Bay Harbor?

[Jeff Goldman]

Made myself a present of a few Shell WWOG tapes to compensate for killing myself at work the last month.  So, get home around 2 am friday and pop in Lehman and Mickelson at Bay Harbor.  I know that the course isn't held in high esteem in the treehouse - "Wasted Opportunity" is the sense I get, but when I searched the archives for specifics, there's really nothing beyond general comments.  So, what's wrong with the course?  bad use of the shoreline?  how?  Ugly quarry holes?  lousy greensites - there seemed to be a lot of two tier greens, and a couple without bunkers, as well as a lot of undulation in the fairways, but what's the deal?

Jeff Goldman

[David Wigler]

Jeff,

The course has three nines.  The Preserve is a complete and total waste.  It is horrible.  Think Oak Pointe.  It is overgrown with trees, has no lines of play and it boring.  

The two nines that are often rated are the Links and the Quarry.  Please do not misunderstand my criticism of them.  I felt that GW was wrong to remove this routing from its top 100.  I believe it should be somewhere between 50-75.  That written, the piece of land is every bit the equal of Bandon Dunes, Pacific Dunes or Whistling Straits and superior to Arcadia.  It is a horrible missed opportunity for a course that should have been a bulletproof top 20 for the next millennium.  The Links nine sits on the bluffs overlooking the water.  The topography is wonderful and the vistas spectacular.  Instead of building natural settings and giving the course a Scottish feel, Hills felt the need to put his touches on the holes.  You have Art Hills maintenance bunkers everywhere.  The run-up shot does not exist and Hills built an aerial exercise.  The greens are boring instead of massive structures that Doak, Dye, Kidd or others familiar with links golf would have done.  The course simply does not maximize its property.  The Quarry nine is a love it or hate it proposition.  Almost every hole is a forced carry to different landing areas.  Hills tried to build an early Pete Dye course without any of Dye's flare for creating obstacles within the landing areas.  His bunker work is again atrocious and his greens boring.  The nine holes are visually memorizing and this offsets some of its weaknesses.  I hope that makes sense.  I wonder if you can tell from TV.

[Jeff Goldman]

David,

Terrific explanation, thanks.  Now I think I'm starting to understand.  On tv, it looks like a bunch of other really green parkland courses with cool vistas.  It looks so "finished" that it never occurred to me that something interesting and offbeat could have been done.  

Jeff

[David Wigler]

Jeff,

That is it.  

You cannot help but be impressed with the vistas and eye candy.  This is a good golf course and if for nothing more than the property, it really is a must see in Northern Michigan.  The difference is that after seeing it, you will not be dieing to see it again.  Walking off Bandon, Pacific or Whistling, I would bet that most of our thougths are how we can weasel another trip from our wives.  Walking off Bay Harbor, you think "Wow that was a pretty course."  The experience is probably similar (Though I do not mean to compare the visual appeal of the two) to Old Head.  You love the view but the golf was good not great.  I do not know if you have played Kingsley yet.  If yes, can you fathom what it would be if Devries had been given Bay Harbor's property and built Kingsley on it?  My guess is that Sand Hills and Pacific would be struggling to stay number 1.

[Nick_Ficorelli]

David:
after playing 4 straight days last year at their invitational,
this course actually became a chore. How many times can you land in the countless catch basins around the greens and hit from a soggy,divot laden drain areas?
Take away the vistas and compare it with the topo at Pacific and Bay Harbor just does'nt stack up.

[Steve Lang]

Played it several years ago as Part of a GCA school held at Boyne Resort.. As for the Boyne group of courses they consider it their jewel.. my $0.02 non-architectural take  goes very quickly like this:

* Bring your $, be prepared to feel pampered, but taken.
* Its not the Pebble Beach of the North Coast, the use of the coast is very minimal, primarily as I remember one par three and really very uninspired.  You can get jsut as memorable views from the road along Lake Michigan.
* The Quarry leaves you feeling bland and wondering why, other than it was cheap real estate?
* The Preserve.. get a tee time at the Heather Course instead

[tlavin]

Bay Harbor is so "over".  It's overpriced.  It's overrated.  It's over-talked-about.  And the service is over-the-top horrible.  This place should be converted back into the cement business it used to be.  Just because a place looks pretty is no reason to go back.

[Jeff Goldman]

David,

I see it.  Now I also realize what the depressions were around the greens.  We have a couple of Hills' courses in Illinois, and one I've played in wisconsin, and Bay Harbor doesn't look much different, despite the totally different environment.  I haven't made it to Kingsley yet (I'm not a member of a club), but my next road trip is penciled in for Arcadia Bluffs (after starting the season next weekend at Lawsonia or BWR, with any luck).

Jeff Goldman

[Mike_Cirba]

I do not know if you have played Kingsley yet.  If yes, can you fathom what it would be if Devries had been given Bay Harbor's property and built Kingsley on it?  My guess is that Sand Hills and Pacific would be struggling to stay number 1.

David;

That's quite a pronouncement!  

I have two questions;

1) Do you really think that a course's location next to a large body of water makes THAT much of a difference in how it is perceived by the rating publications?

2) Sand Hills is certainly "inland".  As much as I loved TKC, I find it difficult to include it in the exact same lofty category as SH and PD.  Do you?

[Steve Pozaric]

Just to pile on with mostly non-specific comments - after playing it, I remember very little about the individual holes.  Great views, but nothing much I remember about the course.  The Quarry and part of the Links I remember being characterized by long forced carries out of proportion to the lengths of the holes.  Overall distance would have suggested a set of tees further back than I played; the forced carries dictated a shorter course for me which led to short irons into the greens.

It was nice, but given the chance if I were up there again, I would not partake and would play the other Boyne courses (the Heather perhaps).

Steve

[Matt_Ward]

Mike C:

I don't doubt that SH and PD are beyond TKC ... but I do concur with David's premise that if Mike DeVries had the kind of land you have at Bay Harbor the results would have been far beyond what Arthur Hills delivered. Bay Harbor is a wasted opportunity that could -- check that -- should have been much better.

P.S. Mike, I'd be curious to your full comments on TKC. Do you believe the course is one of the top 100 courses you have played in the United States? In my mind -- there's not a doubt about it.

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt;

Please see my thread titled, "My lord..it's good!" for my impressions of The Kingsley Club, as well as the inevitable comparisons to Crystal Downs.

Thanks!   I'd be curious if you agree with my points.

[David Wigler]

Mike,

I absolutely believe that water makes that much of a difference.  In the last Golfweek ratings Whistling Straits was #3, Bandon Dunes was #4, Arcadia #26 and Kingsley #56.  GD had Kingsley around #700.  You have played Arcadia.  If you do nothing but compare holes, Kingsley beats Arcadia like a drum.  The difference between Cypress and Crystal is often described as the land that makes 15, 16, 17.  I truly believe that Kingsley's design would have worked on Bay Harbor's site.  I also truly believe that combination would be a lock top 5 in the country.  

Devries is a budding superstar.  I cannot wait to see what he comes up with next.