I'm enjoying the competition and the challenges of the architecture/environment which the broadcast is well describing; and the bottom line is its an able championship course... for watching these guys on TV, but not as a place to go and tackle myself.
Perhaps I am not fascinated by championship courses of modern ilk as I am of those of previous eras or perhaps it the SO MANY pieces of previous integrity, following on the 2019 new rules regime, that have had to be specialized for this course... sand/bunker/penalty areas, raking things smooth, range finders...or the particulars of this course's deficits to what I thought were points of well-held critique...fraught with hazard and penalty, tee to green walks, curated trees, and overdone closely mown areas, building cost, earth moving, environmental sustainability...whichever of these, this architecture lights few lanterns for me unless perhaps its the future consensus on the viability of designed waste areas.
Hearing that story of how #17 became faux pond frontage as opposed to sand (basically at Alice Dye's late stage whim, the tale went Friday), basically tells me anything the Dye name produces will be accepted and glorified as unerring...too big to fail. Somehow I know that if a Fazio or Jones name was the signatory, different story, and there would be greater disdain.
I don't know where it ranks on the big lists, the Guide or your own, but there's got to be at least 200 courses you genuinely want to play and/or see for yourself before this one, no? I mean that's still pretty high, given the number of fun memorable courses and the stretch to say that you'll play even 100 of your favorites, but a Top 50/100 course? How?