 times and I have yet to play a course anywhere that is "vastly superior" than the UM course.

Care to explain how the Scarlet course is so "vastly superior" to the UM course?

And why does the course being shorter make it difficult to compare? Pacific Dunes is pretty short for a "championship" golf course, but I have no problem comparing Pacific Dunes to any other "championship length" golf courses (which are all inferior in my opinion) that I have played.

Please, expound on your thoughts.

Being a short course is by no means an issue with being great, in fact Merion is one of my all time favorite courses for a ton of reasons. I have played Scarlet several hundred times and UM about half of that. I actually live in Michigan and thankfully get to play all the worthwhile courses in the area. UM is a fun course with a couple of really cool, fun, quirky holes, but it is by no means a great OR championship  golf course. Many of my local friends are either UM alumni and many played golf there during my "playing days" and each to a man agree that although UM is a fun course and an enjoyable layout it is not nearly the golf course that Scarleto is....for OSU and anyone visiting it is a bear but anyone that has played it understands that although beats your brains in it is an awesome golf course. Much like playing Winged Foot West or Oakland Hills it is a challenge from the first tee to the last, but at the end of the day it was a fair fight and par typically wins. Regardless of the difficulty, I thought that there would be more grief on this site over the Jack changes, but at the end of the ay Scarlet is legit and anyone who plays it whether they enjoyed the course or not respects it for the championship design and challenge that it is.

Not sure which course I would rather play a "qualifier" in the fall or spring between Scarlet or UM, but UM is certainly more relaxing and not as mentally exhausting as finishing up the 18th at Scarlet. Gray at OSU has more of a feel of UM than Scarlet... either way all three are enjoyable.

Having played Yale many times as well, I certainly agree it is excellent, but again OSU's Scarlet is superior regardless of who the primary designer is......Scarlet, Yale and Stanford certainly are worthy of their place on this list.

[Niall Hay]

Sorry for arriving to the party a little late, Niall!

For anyone interested, here's a hole by hole look at Scarlet:
http://www.ohiostategolfclub.com/Scarlet-1-33.html

Being a Buckeye, I'm a little biased.  Having played the course literally hundreds of times pre-renovation and a few times post-renovation, I am not at all surprised by this ranking.  The course lost a bit of its luster as players continued to get better/longer.  One thing Nicklaus did is bring strategy back into play.  For example, number 7 which is a slight dogleg left,  used to have a cross bunker in the middle of the fairway...most players would just pull driver and bomb it over leaving just a flip wedge to the green.  Nicklaus blew up the cross bunker and replaced it with one which runs up the left side and forces the player to think about hitting iron and laying up short right or gives you the option to challenge the corner to leave you a short shot in.  

#4 was the most controversial hole during the renovation.  The old fourth hole was a good one, but as a par five had really become outdated.  For most good players, it was a driver/six or seven iron onto the green.  Nicklaus did a great job in utilizing available land and turning it into a nice risk-reward par five.  (I didn't like the hole at first, but it has grown on me!)

Anyone that thinks the course is too penal and does not provide enough variety/options, is playing the wrong set of tees!  It's a great test of golf for the college players and has received great reviews from Nationwide Tour players over the last few years.  



Niall..."Huh, Bud" have you seen the practice facilities lately?  A little different than when we were there!  Still not the best, but they've added several short game areas and improved the driving range.  They are also planning a new indoor facility which is needed to keep up with the rest of the programs up north.  If you want a wing named after you...they're looking for donations!



Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Well said Brian.......Laurent, welcome back bud and GO BUCKS!!!! 

As for the practice facilities I wouldn't know even from my time there, although I've heard they are vastly improved.....

Headboard Bud....

Also, Happy Thanksgiving to all.

[Niall Hay]

I'm not surprised the Scarlet was voted #1, in fact I predicted the raters would love the course when they were in the midst of rebuilding it - it is visually striking and harder than hell. Personally I don't care for it; its too hard for me on a regular basis (and I'm not a bad golfer) and not that mentally stimulating. I preferred the old set up, even with its shortcomings, because that course was fun and challenging on a regular basis, and it had the potential of being completed as Mackenzie intended, neither is the case today.

The Michigan course is a completely different animal. The scale of the two courses has always been the biggest difference IMO - OSU course has always been a big course; Michigan much smaller and intimate. OSU was a half completed Mackenzie course that is now a Nicklaus course. Michigan is not, nor has it ever been a Mackenzie course; it was Maxwell course that is now a Maxwell/Art Hills course.

I have only played a few of the college courses, but of those Yale is by far my favorite. I'm not a big fan of the ND course.

Agree 100% with you on the comments although how can the course be a Nicklaus when the changes were 1 hole dramatically including routing, but the rest of the course was cosmetic (bunkering for the most part in the style of the original architect) and 95% of the original is maintained?

Yale is a fun golf course and one of my favorites as well, but it is not as good as Scarlet as far as layout or as a college facility.

[Tom MacWood]

Tommy Mac

Do you have evidence that the principal designer of Dr Mac's office had nothing to do with UofM?  If the map can be called an adverstisment, his name is clearly on both versions.  Was he a ghost designer?  Take a good look at the maps.  The Maxwell map has the far less bold bunkering pictured.  The map (after which I believe Dr Mac got involved properly) not only shows trademark Dr Mac bunkers, but also the very similar green style of CD's 7th is seen at UofM's 6th and to a lesser degree on the 14th.  Both of these holes along with #s 3, 4 & 5 were radically altered from the original Maxwell plan.  Though, it could be the case that Dr Mac used Maxwell's green-sites for #s 3 and 6.  There are also subtle changes in tee locations which alter angles and some 350 yards were added.  Of course it all could be coincidental, but it seems far fetched if you ask me.    

Ciao    

Sean
How do you prove a negative? Is there proof positive that Alison did not send his plans to Colt and he redid them all? No, but there is no evidence of Colt's involvement (other than lending his name), there is no record of him being on site, the plans are all in Alison's hand, Alison was the only one on site and the courses are in his distinct style. Viola, Alison courses. The very same factors are true with Maxwell & Michigan. Either you have proof (I'd take a tiny shred at this point) of Mackenzie's involvement or you don't.

I've looked at the maps. Those are not Mackenzie trademark bunkers IMO. Those bunkers look very much like the bunkers Maxwell built through much of his career. The islands of grass (found in several of Michigan's bunkers) were a distinctly Maxwellian feature. I will grant you the first drawing (assuming that is the first drawing; there is no date on it) is in a very basic style, in fact it looks like a 3rd grader did it, so it is very possible Mackenzie had some influence on Maxwell style. But that is speculation on my part, and the case you seem to be making is 100% speculative/circumstantial.

By the way Maxwell himself explained how he got the U of M commission and it had nothing to do with Mackenzie (according to Maxwell).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()