Tim, honestly I can't stand the Ike course but I like it much better than the Babe. I guess these courses were probably "engineering" marvels when they were built given their location on top of a giant pile of garbage, but that may go to show that quality "engineering" and quality golf design don't always work in the same direction.
I have always found the designs disjointed and somewhat nonsensical in places, and the site too severe in places for reasonable golf. The Ike is a course that has always tried to sell itself on difficulty, but I don't think that difficulty ought to be the main focus of a golf course. It doesn't help my opinion that it is usually an impossibly slow pace and in carts. I should say as way of disclaimer that I haven't played there in over a decade, for the reasons above.
Just my honest opinion as always.
_______________________________________________________________________________
John,
I have no problem with you or anyone touting Lakeside and it doesn't bother me a bit you think it a better course than Rustic. I am sure you are not alone in your assessment. One could make an argument for many of supposed second tier clubs around LA. My personal feeling is that if some of these courses were located in other parts of the country they'd get a lot more love. Too bad you haven't called to play Rustic or elsewhere when you are in town, because I did very much enjoy our round at Rustic.
I just don't understand the repeated petty jabs at what you call the "poor engineering." They suggest to me that while you like the course itself, the chip on your shoulder nonetheless remains about the idea of the place. You used to post about it all the time before you even played it, and it seems to represent something you don't like about the way people think of minimalist design. I know that has nothing to do with your true feelings on the merits of the course, but that makes it all the more peculiar.
As for the supposedly "poor engineering," have you considered what "proper engineering" might have entailed? How might have "proper engineering" impacted the design? The cost? The permitting? The environmental restrictions? Even the very existence of the course?
Have you considered the cost of "engineering" around a wash that the designers were not allowed to touch? Have you considered the cost-benefit analysis of "engineering" for the very slight possibility of a devastating fire followed by a unprecedented torrential rainfall-- over three feet of rain a few weeks? Even in hindsight, have you compared the relatively small cost of repair with what it would have cost to "engineer" around the potential problem in the first place? Is it really "poor engineering" if the damage was repaired for a fraction of what would have been the cost of engineering around the improbable disaster in the first place?
You and I are both from rural areas and we are both well aware that sometimes nature has her way with things. Sometimes the best and most economical "engineering" is to clean up the mess after the damage is done.