Why am I the only one on GCA that likes Bay Hill?

[ChipOat]

I'll save everyone the trouble by suggesting myself that I'm both intellectually and artistically challenged about golf course architecture.

But if we presume that I actually learn something from GCA and that I was a credible poster going in, why am I alone on this?

I've played Bay Hill a bunch (which helps me know it better) but I wouldn't have bothered if I hadn't liked it from the start.

It has a lot of really good holes and no bad ones that I can see.  #10 might be forgetable but precious few "great" courses that I know don't have at least one hole that I consider marginal for one reason or another.

It doesn't look like a Coore/Crenshaw creation but plenty of fine courses don't.

Why am I this course's (seemingly) only fan in The Treehouse?

[Jonathan Cummings]

I've never been wild about the housing but have always liked playing Bay Hill.

JC

[TEPaul]

Chip, my man, you ask why are you the only one on GCA that likes Bay Hill? The answer is sublimely simple. It's because you're a lot weird like most of the rest of us on here!  

How about me? I'm the only man not just on here but in the entire world who actually thinks Desmond Muirhead's Stone Harbor should be totally restored to it's opening day radical magnificence. It was the magnificence one feels about a hallmark Horror show but nevertheless magnificence is still magnificence!  

[Kyle Harris]

Tom Paul,

I want SH restored out of curiosity...

Would have loved to hit a greenside bunker shot over water...  

[Brian_Sleeman]

I think it's got some great holes and is one of the better tracks on tour, but it's got a lot of repetition in the greenside lakes.  It'd also benefit from a few great shorter holes: the 16th is one of its best in providing a tempting second shot to an interesting and contoured green complex (which has also shown it has teeth), but at least one great short par four and par three would be nice.

In keeping with the overall style of the place, what about a dogleg-right short par four around a lake (mirror of the 6th) with a green that is barely reachable for most of the longer hitters?  Make the green a little wild and you've got another exciting hole.

Great course though, particularly for tour players - it seems like it always provides some sense of drama and is one of the funner tournaments to watch.

[ChipOat]

Jonathan:

The housing at Bay Hill isn't an aesthetic positive, but that doesn't effect the quality of the golf architecture.  You seem to agree given your positive comment re: playing the course.

Tom:

Even the universe of wierdos around here seem to have mostly formed a consensus re: Corre/Crenshaw, Ross, MacDonald/Raynor et al.  There's even a consensus-of-sorts re: Rees Jones.

Brian:

I've only played Bay Hill from 6500-6700 yards so the "only a great course for tour players" concept doesn't work for me.  I'm not that good but Bay Hill seems tough-but-fair from where I've tee'd it up.

[ForkaB]

Chip

Your last post hits the nail right square on the head!

The human brain can only process so many things at a time, and your average GCAer, after assigning so much of his memory and processing power to maintaining positive energy flows towards C&C, Doak, MacKenzie, Ray-Mac and Ross, PLUS having to deal with maintaining negative energy levels towards Rees and Fazio, well.......

....there is just so much a puppy can do!  When confronted with a Wilson or a Von Hagge or a Harbottle, the circuits begin to overload, steam starts popping out of our ears and we go into meltdown.  Some of us start raving about Desmond Muirhead, some of us try to develop a pilot for "CSI-Clementon" (wonder what Who track will serve as the intro tothat show?  Maybe "A Quick One While He's Away"?  And some of us even just go out to play golf, to cleanse ourselves from the heresy.

Contrarian as I am deemed to be, I think I'd like to play Bay Hill someday.  Any course which can coax a 9 from Darren Clarke and an 11 from John Daly can't be all bad......

[PThomas]

I  am going to try and pay a visit (the last, don't tell my kids) to Mickey next summer, and I think I will try to play BH....to me it definitely is a "play it at least once" type of  course, at a minimum

and thanks Rich for that enlightening explanation!

However, I do get a bit concerned about those like Kyle and Tom who express positive thoughts about Stone Harbour...

with Tom (Paul) , however, there may be a logical explanation...since I am Paul Thomas, perhaps Tom is the bizarro Paul Thomas ( a Seinfeld thing for those who are wondering)...

Kyle, I'm not sure how to explain your situation...

sorry gents, I couldn't resist...I realize you owe me one!

and who would have thought Vijay who gag it up two weeks in a row?

[TEPaul]

Chip:

A group of us went down and stayed at Bay Hill for about a week one time---played it a bunch. You're right it is a good course---it's harder than it looks, that's for sure.

[Paul Richards]

Chip

I like it too.

 

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

First of all, haven't you learned by now that it's foolish to say 'there's NO WAY' Tiger Woods can't do something? What constitutes "NO WAY" for the rest of us has never seemed to pertain to Woods!  

Furthermore, JohnnyM himself learned not to say "NO Way" about Woods long ago. I remember in Woods's final US Amateur match in the Northwest Woods came to the final hole, a par 5---there was bunker in the middle of the fairway  way out there. Miller's fellow commentator asked JohnnyM if Woods could possibly carry that bunker. As Woods was placing his tee in the ground Miller proceeded to say there was NO WAY at all that anyone could possibly carry that bunker, not even Tiger Woods at which point Woods unloaded on his tee shot and his ball flew directly over that bunker preciptating about 10 seconds of total silence by both commentators only to eventually be broken by Miller's rather quietly stunned remark of "OH MY!"    

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Rather than putting the onus on people who do not like it, because "it is not popular to admit you like anything built after 1939 and before 1985", why don't those who like it explain why the like it.

I have played it and I can tell you why I do not like it.

Holes that are mundane include the first, fifth, seventh, ninth, 10th, 12th, 14th and the horrible 15th.

Furthermore, I did not mention two, which people like but I feel is entirely one-dimensional, especially the way it is maintained from 220 yards.

The holes that I mentioned disliking inhabit some of the worst terrain, but holes such as three, eight and 16-18, whose terrain is great by Florida standards all have the same approach over water short of the green.

To the closing holes, I like 16, a lot. The17th is okay, but I am not sure it is one of the world's great par threes. The right pin is entirely inaccessible; unless you are following a rainstorm and the left front has been maintained soft both times I have played there, so as not to allow you to feed the ball in. I like 18, even though the approach over water (the eighth at this point in the round) is a little redundant, I like the drive and the approach.

To my good friend Ian's point that; "it is not popular to admit you like anything built after 1939 and before 1985." I would suggest that Sawgrass located only a couple of hours away is in your timeframe and I quite like it.  

Lastly, Golf Digest's rankings (ahead of Indian Creek and World Woods ) further my belief that Bay Hill wins lots of points for the tournament and legacy, rather than the golf course. If house are not a part of golf architecture (which I disagree with), history and stalwarts deserve not to be as well.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

As far as modern golf courses with lots of lakes goes, it is one of the better courses.
Very demanding, without being tricked up, wonderfully complex green complexes with a good number of potential pin placements.
I have played it a number of times, and enjoyed it every time.
Yes the house are a little obtrussive, but they  help to pay for the excellent conditioning of the course.
The greens have always been in great condition on each of my visits.

It was good to see real rough this weekend..and the scores reflected that..you see gentlemen..as I have been saying for two weeks on various threads now, rough is still a valued form of defense, without ruining the entertainment value.

I did not see many "boomers" getting away with their new found philosophy of 'HIT IT AND HIT IT AGAIN" this week

The course set up was superb, testing but very fair..great for golf..I think Flynn is resting well today, in the knowledge that his desire for skill in the game has once again prevailed

[Doug Sobieski]

Very demanding, without being tricked up

Michael:

You hit the nail on the head there. When you ask a Tour player for their assessment of Bay Hill, the answer is almost alway "it's one of the fairest courses we play". They like the fact that the driver isn't taken out of their hands, but there is still a penalty for hitting it into the rough. Good shots are rewarded and poor shots are appropriately penalized. Nothing is hidden from them. Unfortunately, there have been a few years where the greens have been too firm, but otherwise, it's a course that they like to play.

For those that view the holes without water as pedestrian, statistically, the 14th is normally the par three that yields the fewest number of birdies during the tournament. Despite the absence of water, the fact that the player can't see much of the green surface makes it difficult to get the ball close, whereas all of the other par threes play downhill/level. #1 is often the most difficult fairway for the players to hit, and #9 is just plain long. Unfortunately, #9 normally plays downwind during the tournament. In the summer, it often plays into the wind from 470+. I was playing with one of today's top/longer players once in the summer, and on #9 he couldn't believe that he had a 2-iron in his hand for his second shot! He was in disbelief at how differently the course played outside of tournament time.

Personally, I like the fact that you see a lot more doubles and "others" during Bay Hill week than during most regular tour events, and you actually see guys hitting long irons and fairway woods. In 1994, Johnny Miller actually commmented that it was the only time he could remember a winner hitting woods to the last three holes!!! I also recall talking to one player after a round where he recounted hitting 7 fairway woods to the par 3's and 4's.

Regards,

Doug

[tlavin]

It's a very good golf course, IMHO.  I think that the tweaking over the years has really toughened the course for the professionals without sacrificing whatever aesthetic values it possesses.  We're talking Central Florida, so you're never going to have dramatic landforms (borrowing heavily from Brad Klein here), but tee to green it is a solid, challenging golf course.  The new putting surfaces (done three years ago, methinks) were a terrific change.

[Robert Thompson]

Glad to hear Mr. Cowan-Dewar likes courses built after 1985, though it didn't really come as that much of a surprise.

That said, I don't really think there are any holes at Bay Hill that are bad. Mundane, yes. Bad, no.

Within that context, I think there are some exceptional holes -- including #2, #4, #6, #11 and #16 thru #18. Sure #1, #9 and #10 are dull -- but I don't think it makes it a bad course. The holes are passable.

It seems to me that Bay Hill is yet another example of a course built on marginal land and that Wilson got the best out of it. Given the lack of contour on the property, water hazards set the tone. Sure there are too many examples of water on the left side of a green, but I also think Bay Hill is the rare case of a tour course that functions well for amateurs and keeps the pros from shooting the lights out.

It is also interesting that no one knocks the socks off of Bay Hill despite the fact the course is barely 7,000 yards and has no where to expand. Maybe Arnie and Co. have something there.....


Robert

[Matt_Ward]

I echo what Ben mentioned -- Bay Hill benefits from the TV exposure. I've played the course about a half a dozen times over the years and frankly it's one of poster child reasons why Florida golf is so overrated and in many cases just plain predictable on the design meter.

Chip -- the course is d-e-a-d flat so with that you get the predictable intrusion of the same design elements. Plenty of water and huge bunkers that engulf the landscape but are purely cosmetic and often times simply formulaic.

Let's also not forget that ANY event with the name of Arnold Palmer attached to it is going to gain some favorable attention. It also doesn't hurt that the event is located where it is annually on the PGA Tour schedule and that Orlando is home to just about all of the top name players -- including Woods.

Robert T is correct in that the course is essentially mundane. It does identify good play but there's nothing integral in the design that makes it step out and be counted as being unique.

The reason why the scores don't go real low has more to do with how the course is prepared. Frankly, Bay Hill usually provides the first real rough of the season for the top pros. And, anytime you have that much water so close to the targets -- just check out the last three holes -- you can be sure that DB's and TB's will not be that far behind.

Bay Hill is functional -- it is not special IMHO.

[Pete Buczkowski]

It is also interesting that no one knocks the socks off of Bay Hill despite the fact the course is barely 7,000 yards and has no where to expand. Maybe Arnie and Co. have something there.....

Robert,

FYI the course is 7239 yards so it might have been lengthened since you last played it.  


I am really surprised so many people like 18.  I think the green there is just way too small.  There isn't much room long either because of the grandstands.  The front pin is possibly more difficult than the back, it can't be more than 15 paces wide, with water right and sand left.  Not to mention the downhill slope in the fairway right at 170-190 yards away.  Fine for the professionals but not for the regular players.  There's very little room to layup left of the lake.  One surprising thing is that fairway could be the widest on the course - they are definitely not all the same width.

[ChipOat]

So I'm really NOT the only one!

Matt:

You're certainly entitled to your opinion re: functional vs. special but I don't believe that the FACTS support your contention that Bay Hill is "dead flat".

#'s 4, 5 and 8 on the front side (and #3 to a lesser degree) all have pretty meaningful elevation changes, I believe.

[TEPaul]

Bay Hill is not dead flat. Certainly not for a Florida course.

[Brian_Sleeman]

Brian:

I've only played Bay Hill from 6500-6700 yards so the "only a great course for tour players" concept doesn't work for me.  I'm not that good but Bay Hill seems tough-but-fair from where I've tee'd it up.

Nowhere did I say it was only a great course for the tour players; I mentioned that it was a great course, particularly for the tour players (I meant compared to what they usually play).  My only criticism is that it suffers from some repetition.  Definitely a great course (apparently from all tees) and always worth a play.

[Pete Buczkowski]

I had composed a beautiful retort to Matt Ward that included something like "your contention that Bay Hill is d-e-a-d flat is d-e-a-d wrong".  Alas I hit the damn previous screen button on my keyboard and it got lost forever.  To sum it up, there are some dead flat holes, like 1 & 18, but others that have at least 30 feet in elevation change:  2 plays at least 30 feet downhill, 4 uphill (Vijay, Sergio, & KJ couldn't reach it at 540 with no wind), 7 slighly uphill, 8 downhill tee shot & uphill 2nd, 14 about 20 feet uphill (can only see half of the flag) 16 slighly uphill, 17 downhill.

Is it rolling topography?  Certainly not.  But I've played a lot flatter courses in FL and even in MI.

[Robert Thompson]

Gents and Matt: I never said Bay Hill was mundane -- just that several holes on the course are. I actually quite like Bay Hill. And it isn't flat -- there is lots of movement on the front nine.
I actually really have had fun playing Bay Hill both times I've been out -- and I'm not going to be drawn into some silly argument about the sophistication of FLA golf.

[Buck Wolter]

Anyone else catch the J Miller discussion of driving distance at Bay Hill-- said under perfect conditions they were averaging about 270 yards. Chalked it up to the lush fairways and went onto say that Ridley from the USGA was there and he couldn't help but notice the effect it was having. Not sure if he meant length of grass or how wet the fairways were. I thought most of these guys were carrying it farther than that. Goodbye F&F in defense of the golf course?

[Matt_Ward]

Robert Thompson:

I love the parse of the word "mundane" -- you should contact Clinton on the meaning of the word is "is."

Gents:

How silly -- Bay Hill is not as f-l-a-t as 99.99% of Florida and there are now "meaningful" elevation changes, according to Chip. Meaningful -- really? Geeze, I never knew that the test of meaningful would be something more rolling than ant hills.

Guys -- Florida -- with the exception of a very tiny number of courses is dullsville -- on the architectural side. The land is purely one-dimensional.

One last thing -- let's get back to the task at hand -- is Bay Hill an architecturally significant course worthy of national attention. In my mind -- no. Bay Hill owes it's entire reputation on the annual tournament and having AP's name connected to it certainly doens't hurt one bit.