It's been a few years so my recollection has faded a bit. Corridor golf, non-returning 18. Overall, my impression was that it played narrower in 3-D. It seemed that some holes were raised above the perimeter land to get them out of the swampland. Then, the fairways had mounds plopped along the edges (attempting to hide the cart path?). The result was a highpoint about 25% in from the edge and any shot past that was a goner. To raise the holes, many lakes were dug. Seemed like more hole had water than not although not all was in play. Some forced carries over water I thought could be troublesome to short-knockers. Though part of a housing development, not many holes had houses. Many are carved out of what appeared (to this Yankee) a jungle swamland which gives the holes a hemmed-in feeling. Unless you are relatively accurate off the tee, this course will be punishing. but the greens were fairly flat, so "one-putt from anywhere" could allow you to get strokes back. All-in-all it's a fairly one-dimensional course. not alot of strategy off the tee - just hit it straight down the middle.
Actually, Tampa Palms was instructive to me as an architect because it illustrates that "building on the land" can make a hole much narrower than it looks on paper. Plus, it leads to an artifical, man-made aesthetic.
Tim –
I can confirm every one of your recollections. As a Newbie who is not an Architect, I’m glad to see my observations / criticisms echoed by someone who is “trained” (I’m not just seeing things!).
Two days after I played the course, I sent the following e-mail to Ron Montesano:
What an absolutely horrific course! Tight fairways are one thing, but there was almost no rough to speak of. You had 20 yard wide fairways, with only about 4-5 yards of rough on the sides. However, that didn't matter, since most of the holes sloped off at the edge of the fairways, so if you even touched the rough, your ball would fall into the "jungle" from which this monstrosity was carved. Trees would be fine (you can make a recovery from trees), but this was overgrown jungle - every single tree line was marked with red stakes, to give you an idea how unplayable this course was. If you managed to avoid the jungle, every other space was filled by water (the lazy architect's favorite hazard). Six holes on the Back Nine featured water abutting the front of the green. No rough - just green surface, railroad tie, water (actually, one had 4 yards of rough before the water, but since it was sloped by approx 30 degrees - same effect). So you can really appreciate the "variety" there.
Considering the only elevation change on the entire course were the slopes they carved out in the rough to ensure any marginal shot kicked into the jungle, I bet you can imagine how inspired I was. Mike Strantz would have puked looking at this cookie-cutter waste of space. The most damning thing I can say is that I played this course Sunday, and two days later, I honestly can't remember 4-5 of the holes ("hey look, it's another flat hole with no room for error, lined by jungle on the right and water left"). He didn't even use angled landing areas to bring any variety off the tee - almost every tee shot was "hit it straight down this ribbon fairway, or else."
I'm sure I'm being too harsh on it - if I'd been stroking the ball perfectly, I might say it's a "shotmaker's delight" (but a boring one, at that). However, having used borrowed clubs and having every marginal miss result in a wet or lost ball, and I'm ready to call this the unimaginative POS that it is.
******
Based on your comments, I’m assuming this isn’t deemed one of the “good ones” to make the case for Florida Golf (more along the “guilty as charged” class).
However, based on discussions on the “99% are Doak 0” thread, I think I’ve come to the conclusion that you can’t make such blanket condemnations of the Golf in Florida. Ultimately, it takes a pretty special skill set from a GCA to overcome the challenges presented by the topography in Florida (and many have done it – Tampa Palms just wasn’t one of them).
Assuming every state is going to have its share of mediocre GCAs (if the Bell Curve holds true), I think the problem is that such mediocre design is going to be more glaring in a state like Florida, given the increased challenges presented by the topography (i.e. mediocrity in states with more diverse topography is going to be less evident).