Anyone played the renovated of U.Maryland?

« **on:** October 12, 2009, 05:02:21 PM »

It was originally a George Cobb design from 1959. Bill Love renovated the course. I liked 8 with its center-front bunker (6 o'clock position) withe the green not wrapping around it in a u-shape, but with wings that are shaved chipping areas in the shape of a v-shape around the bunker. Variation on a theme...

and one of 16...

« **Reply #1 on:** October 12, 2009, 05:40:19 PM »

I played it a few weeks ago. It was a tough walk - was pretty tired by the end of the round. Overall a good experience, with lots of good but no great holes. I liked the variation in distance in par 3s, but I feel like Cobb did better greens at Glenn Dale.

« **Reply #2 on:** October 12, 2009, 05:47:56 PM »

I hear he did/is doing the bunkers at Olympic Club. Do you like the course?

If you think that's a tough walk, try Inniscrone. I was tired after that one...UMd not so much.

« **Reply #3 on:** October 13, 2009, 06:52:17 AM »

Jay,

I have not made it over to College Park but the guys at Punchbowlgolf.com were not impressed with Love's work. They feel the changes could have been a lot more strategic rather than eye candy.

http://punchbowlgolf.com/2009/09/university-of-md-golf-course/

Paul

« **Reply #4 on:** October 13, 2009, 07:11:44 AM »

Conditioning is always an issue at U of MD - my undergrad alma mater.... JC

« **Reply #5 on:** October 13, 2009, 08:02:31 AM »

They hope that after the renovations, the conditioning will be brought up to snuff by the spring. They think that's a reasonable target date.

Most of the money they raised ($3.5 million) went to tree clearing, drainage, infrastructure, and fwy bunkers. They kept the routing. The new fwy bunkers are sometimes perpendicular to the line of play, so there is some strategy. It's just not every shot and every hole. Remember, this is a place where the golfers are aspiring pros and sometimes become touring or teaching pros (Funk, Beman, Slobodnik, Zimran etc.), so they'll be pre-conditioned to like things different than your rank and file GCA.com guy will.

What do you think of 8? ANy other fravorite holes?

« **Reply #6 on:** October 13, 2009, 08:04:39 AM »

Quote from: Jay Flemma on October 12, 2009, 05:47:56 PM

I hear he did/is doing the bunkers at Olympic Club. Do you like the course?

If you think that's a tough walk, try Inniscrone. I was tired after that one...UMd not so much.

I can second that one. Inniscrone is a tough one to walk, but a great golf course!

I played UM a while back before the renovation. It was a fun golf course with what I considered to be a solid set of par 3's.

Mark

« **Reply #7 on:** October 13, 2009, 08:59:01 AM »

Yeah, I thought the par-3s were the best part of the course. 16 was good too. I also like how it's in the shadow of Byrd Stadium, that was cool.

« **Reply #8 on:** October 13, 2009, 09:10:27 AM »

Quote

but I feel like Cobb did better greens at Glenn Dale

Yes! Absolutely agree Justin, Glenn Dale has a number of interesting greens that UMD lacks-I am always amazed how few locals know about Glenn Dale.

Jay, I am a fan of 2, 4, 12.
Always thought 6 and 15 could be much better somehow.
How did those holes turn out? Any pictures?

« **Reply #9 on:** October 13, 2009, 11:30:25 AM »

Here's what I got for pix:

2. I hate little ponds in driving areas...

and 9...forced carry.

I wasn't a fan of 6 and 7, but I had no problem with 14 - 18.

« **Reply #10 on:** October 13, 2009, 01:02:59 PM »

As I lay out in my article on Punchbowl, I think the routing at UMD is better than anything else in the DC area. The new bunkers are indeed perpendicular to the line of play but are still mostly pushed to the sides. Jay makes the point that this where people who may become teaching or touring pros often play in college and to me this adds to the disappointment of the renovation. Instead of seeing how much better a thoughtful renovation could make the course, they see a misspent $3.5 million and are told that the course is now much better- when it is not. Rich Mandell is teaching a golf arch class to future club pros at NC State so that when they go out in the golf world they are not just repeating all of the same garbage that they learn by watching the tour. A similar thing could have happened at UMD. Instead, it is a missed opportunity.

The "little pond" on 2 is actually part of a large wetland that runs over to 10 and 11. It could be a great hole. Bill Love wisely moved the fairway closer to the hazard but then placed the bunker front left to negate the advantage of playing close to it.

The short grass in front of eight is just for show. The hole is a 100-yard drop shot. No one would ever attempt to run the ball up. Not a bad hole, just not as good as it could be.

« **Reply #11 on:** October 13, 2009, 01:12:04 PM »

Quote

I hate little ponds in driving areas...

Jay, thanks for the pic of #2. I think you may have missed the point of the pond (its not as little as it appears in your pic by the way). The area towards the pond, the left side of the fairway is much flatter than the the 'safe' high right side. There is lots of room out that way but the lie will generally not be level over there. Challenging the pond has always seemed like it should be an obvious strategic element but it has always been maintained as rough--a clear missed opportunity to me. Your pic seems to be an improvement but I believe the fairway should get much closer to the water.

I can't comment on 6 as I haven't seen the changes. But it should be a good hole with not a lot of work-a punishing bunker in the dogleg to be challenged and something nasty protecting the left side of the green for those who decline that challenge.

**EDIT**
I see Will made some comments. I agree with his points and would go further on #8--I doubt you could run it up if you tried because of the height differential.
Will, is the bunker left of the green on 2 new? I seem to recall a bunker being there previously.

« **Reply #12 on:** October 13, 2009, 02:57:13 PM »

Will, I agree that they are perpendicular, but also pushed a little to the side. Good observation.

« **Reply #13 on:** October 13, 2009, 03:46:24 PM »

Andy,

If my memory serves me the bunker on #2 was pushed further to the side. Bill Love took enough liberties elsewhere that he could have done whatever he wanted here.

You are spot on with #6, but that's not how it turned out.

« **Reply #14 on:** October 13, 2009, 04:21:11 PM »

Will, you're right! I didn't catch that in Jay's picture---the bunker was indeed along the left side of the green and not left/fronting as it is now. An odd choice. Also surprised even more fairway wasn't added left and right up to the water's edge.

« **Reply #15 on:** October 13, 2009, 04:44:43 PM »

The sixth slides right up a hill to a nice green site. The original hole had the bunker on the inside of the dogleg. Rather than enhancing this bunker and maybe building one further up the hill on the inside of the dogleg to catch the big hitter, Bill Love decided to put two mundane bunkers on the outside of the hole. A better option would have been pinching the green with a intimidating bunker on the left and sloping the green so that it is best approached from the right. This could be a great hole.

« **Reply #16 on:** October 13, 2009, 04:51:16 PM »

Here's another picture of 2

Meet Ron Willard...former number one for Maryland for two years - 1968-69 I think. They love their Terps.

Good thing he didn't go to Holy Cross:) (for those of you scoring at home, their colors are purple.)

« **Reply #17 on:** October 13, 2009, 11:12:50 PM »

Here's the Jay Flemma article:

http://www.cybergolf.com/golf_news/terrapin_station_u_maryland_golf_course_celebrates_50th_anniversary_with_renovation_reunion

« **Reply #18 on:** October 14, 2009, 02:30:01 AM »

The decision to put those two bunkers in on the left side of the 6th is bizarre?

Will - I totally agree with your assessment of this hole.

The second pic on #2 (with RW in RED) - makes it look like an interesting angle that would support the argument that the fairway should be cut tight to the wetlands area to entice the golfer. Is it possible to fly it for a tiger hitter? If so, the left side bunker absolutely ruins the risk/reward element. Spot on guys.

The terrain is quite interesting though - I enjoy playing courses with elevation change and movement like UMD.

« **Reply #19 on:** October 14, 2009, 09:36:32 AM »

Jay, thanks for the additional pictures. The Ron Willard picture does a much better job showing what the tee shot is like, with the wide open area to the right that leads to a longer second shot (and the ball invariably above one's feet) vs. the more dangerous but more direct (and flatter) option to the left.

Here is an overhead from Google Earth of #2. Rob, according to GE, it is 309 to clear the water from the back tees, and the tee is a bit elevated. So I guess it is possible for some tigers to fly it but it would take quite a hit.

Will, the left bunker was indeed left of the green as you said--with the new location, challenging the water to the left would leave one with a shot directly over the newly created bunker. Maybe a bad strategic decision. I still think a lot of rough left should be cut down, but what do I know.

« **Reply #20 on:** October 14, 2009, 09:44:15 AM »

Andy, I think I had a side hill lie for my second, but yes, you are right.

It was fun, but I like Scotland Run and Rock Manor better.

« **Reply #21 on:** October 14, 2009, 01:11:20 PM »

309 to clear - damn!

Seems like the pond could have been put to better use - I like the angle off the tee but it seems like a 3 wood, at least for a big hitter, to short of the pond or a tricky drive to the right side, is the optimal play. Not quite as much fun as being able to have a go and then getting a great line into the green.

« **Reply #22 on:** October 15, 2009, 01:39:35 PM »

Rob, to my untrained eye it looks like the pieces are all there just waiting to be used for a big and burly strategic hole. I have not seen the course since Love's redo so take my comments with a grain of salt but from the pic it sure looks like the pond was not maximized and then the error was compounded by a poorly placed bunker.
Also, just to note--the pond is not only in play at the end of a long drive, it is also an issue up the left side for those who take that route; it would be fairly easy to overcook one a little and end up wet, especially if all the grass was cut as fairway rather than rough which would tend to stop the ball.

Jay, don't know Scotland Run or Rock Manor-are they in this region? Also, how good do you suppose UMD would be if some other more favored gca had done the work and spent that 3.5 million? The course just 'feels' to me like it has the potential to be really, really good.

« **Reply #23 on:** May 19, 2010, 11:08:05 PM »

I finally played UM today and concur with most of the comments. The changes could have made this a really good golf course. The elevation changes and the routing is awfully good.

One thing that drove me crazy was a number of fairway bunkers that appeared to challenge the player to for a better angle or at least the benefit of added distance. I can think of three times where I put my drive in about the spot I wanted, over the bunker, to just find myself in the rough on the greenside of the bunker. 6,10 and 16. Disappointing.

News:

Jay Flemma

J Sadowsky

Jay Flemma

Paul Carey

Jonathan Cummings

Jay Flemma

Mark McKeever

Jay Flemma

Andy Hughes

Jay Flemma

Will Smith

Andy Hughes

Jay Flemma

Will Smith

Andy Hughes

Will Smith

Jay Flemma

Steve_ Shaffer

Rob Rigg

Andy Hughes

Jay Flemma

Rob Rigg

Andy Hughes

Paul Carey

An Error Has Occurred!