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!

Olympic Club member here as well. The below take is not fully formed so I may just ramble a bit... One thing I've grown to understand and appreciate about the Lake Course is how well the course fits its identity. Without getting into its architectural merits, I'm just personally proud and satisfied that the course is what it intends to be: a stern championship course that demands a lot of a player's game if they intend to play well (you have to play smart and hit a lot of different shot shapes if you intend to score). And I'll say this now before the US Am field inevitably shreds the course but this is one of the few courses in the world that modern players cannot completely dismantle all day every day. In many ways, I also personally think it fits the bill very nicely for a club that defines itself on athletic achievement. We have legit Olympians as part of the club. I'm glad our course reflects that identity and is not some push over pasture that you can blow it all over and still score. There's many things that the Lake Course isn't, which many other great courses are: beginner friendly, heavily strategic and welcoming of alternate paths to the hole, etc. But its lack of box-checking in some of those areas shouldn't detract from its identity. An apple shouldn't be critiqued for not being an orange. I guess the last point I'll make which is probably a bit reductive is that in my opinion when it comes to (great) courses there's a simple way of thinking about them: 1) there's a few unique courses in the world that are highly strategic with many paths to the hole, varied hole types, and unique features that can equally test the the world's best and somehow are still fun to play as a less skilled golfer 2) there's others whose sole purpose is to test extremely skilled players (these may have flaws but at the end of the day when a trophy is handed out you can rest assured that a player truly golfed their ball that week) 3) there's others that are characterized by fun architecture, diverse optionality, and all the things we typically associate with great design but simply cannot test the best for one reason or another. 4) maybe there's a fourth bucket but I'm kinda coming up empty. Olympic is obviously number 2 in this bucketing exercise and IMO shouldn't try to strive to be anything otherwise. The land on which the course is built is extremely severe. The fact that someone thought to build a course on it to begin with is astonishing and the fact that we got a really good course on it is even more impressive. I guess all of the above is a long winded way of saying that I'm proud that our course delivers on its design principles of testing the best in a fair and varied way. I hope the US Am is fun for all involved. Cheers!