Thoughts on some courses and golf in general

[George Freeman]

#2--IMO, people knock it for a few reasons.  The first of which most will not admit to...and that is the course is really difficult to score well on, meaning it is too hard.  I think someone who routinely shoots 85 on a fairly easy and straight-forward golf course will have a hard time breaking 90 on #2 and this will irritate and frustrate them.  I shot a 93 and frankly played pretty well.  

Not sure about this one -- I now some bogey golfers who have had their career best rounds on No. 2.  It is wide open and you can't lose a ball, and they are often just trying to hit the greens, not be in the right spot on every shot, so they manage pretty well.  

Never played the course, but isn't that one of its biggest accomplishments/attributes (like most great courses)?  Let the bogey golfer slap his way around the course indifferently w/out much trouble to be had, but scare the bejeezus out of the scratch golfer who knows where he needs to hit the ball to score, knows how difficult it is to hit those spots, and knows that if he misses those spots, bogey is in all likelihood the result?

Isn't that the whole "high course rating, low slope" theory?

[Mac Plumart]

Greg...opinions and comments are welcome.  That was just my take.  Feel free to offer yours.  I would love to hear them.

Jordan...working on responses to your questions.  Will get back to you in a few minutes.

[Eric Smith]

Call me crazy but these questions, every word of em sound like they were written by the Black Hand.   

As you all know, I am very interested in learning all I can about golf course architecture.  In this process, I think book study and peer discussion is important.  But, of course, nothing is as important in this process as actually playing courses worthy of study.  Along these lines, I’ve had a heck of a run of late regarding playing some highly regarded courses.

Ok, time for some learning.  You always say you 'want to learn'.  Well, if you're playing these courses to learn, and some of the best courses in the world I might add, descriptions like 'tough test' and 'pure golf' don't state you've learned a thing.

Pinehurst was the start of this run and this journey included, #2, #4, #8, Pine Needles, Mid Pines, and Tobacco Road. 

Next came Holston Hills.

Followed by Seminole and Bears Club.

And finally National Golf Links of America.

All were played in the month of May.  For one, I am quite exhausted and will be laying low for awhile.  But more importantly, I’ve seen a lot regarding what I’ve been studying and I am getting a real crystal clear picture of the type of golf that I personally enjoy.

Which is what, and why?

I thought #2 was truly an amazing course.  Pure golf.  No distractions.  Wonderful test of shot-making and strategic thinking and execution.  Here is a shot of my favorite hole the par 4 5th.  See what I mean about pure golf.  No water, no fountains, no frilly flowers.  Pure golf.  Great stuff.  I wish I had a good shot of the green, it is awesome!

What is "pure golf"?  What do "no distractions" mean?  Cypress Point has water, Augusta National has frilly flowers, are they both not "great stuff"?  Explain.


I thought #4 was an attempt to replicate #2.  I really like the course, but #2 was more my style.  Here is the approach on the 1st hole.  Good stuff! 

"Good stuff".  Why?

#8 was a bit of a curve ball regarding Pinehurst golf and was more akin to a round on wooded parkland as opposed to the unique feeling of playing in the Carolina Sandhills.  I very much liked the course and the change of pace it offered.  More water in play and less trying greens.  Here is the 14th tee shot.  Forced carry over the marsh, bite off as much as you can chew and challenge the hole for birdie or take the shot farther right and have a safer tee shot but longer approach.  I liked it.

"More water in play".  Is that good?  Why did you like it?  What are "less trying greens"?

Mid-Pines was a truly wonderful course.  The type of course I could play every single day.  Beautiful, fun, but not the most grueling test of golf.  Which isn’t a bad thing necessarily.  Here is the 15th green.  Slightly undulating, but not severe…quite beautiful.

What does beautiful and fun have to do with the architecture?  How much does difficulty have to do with architecture?  Is it possible to have an incredibly difficult course with little architectural merit?  On the contrary, is it possible to have a relatively easy course with lots of architectural merit?  Where do you find the happy median with regards to both, and have you played a course that is a good example of that?

Pine Needles was truly excellent.  Like Mid Pines, I could play it every day.  But it was much more of a test of golf than Mid Pines was.  For a relaxing and enjoying round, I would choose Mid Pines.  But for a match, I would pick Pine Needles.  Here is a really good par 3.

What makes it "truly excellent"?  Again, how much does test of golf have to do with architecture?  Does a more difficult course make it more fun for a match, or is it the course that provides lots of options with many ways to play each hole which does that?  Remember, the course plays equal for each player in a match.  One player might have stronger abilities but when it comes down to the course, well, in the end a match is always played on the same course, with the same pins, conditions, etc.  Does it really matter how difficult it is?

Tobacco Road plain and simply wasn’t my style.  It was a bit goofy in parts in my opinion.  Now don’t get me wrong, every now and again it would demonstrate some truly amazing golf holes and require some adrenaline pumping shot opportunities.  But as the round wore on, the greens seemed to get more extreme and goofy and the blind shot after blind shot got tiring and just a bit annoying.  At least to me.  And this isn’t sour grapes.  I played the tips and had darn near the round of my life.  I guess I simply discovered that this extreme type of golf isn’t for me.  Here is perhaps the best hole on the course.  Try the amazing carry or try the safe route out right.

Why was it goofy?  Why were the greens goofy?  Is there something to be said for courses like this!?  If it wasn't for courses with architecture like TR's or Strantz's in general, there wouldn't be any diversity in golf courses.  There is something to be said for courses that push boundaries and test the limits of design, no?  It may not be your type, but does that really make it "goofy"?  Extreme designs often have a lot from which to learn, and though I haven't played TR, I have played Stranz courses and courses with extreme design, and let me tell you, it's the unique and original designs that border extreme that really stick out in the end.  Mackenzie said something along the lines of 'the greatest courses will be most criticized'.  Think about it.  Why do you think that is?

And here is a bit of goofiness.  Great approach over the bunkers, but that green is a little too much.  But that would be okay if it was just one hole.  But it isn’t there are more like this.  For my taste, it is too much.

Why is it too much?  And why is it ok with one hole but not for 18?  What don't you like about it, architecturally?

Holston Hills was quite simply a truly excellent golf course.  Wide open, fun, great greens, excellent variety.  Like Mid Pines or Pine Needles, it is a course I could play every single day.  Sorry but I forgot my camera that day, but the course can be summarized in one word: cross bunkers.  Wait a second.  That’s two words.  Oh well.  Great course.  Fun times! 

How was the variety excellent?  Why do you believe wide open is good architecture?  What do you like about cross bunkers?  How many cross bunkers are too many on one course?

Bears Club was quite a trip.  Stunningly over the top clubhouse with a for real Golden (polar) bear in the clubhouse.  Ball buster of a course in what I’ll call a PGA type of set up.  I imagine it would be a great place for the pros to hone their skills prior to playing  a Tour match.  Again, solid course…just not my style.  Here is the 17th tee shot.  Penal for penal sake with the junk right in front of the tee box.  Bunkering on either side of the narrow fairway.  Tough hole.  Tough course.

Again, how much does difficulty have to do with the architecture?

Seminole was simply a thrill to play.  Wonderful routing, challenging as heck.  And the most difficult greens I have ever had to contend with.  Fast as lightening, slick, and undulating, with seemingly hidden ridges everywhere.  Add in a huge wind and you’ve got a serious golf course.  It isn’t my favorite course of all time, perhaps because it is so darn difficult.  But it is a course I would like to play again and again (just not everyday) to try to learn more about how to play each and every hole and each and every shot.  Great course!  Here is the 10th approach.   Neat!

On your thread on the 12th at Seminole, I found Pat Mucci's comments very interesting.  You seemed to be indifferent about the hole where he praised it not only for being a good hole but for its spot in the routing, getting to the top of a sand dune.  You recognize the routing as wonderful here, when you seemed to overlook that earlier.  How is the routing wonderful?  What makes the greens so great?  The bunkering?  What made it a thrill to play?

NGLA was the most fun I have ever had on a golf course.  Rather than a round of golf, it was like an adventure.  With many different options to play seemingly each and every hole/shot and different types of shots required throughout the course.  The greens weren’t as fast as Seminole's were, but they were just right.  And the undulations and ridges and slopes were amazingly fun to putt on and approach.  Now The National had some blind shots, no doubt about it.  But for whatever reason, these blind shots seemed to fit more seamlessly into the feel of the round than the ones at Tobacco Road.  Tobacco Road seemed like extreme golf, while NGLA seemed like pure links golf with options available to the golfer to avoid those wildly daring shots.  Options, strategy, secluded feeling, great greens, awesome bunkering.  A true golf adventure.

I think the course boils down to two pictures.  If you like these holes, you’ll like the course.  If not, I don’t think you will care for it.

Here’s the 3rd…alps.  I highlighted the flag.  Go over the bunker and over or around the hill/mound.

I appreciate your comments regarding NGLA here.  You seem to understand the course more than the previous courses you speak of.  What were some of your favorite holes, how did the options on each shot get your wheels turning, and how relentless were the golf holes in terms of how to play each of them?  In otherwords, did each hole provide an array of options that were unique and different than the other holes?  Being that NGLA is considered one of the best courses in the world, it should certainly provide diversity in its architecture.  What were your opinion on some of the less talked about hole (9-13 in particular)?

And here is the great Redan.  Awesome…at least to me.

And here is another pic of NGLA...great stuff.

But here is the kicker.  I felt The National was quite simply magical.  And I felt the  entire town of Pinehurst was magical.  In fact, any town with a statue of Donald Ross in the center of its town square is for me!! 

In short, it has been a great May for golf.  For the short-term, I'm going to chill and play local courses.  Would love to hear your thoughts, questions, comments on these courses and more.  Right now, however, I'm going to catch a nap!!   

[Mac Plumart]

Jordan..."time for some real learning", huh?  Let’s see what you got!!   

 
For starters, I have to question your reading comprehension.     On the previous Seminole thread you mentioned, you state that I was indifferent about the 12th hole.  For starters, it was the 11th hole.  And in my opening post, I said I loved the hole.  How is that indifferent?  For the record, I loved Pat response.  What I learned from it was that a great hole is made great not only by its own merits but by where it plays in the context of the entire course (where it falls within the routing of the course).  That was a great response by Patrick.

Anyway, for the rest I’ll take your questions in order…

After I state that I am getting a clear picture of what I like in terms of golf course architecture…you ask, “which is what and why?”  I didn’t answer that here as I think the rest of the post clearly points that out.


You question me regarding my comments on Pinehurst #2 being pure golf with no distractions, but I show you a photo and talk about water, fountains, flowers, etc.  I think that clearly illustrates my point.  You mention Cypress and Augusta National and ask if I think they are good stuff.  I can't answer, I've never played them. 

On Pinehurst #4, you say ““Good stuff.” Why?”…well, if I thought it was a replica of #2 and I liked #2 and #4 was well done, wouldn’t one logically conclude that I would think #4 was good. 

Again, in my #8 description I state it is a nice change of pace regarding Pinehurst courses and that I liked it.  Then you ask if the fact that there is more water on the course a good thing.  Well, I just said I liked it...therefore, one can logically conclude I thought it was a good thing.  On your “less trying greens” question…fewer domed greens, fewer undulations and slopes.

Here is your entire question on Mid-Pines…”What does beautiful and fun have to do with the architecture?  How much does difficulty have to do with architecture?  Is it possible to have an incredibly difficult course with little architectural merit?  On the contrary, is it possible to have a relatively easy course with lots of architectural merit?  Where do you find the happy median with regards to both, and have you played a course that is a good example of that?”

Question 1—I think the sentence captures the type of architecture being utilized.  Beautiful and fun.

Question 2—Again, type of architecture.

Question 3---yes.

Question 4---Good question, “relatively easy”, yes.  Relative to TPC Sawgrass, Kiawah Ocean.  Yes, for sure.

Question 5—Happy median---Pine Needles

Here is your question on Pine Needles…What makes it "truly excellent"?  Again, how much does test of golf have to do with architecture?  Does a more difficult course make it more fun for a match, or is it the course that provides lots of options with many ways to play each hole which does that?  Remember, the course plays equal for each player in a match.  One player might have stronger abilities but when it comes down to the course, well, in the end a match is always played on the same course, with the same pins, conditions, etc.  Does it really matter how difficult it is?

Question 1---“Truly excellent” in this context means a happy medium (median?) of fun and difficult architecture.

Question 2—Again, it points to the type of architecture and what a player should expect from a course. 

Question 3---Good question.  Probably your later point.

Question 4---I think so.  If the idea of a match is to determine the best player, the more difficult the course is…the better a judge of playing ability it should be.  Therefore, better for determining who is a better player.

Here is your question(s) on Tobacco Road…Why was it goofy?  Why were the greens goofy?  Is there something to be said for courses like this!?  If it wasn't for courses with architecture like TR's or Strantz's in general, there wouldn't be any diversity in golf courses.  There is something to be said for courses that push boundaries and test the limits of design, no?  It may not be your type, but does that really make it "goofy"?  Extreme designs often have a lot from which to learn, and though I haven't played TR, I have played Stranz courses and courses with extreme design, and let me tell you, it's the unique and original designs that border extreme that really stick out in the end.  Mackenzie said something along the lines of 'the greatest courses will be most criticized'.  Think about it.  Why do you think that is?


Question 1---goofy greens and too many blind shots.

Question 2---I tried to answer this by showing a photo of a green with about a 20 foot upslope.  I’ll try to show you some more photos of other greens, if I can find some good ones.

Question 3---Yes, I think there is a lot to be said for these types of courses.  They just aren’t my style.  I tried to stress this point.

The rest of your questions seem to run together…this isn’t the first Stranz course I’ve played.  I think they are goofy.  Concerning Tobacco Road, the tee ball off of 1 and 18 are goofy to me.  Many of the greens are goofy.  So many blind tee shots are goofy to me.  If you (or others) take offense to this term, sorry but that is the term I’m going to use. 

Concerning the Mackenzie quote…I’ve thought about it a lot and posted on it before.  I think these “groundbreaking” courses add something good to the game.  Tobacco Road had wonderful moments…but in total I think it was overdone.  So,  I don’t think the Mackenzie quote applies.  Again, my opinion.  Take it or leave it.  No worries or offense taken on my part…or meant to be dished out.  I respect Strantz and his work, I just don’t prefer it.

More Tobacco Road questions from you…Why is it too much?  And why is it ok with one hole but not for 18?  What don't you like about it, architecturally?

I feel like we’ve been over this before.  So, I’ll avoid being redundant redundant and just say that it is okay for one hole as it adds diversity and excitement to a round.  Too much of it makes it goofy…in my opinion.

Holston Hills questions…How was the variety excellent?  Why do you believe wide open is good architecture?  What do you like about cross bunkers?  How many cross bunkers are too many on one course?

Big greens, small greens, bump and run shots available, aerial shots required, etc.  Variety makes for a fun game…in my opinion.  Wide open is good because you don’t spend hours looking for lost  balls, you have the opportunity to unload on driver and long irons at the correct times.  Cross bunkers in this instance added a unique feel to the course…I have never seen this type of cross bunkering before.  Last question…I don’t know if you can put a number on it, you just know it when you feel it is too much.

Bears Club…Again, how much does difficulty have to do with the architecture?

Answered already…see above.

Seminole questions already answered on this thread and previous thread on hole 11.

NGLA questions/comments…I appreciate your comments regarding NGLA here.  You seem to understand the course more than the previous courses you speak of.  What were some of your favorite holes, how did the options on each shot get your wheels turning, and how relentless were the golf holes in terms of how to play each of them?  In otherwords, did each hole provide an array of options that were unique and different than the other holes?  Being that NGLA is considered one of the best courses in the world, it should certainly provide diversity in its architecture.  What were your opinion on some of the less talked about hole (9-13 in particular)?

Many of these questions were answered in the post re-read for answers.  Your last question about holes 9-13…I thought every hole was good.  Not a weak one…so my opinion of them is quite high.

We could start another thread and take NGLA hole by hole if you want…they might be fun.  I’ve only played it once, so if we get people to comment on that new thread who’ve played it many times…that would be cool.

So, in conclusion…you said it was time for some real learning.  Did I experience real learning?  In a few spots, but I mostly rehashed what I already knew.  But you forced me to expound on some points I thought were worthy of only a brief summary…maybe more explanation was helpful.

I thought your questions on Mid Pines, Pine Needles and Tobacco Road were quite good.  They forced me to think about some new things.  Thanks!

Tobacco Road is the most polarizing course I have played.  It is not my style, but that doesn’t make it bad and that certainly doesn’t mean it isn’t other people’s style.  Take my comments only for what they are worth…2 cents probably…but it simply isn’t my style. 

I loved going over my prior Seminole thread.  I think Pat Mucci’s post was really good and I appreciate you bringing that back up.  I had previously typed out a long response to him detailing the value of his comments on the holes place in the routing and how that made it even a better hole…but I deleted it because it seemed like no one else was interested in the thread.  So, thanks for bringing that back up.

Good stuff!

[JC Jones]

Mac,

thanks for sharing.  Your opportunities are well deserved and perhaps threaten some.  Pick me up on your way to Pinehurst.

[Mac Plumart]

Pinehurst with JC...music to my ears!!! 

[Mac Plumart]

Hey Jordan...

I couldn't find any good pics of Tobacco Road in my collection, but in Ran's write up on this webiste I think the second picture on page 1 illustrates a green that I think is goofy.  And on the second page, pictures 4, 5, and 6 are examples of goofy stuff.  Tee ball off of 18 and 1 and the Dell green on the par 5 13th. 

Again, my opinion...but from these pictures you can see what I am talking about regarding the course.

Ran disagrees as do many others reagarding the course being goofy...but I think and feel how I feel...if that makes sense.

Later!

[Colin Macqueen]

Mac,

Thanks for including me (way down in the Antipodes) in your month of May golfing odyssey. It is wonderful for an avid golfer like myself to see some of the holes on iconic golf courses through the eyes of simple golfers rather than with an eye to advertising the course as such. I appreciate the written word alongside the photographs as, for myself, it lends atmosphere and context.

The Hielander

[Tim Martin]

Mac- What a month. Wow! Your enthusiasm for the game is infectious. I can only imagine that your wife is picking out her own diamond mine,beach house and and plenty of gold bars at this very moment. Great pictures and descriptions. Let me know if you need someone to handle your overflow on the courses you can`t play.  

[Jordan Wall]

Mac, some of these answers almost seem defensive.  My questions weren't meant to hound and harass you, they were meant for you to really dig into why courses are great and why certain features work the way they do as opposed to why others don't.  I get, for instance, that you think Pinehurst #2 was great and pure golf all that, but I still don't get why you think that.  Do you?

Jordan..."time for some real learning", huh?  Let’s see what you got!!   

 
For starters, I have to question your reading comprehension.     On the previous Seminole thread you mentioned, you state that I was indifferent about the 12th hole.  For starters, it was the 11th hole.  And in my opening post, I said I loved the hole.  How is that indifferent?  For the record, I loved Pat response.  What I learned from it was that a great hole is made great not only by its own merits but by where it plays in the context of the entire course (where it falls within the routing of the course).  That was a great response by Patrick.

Lets remember first off that I am simply asking questions and not judging your opinions, I am just helping you make them conclusive and more easily understandable when you post them here and prompt discussion.

With that in mind, I wrote that off the top of my head and quite frankly it doesn't matter the hole number.   I remember you asking what others thought about the hole and if your opinion was right on, and in my mind that made what you thought of it indifferent.  And here's the honest truth - who cares what other people think?  If you like a hole, that doesn't mean somebody else has to, and there is no need to justify your opinions.  There is a need to explain them, but if you think a hole is great and nobody else does, who cares?  I feel like you try too hard to understand architecture sometimes, by wanting your opinions justified or asking if you should think this or that.  There is no right or wrong views on architecture, and its because of that fact that we are able to discuss and deliberate holes and courses here on gca.

Anyway, for the rest I’ll take your questions in order…

After I state that I am getting a clear picture of what I like in terms of golf course architecture…you ask, “which is what and why?”  I didn’t answer that here as I think the rest of the post clearly points that out.

Plain and simple?  Non "goofy"?  I still don't get it, and I still don't get what your context of "goofy" means.

You question me regarding my comments on Pinehurst #2 being pure golf with no distractions, but I show you a photo and talk about water, fountains, flowers, etc.  I think that clearly illustrates my point.  You mention Cypress and Augusta National and ask if I think they are good stuff.  I can't answer, I've never played them. 

No, it doesn't, thats why I asked.  You can show me any picture you want but thats not going to help me understand your point of view any better.  How are there no distractions?  What do you consider distractions?  How do those detract from a course?  To let you know, Cypress is awesome, ANGC is awesome (without ever having seen it), so I still question when water or flowers detract from a course?  Honestly, flowers should have nothing to do with a golf course.  Name one example of a course that uses flowers in its design, or one course where flowers detract from the design, and explain why.

On Pinehurst #4, you say ““Good stuff.” Why?”…well, if I thought it was a replica of #2 and I liked #2 and #4 was well done, wouldn’t one logically conclude that I would think #4 was good. 

Thats logically stupid because you didn't even come close to answering my question, and no because I have seen terrible replica golf courses.  Actually, your response is almost smart ass which I don't get consdiering all I did was ask a question because I was curious and intrigued.

Again, in my #8 description I state it is a nice change of pace regarding Pinehurst courses and that I liked it.  Then you ask if the fact that there is more water on the course a good thing.  Well, I just said I liked it...therefore, one can logically conclude I thought it was a good thing.  On your “less trying greens” question…fewer domed greens, fewer undulations and slopes.

I like to drink with my buddies - does that make underage drinking a good thing?  I like to do things I probably shouldn't just so I can have memories down the road - does that make those things good?  Logically, you're incorrect, again.  Again, I don't get the defensive and almost smart ass response.  You wanted us to ask you questions, right!?

How are what you describe as less trying greens a good thing and how do they make the golf course better?

Here is your entire question on Mid-Pines…”What does beautiful and fun have to do with the architecture?  How much does difficulty have to do with architecture?  Is it possible to have an incredibly difficult course with little architectural merit?  On the contrary, is it possible to have a relatively easy course with lots of architectural merit?  Where do you find the happy median with regards to both, and have you played a course that is a good example of that?”

Question 1—I think the sentence captures the type of architecture being utilized.  Beautiful and fun.

Question 2—Again, type of architecture.

Both these answers are cop outs.  Beautiful, fun, and difficult - none of those are types of architecture.  I suggest reading Tom Doak's The Anatomy of a Golf Course to learn what schools and types of architecture are.  In the meantime, feel free to answer my original question.

Question 3---yes.

Question 4---Good question, “relatively easy”, yes.  Relative to TPC Sawgrass, Kiawah Ocean.  Yes, for sure.

Question 5—Happy median---Pine Needles

Here is your question on Pine Needles…What makes it "truly excellent"?  Again, how much does test of golf have to do with architecture?  Does a more difficult course make it more fun for a match, or is it the course that provides lots of options with many ways to play each hole which does that?  Remember, the course plays equal for each player in a match.  One player might have stronger abilities but when it comes down to the course, well, in the end a match is always played on the same course, with the same pins, conditions, etc.  Does it really matter how difficult it is?

Question 1---“Truly excellent” in this context means a happy medium (median?) of fun and difficult architecture.

Again, not types of architecture.  Think about what makes a golf hole or course difficult, and what maes it fun; that answer is the type of architecture and perhaps would asnwer the question.

Question 2—Again, it points to the type of architecture and what a player should expect from a course. 

Are you sure?

Question 3---Good question.  Probably your later point.

Question 4---I think so.  If the idea of a match is to determine the best player, the more difficult the course is…the better a judge of playing ability it should be.  Therefore, better for determining who is a better player.

What defines a better player?  I would tend to think of better players as knowing their limits and making smart choices, which relates directly to architecture.  Say you have a 300 yard hole with water surrounding the green, with two players of equal ability.  The better playerwill lay up and hit a wedge close, where the other guy will go for the green and hit it in the water on anything but a perfect shot.  A 300 yard hole is not difficult.  Now, if you have a very difficult hole, straight and really narrow, both players are going to hit straight shots and it will be boring.  So you tell me, which is better for match play?

Here is your question(s) on Tobacco Road…Why was it goofy?  Why were the greens goofy?  Is there something to be said for courses like this!?  If it wasn't for courses with architecture like TR's or Strantz's in general, there wouldn't be any diversity in golf courses.  There is something to be said for courses that push boundaries and test the limits of design, no?  It may not be your type, but does that really make it "goofy"?  Extreme designs often have a lot from which to learn, and though I haven't played TR, I have played Stranz courses and courses with extreme design, and let me tell you, it's the unique and original designs that border extreme that really stick out in the end.  Mackenzie said something along the lines of 'the greatest courses will be most criticized'.  Think about it.  Why do you think that is?


Question 1---goofy greens and too many blind shots.

Question 2---I tried to answer this by showing a photo of a green with about a 20 foot upslope.  I’ll try to show you some more photos of other greens, if I can find some good ones.

Question 3---Yes, I think there is a lot to be said for these types of courses.  They just aren’t my style.  I tried to stress this point.

Mac, what the hell do you consider goofy and why?  

A green with a 20 foot upslope in front is called a green with a false front, a feature employed my many architects from all eras.  How is that goofy, or bad architecture?

The rest of your questions seem to run together…this isn’t the first Stranz course I’ve played.  I think they are goofy.  Concerning Tobacco Road, the tee ball off of 1 and 18 are goofy to me.  Many of the greens are goofy.  So many blind tee shots are goofy to me.  If you (or others) take offense to this term, sorry but that is the term I’m going to use. 

You used goofy four times in that last little paragraph, all while saying nothing.  I don't find the term offensive, I just don't get what the hell you consider goofy and therefore can't make any conclusions on your opinions.

Concerning the Mackenzie quote…I’ve thought about it a lot and posted on it before.  I think these “groundbreaking” courses add something good to the game.  Tobacco Road had wonderful moments…but in total I think it was overdone.  So,  I don’t think the Mackenzie quote applies.  Again, my opinion.  Take it or leave it.  No worries or offense taken on my part…or meant to be dished out.  I respect Strantz and his work, I just don’t prefer it.

Fair enough.

More Tobacco Road questions from you…Why is it too much?  And why is it ok with one hole but not for 18?  What don't you like about it, architecturally?

I feel like we’ve been over this before.  So, I’ll avoid being redundant redundant and just say that it is okay for one hole as it adds diversity and excitement to a round.  Too much of it makes it goofy…in my opinion.

Holston Hills questions…How was the variety excellent?  Why do you believe wide open is good architecture?  What do you like about cross bunkers?  How many cross bunkers are too many on one course?

Big greens, small greens, bump and run shots available, aerial shots required, etc.  Variety makes for a fun game…in my opinion.  Wide open is good because you don’t spend hours looking for lost  balls, you have the opportunity to unload on driver and long irons at the correct times.  Cross bunkers in this instance added a unique feel to the course…I have never seen this type of cross bunkering before.  Last question…I don’t know if you can put a number on it, you just know it when you feel it is too much.

Is wide open good because it lets you let loose on a couple shots or can you figure why wide open can be good with architecture?  And, is wide open really good all the time?  I'd love to hear what you consider wide open as well, because I bet I have a different opinion or at least context, which I'll explain if you actually take some time to really think about and answer some of these questions.

Bears Club…Again, how much does difficulty have to do with the architecture?

Answered already…see above.

...?

Seminole questions already answered on this thread and previous thread on hole 11.

NGLA questions/comments…I appreciate your comments regarding NGLA here.  You seem to understand the course more than the previous courses you speak of.  What were some of your favorite holes, how did the options on each shot get your wheels turning, and how relentless were the golf holes in terms of how to play each of them?  In otherwords, did each hole provide an array of options that were unique and different than the other holes?  Being that NGLA is considered one of the best courses in the world, it should certainly provide diversity in its architecture.  What were your opinion on some of the less talked about hole (9-13 in particular)?

Many of these questions were answered in the post re-read for answers.  Your last question about holes 9-13…I thought every hole was good.  Not a weak one…so my opinion of them is quite high.

We could start another thread and take NGLA hole by hole if you want…they might be fun.  I’ve only played it once, so if we get people to comment on that new thread who’ve played it many times…that would be cool.

So, in conclusion…you said it was time for some real learning.  Did I experience real learning?  In a few spots, but I mostly rehashed what I already knew.  But you forced me to expound on some points I thought were worthy of only a brief summary…maybe more explanation was helpful.

I thought your questions on Mid Pines, Pine Needles and Tobacco Road were quite good.  They forced me to think about some new things.  Thanks!

Tobacco Road is the most polarizing course I have played.  It is not my style, but that doesn’t make it bad and that certainly doesn’t mean it isn’t other people’s style.  Take my comments only for what they are worth…2 cents probably…but it simply isn’t my style. 

I loved going over my prior Seminole thread.  I think Pat Mucci’s post was really good and I appreciate you bringing that back up.  I had previously typed out a long response to him detailing the value of his comments on the holes place in the routing and how that made it even a better hole…but I deleted it because it seemed like no one else was interested in the thread.  So, thanks for bringing that back up.

Good stuff!

If you really took time to think about my questions and not half ass answer most of them, you would learn like you say you want to.  I just don't get why you would post something like this and when asked legitimate questions, just kind of posy around and avoid them.  If you really want to learn about architecture like you say you do and aren't just saying that because of this website, then take time to think and provide some legitimate explanations.  And please leave out the logical bullshit, I'm not an idiot, or an asshole, I'm asking real questions to gain some insight on your ways of thinking regarding golf course architecture.

[Michael Dugger]

I can sort of see why Mac would be defensive, Jordan.

Just sayin'

[Mac Plumart]

Jordan...

I'm defensive?  Huh?

You can swear and be as aggressive as you want.  I tried to answer your questions.  If you don't get my answers and follow my logic, oh well.

Best of luck to you in your life.  I hope it turns out to be all that you want it to be.

[Ryan Admussen]

Mac,

Was it an easy choice to put NGLA ahead of Kiawah in your personal rankings?

Did you enjoy them for different/similar reasons?

[Mac Plumart]

Ryan...

It was a tough decision.  And yes, I did enjoy them for completely different reasons.

NGLA was a course I think I could play every single day and never get bored of it.  While Kiawah Ocean was a brutal test of golf (at least for me) and although I don't think it would be my ideal every day course, it is definately a course I want to play each and every year to test my game.

I am not slighting NGLA in terms of a test of golf in anyway, I just found it to be more of an every day type of course where you could try to play the holes in new and inventive ways just to see what happens.  While Kiawah I kind of saw the options before me and they seemed more risk/reward decisions, which can be made based on weather and how your playing on any given day.  NGLA I am not sure if I played any holes ideally in terms of shot choices...the decisions simply weren't as clear cut as at Kiawah.

At least that is what I saw.

[John Mayhugh]

Mac,
It was interesting to read your comments on Holston Hills.  Architecturally speaking, the "cross bunkers" have impact on very few holes.  Their presence is much more aesthetic than strategic - unless one hits the ball REALLY short.  Even in those cases, pretty much every bunker has play around opportunities. 

The most architecturally significant observation at Holston should be the greens.  Though you may have felt the course was "wide open," you will really work to make par if approaching from the wrong spot relative to hole location.  The routing is also worth noting as it takes advantage of a number of really good green sites.

You played several Ross courses recently.  How would you describe the strengths of Ross as an architect based on the courses you have seen?  What about weaknesses?

[JC Jones]

The best part about this thread is that you got Mayhugh to post on a thread that didn't involve something related to England

[Anthony Gray]

You played several Ross courses recently.  How would you describe the strengths of Ross as an architect based on the courses you have seen?  What about weaknesses?

  This would make a great thread in itself. The routing truly stands out. I never thought routing was that big of a deal,but at HH and Seminole it stands out.

  Anthony

[Mac Plumart]

I'll be off line for quite awhile this weekend, so I'll post this and be back as I can...but two things first...

#1--JC, I completely disagree with your comment about the best part of this thread.  It isn't that Mayhugh commented on something outside of England, it is that you and I have a few rounds of golf at Pinehurst coming up!!   

#2--John...LOVE your last post.  To address the questions posed in your post, here is my best shot...

On the cross bunkers...agreed.  Perhaps many are aesthetic, but nevertheless they are there and certainly eye catching.  I think an interesting part of the course.  If I can find some good pictures, I'll try to post them.

On the routing, I think you are correct (again).  I touched on this on the review on my website, but for brevity's sake I omitted it hear.  Perhaps that was a mistake.  But the larger issue for me is how does one define good routing.  Frankly, I struggle with this.  Is it the location of the next tee box and the length of walk from green to tee?  Is it the flow of one hole into another in an unforced manner?  Is it the location of holes on a course that offer a unique mix of strategic shots one after the other?  Perhaps it is all of the above.  In this instance, I find Holston's routing to be excellent.

But you mention the routing takes advantage of great green sites.  There is no doubt  you are correct.  But how am I to know that?  What I mean is how do I know the course takes advantage of great geen sites rather than the architect manufactured those green sites?  Does that make sense?  The most extreme example would be when I played Shadow Creek.  They were the best greens and green site that I had ever seen on a Fazio course, but they were all manufactured.  I stuggle with this.

Also, people say the routing of a course like Merion or Wannamoisett (both courses I haven't played) is/are excellent because they take great advantage of limited landspace in a masterful way.  Again, how do I know this unless I've studied the topo maps? 

Tough stuff for me to answer and would welcome any input.

Great question on Ross' strengths and weaknesses.  To date, these are the Ross courses I've played...East Lake, Inverness, Country Club of Columus, Augusta CC, #2, Mid Pines, Pine Needles, Holston Hills, and Seminole.

Without question his biggest defining feature is how he defends his holes with the greens and green complexes.  Standing on the tee, most of the time I never feel threatened or scared to hit my tee shot as there is rarely a forced carry over water or crazy waste bunkers or anything like that.  Usually a staight forward tee shot with maybe a bunker here or there.

But there is another strength of Ross.  I call his design style subtle brilliance.  I find the terms strategic, penal, and heroic to be meaningless.  It seems that all holes/courses have a mix of all these elements, so I try to come up with terms that mean something to me that helps capture the essence of an architects style.  For me relative to Ross, I think it is subtle brilliance.

Back to the proceeding thought...that hole that eases your mind on the tee box is actually lulling you to sleep and allowing you to think you are ok off the tee when in fact you are not.  If you hit your tee shot in the wrong part of the fairway, your approach into his heavily guarded greens will be almost impossible.  And you just might leak into the only bunker in the fairway as it will be strategically placed right where most people fade their tee shots.  If you happen to hit a short tee ball, good luck approaching his greens with a long iron!!

Interestingly enough, I found many of his greens to have a real similar feel...like the ones at #2, Augusta, and Inverness.  Heavily undulating with rarely a flat spot.  While the greens at East Lake and Seminole had a more leveled out feel to them, but ran at much higher stimps.  I have a feeling Rees Jones and Dick Wilson might have had something to do with that...maybe I am wrong...but I don't think so.

Weaknesses...hmmm...tough one.  Perhaps his courses aren't elastic enough to handle the influx of modern technology and stay relevant.  From the tips Mid-Pines is 6,500, CCC is the same.  And maybe his greens are too undulating to run at PGA tour speeds.  Anyway, that is all I can come up with regarding weaknesses.  I think he is amazing and extremely consistent.  I have yet to play a Ross course that I thought was bad or even ok.  They have all been excellent in my book.


I would certainly welcome your thoughts on how to look at routing and any more comments you want to share on Holston and /or Ross.

Thanks!!

[John Mayhugh]

But you mention the routing takes advantage of great green sites.  There is no doubt  you are correct.  But how am I to know that?  What I mean is how do I know the course takes advantage of great geen sites rather than the architect manufactured those green sites?  Does that make sense?  The most extreme example would be when I played Shadow Creek.  They were the best greens and green site that I had ever seen on a Fazio course, but they were all manufactured.  I stuggle with this.

Also, people say the routing of a course like Merion or Wannamoisett (both courses I haven't played) is/are excellent because they take great advantage of limited landspace in a masterful way.  Again, how do I know this unless I've studied the topo maps? 

I don't think a topo map is necessary to evaluate the green sites at Holston.  Look at the hills where many of the greens are sited - do you feel there is a chance these were man-made, especially given that the course was built in the 20s?

Greens such as the 6th & 16th are perched on top of hills.  Greens such as the 9th, 14th, & 18th are build into the hills. 

[Mac Plumart]

Thanks John.  I'd like to play with you again either Holston or in Atlanta and walk and discuss what we are seeing together.  I think that would be a great time.

[Pete Lavallee]

Mac,

Have you ever just walked a golf course to study its architecture?

[Mac Plumart]

Pete...

I haven't.  I've thought about it, but I've never done it.  I think I would need to do it a few times with some others GCA'ers to have discussions about it and talk through some things.  I am open to it and would love to do it, but just haven't done it yet.

Also, Dave Moriarty suggested that watching an architect design and build a course would be really cool to do.  He thinks seeing it transformed from raw land to an actual course would be a great exercise.  I agree 100% on that, just haven't had the chance to experience that.