So just how good is the Straits from an architectural perspective

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

I never said The Straits was a dog track -- just not THAT good to be rated just behind certain courses -- see the Golfweek Modern poll -- and ahead of so many other more deserving layouts.

Joel:

Simple question -- simple answer requested -- you see WS / The Straits as the best that Pete has done. Golfweek and Golf Mag seem to think so.

I don't see the course touching the deserved reputation of places like Harbour Town, The Golf Club, Teeth of the Dog, The Ocean Course, TPC / Sawgrass, to name just a few.


Mac:

Pete Dye hit his stride a number of years ago -- long before WS became a factor on the golf scene. The course is just overkill to the max with its usual rendition of stuff Pete did better from a number of courses years ago.

You say Tommy's opinion is "well thought out" -- please tell me what I missed? If you have played The Golf Club you will see vintage Pete Dye work -- the place is so private that few on this site or elsewhere discuss it. Ditto what Pete did to improve the nature of TPC / Sawgrass -- the course is more than just the famed island green 17th. Ditto what Pete did with his bold effort at The Ocean Course at Kiawah. The Straits is just a brawny layout capable in hosting the top players and you get the obligatory eyecandy with Lake Michigan.

Mac -- the ratings have taken the bait -- hook, line and sinker regarding courses that host majors. I would think that the esteemed Golfweek would know better -- I hold little hope for Golf Mag and Digest in that regard. Golfweek has it at #3 -- c'mon, if you layed The Straits you'd know what a farce that is. Pete Dye did plenty for modern design -- but the courses that have come down the pike in recent times -- save for a distinct few -- just don't much to the meter.

[Richard Hetzel]

I just read an interview Jay F. did with Pete about WS:

http://www.pga.com/pgachampionship/2010/news/dye_qa.cfm

[Mac Plumart]

Nice post Matt.  That is what I am talking about.

[Dan Herrmann]

Watching it in beautiful HD, all I can think about is replacing my bathroom fixtures with some swell Koehler products.  Off to Home Depot!

[Bart Bradley]

Matt:

I mostly agree with your sentiments about Whistling Straits.  I posted my review of the course just a couple of days ago.  I think it deserves credit as a very early "faux-links" course and for creating an evironment that is visually stunning.  The par 3s are remarkably similar, as you stated.  "Overbunkering" found its full definition at Whistling Straits.  Too many of the approaches require aerial carry over hazards.  The 5th hole alone puts the course behind others that have 18 unified, strong holes.

However, there are some very cool features.  The new 6th green is unique and stunning.  The 10th hole seems wonderful to me.  I applaud that it is a walking course.  I have encouraged others on this board to give their numerical rating of the course (with zero takers) and have gone on record as giving it a 7.5.  In my opinion, it a course of distinction, one that would fall outside my world top 100, but would make the top 30-40 modern courses.

Just my 2 cents,

Bart

Dan:

The bathroom fixtures are a Doak 10   

[Joel Zuckerman]

Joel:

Simple question -- simple answer requested -- you see WS / The Straits as the best that Pete has done. Golfweek and Golf Mag seem to think so.

I don't see the course touching the deserved reputation of places like Harbour Town, The Golf Club, Teeth of the Dog, The Ocean Course, TPC / Sawgrass, to name just a few.

No, I don't think WS is the best of Pete Dye...I prefer Honors first/foremost, then probably PD GC, HTown, Teeth, Golf Club, Blackwolf Run, TOC...THEN WS.  But--I still think WS is fantastic, and truly out-of-the-ordinary.

[Andy Troeger]

Bart,
I'll agree with you. 7.5. If I had to pick a round number I'd go 8, but its borderline between the two numbers.

[Carl Rogers]

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....

If you can say it achieves its design objectives with conviction, then its successful.  There will be at best a marginal agreement on what we all care to measure. 

Am I chomping at the bit to tee it there? Not really.  A lot of other courses would come ahead of WS on my to play list. 

Would an individual's play list be the criteria to judge the course?

[Ben Voelker]

I shouldn't say that I don't like the course; it is still one of the top few courses I have had the chance to play.  I played WS in 2003 I think and BR two years before.  What's interesting about WS is that there are very few holes that I can still remember much about what I liked/disliked and there are a few that I get confused with each other (2 and 4 in particular).  This is much more true than with BR, which there are a number of holes I distinctly remember and like.  BR River vs. WS I go 6-4 for BR.

On the other hand, the one of a kind setting does provide a boost in my opinion in that the experience as a whole is very unique in the world of golf, even if it is not everybody's cup of tea.  I don't mind mind the excessive bunkering.  Sure, most never come into play, but surely most are not groomed daily and they have the budget for it.

I am going to say I would give it a 7, which seems too low to be the third best modern course in the US, no?

[Carl Rogers]

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.

I am not worried about Golfweek.

The design was built for a series of reasons.  In doing that a series of trade-offs were made. I think that is a good starting point to discuss the course.  The fact that many of you have commented on this thread means that you are not buying into its design assumptions, premises and starting points.

[Rob Rigg]

With WS (in addition to TPC and HT) has Pete Dye proven that he is the BEST PGA Tournament architect of the modern era?

How does it play for everyone else?

That is what concerns me about WS from afar - It is VERY highly rated by Golfweek as Matt has noted which should probably compel one to take a trip there - but with Bandon down the road and four all world courses it is a struggle to travel to WI and pay the big bucks for a course that does not look very enjoyable unless you have + handicap ball control.

I am also put off by this "Irish links vibe" that they are perpetrating when it does not play like that at all, but I digress.

I spoke to a pro this week who said playing WS is absolutely exhausting - more mental than physical.

I think that is a complement - because it takes insanely hard courses to challenge these guys - but not sure that makes it a Top 5 Public in the country from an architectural perspective?

[Jud_T]

Rob,
From your location there's zero reason to ever go to WS over BD.  Keiser has crushed Kohler at his own game.

[Matt Kardash]

Don't even try to convince me I am wrong about the following comment.

Let me start this by saying most everyone on this board see's golf design from ther same, or very similar perspective. Pete Dye is not the flavour of the week, so your brains are mostly all train not to like his style all that much.

The real reason for the lack of love for WS on this site is not because the holes are bad or it is a bad course, it is because it is not how you think the course should look. You think an Irish links should look and play a certain way. Whistling Straits is like an Irish links turned on its head. This makes your head hurt. You want it to look more natural and be more a traditional links.

I see WS kind of like a links painted by Francis Bacon. Then again, I do prefer surrealism to naturalism. I prefer david Lynch to Martin Scorsese.

I don't think WS is bullet-proof, but I do think it is an amazing effort with a lot of good golf holes.

[Mac Plumart]

Matt K...

Just so you (and really everone else) knows the reason I have so much interest in this thread is that every single Pete Dye course I have played I absolutely loved!  And right now, he is by far my favorite architect.  But I haven't played a few key architects courses yet.

So, what I am piecing together is should I go to Kohler next, probably later in the summer next year, and play 4 Dye courses (almost a sure thing I will love them) or try something new?  Right now I am thinking try something new just to see what is out there, but I just want to make sure that isn't a mistake.

So, when you say, "Pete Dye is not the flavour of the week, so your brains are mostly all train not to like his style all that much."...understand that I, for one, am on board with Mr. Dye 100%.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Watching it in beautiful HD, all I can think about is replacing my bathroom fixtures with some swell Koehler products.  Off to Home Depot!

What's funny is that when I was up there at the end of June we had a meeting with Herb.  One of his marketing people said that what is really amazing is that Herb had discovered a way to have people voluntarily come up to his plant and fork down $300-$400 each to test out his plumbing products.

[Jim Briggs]

And right now, he is by far my favorite architect. 

Mac,

This may call for another thread, but what are the key characteristics of Pete's courses you've played that places him as your favorite.  I only have played the Ocean Course, and what really appealed to me there was how much thought I needed to put into my approach shots in terms of where was my miss.  There seemed to be such a disparity as to what kind of shape you would be if you missed in the right spot vs. the wrong spot.  As a bogey golfer I liked how it forced me to think, and it brought an excitement to the round that I quite enjoyed (the wind was benign that day...which probably helped the enjoyment factor as well...)

Thanks,
Jim

[Steve Kline]

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.....  

Also, I heard Nobilo earlier in the week call it the best course of the modern era. Me thinks Frank has not been to Bandon, Sand Hills and a whole bunch of other places.

[Phil McDade]

Rob,
From your location there's zero reason to ever go to WS over BD.  Keiser has crushed Kohler at his own game.

Jud:

The continued comparisons by you and others on this thread between WStraits and the Bandon quartet is simply misleading, and disingenuous. What was the last tournament of any consequence held at any of the Bandon courses? The Curtis Cup? That's nice, but it's not exactly the world's top 100 golfers playing at 7,500 yards. I'll repeat it again for those who may have missed it -- WS was built entirely to host the PGA and other major tournaments. Everything I've read about Mr. Keiser suggests he developed the Bandon properties for what they've become -- a high-end destination resort that mirrors, as closely as one can probably get here in the States, the UK-links experience. That's not why Mr. Kohler built WStraits.

I know, I know -- "but how does it rate as a test of architecture?" Myself and others have tried to answer that, apparently to your continued dissatisfaction (you could at least attempt, as Matt Ward is doing, to get into some legitimate discussions about its merits vs. other courses). But that's OK; I'm not suggesting you and I will agree on that. I think it holds up well as a test of the best players in the world. You think it fails, because it's not Bandon. That's a specious argument, on your part.

[Andy Troeger]

Phil,
I've been sitting here trying to write something along the lines of what you just said. The resorts have entirely different purposes, especially the Straits Course.

Well done.


As a side note, having not been there recently I had forgotten how good some of the inland holes are at Straits, especially #9 and #10. I really like #9 green on a relatively short hole.

[Jud_T]

Phil,

Sorry if the criticism hits too close to home. 

1.  Rob wondered aloud whether it made sense, with Bandon in his back yard, to ever venture to WS.  The answer for any sane person who's not a Pete Dye fanatic is no.

2.  Did I ever say the course is a dogtrack?  It's not.  There are some very good holes, #10 in particular, and some heart-pumping tee shots.  It's a wonder of modern construction techniques and has some pretty cool shaping.  Am I biased against it because it's not minimalist and doesn't play firm/fast and is a faux links? I'll concede that point. 

3.  I disagree that it's a brutal track and only playable by very strong players and have said so.  If you play the proper tees the course is very playable.  I've scored well there, so it's not any bum beef on my part.

4. Are you saying the Mr. Kohler would be happy to close the course and only open it every 5 years for the PGA championship? I beg to differ.  He may be a billionaire in the sh*tter business, but he's got quite a large investment in golf as well.  And let's face it, he puts the American Club and it's 4 courses, of which WS is the jewel, out there in direct competition with the other big resorts in the U.S.; Pinehurst, Pebble and yes Bandon.  It's the last on my list of these four on many counts.

5.  Given point 4 let's look at it compared to Bandon.  By the way, have you been there? Your're talking about a place that has 4 of the best courses in the country if not the world, all Doak 8's and 9's vs. a place that has a mishmash of Doak 5-7's.  No contest.

[Richard Choi]

Phil, if the course is built to test the best in the world, why would I, a 10 handicapper, go there? I don't have the skills...

[David Egan]

Phil, if the course is built to test the best in the world, why would I, a 10 handicapper, go there? I don't have the skills...

The course is very playable and fun as long as you choose the right tees. IF you go too far back, it could be a long day.

[Andy Troeger]

1.  Rob wondered aloud whether it made sense, with Bandon in his back yard, to ever venture to WS.  The answer for any sane person who's not a Pete Dye fanatic is no.

Jud,
The answer for YOU is no. Leave the rest of us out of it. I'd happily return to Kohler and think folks would be missing something by skipping it entirely, no matter their location.

[Tommy Williamsen]

It is a mistake to think of WS as a faux links.  It isn't and most agree wit that sentiment.  It is indefinable except that it is next to the Big Lake, which makes one think of links golf.  I know Herb Kohler want Ballybuniion, what he got was something else.  But when you add up the setting, the variety of holes, the demanding tee shots, the exceptional greens and surrounds, it stacks up with some of the best courses in the country.  Is it in my top ten modern or top fifty that includes classic courses?  I don't know.  I just don't find too many deficiencies.

[Mike Hendren]

I played the course soon after it opened and like it better than most.  I can't really argue with those who feel otherwise, however.

Bearing in mind that I'm reaching back ten years or so for a single round:

Some weaknesses:
The siting of the clubhouse is responsible for the awkward nature of both the 9th and 18th holes as they play back along the two sides of the washed out valley.
The double-dogleg par five on the front with pond is totally out of character.  
Few angled shot requirements, either from the tee or on the approach - i.e., the golf course is extremely linear.  
Turfgrass maintenance in front of the greens thwarts the ground game, which the architecture often otherwise favors.
Ho hum internal green contours.
Superfluous peripheral bunkering.
Few centerline hazards.
Ballybunion inspiration without blindness?

Some strengths:
The 1st and 10th (Underrated)  are great get-away holes, playing out toward the lake.
Scale.
Unimpeded vistas.
Generally extreme fairway width.
Double-figure 8 routing exposes all wind directions.
Expansive greens accomodate the weaker player and challenge the better player.
Nice skyline features, particular at the final par five.
Otherwise superfulous external bunkers offer a visually attractive landscape.
Flexible - challenging for the world's greatest players and playable for the mid-handicapper - no small feat.

Mike