[Jeff_Stettner]

I had the good fortune of playing Tetherow in early August just after the course opened. I found the staff, from the golf pro to our outstanding caddy, to be an absolute delight and I was grateful at the opportunity to play the golf course. I intended on posting my thoughts soon after the round along with the pictures that are included below, but I was summarily beaten to the punch and the unbridled enthusiasm for the layout contradicted my feelings and I was not terribly interested in being a lone, dissenting voice. However, Matt Ward’s recent post that highlighted hole number 16 lit enough of a fire in me to offer the following thoughts. Just as there was a spirited debate on the merits of number 16, I believe that a spirited debate exists on the entire golf course. I won't go into specific golf hole descriptions... however, I consistently felt that there were too many elements on virtually every hole and I am posting photos for reference.

The drive into Tetherow moves up a hill until one finally reached the clubhouse, firmly perched above a sea of tees, greens and bunkers and a whole lot of strange, little mounds covered with fescue eyebrows. I think I can see some golf holes but there is so much to look at that I am unsure whether it is a golf course, driving range or some combination. Eventually I realize that there are both golf holes and a driving range in front of me. I am surprised that nothing seems to fit the land.

The routing at Thetherow reminds me of golf courses built in the early 1990’s, with holes clearly placed where houses afford the best views. As I walk the golf course I am immediately relieved that a playing companion is in a cart. I will find myself happily jumping on the back of the machine to ease some of the long walks between the holes.

Conditions -- Excellent. Firm and fast. Comendable.

Holes of Note

1 – Par 4 400 Yards



2 – Par 5 546 Yards



3 – Par 3 197 Yards


4 – Par 4 481 Yards




5 – Par 4 429 Yards



6 – Par 4 424 Yards




7 – Par 2 226 Yards


8 – Par 4 395 Yards



9 – Par 5 532 Yards   





10 – Par 4 316 Yards   



11 – Par 4 446 Yards



12 – Par 4 425 Yards



13 – Par 5 588 Yards


14 Par 3 190 Yards


15 Par 4 437 Yards



16 Par 4 476 Yards



17 Par 3 182 Yards


18 – Par 5 588 Yards


Tetherow has great greens. It plays firm and fast. There are lots of dramatic shots. It is all too much. Sometimes a sum is greater than the parts, and I wish that every hole could have been throttled back – often not just a little, but a lot.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

You constantly harp on the fact that Tetherow is too much and needs to be throttled back. A rebuttal if you please.

Geeze, I found the detailing and the addition of the fescue eyebrows, to name just one element, to be a worthy addition to the need for quality shotmaking -- the considered skill to shape shots -- to attain preferred landing areas -- both off the tee and then through the green itself. Kidd didn't give away simplicity which can often mean an emptiness in which anything remotely calling itself a golf shot can attain a significant reward.

Those who often swoon over minimalism need to be remidned politely that sometimes less is often less -- way less.

Tetherow provides the perfect antidote to the mindless ramping up of empty distance courses with little details that cultivate a return to a marriage where accuracy and placement are part and parcel of the allure of golf and not just another slog type course where only brute strength alone is rewarded.

The glory days of yesteryear when Hogan shaped shots to specific targets has been replaced by those who only muscle shots -- sad to say -- a whole plethora of courses has since come from that style of play.

Instead of saying that Tetherow should be throttled "a lot" -- the reality is that Tetherow is a refreshing example of what carefully calculated detailing can do in returning golf more to a placement game than simply getting mindless holes and situations where shot differentiation is not part the primary objective in playing the game.

Jeff, I can appreciate your take -- but suffice to say -- I see Tetherow as a course that many will not get or ever get for that matter -- these same people -- possibly you are one of them -- has forgotten the elements that serve to distinguish between mediocre shotmaking and the kind where real skill is indeed rewarded accordingly.

Let the debate continue ...

[Ryan Farrow]

Matt,

One of the Christian Brothers at my former Highschool always spoke of moderation.... he used to say anything in moderation... except drugs. What I would like to know, and all I have seen if this place is pictures, but is there anything in moderation at Tetherow? From the looks of it, I have seen photo after photo of wild greens, these little fescue laden hillocks, and lots of gnarly bunkers. All of which are things I like and look great but how often are these features present? Is this place getting a bad rap from people only taking pictures of the "interesting" or "busy" holes. Or are the pictures a good representation of a hole by hole account?

And would you put Tetherow and RCCC in the same league? For some reason this course really has me on the fence, I feel like I could love it or absolutely hate it.  A feeling that very few courses could provoke.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

Mr. Hogan thought OAKLAND HILLS was way overdone.  I shudder to think what he might have said about a few of Jeff's photos.  Not that Hogan is the last word, but you did use his name when defending a relentless shotmaking test ... don't forget Hogan's favorite course was Seminole. 

[Jason Topp]

Is this a Kidd course?  The photos are reminicent of those I have seen of the Castle.

[Sean_A]

The course looks a bit busy for my tastes, but I am intrigued.  All those funky grass mound deals remind me a load of the new Castle Course at St Andrews.  Thanks for posting Jeff.

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

I nominate the guy raking the bunker on 17 as "Greenkeeper of the Year."

[Jeff_Stettner]

Matt,
I don't think I have constantly harped on Tetherow -- I have only one other post that I have mentioned about the course ever and I refer to the thread in my intro. In fact, I am quite reticent to harp on the course becaude I appreciate the obvious effort that went into its design and construction and I was thrilled that others liked the course more than I. I was almost ready to concede that I must have been wrong until I decided to revisit my photos and take another look at the yardage book.

As for shotmaking? I will try and draw a paralell that articulates how I felt...

I like food. I like fine dining. I really like tasting menus, long and protracted dinners with numerous tastes of many different dishes. Tasting menues succeed by giving you strong flavors and weak flavors for balance. Tiny portions and bigger portions. Some food is best eaten in one bite while other dishes are best in multiple bites. A wise chef knows how to create a meal that flows, challenging tastebuds and delighting diners. Otherwise, diners can tire before the procession of dishes conclude.

Tetherow is like a tasting menu with too many spices on every course served in portions that are way too large. 

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

 I don't view quality architecture as following a basic template. No doubt some people prefer general sameness in their golf menu. I like to see architects sport a desire to push the envelope and to counter what I see as the explosion towards more and more of a golf design that tries to counter the bomb'n gouge crowd with simply more and more length and little else to throw forward.

Kidd emphasized at Tetherow placement of shots -- not just power. I don't doubt many people might find the nature of the greens and even the fairways with their fescue eyebrows to be beyond what they consider "acceptable" design fare.

Conformity in design ultimately leds itself to the trail of boredom. I'm not saying by any means that I need or personally favor Broadway showmanship flair with all sort of bells and whistles. But in my time at Tetherow -- seen and played over two days -- I saw a return to the emphasis that positioning of the ball -- starting right at the tee is what golf needs to do since technology has allowed so much to occur from the distance explosion of recent years.

Jeff:

Enjoyed your food metaphor. Jeff, it's possible you see golf design in the steak and potato format. Nothing wrong with that at all. Tetherow is a bit spicey -- edgy -- something akin to high quality Thai food that really may not play well with the stomachs of many people.

As I said before -- some people see minimalism as the be-all / end-all. I see minimalism as a broad undefine concept that can lend itself to the fact that too many courses seeking such a remedy provide less and deliver less.

Tetherow will not be the prime choice for many people. That doesn mean -- nor did you downplay the overall elements of the course -- you just wanted to see less of them -- for you.
I salute Kidd because it would have been far too easier to simply replicate previous situations with another course that does likewise. Unfortunately, too many architects replicate past work because that's what future architects are interested in getting. If I see the same basic pattern from any architect I have to question if they have the capacity to do something more than the basic one dog and pony show trick.

Tetherow succeeds for me because it blends a need for really sound execution on just about any shot. Placement -- not power alone -- is what places Tetherow high for me as a course that salutes a return to the core elements of how golf should be a balanced act between all the elements of high quality shotmaking.

Tom D:

My use of Hogan's name was that he favored shotmaking where getting to certain positions on the course were clearly at the top of his list. Tetherow places a high value on getting to certain positions. There's plenty of distractions with all the contour but that is meant to throw the player off their game and get caught up with all the other items that are going on at the same time.

I found at Tetherow that I needed to really focus on what the shot required and block out all the other elements. So many other golf courses I have played are just simply big time layouts with so little to offer in terms of real detailing and shotmaking situations. It's just bangf the ball and go find out and repeat time after time.

At Tetherow, working the ball -- both ways -- getting the ball to fly at a certain height -- these are just two of the elements you need to always consider at Tetherow. The aerial and ground games are also in play and all of this is influenced by the daily wind patterns.

Hogan enjoyed Seminole because the course was so different and the need to be precise was something he enjoyed. I see Tetherow as a layout that will not cater to those players who want to be "under the gun" in such situations. However, I applaud Kidd for delivering a course that makes a clear statement and moves away from the standard formulaic layouts that require nothing more than a basic appreciation of high octane shotmaking.

Kidd took risk with Tetherow and I applaud originality rather than slave-like conformity in my golf design menu.

Ryan:

Tetherow and Rock Creek follow vastly different styles and approahes. Both work very well in my mind and I enjoyed both of them immensely. Likely some people will see only one as their true version of what golf design should be about.

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt,

You and I played a design in NJ together that threw everything but the kitchen sink into each and every hole and that played extremely demanding for all levels of players.

I look at these pictures and see some of the same overkill and lack of subtle restraint.

Granted, I see some good stuff too and I would applaud the experimentation with the little eyebrow thingys, but I saw Keith Foster do that at Texas Star a decade or so ago.

What am I missing from the pictures?

[Yancey_Beamer]

Photos give the impression of too many hazards.While playing the course I found quite a lot of land out there to place your shot .I found it fascinating and fun.The course does not feature too many hazards except for hole #16.

[Garland Bayley]

... Tetherow provides the perfect antidote to the mindless ramping up of empty distance courses with little details that cultivate a return to a marriage where accuracy and placement are part and parcel of the allure of golf ...
... Tetherow is a refreshing example of what carefully calculated detailing can do in returning golf more to a placement game than simply getting mindless holes and situations where shot differentiation is not part the primary objective in playing the game.
...

I am surprised that Tom D responded to you, but didn't mention what would seem to be obvious to everyone to except you that shot making and shot placement have not been done away with, and that "eyebrows" and "mohawks" or whatever else you want to call them are not necessary nor sufficient to "returning golf more to a placement game".

In case you haven't heard of him, there is a fellow named Pete Dye, and many that have followed him that might find your critique above to be pretty empty.

On another note, I am curious to learn what you thought about the walk necessary to play the circuit of holes that is Tetherow.

[Rob Rigg]

Gents,

This is definitely a course you need to get out and play before deciding whether it works for you or not.

To Yancey's point - the nature of the hazards and their uncommon placement on the course are unusual. Most golfers rarely see bunkers or other obstacles in the fairway which determine strategy, available landing zones, club selection, etc. The pictures do not reflect the amount of space that is available on the course, but they do illustrate the mental challenge that lurks there. Tetherow psyches you out like few other courses - in that aspect it is spectacular.

There are blind tee shots, wildly undulating greens, huge bunkers, funky eyebrows, and so on that makes for a challenging experience because the architect is in your "face" from the first hole forcing you to strategize if you want to beat the course(or your handicap). Kidd has done something "original" that MUST create polarized opinions because he has pushed the boundaries of design.

Jeff - Thank you for posting the great pictures. It is always nice to relive the adventure and take in the macro aesthetics. This course is certainly not for everyone and I would commend your manner in critiquing the course (after further explanation).

Every time I see a picture of this course I cannot help thinking, "what would I do there?" "what are my other options?" "where is the pin located?" "what must be avoided?"

Tetherow demands golf strategy of the highest order.

Whether you are a scratch golfer or a bogey golfer, it makes you think and you can score well or score badly depending on how much you take the time to evaluate the options available and your ability to execute.

FYI - the walk is a challenge. If you play with someone in a cart, expect to get a lift on several of the transfers.

[Garland Bayley]

 

Do I have a misunderstanding, or is there a conflict in industry beliefs about fescue? It was my impression that Bandon does not allow carts, because it has been built with fescue, and fescue will not withstand the cart traffic. Yet here we see a couse that has been built with fescue, AND we see carts in the pictures and everyone talks about riding. So what is the deal with fescue?

 

[Tom_Doak]

Garland:

Based on past experience, I would not put very many carts onto a fescue surface.  It can take SOME traffic, but repeated traffic over the same spots (around the greens and tees especially) will cause significant wear.

Sand Hills does a fair amount of cart traffic, and the fescue struggles there because of it ... it's still mostly a fescue surface but not in spots.  That's probably the best you can do with carts and fescue, five years out.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike C:

Good question.

The difference between the NJ course in question and Tetherow -- which although you see the basic outlines of the holes from the photos -- the generous width you get with so many of the holes. You need to decide where to land the ball -- calculating the amount of run out and then if you do succeed hit the correct approach with the right amount of trajectory to get to the spot you want.

The NJ course was simply plastic all the way -- simply anything and everything that could be mustered for one spot was thrown into the picture with not a modicum of unique or thought provoking strategy to enter the picture. It was simply meant to be a real slog and if players don't advance one at least one tee box is nothing more than a non-fun day of chasing balls out of all sorts of predicaments.

Kidd is not simply adding flourishes for the sake of flourisdes. The fairways provide sufficient width and there are risk and reward type holes on many occasions. The architect has provided several options on just about any hole and I viewed those options as being completely fair and appropriate in nearly all instances for different levels of play.

Mike, you and others may be taken aback -- by the sheer volume of items encountered through the photos. I will concede that Tetherow is not everyone's cup of tea -- but it doesn't fail in the test that counts -- does the good shot get rewarded and does the bad shot get penalized proportionally to the manner by which it was executed.

Mike, you ask what you are missing? It's being on the scene and seeing the shots you'll need to hit. Photos provide a static image -- being there goes, as you well know, far beyond that. I like the fact that Kidd didn't settle for conventionality -- he made it a point to push the envelope. I don't want architects to replicate past jobs in future ones. That may sell with those developers who engage their services but from a creative viewpoint, at least for me, is not worth much in terms of actual personal evolution.

Too often people favor conventionality in golf architecture because it falls within their comfort zone and understanding. Tetherow is edgy all the way -- it can confound the playet at times but it offers sweet rewards for those who know their game and personal limitations when playing it.

Mike, a inane comment was made by one poster that courses still provide shotmaking and ball position. That person is simply lost because too many designs have abandoned high quality shotmaking for the quick and fast razor cut fairways with formulaic designs that don't really differentiate between shots. Tetherow does that in its own unique way. If you ever play it I'd be very much interested in your take provided, as I  believe you will, see design as being more elastic and not just a narrow dictated one style that must ring all the time for all courses.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Tom, thanks for the coments on fescue and traffic.  Chambers Bay is already suffering from traffic in some areas and that has created much discussion.  

I played Tetherow several weeks ago and found it a demanding course to play visually and intellectually.  It is quite beautiful to look at and to be honest not all that much fun to play.  I believe that good shots should be rewarded and bad shots should be penalized, unfortunately Tetherow all too often provides penalty by pure chance.  A good drive may bounce left and be safe or bounce right and be completely unplayable, both in the center of the fairway.  While this can work on occasion, Bandon #5, and Chambers #11 are fine examples.  Tetherow hits you with these alternatives on hole after hole.  With a line of play cleared down the center, the course would be more fun to play.

Ultimately, would I like to play Tetherow again?  Absolutely!  Would I like to play it everyday?  NO!  

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt,

Thanks for the detailed answer.    There is a good possibility I will get to Bend next year so I'll hopefully be looking for the things you've outlined.

I do have to heartily agree with you on one philosophical point.

I'd much rather see an architect stretching, changing and taking chances than sticking to some routine formula.

I think the Beatles were the greatest artists of our lifetimes, and a big reason for that belief was their ability to constantly change and lead in new directions, as well as reinvent themselves and their artistic expressions.

So, in that regard, I'm hoping to find at Tetherow that more is indeed more.

[Jon Wiggett]

I really like the use of the rough covered mounding in the fairways but also find it a little over the top in these photos. I like the way it makes the hole look as though it is wandering through the land in an informal way. I still think that the golfer should be given some sort of defined choices and this is for me, what is missing when I look at these photos. Are the fairways really as broken up as they appear? I saw the castle course in the spring and had much the same feeling though the course here looks to have more of this feature.

[Rob Rigg]

Jon,

The fairways are only split on #2 and #6, but there are features in the fairway that serve as obstacles on #5 (bunker), #8 (tree, knoll), #9 (hell bunker?), #10 (bunkers - it is a drivable par 4), #13 (tree right side), and #16 (bunker that delivers turbo boost).

On #18 a ridge splits the fairways off the tees.

I did not include all the eyebrows and mounds that can be found on several of the holes.

Needless to say, there is a lot of thinking that goes on as you stand on the tee trying to pick your route.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Mike, a inane comment was made by one poster that courses still provide shotmaking and ball position. That person is simply lost because too many designs have abandoned high quality shotmaking for the quick and fast razor cut fairways with formulaic designs that don't really differentiate between shots. Tetherow does that in its own unique way. If you ever play it I'd be very much interested in your take provided, as I  believe you will, see design as being more elastic and not just a narrow dictated one style that must ring all the time for all courses.

So Matt, are you going to face up to what I wrote, or are you going to distort it by making statements like "too many designs have abandoned high quality shotmaking for the quick and fast razor cut fairways with formulaic designs that don't really differentiate between shots". I specifically mentioned Pete Dye. Would you tell Pete Dye that his "designs have abandoned high quality shotmaking for the quick and fast razor cut fairways with formulaic designs that don't really differentiate between shots"? I mentioned those that followed, which I am sure everyone (but perhaps you) understood to include Tom Doak. Would you tell Tom Doak that his "designs have abandoned high quality shotmaking for the quick and fast razor cut fairways with formulaic designs that don't really differentiate between shots"?

You write, "Tetherow does that in its own unique way", which I will grant you. But you didn't answer whether it was necessary or sufficient. Do you believe David Kidd was unable to produce courses that "really differentiate between shots" before he began building "eyebrows" and "mohawks" at the Castle Course?

[Michael Dugger]

Tom, thanks for the coments on fescue and traffic.  Chambers Bay is already suffering from traffic in some areas and that has created much discussion.  

I played Tetherow several weeks ago and found it a demanding course to play visually and intellectually.  It is quite beautiful to look at and to be honest not all that much fun to play.  I believe that good shots should be rewarded and bad shots should be penalized, unfortunately Tetherow all too often provides penalty by pure chance.  A good drive may bounce left and be safe or bounce right and be completely unplayable, both in the center of the fairway.  While this can work on occasion, Bandon #5, and Chambers #11 are fine examples.  Tetherow hits you with these alternatives on hole after hole.  With a line of play cleared down the center, the course would be more fun to play.

Ultimately, would I like to play Tetherow again?  Absolutely!  Would I like to play it everyday?  NO!  

Bill,

Well put, my exact sentiments.

The eyebrows are kinda lame, truly, they are like a bunch of little micro hazards amongst big hazards amongst native desert scruff.

i just don't need that kinda stuff hole after hole.  golf is difficult enough without having to worry that every shot hit in the fairway might jump into some long hay.   

it's one of the most gorgeous golf courses to look at, that's for sure.

[Garland Bayley]

...
The eyebrows are kinda lame, truly, they are like a bunch of little micro hazards amongst big hazards amongst native desert scruff.

i just don't need that kinda stuff hole after hole.  golf is difficult enough without having to worry that every shot hit in the fairway might jump into some long hay.   
...

Hi Michael,

Let me know your reaction to the following morphing of your comments.

The pot bunkers are kinda lame truly, they are like a bunch of little micro hazards amonst big hazards amonst native links gorse.

I just don't need that kinda stuff hole after hole. Golf is difficult enough without having to worry that every shot hit in the fairway might jump into some pot bunker.

[David Stewart]

Are there any aerial shots of the course available?  I looked on Google Earth but I don't think it is updated yet.  Just wanted to look at the routing.

DS

[Michael Dugger]

...
The eyebrows are kinda lame, truly, they are like a bunch of little micro hazards amongst big hazards amongst native desert scruff.

i just don't need that kinda stuff hole after hole.  golf is difficult enough without having to worry that every shot hit in the fairway might jump into some long hay.   
...

Hi Michael,

Let me know your reaction to the following morphing of your comments.

The pot bunkers are kinda lame truly, they are like a bunch of little micro hazards amonst big hazards amonst native links gorse.

I just don't need that kinda stuff hole after hole. Golf is difficult enough without having to worry that every shot hit in the fairway might jump into some pot bunker.

Garland,

They aren't comparable.

the shapes are different, the chance of recovery is different.

these eyebrows are 'in addition' to bunkers.  you don't see courses with bunkers and with pot bunkers.

maybe i'm just a wuss.  i dig the grassy mounds on #5 at bandon.  i can appreciate that type of hazard from time to time. 

but like Bill said....over and over and over and over......it's not fun.  well hit shots; balls just striped down the gut camber to and fro and nestle up into long hay where your only option is to take a drop.

that's over the top in my book.

i say mow down about half of 'em and let me have another crack at her......

look at this 8th hole again, Garland, i count around 15 eyebrows.  c'mon!!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()