[Sven Nilsen]

The South is also blessed like the North with a beautiful piece of rolling topography, however, aesthetically the bunkering and the silly mounding are over the top.  It also has all those huge teeing grounds that are all elevated.  I would change those as well.  Sorry, but I think it needs a facelift and if done right it will improve significantly in my book.

Mark:


Could you identify what holes you think the bunkering and mounding aren't aesthetically pleasing?  My guess is you are discussing a few isolated examples from the last round of work that was done out there.  You certainly aren't talking about holes like the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th. 


As for the teeing grounds, I don't think there's much difference between the two courses in how the tees are composed.


The North is a big brawny golf course that requires a strong aerial game, but if you're looking for architectural details that emphasize the ground game, the South is the more interesting course.  The greens offer more interest, and in general it is the more fun of the two courses.


Sven

[Kalen Braley]

Sven,

That's kind of the point.  Seems like the tee boxes are placed in a spot that will disproportionately punish the weaker player.  From the middle of what looks to be the men's tees, its 165 to the end of the first fairway and a 185 to carry to the second fairway.  From the women's tee its a 135 yard carry to the 2nd fairway.  I don't doubt its a terrific hole, but given its length its already difficult for higher caps and the fairway configuration seems to punish them further...

P.S.  Whether they are in the first fairway, a 190 yard over the creek, or on that slope with a downhill lie in the rough they are facing a layup either way.

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
Actually there were quite a few holes where I had that opinion starting with #1.  My guess is the architect was trying to differentiate the South from the North and he succeeded but I didn’t care for the overly contrived and forced look.  Functionally the course was fine but I didn’t care for the aesthetics.  I remember politely talking to the Head Pro Brian Morrison after my round and he didn’t disagree.  Apparently the members feel the same as what Carl said about a major renovation is true. I expect great improvements. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

That's kind of the point.  Seems like the tee boxes are placed in a spot that will disproportionately punish the weaker player.  From the middle of what looks to be the men's tees, its 165 to the end of the first fairway and a 185 to carry to the second fairway.  From the women's tee its a 135 yard carry to the 2nd fairway.  I don't doubt its a terrific hole, but given its length its already difficult for higher caps and the fairway configuration seems to punish them further...

P.S.  Whether they are in the first fairway, a 190 yard over the creek, or on that slope with a downhill lie in the rough they are facing a layup either way.

Kalen:


The North is a championship course.  The entire layout disproportionally punishes weaker players. 


The latest round of changes reinstating the cross bunkers in front of some of the greens only adds to this.  You used to be able to run the ball on at holes like 5 and 8.  That is no longer the case.


Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,
Actually there were quite a few holes where I had that opinion starting with #1.  My guess is the architect was trying to differentiate the South from the North and he succeeded but I didn’t care for the overly contrived and forced look.  Functionally the course was fine but I didn’t care for the aesthetics.  I remember politely talking to the Head Pro Brian Morrison after my round and he didn’t disagree.  Apparently the members feel the same as what Carl said about a major renovation is true. I expect great improvements.

Other than the 1st (which I disagree with you on), could you provide some other examples?


I worked to OFCC.  There are many members who prefer the South to the North.


You can find my thoughts on the South course here - https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57281.0.html


Sven

[Tommy Williamsen]

It has been many years since I have played the course. I have played it half a dozen times. It was long and hard for me at about 6600 yards. So many of the shots into the greens feel uphill and have to carry bunkers that you need to fly it all the way. My only critique of the course is the shape of the greens. Most are round or oval. They lack some dramatic and more interesting configurations.

[Paul OConnor]

Sven,I had forgotten that South Course thread thread.  Some really excellent and detailed descriptive writing by me.

[Josh Bills]

Here are a couple ground level shots of 14 and 16 at OFCC from 1929.

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
Let me just ask you about the mounding and the muscle back bunkering - I assume you like that look more than me.  It is prevalent everywhere on the South.


If the members like the South so much, why are they planning to change all of that? 


As I stated on the other thread about aesthetics - to each his own.  I just didn’t care for what I call a forced or contrived look on the South.  I much prefer the look of the North. 

[Terry Lavin]

Many think the mounding is a little over the top Steve Smyers but one gets used to them after a while.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,
Let me just ask you about the mounding and the muscle back bunkering - I assume you like that look more than me.  It is prevalent everywhere on the South.


If the members like the South so much, why are they planning to change all of that? 

Mark:


You of all people should know that often times the plans taken by clubs don't reflect the desires of all of the members.


One of the reasons for many of the muscle back bunkering was due to drainage concerns.


In my mind, if there is a weakness on the South it is that the 3rd, 4th, 13th and 14th holes feel different than the rest of the course.  These were the holes that received the most attention when Smyers did his work there. 


Perhaps part of what is being done now is an attempt to blend those sections of the course into the rest of it.


The South isn't perfect.  The use of the 8th and 9th from the original 3rd course creates a routing glitch.  And the holes I mentioned above feel like the lesser holes on the course.  But where the South shines it really stands out.  The 6th is one of the best holes in Chicago, and the 7th, 11th and 17th would be standout holes on any parkland course.  There are holes with blind approaches, a good bit of risk reward, a ballbuster of a long par 3, and greens with amazingly bold contours (something you don't get too much of on the North).


Everything is subjective.  From my experience (only a few hundred rounds around the course with members and guests), your opinion is in the minority from those that have played the course.


Sven

[Mark Smolens]

I agree OF provides one of the best 36 hole days you can find, especially in the Midwest.  The North provides the championship caliber challenge, the South more forgiveness and fun.

The front nine of the North course falls short for me, especially compared to my very high opinion of the back 9.  Hole #3 is an all world par 4.  Hole #5 has been lengthened away from a drive and pitch hole but at the expense of a ridiculous walk back to the tee from #4 green.  Hole #6 is a nice par 3 but then requires a walk back up the hill to the tee for #7 right next to #6 tees.  Finally you walk back again to reach the tee for #8 at 280 yards.  The flow over those holes is jarring in my opinion.  Challenging yes, enjoyable, no.

The back nine is blessed with better topography but also a much better variety of holes with varying lengths, movement and challenges.  Holes 11-17 are tough to beat!!

Ken

Ken, you mean they're not hitting their tee shots on 6, then walking over and hitting their drives for 7, then finishing 6 and walking over to 7 to finish that hole? I thought that's how the course was played!

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
I still thought it was a great test of golf but I am hard pressed to give it much more than a 6.5 on the Doak scale at least compared to what I have seen.  That is still very high praise but it pales compared to the North overall.  The North is a solid 8+.  Evidently there are enough members that agree with me or they would not go through the expense and extreme aggravation of a major overhaul.  I am told all of that excessive mounding will be removed, the bunkers all redone and two of the holes - 3 and 13 will be redone.  Major tee work is to be completed as well.  Sounds like pretty big changes to me.

[Sven Nilsen]

Mark:


If there are only two holes being redone (and those two holes being newer additions to the course), is it really a major overhaul?  We just redid the bunkers out here at Bandon, I wouldn't call what they did a major overhaul.


This all sounds like part of the process of continuing the improvement of the course from the disrepair it fell into over the years leading up to the work Jeff Goldman pioneered with Steve Smyers that started the transformation back to what the South once was.[size=78%] [/size]


Sven

[Terry Lavin]

Redoing #3 is a bit of a slap at the architect given that the entire hole was rebuilt. Here’s what I wrote years ago on Sven’s earlier thread:


It's a nice hole. It's a fun hole. It's a challenging hole, but it looks wholly alien compared to the rest of the course. The left falloff bunker is a wee bit extreme. And the green is way too big and just plain comical. I'd grade it a "C". 

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
We are not talking about just replacing sand in the bunkers and edging them up.  It is a major transformation with a new architect and large areas of disturbance.  Someone here more closer to the project could estimate the costs but I would think it will certainly be seven figures. 


By the way what Doak rating would you give the two courses?

[Sven Nilsen]

I would give the North an 8 and the South a 7, but the South is more fun.


For anyone with any interest in history and old school features, the South is the more interesting course.

[Sven Nilsen]

Fried Egg talks with Andy Staples about OF in a new series

https://youtu.be/4OBVFgfZQqs

The TalkinGolf series has Staples and Bob Topel on in a two part podcast.  Worth a listen.


Particularly enjoyed Bob's insights as a member, including his thoughts on which course the members prefer.


https://talkingolf.fireside.fm/episodes

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
So we aren’t far apart at least on overall assessments.  The history of the South might be more interesting than that of the North. If I were doing the project I would really delve into that for sure before any changes/improvements.  I just don’t like the current state of its history as much as you do.  Sometimes less is more and the South needs less 😊

[Sven Nilsen]

I just don’t like the current state of its history as much as you do.

I'm not sure what this means. 


If you mean you don't like the current state of the course, then we can agree to disagree.  Can it be made better, sure.

From the sounds of it, the plans are in good hands with a team that is going to be sensitive to many of the historical aspects of the course while still looking to the future.  I was highly impressed by Andy and Bob's thoughtfulness and knowledge in the little I've learned of their intentions from the various podcasts.


If you take the time to read the write-up of the South I did, you'll see that I highlighted not only how the course is played today, but how it may have been played after it first opened.  It is a feeling you don't get on the North course, and something I believe makes the South truly special.


Sven

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
I read much of your write-up and watched the videos.  Good stuff.  I think Andy will do a good job with the changes.  I will be anxious to see the difference in his style and how it turns out. 

[Terry Lavin]

I’m guessing he will get rid of the mounding eye candy and better expose the bones of the course. The redo on 3 and 13 will surely do a better job of resembling the rest of the course. It’s a very good “second” course even though 15 of its holes (IIRC) were on the first of four courses built on the property.

[Andrew Buck]

Sven,
So we aren’t far apart at least on overall assessments.  The history of the South might be more interesting than that of the North. If I were doing the project I would really delve into that for sure before any changes/improvements.  I just don’t like the current state of its history as much as you do.  Sometimes less is more and the South needs less 😊

Less trees, less mounding ... longer views, more width, firmer conditions.


It can be great

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()