Is Texas HOT, or not?

[texsport]

I've been reading this post from the beginning with great amusement.

I'm trying to figure out how the PGA Tour could possibly consider holding it's Tour Championship in Texas on such a pedestrian course as Champions Cypress Creek.

Does the PGA Tour know that they're holding their event on such a weak, non-classic design?

Have any of our east coast friends ever teed it up from the tips at Champions and demonstrated it's weakness? NOT!

Come on down and try it some time-you might be just slightly humbled.

Texsport

[Mike_Cirba]

Texsport;

I'm not sure anyone here called Champions a "pedestrian" course, and there's no question that it's long and difficult.

Why the Tour would look to find a challenging course in the south for their October Tour Championship is hardly a mystery.

I've never played there and asked whether it was a "great" course, full of interesting subtleties, complex strategies, and one that continually holds the player's interest, provides pleasurable excitement and rewards thoughtful execution.  

You seem to be saying, yes, it does.    

[Lou_Duran]

Tex, Mike,

Champions- Cypress can be a very difficult golf, and is certainly worthy of holding prestigious events.  Does it possess the subtle qualities that Mike describes?  Probably not.  For the most part, it is a long, relatively flat course with humongous greens.  With wiry bermuda rough, hole corridors through the piney woods, wind, and the creek, it can be extremely challenging.

While Colonial has held the US Open before and could do so very easily again if the powers that be would feel comfortable without the protection of their blue blazers, some 30 miles to the east there is a course that may be setting the new standard in this part of the country.  In addition to all of the elements which make Texas golf so challenging, Dallas National GC has the topography, planning, and maintenance meld to potentially be in a class by itself.  While the bunkering is not as artfull as what some of our resident critics would like, from the standpoints of playability and strategy, they are very well done.  It has some of the most interesting greens and surrounds that I have seen, and though the fairways are ample, the ball has to be placed precisely to gain the best angles to the green.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Lou;

I'm curious as to how you would describe the bunkering at Dallas National?  When you say, "not artful", are you just speaking about this group's general preference for more rugged, raw-looking bunkering, or is that a value judgement you've made based on their appearance?  

How would you describe them?  Thanks!

[Lou_Duran]

Mike:

The bunkers at DNGC are characteristic of Fazio's work, though the greens seem to be more of a departure (more movement, more "greens within greens", and greater slope).  As a rule, the bunkers are oval or curvi-linear (as opposed to free-form), with clean, uniform edges.  Most are on the sides of fairways and greens. My use of the word "artful" is based on both, the predominant preference on this site for "rugged, raw-looking bunkering", and a value judgement on my part of their (DN's bunkers) appearance.  (Personally, I thought that most of the things we talk about here are value judgements, subjective conjecture, and thoughtful opinions.)  DN's bunkers don't resemble those at Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes, but if they did, it would not be in keeping with the natural surrounds of the site.  On the other hand, had the owner and Fazio chose a more rugged, uneven look like at MacKenzie's Meadow Club (whose greens, bunkers and surrounds are being expertly restored by Mike DeVries), in my opinion, it would have been in keeping with the site and aesthetically superior.   Personally, I would like to have seen a few diagonal cross bunkers, but the bunkering scheme at DN works just fine the way it is.  BTW, all 250 resident memberships have been sold; an amazing accomplishment considering that the course is less than a year old, the clubhouse is still under construction, the ultra-high initiation fee, and the shape of our local economy.  

[Matt_Ward]

texsport:

Surely you jest about Champions / Cypress Creek?

I've played the course from the tips and it's nothing more than a long, boring and repetitious layout. Compared to Bethpage Black -- Cypress Creek is really an absolute yawn and has ZERO architectural aspects that would spur anyone to return. I mean some of the holes have greens that are so BIG with no meaningful contour or presence!

The reasons why the PGA Tour selects specific many times has very little do to with architectural greatness -- often, it's related to logistical aspects (i.e. gallery availability / the entire media compound, space for all vehicles, etc, etc). Since Champions DOES have 36 holes this gives the facility a decided edge over others.

Champions flexed plenty of muscle to land the '69 Open -- I don't see a hunkering (thank God for small favors) to return to such a lackluster course. Oh, by the way, please don't lob the inane charge that just because I'm from the East that there must be some geographical bias involved -- there isn't -- Cypress Creek is just that utterly drab -- let's not think that just because a course "may" be difficult that it possesses architectural aspects worthy to be compared to the more deserving Texas layouts that have been listed on this thread.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree the bunkers aren't Fazios best.  He was doing Vaquero at the same time, and that has spectacular bunkers, many with one foot lips, a la Normans course in Atlanta.

I can only surmise that he wanted to be different in the two courses, and with so much natural beauty on the DN site, he could afford to put simpler bunkering.

Lou, based on Fazio courses I have seen, I would not say the contours are a departure.  Flint Hills in Kansas has some greens with cup areas at 4.3% - I measured!

[Scott_Burroughs]

Here are two articles on Dallas Natonial.  Each has one pic of the course.  The first article's pic looks nice, the second doesn't impress me much, especially if those lollipop-like drawings are planned tress.

http://www.texasgolfermagazine.com/articles_oct02-dallas_national.html

http://www.discoverylandco.com/images/TDMN_TxGolf_FazioArticle.pdf

Initition fees $100-$150K for national membership of 350 planned.

[texsport]

texsport:

Surely you jest about Champions / Cypress Creek?

I've played the course from the tips and it's nothing more than a long, boring and repetitious layout. Compared to Bethpage Black -- Cypress Creek is really an absolute yawn and has ZERO architectural aspects that would spur anyone to return. I mean some of the holes have greens that are so BIG with no meaningful contour or presence!

The reasons why the PGA Tour selects specific many times has very little do to with architectural greatness -- often, it's related to logistical aspects (i.e. gallery availability / the entire media compound, space for all vehicles, etc, etc). Since Champions DOES have 36 holes this gives the facility a decided edge over others.

Champions flexed plenty of muscle to land the '69 Open -- I don't see a hunkering (thank God for small favors) to return to such a lackluster course. Oh, by the way, please don't lob the inane charge that just because I'm from the East that there must be some geographical bias involved -- there isn't -- Cypress Creek is just that utterly drab -- let's not think that just because a course "may" be difficult that it possesses architectural aspects worthy to be compared to the more deserving Texas layouts that have been listed on this thread.

Matt
      What did you shoot from the tips at Champions? I hope you don't have  the course raters disease-score poorly and hate it-score well and appreciate the architectural complexities.
       Better yet, what score won the U.S.Open in '69 when the course was set up "easy" with absolutely no rough?
       The PGA and USGA (for the U.S.Amateur) like Champions for the same reason! It's a big, full-blooded ball striker's course demanding that you hit driver off the tees and hit solid long and medium irons to large greens. Get the distance right or you won't make birdie. Simple, fair and pure!
       My Champions description sounds like what a REAL player's course is supposed to be instead of a bunch of tricked up, lay up holes demanding shorter precision shots dominant on a lot of "architecturally great" courses.(which to me is the ultimate boredom-lay up, lay up, lay up....save it for the old men who can't hit it out of their shadows any more)
        I freely admit, my problem is, I have very little appreciation for older, too short, past their glory courses that still are called great. Put a PGA Tour event on them and lets see.
        You seem to believe that it's impossible to have a great course on land that is relatively flat. I don't agree, but that's O.K. for both of us.

Texsport
        

[Jamie_Duffner]

I'm native Long Islander living in Houston.  I've played Champions about 6 or 7 times.  The greens are huge, some have interesting contours, but others seem to be too contrived.  

There also holes that are too alike.  1 and 10, dogleg lefts, slightly downhill, bunker on the outside of the dogleg, similar lengths.

14 and 15, parallel holes, similar length, straight away.
11 and 18, very similar.

16 is about as boring a par 3 as I've seen, really just a way to get you to 17.  17 is a good hole.

3,4,5 is a fun strecth that I enjoy.  13 is a nice par 5.

9 is a strange hole, asking you to blow it over the trees on the right.  The typical hole where the big hitter gets an even bigger advantage.

It's a brute, no doubt with tough, humongous greens and water in very sneaky spots.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Tex,

Can you give me an example of an architecturally "interesting", contrived hole/course?  To me, that's an oxymoron.  'Architecturally interesting', without the quotes around interesting at least, and 'contrived' generally are completely different animals.

[texsport]

Scott
      You're right, architecturally contrived but not interesting.
I was changing that while you were typing.

Texsport

[Matt_Ward]

texsport:

What difference does it make what I shot? Do you honestly believe I make assessments of courses based on what I shot?  To be clear -- I'm a low single digit handicap who has the wherewithal to hit the ball a decent ways and have qualified for USGA Championships and other noteworthy regional events in the NY/NJ area. I've seen and played plenty of courses (from maximum back mind you) that I don't believe it serves anyone's interest to throw forward my golf credentials -- those who post and lurk on GCA and who have played with me can attest to the things I say.

Let's get back to the main point you make -- Champions / Cypress Creek is DULLSVILLE! I've watched the Tour Championship(s) played there and it's just the same big long par-4 with a greens literally the size of Texas. ZZZZZZZZZZZ ... Let's catch a few more winks in the land of nod ... ZZZZZZZZZ

Is the course tough? I don't doubt that because when you grow Bermuda 3-4 inches you and narrow the fairways plenty of courses can become tough -- but is it memorable? Is it really a top 100 course as so many publications were wont to include it for many years becaue the ingrained architectural style has some real pizzazz? In my experiences I'd say no way jose.

Let me also point out that I have been a consistent advocate AWAY from the kind of quirky type courses you seem to be against. I have consistently and repeatedly stated that such courses are a very fine stroke away from being classified as "sporty, tricky and gimmick type golf. I too, have a deep aversion, to that type of golf because it's based on treating golf shots in such a haphazard and inconsistent fashion.

But, you and I are on different pages concerning Champions / Cypress Creek -- it has as much taste as getting some $10 beef at some fast food roadhouse place that says it serves "great steaks."

texsport: FYI -- Let me also mention that no less than Tom Doak has made the (correct in my opinion) statement that it is truly doubtful that a great course can be had on dead flat land. I stand by that.

One last thing -- there are other courses within the Lone Star State that have superb land and can offer much. I've mentioned the Austin area and I'm sure others can chime in as well on other locales. Hope this helps ...

P.S. For the benefit of Tiger's bank account the Tour needs to stay at places like Champions / Cypress Creek!

[ChipRoyce]

As a recent transplant to Austin, I have to say I am impressed with the options available to golfers, esp. public here. Some good public tracks in Forrest Creek and Avery Ranch.

I recently joined a solid private track, Great Hills, populated with some of the best amateur golfers in the city.

At the same time, GCA'ers might find the area dull. Lots of good courses, but not enough "unique" "classic" or "top 100's" to satisfy their needs.

Chip

[Steve Lang]

Hey matt,  remember these words.. they could be reversed with you as subject, for those STRONG OPINIONS,,, NOT GOING TO BUDGE>> NO WAY<< NO WAY!!!

Steve:

Take a chill -- don't get your Texas attitude get bent out of shape -- OK -- partner!

 ...

While you are apparently not going to be persuaded on Champions-Cypress, living in TX heat, or the challenge of relatively flat venues, that's fine with me..  I think we all appreciate the joys of a little topography and have no arguement that it spurs the creative GCA vein in all of us and impacts good or bad golfers to varying degrees.  So you must then also think that, as an international example, since TOC is on very flat land as well, that it too has little architctural merit in the big scheme of things,,, eh?    

In TX, more than other flat areas, I've mainly found many of what i call "push up" style of courses created on the flat topography that were first to effect drainage and secondarily to create some challenge /strategy/ topography impacts on the hit ball.  In Houston and SE TX,  if you don't design features/slopes like it was in SE Asia where monsoon rains occur.. you're in for trouble.  (3-5 inches in 24 hr period not unusual, the 10 year 24 hr design storm is 4.5") then you can add or supplement these GCA features.  

Other areas of this big state have entirely different micro-climates and their needs vary,,, as well as golfing folk density.
 
Can we premise then, that in hilly or rolling areas of any country, where drainage is largely taken care of for you by topograpy or geology, it is then a certainty that the GCA "art" applied there is by definition, more "creative" or classic and perhaps the results more fulfilling to the golfer when it all fits together over hill and dale?  I think not, and I don't care how many times the name of Tom Doak is invoked.

 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Matt,
Tom Doak said it's truly doubtful that a great course can be had on flat land? What does he think of his new course at TT which started out laser leveled flat? Granted he moved a little   dirt, but my guess is his new course will quickly rise to among the top courses in the lone star state.

[Matt_Ward]

Don M:

I have no idea how Tom Doak's new course will turn out. That's part of the process -- keeping an open mind and seeing it when it does come on line. It may be great or it may flop -- I have no idea until I actually play it. Clearly, if "tons" of earth have been moved it will be very interesting to see how that meshes together -- as you know, sometimes when people move plenty of earth it creates more issues of blending with the existing land. We shall see ...

Steve L:

The issue is a simple one -- Champions / Cypress Creek is dullsville! I don't see anyone putting forward a concrete and insightful analysis on what architectural merits the course possesses. Yes, it did host an Open in 1969 -- so what does that have to do with architectural qualities? Yes, the course can be set-up for a tough test -- but wherein lies the memorability that sets it apart from NOT just Texas courses but to belong in the elite mix nationwide

Steve, let's be a bit fair -- I've agreed with plenty that's been posted on Texas golf in certain specific locations where the topography is good and where design elements have been infused into the layout (i.e. Hill County, to name just one location).

You and a few others think that having quantity golf is the same as quality golf -- it isn't in my book. Plenty of what's happening with golf development in Texas is following the same pattern as Florida -- just build more holes and they will come. That's the same credo that McDonald's used to follow. Just open more stores and the idiotic masses will follow and digest away all that slop and grease called "fast food."

Steve, if you don't like the idea that I mention Tom Doak's name (he is just one source) please list others who are no less qualified. Oh, and by the way, your desire to list TOC in some kind of linkage with the many boring flat courses of Texas is really out-of-bounds. TOC has plenty of character and a vast array of playing options that make it among the quintessential flat courses in the world.

[Lou_Duran]

Don,

What is the latest on your course?  Are the bent greens growing in nicely?   Red Raider is supposed to open when school starts for the fall semester.  I too think that it will be a course of note, and a feather in Tom Doak's and Jim Urbina's hat.

Does anyone know much about the University of Texas @ Austin's new course which may open at the end of the year?  Apparently, C & C are not the architects of record, though  some UT golfers participated in the design.  I sure hope that for the students' sake the management and ownership structure is more like Red Raider (Texas Tech) and not Karsten Creek (Oklahoma State).

[Craig Van Egmond]

Lou,

   By that last comment I assume you mean that students at Texas Tech will actually be able to play their course at a reasonable price?  Of course any student willing to cough up $225 can play Karsten Creek. With a member its around $75.

  Mike Holder is very protective of the course, even the paid members don't get to play very much. A couple of years ago it got 10,000 rounds in one year and they thought that was way too much.

[Lou_Duran]

Craig,

I played the Ohio State courses for 7+ years in the 1970s and never paid more than $100 for an annual pass.  That is a true university facility.  Mr. Holder's deal at the other OSU is the antithesis of a college course, and I am hoping that  UT@Austin will be truly open to the students.  BTW, didn't Karsten Solheim donate several millions for the development of OSU's course?  What is the justification of its affiliation with a public facility (the university) and its structure as an ultra-exclusive club for the golf team and a few rich alumni?  Not that it needs one.

[CHrisB]

Lou,
From what I've read, UT's University Club will absolutely not be open to students.  Rather, it will be a private, upscale facility serving as the home base for the UT golf teams.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Lou,

     Basically Karsten Creek is and has been Mike Holder's dream for many years, he worked very hard to raise the funds and get it built and it was built to be a recruiting tool and a playground for the team and those lucky alumni with bucks. They have made it quite clear that they do not want much play. Yes, Karsten Solhiem made significant contributions to the course and the pro shop it well stocked with Ping equipment and nothing else. The students get no break to play it. I usually get to play it once a year when a charity event comes around. I will be out there for the NCAA championships next month though. They do keep the course in great shape and I love those zoysia fairways. A very solid Tom Fazio course and the best publicly available golf course in Oklahoma.

[Steve Lang]

OK Matt, I'll let you know when I find no-less an expert than Tom Doak of old, perhaps, as implied by others, the Tom Doak of "new",,, post Red Raider experience,,, would be neat for him to weigh in.

Matt, I'm sure you're tired of this thread, and apparently you didn't like my TOC linkage?  I thought the juxtaposition was amusing,,, that a boring flat course albeit with the ultimate history, should get a special exemption from your boring-flat course stance?  Is nothing sacred, nope.  As you say, if a course has plenty of character and a vast array of playing options.. that's ok!

Yes Matt,  I like to play as much golf as possible and vast affordable quantities offers unbeatable variety, and ultimately a perspective on quality, just as you've related from your experience as a player..  

Enjoy golf.

p.s. Please add River Ridge to your new play list around Houston if its not there already

[Lou_Duran]

Craig,

I've heard the story behind Karsten Creek.  I  don't doubt that's on the up-and-up.  But the fact that most of what Holder is, is as a result of him being a university employee, the structure of the club doesn't seem right.  In effect, he has traded on the university's name and raised the money through the success of the OSU team (of which undoubtedly he was a big part).  Separating the team from the university and limiting the benefits of the fundraising to just a few "lucky" folks doesn't seem right.  I wonder if the benefactors also got to deduct their contributions for tax purposes.  In any event, I hope that UT @ Austin follows a model much closer to Ohio State's where the golf club enriched the lives of not only the golf team and a few rich alumni, but all students, faculty, and employees who loved the game.  BTW, Zack Robinson played a lot of golf with me and my son.  If he ever learns to use the sweet spot on his putter instead of the toe, there will be no stopping him.


Steve,

We are spitting into the wind.  For those who choose to believe that Texas is devoid of quality golf, it is their loss.  If Matt didn't find Champions challenging and interesting, well, he must be one lucky guy to be playing such superior courses.  One does have to wonder how much the natural beauty of surrounding oceans and sand dunes influences  
our judgement on architecture.  "Eye candy", whether natural or man-made, may be a bigger factor than what we would like to believe.  The same may be true of history and tradition as the TOC example seems to indicate.  Pebble Beach may be a good example of both factors coming into play.  Having played Dallas National a couple of times, I believe that as an interesting, challenging design, it is in the same class as Pebble Beach, though I doubt that more than a few on this site would agree.  
    

[Scott_Burroughs]

Lou,

Pinehurst #2 and Winged Foot have no eye candy and people think pretty highly of them.  Riviera, too.  Carnoustie, from what I've heard.