[jeffwarne]

 Also, I don't sub-rank courses within the architect's portfolio. For example Tom, I am a huge fan of Stone Eagle and less so of Streamsong Blue. I do not rank the former higher than the latter.

Can you elaborate?
Does that mean you can't rank Pacific Dunes higher than the Rawls course?

[Kalen Braley]

i think the problem here is once again one of tastes and preferences.


Maybe Whistling Straits isnt in your top 5, just like maybe you prefer brunettes and red heads over blondes?


At the end of the day I think its a bit of a silly exercise to try to differentiate a course being in the top 5, or top 10.

[Steve Lapper]

 Also, I don't sub-rank courses within the architect's portfolio. For example Tom, I am a huge fan of Stone Eagle and less so of Streamsong Blue. I do not rank the former higher than the latter.

Can you elaborate?
Does that mean you can't rank Pacific Dunes higher than the Rawls course?

Jeff,


  What it means I don't set up a list of any architect's work and then rank them up/down and apply my panel vote according to that bias. I do, for example find Pac Dunes to be an excellent US links-style course, Streamsong Blue a strong candidate amongst courses manufactured onto a property and Stone Eagle to be one of my favorite desert course (maybe #2 in my book to Desert Forest). Hope that helps.

[Ken Fry]

i think the problem here is once again one of tastes and preferences.


Maybe Whistling Straits isnt in your top 5, just like maybe you prefer brunettes and red heads over blondes?


At the end of the day I think its a bit of a silly exercise to try to differentiate a course being in the top 5, or top 10.

Kalen,

It's more than just taste.  I can understand and appreciate if a course is highly thought of even if it doesn't fit my tastes.  Victoria National is a great course.  It's not my cup of tea.  Medinah #3 is a great course.  I have no desire to play it again.

Straits gets a pass on too many things to be considered great to me.  I'm willing to hear the other side but there has to be more substance to elevate a course to greatness than personal taste.

The River course provides  numerous "wow" moments for me.  Architecture I'd never seen before.  Unique challenges.  Some very edgy and work well.  There was a lot of substance for me on the River.  Straits has continued to strike me as "drinking the Kool-Aid."

Ken

[jeffwarne]

 Also, I don't sub-rank courses within the architect's portfolio. For example Tom, I am a huge fan of Stone Eagle and less so of Streamsong Blue. I do not rank the former higher than the latter.

Can you elaborate?
Does that mean you can't rank Pacific Dunes higher than the Rawls course?

Jeff,


  What it means I don't set up a list of any architect's work and then rank them up/down and apply my panel vote according to that bias. I do, for example find Pac Dunes to be an excellent US links-style course, Streamsong Blue a strong candidate amongst courses manufactured onto a property and Stone Eagle to be one of my favorite desert course (maybe #2 in my book to Desert Forest). Hope that helps.

a little....
I would be a terrible rater...

[Tom_Doak]

I don't sub-rank courses within the architect's portfolio. For example Tom, I am a huge fan of Stone Eagle and less so of Streamsong Blue. I do not rank the former higher than the latter.

I didn't understand this, either.  You're a huge fan of Stone Eagle but you rank it lower than Streamsong?  Why?

[Sean_A]

One step in many raters' process seems to be putting an architect's different courses in order, and then plugging them into the bigger list.  Lots of people think of Whistling Straits as bigger and more dramatic than the TPC or Harbour Town, and others rate it highly because there are no houses alongside.  All of those mini-judgments push it up the list.

It never occurred to me to rate courses in this manner.  Nor would it occur to me rate courses higher for tournament history or lack of adjacent housing etc.  That sort of stuff is more personal and would influence me in terms of wanting to play a course or making a return visit. 

This is an interesting thread because I passed on the chance to play Whistling Straits and instead went back to Pinehurst.  Just using pix and tv, I am largely in Jeff's camp, but I would like to see the course one day as part of a bigger Wisconsin trip with Lawsonia at the centre...it is on my top 20 US bucket list (read dream list). Whenever I see pix of WS I wonder what was going in Dye's mind regarding the sand.  It seems to me that he took a good idea and pushed it well OTT.  Did Dye ever do a more natural look with his courses?  I spose Kiawah is an example, but again the bunkering gives it away as fake.  Does Dye have an over-riding need to remind golfers that his courses were designed?

Ciao

[Steve Lapper]

I don't sub-rank courses within the architect's portfolio. For example Tom, I am a huge fan of Stone Eagle and less so of Streamsong Blue. I do not rank the former higher than the latter.

I didn't understand this, either.  You're a huge fan of Stone Eagle but you rank it lower than Streamsong?  Why?

Tom,


  I'm a wee bit surprised at you.


  You are acutely aware of how our panel votes and how the segregating quantitative brackets determine the rankings. Because mine is an outlier, or variant, vote on Stone Eagle it appears alongside SS Blue on my ballot. Same bracket. They are equals in my opinion and I've voted them into the same bracket. Of course, for a variety of reasons, most other panelists probably do not give Stone Eagle the same love they give SS Blue.


  Stone Eagle deserves my elevated vote because of the quality of the course achieved on the terrain you were given. I believe the fun factor coupled with some of the interesting uses of elevation and green siting resonate for me. I find it's green features and complexes far more enjoyable than SS Blue.  I don't dismiss SS Blue whatsoever (I very happily play it several times a year), instead I find a few spots that leave me shaking my head and wondering why? I'm sure you'll ask me which ones, so I'll just ask you to wait until I get back from the upcoming Invitational (first playing rounds on the Black so I'd like the benefit of seeing it) and I'll post it on the SS thread.

PS... I voted WS well outside the Top 100, multiple times!

[Mark_Fine]

When the Straits first opened I played it and was not overly impressed with the course itself.  It is clearly an engineering marvel (there was not a grain of sand on the site and the course was completely manufactured).  I described it as a course that golfers who don't make the trip to Ireland or Scotland could play as a weak substitute for the real thing.  It was rough and the mounding was cone like in appearance. The 18th hole was awful.  I gave the course a Doak scale 6.


Over the years, I have played it several more times and it has aged gracefully.  The mounding has softened and the bunkering has blended in with the surrounds.  The 18th hole has been tweaked but it is still out of character for the golf course. I don't care for it.  I've upped my number to a 7 but I struggle to put it in my personal Top 200 list. 


Still it is amazing what can be done with money.  That said, the end product should not be judged by what it cost to build or what is cost to play.  The golf course is the golf course and that is what should be judged when it comes to the architecture.  If you want to judge a course because of other factors that is fine but keep that separate when rating the best courses in the U.S./World. 

[Jud_T]

As mentioned, tournament history looms large, but lets not forget the other pillar of overrated tracks- scenic water views.  There’s perhaps no other course between the coasts other than Arcadia Bluffs with such great lake views.  Many, apparently including many raters, find this makes their underarmor moist.

[Ian Mackenzie]

I've played it 3 times as it is relatively close to Chicago.
The first two times were when the green fees were FAR lower.

Most of my golfing buddies make trips to Erin Hills, Lawsonia and now Sand Valley.
The only times I hear of friends going to play WS is when it's some sort of corporate outing or company "retreat".

Yes, it's a fun course and visually...uh...stimulating. But, at close to $500 (all-in with caddy), I'll leave it to the General Motors Midwest Auto Dealers Association annual meeting...;-)

My wife and I were in Kohler in the summer of 2016. Played Blackwolf Run. (For those who may not know, there are two courses at Blackwolf Run and two at Whistling Straights - 10 miles apart - all Pete Dye and all owned by same group.) Always a fun time. But, in the middle of July on a weekend, the parking lot was 1/3 full and both courses there were deserted in the PM. No one on the range and we saw only one other group teeing off.

The rooms at the American Club are nice, but it ends there. Feels way too corporate. It was 90 degrees F when we were there and I inquired about the whereabouts of the pool. To my astonishment, I was told that guests at the AC have "rights" to use the indoor pool at the YMCA 1/2 mile away and a shuttle could take us there.

Unless I'm staying at River Bend, I can't see a return trip there. Too many other great options. Plus, it's a better deal with better golf for us to fly to Scotland and play for a few days.

[Josh Tarble]

Straits gets a pass on too many things to be considered great to me.  I'm willing to hear the other side but there has to be more substance to elevate a course to greatness than personal taste.

The River course provides  numerous "wow" moments for me.  Architecture I'd never seen before.  Unique challenges.  Some very edgy and work well.  There was a lot of substance for me on the River.  Straits has continued to strike me as "drinking the Kool-Aid."

Ken

Ken,
What do you think the Straits gets a pass on?  The Straits doesn't have any holes as bad as #4 or #14, is far more walkable and the par 3s are far better. Now, maybe the original Blackwolf Run routing is better, but in it's current state the River is really fun, but not even close to the Straits in my opinion. 


I'm the opposite of you, I think the Straits gets called out for things others don't.  Just continuing on with the River, #4 isn't as out of place, if not more than #5 at Straits?

[Mark_Fine]

Jud,
The debate about the value or importance of water views or any surrounding views will never end.  I have always believed they most definitely have an influence on and are actually a part of the golf course.  If you don't think a good architect takes all of that into consideration in the layout of their golf holes you are kidding yourself. 


We all love skyline greens but if there was a McDonald's beyond that skyline green we love it might not be the hole lithograph you hand behind your desk 😉


If one doesn't think that the blowouts and endless potential for other "golf holes" surrounding Sand Hills GC doesn't make a difference you are fooling yourself. 


At the same time, the views/setting can only can help so much.  Even a course like Old Head where I give the setting a 13 only helps lift the course to a 4 or 5 for me.  But the point is they are part of the golf course and impact its quality.  Wind is another one of those factors that changes a golf course dramatically and a good architect knows this and it impacts how they layout the golf course.  These factors are all in play at The Straits.

[jeffwarne]

 I can't see a return trip there. Too many other great options. Plus, it's a better deal with better golf for us to fly to Scotland and play for a few days.

Especially for an east coaster-
Can do the real thing for about 1/4 the price-and my 4 euro trolley's never hung over

[Ken Fry]

Ken,
What do you think the Straits gets a pass on?  The Straits doesn't have any holes as bad as #4 or #14, is far more walkable and the par 3s are far better. Now, maybe the original Blackwolf Run routing is better, but in it's current state the River is really fun, but not even close to the Straits in my opinion. 


I'm the opposite of you, I think the Straits gets called out for things others don't.  Just continuing on with the River, #4 isn't as out of place, if not more than #5 at Straits?

Josh,

My favorite part of River are the holes added northeast of the Sheboygan River (5-13).  My only knock on River is the transition from 4 to 5 and 13 to 14.  I don't believe these transitions are any worse than a couple at Straits for walking. (9 to 10 and 14 to 15).

As far as holes 4 and 14, what's bad about them or out of character?  In the original routing they were back to back holes around the pond.  While I'll admit 4 makes me uncomfortable from the tee, isn't that what Dye is so good at??  Both 4 and 14 strike me as "typical" Dye holes.  They both make you feel uncomfortable from the tee and make you choose how aggressive you want to be.  Both holes have a nice balance of risk vs reward.  Can that be said of 5, 9 or 18 at Straits.  No.  That's the difference to me.

It was mentioned earlier about why Straits gets a pass:  big water views, host of big time events, massive marketing, Pete Dye.  There's some great golf at Straits.  Looking at rankings, this would be classified as one of Dye's best courses.  I just don't see it.

Ken

[Josh Tarble]

Ken,
What do you think the Straits gets a pass on?  The Straits doesn't have any holes as bad as #4 or #14, is far more walkable and the par 3s are far better. Now, maybe the original Blackwolf Run routing is better, but in it's current state the River is really fun, but not even close to the Straits in my opinion. 


I'm the opposite of you, I think the Straits gets called out for things others don't.  Just continuing on with the River, #4 isn't as out of place, if not more than #5 at Straits?

Josh,

My favorite part of River are the holes added northeast of the Sheboygan River (5-13).  My only knock on River is the transition from 4 to 5 and 13 to 14.  I don't believe these transitions are any worse than a couple at Straits for walking. (9 to 10 and 14 to 15).

As far as holes 4 and 14, what's bad about them or out of character?  In the original routing they were back to back holes around the pond.  While I'll admit 4 makes me uncomfortable from the tee, isn't that what Dye is so good at??  Both 4 and 14 strike me as "typical" Dye holes.  They both make you feel uncomfortable from the tee and make you choose how aggressive you want to be.  Both holes have a nice balance of risk vs reward.  Can that be said of 5, 9 or 18 at Straits.  No.  That's the difference to me.

It was mentioned earlier about why Straits gets a pass:  big water views, host of big time events, massive marketing, Pete Dye.  There's some great golf at Straits.  Looking at rankings, this would be classified as one of Dye's best courses.  I just don't see it.

Ken

4 and 14 are just as artificial as 5 at the Straits.  They're two holes, lined with fake rock walls along a manufactured pond.  Yeah there is water on other holes at the River, but these two are so artificial looking that it makes them extremely out of character.


As for the transitions, 3 - 4 is pretty bad at River as well and 13 - 14 is far longer than either mentioned at Straits.  Just wondering, what is your favorite Dye course?  The only one that probably has a legitimate argument of being better may be the Golf Club (not sure, haven't played it) but other than that I think there are more unique shots and holes at the Straits than anything else I've played. Because of the "need" to host professional tournaments I do think it's a bit too sprawling to be ideal (but I wouldn't put it too far behind Pacific Dunes on that front - and WAY ahead of Erin Hills).  I also don't love the Kohler experience as it's overwrought and needlessly showy.

[Ken Fry]

4 and 14 are just as artificial as 5 at the Straits.  They're two holes, lined with fake rock walls along a manufactured pond.  Yeah there is water on other holes at the River, but these two are so artificial looking that it makes them extremely out of character.


As for the transitions, 3 - 4 is pretty bad at River as well and 13 - 14 is far longer than either mentioned at Straits.  Just wondering, what is your favorite Dye course?  The only one that probably has a legitimate argument of being better may be the Golf Club (not sure, haven't played it) but other than that I think there are more unique shots and holes at the Straits than anything else I've played. Because of the "need" to host professional tournaments I do think it's a bit too sprawling to be ideal (but I wouldn't put it too far behind Pacific Dunes on that front - and WAY ahead of Erin Hills).  I also don't love the Kohler experience as it's overwrought and needlessly showy.

My knock on 5 at Straits is not because it looks artificial.  I just don't think the strategy works.  It's one thing to be made uncomfortable but that hole is just awkward.  Now the 15th hole at Paiute Wolf looks artificial to me....

To your question about my favorite Dye, unfortunately I have to rely on the people I trust their architectural opinions since I haven't traveled to what many consider his best:  Casa de Campo, The Golf Club, Long Cove, Kiawah, Sawgrass, Harbour Town, Honors, etc.  From his courses I've played, The River, The Fort, Dye at PGA Golf Club and Crooked Stick all stand out.   I have played many of his lesser known regional courses near you and I like the original Eagle Creek (which was phenomenal before it was split), Brickyard, Kampen, Mystic Hills, Plum Creek, Bridgewater and Saddlebrook.  His new Chatham Hills is spoken of highly but I have not seen it yet.  I played Fowler's Mill in the fall and came away very impressed.  It was so different than his other courses I've been on but a great thrill ride.  So many of the green complexes had fantastic visual deception built in to the green pads and pin location changes could make or break a day there.  Frankly, I think his course at the PGA Golf Club doesn't get near the recognition it deserves.  His Paiute courses were fun and still the facility I prefer to go to when in Vegas.  Bulle Rock was a beast.

Ken

[Josh Tarble]

My knock on 5 at Straits is not because it looks artificial.  I just don't think the strategy works.  It's one thing to be made uncomfortable but that hole is just awkward.  Now the 15th hole at Paiute Wolf looks artificial to me....

To your question about my favorite Dye, unfortunately I have to rely on the people I trust their architectural opinions since I haven't traveled to what many consider his best:  Casa de Campo, The Golf Club, Long Cove, Kiawah, Sawgrass, Harbour Town, Honors, etc.  From his courses I've played, The River, The Fort, Dye at PGA Golf Club and Crooked Stick all stand out.   I have played many of his lesser known regional courses near you and I like the original Eagle Creek (which was phenomenal before it was split), Brickyard, Kampen, Mystic Hills, Plum Creek, Bridgewater and Saddlebrook.  His new Chatham Hills is spoken of highly but I have not seen it yet.  I played Fowler's Mill in the fall and came away very impressed.  It was so different than his other courses I've been on but a great thrill ride.  So many of the green complexes had fantastic visual deception built in to the green pads and pin location changes could make or break a day there.  Frankly, I think his course at the PGA Golf Club doesn't get near the recognition it deserves.  His Paiute courses were fun and still the facility I prefer to go to when in Vegas.  Bulle Rock was a beast.

Ken

I guess the issue with #5 is that unless you can hit it far enough, there is only one way to play it.  However, if you've got the length it's a very interesting decision on the first and second shots.  Or play it safe and play as a three shot hole.  I think it works really well, at least for my game.


You'll have to make it down to Chatham.  It's really good, although I think it's more Liddy than Dye.  It certainly doesn't feel like Dye.  I'd describe it as a cross between the Fort, Crooked Stick and Bridgewater.  With the Bridgewater aspect being a negative, the houses really detract from the experience in a few places.  Without the houses it's every bit as good as Crooked Stick.  With the houses I'm afraid it's a couple rungs lower.


I also think Kampen is really underrated.  I really like that course too.  Has some really unique holes in the Dye portfolio.

[Jud_T]

Mark, yes wind matters, but it’s Lake Michigan, not the Pacific. Yes, routing using visual cues and particularly fitting in with the lay of the land matter.  Well the lay of the land here is flat Wisconsin farmland, at least it was till they brought in the dozers, sheep and pipers. Additionally, if your average landlocked Doak 3 is surrounded by the most beatiful women (or men depending on your fancy and/or gender), does it suddenly become a better golf course?

[Mark_Fine]

Jud,
If the architect was clever enough to use those beautiful women as backdrops for some of his green sites, yes it might notch it up to a 3.5 or even a 4 


I think you know what I am talking about.  The setting matters and great sites often do get an extra nudge as a result of them (and most should).  Golf is not usually played in a warehouse with walls around it.  If there was a cornfield to the left of #18 at Pebble Beach the hole wouldn't be nearly as thrilling.  It would just be another boundary hole with a big hazard on the left that makes for lots of lost balls. 

[Kalen Braley]

Jud this issue has been discussed at length at GCA.com.  If a course has the benefit of being situated next to a nice setting, like the ocean, it will certainly add to the experience.  Would Pebble be as highly thought of if were just on an elevated bluff overlooking a valley?


No waves crashing, or seagulls, or whales in the distance, or charm of the area.  Like it or not its additive to the experience and will result in the course being more highly thought of.

[Jud_T]

I’ve no problem with folks who have a preference for pretty courses, I’d just like them to be honest about it.  Sure it enhances the experience, as do fancy food and drinks on the course, but aesthetics unrelated to the playing of the course should have a lesser impact IMO.  As for places like Pebble, Cypress, Fishers et. al., many here would argue they are at least somewhat overrated because of excessive prettiness. Same goes for WS and Arcadia IMHO, that's all I’m saying.

[Mark_Fine]

Jud,
I have never seen a girl (or a golf course) that I would call “too pretty”.  I have seen both with too much make-up and jewelry on, but that is a TOTALLY different issue. 


To all those who say, “well Pebble Beach and Cypress,…, wouldn’t be so great if they weren’t by the ocean”, I say they really don’t understand golf architecture.  Those courses are what they are in part because of where they are.  Sand Hills would not be rated nearly as high if you picked it up and moved it somewhere else and lined it with condos down both sides of every hole.  Sorry but it wouldn't.  There are lots of factors that make up a great golf course and the location and setting is a part of that. 


Next time you or anyone else here plays The Old Course at St. Andrews, as you are walking up the 18th hole, try telling your caddie that you think the hole is overrated except for the fact of what is located around it.  See what they say 

[Parker Page]

Ken,
You’re not going to get any argument from me. I’ve played it twice, and I won’t lose sleep if I don’t make it back. I think it’s a Doak 7 - a course that one ought to play if he finds himself in the region, but I would recommend other destinations for a special trip. It’s beautiful with some outstanding holes (3, 6, 10, 13, 17), but I could never get past the phoniness of the whole thing. And yes, I would play Blackwolf River again in a heartbeat.

[Bill Seitz]

They lost me at Whistling with the 10 minute "why you're going to have a great day" caddiemaster speech.
'Give me Lawsonia any day.

"And to top it off, you'll have an amazing view of Lake Michigan as you wait on the sixteenth tee for 40 minutes."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()