[Richard Hetzel]

Stonelick Hills Golf Club opened in 2004, and was designed by the founder of Penn Station Steak and Subs restaurants, Jeff Osterfeld. It's not all that often that someone designs and then actually builds their own golf course. The course started out poorly by losing greens and the like. Too many trees and they opened the course too early. I played there in 2005 and was not really all that impressed for some reason. I played there this morning and I really like it a lot more. By the look of the retention ponds, you can tell Southwestern Ohio is really hurting for water. Of course, there are some design flaws (tee shots from #8 tee box go right at the tee box of #9 if you play to shorten the hole and you don't really need to be a long hitter to do this) and few unforgiving holes (par 3 number 3 for example comes to mind), but very scenic and pretty tough if you are not playing well. The course plays a lot easier once you have played it more than once. The cool thing was that they even allowed walking on a Sunday morning. There are a few cart path hikes between 3-4 of the holes, but nothing too bad. The back nine is interesting in that it has three par fives and three par threes.

Here are some pictures from this morning.

[Billsteele]

Rich-Thanks for posting the pictures. Stonelick Hills is a nice addition to the Cincinnati public golf course landscape. I think Jeff Osterfeld did a pretty good job for an amateur architect. My biggest problem with the course is its unevenness. The par fours are very well done (there are a number of great elements present: the approach over the ravine on #1, the slightly recessed green on #2, the two demanding shots on the majestic #5). The par threes are a mediocre group (most I cannot even remember and I agree that Number 3 is overly difficult for a short par three). The par fives as a whole are a net minus mainly because of the goofy nature of Number 9 (with its island green) and the equally strange Number 18 (with its zigzag route to the green). The finishing holes on both nines just seem strange and out of place (more in the nature of target golf) on a pretty good parkland design. Along with Elks Run (designed by Greg Norman), Clermont County has two very good public courses.

[Richard Hetzel]

Yes,, I agree. All of the par 4 holes are good. The par 5's average. #9 and #18 reward a LONG hitter, both are reachable in 2 for someone who can hit a 280+ yard drive. The par 3's are a weak point, especially #17. Overall though, Jeff did a great job designing this course.

Does anyone know if he had any assistance from an architect??

[JLahrman]

Bill,

I've not played Stonelick but I have played Elks Run.  It was a shotgun and I think I started on #15.  There were quite a few holes I liked but a few that I didn't care for at all, particularly 7,8, and 13.  On the whole I did like it though.

[Glenn Spencer]

Rich-Thanks for posting the pictures. Stonelick Hills is a nice addition to the Cincinnati public golf course landscape. I think Jeff Osterfeld did a pretty good job for an amateur architect. My biggest problem with the course is its unevenness. The par fours are very well done (there are a number of great elements present: the approach over the ravine on #1, the slightly recessed green on #2, the two demanding shots on the majestic #5). The par threes are a mediocre group (most I cannot even remember and I agree that Number 3 is overly difficult for a short par three). The par fives as a whole are a net minus mainly because of the goofy nature of Number 9 (with its island green) and the equally strange Number 18 (with its zigzag route to the green). The finishing holes on both nines just seem strange and out of place (more in the nature of target golf) on a pretty good parkland design. Along with Elks Run (designed by Greg Norman), Clermont County has two very good public courses.

I have played it about 5 times and I would agree with every single thing you said here, Bill. I think you were a little kind regarding 9 and 18 though. I can't make up my mind which is worse. I also enjoyed 7 and 8 quite a bit. I found 10 to be a reasonable par 5.

[Criss Titschinger]

Great pics, Rich.  These couple weeks are great times to play golf as the leaves turn.  I find the front 9 unwalkable, mainly because of the walk from 4 to 5 and 5 to 6 (and because I'm not in the shape required to do so, even with my push cart).  The back 9 is a bit easier to navigate.  If nothing else, the $39 winter rate to play this course in the condition it's in now is a good deal.

My Cw/oR played a match play event there earlier this year.  Out of 8 groups, I think 10 people found the water on #3.  And while I'm not a big fan of 9 and 18 either, they did make for interesting match play.

What's the GCA consensus as far as how this course ranks among Cincinnati and Ohio's best public courses?  I agree with others here that the par 4s make this course.  As Shaker Run turns more into a housing development and community center (see the pools by Woodlands #1 tee), I have to give the nod to Stonelick in the Cincinnati category.  While I would put Stonelick in the top 10 in Ohio, it's probably in the bottom half of my book.

Thoughts?

[Richard Boult]

Thanks Rich, just added to our photo tour directory...

http://delicious.com/golfclubatlas/Ohio

[Richard Hetzel]

I think for Cincinnati, Stonelick Hills is definitely in the top 2 with Shaker Run. I also think Sharon Woods is undervalued for some odd reason and is one of the better courses in the Cincinnati area. Elks Run is average at best, nothing sparks me layout wise here (Sorry Mr. Norman) and I won't speak to course conditioning since the IRS sale, the course is in worse shape. When they were charging $85 a pop it was lush. I am sure the last two summers of drought have not helped either. If Stonelick Hills would lower their prices "in season" a tad, it would be the best place to play. Maybe the current economy will force their hand on that soon.

BTW, I can walk most courses, but it helped the one guy in our group had a cart and we jumped on for the long hikes. Shaker Run DOES NOT allow walking at anytime!

[JLahrman]

Personally I find Shaker Run to be overrated.  Others seem to like it, and I've only played there a couple of times, but I don't feel any sort of urge to go back.  If I'm going to play a CCFAD north of Cincinnati I will go to Walden Ponds before Shaker.  I play most of my golf in the area at Weatherwax though, and would just as soon go there.

Rich, good to see some Sharon Woods lovin' on the board.  That's where I grew up playing and I still think it's the best value in town.  Lots of good holes there, and not really a weak one - maybe #10, and I don't care for the way the fairway has been pinched by the bunkers on #15.  Not sure what it is to play these days, I haven't been there in a few years, but back in maybe 2004/2005 I think it was about $28 to walk on weekends.

[Richard Hetzel]

Personally I find Shaker Run to be overrated.  Others seem to like it, and I've only played there a couple of times, but I don't feel any sort of urge to go back.  If I'm going to play a CCFAD north of Cincinnati I will go to Walden Ponds before Shaker.  I play most of my golf in the area at Weatherwax though, and would just as soon go there.

Rich, good to see some Sharon Woods lovin' on the board.  That's where I grew up playing and I still think it's the best value in town.  Lots of good holes there, and not really a weak one - maybe #10, and I don't care for the way the fairway has been pinched by the bunkers on #15.  Not sure what it is to play these days, I haven't been there in a few years, but back in maybe 2004/2005 I think it was about $28 to walk on weekends.

$39 with cart on weekends and 24 or 25 to walk, which is allowed anytime.

With some extensive bunker renovation and maybe thinning out trees here and there, Sharon would really be outstanding. I have played Shaker Run once and like you, could care less whether I ever even get back there.

I know this may sound strange, but I would rather play Avon Field....

[Glenn Spencer]

Fix 3 and 6 at Shaker and I think you have something. If there are a few girls out by the pool on the first tee, I would look upon that as a positive. Haven't been out there in a year or so, but I imagine the houses haven't spread to the course. Nothing public in Cincinnati really turns me on. Really, the whole city is pretty lacking. Dayton is vastly superior when it comes to all courses and that seems hard to believe.

[JLahrman]

I know this may sound strange, but I would rather play Avon Field....

Avon Fields is fun to play, neat little holes and the place has a lot of character.  And characters.  5100 yards, par 66.

[John Nixon]

Any thoughts on Indian Ridge, just outside Oxford? I played it for the first, and so far only, time last summer. Some interesting holes, a few of which I'd not seen anything similar to elsewhere. Nice rolling topography. I've not played enough in the Cincinnati area to do any kind of ranking, but for the money it seemed a nice option.

[Richard Hetzel]

Any thoughts on Indian Ridge, just outside Oxford? I played it for the first, and so far only, time last summer. Some interesting holes, a few of which I'd not seen anything similar to elsewhere. Nice rolling topography. I've not played enough in the Cincinnati area to do any kind of ranking, but for the money it seemed a nice option.

It wouldn't be fair of me to comment on Indian Ridge. I played there in late August 2007 and the drought literally destroyed the course. The only thing fairly soft and green were the greens. All of the retention ponds were nearly EMPTY and that is all they had to water the course with. That being said, the course was OK layout wise. Firm and fast would not escribe how fast the course played that day. I hit a 5 iron over 285 and lost the ball because it was like playing on ashphalt! I would say that Indian Ridge is just pretty much an average public golf course.

The last time I went to Oxford, I played Hueston Woods Sp instead.

[John Nixon]

The last time I went to Oxford, I played Hueston Woods Sp instead.

Before I got there I assumed from its location IR would be getting a lot of play from the Miami students. I asked at the clubhouse and was informed the students play much more at Hueston than IR. I've not played Hueston myself, but what I've seen from photos and aerials it doesn't strike me as something I'd prefer - lots of trees lining narrow, fairly straight fairways. Or am I wrong again?   

[Richard Hetzel]

Hueston is a very traditional, mostly tree lined, fairly tight in spots, a few dogleg holes, normal golf course. Either Hurdzan or Kidwell designed it I believe.

[Criss Titschinger]

Any thoughts on Indian Ridge, just outside Oxford? I played it for the first, and so far only, time last summer. Some interesting holes, a few of which I'd not seen anything similar to elsewhere. Nice rolling topography. I've not played enough in the Cincinnati area to do any kind of ranking, but for the money it seemed a nice option.

Being a semi recent Miami U. alum (over 5 years), I frequented both Indian Ridge and Hueston Woods quite often.  I would sum it up like this: Hueston Woods was the better test of golf, but Indian Ridge was more fun to play, so I played IR more.

The reason Hueston probably gets more play than IR is because Hueston offers a heck of a deal on Tuesdays and Thursdays after 3.  I think it was all you can play for 15 bucks or less.  My classes would get out at 3:30, then I'd be off to the course.

I played IR about a month ago and I'm happy to report they have mostly recovered from the horrific summer they had in 2007.  There's still a couple of rough spots around hole 11, but the rest of it has grown back in for the most part.  Their ponds still aren't up to the level they were originally, but if they can get another winter like they had last year, they should fill back up.

If you're in the area again, I suggest checking out Buck Point.  I did a write up a few months ago here and I would recommend it over anything else in the Oxford area.

Personally I find Shaker Run to be overrated.  Others seem to like it, and I've only played there a couple of times, but I don't feel any sort of urge to go back.  If I'm going to play a CCFAD north of Cincinnati I will go to Walden Ponds before Shaker.  I play most of my golf in the area at Weatherwax though, and would just as soon go there.

Rich, good to see some Sharon Woods lovin' on the board.  That's where I grew up playing and I still think it's the best value in town.

I'm in the like Shaker Run camp.  I enjoy Walden Ponds, but the houses are a bit too close to the course for my liking, especially on #3.  Weatherwax remains one of my top courses in the area, any combination of 9s.

I live on the West side of Cincinnati and other than Western Hills (private) and Aston Oaks, there's not much worth playing in that area of town.

[JLahrman]

I'm in the like Shaker Run camp.  I enjoy Walden Ponds, but the houses are a bit too close to the course for my liking, especially on #3.  Weatherwax remains one of my top courses in the area, any combination of 9s.

I would agree with you on Walden Ponds, the proximity of the houses is the one negative.  Also the par 4 with the plaque announcing it as the 'signature hole'.  But overall I find it to be a very good test with a lot of strong holes, particularly on the back nine.

Weatherwax is a solid solid layout, only issue is it is watered too much.  I play in the 7 AM groups, but still, the course is way too soft in July and August.  Also they need to get rid of the patches of rough in front of a couple of the downhill par 5s (#4 Woodside, #4 Meadows).  And the worst hole there, #7 on Highlands.  They need to get rid of all those trees up the lefthand side of the hole, put in a few diagonal fairway bunkers, and move the tees up 20 yards.  Then you'd have a hole...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()