So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I am one of the minority who simply do not get it.....
As a feat of engineering..superb..as a golf course..NO
Links ideals on steroids, doent play like a links due to the "green" factor.
Excessive bunkering for intimidation and eye candy...just overdone to the extreme.
As an architectural wonder..I dont get it.
To me it is just an example of deep pockets stretched to the limits to leave behind millions of tons of moved earth providng an intimidating golf course that grossly exagerates all that is good about links golf.
Again as a feat of what can be done with modern machinery..congratulations...but to me that is not what golf course architecture is al about...in the same vein as Shadow Creek in Vegas.

[Jud_T]

Seems like we're not in the minority.  Where are all the guys who have WS in their top 10 on another thread?

[Matt_Ward]

Jud:

They've run for cover.

Like I said I'd love for a GW rater to explain how the layout makes the top five modern.

Clearly, something is amiss with that call.

[Mac Plumart]

Great thread with great information and opinions.

[John Moore II]

I have never played this course, but from the TV/Web coverage I notice a fairway leading up the left side of the creek on 18. I do not recall this from the Sr. Open/Sr PGA when it was played here just a couple of years ago. And it does not show up on the Google Earth image. Was this added in recently? And how much does it change the playing features of the hole given that a shot from that fairway would be played in to a much deeper/longer green?

[Phil McDade]

John:

This strip of fairway was added for this year's PGA. It's designed as something of a risk-reward fairway option, in that it's quite skinny, but cuts off some of the dogleg and shortens the approach into the 18th green. This link has some additional info.:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/golf/100170504.html

[Carl Rogers]

In my mind it isn't the great architectural design masterpiece that some characterize it.  But, it is a great pro or major venue competition golf course built for such.   
 

I agree and think this alone qualifies it as good architecture.It was designed to challenge the best players in the world.By this standard,it's very successful.

Wouldn't WS be comparable to TPC Sawgrass in this regard--"resort" courses designed for the best players but open to everyone?

All courses cannot be all things to all people.

If your objective is to create a course that is:
- visually stunning freely borrowing from the Irish Links (or the perception thereof)(you also have to pretend that Lake Michaigan is the Irish Sea)
- very hard for +6 handicap golfers (thus about unplayable for the rest of us)
- very expensive to build and maintain (no need to pay a mortgage)
- have world class amenities for Major Golf Championships
then WS is a very successful project.

[Jud_T]

Carl,

The question is not whether it is a successful project.  It is.  The tee sheet is full.  The question is how good is it architecturally....

[Tommy Williamsen]

I am not going to get into the ranking of the course but will talk about its merit a bit.  I think it is not only stunning but architecturally excellent.  I have played the course three times.  The last time was in 2003.  I found the course demanding off the tee and yet the shots into the greens are more scary than difficult.  The big undulating greens, however, do not automatically yield two putts. I found that I needed imagination around the greens and the ability to play within myself, because the penalties extracrted from poor shots is great.  The setting is part of the the whole experience.   I have played dozens of PD's courses and think it ranks up there with The Golf Club, Sawgrass, and the Ocean Course. 
My biggest complaint is the grass on the fairways and in front of the greens.  I'd go back in a heartbeat.

[Mac Plumart]

Tommy, great post.

Would you mind expanding upon this..."My biggest complaint is the grass on the fairways and in front of the greens"?

[Matt_Ward]

Carl:

The place is rated #3 by Golfweek in their modern listing of courses.

All the items you mentioned have nothing to do with the actual design / architecture. I don't deny the place makes $$ and that it has the wherewithal to host a modern major in the year 2010. The issue is whether or not the place offers anything beyond the flash of overkill that Pete interjected onto the design.


Tommy W:

Surely you jest -- The Straits is in the same league with The Ocean Course, TPC / Sawgrass and TGC -- please -- tell me you're just joking Tommy. Pete did the "let's throw everything at them but the kitchen sink" with the design. The par-3's are roughly the same type of shot -- save for where the wind comes into play.

Tommy, just for curiosity sake -- are you a GW rater ?

[Tommy Williamsen]

When I played the course the grass in front of the greens was bentgrass and soft.  Even when I hit a low running shot the grass in front of the greens ate it up.  I don't know if that has been changed because I have not heard anyone mention it on the broadcast.

[Matthew Sander]

From what I can tell I don't think it has. There have been several shots that, if the grass were a firmer surface, would have chased up onto the green. I am thinking of the 3 wood Tiger hit at the par 5 16th...

[Mac Plumart]

Tommy...thanks!

Matt...you continuosly make statements like the one's above and frankly you are better than that...at least I hope.

Tommy voices a well thought out opinion and you belittle his opinion.  Ok, fine.  You disagree.  Why don't you state why you think The Golf Club, Sawgrass, and The Ocean Course are clearly better in your opinion rather than trash other people's opinions without any supporting reasons.  I for one would love to hear those thoughts.  

You also bag on GW for having WS as the #3 modern course.  Golf Magazine has it at #4, if the same time frames are used.  I haven't checked Golf Digest, but I assume it is close.  So, again...it seems all the major rating entities agree.  

Much like my comments to you regarding your belittling of Tommy's opinion on WS, why not point out why all these major rating entites are wrong and you are right.  Andy T. did a great job of detailing his thoughts as have others.  Why not you?  You are one of the guys on this site that have seen so much and have so much to offer, why not detail your thoughts?

EDIT...I just looked Golf Digest's modern ranking of Whistling Straits would be 5, if the same time frames were used. 

[Mark Arata]

Baker-Finch just called it Pete's best ever.....Personally I dont even think it is the best course AT THAT RESORT! I liked Blackwolf Run better.....  

[Joel Zuckerman]

I've played virtually every Pete Dye GC of note, most more than once, (haven't been to French Lick) and find WS to be an excellent test, and well worthwhile---it's exciting, intimidating, visually dazzling and other-worldly in comparison to most courses.

It's completely different than: A)  Anything else of Dye's design and
B) the type of courses that most visitors to Kohler will ever see.

I think that 2nd point is important, because in addition to it's major championship imprimatur, WS scores points because it gives domestic, resort-oriented golfers a taste or at least a feel, of what links golf is all about.  (No---it's not going to make anyone forget Dornoch or County Down, but it's more authentic than say, the Paris Casino is compared to Paris.)

I might prefer to play Blackwolf Run, HTown, TOC, Golf Club, Teeth, Honors and PDGC on a more regular basis than WS..but I still think it's a tremendous treat, and one of the modern marvels of GC architecture.

[Mike Wagner]

I think WS is fantastic! What's not to love....really?   If you're looking for old school, yeah, there are a million bunkers out of play and it's flashy.  So freakin' what???

I think it offeres plenty above the "flash and overkill Pete interjected in the design."  Maybe if you don't get caught up in the "flash" you'll see some interesting things.

I have to agree with the overall ranking, but don't we all agree that the (overall) raters get swayed by scenic stuff and the "flash."  So that whole thing is out the window...we get it!

There's not one hole I find disinteresting out there.  It's amazing, it's hard, they got what they wanted...enjoy it for what it is....or don't.

[Phil McDade]

From what I can tell I don't think it has. There have been several shots that, if the grass were a firmer surface, would have chased up onto the green. I am thinking of the 3 wood Tiger hit at the par 5 16th...

Matt:

The course got more than 1-1/2 inches of rain Wednesday on top of an already wetter-than-normal summer in these parts. I think the course can play firm, but the run-up to the PGA -- although perhaps not as bad as Bethpage Black and the US Open last year -- has not been conducive at all to fast and firm conditions.

[Mac Plumart]

Watching this course on tv, I think I am warming up to it a bit.  It looks intimidating, but perhaps it is more playable than it looks.  Kiawah Ocean is that way, maybe this one is as well.

Frankly, a lot of Dye's courses make this saying ring in my head...

“It is important to make the golf hole look more difficult than it really is...if your mind convinces you that it really is
a difficult shot, you’re beat before you even take the club back.” – Mike Strantz

[John Moore II]

I think the course is playing very good. It actually requires thought on just about every shot, as opposed to the usual penal US Open set-up where you simply must hit the fairway or be punished. Anyone else hear Frank Nobilo's comments on the Golf Channel lead-in show where he discussed the US Open, Pebble Beach and course set-up and how so much of the US Open scoring and such depends wholly on course set-up and can be fairly well interchanged between courses? I loved how he seemed to imply the set-up on 7 was foolish given tour guys had basically no chance of getting it close. Sorry for the diversion. I really like the set-up at WS, it rewards good shots and punishes bad shots, is that not good golf?

[Mac Plumart]

John...

I think you touch on a HUGELY important point...at least in my opinion.

A great course (and a course still relevant given todays technology) doesn't need to be overly tricked up to challenge the best golfers.  It just simply is always a great test of golf.  WS certainly appears to be a great and relevant test.  Perhaps that is where its greatness lies.

[Richard Choi]

I really like the set-up at WS, it rewards good shots and punishes bad shots, is that not good golf?

Nope, that is good golf. However, great golf would reward good shots of various shape and kind and reward creativity, not force same shots and same strategy.

[Mac Plumart]

Richard...NICE!!! 

[David Egan]

It's very playable as long as you choose the right tees. I think the place is awesome and very interesting. It has great bunkering, cool greens, and gives the player different options on several of the holes. It's got a nice mix of short par 4s and long brutal par 4s.  It has reachable par 5s and true three shoters. The par 3s may look somewhat similar but think they play differently from the redan #3, long and hard #7, short #12, and long downhill #17.  You need to hit 4 different shots on each of those holes so I've never felt like the par 3s are repetitive.   The fact that it doesn't play like a true links course is a non-issue in my mind.  It's one of my favorites and I've played a lot of great courses both here and abroad so I think I've got a pretty good foundation from which to compare. It may not be everyone's cup of tea but I really don't get the sentiment that this is anything but a great golf course.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Carl:
 
Tommy W:

Surely you jest -- The Straits is in the same league with The Ocean Course, TPC / Sawgrass and TGC -- please -- tell me you're just joking Tommy. Pete did the "let's throw everything at them but the kitchen sink" with the design. The par-3's are roughly the same type of shot -- save for where the wind comes into play.

Tommy, just for curiosity sake -- are you a GW rater ?

Matt, I not at on the GW panel.  I chose The Golf Club, The Ocean Course, Sawgrass on purpose.  Could there be four more different sites than those three and WS?  The Golf Club is intimate and very playable for most folks.  Sawgrass may be Dye's best.  It has it all.  You need to be accurate off the tee and precise on the shots to the greens.  While there is a lot of slope, the greens themselves are probably the most benign part of the course.  They need to be. The Ocean Course is intimidating like WS but has more width than appears from the tee.  As far as shot values, to use your terms, I think WS is its equal.  As for the greens complexes themselves I think WS requires more diffferent kinds of shots than any of the other three.
As for the par threes, I will grant you that they are similar in that two run north to south and two run south to north along the lake.  But that is where the similarity ends.  The greens and surrounds could not be more different.  So in terms of shot values they seem pretty different.