Huck:
One more post and then I eagerly await the rest of the tour.
I once (foolishly) got into a debate with Pat Mucci here about the difficulty of Pine Valley (never played; judgements all from pics and TV), arguing similar thoughts: lots of forced carries, extraordinary penal surrounds off the fairways and greens, no margin of error, the usual. Pat replied: Although not a course for beginners, it's wider than you think; it's not that long (from the proper tees); greens are manageable with proper placement on approaches. But in essence, Pat's final argument was one I couldn't counter -- if it was so hard, the membership of PV wouldn't enjoy playing it. And they do, ergo, it can't be THAT hard. (I'm still not convinced, but my lack of playing PV essentially led me to concede the debate.)
In Ran's recent review of Old Macdonald, he wrote:
"As such, with the possible exception of Yeamans Hall where Doak and Urbina have worked for years, the author can’t think of a single course more conducive for a grandfather, father, wife and child to play than here. Forced carries are at a minimum while the amount of acreage presented as short grass is at a maximum for any course built since World War Two."
"The strength and flexibility of its golf holes insures that it will continue to garner glowing critical reviews while also putting smiles on the faces of many recreational golfers."
"Another cool thing about Old Mac is that
it might be the hardest course at the resort for good players and the easiest course for bad players, which is a really neat trick to pull off. Like at Yale, good players can hit 15 greens and not break 80. Getting even short irons close to hole locations on large greens have vexed golfers for a century plus at St. Andrews. At the same time, there are lots of ways at Old MacDonald to break 90 or 100 as you are almost guaranteed not to lose a ball." (intro to thread announcing OM course profile posting on this site)
This, to me, is the stuff of genius, GCA division -- a course both difficult for the serious golfer (and with all due respect, you're a serious golfer if you're a rater...not that there's anything wrong with that
), yet truly enjoyable for the casual, recreational golfer. That's what I've always wondered about Sand Hills. PValley, Winged Foot (East), Oakmont -- all were built to be serious, hard tests for golfers. I've played courses like that, and I really didn't have a lot of fun. SHills looks more like the latter (the Pine Valley of the prairies) than something along the likes of Old Macdonald. But I'm open to hearing other sides of it.