[Tom_Doak]

RJ:  No, I haven't seen Bulls Bay, and I always forget about it because it never got the same kind of press as Mike's other courses.  One of these years, I'll get there.

Kenneth:  Mostly, I don't give number ratings because I don't like having to defend them afterwards.  But I'm also out of the habit, and it was much easier to get a new course into the right number when I was more familiar with the numbers I had assigned to hundreds of other courses ... I could quickly think of which courses were 6's and 8's and see where the new one fit in between.  Today, I don't think about it so much, even if I have been keeping track of the courses I've seen since 1996 just for fun.

[John Moore II]

Fair reasoning Tom. Thats the only problem with saying a course is average/good/great is that someone will always disagree and you feel the need to prove your point.
--I would say Bulls Bay gets less press since its private, and not of the same stature that MPCC is.

[Cliff Hamm]

The kids played the third set of tee markers most of the way around, I think that was the cultivators.

 

Tom to be picky the back tees are the ripper, the disc is 6304, the plow is 5886 and the cultivator is 5094.... As I stated before neither of us are accomplished golfers despite our love for the game.  I play to a 16 and hit a drive 220 or so .  Played the disc and cultivator and shot in the low 90s from both.  My wife is a 29 who drives the ball 150 or a tad more.  Just checked her scores and she had a 102 both days from the cultivators.

I can never disagree with other folks experiences as that is theirs and who am I to say that can't be so.  I will say tho that I loved it and neither my wife or I found the carries to be so daunting as to ruin the day.  It remains one of my all time favorites.  Yes, golf on steroids, but great fun.

[Tom_Doak]

Cliff:

Sorry, I had my farm implements wrong.  But did you really play from the 5000 yard tees, or did you get it wrong too?

If you hit it 220, you should be in the group which can have great fun with the course, as I said above.  I was just thinking Jay's dad will hit it 160, like the kids, so he'll have most of the same problems from the 5800 yard markers, and he won't want to go up and play it at 5000 to avoid having a few lay-up shots.

[Brent Hutto]

I played the Plow tees the first time and I believe it was the Plow again the second. I am the stereotype of Tom's 200-yard driver of the ball who (when I'm playing decently) can tack around a course like Tobacco Road pretty well. I played to my handicap or better both times around (helped by my only career eagle, an ace at the sixth hole, the first time I played there). I think a 150-160 yard hitting senior or lady will almost have to play the Cultivator although if they don't mind being creative they could probably enjoy playing the Plow but moving up to the front tees on half a dozen holes.

The first time I played my carry distance with the driver was actually under 200 yards unless I really caught one flush. No way I could have even broken 100 from any further back than the Plow tees. The second time around I was hitting it a good 200 yards in the air and felt like I was probably up further than needs be although on a couple of holes those 6,300 yard tees would have had some do-or-die tee shots. I love the course but expect I'm just ridiculously dead center of the design's intended player. It is hard to imagine a course with more of the shots that are intimidating and visually thrilling yet totally managable for me even if I'm not hitting the ball 100% as well as I'm able on every hole. Plus did I mention I had an ace there 

[Tom_Doak]

I forgot to mention that I think the par-5's there represent one of the best sets of par-5 holes I've ever played (with some allowance given to hole #1).  For the most part, I thought the par-4's were also very cool with their alternate routes. 

By comparison, the five par-3 holes were the weak link in the chain.  The very long and skinny/shallow greens were somewhat repetitive (dependent upon setup), three of them were sharply downhill, and there wasn't a really long one in the bunch, which you really should have if you're going to include five of them.

[Cliff Hamm]

Cliff:

Sorry, I had my farm implements wrong.  But did you really play from the 5000 yard tees, or did you get it wrong too?

If you hit it 220, you should be in the group which can have great fun with the course, as I said above.  I was just thinking Jay's dad will hit it 160, like the kids, so he'll have most of the same problems from the 5800 yard markers, and he won't want to go up and play it at 5000 to avoid having a few lay-up shots.

I played the disc (6300) the first day and later that week played the plow (5900).  Both days shot 92 with my typical or perhaps a bit worse than typical mediocre golf.  Despite shooting the same score did enjoy it more from the plow as the shots in were easier.  Than again maybe the cultivator would have even been better  ...my wife played the cultivator at 5100 and as stated shot 102, which is relatively good for her and do not recall driving being overly difficult.,,,

As to Jay's dad this is no way meant to be judgmental but rather a general comment, that it's really too bad that we all, emphasis on all, can't play golf from the tees that are most enjoyable.  It has been mentioned here about rotating within a round what tees to play on a given hole and I think many of us would be surprised what we enjoyed the most.  If we could do it blind like wine tasting we might find that the most expensive (longest) isn't always what we like best but i suspect when I reach Jay's fathers age I will be no different.

I wholeheartedly agree with your comments re:par 3 and par 5's.  The par 3's are clearly disappointing.  The par 5's are spectacular.  The first is more intimidation than anything and on the first day after flying and driving was able to clear the 'mountain' with first swing no warm up.  The 13th is one of my favorite par 5's ever and also loved 11.  For whatever reason 4 was the least memorable as I needed to go on the TR site to recall the other par 5.

[David Schofield]

...(the) par-3 holes were the weak link in the chain.  The very long and skinny/shallow greens were somewhat repetitive (dependent upon setup)

Tom, I thought 6 and 17 (to a lesser extent) were an interesting twist on the "Par 3".  Instead of simply having a landing strip of tees ranging from 200 to 120 yds along the same axis into the green, those two were set up more as a "shooting gallery".  It would seem to me that this sort of prototype would be perfect for a private course where members play one course for 80% of their rounds and subsequently might have a higher chance of getting bored with any given hole.  Your thoughts?

Also, after reading your posts on this thread, I have a slightly off topic question:  Did the kids realize who they were playing with?

[RJ_Daley]

Am I miss-remembering.  #3 is a deep on angle not all that 'narrow', level par 3.    #6 is the unique multi tee dual green, that are narrow and more level than slightly upgrade.   #8 is down hill enormous 3tierd rollercoaster.  # 14 is a downhill on angle big green, not unduly narrow.  And of course #17 is all level carry to narrow not deep dual portion punchbowl-like figure 8 green.  As for the par 5s, I thought they are also quite unique.  Perhaps the wide sweeping button hooks mirror eachother between #4 and #11.  13 is a real odd trip of something I really don't know what to call it, punchbowl on steroids.  Interesting that the par 5s come at the first part of both 9 loops.   I sure wouldn't call them the week link in TR.  You don't see stuff like that everyday which makes them compelling.  And, they are for the most part, fair.  Some have an understandable quibble with the quirkiness of 13 into the blind punchbowl, save for the big gap opening into the green area.  But, where else do you see this sort of thing? 

[David Schofield]

#3 is a long narrow green, #14 is a long narrow green with a pond on the right.

[John Moore II]

Tom--14 is long hole if they were to still maintain the far back tee box, which is somewhere up on that hill opposite the cart path and the 13th green. I think it can stretch to 200 from there. I would like to see them dynamite 17 and put a 225-250 par 3 in the dead space between 12 green and 13 tee, I think its doable, and I heard from some employees the last time I played there that something like that was in consideration. I would have to agree though that the par 3's might be the weakest part of the course, if it has a really weak part, though I am not sure I would consider 16 a strong suit.
--They also don't have a long par 5.

Also, after reading your posts on this thread, I have a slightly off topic question:  Did the kids realize who they were playing with?

I was wondering that same thing.

[Tom_Doak]

Did the kids realize who they were playing with?  Just some guy named Tom.  If I'd told them I was a golf course architect, they probably wouldn't have believed that a guy who plays like me is even in that line of work ... even though I did score better than they did.

RJ & David:  I think the sixth hole with its 90-degree-opposite lines of play is an intriguing design for a tight corner ... Mike Strantz used it often, and I do like the variety it provides.  #17 seemed like a weak copy of that hole as played from the "wide but shallow" angle, and some of the potential hole locations (never used) were just silly.  We happened to play a set-up where holes 6, 8 and 17 had hole locations right in front -- #3 and #14 were in back -- which is unfortunate but which they do every third day.  There are a lot of potential set-ups they never use in their day-to-day operation.

[John Moore II]

Tom--you have said you like the par 4's in general and the way they offer different lines of play. What are your overall thoughts about 16, the hole that offers the least number of options of any on the course? To go with that, (and I know you said you don't rank courses anymore) where might you put Tobacco Road among the other courses in the Pinehurst area? Of the courses I have played, I would place it at best in the top 8 or 10 in the area.

[Tom_Doak]

Kenneth:

I think I gave my thoughts on #16 earlier in the thread.  Don't like it much at all.

As for rating the course compared to others around Pinehurst, I think I would just say that many of the others behind Pinehurst #2 are relatively interchangeable, and Tobacco Road is not, so I would tend to want to stop through and play it whenever I was finished in Pinehurst, whether I played 3 courses or 10.

I have not played or seen Forest Creek, or for that matter Mid Pines; I've seen most of the other suspects.

[Richard Hetzel]

Tom,

I agree that TR is "not interchangeable" and rather than playing it before any other Pinehurst area courses, I would play it LAST.

[Sean_A]

I am surprised that Tom D thinks the par 3s are similar.  Its true they tend to be narrow targets (most of teh greens on the course are narrow - its a main feature), but all have something different about them and #6 is all world because of the tee set up - an idea that should be copied far more often.  I would agree that 17 isn't terribly good, but mostly because of where it falls. 

I am also surprised that good 12 year olds struggled around the course.  I think if they played the correct tees (on any given hole) there shouldn't be too many problems.  I agree that some of the holes are awkward  for approaching with a long club, but so far as I can remember, all of these offer a layup option for a pitch n putt par. 

Other than 13th hole which I don't like and its a shame because the green site is marvelous, the one aspect I didn't care for were the greens that had spots which one couldn't access with a putter.  I can forgive one of these, but more than this is just silly. 

Finally, Tom is also right that the course is too wet.  Not that I think they should make it vert fast because it could be darn near impossible to play if TR was properly f&f. 

So far as your rents Jay, I would guess a 50-50 split like most folks. 

Ciao

[John Moore II]

Sean--please explain what you mean about parts of the putting green being accessible with a putter? I am not sure I agree with your assessment that 17 is not that great mostly because of where its placed, I think that hole is frankly the weakest hole on the course. Its hard for me to be sold on a 2 1/2 par hole, and I think thats what that hole becomes, for me anyway.

--To all, but Tom specifically, based on your comments about #15--For the kids, certainly this is not an option, but what do you think of the Right side fairway on that hole? Do you think thats an option, a high cut around the trees into that fairway. That opens up the green, both in view and as a much deeper target. Thoughts?

[Jay Flemma]

Mom and Dad will play there in October.  My even at 84, dad still plays the regulation tees and hits the ball more than 170.  I dont think he'll have any problems with yardages except on 9 and the drive on 18, which - along with both shots on 9 - is prety much the most demanding shot on the course.

Nine is the only hole that might be too much.  I like what Forrest Fezler said, "Mike had it a lot harder, but I said 'Mike, how's my 86-year old mom going to play this hole.

Tom, I'll have to disagree with you on 15 and 16.  They are short holes.  You only need a fairway metal-off the tee, then a short iron.  If 16 has a flaw, it's that it's too dictatorial, not that it's too demanding - "hit it here, then hit it here..."

I've never seen a spotter on 2 or 5, but the first time I played there, I could've used on on 2, as I had no idea where to hit...but it also didn't bother me.  I have no problem with blind shots - and neither do my parents!  We all played 2 courses with plenty of blind shots while I was growing up...I tihnk that's why7 they are so tolerant of seeing different things on a golf course.

That being said - they'll get plenty of that at Tobacco Road.

Tom, I'm going to see if I can get them too Beechtree before it closes.  No promises, but I'll see if they can add it to the itinerary on the way down or back from Pinehurst.

[Cliff Hamm]

Jay..it is wonderful that your dad can enjoy golf at the young age of 84.  If I am able to do the same I will consider myself a very lucky man.  Hoping your mom and dad have a blast.

[Sean_A]

Sean--please explain what you mean about parts of the putting green being accessible with a putter? I am not sure I agree with your assessment that 17 is not that great mostly because of where its placed, I think that hole is frankly the weakest hole on the course. Its hard for me to be sold on a 2 1/2 par hole, and I think thats what that hole becomes, for me anyway.

--To all, but Tom specifically, based on your comments about #15--For the kids, certainly this is not an option, but what do you think of the Right side fairway on that hole? Do you think thats an option, a high cut around the trees into that fairway. That opens up the green, both in view and as a much deeper target. Thoughts?

JKM

On #s 8 & 11 I was on the greens, but couldn't putt at the hole.  It can certainly happen on #15 and perhaps on #17 - though I didn't take the time to actually check that one out.  IMO this is a bit overboard with the concept unless they really don't mind folks getting the wedge out and hacking up the greens.  In one case, it would have been far better to let the player have a direct line at the hole because it means he must putt close to the right edge and risk putting down into the huge waste area - a cool idea imo. 

I am not in love with the 17th either, but I don't think its any worse than 13.  My bigger beef is walking past the 18th tee to hit down to this green only to walk back up to the 18th tee.  The hole isn't nearly good enough to justify this routing nightmare.  In fact, if there isn't anything of meaning on the 17th I would skip it next time. 

Regards 15, I think there are plenty of folks who can hit it between 15 green and 16 tee somewhere to open up the entire green,  but it takes extreme confidence.  I am not sure what I think of this hole.  Its a bit extreme even with a wedge in hand, but I sort of like it anyway.  Its one of those holes where being able to kick the ball in would be helpful if one manages a straight in line to the pin. 

Ciao

[John Moore II]

Sean--I see what you mean about the greens and not being able to putt at the hole while on the green. I think thats possible on 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. So thats half the holes were the greens are designed in such a way that you can be on the green but on the wrong level and have no chance of going directly at the cup. I see nothing wrong with the greens being like that, due to the short length of the course, its one of the main defense features (though it penalizes 'bad' golfers worse than 'good' golfers, so thats not so great. hmm...)

-I agree with everything you say about 17. Its a routing nightmare. Reminds me of 7 at Thanksgiving Point (First time I tought about them that way, actually), only 7 at TP is an incredibly better hole. Like I said, I think that hole needs to be blown up and a long par 3 put in the area between 12 and 13.

-And I think that 13 would be a better hole (for good players) with a tee box located back near the pond that can be seen in the aerial, assuming that land is owned by the club. Otherwise, for the better player with cajones of steel just takes his drive over the trees and into the fairway about 125-150 from the green.

[Craig Disher]

Replacing 17 with a longish uphill par 3 between the 12th green and 13th tee would be an all-around improvement. The routing would be better and there would be more variety in the par 3s. I'm with Sean on this - especially if I'm walking: unless there's something on the line I'd just as soon go from the 16th green to the 18th tee.

[John Moore II]

I again agree with the thoughts about 17. I am even considering playing Tobacco Road tomorrow.
-SHould I play Tobacco Road (I've played TR 5 times, and have somewhat open access to it) or should I drive to Charlotte and play Charlotte Golf Links (never played there, or any other Doak course)? Just asking.

[Sean_A]

I am torn on the 13th because I love the green site.  My instinct would be to turn this into a par 4, but then it wouldn't flow with a new #13 (if it was ever built and it SHOULD be) between the current 12th and 13th holes as Craig suggests.  I can see a green leading right down to the tees with only short grass between them sort of like there is short grass between the 15th green and 16th tee which looks very cool.  The cool thing about building a new hole is that the course wouldn't need to be shut down in any way.  There is that much space between the 12th and 13th.

I think there is also one other thing about the Road's par 3s which doesn't get a lot of mention.  They all can play dramatically different distances and/or angles.  I can't think of a set of 3s which comes even close to TR's in this respect. 

JKM

Like I say, I don't really like the overuse of not being able to putt at a hole so many times in a game.  I recall it happened to me twice in one round - a bit dopey I thought.  The really strange thing was I assumed that #8 could be putted at from the bottom right to the top right until I was in that position.  The green gives the appearance from the tee that it does and I don't know why Strantz didn't incorporate this into the green.  Its one of the funnest shots in golf judging a huge swing/huge length on the green correctly.  I think he really missed the boat here and for other reasons on #11.  Instead, these putts are dictated and the player knows they can't be holed or even get the satisfaction of a gimme. 

Still, even if all the changes I suggest were made, I am not sure the course would really be any better.  The Road is a one off and has to be accepted for what it is.  I know its the one course I want to see when I am in the area. 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Thirteen was the one hole I liked more than I thought I would from my previous walk-around.  It is not really that long, but because of the trouble around the green it plays like a real three-shot hole, and the second shot is very difficult with multiple landing areas, although it's too bad you can't see them better from the first landing area.

Although I would never try to go for this green in two, I would try to get up there somewhere close next time, instead of laying back to 100-120 yards and taking my chances.

And, I agree completely with Sean about the greens.  It's one thing to have an oddly-shaped green where you can't get a straight putt at the hole ... in such cases it's great fun to try and putt around the curve, a la #7 at Ballyneal.  But on many of the greens at Tobacco Road the slope of the green is AWAY from the intervening curve so even a great putt would wind up twenty feet from the hole, and a player with an L wedge would be sorely tempted to take a divot out of the green.  One of the guys behind us was completely stymied on #15 after playing what he thought was a safe shot to the right half with the flag left.

In general, the greens design was the main thing I didn't like about Tobacco Road.  The scale of the whole course was so big that it seemed like there wasn't any room for the kind of smaller contours that make for cool chipping and putting.  It's the same but even more so at Royal New Kent ... you're either in a 10-foot-deep bunker, putting up a five-foot tier, or putting on the same plane.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()