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.


Cliff Hamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #75 on: September 30, 2008, 09:49:05 PM »
Matt...you've gotten some undeserved criticism on this site.  I want to compliment you for responding to all posts.  I don't believe there is another poster that takes the time and effort to acknowledge every post. From my perspective it is appreciated.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #76 on: October 01, 2008, 02:00:49 AM »
Sean:

The "big guns" you refer to is a bit more wider than just simply the Oakmonts, TOC, Augusta's, PV's, etc, etc.

Appreciation for architecture can take many different routes and the notion that courses under a certain dollar threshold are junior league alternatives is not the case. I know you didn't say junior league alternatives but your response that either a course is "significant or it ain't" gives me reason to believe that you view such courses as more of a sideshow than a main event.

Sean, the issue of price may be completely irrelevant for your personal golf visits. For many others it's critical because the idea that they will be teeing it up at Sand Hills or Oakmont anytime soon is likely not going to happen.

No doubt personal tastes play a major role in how people accept or reject different courses. My comments were not meant to "objectify" those tastes but to highlight the importance in saluting courses that don't require a second mortgage to play them and at the same time have high architectural qualities worthy of notice and special consideration when visiting such areas.

I don't disagree with you take on TR -- but the price point there is beyond what I mentioned here. That should not prevent those so inclined from playing there if their personal wallet can handle the costs. Ditto on Lakewood - your point on The Gailes does make for another course for consideration on what's provided there design wise. I just don't see it being as unique and noteworthy as the likes of Black Mesa, Wild Horse, Rustic Canyon, etc, etc.

Last item on Lederach -- when you speak about the turf I have to ask how soon after the course opened did you play it. I've been to the place twice and the second time was far better.

You also mention "poor walk" -- I don't see what's so poor about it. There are more hillier courses than Lederach -- heck, I dare say an 18-hole stroll over Bethpage Black is a good bit more strenuous.

Sean, too often people lower assessments on courses because housing is nearby -- the issue is whether the housing really impacts the actual architecture. In a similar vein I've heard people badmouth Rustic Canyon because they see the driving range net when you walk up on the 18th hole. No doubt it's a personal and subjective consideration but I would not elevate such items to the more core areas which I outlined previously.








Matt

I probably haven't explained myself very well.  There is no question I appreciate quality golf for relatively less money.  I am only saying that there are bones to pick through when it comes to trying to find significant courses (like how we consider the big guns significant) under $100.  You seem to have a different idea of prominent/significant depending on a price range - I don't.  The course either is or isn't significant - price has no bearing on this determination.  Now for me, because I don't believe the quality of architecture is greatly different for say the top 10% of courses with the few obvious standouts, other issues become important - including price.  I would also add, beauty, what sort of walk do I have, history, the club and maybe a few other issues - these are all aspects which effect my day from a tourista PoV.  We are afterall holiday makers - no?  Besides, I have always said that if it was architecture and architecture alone that I am worried about, I don't need to play the courses.  I am better off walking them and observing others play for free. 

I don't believe Lederach is a good walking course because there are some very long walks.  Jeepers, its a hike to the 1st tee.  The routing isn't intimate and that is likely due to the housing - which also compromises the beauty of the course.  Of course this is a matter of opinion, but remember, I have gotten well used to British courses which are generally wonderful walks in which the course can usually be played in 3.5 hours comfortably and there are rarely houses surrounding the courses.  Perhaps this makes my standards higher - I don't know. 

I was at Lederach last spring.  The condition of the course wasn't great, but it was plenty good enough to enjoy golf.  There are still areas of the course which are stoney - I have a chipped 6 iron as proof.  I was only commenting that the turf isn't of the best quality - which is another issue I look at in terms of deciding how good the course is.  It all adds up!

Ciao 
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Matt_Ward

Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #77 on: October 01, 2008, 09:00:11 AM »
Sean:

With all due respect you still don't seem to grasp it -- I have a huge appreciation for the top tier giants in golf architecture -- the Oakmonts, Pine Valley's, Shinnecock Hill's, Dunluce / Portrush, etc, etc. My love for playing such courses is no less than anyone else's.

I have said that far too often the singular focus is only on the .00001 percent of those courses on this site and elsewhere - that was the point in creating this thread -- to open up eyes and provide some helpful info. For those with the means and connections the wherewithal to play the .0001 courses comes about because such a lifestyle in experiencing such courses is not an issue -- it's an assumption. That's not the case with the vast preponderance of people who play the game and quite frankly are needed in order to grow the game to others.

I started my golf life on a place where grass grew by accident -- not by design. I have a healthy appreciation for what people play there and for the willful ignorance that exists -- no doubt many of these same people could care less about architecture in the same manner that sheep could are less where they eat grass -- so long as they eat some.

Sean, in the discussion of the courses of outstanding architecture below $100 is not some sort of "B" league team of layouts. As a parallel I give Tom Doak plenty of credit for exposing the nature of many second and thir tier layouts in "Confidential Guide" that are located in the UK and Ireland. Many people only knew about the very top tier because of the wherewithal to host Open Championships and the like. The courses under $100 are rather unique and well worth the time and effort to play them. To paraphrase your words -- they are "significant" and worthy of the time to play them. No doubt some people are simply fixated on chery-picking the courses with the greatest name value -- so be it. I just see other courses throughout the USA, and the lesser known architects, as being fully able and competent to deliver high quality golf.

You and I part company to some degree on the linkage of other items (e.g. the housing component, the degree of what walking should be about, how fast the pace of play is, etc, etc). I would not dare go so far as to say such items are esoteric but I do believe such items are further down the food chain of what constitutes the primary emphasis -- the overall grandeur of the architecture. My opinion v your opinion. That's fine. As I stated before that, for me at least, would rest on the items I mentioned previously -- to wit, the overall quality of the land itself, the complexity of the routing and the sheer array of different shotmaking challenges from drives to recovery options, green contours, the nature of the bunkering, etc, etc.

Sean, if you think Lederach is a demanding walk -- then some advice to give -- skip Bethpage Black because it's even more so a situation. Lederach is not that demanding from the sheer array of different courses I have had the opportunity to walk. I can name a number of other courses here in the USA that are walkable but may appear to be more demanding than many of the UK courses you have been accustomed to playing.

Keep in mind, you are throwing forward the British experiences you have had and that's fine -- the level of what constitutes golf in the UK and Ireland is a bit different than here in the States. I have had the pleasure in playing a good many courses across the pond and no doubt the style / temperament and overall golf experiences (those that you value) are clearly front and center. I personally believe a number of key items from the UK and Ireland should be included for many more golf courses here in the States than what we do now -- e.g., speeding up the game being the first and foremost lesson we can learn here.

Sean, just a bit of advice -- skip the pretension with the belief that "my standards higher" than anyone else's -- OK. My standards for quality golf are present in my mind and frankly I see my total listing of courses as being quite pragmatic and not fixed on a singular one best way only.

Last item on turf -- I see it as a complimentary item - not as a primary one. Sorry to hear about your chipped 6-iron but early spring in Pennsy is not prime golf time. The turf from my visit earlier this summer was much better -- no doubt it will need time to mature.

Just one last point -- the American economy is likely going to go throush some major mega adjustments -- golf will need to restructure itself to continue to be an interesting game to the masses here. The cost to play is going to be more and more of a sticking point for those to either continue or start their involvement. I said it before, and will say it again, that more focus should be on affordable options and not just a singular fixation on such a very, very small number of courses that like the Playboy centerfold analogy I mentioned on a different thread -- you can look at her but you 'll likely never touch her. ;)



* * *

 


I was at Lederach last spring.  The condition of the course wasn't great, but it was plenty good enough to enjoy golf.  There are still areas of the course which are stoney - I have a chipped 6 iron as proof.  I was only commenting that the turf isn't of the best quality - which is another issue I look at in terms of deciding how good the course is.  It all adds up!


Matt_Ward

Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #78 on: October 01, 2008, 02:33:30 PM »
It will be most interesting to see with the uncertainty of the economy if any courses that are slightly above the $100 figure during peak times will drop their prices for the '09 golf season.

Although they could not quality for inclusion now -- there are quite a few courses of outstanding nature that fall somewhere between $100-$125 - among them being Twisted Dune in New Jersey and Greywalls / Marquette GC in Michigan, to name just two solid layouts.

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #79 on: October 01, 2008, 02:44:31 PM »
It will be most interesting to see with the uncertainty of the economy if any courses that are slightly above the $100 figure during peak times will drop their prices for the '09 golf season.

Although they could not quality for inclusion now -- there are quite a few courses of outstanding nature that fall somewhere between $100-$125 - among them being Twisted Dune in New Jersey and Greywalls / Marquette GC in Michigan, to name just two solid layouts.

Not going off-topic here but just stating a great deal at Twisted Dune this fall on Sundays after 1 PM:  49 bucks with a hot dog and soda on top of it.
@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Matt_Ward

Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #80 on: October 01, 2008, 02:56:44 PM »
Joe:

You are 10000000% correct about TD.

Plenty of people will sing the praises of GN, HC and ACCC but TD is quite fun to play and the discount program they offer will likely be replicated by many courses as the full impact of what is happening in the financial markets works itself through the system.


Brad Fleischer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #81 on: October 01, 2008, 05:25:51 PM »
Just curious but sean what publics would you list as being significant and worth planning a trip around ?

Good topic and worth the discussion. Did not know about a few of the courses listed here. Will have to check them out.

Chris_Clouser

Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #82 on: October 01, 2008, 05:48:22 PM »
Matt,

Something I'm curious about is what in Kentucky could possibly be on this list if you have seen any?  Doug Ralston is constantly tellying me how good the top 5 or so courses in KY are and there were a few on that GD list that was posted earlier in the thread. 

Chris

Matt_Ward

Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #83 on: October 01, 2008, 07:04:16 PM »
Chris:

I've been to KY a few times and the public courses there a mixed bag with some of the better stuff nearest to either Cincinnati or in the greater Louisville area.

One of the more interesting courses I played turned out to be an Art Hills layout called Fox Run - part of the Kenton County system of county-owned facilities. The terrain is quite rolling and sports a 143 slope and 74.8 rating from the tips which comes out to just over 7,000+ yards. For some reason when the top public courses in KY are mentioned this layout often gets little fanfare. Maybe others who are more in the know can enlighten me.

The level of the design details is not at the same level as the top ten I mentioned previously but the fees are very reasonable and the proximity to greater Cincinnati is a big time help for players.

I've also played Kearney Hills in Lexington -- but that was a number of years ago. The layout was designed by Pete & P.B. Dye and formerly hosted a Senior Tour event. Liked the course but frankly I think much of the hype for the place has come from the previous tour event being there.

The other layout I've played is Lassing Pointe in Union and it's quite good - the finishing hole is quite demanding and a real eyeful with water in play and a green that hugs the H20 so closely that the slightest hiccup and it's Elvis land for your ball -- as in history. The 1st hole is also a good a starter as a par-5 with a number of options to consider. But again I would not make a special visit to play any of these places when held against the top tier ones I previously named.

Kentucky deserves credit because the fees charged at just about any of the public courses within the state are very competitive and certainly reasonable when compared to its neighbors and other states.

I also need to mention a Brian Silva layout I played during my last visit to the state -- Crooked Creek in London, KY. Fine layout for what it provides -- the creek does wind through the property on a few holes if my memory is still accurate. Plays right at 7,000 yards and was quite good. The fees, as with other KY public courses, is very reasonable.

The other layout I liked but others can comment on what's happened to the place since my last visit about ten years ago is Gibson Bay in Richmond, KY. Fairly enjoyable layout and not easy, again, if memory serves. Not many trees on the property so wind can blow at times. Designed by Dr. Michael Hurdzan -- I would not make a special trip to play it but it has its moments. Again, the fees are quite reasonable.

But when you hold KY up against the likes of Indiana there's no real contest from my vantage point. Indiana can match the price points threshold and still provide a wide smattering of solid courses that have plenty of architectural elements of quality. Again, let me say my knowledge and understanding of KY public golf will likely not be at the level of a Doug or someone else who's played a wider sampling. However, from the ones I've played KY does get high marks for keeping the golf options open so that the masses don't need a second mortgage to play there.


Cliff Hamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #84 on: October 01, 2008, 07:14:55 PM »
For those familiar with NE Red Tail deserves consideration.  Brian Silva design that has been mentioned frequently here.  Haven't played the courses that Matt listed so can't compare but Red Tail is a public must play.

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #85 on: October 01, 2008, 07:26:32 PM »
Barnbougle Dunes at $A98.

Andy Troeger

Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #86 on: October 01, 2008, 09:23:30 PM »
Hard to beat a weekend at Black Mesa and Paa-Ko Ridge for excellent public golf for under $100 each. It won't be any sacrifice for me to go play both of them this weekend  ;D

I certainly agree with the selections of 4 Mile Ranch and Lakota Canyon from Matt's original post, and would add Cougar Canyon and Redlands Mesa as good choices from Colorado.

Sultan's Run, Rock Hollow, The Fort, and Warren are all nice courses in Indiana, not sure if they've been mentioned as I haven't read the whole thread. They aren't at the level of Black Mesa or Paa-Ko in my book, but they aren't that close to $100 either.

Matt_Ward

Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #87 on: October 01, 2008, 11:39:45 PM »
The tough part for any listing is that much of California and likely Nevada and Arizona will not have many contenders for inclusion because the costs of creating golf in those settings is quite high and naturally the owners wish to recoupe their investments -- seeing a place like Rustic Canyon proves otherwise but it's the very rare exeption.

The same applies to the Northeast -- NJ is now the 5th most expensive place to play golf and for quite some time the public side of the aisle was quite reasonable. That changed in the eraly 90's with the explosion of CCFAD courses in the greater AC area and then at the same time with the growth of golf in the northern area -- led by the Crystal Springs Resort.

Unfortunately, so much of high end golf in the Northeast is similar to the kind found in many places in California -- it's extremely expensive for the so-called "name" places and often times you get little back for your $$ because all the hype is tied to non-golf big ticket costs such as the clubhouse and all the other bells and whistles.

Andy:

Concur with much of your comments but I don't see Cougar Canyon as being especially noteworthy. Yes, the par-3 16th is a gem of a hole but it's more about mindless length with very little design detail. Compare it to Four Mile Ranch and the gap between the two shoudl be self evident.

I do agree with a few other people who mentioned that Paa-Ko Ridge could be replaced among the initial selections I made. Ken Dye deserves credit but the bunkers look out of place on many holes and frankly the par-3's could stand to be a bit more varied in terms of overall length. Still, I like the course a lot -- especially the original 18.

In regards to the courses you mentioned in IN -- I've played them all and they are very good. I just don't see any of them beingthe equivalent of what Tim Liddy did at The Trophy Club for all the reasons I mentioned previously.

I'd be curious to see what comments come from the new Sand Hollow layout in Hurricane, UT and if it falls within the price stipulations I mentioned initially on this thread.

Andy Troeger

Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #88 on: October 02, 2008, 12:05:08 AM »
Matt,
As we've discussed many times, I see the original 18 at Paa-Ko as almost equal to Black Mesa. The 3rd nine is where the variety issue comes in, many of the holes seem similar to holes on the original 18. Take that 3rd nine out (and its by no means a bad nine in its own right) and I think you've got quite a strong course. I'm significantly less interested in the look of the bunkers than how they play, and Ken Dye used them to create many interesting holes--the first and the last don't do much for me but its a heck of a stretch in between, especially the back nine. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if it had fewer bunkers and more grass cut at fairway length, but its very strong in its current state. If you or others disagree so be it--I don't intend to change my mind. Its certainly not minimalistic or natural looking for those who care about such things. Its high on the fun factor. Black Mesa ratchets the fun meter up from the start as well. I've actually not played them back-to-back yet, so I'm looking forward to that experience.

I haven't played the Trophy Club, would like to but its not particularly close to home these days. I'm sure its a strong course, I just wanted to add that its hardly the only one in the area. One could play reasonably priced public golf courses in Indiana for a week without getting bored.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #89 on: October 02, 2008, 02:03:32 AM »
Sean:

With all due respect you still don't seem to grasp it -- I have a huge appreciation for the top tier giants in golf architecture -- the Oakmonts, Pine Valley's, Shinnecock Hill's, Dunluce / Portrush, etc, etc. My love for playing such courses is no less than anyone else's.

I have said that far too often the singular focus is only on the .00001 percent of those courses on this site and elsewhere - that was the point in creating this thread -- to open up eyes and provide some helpful info. For those with the means and connections the wherewithal to play the .0001 courses comes about because such a lifestyle in experiencing such courses is not an issue -- it's an assumption. That's not the case with the vast preponderance of people who play the game and quite frankly are needed in order to grow the game to others.

I started my golf life on a place where grass grew by accident -- not by design. I have a healthy appreciation for what people play there and for the willful ignorance that exists -- no doubt many of these same people could care less about architecture in the same manner that sheep could are less where they eat grass -- so long as they eat some.

Sean, in the discussion of the courses of outstanding architecture below $100 is not some sort of "B" league team of layouts. As a parallel I give Tom Doak plenty of credit for exposing the nature of many second and thir tier layouts in "Confidential Guide" that are located in the UK and Ireland. Many people only knew about the very top tier because of the wherewithal to host Open Championships and the like. The courses under $100 are rather unique and well worth the time and effort to play them. To paraphrase your words -- they are "significant" and worthy of the time to play them. No doubt some people are simply fixated on chery-picking the courses with the greatest name value -- so be it. I just see other courses throughout the USA, and the lesser known architects, as being fully able and competent to deliver high quality golf.

You and I part company to some degree on the linkage of other items (e.g. the housing component, the degree of what walking should be about, how fast the pace of play is, etc, etc). I would not dare go so far as to say such items are esoteric but I do believe such items are further down the food chain of what constitutes the primary emphasis -- the overall grandeur of the architecture. My opinion v your opinion. That's fine. As I stated before that, for me at least, would rest on the items I mentioned previously -- to wit, the overall quality of the land itself, the complexity of the routing and the sheer array of different shotmaking challenges from drives to recovery options, green contours, the nature of the bunkering, etc, etc.

Sean, if you think Lederach is a demanding walk -- then some advice to give -- skip Bethpage Black because it's even more so a situation. Lederach is not that demanding from the sheer array of different courses I have had the opportunity to walk. I can name a number of other courses here in the USA that are walkable but may appear to be more demanding than many of the UK courses you have been accustomed to playing.

Keep in mind, you are throwing forward the British experiences you have had and that's fine -- the level of what constitutes golf in the UK and Ireland is a bit different than here in the States. I have had the pleasure in playing a good many courses across the pond and no doubt the style / temperament and overall golf experiences (those that you value) are clearly front and center. I personally believe a number of key items from the UK and Ireland should be included for many more golf courses here in the States than what we do now -- e.g., speeding up the game being the first and foremost lesson we can learn here.

Sean, just a bit of advice -- skip the pretension with the belief that "my standards higher" than anyone else's -- OK. My standards for quality golf are present in my mind and frankly I see my total listing of courses as being quite pragmatic and not fixed on a singular one best way only.

Last item on turf -- I see it as a complimentary item - not as a primary one. Sorry to hear about your chipped 6-iron but early spring in Pennsy is not prime golf time. The turf from my visit earlier this summer was much better -- no doubt it will need time to mature.

Just one last point -- the American economy is likely going to go throush some major mega adjustments -- golf will need to restructure itself to continue to be an interesting game to the masses here. The cost to play is going to be more and more of a sticking point for those to either continue or start their involvement. I said it before, and will say it again, that more focus should be on affordable options and not just a singular fixation on such a very, very small number of courses that like the Playboy centerfold analogy I mentioned on a different thread -- you can look at her but you 'll likely never touch her. ;)



* * *

 


I was at Lederach last spring.  The condition of the course wasn't great, but it was plenty good enough to enjoy golf.  There are still areas of the course which are stoney - I have a chipped 6 iron as proof.  I was only commenting that the turf isn't of the best quality - which is another issue I look at in terms of deciding how good the course is.  It all adds up!



Matt

It is clear you don't know me.  I don't have any pretensions and I am ALWAYS looking for good value golf regardless of the reputation a course has. 

I don't think we are really disagreeing all that much other than I don't believe there are more than possibly a small group of public courses in the US which are significant in terms of architecture.  That doesn't mean the the 2nd or 3rd tier aren't worth playing - many of these are my favourite places to play and they sometimes turn out to be just as good as many courses with better reps. 

Brad

I haven't seen a public course in the States worth planning a specific trip just to see it.  However, of the really big guns I have only played Pinehurst & Pine Needles, many people do believe Pinehurst is worth that sort of effort and they could be right.  I would like to see it again, but its too pricey.  From pix, the one obvious course I would like to see is Pacific Dunes - it looks like it could be very special.  Pix of Pebble don't entice me to make the effort or pay the dosh.  There are probably a few others which have garnered more of my attention.  Kiawah, Lawsonia & Chambers Bay.  Longshadow looks very good, but that may be private - I am not sure.  To be honest, I would like a look at three Canadian courses as much as any public in the States: Highland Links, Banff & the other mountain joint (whats it called?).  In general though, there are loads more private courses I would rather see.   

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Matt_Ward

Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #90 on: October 02, 2008, 09:19:27 AM »
Sean:

I never said "I know you" - I only opined off what you said -- or what you tried to communicate insofar as this thread is concerned.

Since you raised the issue of clarity let me point out -- for the upteeeenth time -- how you completely missed the point of this thread. I have taken considerable time and patience to try to explain it to you. Since you see it differently for whatever reasons that's fine.

Sean, be sure to check what you wrote previously -- you did mention how your standards are quite high -- my God man, do you think others are simply interested in playing junkfood golf?

When you say you don't see "more than possibly a small group of public courses in the US which are significant in terms of architecture" I have to ask what size is your portfolio of courses that you have played in order to back that statement up? It's possible you draw that conclusion from the ones you have only played to date and that such a listing of courses could be quite limited?

Beyond Lederach I have no idea on what other courses -- less than $100 at peak times in the USA -- that you have personally played and not just gleaned info from second hand sources or from photos alone.

I know what I have done to see the various courses in question and the ones I listed are, as I have stated time after time, not some sort of B league version of quality golf simply because the price is lower. They are outstanding and quite "significant" -- keep in mind, I defined significant in a post sometime ago -- I have no idea on what your definition is although you keep on raising the term.

Sean, you have this differentiation scheme in defining courses that are 2nd and 3rd tier -- how is it that such courses are not first tier? I mean a place like Wild Horse in Nebraska or Black Mesa in New Mexico is not some sort of lesser course -- it's not Oakmont or Pine Valley -- but my first tier is a bit more elastic -- if your spread for the 1st tier is only the elite of elites then so be it.

p.s. For what it's worth -- I 100% agree w you on the cost to play at Pinehurst -- most notably #2.

Andy:

You have to help me out -- how does the clear manufactured "look" of Paa-Ko Ridge equate itself to more natural flowing and work-with-the-land approach seen at Black Mesa? You say they are close -- really?

The bunkers at Paa-Ko Ridge are clearly the creation of man's hand and truthfully they stand apart rather then work in concert with the spectacular site. Take also the greens -- the goofy three-level department store type one found at the par-3 4th at Paa-Ko's original front nine is just out of character -- it only needs a few clowns and loop-to-loops for an ideal putt-putt hole. The short par-4 6th is a nice hole -- but it's not anywhere near the level of the two great short par-4's at BM with the likes of the 7th and 14th holes. I can name other situations as well.

The same can be said for the quartet of par-3's that are at both courses. Again, BM has the greater range, diversity and demand.

One further point-- compare / contrast the role that the 17th and 18th at Paa-Ko Ridge's original 18 stack up against same number holes at Black Mesa. No comparison in my mind.

One other thing -- if your mind cannot be changed then what's the point of a discussion that might prove the opposite point? I've changed my mind on more than a few occasions from what people have written. If you see things as a dead end street then so be it.

Andy, before highlighting other IN public courses -- and I do agree with you on the quality of quality affordable public golf there -- you need to see firsthand how The Trophy Club separates itself from the others. It is that significant and it's a testament to what Tim Liddy did there. In my travels to Indiana and elsewhere The Trophy Club merits considerably more attention than it has received.




ourses in the US which are significant in terms of architecture.  That doesn't mean the the 2nd or 3rd tier aren't worth playing - many of these are my favourite places to play and they sometimes turn out to be just as good as many courses with better reps. 

Patrick Kiser

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #91 on: October 02, 2008, 09:20:47 AM »
Cliff,

NE or MA?

I'm only seeing a Red Tail in Devens, MA.

http://www.redtailgolf.net/

For those familiar with NE Red Tail deserves consideration.  Brian Silva design that has been mentioned frequently here.  Haven't played the courses that Matt listed so can't compare but Red Tail is a public must play.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 09:23:28 AM by Patrick Kiser »
“One natural hazard, however, which is more
or less of a nuisance, is water. Water hazards
absolutely prohibit the recovery shot, perhaps
the best shot in the game.” —William Flynn, golf
course architect

Andy Troeger

Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #92 on: October 02, 2008, 09:35:50 AM »
Andy:

You have to help me out -- how does the clear manufactured "look" of Paa-Ko Ridge equate itself to more natural flowing and work-with-the-land approach seen at Black Mesa? You say they are close -- really?

The bunkers at Paa-Ko Ridge are clearly the creation of man's hand and truthfully they stand apart rather then work in concert with the spectacular site. Take also the greens -- the goofy three-level department store type one found at the par-3 4th at Paa-Ko's original front nine is just out of character -- it only needs a few clowns and loop-to-loops for an ideal putt-putt hole. The short par-4 6th is a nice hole -- but it's not anywhere near the level of the two great short par-4's at BM with the likes of the 7th and 14th holes. I can name other situations as well.

The same can be said for the quartet of par-3's that are at both courses. Again, BM has the greater range, diversity and demand.

One further point-- compare / contrast the role that the 17th and 18th at Paa-Ko Ridge's original 18 stack up against same number holes at Black Mesa. No comparison in my mind.

One other thing -- if your mind cannot be changed then what's the point of a discussion that might prove the opposite point? I've changed my mind on more than a few occasions from what people have written. If you see things as a dead end street then so be it.


Matt,
My point is that you and I discussing this for the 5th time is not going to change my mind. I too have changed my mind on other courses and in fact by playing these two courses more have agreed with you that BM is slightly better (when I used to slightly favor Paa-Ko). That said, I disagree with just about every point you made above. The 4th hole creates wonderful variety--many folks would echo your comments except about the 16th at Black Mesa. I think both greens are unique and add to the experience. The 17th at Black Mesa is better than Paa-Ko, but not by that much in my mind. The 18th at Paa-Ko is probably my least favorite on the course, so I agree with you there. The par threes are advantage Black Mesa, but the par fives are advantage Paa-Ko, especially the last three. That's not a knock on the quartet at Black Mesa, just praise for those at Paa-Ko. I especially like the speed slot opportunities at the 5th and 15th that allow those holes to be potentially reached in two.

By the way, all three publications rate Paa-Ko AHEAD of Black Mesa, and they generally get pretty similar scores, so saying they are similar in quality is no reach in most folks opinions.

As I said before, I don't care that Paa-Ko has a manufactured look while Black Mesa is more natural. Both are excellent at what they are trying to be. You clearly care about a course being natural. I don't, I prioritize if it has interesting strategy and is fun to play.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 09:40:02 AM by Andy Troeger »

Cliff Hamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #93 on: October 02, 2008, 09:37:49 AM »
Patrick...The one in Massachusetts is what I was referring to.  Mentioned NE because I couldn't think of another course in this part of the country, not just Ma., built in the last ten years, under $100 that would be ranked so highly.  Belgrade Lakes came to mind but over $100.  Newport National is under $100 if from RI but while highly recommended not convinced it belongs close to the top 10.  Red Tail on the other hand, I believe can hold its own, altho I have not had the pleasure of playing Matt's choices.

Steve Hyden

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #94 on: October 02, 2008, 09:51:43 AM »
Orchard Creek Golf Club
Altamont, NY
Green Fee Max: $32/$59 weekends & holidays
Cart: $15 pp
Architect: Paul Cowley (fmr. greens keeper at Pebble Beach; has worked on a number or Davis Love projects)

Routed through an apple orchard near Albany, NY, Orchard Creek is draped over a hilly site and is a strenuous walk.  It plays rather wide, with large greens that, while generally well-defended (although mostly open in front and there are a couple of downhill approaches that invite the run-up), are easily reached because of their size.  OC has a nice variety of holes, and in quite a departure for a modern course features several blind or semi-blind shots including the approach to the par four second where you play a short or medium iron from a valley to a green perched on a hilltop and the par three 11th.  Two of the par fives are reachable and there is a good go-for-it short par four where a crooked shot will find real trouble.  Fun to walk, fun to play, very good greens – and at $32 Monday through Friday a tremendous value.  Beautiful setting and in the fall you can ogle the fall colors and eat apples while you play.

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #95 on: October 02, 2008, 10:28:21 AM »
Andy, I'm not pilling on, just providing other thoughts on the comparison and I agree completely on your defense of the 4th, however, Paa-Ko is more repetitive in look, and shot demands due to it's manufactured nature. It's extremely repetitive in it's green side bunker schemes, too. Whereas Black Mesa is more varied because of the use of the natural.
Also, while there are strategic choices to made at Paa ko, how frequently do those decisions really change, either due to the pin position, or natural elements?  At BM, the strategic choices change with a greater frequency based on many factors. That type of elasticity is what separates. Also, at BM the desert surrounds do not prohibit recovery the way the surrounds do at PKR. No better image sticks out than watching Baxter Spann playing his ball some 60 yards left of a fairway, way up on the ridge line.
Lastly, I also believe that much more fun can be had at Black Mesa due to the architecture and it's maintenance meld. I usually recognize fun from repeated howls of incredulity after someone's  ball takes either a wild ride or a perfectly predicted hard to envision line.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Matt_Ward

Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #96 on: October 02, 2008, 11:26:29 AM »
Cliff:

Check out Shaker Hills in Harvard, MA

Adam:

We are in agreement -- now if only the House of Reps would vote for a bailout plan and we will have truly a remarkable sets of circumstances on agreement ! ;D

Andy:

You mention what the publications say -- that's nice but frankly I disagree because I have had the opportunity to play nearly all the top candidates and I see Black Mesa being far closer to the very top of the best modern courses than where it is placed now. The Digest assessment and Golf Mag listings are also far too low in my mind.

Now on to your points ...

The 17th at Black Mesa is way better than the drop-shot tee shot you see with the 17th at Paa-Ko Ridge.

You have to place the ball far better at BM's 17th and the approach is much more challenging. If you see the edge as being "not by that much" than you must be seeing things at Paa-Ko that are completely lost to me. You must have forgotten the unique spine at BM's 17th and how tee shot placement is essential there. That the playing angles to the green are dictated on where you land the tee shot. At PKR's 17th it's simply blast the tee shot as far as you can and hit a pro-forma wedge to the green. It's night and day for me.

Ditto the 18th which we agree. You also concede the par-3 side. Let me point out the par-5's you argued on behalf. BM's 3rd and 7th holes are well done -- ditto the 13th and 16th holes. Each allows for the possibility in reaching them in two if conditions and execution permit but know of them is a throw away hole or one that is low level design.

The only real solid par-5 hole I like at PKR from the original 18 is the 15th hole. Dynamite tee shot hole and the second needs to be executed to a high degree if one wants to get home in two blows. The bailout area is also well defended. The others are simply Ok and nothing more.

In regards to the 4th at PKR v the 16th at BM -- it's again no contest. The 16th at BM has plenty of different contours and sections -- the 4th at PKR is simply a three-story department store green. The sheer imagination of 16 at BM is there for people to see.

Andy, the manufactured look that you dismiss out of hand is part and parcel of what architecture should aspire to be. If man's hand can be seen as completely overpowering the naturalness of a site then that's a detriment in my mind. Paa-Ko Ridge has a spectacular site -- the key is trying to link a golf course to that site without the intrusion being so obvious and out of character.

You made a good point about the bunkering -- Dye would have been better served if less bunkers were part of the mix -- using the same theory that Engh applied to at Four Mile Ranch -- although I do see some bunkers at PKR being a plus.

Adam makes an excellent point -- what are the strategic choices you need to make at Paa-Ko Ridge if tees and pin are placed in one area or the other? The elasticity element is clearly a major edge to Black Mesa and I say that with respect for your view but if you were to really analyze each and every hole you'd likely see what is being said by both Adam and myself.









Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #97 on: October 02, 2008, 11:43:34 AM »
I don't do rankings; nor have I done sufficient heavy lifting to do so.

But I have a hunch, having played them, that two of Jeff Brauer's courses in northern Minnesota -- The Quarry at Giants Ridge and The Wilderness at Fortune Bay -- deserve serious consideration in this category.

"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Andy Troeger

Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #98 on: October 02, 2008, 11:59:28 AM »
Andy, I'm not pilling on, just providing other thoughts on the comparison and I agree completely on your defense of the 4th, however, Paa-Ko is more repetitive in look, and shot demands due to it's manufactured nature. It's extremely repetitive in it's green side bunker schemes, too. Whereas Black Mesa is more varied because of the use of the natural.
Also, while there are strategic choices to made at Paa ko, how frequently do those decisions really change, either due to the pin position, or natural elements?  At BM, the strategic choices change with a greater frequency based on many factors. That type of elasticity is what separates. Also, at BM the desert surrounds do not prohibit recovery the way the surrounds do at PKR. No better image sticks out than watching Baxter Spann playing his ball some 60 yards left of a fairway, way up on the ridge line.
Lastly, I also believe that much more fun can be had at Black Mesa due to the architecture and it's maintenance meld. I usually recognize fun from repeated howls of incredulity after someone's  ball takes either a wild ride or a perfectly predicted hard to envision line.

Adam (and Matt),
I agree with some of this, especially your comments about the playability of the desert at Black Mesa vs Paa-Ko. The recovery opportunities are certainly there at BM whereas Paa-Ko it takes quite a bit of fortune to find the ball and play it. The firm conditions at Black Mesa are another plus, but in my experience I haven't found PK to play soft in its own right, just not as firm as Black Mesa--few places are.

I do think the elasticity at PK is better than you or Matt give it credit for. Many of the greens there have significant internal contour in their own right and just hitting the green is not always sufficient. The wind can blow at either course, although that brings the recovery issue (or lack there-of) into play more especially at Paa-Ko. Paa-Ko uses a variety of yardages and elevation changes to its advantage to create variety (as does BM)--while the par threes may be downhill, other holes such as #3, 11, and 12 have uphill approaches. #6 is a tempting hole that to me is more drivable than the two at Black Mesa, even if the options at BM are more varied. Even though I think #14 at BM is wonderful, I pretty much play it the same way every time now. For a longer hitter such as yourself, Matt, I can see #7 and #14 being more interesting than for myself because driving the green is an option.

I do agree that Black Mesa is underrated by the magazines, but other than in GW I think Paa-Ko is as well.

Brad Fleischer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 10 Under $100 Public Golf Opened between 1998-2008
« Reply #99 on: October 02, 2008, 12:58:01 PM »
Sean,

Is the golf that much better over the pond ??? NOT ONE YOU WOULD PLAN A TRIP AROUND ??? Nothing personal at all but I have a very hard time grasping that. You might need a few more trips !!  ;D      I agree with your staement of "In general though, there are loads more private courses I would rather see" Well ok I can knock out ten right of the bat from my tongue that are private that I would like to see to but that was not the thread's point. I also know chances are I'm never going to see them either :(.    However like others on this thread have mentioned there IS good public golf to be had if your willing to search for it.

I can not agree with you more on Pinehurst. I do like pine needles and the price is a little better. I love the area and the history but won't be playing #2 anytime soon.

The canadian courses you mentioned also have my intrest. Are you refering to Jasper Park ?? There is also a course named humber valley that is getting lot's of press and I have heard good things. Hmmm new thread , canadas best under a 100???   :)

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back