I'm in somewhat agreement with your examples, but would come back with the following: #2 at LLB is definitely on the edge of quirky/unfair. I have seen good shots hold that front tier though, it's just a tough shot. Ben in his reply states the strategy you can take on. If memory serves you would have to cut the ball a bit around the tree chute 50 yards off the tee to get to the optimal location, and your next shot wouldn't be too much easier. #2 at Lawsonia I think if they had an aiming rock and a diagram would be a pretty simple blind tee shot. Its bad for pace of play but the area to land your ball isn't too constricted if my memory serves me. #15 at Blackhawk it's been forever since I've played there, so no comment. That does sound dumb, and probably what you get for building your course through playing a game of telephone exchanging letters with Tillinghast (I believe he made just one very brief site visit as a consultant) and having 100 years of tree growth.

I'm with you here -- it's the one course at Bandon I was disappointed in, I think it really pales in comparison to Preserve.

Shortys is a little more gimmicky fun par 3s, Preserve imo is almost entirely legit par 3s that could be on any of the courses

Looking at the developments in Utah, they are very different it seems in what The Tree Farm and I'm guessing what he would want TBC to be. Makes sense maybe why not involved

Living in Seattle, we get many pine tree lined first shots so, I'm a sucker for the opener at Chambers Bay. You can hit it off the planet, but still have a chance to find your ball and make a shot at the pin. There's a big fall off left of the green, but even if you are stuck down there you have a chance to make a pitch.

Pac . . . or skip sheep ranch and hit pac and either BD or MAC . . . sheep ranch is not on the same level as the other courses . . . Few amazing holes for sure . . . no bunkers was not enjoyable for me, missed the visual aspect and the thrill of bunker play

Will do! And I get it about the lake… I do wish we could’ve done more when it came to the restoration (but that’s a big political club for ya). I really hope we let Urbina do his thing with the ocean/cliffs and can hopefully provide something far different from what the lake is. Bring some more fun back!

Well said, Beau! Almost all of what you're saying here is pretty consistent with my take. I'll say it over and over—the Lake Course is a great championship venue. It should be a staple on the USGA and PGA rotas. But I think it's also okay (maybe even important) to acknowledge when you just don't really enjoy playing a golf course. For me, pleasure is fundamental to the game, and I don't get a lot of it from the Lake Course—whereas I do from very difficult championship tests like Pinehurst No. 2, Oakland Hills, Baltusrol Lower, even Oakmont to a degree. In other words, it's fine for a course to be in bucket 2 and to own that as its identity... but bucket 1 is ideal!

Hey Jeff, thank you for this insightful post and for taking the critical parts of my writeup on the Lake Course in stride. You certainly know more about the course than I do, so I'm sure many reading this will give greater weight to your opinion. This little writeup definitely wasn't meant to be a comprehensive account of the course and Hanse's renovation. If I were to write a course profile on the Lake, I would definitely touch on its use of slope and reverse camber, which I find very successful. While I stand by my basic characterization of the course—the fairways are tight and the greens are small (in both cases, less so than they once were)—I agree with you that there are plenty of thought-provoking golf shots. The course's use of slope and doglegs demands that the player pick an intelligent line and trajectory on many tee shots. Just because the fairways are relatively narrow and the greens relatively small doesn't mean that the course is strategically inert. I do think the Lake would be more consistently compelling, however, if the green-side bunkering schemes were less symmetrical and more varied. Appreciate you chiming in here. Enjoy the Amateur!

Hey Jeff, thank you for this insightful post and for taking the critical parts of my writeup on the Lake Course in stride. You certainly know more about the course than I do, so I'm sure many reading this will give greater weight to your opinion. This little writeup definitely wasn't meant to be a comprehensive account of the course and Hanse's renovation. If I were to write a course profile on the Lake Course, I would definitely touch on its use of slope and reverse camber, which I find very successful. While I stand by my basic characterization of the course—the fairways are tight and the greens are small (in both cases, less so than they once were)—I don't disagree with your observation than there are plenty of thought-provoking golf shots. I think the course's use of slope and doglegs demands that the player pick an intelligent line and trajectory on many tee shots. Just because the fairways are relatively narrow and the greens relatively small doesn't mean that the course is strategically inert. I do think the course would be more consistently compelling, however, if the green-side bunkering schemes were less symmetrical and more varied. Appreciate you chiming in here. Enjoy the amateur!