News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike_Cirba

Re:Into the mouth of the beast
« Reply #50 on: October 05, 2007, 07:44:22 PM »
Mike Cirba,

Can you be intellectually objective, absent any predisposition toward the architecture and the play of the golf course ?

Patrick,

Yes, and I just had a call from Kyle Harris who told me that I would like it, so that's encouraging.

If anything, sometimes the reverse is true as high expectations for a course can be a tough order to fill.  If there is architectural merit, fun shots, and challenge at Falcon's Fire, I'll find it.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Into the mouth of the beast
« Reply #51 on: October 07, 2007, 11:05:50 AM »
For those praying for my survival, I'm happy to report that yes, I survived folks.   ;D

A full report will be forthcoming in the next couple of days.

Stay tuned.  

TEPaul

Re:Into the mouth of the beast
« Reply #52 on: October 07, 2007, 02:18:19 PM »
MikeC:

My eyes ain't so good any more and that photo you posted is pretty small. Is that thing a golf hole or some kind of kitchen cheese-grater/slicer gadget?
« Last Edit: October 07, 2007, 02:19:18 PM by TEPaul »

Dan Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Into the mouth of the beast
« Reply #53 on: October 07, 2007, 02:56:24 PM »
Looking forward to the report having survived there many years ago.  About all I can remember is standing on one of the tees and thinking "Now where exactly should I be trying to put it on this hole" and having absolutely no idea even after finishing the hole.  I was very happy to find Southern Dunes a little farther down the road.  
"Is there any other game which produces in the human mind such enviable insanity."  Bernard Darwin

Mike_Cirba

Re:Into the mouth of the beast
« Reply #54 on: October 12, 2007, 03:13:28 PM »
The name "Falcon's Fire" conjures up a somewhat threatening mental connotation, but the day I played there it was so wet and bright green the name couldn't have been more incongruous with the playing conditions or the presented challenge.  From talking to a number of regulars, I understand that the lush presentation is standard operating procedure, unfortunately.  

Let’s start with the aesthetics and get that out of the way.  

There are 120+ bunkers at Falcon’s Fire, 74 on the front nine alone, most of the roundish, “pot-within-a-mound type variety.  What’s more, at the edge of every single fairway, both sides are single file rows of mounds…one after another after another.  

While I can say truthfully that the bunkers do not look nearly as egregiously offensive from the ground as they do from oft-photographed aerial views, which would be almost impossible, they are at best a visual distraction and at worst a cubist eyesore.

That’s sad, because once you get past the aesthetic distractions and histrionic stylistics, Falcon’s Fire is a pretty good golf course, and certainly one that is much more mercifully playable than the vast majority of the “7400 yards, 140+ slope from the tips” resort “championship” courses that have been built in recent years.

In fact, one of the ironies of Falcon’s Fire is that it might just be “too” playable for the modern golfing mindset.  At only 6900 yards from the tips, the course features ample fairway widths, NOT ONE forced carry (a minor miracle in the swampland of Florida), reasonably playable rough, greens that are more clever than diabolical, and holes that present the golfer with a fair number of strategic choices, one of the knocks that I’ve heard from others is that Falcon’s Fire is too “easy”.  

It’s interesting to consider the following dynamic and what this says about the average golfing perception; when FF opened in 1993, and for the first decade of operation, the course rating and slope from the 6901 yard tips were 72.5 and 125.  Now, in 2007, without adding a single yard of length, a single bunker or hazard, without growing the rough any longer, or planting a single tree, the course rating and slope is now miraculously 73.8 and 138!!      

This means that somehow, suddenly, Falcon’s Fire is not 10% harder for higher handicap players than it was when it opened, or even 50%.  No, it’s 100% harder.  This, of course, is preposterous, and obviously part of a modern effort to somehow equate difficulty with greatness.

The front nine at FF starts out slow, and frankly a bit dull.  While the short par four second hole offers some strategic decision-making, it’s really not til the 5th when one encounters a hole with some unique character.  At 453 yards and the number one handicap hole, it even features a largely blind tee-shot that needs to challenge bunkers on the left side for an optimum approach (that could be played running if they’d ever turn the sprinklers off, which I understand is never the case).  That’s followed by the clever little 6th hole, which only suffers from the unfortunate fact that the cart path was routed 30 yards in front of the green.  Eight is a very long, strong par three, followed by another cutesy, the mid-lenth 9th, where once again challenging bunkers from the tee provides the optimum approach angle.

The back nine starts less promising.  Holes 10 and 11 are two dead-dull holes, and it isn’t til the 12th green is reached that one notes the course coming back to life.    The oft-photographed 13th, with the 15 bunker “Bunker Hill” feature, is actually a pretty damn good left-to-right cape hole of 394 yards, often played across a prevailing wind coming from the right.  It’s a hole that narrows the noose the more aggressively one attempts to play from the tee.  Even better is the following par five 14th with a green tucked just so in a corner on a hill behind a swampy depression.  That’s followed by a terrific little par three of 163 yards with a pucker-inducing green.  The front-pin on this hole is simply wonderful.  

The next two are reasonably decent holes, if much less inspired, but then finishes with a boring “Trent Jonesian “hard par-easy bogey”, long slog of a par four.  

All in all, Falcon’s Fire is not nearly as bad as the awful artistic sensibility of the shaping and might lead one to believe, and frankly, it’s wonderfully playable by every level of golfer.  For a modern course, the routing is almost intimate, with no long green to tee treks, and flows rather naturally. It also has stretches of rousing golf, interspersed with quite mundane fare.  At its best, it’s even good fun.  I just found myself wishing that more of those 120 or so bunkers were more creatively interspersed into the playing areas and not simply set well to the side to present visual window-dressing.

Michael Dugger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Into the mouth of the beast and back again - w/Review
« Reply #55 on: October 12, 2007, 03:33:30 PM »
Nice politically correct review, Mike. ;)

No new insight, however, I suspect you could have written this before playing, switch some of the hole numbers around, and it would have been equally accurate.

What does it matter if the poor player can putt all the way from tee to green, provided that he has to zigzag so frequently that he takes six or seven putts to reach it?     --Alistair Mackenzie--

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Into the mouth of the beast and back again - w/Review
« Reply #56 on: October 12, 2007, 04:11:20 PM »
Mike, Wonderful to read your wit.
Did both nines play like the Insertion? Did you feel anything other than the single pucker?
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Into the mouth of the beast
« Reply #57 on: October 12, 2007, 04:47:18 PM »
It’s interesting to consider the following dynamic and what this says about the average golfing perception; when FF opened in 1993, and for the first decade of operation, the course rating and slope from the 6901 yard tips were 72.5 and 125.  Now, in 2007, without adding a single yard of length, a single bunker or hazard, without growing the rough any longer, or planting a single tree, the course rating and slope is now miraculously 73.8 and 138!!      

This means that somehow, suddenly, Falcon’s Fire is not 10% harder for higher handicap players than it was when it opened, or even 50%.  No, it’s 100% harder.  This, of course, is preposterous, and obviously part of a modern effort to somehow equate difficulty with greatness.

How do you think they accomplished this? I was under the impression course raters (and not the ranking kind) were independent.

Huck?

Kinda interesting that you didn't mention fun until the second to last sentence.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Tom Huckaby

Re:Into the mouth of the beast and back again - w/Review
« Reply #58 on: October 12, 2007, 04:51:43 PM »
George:

I had the same questions you did.  If nothing changed then the course rating cannot change.  I guess if a course wanted it bad enough they could post falsified course ratings... I just can't see how they'd then get a computer to post scores....

So my thought was Mike just exaggerates in the "nothing" changed comment.  SOMETHING had to change, and significantly so, to get a course rating and slope change like that.

TH

Jim Nugent

Re:Into the mouth of the beast
« Reply #59 on: October 12, 2007, 05:18:25 PM »
when FF opened in 1993, and for the first decade of operation, the course rating and slope from the 6901 yard tips were 72.5 and 125.  Now, in 2007, without adding a single yard of length, a single bunker or hazard, without growing the rough any longer, or planting a single tree, the course rating and slope is now miraculously 73.8 and 138!!      

This means that somehow, suddenly, Falcon’s Fire is not 10% harder for higher handicap players than it was when it opened, or even 50%.  No, it’s 100% harder.  

Mike, I don't think it's quite accurate to say the course is now 100% harder for higher handicappers.  If I did the numbers right, for the 1st ten years the slope and CR indicated bogey shoots around 95.7.  The new slope and CR suggest bogey shoots around 99.4.  About 3.7 strokes higher.

The 5.381 multiplier is what throws the numbers off.  

What does 100% harder mean in golf?  You shoot twice as high, i.e. 160 instead of 80?  Twice as high against par, e.g. 90 instead of 80 on a par 70?  


Mike_Cirba

Re:Into the mouth of the beast and back again - w/Review
« Reply #60 on: October 12, 2007, 07:57:04 PM »
Mike Dugger,

The only insight I think my review may have offered was simply the fact that FF is a much better course than it looks given the admittedly awful mounding and bunker rows.   There was even contouring in the fairways, praise be to Allah!   ;) ;D

Seriously, it wasn't bad at all and I think sometimes we tend to think:

look we like = good course
look we don't like = bad course

If I shaved away the 1000 mounds with a dozer and removed about 100 bunkers it would be hailed as a minimalist masterpiece!  ;D

As it stands today, it's a Doak Scale 4 or 5, but with a handful of holes that are among the best of Rees's work I've seen, and nothing at all offensive beyond the visual redundancy.

Adam,

No, the insertion thankfully was one-sided only, and that was the front nine.   I was able to withstand the pain long enough to take on the much more sensual back nine.  ;)

George/Huck,

NOTHING about the course has changed since its inception.

Perhaps they call it fair and square in NCal, but in resort-heavy-money-talks-MickeyMouse-walks Orlando, I'm sure that a bit of cash could get them whatever rating they desire for marketing purposes.

I have a scorecard from the late 90s and the layout, holes, bunkering, yardages, and everything else is exact and the slope was 125.   Now, suddenly, it's 138.   Go figure!  ;D

Jim Nugent,

I based my 100% on the somewhat specious math equation that says simply;

Average difficulty golf course is supposedly a 113 slope rating.

The year 2000 slope rating of 125 was 12 points higher than that.

The year 2007 slope rating of 138 is 13 points higher than that.

In essence, they are telling us that it's twice as hard as they did previously.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2007, 10:58:23 PM by MikeCirba »

John Foley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Into the mouth of the beast and back again - w/Review
« Reply #61 on: October 13, 2007, 05:11:09 PM »
Mike,

Thanks for the honest take. FF was never as bad as those who have never plaid it make it seem. There are many many options in Orlando and many I would chose before FF, but as you've said their is some good golf on the ground there.

Now all we need you to do is stop in Florence OR on the way back from Bandon :)
Integrity in the moment of choice

Marty Bonnar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Into the mouth of the beast and back again - w/Review
« Reply #62 on: October 13, 2007, 05:35:52 PM »
Mike,
I'd guess Falcon's Fire is one of the few courses both you and I have endjoyred (combo of enjoyed/endured).

I think we played it ten or so years ago. I, honestly, can only remember one hole. Looking at my strokesaver (or, should I say, 'The Players Book') - no pretensions at FF, oh no - it looks like it might have been the sixth. It seems odd to me that this is such a vague memory as normally I am very good at remembering holes, their order, shape, features and so on for many years after playing them.

As a landscape design professional, I am slightly worried that I have so little recollection of FF - good, bad or indifferent. The worst part is that my strongest memory is that of maybe my first experience with GPS-enabled carts, which I think I remember thinking were pretty cool. One can change one's mind over time, you know... ;D The shock of the new is always the strongest.

I do have a souvenir pint glass with a nicely engraved FF logo which lives near my CPC memorabilia, if that's any help?

FBD.
The White River runs dark through the heart of the Town,
Washed the people coal-black from the hole in the ground.