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

[Robert Thompson]

Matt Ward:

Perhaps you should read my post, rather than trying to suggest something I didn't say. I said some "holes" were mundane, or ordinary, but I didn't say the whole course was.

Haven't you grown tired of your "Florida is all flat and the golf sucks," tirade? I mean, it is so 2004.

Is Bay Hill great? No, and I didn't say it was. But it is a good test of golf, is significantly better than your average tour stop and is a good, though expensive, round for your vacationing golfer.

[Matt_Ward]

Robert Thompson:

My "tirade" is self evident -- I can't help the FACT that 99% of Florida golf is purely one dimensional -- H20 on one side of the fairway with homes / OB on the other. And, some of the most non-descript land imagineable. Bay Hill falls into that category.

By the way how many holes are "mundane" at Bay Hill ? Is it just three as you originally posted? You say it's good test of golf -- OK -- where would you place it among the best "good" courses you have ever played? How many "passable holes" are acceptable for a course to still be rated as "good?"

Please enlighten me because other people have made similar comments to mine on Florida golf -- let me suggest you read Tom Doak's comments on Florida golf in "Confidential Guide."

[Robert Thompson]

Matt: Why don't you take your smug comments and jam them right up your.... um ... golf bag.
As for taking a look at Tom Doak's book, I've read it, Mr. Ward. I just don't take everything a golf architect from Michigan, a good one even, says as gospel. Occasionally I even think for myself.
Ninety-nine percent? OK, I guess that doesn't include Sawgrass, Seminole, World Woods, Pather Run, Bay Hill, and a whole bunch of others.
How would I place Bay Hill? As a good example of a penal golf course that is fun to play for those lucky enough or with enough cash to tee it up at Arnie's place. Is it great? No -- I never said that. But it does have several holes I think are quite strong.
Does every hole on a golf course have to be exceptional for a golf course to be exceptional? No. I think there are plenty of examples out there to support this point. The Old Course would be one -- Carnoustie another. Turnberry clearly. Highlands Links in Nova Scotia is another. Oakland Hills. I could go on, but why bother?
Does Bay Hill disappoint? Apparently it disappointed you, but since you said it was just another flat FLA course, I wonder how much you paid attention during your round. It isn't flat at all.
Is is a strong tour stop? The scores seem to suggest it is. And it sure has more character than Mirasol, the Fazio course they played a week earlier. And we can argue about the finishing hole, but it put a lot of pressure on Vijay, who seems to be having a problem with pressure these days.

So great? No -- Bay Hill isn't great. But it isn't a write-off like you're suggesting Mr. Ward.

[ChipOat]

Matt:

We'll never really know if Bay Hill would have no reputation except for the tournament because it's 40 years too late to find out.

Without any majors, it probably wouldn't have generated much buzz on its own - to be sure.  And it's no Seminole, Cypress or LA Country Club (how many are?).  But I give it higher marks than you and I think it would be up there with CC of NC, etc. in terms of credibility without the exposure of national TV.

It certainly isn't very subtle - no question.  I'd be curious as to whether Raymond Floyd would rate BH or Indian Creek higher (just in terms of golf architecture) as he's played them both a zillion times.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Chip,
If he rated the current Bay Hill ahead of Indian Creek, I would have to believe architecture was not his strong point.

Unless you favour brute challenge, I do not see any other point that Bay Hill wins out on.

Which do you prefer?

RobT,
How dare you bring my beloved Highlands into this mudbath... Which hole do you think is mundane at Highlands?

[Robert Thompson]

Ben -- #11 is definitely average. Not even that interesting a four and on the worst piece of land at Highlands. But yes, Highlands is a much better course than Bay Hill. Not much of a comparison there.

[Matt_Ward]

Chip:

Bay Hill benefits enormously from hosting a PGA Tour event. Frankly, it's no different than the bump up in exposure that such places like Torrey Pines and LaCosta get.

The issue with Florida is that it benefits enormously because of the winter season -- more eyeballs know the layouts there than in other portions of the country.

When you factor the AP connection -- the event is in orlando the home of more pros than one can count and where it's positioned annually on the golf calendar and you get a fairly significant bump in it the overall estimation of the course.

Frankly, I believe a layout like Westchester CC in Harrison, NY the layout used for the former Buick now Barclays event) is a better overall layout in terms of architectural elements and the course there is more than 400 yards shorter.


Mr. Thompson:

How nice of you to go to the basement level with such bad mouth BS. Please continue on with your "jam" it comments.

Do yourself a favor -- I never said the course was a "write-off." Clearly, it has more on the ball than the overwhelming number of nondescript layouts that attempt to call themselves golf courses in the Sunshine State. Wow -- the bar is sooooooooooo high in that regard in Florida.

There was nothing smug about my comments -- you just don't like being called on the carpet to explain yourself -- there's nothing smug about that -- end of story.

Stop with this laughable silliness that Bay Hill is some sort of rolling land wonder. I'm on the floor rolling with that comment. You make it sound like Bay Hill was the equivalent of Jupiter Hills or Innisbrook. It is far closer to your typical flat as a pancake Florida layout than it is when compared to the two aforementioned layouts I just mentioned.

Bay Hill is overkill with the water and when the greens are next to impossible to hold -- witness the 17th hole with the pin anywhere on the right -- it's more of a gotcha type course.

Is the course tough -- sure -- but is it architecturally significant to include among the elite courses in America -- not IMHO.

By the way my question wasn't the fact that a course has to have 18 exceptional holes. That's not what I asked. The issue was one of a course that is merely good and contains several passable (still undefined by you) such holes. There are a number of good courses in the USA and abroad -- Bay Hill is not in the same league as the exceptional ones you mentioned with the likes of Carnoustie and Oakland Hills / South, to name just two.

[Robert Thompson]

Matt: You do a pretty good job of ignoring what I'm saying and running with your take on my comments. Unfortunately the two aren't the same.

Do you really expect to post this patronizing crap and not receive a response in kind? You sound like you are the only person to have ever read Doak's Confidential Guide. Just because you agree with it, doesn't mean Mr. Doak is correct. He clearly says that FLA golf is "anathema to my own tastes." And Doak admits, like many others, he only had a "cursory look around" Bay Hill.

Yeah, Bay Hill isn't Seminole. I've played both and can atest to that. But no one here is saying that.

Let's start here:

1) Where did I say BH was some, to use your quote, "rolling land wonder." Did I say that? No. But as has been pointed out by several here, and a point you continue to ignore because it doesn't support your thesis that FLA golf is all flat, BH does have elevation change. Probably 20 or 30 feet in places. I particularly like your comment, "You make it sound like Bay Hill was the equivalent of Jupiter Hills or Innisbrook." Where did I do that Matt?

2) I find your comment that "the greens are next to impossible to hold" laughable. That just isn't the case. Maybe for tour pros -- but that seems to help the course. For the regular everyday player, the greens are not impossible to hold. They have contour and are interesting. Is that a bad thing Matt? Maybe, given your keen insight on the subject, you could tell us how you would have improved on Wilson/Seay's work on the greens.

3) Is the course among the "architecturally significant" in the U.S.? The answer is no. I don't think anyone in this series of posts has suggested that. You're the only one to bring it up. I'm not sure it would be in my Top 100 in the U.S. But does that make it a bad course? Not by a longshot. And I think the course is significant in that it demonstrates a certain style that was in vogue in the 1960s. Right now, that style doesn't have a lot of fans. But that could change, as fashion always does. Did Wilson get everything he could out of the property? I think so. The routing is walkable and pretty strong.

4) Thanks ever so much for taking my comments about Carnoustie and the like out of context. What I said was that several great courses have average or occasionally even weak golf holes. That doesn't keep them from being significant courses. As for the "passable" holes, I've pointed a couple of key ones out in my posts. If you weren't too busy formulating another note blasting FLA golf, then you might have noticed it. For the record, I think #1, #9, and #10 are just holes that get you back to the interesting ones. I'm not a huge fan of a couple of others -- but I think there are exceptional holes there. I'll hold #2, #11, and #17 and #18 up as strong, but fair holes. And if you can hit the ball high enough, you can hold #17. #16 has drama, which makes it fun, and an interesting green as well.

Is Bay Hill great? NO. I've said it a few times. But I hate being misquoted and taken out of context. We both work in the media, and see this done all the time. I just am not fond of having it done to me, as you did with my "mundane" comment. The Bill Clinton remark was just kind of silly. Did you not expect that I might respond?

Matt, Florida golf is not all terrific. I don't think anyone is saying that. But you seem obsessed with this issue, and I can't quite understand why anyone would waste so much time on it.




 

[ChipOat]

Ben:

It happens that I believe brute challenge is an important factor in a golf course's overall "Oat rating" - this is why I believe Shinnecock is a "better" golf course than National (both are fabulous).  However, NGLA is more fun to play regularly - Shinnecock is a brute and National is pure brilliance.

Somewhat similarly, I don't believe Indian Creek is quite difficult enough to be a wonderful golf COURSE but it is one of the most wonderful golf PLACES you can find.  Most of the green complexes are wonderful - especially the surrounds.  I prefer IC for a regular dose (who wouldn't?), but I think Bay Hill (even without rough) is the better golf course overall.

Does that mean that golf architecture isn't my strong suit?

[Will E]

Ben:

I think Bay Hill (even without rough) is the better golf course overall.

Does that mean that golf architecture isn't my strong suit?

Chip, I like a good test as much as the next guy but...
Even with the bonus points that Bay Hill gets with Mike Nicolette's win, comparing it to Indian Creek is like comparing Nicolette's golf career to Greg Norman's.
Indian Creek is a gem.
go Tars!

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Chip, It does mean we disagree. I think Bay Hill is fairly one-dimensional and whenever I hear pros call it fair, that feeling is reiterated.

Bay Hill is not flat, however it does lack subtlety that say nine at IC has. Bay Hill also does not have one green complex that compares to the best at Indian Creek.

Furthermore, Bay Hill's reliance on water fronting holes to make them good is redundant and not good architecture in my mind. Indian Creek, despite having the ability to have used water at least as much, did not.

I think Indian Creek has more interesting contour, better angles, better green complexes, better aesthetics, fewer weak holes and more wind. Bay Hill may be tougher, but even that could be disputed with the recent and ongoing changes at IC, as well as the ability for the wind to affect the game.

To me, it is not even a contest, though I respect your opinion and do not think you no nothing about architecture. I apologize for my off the cuff remark. Perhaps I had visions of Floyd's Raptor Bay swimming in my head...

[tlavin]

Personally, I think all of this huffing-and-puffing about the demerits of Florida golf is a colossal waste of typing.  Most golf courses in Florida are flat (forgive me Jupiter Hills, Black Diamond, etc.) because the land is flat.  Big deal!  Don't like it?  Don't bring your sticks!  

In my perverse judgment, not every course has to summon the ghosts of Raynor and Colt for me to like the experience.  I really enjoyed Bay Hill the couple times I played it.  It is on a flat piece of land, but almost all of the greens are perched up and very well bunkered.  There are too many "cape" holes for this Midwestern treelined, tunnel-vision brain of mine, but Florida is also full of (gulp) water!

I understand that the focus here is on golf architecture and I will not argue with anybody that Bay Hill isn't going to make anybody's list of architectural gems, even in Florida.  But architecture, quite frankly, isn't EVERYTHING, is it?

Best of all, when it's 36 degrees and sleeting in Chicago, the weather at Bay Hill, Country Club of Orlando or even the rather pedestrian Grand Cypress is usually a heck of a lot better.  So it isn't perfect and it isn't Chicago Golf Club, but I'll take a round at Bay Hill just about any time I can't play up here.

[PThomas]

I second many of the points Terry made

sure Florida is flat, but not much one can/should do about it...doesn't mean there aren't some reallay good courses there
ex:  I got to enjoy Southern Dunes in Feb for the first time

every course can 't be a 10 on the Doak scale -- and there's nothing wrong with that...that doesn't mean they aren't good courses that can't be enjoyed

take it from someone who lives in another pretty flat place which still some preety good courses....come to think of it, there's a course in Wheaton that's prety flat I think that's fairly well thought of most ...

[Matt_Ward]

Mr. Thompson:

Bay Hill is closer to a flat-as-a-pancake course than some sort of rolling terrain type course. To continue to spout out some erroneous fantasy that Bay Hill is otherwise is really a major distortion. I inserted Jupiter Hills and Innisbrook as two clear cut examples of courses with significant elevation change that is clearly a part of the routing when playing either of them.

You say Bay Hill isn't flat at all. Please -- the overwhelming preponderance of the course is.

Bay Hill features the pro-forma Florida plethora of bunkers and water hazards to spice up the dull terrain. It's penal over-kill with little in terms of long term memorability.

Minus 4-5 greens at Bay Hill -- the 16th is one of those examples -- you have huge putting surfaces lacking any real creativity. I am not a fan of much of Dick Wilson's work and don't see how the changes made post-Wilson have made the course anything of an arcitectural marvel or "must play."

Bay Hill gets plenty of airtime and mileage from the AP connection, the annual fields that play there (how lives in Orlando?) and the time of year when large TV audiences can turn in. It is slightly beyond Torrey Pines and LaCosta IMHO. There is little there that's truly memorable and architecturally worthy of any longterm hype. Compared to say Westchester CC where the former Buick nor Barclays is played is a great illustration between what exists in Florida and what exists elsewhere.

I have taken a strong and consistent viewpoint on Florida golf that is clearly supportable. Enough of this silly chatter about me saying Bay Hill was not a demanding layout. Frankly, any course can be made into some sort of demanding course with high scores. What does that have to do with the nature of what the course provides from a non-tournament perspective and in its relationship to architectural character?

Also, regarding the par-3 17th -- the green is generally always hard and when you see the best of the game routinely bounce over the target you know something stinks in the air. The hole has been lengthened and green hardened to prevent any real outstanding shot from being suitably rewarded. Another example -- of gotcha type golf. The 18th is similar with its excessively narrow green given the length of shot required.

Robert -- we do agree on one thing -- Bay Hill is based on the penal style of golf. It is truly ironic that Palmer would prepare a course that flies in the face of his general playing style. So be it.

[TEPaul]

After all these years, now I think I'm beginning to figure out Matt Ward's take on golf course architecture. Basically, he apparently doesn't believe it's possible to build a great golf course on a relatively flat site (since he pretty much just wrote off the state of Florida with a couple of exceptions)! That would begin to explain a lot of things about some of his course analyses---such as perhaps Hidden Creek and maybe even Garden City or even Maidstone.

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Frankly, I see very few courses built on flat land being exceptional or "must play" type courses. In my mind, the nature of the land -- the area the course occupies -- is the first among all equals in assessing the caliber of any course.

I never said all flat courses are unworthy of fanfare but they must possess a superior routing and high octane shot values for the balance of the round in order to overcome such a deficiency with what Mother Nature has provided.

Let me state that TOC is a great example of a course that is essentially flat but contains a truly unique and awesome routing and that forces the player to constantly handle the playing angles it provides.

Florida is nothing more than real estate golf gone wild. I've played a good share of my golf there and don't see much that really exhibits anything really special -- save for the very, very few that rise above the level of pro-forma formulaic layouts that overdoes with the water hazard / OB / cluster housing approach.

My comments on the respective other courses you have mentioned (e.g. Hidden Creek, Garden City, Maidstone) were each done individually. I do appreciate your analysis though.

[Robert Thompson]

Matt: I've grown tired of this conversation. Tom Paul is correct -- apparently, in your estimation, all golf built on a flat site is necessarily bad. I assume that's your take on Sawgrass as well. Or maybe not, since Tom Doak liked it. I assume you agree with his take on it as well.
It also seems that you are in the minority in your assessment that BH is flat. Apparently you just can't admit you are wrong in this instance.
Once more, you suggest I said something that I did not -- where did I say that you felt BH wasn't demanding?

[Joe Hancock]

Not to jump into the fracas, but isn't Shoreacre predominantly flat? Does that disqualify it from being great?

I guess that's why opinions and logic are two different things....

Joe

[Doug Sobieski]

Matt:

Just for clarification of facts, why do you imply that #17 at Bay Hill has been lengthened? I will agree that the greens were a bit over the top in firmness during the tournament the last few years after the most recent renovation, but #17 hasn't changed in length one bit. Characterizing that green as "generally always hard" seems to imply that you spend a lot of time there, or is that just what you see on TV?

Doug

[Pete Buczkowski]

Tom,

I'm waiting for Matt to visit FBM before I give up all hope.    Only then will we know his true feelings on architecture.

Pete

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

My understanding is that the 17th at Bay Hill played roughly for years at 217 yards but only recently added even more distance to a max of 231 yards -- I have media kits from a number of years ago where the 217-yardage was the one quoted in the materials. The green is kept very hard  for the event and frankly plays that way so that any shot will bound over the back if it comes in with any sort of forward pace. It's a gotcha hole -- just like the 18th that follows.

There is little on the 17th hole that I define as architecture of the highest order. Is it demanding? Sure. But what does that mean?

Mr. Thompson:

I have stated the Florida courses that I find appealing -- defined by me as worth a return visit. Bay Hill is not on that listing. If you like it then by all means enjoy it.

Gents:

For all you folks who are enamored with flat sites I will say that there are very few that can compete against the likes of courses with rolling terrain that provides the visual and playing characteristics of the highest order. If flat sites float your boats by all means enjoy them all. You won't have to compete for a tee time with me.

Joe Hancock:

Regarding Shoreacres -- the course is vastly overrated. There are a few holes of note in the middle of the course but for it to be rated among the 50 best in the United States is a big time stretch. Raynor did many fine courses but Shoreacres is nowhere in the same league as Fisher's Island and Camargo. In fact, I would place Morris County Golf Club in Convent Station, NJ at the same level of Shoreacres.

[Doug Sobieski]

Matt:

Thanks for the clarification. 219 has been the scorecard yardage for many years, but moving the tees back and hole location back it can stretch closer to 240 (the green is approximately 42 deep, so hole location alone can add 17 yards or so). The 230+ that the telecast referred to was probably based on what it was playing that day. There hasn't been any reconfiguring to add length to the hole in at least the last 15-20 years. There really isn't any room to add any yardage!

Regards,

Doug

[Pete Buczkowski]

Matt:

Thanks for the clarification. 219 has been the scorecard yardage for many years, but moving the tees back and hole location back it can stretch closer to 240 (the green is approximately 42 deep, so hole location alone can add 17 yards or so). The 230+ that the telecast referred to was probably based on what it was playing that day. There hasn't been any reconfiguring to add length to the hole in at least the last 15-20 years. There really isn't any room to add any yardage!

Regards,

Doug

Just to confirm that the yardage is still officially 219, the 233 number was to the back pin.  The hole could be a lot better if the contours were right.

[Mike_Sweeney]

I played Bay Hill for the first time over the holiday, and by far my favorite hole there was the short par 5 #16 which the pros play from 517 and we played from 489. The new green (I think) stood out in a good way as it appears to have been completely renovated from the club's website.

Here is the hole today:





Here is an old picture and is how I always remember the hole previously from TV, notice that the green is much smaller now which brings all pin positions in play with the angle of the tee shot.



Does Arnold Palmer do all the renovations at Bay Hill, or is it still his staff at AP Design?

[Eric Franzen]

Bay Hill, not played it yet.
I just wonder if this might be the proper thread to reveal that I really enjoyed Doonbeg.