next »

[George Pazin]

Ryan, don't feel bad, Huck doesn't think Oakmont would be tons of fun, either.

 

1 in 3 on an 80 yard fairway? I can relate to that.

Thanks for the link to the other thread, btw, don't know how I missed it.

[Tom Huckaby]

Given that last part, I appreciate you trying.  

But you're still not getting my point.

Heck, I don't call Olympic Lake "fun" either.  In fact it's just about the poster course for "test of golf" that is enjoyable in a certain sense, but not my cup of tea either.  So saying it's not Olympic Lake achieves little.  I get that, just from the pictures.

I also don't see lost ball potential on every shot at Pacific Dunes... far from it.. you've lost me there.  But let's leave that aside.

I also absoutely get that you tend to spray the ball - I've played with you, remember?  So yes, it's not as bad in terms of lost balls etc, as you thought it would be - gotcha.  And you've come away finding it to be very "fun" as you see this game - gotcha.  And that is saying something - gotcha.  It's not nearly as penal as people make it out to be - gotcha.

BUT, I still read the relentless description, still see the ball-eating gunch to the side of every shot... and thus can't make the leap to seeing the course as a "ton of fun" - AS I SEE THE GAME.

Perhaps the NGLA/Shinnecock references don't resonate with you - that's cool, it is kinda GCA hoity-toity speak and I apologize for that.  Let's try this:

Rustic Canyon is a fun course to play; Oakmont seems like a great test of golf.

Looking at Prairie Dunes from afar, I see a lot more similarities to Oakmont than I do to Rustic Canyon.   Some, if not most, would call that the highest compliment.  As I see things, it just means the course surely must be great, just can't possibly be in the upper echelon of "fun", as I define that term.

TH

ps to George - I swear our posts crossed - but damn right!  Relentless tests of golf remain not my cup of tea.  BTW, notice the GD ratings?  

[George Pazin]

I do believe there is a difference between a continuous challenge and "relentless".  

Take, for instance, Olympic Lake and Prairie Dunes.  Where can you lose more balls? Prairie Dunes by far - I hit 1 fairway at Olympic and still played the entire round with one ball.  Yet, Olympic to me is the more relentless course by far - you can absolutely get away with shots at Prairie Dunes.  Courses like Olympic and Congressional Blue are much more of a slog and a beatdown because they continually offer one challenge - hit fairway, hit green, make par.  This is not the case at PD.

You can miss the first fairway well to the left and be in great shape - I hit fan blocks with irons on 3 and 12 and made pars, a block off the 13th tee isn't necessarily lost.  Likewise, an overhooked shot off the 12th tee of about 230 yards may find a nice grassy area between the fairway bunkers, and the 14th hole lets you blast it as far right as you want at your own peril in terms of second shot difficulty (but there is no lost ball potential to be had on such a line).

Lost ball potential does not = relentless.  There is lost ball potential on virtually every hole at Pacific Dunes, is there not?  Certainly that is not a relentless course, and in fact, maybe it's one of the most fun courses in the world.  

To look exclusively at their difficulty, penality, or relentlessness, Prairie Dunes is more like a strict teacher looking over your shoulder making sure you're behaving whereas Olympic Lake is more like a Singaporean Police Officer flogging you with a cane.

I realize I am not going to "convince" you of anything, but I'm just trying to be clear that if I, of all people, consider the course playable and fun given the average dispersion of my shots and my negative mindset going into the weekend, and I come out of it saying that its wonderful, fun, playable, and one of my top 5 easily, then I do believe that's saying something.

I know you will continue to disagree, or at least not buy what I'm selling without caveat or disclaimer, and I'm fine with that, I wouldn't expect you to.  

This is an absolutely fantastic post. It encapsulates almost perfectly for me the difference between what I call a brutally hard but still playable course (under my definition of playability, obviously) and a less difficult but also less playable course.

The irony is that it sounds like you preferred the one that's closer to my idea of unplayable!

That's okay, I might, too, depending on the uniqueness of the shots. Or, I might not.

I'm a fan of Tom P's Big World of Golf theory.

Huck -

Your definition of fun sounds almost as narrow as my definition of playable.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

Curious how my definition of fun is narrow, as it encapsulates basically every golf course on earth.

Ryan has said PD is a "ton of fun" - that to me is akin to saying it's among the MOST fun courses he's played.  It's that part I don't get.

Hell I can have fun playing this game anywhere - even at a brute of a course like your beloved one ranked so far below Pebble.  It's just a different kind of fun, and not my personal cup of tea, in terms of calling it a "ton of fun" or ranking it in the upper echelon for such.

The very MOST FUN courses - to me - can be stern tests for sure, but are not relentless, have room for whimsy, and perhaps give some breaks here and there.

The perfect comparison is NGLA/Shinnecock.  I find the former to be the most fun one can have playing the game; the latter to be a very stern test of golf, fun in a masochistic way, fun in a historic way, but not a generally fun place on which to play this game.

But to each his own for sure.  Many disagree with me on this - Matt Ward being the poster boy.

TH

ps  - I too have always been a fan of the Big World theory.

[George Pazin]

Curious how my definition of fun is narrow, as it encapsulates basically every golf course on earth.

That's exactly why I said it is analogous to my definition of playable.

I don't really think a course where you lose a bunch of balls is literally unplayable. One can obviously follow the rules, re-tee, drop in the right areas, etc. So it is not literally unplayable, just not as playable as the ones where you're not losing balls left and right.

In the same way, I'm pretty sure you would find Oakmont or Prairie Dunes a lot of fun to play, just maybe not as much fun as a course that is less relentless, maybe less testing.

To sum up, when I call a course unplayable, I don't mean it literally, just as when you say a course isn't tons of fun to play, you don't necessarily mean that literally.

Hope that helps.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

That sums it up fairly enough - although I have no dog in your playable/unplayable issue.  And I still want acknowledgement regarding the clear superiority of Pebble Beach to Oakmont, as stated by the denizens at Golf Magazine.

[George Pazin]

George:

That sums it up fairly enough - although I have no dog in your playable/unplayable issue.  And I still want acknowledgement regarding the clear superiority of Pebble Beach to Oakmont, as stated by the denizens at Golf Magazine.

No go, you're still coasting by on the time lag effect. The next one, when everyone's been exposed to the 07 greatness of Oakmont will be more telling.

 

Although, after seeing the published breakdown for Oakmont in GD's preview issue, and how low it ranked in aesthetics, I can honestly say I have less faith in the rankings than ever.

[Jason Blasberg]

It's important to note that for folks who can hit a 230-250 three wood if you play the middle tees at Prairie Dunes you don't need to hit a single driver all day.

You can also play holes like 5, 8, 9 and 11 as three shoters and turn par 70 into par 74 and keep the ball in play.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

It's important to note that for folks who can hit a 230-250 three wood if you play the middle tees at Prairie Dunes you don't need to hit a single driver all day.

You can also play holes like 5, 8, 9 and 11 as three shoters and turn par 70 into par 74 and keep the ball in play.

 

JKB - I believe that's true, but I also believe you just made my point a lot more than Ryan's.  Courses where average to long hitters have to play the middle tees and use three wood all day.. and/or one actively has to turn seeming par 4s into par fives to keep the ball in play do not scream out "tons of fun" as I see it.

George - only one born and raised in Pittsburgh could find scenic beauty at Oakmont.  

[Sean Leary]

Huck,

You are close to becoming Prairie Dunes persona non grata ala Chicago Golf Club

Please come and see it for yourself..

[ed_getka]

[quote

To look exclusively at their difficulty, penality, or relentlessness, Prairie Dunes is more like a strict teacher looking over your shoulder making sure you're behaving whereas Olympic Lake is more like a Singaporean Police Officer flogging you with a cane.

Ryan,
    Great analogy.

Tom,
   Name 5 courses that are really high on the fun scale in your opinion. Would any of those courses have the potential for being the one of the best courses in the world?
   I am not trying to change your mind. I have golfed enough with you to know that you would only lose 1-2 balls per 36 holes at PD. What is fun about PD is that every shot counts, not impossible, but you can't just get complacent. If you overreach and don't pull it off you will pay. If you accept that you are out of position and play the percentages you would be hard-pressed to lose a ball. PD is certainly not a course where a high handicapper will enjoy themselves. You have to have a decent amount of ability at the game, and you have to think about what you are doing. If one likes to shoot low scores then PD isn't the course for them. PD is very difficult to birdie and very easy to double bogey for me, and that is the part that most would find makes the course not fun. Personally I like the challenge of PD and it is fun in my book.
    Courses that I would put ahead of PD on the fun scale would be NGLA, North Berwick, Fishers Island, Kingsley Club, Rustic Canyon, etc... If you look at PD in regards to the upper echelon courses in the world that are considered "good tests of golf" I think PD would be one of the more fun courses included. I sure hope you make it out to see it some day as I'm sure you would really enjoy it.

[Jason Blasberg]

It's important to note that for folks who can hit a 230-250 three wood if you play the middle tees at Prairie Dunes you don't need to hit a single driver all day.

You can also play holes like 5, 8, 9 and 11 as three shoters and turn par 70 into par 74 and keep the ball in play.

 

JKB - I believe that's true, but I also believe you just made my point a lot more than Ryan's.  Courses where average to long hitters have to play the middle tees and use three wood all day.. and/or one actively has to turn seeming par 4s into par fives to keep the ball in play do not scream out "tons of fun" as I see it.

Huck, you sure you didn't go to law school . . .  

What I meant was PD is not overly long, in fact if it's firm it'll play short.  Even from the tips you don't need driver if it's firm.  Of course I can hit a 3wood 100 yards left so I'm SOL sometimes.

If you have a decent driving game you will be fine at PD and it's an absolute blast to play but to score well, meaning break 80, you must keep in in play.  

[Tom Huckaby]

JKB:  sadly enough I did go to law school, but happily I bagged out after two months.  In any case, I get what you're saying now: due to firm an fast conditions it plays shorter than it otherwise might, so one can use less club and get by just fine.  Good stuff.

Sean:  just calling it like I see it... hope to get out there some day, but I'm also not holding my breath, given my lack of golf travel and the many other things I need/want to do.  So what the hell, why not piss off every PD member so I make it a REALLY moot point?  It rather removes the temptation that way.

Ed:

You're falling into the trap Ryan did - there's absolutely no doubt I'd enjoy playing Prairie Dunes, but then again I enjoy playing The Ranch in San Jose.    I love the game more than I love its venues.  But perhaps a better example is this:  I absolutely enjoyed getting my ass handed to me by Shinnecock, but I'd never call it "tons of fun" to play.  It really is too relentless, for what I love about the game. So in any case, it does no good to say I'd enjoy this course - of course I would.  I just can't see myself enjoying it MORE than other truly great courses... everything I read and see leads me to believe that play is entirely defensive there - you just do whatever you can to avoid the everpresent gunch.  Sure one CAN avoid it - but everything everyone says is that one can do that "if he plays smart", "if he uses three wood off the tee" etc. etc. etc.  Hell, you can say that about THE RANCH as well - that's meaningless.  Relentless courses where you have to play defensively shot after shot after shot, well... to each his own, it's not what I enjoy MOST about this game.

But I do get what Ryan said, and what you've said here and before - there are many many positives to the course as well.  But with avoiding the gunch being the background thought on every single shot, well... that's just not my cup of tea.  To each his own.

Do you really want me to name five courses I'd enjoy playing more than this one?  There likely aren't that many, as of course this course does deserve its mantle of greatness.  I just tend to prefer MORE those like NGLA, N. Berwick, TOC, Rustic Canyon, many others... where one can play aggressively from time to time, can make a mistake and not have to spend the required 5 minutes searching in high rough, and has a chance for some success.

Once again, to each his own.  But you guys are fooling yourselves if you think you're ever going to convince me this gunch-filled course is a "ton of fun".  I'm too stubborn, and now you've all challenged me.




 

[Sean Leary]

Tom,

I understand exactly what you are saying, and you are right, there are some shots that you are definitely thinking about the gunsch.  However, one could say the same things about out of bounds stakes as well.  A little bit is OK but a lot makes it no fun. Merion for example has a fair amount of OB if you hit a really bad shot, but it is still a blast to play. Pine Valley doesn't have much OB but you can certainly lose balls there in the trees.   A blast to play.

Let me ask you this. Do you think Royal Portrush is fun. The corridors at Portrush are similar to Prairie Dunes for the most part with similar gunsch.  I wish the gunsch was more like Ballyneal or Sand Hills, but it isn't, but it doesn't make it not a blast to play.

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:

Now we're getting somewhere.

See, I really don't like ANY penal aspect to be omnipresent, be it OB, water, gunsch (is that the correct spelling -apologies if so).  BUT... if I had to choose... give me clearly defined OB or water over gunsch any day.  See, what I also don't like (from afar) is that it seems you are going to try and LOOK for the ball if you hit it in there - is that true?  So if you play by the rules, you're hitting tons of provisionals - not my idea of fun either.  That gunsch is just about the thing I dislike most about golf course conditions, to be honest... high rough that teases you you might find your ball, but never really does allow such.  Man I hate that.  It's all over THE RANCH... or used to be anyway.  To their credit they've cut a lot back.

But anyway great example of Portrush Dunluce -oh I enjoyed it, for sure... the views and firm fairways alone allow for that -but I surely enjoyed it just about the least of any of the great courses I played in Ireland.  That's how I see Prairie Dunes - of course it's a great course, but my feeling is I'd enjoy it the least in a list of great midwest courses featuring Ballyneal, Sand Hills, Wild Horse, etc.

Does that make better sense?

[Sean Leary]

TH,

So you want a big flat open field with no bunkers water rough etc.

No wonder you loved the sheep ranch

What about TOC with all the gorse and out of bounds right?

[Tom Huckaby]

Now Sean, let's not jump to silly extremes.

TOC has OB right, and most of the gorse is out of bounds.  The bunkers are penal for sure, but one doesn't lose a ball in them nor does he hae t fruitlessly search.  It's extremely fun in its own very unique way - and you know this -or you should anyway.  

I just don't get how playing defensively on darn near every shot... searching for golf balls on every bad shot... how that can equate to "tons  of fun?"  Fun, yes.  Tons of fun?  I guess if one is in the mood for that kinda golf.  To me that gets old very quickly.

But to each his own.  Meeting a relentless challenge is more what the game is about to plenty of golfers.  Those are the ones who prefer Shinnecock to NGLA.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with this - the game is of course nothing without challenge -but it's just not what drives me MOST about the playing.

TH

[Ryan_Simper]

When did I ever say I played defensively on every shot?  

Even when running a 3 on 1 fast break, you must be careful not to throw the ball to a defender or out of bounds.

[Tom Huckaby]

Ryan:

Where did I say that you said you played defensively on every shot?

One of the great things about a 3 on 1 fast break is that if one has the balls and the skill, he can just take it to the rack and dunk in the defenders face.

I don't see much chance to do the analagous golf thing at Prairie Dunes - to me it seems like NOTHING BUT cautious dishing it off and laying it in a la George Mikan.

And a little of that goes a long way.

At least for me.  I never knew you were so cautious.  The guy I saw bombing a driver over Lake Simper, or cutting across the ocean at Sheep Ranch, surely seemed to be enjoying himself as much as a man can playing this game.

But maybe I assessed that Ryan Simper incorrectly.  
 

[Sean Leary]

Tom,

I guess the every shot comments are where I think you are incorrect.  Most of the course is very wide. Not Stone Eagle wide, but very wide.  A few shots are butt puckerers.  For me, the tee shots on 5, 7,8,9, 12, 13, 16 and 18 the gunsch is in play, and you and I are similar in terms of ability. On all the other holes there is a wide open area for you to miss. For approach shots, 5, 7,8,9, and 18 are the holes where gunsch is in play. My point is that that isn't that many shots that you are worried about it, at least for a decent player. And I find about 75% of the balls hit in the gunsch.  What I don't like about it isn't that I can't find it, its that you usually can't do much with it but punch out.

[Ryan_Simper]

Okay well "darn near every shot" is Huckaby for "every shot except maybe one or two"...which is Simper for "every shot"

Anyhow, there is the chance to do that...with a Driver off the 7th tee (par 5) I hit 7 iron into the green to about 15 feet - I missed the putt, but I'd say hitting a 7 iron to the green of a par 5 is pretty analagous to the emphatic slam dunk you're talking about.

I do believe, though, that the trump card here is that I've played it, you have not, so you'll just have to assume that my opinion is better than yours

Sean, FYI, my playing partners will tell you that I am now an authority on determining that the ball findability ratio on our play (and on your next play) was and will be closer to about 25%.

Trust me, I picked my moments at Prairie Dunes - Driver off 7 many would say is not intelligent.  Our group's fearless leader noted that since he started hitting 3 wood off that tee, he's something like -1 cumulatively.  Still, I hit driver without a second thought.

On the other hand, on the 11th, a 450 yard par 4, I hit 5 iron off the tee.  

Hitting each fairway in each manner brought me equal joy - the first for a feat of skill and the second for a feat of thought.

PD surely requires both mountains be climbed in order to succeed.

[Sean Leary]

On the other hand, on the 11th, a 450 yard par 4, I hit 5 iron off the tee.  

11 or 12?  You are long but not that long there Tiger

[Ryan_Simper]

On the other hand, on the 11th, a 450 yard par 4, I hit 5 iron off the tee.  

11 or 12?  You are long but not that long there Tiger

11 - with the prevailing south wind, that hole plays downwind and from the elevated tee, its easy to not turn the ball over with a wood and avoid the junk.  

As the gunch creeps in from the right-hand side, you run out of room VERY quickly.  Rather than challenge myself unnecessarily, I took the longest iron in my bag (5) and just hit big draw/hooks with it off the tee for the last 3 rounds which kept me in the fairway and each ran out to leave me between 160 and 200 into the green, depending on how much I turned it over.  In all three rounds I hit 5 iron, I hit the green or just barely over it with an 8 iron, 5 iron, and 9 iron, respectively.

Love that hole, though.  

[Sean Leary]

I forget how much the ball jumps in the summer.

By the way, I can't believe the longest iron you have is a 5. Maybe you could have hit your 11 wood and used the trajectory to slow it down.....

What did you hit on 12?

[Ryan_Simper]

What did you hit on 12?

Round 1 - 3 wood into the junk over the left bunkers
Round 2 - 5 wood into the junk over the left bunkers
Round 3 - 5 wood into the grass between the left bunkers

LESSON LEARNED

Round 4 - 4i Hybrid, 9 iron
Round 5 - 5 iron, PW
Round 6 - 5 iron, 9i

[TEPaul]

"gunch
/guhnch/ To push, prod, or poke at a device that has almost (but not quite) produced the desired result. Implies a threat to mung.

I guess it sounds like TEPaul would love to "gunch" the rough until it meets up with the "gunch".."

Kalen:

I'd just take out the first cut of rough at PD (which I think is way too wide) and make it fairway leaving just enough first cut rough to turn mowers on if they even need to do that since they seem to cut up and back. But the really dangerous stuff is out past that.

I'd not been to PD before but they are definitely doing something with SOME of that really high stuff on some of the holes. When we were there a few weeks ago you could see they'd taken something like a brushhog and torn up a lot of that high gunch out there between some holes.  

[Sean Leary]

Ryan,

Thanks for the pictures.

Prairie Dunes is a wonderful golf course, although, with the newly NARROWED fairways I don't think it's as good as it was when it had more generous fairways.

Why do clubs that host big tournaments, that prepare the golf course specifically for highly specialized and superior field, leave the course as it was prepared, for vastly superior golfers, when the vast majority of the club members who will play the golf course for the next decade are average to high handicappers ?

Pat,

Do you feel the same way about Merion?

Absolutely.
And, I've posted my objection numerous times.
If you read my last paragraph, it's a universal criticism, not a select one.[/color]

PD and Merion are similar in this respect with narrowed fairways.  

Are you saying:  If Merion makes a mistake and other courses make the same mistake, that it's not a mistake ?

Or, are you saying that hallowed Merion gets an exemption, and therefore, that exemption inures to the benefit of courses that follow suit ?[/color]

PD's rough is usually kept shorter and less penal than Merion's (of course Merion does not have the gunch)..

I've been in the "thistle" at PD and it's no picnic.
On the other hand, when looking for a ball in the "Thistle" perhaps taking a picnic basket wouldn't be a bad idea.[/color]

Pat,

Do you think that both these courses may have been set up this way due to the fact that until a few years ago, each was 6500 yardsish, and narrowing the fairways was the way to protect against long hitters on such venerable courses?

[Mark Arata]

Tom,

Most of the course is very wide.

A) like me, and B) it's true, and yet still didnt stop me from finding the gunch on almost every hole back in May.......

It is probably over all the best course I have played, but I love Crystal Downs a little more because it doesnt beat me up for my 90+ score nearly as bad as PD did.....

The more I think of it, CD and PD are fairly similar, except for the gunch, which just gets in your brain if you are not playing well, and causes major havoc.....

[Jason Blasberg]

Huck:

You need to get to Prairie Dunes because it's like Garden City Golf Club in the middle of the Sand Hills.

[Tom Huckaby]

JKB:  I need to get to a lot of places.  That's not the issue.

Ryan:  yes, you've been there and I have not, and I am moved a little.  I'm sure the course is fun in a lot of ways.  To be honest, I also do like courses where an occasional 5iron off the tee is a smart play.  But a little of that goes a long way also.... and the pictures of fairway after fairway, green after green surrounded by gunsch just do make me cringe...  the pictures and descriptions on the clubs web site sure don't help either....PD still does just seem to me to be a bit "too much" in a lot of things I personally don't like about this game.  So "tons of fun" is still what I can't get a handle on.  The course still does seem like more work than fun to me.

But thanks for the effort.

Sean:  that helps a lot, but let's just say the pictures don't help either of your cases, and it's just tough for me to get over what my eyes are telling me and accept your words (and Ryan's).  I know I should, but well... I was not named Thomas accidentally.  It's my nature to doubt.

TH

[Jason Blasberg]

JKB:  I need to get to a lot of places.  That's not the issue.

Like bed for one, it's got to be 4 a.m. your time

[Tom Huckaby]

JKB:

Damn right.  But babies have a way of not understanding time.  


 

[John Sabino]

Ryan - great pictures, thanks for posting. Agree with you, that #8 is one of the best holes in the world with the contours in the fairway as it rises up the hill. Joe

[TEPaul]

                                                                                      My Prairie Dunes Review

   In some ways Perry Maxwell may be my favorite architect. And that is sort of odd because I’ve seen only a course or two by him. Most of my experience with Maxwell is his redesigned holes here and there, including my own course, Gulph Mills in Philadelphia. Of his redesigned holes, almost without exception those holes or parts of them, particularly greens, are some of my favorites anywhere. I’ve said I think he may be the best green designer and builder ever, and I pretty much do mean that.

I’d heard about Prairie Dunes for years and I’ve seen it on TV during some USGA national championships. I went there for three days last month and I expected a lot and I wasn’t disappointed.

As is often the case with expectations compared to first seeing courses, the things I expected to be impressed with were not the only things I was impressed with or even impressed with the most. (The same was very true when I saw ANGC for the first time in person this year).

Before sharing my opinions on the architecture and each hole I should preface by saying we played the course three times in three days in some pretty good wind and we played it each day from the back tees which other than one in our group was probably not the ideal strategic tees for our length. Nevertheless, I am well enough aware of good play and the basic game and length of good players today to completely understand the strategic ramifications of the course for them---as well as everyone else.

I should also preface by saying I mentioned on a thread on GOLFCLUBATLAS that I thought Prairie Dunes just may be the most sophisticated application of some of the best architectural “principles” I’ve ever seen anywhere. And in a general sense here’s why, as well as some reasons I was so impressed by things I didn't expect;

1.   Many to perhaps most of the holes (whether Perry or Press) use diagonals, angles and “turns” of all kinds on the main body of holes as well as around greens and their surrounds.

2.   Combined with the green shapes and internal contours of the course these diagonals, angles and “turns” just constantly flow in such an overall natural look in and of themselves and with everything else out there. In a phrase, this kind of thing creates what I might call total architectural elegance in both small and large ways. The bunkering very much becomes part of this “over-all”.

I stress those two points above because not only do they combine to look so good in a natural sense out there, but they are also the “principles” of architecture that make golf and great courses play so strategically, so multi-optionally in the context of any golfer’s game. With only a few exceptions, the par 3 2nd and 10th, one feels he can create his own roadmap in play with both conservatism combined with a little creative “makeup” next. And in a real way, I think that’s what good golf architecture is all about.

Hole #1:
   The opening hole is a great example of all of what I just said above about Prairie Dunes. The direction and flow of the hole turns right to left around and behind a low hill on the left. The fairway seems to be set on a diagonal rather than as an arc to accommodate this “turn” and the golfer cannot see where the green is---he must sense it. Always for a first time golfer this creates mystery and makes him wonder all the more what he’s supposed to do, what he should do on the drive, particularly directionally. After the drive it’s not hard to tell the strategic choices on the tee shot are excellent combinations of distance and direction always off the diagonal line of the fairway particularly along the left which is bordered by ball eating gunch. If your drive is not long enough you pay for it with a blind to semi blind approach to the green that accommodates this kind of blindness with a lot of fairway or chipping area around the green (again most of which can’t be seen from some of the approach area. If one is long and gets too aggressive with a drive (or even a recovery second shot) without the proper direction you can get too far to the right of the diagonal fairway to be left with having to deal with a little bosky of trees on the right about 75 yards from the green.
   Hole #1 is basically what we call a natural landform hole---eg only the green itself is very slightly propped up off pre-course natural grade although its sides flow out naturally and well. The green internal slopes and rolls are classic Maxwell although by no means as intense as some of what comes later on the course. One does need to be mindful of the green, though, so as not to get above or to the side of some pins to be left with something too quick or breaking. This hole in its over-all is a great example of what I mean by simple yet sophisticated elegance in both architectural look and in strategic play.

Holes to follow

[Tom Huckaby]

TEP - please tell me you are saving this in a document somewhere... if that's only 1/18th of your prose about this course, you better increase the memory on your computer also.

 

Great stuff.  Sounds like the architecture is wonderful.  But one request... which you certainly may deny, no hard feelings... can you make an attempt to give a bottom line on how the holes PLAY, in terms of difficult/painful/fun?  That may not be your thing, and if so, understood.  But your take would be very valuable to me, and perhaps help me get more toward believing my friends about how fun this course is to play (if indeed it is).

TH