Harvester -- little hoopla but rock solid !

[Matt_Ward]

I had the pleasure in playing The Harvester (Rhodes, Iowa) about two years ago and when I saw recently the amount of focus on quality layouts that don't cost you your second born I thought back to a number of layouts that different people had mentioned and one did in fact stick out that is mentioned from time to time but because it's neither designed by the "preferred" architects here nor is it located in an area where much attention (media and otherwise) generally favors.

The Harvester by architect Keith Foster (a very talented designer with other winning layouts like Coral Canyon in St. George, UT; The Quarry in San Antonio, TX; Haymaker in Steamboat Springs, CO and SunRidge Canyon in the Scottsdale, AZ area, to name just a few.

At the top of the list is his work at Harvester from roughly the 8 layouts I have played is his work there in the middle of Iowa.

The layout is impeccably groomed and provides a healthy amount of width and was in firm and fast mode when I played it.

Foster was blessed with a rolling piece of property - those believign that Iowa is dead flat would be dead wrong. The Harvester also presents a serious challenge for those who want all that it can muster -- the layout tips out at 7,300 yds and plays to a 75.6 CR and 137 slope. The next tee boxes are more than fair with a length of 6,775 yds and a corresponding drop to 72.9 CR and 133 slope.

When the course opened in 2001 it did receive a good bit of fanfare -- I believe Golf Magazine featured the course among the top 10 new courses one can play in 2001. Of the listing of modern public courses I have played (post 1960) I would rate The Harvester among the top 30-40 courses in America.

Unfortunately, location is everything in many instances and the Iowa layout suffers because it doesn't automatically draw high interest beyond those lucky folks who happen to live nearby.

To Foster's credit although width is provided there is always the optimum side to approach the putting surfaces.

You also have some rather unique holes -- the short 2nd -- named "Wright Way" -- is well done. It provides for a split fairway and should you opt for the risky right side you'll need a minimum carry of 250 yards to get into the right position.

To borrow a well used expression -- The Harvester looks like it's always been there. Length is important but it's not the be-all / end-all when playing.

The finishing four are also superbly created. The uphill par-5 15th called "Big Hog" is indeed a big handful unless you execute three solid shots. The downhill par-4 16th features a double cut-off fairway landing area and the player has to decide how far is enough to hit from the tee. The par-3 17th features the obligatory frontal H20 hazard but the diagonal angle of the green suffers no fools at anytime.

The closing hole is also a grand climax -- I loved the tag name -- "Promised Land." Plays 565 yards and gives a boomerang look with H20 hugging the right side. One of the really unique aspects of the hole is how Foster inserts a fairway bunker on the left side of the hole that stretches to 305 yards from the tips -- the amount of space between the left bunker and the H20 on the right will give better players some pause before pulling the trigger.

There is a middle peninsula for those who opt for the three-shot hole sequence. Again, all the elements are tied together and The Harvester delivers consistently.

Like I said before -- there are plenty of "heartland" public courses spoken here on GCA -- The Harvester, IMHO, is in the very top tier of quality layouts that with just a bit more fanfare / attention would be spoken about even more frequently.

[Matt_Ward]

Didn't add the Web address in my initial post --

www.harvestergolf.com

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt,

Harvester is in the Golfweek Top 100 Modern, so although it may be under the radar with some magazines....  

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

Before we venture down the road of self-promotion for certain magazine ratings which people are members of ...

There are a number of courses listed ahead of Harvester -- on Golfweek's modern listing that are clearly overrated and get plenty of ink because of who designed them and where they are located. I can hear people now retorting that I should list such and such courses and go from there. Don't have the time for that but suffice to say -- I stand by having Harvester even more fully appreciated than it is today.

Put Harvester in the northeast quadrant -- to name one such area -- and it would literally blow away many of the public courses listed above it. It's amazing how media / rater elites can play a huge role -- ditto when courses have oceans and other large bodies of water that are adjacent.

Location -- is not only important in the restaurant business --it's central in the ratings game. One other thing -- the courses that receive plenty of fanfare in America's heartland are often wonderful layouts but they fail to hit the consistency Harvester provides.

Bill:

I have not played Texas Star but have read reports on the course and hope to play it next time I'm in Big D.

Have played Buffalo Run but I would not put the layout at the same level as say Murphy's Creek by Ken Kavanaugh which is immediately near by. The holes are good but more towards the 201 level public course design layout. Has its moments but Foster has gone beyond that level with the likes of Harvester, Coral Canyon, The Quarry, etc, etc.

[Jason Topp]

Matt:

Thanks for hilighting one of my favorites courses.  Because it is about a 3 hour drive for me, I usually take a trip at least once a year to play the Harvester and have probably played the course 25-30 times.  

I agree that holes 15, 17 and 18 are outstanding.  I am not a big fan of the 16th, primarily because I think the longer landing area is too small and it is essentially random whether a ball hit over the hill winds up in the fairway or in the creek.  Nonetheless, I think the green is one of the best on the course (front to back and right to left slope bunkered front right).

Other holes I think are unique:

3 - 180 yard par three to a peninsula green with water on 3 sides.  What makes the hole unique is the huge green, which has a hump in the middle.  The player needs to decide between playing to the safe side of the green, leaving a very difficult 2 putt or going for the pin.

4 - long par five with great slopes challenging the 2nd and a green that slopes from front left to back right.

12 - bunkerless par four with uphill 2nd to a green with multiple levels.  

13 - great short par four.

The only hole I consider weak is the 5th, primarily because the green is so big and the fairway so wide for a short par four.  It is a good place for a short par four because of the difficult of 3 and 4 .  I just think the scale of the hole is off and the need for making any decisions on the hole is nonexistent.

Interestingly, my friends from the area are lukewarm about the course.  I suspect it is because of the high price relative to others in the area (but still cheap by national standards).  Most people I know that have travelled to get there rave about the course.

[Matt_Ward]

Jason:

Thanks for your comments -- often times locals wince at playing courses because of splitting with a few bucks from their pockets -- the same situation applies to those locals from other areas -- Black Mesa comes to mind in NM -- locals there still believe 18 holes of outstanding golf should price out to just a bit more than a Happy Meal at McD's.

I don't see eye-to-eye with you on 3rd -- to me it's the garden variety shot over a frontal H20 hazard -- although I do like the  Look at the 3rd and compare it to the 17th -- big difference in my mind. The angled green at the latter makes for a more exacting approach.

Re: 12th hole -- if memory serves is there not a greenside bunker to the left side ? Agree it's a demanding hole without being overly shaped / designed.

The unique aspects of the short par-4 13th come from the way the fairway turns. You have to keep this in mind when playing from the tee because anything can happen here.

Re: 16th hole -- the landing area should make longer hitters
r-e-a-l-l-y think before bombing away. Could be a bit larger but I see that as a small issue.

Re: 5th hole -- agree somewhat -- except when pin is cut hard right -- you then have to be even more particular about the approach when you favor the right side of the fairway. It then makes the left side more favored although the bunkers and rough there then become an issue.

Harvester suffers, as I said at the outset, from a location and state that flies considerably below the radar. I'm not about to be an Iowa-booster fan club simply because of Harvester but my point is that it easily has the qualities to be even more nationally rated than it is today.


 

[Jason Topp]

Jason:

I don't see eye-to-eye with you on 3rd -- to me it's the garden variety shot over a frontal H20 hazard -- although I do like the  Look at the 3rd and compare it to the 17th -- big difference in my mind. The angled green at the latter makes for a more exacting approach.

Re: 12th hole -- if memory serves is there not a greenside bunker to the left side ? Agree it's a demanding hole without being overly shaped / designed.

I'm probably too biased because of my familiarity with the course to know if it is over or under rated.  

I agree the 17th is more exciting than the 3rd, but I still think the 3rd is a terrific hole simply because the green is large but the target area for having an easy par is so small.  Here are the drawings from the web site:







I checked the web site and you are correct that there is a bunker on 12.  I've never seen it come into play so I forgot about it.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike:

There are a number of courses listed ahead of Harvester -- on Golfweek's modern listing that are clearly overrated and get plenty of ink because of who designed them and where they are located. I can hear people now retorting that I should list such and such courses and go from there. Don't have the time for that but suffice to say -- I stand by having Harvester even more fully appreciated than it is today.

Put Harvester in the northeast quadrant -- to name one such area -- and it would literally blow away many of the public courses listed above it. It's amazing how media / rater elites can play a huge role -- ditto when courses have oceans and other large bodies of water that are adjacent.

Matt,

I don't understand.

First you state that Harvester is among the top 30-40 public courses in the country built since 1960.

Then, when I tell you that Harvester is ranked by Golfweek in the Top 100 Modern, which includes all courses, public and private built since 1960 you state that there are plenty of courses ranked above it on that list that you think aren't warranted.

Matt..it's ranked #52 on Golfweek among ALL the courses built after 1960!  How exactly is that under the radar and a victim of geography and rater bias as you suggest and how exactly is that ranking inconsistent with your suggestion that it's one of the top 30-40 public courses in the country?

If anything, Golfweek has it overrated according to your comparsion!    

[Jeff Shelman]

I too am a big fan of the Harvester. I think it is very solid and many of the good holes have already been discussed so I won't go into them. I'm with Jason in that I think the lower landing area on 16 is too small. Because of that, I have a hard time hitting driver there and then still have about 200 in.

I think 17 is a more difficult par 3 than No. 3 IMO because of the angle of the green and the wind seems more confounding there to me I think because of the proximity to the lake.

As someone who enjoys Keith Foster's work, I've played several of his courses (including four this calendar year).

Of the courses I have played of his, I would rank them like this:
Best: Harvester
Next grouping: Gateway National, Quarry, Bandit, SunRidge Canyon, Texas Star
Not quite as good: Shephards Crook
Bottom: Buffalo Run

Buffalo Run was the most recent Foster that I played and, frankly, the one I thought was the least interesting.

[Tim Pitner]

I've only played Buffalo Run and Haymaker, but my experiences with Foster's courses have been positive.  IMHO, Buffalo Run is pretty solid for a $40 public course.  

I'm glad to see some recognition for a course in the Hawkeye state.  

[Gary_K]

I love the course, just don't like the fairway bunker short of the water on hole #6.  I would rather have my ball roll in the water and take the penalty than have to play a long bunker shot over water.  Double penalty potential if one goes in the bunker.

Gary K.

[Tim Pitner]

Mr. redanman,

Buffalo Run has gone downhill in my estimation because of the housing.  Six years ago, there was nothing out there.  Now, there are quite a few homes--you notice the difference most on #1 and the closing holes--some McMansions there.  (For some reason, though, I didn't mind the applause I received from people relaxing on a deck after I hit a good tee shot on the par 3 17th).  It used to be one of my favorite courses in the Denver area, and I would have said I preferred it to Haymaker (a Foster course in Steamboat).  Now, I'm not so sure.  

[Matt_Ward]

Bill V:

When I was last out in the Colorado area in August I drove by where Buffalo Run is located and the amount of houses has clearly accelerated since my visit to the area a year earlier when I played the course.

Tim P:

I agree with your assessment on Haymaker -- few people really know how good the layout is and often when public golf in Colorado is discussed Haymaker gets little of the more glowing reports that public courses closer to Denver seem to generate.

Mike:

Let me start again OK.

Harvester is 52nd and I believe it deserves to be higher rated not just with Golfweek -- which seems to be the "preferred" rating on this board. There are other magazines that have failed to really speak about the layout in greater detail.

Yes, being rated by Golfweek is a plus -- no doubt. I just think the position it occupies now fails to really itemize just how very good the course is -- especially when I see other layouts that have occupied a higher position because of either geographical bias or the fact that a more noted / preferred architect has done the layout. The same can be said, I might add, with Black Mesa and Greywalls in Marquette, MI.

I said this before and bears repeating -- Harvester is not in a media capital of note and having Keith Foster -- a very talented gentleman as its designer -- who clearly flies under the radar for a good many people.

I would drop plenty of courses NOW in the top 100 modern listing because many of them just happen to be overpriced resort oriented layouts that draw attention to them for plenty of reasons but yet have little to do with compelling architecture IMHO.

Mike -- my issue with ratings is that the different publications all suffer from the same problem -- little cross comparison and the static nature of how the courses in the elite echelon seem to hold their position as if frozen forever in time. A number of raters seem to simply take the belief that if course "X" is presently there -- then it must always be there.

My issue is less with Golfweek but with other pubs and my general views I have expressed about how such solid layouts are always looking in from the outside when they are indeed so compelling and even more noteworthy than many might surmise. In my travels Mike -- I often play courses that will likely never get much attention (e.g. The Hideout in Monticello, UT) is one that comes to mind but are worthy of serious national acclaim for the catgeory they occupy.

[Doug Ralston]

Maybe the layout with the most exciting potential that I have played is by Keith Foster. It is in West Tennessee and is called, surprise surprise, 'The Tennessean'. Sadly, it is a little out of the way, and doesn't get enough play, so it's conditions are often well below ideal. But some of the best greens I have seen, and some real 'thinking man's holes' all over. If you can get to Paris, TN, have a look!

Yesterday, in another thread, I copy/pasted a commentary by my friend Moe Miller, who is on a trip around USA playing great courses and eating at ***** restaraunts. I will insert yet another quote from him, to the point here.

"The Harvester Golf Club is located 20 miles northeast of Des Moines, Iowa.
It was designed by Keith Foster (The Tennessesean - The Quarry in San Antonio, etc) in 2003.
It is 1st class in every way.
If Lakota Canyon is the course for Doug, then The Harvester is the one I want Ron and Jason to play;
and from the tips at 7300 yards!   .
I gave it 7 excellent, and 11 good holes, and once again the final hole is a stern test as it circles Harvester Lake.
The fairways were great, and cut tight like The Bull.
The greens were large and very fast, causing Moe several 3-putts.
I believe The Harvester is the best of the trip - so far"

I will add this one to my wish list. You should add 'The Tennessean' if you can ...... just do not expect too much in the way of conditioning.

Doug

[Doug Siebert]

Re: 3 & 17 at the Harvester:

I have to go along with Matt on this, though I haven't played The Harvester anywhere near the 25-30 times Jason has.

The 3rd is as Matt says a fairly run of the mill over the water par 3.  I think it would be a much stronger hole if it wasn't so easy all around the green, its very black/white, you are either in the water (bad) or not (no problem).  As it is it is too easy to take an extra club if you aren't feeling your swing early in the round (which is usually true for me on any 3rd hole) and the up and down isn't very difficult since there's nothing back to make you think twice about going long, and that little bunker left doesn't look like much trouble (haven't ever been there so I can't say for sure)  I don't figure I'd ever see a reason to change my strategy of playing one more club and going for the back of the green regardless of the pin position.  Any hole I know how I'm going to play pretty much regardless of pin position, tee marker position and wind isn't a winner in my book.

The angled green at 17 offers a much more interesting shot.  As someone who misses left via pull or hook but hardly ever misses right, the water right holds little fear for me, I can aim at the rightmost pin without too much worry.  But due to the angle that play really requires precise distance, there is no room for a mishit.  If you fly into one of those bunkers I know from experience that it is possible to leave yourself with a buried downhill lie with water behind you -- talk about a terrifying shot!  Though I rarely work the ball on par 3 approaches, the last time I was there the pin was back right and I had a good feeling about a fade as I was waiting on the group ahead so I aimed it at the back bunker and faded a nice high 7 iron right at it, just a hair long into the back fringe.  My friends were surprised to see me going left to right even after I told them I was going to do it beforehand.  Any hole that gets me to want to work the ball has something going for it!

[Chris_Clouser]

I have heard nothing but good things about Harvester and have talked with Keith Foster a couple of times and he is a very nice guy.

But I have to ask about the two holes that were posted.

Why does every course that opens seem to have these same holes?  

I'm trying to think of a course that I have played that was built in the last ten years that doesn't have holes almost exactly like these and I can only think of one, Kingsley.

Is it standard practice that the architect automatically thinks of placing the green in either of these two positions when they come across water and want to use it on a par three?
Even a course that I rave about on here from time to time, Purgatory, does the same thing.  Sagamore, a Nicklaus course less than a mile from my house, does this on three of the par threes with one of them going right to left, but its still the same style of hole.  Incidentally, the best par three is the one that doesn't have water at Sagamore.

Can't we get some variation in how architects use water on par threes?  

Or perhaps use the water on a par five or par four instead?

[Matt_Ward]

Chris:

Yes, you are certainly right.

Generally, from my experiences, architects do have a tendency to fallback on the "tried & true" situations and the typical "par-3 over water" shot is one of the most common.

Foster is not unique in this regard as many courses seem to feature this aspect in their overall designs. It's no different than the typical run-of-the-mill cops / lawyers show you see on television.

It's a safe mechanism but candidly, as you mentioned, gets a little old in the tooth.

Harvester, fortunately, saves the better of these types of holes for the 17th -- the 3rd comes very early in the round so it's overall impact is less so -- nonetheless -- it does detract in my mind to some degree because it is so formulaic.

You might be surprised to note that even Sebonack has such a hole with the 8th.

Chris, there are instances in which it's not the architect who wants to add such holes but the client who believes having such a hole is a poweful statement -- when the reality is nothing more than a boring repetition of "been there / done that."

One of the more under-appreciated par-3 holes at Harvester is the 8th -- plays downhill and is neatly diagonally angled from lower right to top left. Bunkers are well-positioned on either side of the green and the putting surface features a slight rib cage that runs perpendicular to the line of play.

[Chris_Clouser]

Matt,

I saw the photo of the 8th at Sebonack and thought instantly of the holes at Sagamore.  They look almost exactly like it.

I understand it is the client that probalby drives that decision, but perhaps the architect ought to collect photos of all of these and use them as an exhibit to show that they are in fact not unique.  

Chris  

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt,

C'mon...you can admit it.  

Golfweek has it about right with Harvester #52 on the listing of Top 100 Modern courses.  Heck, they even rate it higher than you do, as you only have it in your top 30-40 "public" courses built since 1960, where the Golfweek listing includes all of them.

Speaking of geographic distribution, I am planning to drive the 8+ hour round trip to Harvester on my next business trip to Sioux Falls.   But, your point is well taken...only a few of us nuts are willing to do that sort of thing to see a new golf course.  

Doug,

Nice report, but why does your friend Moe refer to himself in the third person?  

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

Let me say this again.
 
If I posted my top modern listing there would be a number of courses that Golfweek in fact lists that would not be mentioned. Those courses are listed simply because a number of them are high profile resorts and other big ticket CCFAD's that generate their considerable exposure because of internal / external marketing campaigns. The architecture at these layouts is far from compelling.

When I list Harvester among the top 30-40 modern public courses I am being very conservative in that positioning.

Mike -- you are making the assumption that everything would remain the same as listed by Golfweek -- that's a stretch you assume but one I don't.

Too many raters take the herd approach -- if something is listed even once then it therefore is worthy of inclusion and merits being kept among the "elite" courses. The overall due diligence of these folks is sadly not as sharp as many might believe. Too many of these "national" raters are simply regional folks who really can't provide a cross comparison analysis of the said courses.

Mike -- Black Mesa and Greywalls shold easily be among the top 25 modern courses -- and I am being very kind in saying just the top 25 modern. They are frankly superb layouts that get little ink because they are not big ticket courses designed by big ticket name architects -- those preferred here on GCA or elsewhere. They are also two layouts that are not in a big major metro area (unless one believes Santa Fe qualifies).

Yes, Golfweek does list Harvester -- so does Golf Digest. The issue is not the listing but the position of the Rhodes, Iowa layout. Keith Foster doesn't have a self-perpetuating fan / groupie club hereon GCA -- the man is very talented.

By all means when you trek to Sioux Falls make a side visit to Harvester and think of the course being located in a major metro area like NYC, Boston / Philadelphia and where it would then rate with that kind of exposure.

After you play it -- you can then admit the error of your ways.

[Doug Ralston]

Mike;

Moe does so many of these trips and reports for GKL that he finds it amusing to refer to himself thus, and of course we tease him about his constant reference to 'The Wife'. If you want to read a very large series of reports of a lot of courses, go to the Vacation/Travel section of
golfkentuckylinks.com

Moe and his friend Ron Watterson are the creators. Still the best golf website I have found. If you enjoy it, by all means join our forum and tell us about your experiences with golf. We are always interested in stories, even if not in Kentucky or surrounding stats.

[Larry_Keltto]

I open the golf season each year with a trip south to the Harvester.

The 17th is one of my favorite par 3s anywhere, because it presents many risk/reward options; par can be achieved by scratch or high handicapper alike, if played wisely.

The 17th is one of the windiest spots on the course and that's saying a lot, considering it's Iowa in the spring.

Also, I'm not a tree guy, but I admire the solitary tree on the hill behind the green.

[Mike_Cirba]

Doug,

Thanks for the link!  

I understand his colorful writing style and find the third person reference pointedly amusing.  

[Jason Topp]

Re: 3 & 17 at the Harvester:

  I think it would be a much stronger hole if it wasn't so easy all around the green, its very black/white, you are either in the water (bad) or not (no problem).  As it is it is too easy to take an extra club if you aren't feeling your swing early in the round (which is usually true for me on any 3rd hole) and the up and down isn't very difficult since there's nothing back to make you think twice about going long, and that little bunker left doesn't look like much trouble (haven't ever been there so I can't say for sure)  I don't figure I'd ever see a reason to change my strategy of playing one more club and going for the back of the green regardless of the pin position.  Any hole I know how I'm going to play pretty much regardless of pin position, tee marker position and wind isn't a winner in my book.

What makes the green unique in my book is the big hump that is roughly in the middle of the green and extends most of the way across.  If someone is on the wrong side of that hump, I guarantee you they three putt 9 out of 10 times.  If you choose to go long,, water is in play to the right and a very difficult downhill chip from rough awaits you on the left.

I'm not a huge fan of these island green type of holes for the reasons you state, but if you are going to have one, I think this one is pretty good.  

[Jim Nugent]

Matt, when do you post your SH/Ballyneal/DR comparison?  Your fans, and probably your anti-fans, too, are eagerly waiting.