Is Tom Weiskopf's work underappreciated?

[Jason Topp]

My sample size is limited but I think Weiskopf's work is pretty good and was pretty innovative back in the 80's compared to what had happened before.  

He was one of the first modern designers to include a driveable par four.  

His original Troon North course was unique in that it was a high end desert course with much more width than desert courses had included in the past.  

Foothills is a fun course if in the area and looking for a bargain (at least it was in 1988).  It is just located on terribly ugly terrain.

His holes at the Wilds in Minnesota are creative, including a split fairway hole that, while I do not think it works real well, is an interesting attempt at using a hillside to make the approach from the safer and shorter side of the fairway quite difficult.

The finish at the TPC of Scottsdale makes for a very entertaining end of a tournament with many opportunities for eagles and disaster.

I think the Reserve is also a Weiskopf design and while it is nothing special, I would be pleased to return any day.

I have not found his work boring - quite the opposite.  Some of his creative ideas have worked and some have not.

[David Kelly]

Weiskopf has two signatures - short, driveable par 4s and rocks.  I can think of a bunch of his courses - Marbella, The Reserve, Lahontan, Shadow Glen, the Troon courses, Boulders (natch) - where either rocks or rock formations are in play and/or there are a bunch of rock walls throughout the course, usually around island greens.

[Jim Nelson]

Weiskopf has two signatures - short, driveable par 4s and rocks.  I can think of a bunch of his courses - Marbella, The Reserve, Lahontan, Shadow Glen, the Troon courses, Boulders (natch) - where either rocks or rock formations are in play and/or there are a bunch of rock walls throughout the course, usually around island greens.

Don't really remember much in the way of rocks being in play at Lahontan.  Short par four, yes, number 9. 

[Steve Strasheim]

I've enjoyed two of his courses immensely, Olde Kinderhook and The Wilds.

Both are cart required, I believe.

[Kalen Braley]

Maybe I'm reading too much into the comments being made.

But it sounds like Tom W is being criticzed for using short driveable par 4s?  This coming from GCA.com?

I would have thought this was a positive for these kinds of holes where the player is temped to go for the green...

[Jim Nelson]

Maybe I'm reading too much into the comments being made.

But it sounds like Tom W is being criticzed for using short driveable par 4s?  This coming from GCA.com?

I would have thought this was a positive for these kinds of holes where the player is temped to go for the green...

I like Lahontan and I like the short par 4, but here's an actual design question on that hole.  For those who have played it, what do you think about the large tree in the middle of the fairway?  Without it, players would certainly want to go for it.  With the tree there, I have seen more people lay up as the tree comes so much into play.  Any thoughts on it?

[Matthew Petersen]

Weiskopf has two signatures - short, driveable par 4s and rocks.  I can think of a bunch of his courses - Marbella, The Reserve, Lahontan, Shadow Glen, the Troon courses, Boulders (natch) - where either rocks or rock formations are in play and/or there are a bunch of rock walls throughout the course, usually around island greens.

The Boulders courses are credited to Jay Moorish only.

[Matthew Petersen]

I have enjoyed virtually all the Weiskopf-designed courses I have seen. Are any of them sterling examples of design? no, most have a mix of really good holes and average holes. I have seen him incorporate some interesting ideas, however. The 5th at The Rim Club is a potentially driveable par 4 with a tee box that is probably 30 yards wide--you can really choose you angle there.

[David Kelly]

Weiskopf has two signatures - short, driveable par 4s and rocks.  I can think of a bunch of his courses - Marbella, The Reserve, Lahontan, Shadow Glen, the Troon courses, Boulders (natch) - where either rocks or rock formations are in play and/or there are a bunch of rock walls throughout the course, usually around island greens.

Don't really remember much in the way of rocks being in play at Lahontan.  Short par four, yes, number 9. 

I think it is the the first par 5 on the back, the one with the peninsula green where to the left of the green there is a rock retaining wall that is definitely in play for wild second shot.  I think there were some tee boxes built up with retaining walls of rock.  It seems to be an aesthetic choice on a lot of his courses.

I like the fact that he builds short par 4s.

[Peter Ferlicca]

Just to clarify for people mentioning the Reserve in Indian Wells, CA.  That project was the last project with Weiskopf and Moorish, so it is not just a Weiskopf design.

I forgot about Hassayampa, it is a nice pleasent course up in Prescott, AZ.  There are a couple of funky holes on the front nine, but a decent members course.  I just remember some tee shots being really narrow for an average playing membership. 

[Aidan Bradley]

Kukuiula, Kauai

[Kenny Baer]

I just played Adam's Rib Ranch in CO and came away very impressed, played both courses at Red Sky and Country Club of the Rockies and will say that as a whole I thought Adams was the best.  Good short 4's and strategic 5's, I also loved a low lying green on the back 9.  Also it was the best conditioned course I have ever played and that counts Double Eagle, Wade Hampton, and several others known for conditioning.  I didn't walk it but it certainly seemed like it would have been a bear to walk, which was a little disappointing.

[Mark Pritchett]

Kenny,

Did you like Adams better than Double Eagle?  How do they compare strategy wise? 

Mark

[Kenny Baer]

Mark,

If I didn't know better I would think you just called me an Asshole....anyway,

I "think" I like Double Eagle better, just a more traditional golf course, easily walkable and lots of neat strategic decisions to be made on almost every tee, that being said I would bet if you took the name and ranking out of the picture and dropped your average golfer on each course then 80 out of 100 would prefer Adam's, it is more dramatic because of the property and the views.  If given a chance I would love to walk Adams and see if it truly is easily walkable, if it is then I would say it is better. 

[Keith Phillips]

Don't know the broader work but have played Loch Lomond ~30x - it is a VERY good golf course, with wonderful variety from LONG par 3s (11) to short par 3s ( and LONG par 4s (7) to short par 4s (9 and 14) - my favorite holes are 5, 10, 13, 15 and 17 (i actually think the 'risk' on 14 is not worth taking for most players) - spectacular routing, very walkable -  fairly easy for the pros but a good challenge for the other 99.9% of us - we could quibble about the amount of $ spent on drainage, but the good news is it WAS spent, and the course plays firmer/faster than many courses in the NY/NJ area despite being in the wettest part of Scotland - altogether a phenomenal experience

[Greg Tallman]

6th at Cabo del Sol Desert - Probably 35 yards of fairway hidden by the rock outcropping before turhing up the hill to a near punch bowl green.

[Greg Tallman]

9th green at Cabo del Sol Desert - Push up green at the end of uphill but short par 5 with run offs in all directions. Runoffs are cut as rough in this photo but that problem has been remedied.

[David Whitmer]

Maybe I'm reading too much into the comments being made.

But it sounds like Tom W is being criticzed for using short driveable par 4s?  This coming from GCA.com?

I would have thought this was a positive for these kinds of holes where the player is temped to go for the green...

I came to the same conclusion after reading some comments, and also wondered why...

I have played two Weiskopf courses (Double Eagle and TPC Scottsdale) and had alot of fun on them both. The driveable par 4s (happens to be hole #17 both times) were great...alot of strategy and risk-reward. How can that be a bad thing?

I have played almost every great course in Ohio, and I think Double Eagle clearly belongs in the top ten. As mentioned earlier, holes #5 thru #9 are great; hole #2 provides two different routes to take off the tee, with the right side giving you the better angle (but bringing more trouble with it); hole #15 is a really nice cape hole; hole #17 is a tremendous short par 4; and hole #18 gives you many options, starting with a fairway bunker forcing you to choose right or left, then a decision on whether to go for the green in two, and if you don't where to then lay up.

I do not believe Double Eagle is as good as Muirfield Village, The Golf Club, Scioto, Camargo, or Inverness, but I do believe it's better than Longaberger (great piece of property, less-than-stellar golf course), TCC, NCR, or Canterbury (haven't played Kirtland). Granted my sample size of Weiskopf courses is small, but count me as one who likes them and always has fun playing them.

[Michael George]

I don't understand the criticism of Longaberger.  I think because it was designed by Arthur Hills, it does not get the respect that it deserves.  I did not find many bad or average holes on the course.  #5 is an average par 3 and #7 is an average par 5, but other than that, I found all of the holes really enjoyable.  My only problem with the course was that it was impossible to walk due to the distance between green and tees. 

I enjoyed Double Eagle.  It is the best conditioned course that I have ever played. Service is impeccable.  However, it just isn't that fun to play.  Good test, yes.  But there are not many shots where I was excited to try.  The fun features that we talk about in Doak courses just are not there at Double Eagle.  The green complexes are average.  Also, they have let the trees become overgrown on #5 and #7, making those approach shots too difficult. 

I don't have a problem with someone putting Double Eagle in front of Canterbury.  However, I would take Longaberger, Country Club and Brookside (Canton) ahead of it.   

[Bill_McBride]

I've played a number of Weiskopf courses but I can't think of one that I really want to get back to again.

Forest Dunes?   I loved that place. 

[Michael George]

Bill:

I agree with you fully on Forest Dunes.  My original post remarked that I thought he did a great job on that course. 

[David Kelly]

 
My only problem with the course was that it was impossible to walk due to the distance between green and tees. 

That only problem is a deal breaker for me.

[Matthew Petersen]

I would agree that from a GCA perspective, his consistent use of short/drive-able par 4s is the most interesting thing he has going on. I've played a good number of courses that he at least had a hand in, and can really only remember a handful of memorable par 5s or par 3s, or even average-to-long par 4s. But he does love those driveable par 4s.

I believe I've played about ten courses that he has a design credit on and can only think of one that doesn't include at least one scuh hole (one of the Troon North courses - IIRC #15 on Pinnacle is really the only driveable hole out there). Most are quite unique, some work better than others ... but given that his designs don't always show the most imagination in the design of other holes, he really does seem to get a lot out of the 300-yard par 4.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I think the key here is what is good. None of these courses are top 200ish. Yet, most of them are fun well done courses. His work is rarely bad, just not spectacular. To me GCA is about all golf courses and architecture. But we should and do focus on the best of work and not just ok work.

[Mark Pritchett]

I have only played two of his designs-Forest Dunes and Harbor Club-and each course has a hole with a split fairway.  I was curious if Weiskopf uses this concept in his other courses.  Any feedback is appreciated.