I'd like to take this opportunity to disagree with most of what Thurman just said.
In fact I almost believe he is rating the wrong course.
#17 is a great risk/reward par 5. I rated it excellent and have never gone for it in 2.
I have seen Jason and Ron try it with varying degrees of sucess.
If he plays a 483 yard par five with driver, 7 iron, then why wouldn't he hit a draw around the corner on #10,
and go for that 559 yard par five with driver, 5 iron.
Number 10 requires 2 solid, well placed shots to have a chance at par. It's a good par 5.
Number 11 is a dangerous 380 yard par 4 over water that I rate excellent.
Number 12 is 165 yard par 3 with trouble to the left and right of the tiny green.
I agree that it is squeezed in there, but it ain't easy.
2,7, and 15 are all similar looking par 3s, but of the kind that I like.
Number 18 is a 427 yard uphill, well bunkered, par 4.
I don't like the hidden bunkers on the corner of the dogleg, but it's a tough finishing hole.
The changes suggested for holes 3 and 4 would probably have worked,
and hole 3 is pretty boring as it is.
I'm using an old scorecard to aid my memory and may have just noticed another reason I like Houston Oaks
On this card, in an unnamed year, Jimmy "the Gump" and I both shot 81!
Jim from the tips and me fron the whites at 6446 yards.
He birdied 7 and 14, while I birdied 5, and 12.
Ron had 82 with a hole-in-one at 2 and birdie at 8.
Jason shot 85 in a birdie free round.
No wonder I saved this card.
And I certainly hope I won some money!