Does Arthur Hills work for Free?

[Glenn Spencer]

Tiger,

Thanks for your response. I assume that you know him well and I am sorry if I have upset you in any way. I feel like I am blasting his work though, what is wrong with that? I don't know the guy and from the pictures on his website he looks like a prince of a fellow. Work ethic? Not in Question. The question I have is, If the man takes his work seriously and understands the business, Why on the 5 that I know of Arthur Hills Golf Courses that I have played is there a shot that has absolutely no smart, safe or solid play? 80-yard lay-ups don't count. I am just wondering how he got this job at such a wonderful piece of property and with what was probably quite a substantial budget. What courses ae the owners at Longaberger looking at when they hire him? I see nothing on his resume that would lead me to believe that he is capable of building a great golf course and he didn't. I think the thing that annoys me the most is he just doesn't seem to learn anything. Every course just has 2-8 absolutely stupid golf holes. The finisher at Pipestone is so bad and the same with Fox Run, does an architect really ever hear about what people think of his work,if so, how much? There is absolutely zero chance that Hills received postive feedback about No.2 or No.18 at Pipestone- zero chance. Same goes for Fox Run No.18. Where is his development as an architect?  These courses were built 10 years before LB and he is still pulling the same crap. Come out to Ohio and see for yourself, I would love to hear you say that you would trust this man to design your golf course after seeing these holes!!!!!

[Brent Hutto]

Glenn,

I don't know Art Hills from Artie Shaw and like you I certainly did not find Longaberger interesting and attractive in any way other than the lovely piece of property. However, I didn't notice any of the players in the CPC hitting 80-yard layup shots. Is it possible that there's some routing or design feature that he favors which just matches up poorly to your game? I can't recall the individual holes particulary well (as I said, the course didn't really "do it" for me) but are you describing absolutely dictated short layup shots or is it possible he had in mind that a player of your length might tee off with less than a driver on certain holes--even long ones?

I have played a course of his at Myrtle Beach and found it perfectly servicable in the generic Myrtle Beach way (in other words, it's no Caledonia) and the course name escapes me but I've played one of his central Ohio courses and recall liking it pretty well. Other than Longaberger, neither of the other two struck me as less than adequate given their setting.

You seem to really have a enormous animus for his work and in stating it so very strongly you make it seem like there's something more than a couple of poorly thought out holes per course behind your reaction. Have you ever played the eighteenth at Cypress Point Club? I'd be interested to hear your take on whatever "genius" could possibly have foisted that on the club's membership  

[Glenn Spencer]

Brent,

THat is some funny stuff there at the end. What gave you the impression that I don't like his work?   The reason you didn't see any 80-yard layups at the CPC is because it is hole #4 that requires that shot. It is 563 from the back. I don't know, maybe a 100 foot dropoff, not great at judging. The hole turns left and the landing area is downhill to a small target protected by water right and kind of short. The shot I had was 227 middle and I thought what am I supposed to do? I can't stop it on that green, it runs away into a hazard, there is a hazard short and right, the left side is gunch. I could think of no smart thing to do. I feel like I play a pretty cerebral game and it is very annoying to have that taken away by the architect with unfailing consistency. I have not played the 18th at Cypress or the 17 hole course there.  

[John Kavanaugh]

Glenn,

I just gotta know...did you or your chick buy any baskets while at Longaberger...What did you think of the building architecture on campus.

[Doug Sobieski]

So far, here is a list of terms/phrases that people have used to describe his work:

- Fine
- Nice
- Decent
- Par 5's he designs are below average
- perfectly serviceable "in the generic Myrtle Beach way"
- Enjoyable
- to paraphrase, not less than adequate
- the course didn't really "do it" for me
- takes his work seriously
- a good businessman
- good work ethic
- disappointing given the land it sits on
- the land was worthy of a better course
- quite good
- bunker work could have been more inspired
- tremendously fun
- a bit contrived
- the owners got their moneys worth
- I don't mind them at all
- one of my favorite public courses
- not an artist or the most creative

I tried to be fair and pull comments both good and bad. Let's forget for a moment who we are talking about. If someone were describing an architect's work to you with these words and phrases, what would you think? Would you be eager to visit his courses? Would you think he had a large body of work, or had he designed just a few courses? Would you think you'd find a lot of strategy when you played?

Just curious.

[Glenn Spencer]

John,

No, I left my chick at home to practice some 80-yard layup shorts, so she could hit them for me at the next Hills course I am stuck playing. The funny thing about the trip up there, is that you pass a little Ross course on the way- Granville golf course. I haven't played it in about 17 years, but I remember thinking, I wouldn't mind just playing there today. How right I was.

[Brent Hutto]

Doug,

From the composite that you posted, it would strike me that Arthur Hills does not make the list of architects whose work a GCA-geek feels like he just has to seek out. That's not exactly damning with faint praise, how many architects are by consensus "must see" for the well-rounded architecture buff? Maybe 60 or so? How many of those are alive and working today, perhaps 30-odd?

One can be a very talented and hard-working building architect and never be discussed in the same breath with Frank Lloyd Wright. Same with golf course designers, not every name is sufficient to induce an aficionado buy a plane ticket.

[John Kavanaugh]

Glenn,

In the pro shop do they have any golf related baskets for sale... How far  do they carry the basket theme throughout the course..

[Brent Hutto]

The funny thing about the trip up there, is that you pass a little Ross course on the way- Granville golf course. I haven't played it in about 17 years, but I remember thinking, I wouldn't mind just playing there today. How right I was.

Now we're talking, Glenn. When I was in the area spectating at the CPC I played at Granville every day. It was also a popular spot for some of the guys who missed the cut (in fact I played with one of them and his caddie). If we're talking about my scale of value, the greens fees at Granville and Longaberger would easily be reversed. The course at Granville, even in its currrent somewhat debased form, utitlizes its terrain most effectively that Longaberger by several times over. I purely love Granville Golf Club, it's one of my favorite courses anywhere.

[Glenn Spencer]

Doug,

That is fabulous work my man. That is the crux of my position. I never hear, what a great golf course or he used the land perfectly or anything besides decent or didn't hate it. I think that if someone is given a top 75? piece of property, they should be able to come up with something better than that. He had all the room in the world and he came up with nothing to write home about. How is that not a double bogey? I think it is wrong to just say, oh I didn't hate it, there were some serious expectations there and it hosted the CPC, what, as a 2-year old? That is a crying shame!! It is just impossible for me to imagine how that is the finished product and the damn thing is, the greens were pretty well done. John, I wish you could see No. 8!!! It belongs in the worst hole hall of fame, considering what lovely land and water is right there to be used. The cart path as the aiming point for the second is a nice touch though.

[Glenn Spencer]

Brent,

I played it as a very young man and I still was able to recognize that there was something different going on, by different, I mean that someone put some hard work into it or whoever did it was a genius. I thought it was really cool and it would be amazing if it was in great condition. Greens fees? Doesn't matter, I am imposing a Hills embargo on myself, it will never happen again.  I am glad that you enjoyed Granville so much though, I guess that fits the bill as a hidden gem.

[Glenn Spencer]

John,

You don't have to ever know anything about the baskets, except that there is a really big one on the way in about 10 min. away. I didn't notice anything in the pro shop, I just paid and was going to shop afterward, then I realized I didn't want any of that crap touching my body or my money.

[Jordan Wall]

Jordan,

You are correct on all three counts. Are you defending the course, the man or just trying to make me understand something?

All of the above.

And nothing rude intended.

[Jordan Wall]

I have to include this.

Arthur Hills courses are very nice and why there may be some artificial mounding and why sometimes his courses may not be the 'absolute best', they are still amazing and fun to play....fun to play.....At Harbour Point, which I frequently play, you could say the course, at least the front nine, is a bit contrived in various places, none of which really matter and to be honest the work he did could not have been much better, IMHO.  Now, after he built the course, it was decided to put houses around the course, at least its outskirts and on a few holes, and then the course went from very beautiful to waaaaay cntrived.  The thing is, there is nothing Arthur can do about other people[/color] putting in houses.  Some say the course is bad because of the houses, and while that is fine, people also have to realize that the architect does not put in the houses on the course, rather he builds and designs the golf course itself.  Think about that for a second, and you may have a new respect for the course.

Now I dont know if housing is the case at Longaberger, but if it is consider the above paragraph.  

No architect is perfect, and like I said very many people seem to like Longaberger, and everyone who plays Harbour Point with open eyes will see past the houses.

If you wanna see what I mean and you are in WA, I will happily take you to Harbour Point!!
 

[Glenn Spencer]

Jordan,

Never thought anything rude was intended. What national recognition has Longaberger received? What are you trying to make me understand? What I don't understand is how as an all my life Ohio golfer, why we can't get a 'real' architect in here to design a fabulous golf course on what has to be considered an unbelievable property.I still can't believe it, he had everything at his disposal and throws a Doak 4 at us.

[Glenn Spencer]

Jordan,

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? There isn't a house to be seen on that pasture, except the poor clubhouse that has to look out at the golf course all its life!!!!

[Jordan Wall]

Though sometimes the GD rankings can get out of hand, IMO, last year it was voted by people for 5-stars.

It was a top-10 new course when it opened, which is nice.
(BTW Harbour Point was #1 in that category in 91')

Courses that are pretty nice (or so I hear) in Ohio...

...Longaberger Golf Club
...Muirfield Village
...Inverness Club
...The Golf Club...(Pete Dye)
...Sand Ridge
...Camargo
...Scioto
...Canterbury

[Jordan Wall]

Jordan,

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? There isn't a house to be seen on that pasture, except the poor clubhouse that has to look out at the golf course all its life!!!!

Like I said, I have never played Longaberger.

Maybe instead of saying the course is bad and everything, play it again with different pins, in the summer with firmer conditions, and take time to understand the course.

I was just pointing out that outside features of a course Arthur cannot do anything about and his courses, while maybe a bit contrived at times, are very nice.

Harbour Point is a good example...

A question too...

Going into your round at Longaberger did you have at least some biased against Arthur with his previous courses you have played that may have contributed to possibly overlooking the course??

[Glenn Spencer]

Jordan,

Oh, definitely a 5 star experience, as long as you take the golf course out of the equation!!!! Have you ever heard of NCR? It is in Ohio and I well never mind I am not going to discuss it and Longaberger in the same sentence. There are many other golf courses in Ohio. Many,many, many more. If you would like to hear 50 that I would rather play than LB, I could easily do it, easily.

[PThomas]

Paul,
  What is your take on the par 5 I described? I looked it up. It's #4. The other holes I talked about were #5 and #6. #6 green was the one I really liked. I agree it was overpriced. Fortunately we played twilight which is a better deal and just squeezed in the last hole as it got dark. Plus they kicked in a free logo towel.

Ed - I went back and checked the course guide..and I can't remember much about the 4th, sorry

as with the cost of the course, you are also right about the greens there, they did have some challenge to them

and, thank goodness, I did also get a "free" towel when I paid full freight there

[Glenn Spencer]

Jordan,

Good Question. Absofreakinlutely I did. I figured that this place would be different though, it was going to be in marvelous shape and the land was going to be awesome and it was supposed to have been a top 200 experience. I didn't think about who designed it until the end- on purpose. I think this guy is a clown!! I have never once thought I could be newsanchor or a fireman or a golf course architect, this guy makes me wonder about the latter. I don't think I could be this bad on my worst day.

[Doug Sobieski]

Doug,

From the composite that you posted, it would strike me that Arthur Hills does not make the list of architects whose work a GCA-geek feels like he just has to seek out. That's not exactly damning with faint praise, how many architects are by consensus "must see" for the well-rounded architecture buff? Maybe 60 or so? How many of those are alive and working today, perhaps 30-odd?

One can be a very talented and hard-working building architect and never be discussed in the same breath with Frank Lloyd Wright. Same with golf course designers, not every name is sufficient to induce an aficionado buy a plane ticket.

Brent:

I agree 100%. I just think it's fair to have the discussion when several of his efforts pop up occassionally on the Golfweek list, or Golf Digest's Best New list, or what have you. He's had two that I know of appear on the Modern list (Bay Harbor and Longaberger) with much fanfare, but they've since disappeared after the marketing hype died out. I know that Shepherd's Hollow in Michigan was up near the top on the Best New Public a couple years ago. Unfortunately, I haven't seen that one yet, and I'd hope that it might change my opinion. I think Glenn's initial premise is fair (about how he gets what appears to be so many good sites to work with). Wouldn't it surprise you if someone that was hoping to make a big splash with their course would choose an architect who, by your building architect analogy, is talented and hard working but a customer might not necessarily seek out the finished product?

[Ryan Crago]

Now, after he built the course, it was decided to put houses around the course, at least its outskirts and on a few holes, and then the course went from very beautiful to waaaaay cntrived.  The thing is, there is nothing Arthur can do about other people[/color] putting in houses.  Some say the course is bad because of the houses, and while that is fine, people also have to realize that the architect does not put in the houses on the course, rather he builds and designs the golf course itself.  Think about that for a second, and you may have a new respect for the course.

jordan,

not necessarily.  i have no idea of the Hills' work/contract at Harbour Point (and you may...) but often the golf course architect also plays a key role in masterplanning the community.  that said, he is often limited greatly by the real estate drivers, number of lots, set backs etc... the point being that just playing the course, we dont have a complete understanding of the limitations and demands put on the architect during the time of design/construction.

so you're right. but you're also wrong.  i've even confused myself.

[Kirk Gill]

I played an Arthur Hills design this last weekend - Walking Stick down in Pueblo, Colorado.

I was playing two-man scramble with a total novice, and it was pretty hot and dry there, so it was slow, hard going (if such can be said of a round of golf).

Having never played the course before, or an Arthur Hills design (that I know of), I have to say that the course was fun to play, and while the design didn't blow my mind, I thought it fit in well with the surrounding landscape ('though there was some surrounding housing). A huge upgrade over the other courses open for public play in Pueblo (I have family there, so I've hit most of the other courses there at one point or another), it is also a great deal at $30 on weekends for a non-resident.

I was also interested in some of the comments of my family members who were playing in our little "tournament." Aunt Kitty said that she thought the course "punished you for hitting a good shot," in other words the hazards were too centrally located for her liking. I liked that about the course.

Walking Stick certainly is the biggest fish in the small pond that is Pueblo golf. Maybe Arthur Hills isn't competing successfully with Donald Ross, but he created a quality muni down in Southern CO.

[Tim Pitner]

Kirk, I don't know if you've played it, but Legacy Ridge in Westminster, CO is an Art Hills design.  It has a couple of good holes but several awful ones.  And, since housing has been mentioned, the growth of housing on Legacy Ridge has really detracted from the atmosphere.  

I'm not blaming Hills for the housing, but I do blame him for some silly holes (e.g., #5, a par 4 requiring an iron from the tee to a green guarded by an artificial pond (with no option to drive the green), #6, a par 5 with a creek bisecting the fairway so one must hit an iron to the landing area, in order to see the green on the dogleg left--5 iron, 3 wood is not an unusual sequence of shots, etc.).  Here's a link showing #6.  http://www.golfexperience.com/legacyridge/lr6.htm