News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #125 on: October 30, 2010, 06:19:18 PM »
JNC, yes stay away from Art Hills courses then.  Even if you play some of the best ones you'll have things that bother you.  It's like your expectation is to be the equal of your favorite architect and then you express disappointment when it's not.  Who set the high Art Hills expectation for you?

A study was done about 10-15 years ago trying to figure out which architect added the most value to real estate developments.  Surprisingly, it wasn't Nicklaus.  Art's run in the SW Florida market was so hot he even was dubbed the "Mayor of Naples". 

What would you telll me if I left a Julia Roberts flick and said there wasn't enough gore and action for my taste?  Probably that I was in the wrong theatre. 

Matt_Ward

Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #126 on: October 30, 2010, 11:07:24 PM »
JNC:

Let me respond to your last post ...

How do you presume to draw "general conclusions" from just playing three courses? How is that fair to the archtect and how can you say that the courses you have played is representative of his main portfolio of courses designed by AH?

You can only really talk about the courses you have played -- for you then to make a major leap to extrapolate from that limited number of courses and then say anything else in the AH portfolio would be a waste of time playing only undercuts your own credibility and shows a real inertia in doing some homework prior to making such a claim.

I find it amusing that you presume to draw "some themes" from the ones you have played and then parlay that into some broader application of all his work --  excuse me, but what is that based upon ?

You say you post "strong statements" on golf coursers. Nothing wrong with that -- if you have done the personal homework to make such claims. You have not done the homework -- it'ds akin to saying your Cliff notes version is no less in quality than the actual book itself. Frankly, you still don't get it. Let me add that I find your comments on courses that you have actually played to be well done in many ways -- even when I don't agree with it but I know in those instances that you have taken the time to do the heavy lifting in those cases.

You say you are perceptive -- well you flunked the course with me on what you saw with AH courses and then how you can widen that narrow homework assingment into a broader generalization that has no standing. How do you presume to make an "educated judgement" when it's based on such a limited personal sample size.

Let me point out AH had two (2) courses once in the GD top 100 listing -- Eagle Trace and the original Marsh Course at Bonita Bay. You are right -- that original course was eventually split to make for other courses at that complex -- I personally believe that was a mistake but the goal then was to have all the courses use the pre-existing clubhouse.

If anything -- the original Marsh Course was quite good -- there was plenty of space to land the ball but if one were especially wayward the just penalties were certainly appropriate in my mind. I'll offer moreon a few other courses of AH I have personally played -- not just gleaned from what others have said.

Matt_Ward

Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #127 on: October 30, 2010, 11:14:09 PM »
Let me point out a few of the AH courses I have played -- not all are well done -- some much less so -- but there are a number that are far from being totally predictable and bland.

I mentioned Eagle Trace in my previous post to JNC -- given the limited nature of FL topography a nicely done layout with only 27 greenside bunkers and a only a total of 41 for the course -- quite small for a FL course of this caliber.

Bonita Bay (Marsh) - the original 18 was as tough test of driving but I found it very fair. Green contours on the original 18 were more than your cookie-cutter type.

Dunes GC (Seville, FL) -- wonderful piece of property that gets lost in the shuffle of attention to nearby World Woods.

Big Horn -- AH did the original 18 and even in all the years since is still one of the better courses in the Coachella Valley.


Walking Stick -- fine public course in Pueblo, CO -- walkable and uses the native terrain well.

Harbour Pointe / Mukiteo, WA -- GD's best affordable public in 1991 (I believe) and while the front side is fairly ordinary -- the inner half uses the rolling terrain and wonderful views of the nearby water areas to great effect.

Hyatt Regency Hill Country Resort / San Antinio -- doesn't get the notice like The Quarry -- Keith Foster's top tier layout there -- but Hyatt is no easy layout when stretched and Hills has done well to keep the average plaer in mind without maxing out the demand meter.

I'll add a few more as well.

Matt_Ward

Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #128 on: October 31, 2010, 04:02:44 PM »
Couple of other AH courses I have played that won't be rated top 100 but are still worth a play for those in the area ...

Half Moon Bay -- love the closing hole but a number of the interior holes are rather so-so / pedestrian.

Bay Harbor -- should have been really much better -- still solid holes among the Quarry & Links side.

Longaberger -- good land but the overall consistency of the holes is quite varied. Doesn't have the design goddies -- more vanilla in terms of the challenges.

Cross Creek - could have been better but has its moments.

Colonial Spring (LI, NY) -- just a dud of a course -- nothing really compelling.

Chaska Town Course -- not like the big brother next door but far from being mediocre too.

In all, the book on AH is that in certain instances he has designed quality layouts -- they may not rise to the level of super stardom but there are a few that are well worth checking out when in those respective areas.

Paul Carey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #129 on: October 31, 2010, 06:34:02 PM »
Being from the dc area as well I have seen a lot of Hills.   Additonally has new designs such as Blue Mash and Waverly Woods in MD.  I think he does a decent job on his renovations where his routing is basically set and he sells himself as keeping with the original architect's intentions.  His new courses seem more contrived and harsh.  I find that his courses are not real high on the fun factor despite his use of short par fours and threes.  The courses seem uncomfortable but not in a good way, meaning he doesn't seem to make the discomfort as part of his plan to deceive the player visually. 

I am just not a big fan.   

He also has finished Arundel Mannor a private (for one guy) course near Annapolis.  I played it once and it seemed to be a lot more fun with some neat shots than some of his other original designs.  I need to get there at leapt one more time to really critique the place.

Hills did the renovation on my home course, Bethesda Country Club, in the early 90's, before I was a member and before I had ever seen the course.  The work was well-received by the membership, and I assume was perceived as well done by members of other clubs in Montgomery County because since then Hills has done renovations at Burning Tree, Chevy Chase, Congressional (Gold), Woodmont, and Manor.  He has also done renovations at Fairfax and Belle Haven.  I assume that if people at these clubs were complaining about his work, he wouldn't keep getting retained by other similarly situated clubs. 

I haven't played many of his original designs, but I am generally not a fan. 


Matt_Ward

Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #130 on: November 01, 2010, 10:56:54 AM »
Paul:

Just for curiosity -- how many AH courses constitutes "a lot?"

I do agree with your take on Waverly Woods -- I have played it and it's fairly mundane with little to really make it standout.

I do believe that far too many architects think they have the wherewithal to step into the renovation / restoration side of the biz and it often doesn't work out well.

Arundel Mannor sounds very interesting -- what else makes it captivatign versus the likes of other AH courses you have played ?

Richard Choi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #131 on: November 01, 2010, 12:07:57 PM »
Bob and JNC,

No one is saying that you cannot criticize AH courses that you have played. If you have played those courses and you have strong opinions, this is the place to lay them down.

What is not helpful is when you make a generalization of AH's works when you have played so few (and not even his best works) of his vast portfolio. I think people need to stay away from general evaluation of an architect unless they have played significant number of his courses.

Matt_Ward

Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #132 on: November 01, 2010, 12:15:35 PM »
Richard:

Can you outline what is "significant" -- I said it would need to be the following:

1). At least 10 -- especially for someone with 100+ courses

2). In varied areas of the USA or elsewhere

3). Be a range of private, public / resort, muni, etc, etc.

Richard Choi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #133 on: November 01, 2010, 12:18:07 PM »
Matt, I would not go that far. I think if you play 3 out of 5 of the architect's best know examples, I think you can start to make some general thoughts (at least on his strengths).

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #134 on: November 01, 2010, 12:28:42 PM »
It doesn't matter a jidbit.  Its always best to focus comments on courses played rather than on the architect(s). 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Matt_Ward

Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #135 on: November 01, 2010, 12:54:18 PM »
Richard:

You must have missed what I posted -- if an architect has 100+ courses in his portfolio - playing a minimum of 10% is really needed to get a good sense of what he done.

Let me also point out that having variety in different areas of the country is also helpful -- ditto if they fall into varying categories.

Peter Ferlicca

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #136 on: November 01, 2010, 01:47:00 PM »
Matt,

You keep on calling everyone out for not playing enough Art Hills courses in your opinion; according to you no one plays enough courses to be able to question your opinions.

IMO, he was given two very stellar sites in Half Moon Bay and at Crosscreek.  He blew it big time on both of those sites and built very mediocre golf courses.  Wouldn't you be able to judge an architect by how they handle the best sites given to them?

Matt_Ward

Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #137 on: November 01, 2010, 02:12:29 PM »
PFerlicca:

You can question anything you want of me.

I never said I was an expert on AH courses or that others can provide more insights than I.

Just have the homework to back it up.

You mentioned two places such as Half Moon Bay and Crosscreek. No doubt he could have done better than what was done there. I played both of them and was hoping for better. I simply added the fact that the guy has done some quality work in other locations so we move away from the notion that people can spit out opinions without doing some serious homework.

How would you like it if I evaluated your work product simply from 2-3 samples and never bothered to do any further digging? Would you appreciate that sort of effort on my part? Would anyone?

I have played a more representative sample of AH courses than most others on this site. No doubt there may be others who have not come forward or those who lurk and don't wish to converse. Fair enough. All I said is that AH has done a better job than many might claim. Could he have done better? Sure -- never said he could not.

But there are some people who measure greatness if a guy is able to do a Ballyneal or Rock Creek or some such other course that is in the top .0001 percent of all courses. I never said Hills has demonstrated that level of greatness but for JNC or others to weigh in and say the guy has done little that's worth playing is really talking out of one's hat without the homework to back that erroneous claim up.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #138 on: November 01, 2010, 08:26:09 PM »

But there are some people who measure greatness if a guy is able to do a Ballyneal or Rock Creek or some such other course that is in the top .0001 percent of all courses. I never said Hills has demonstrated that level of greatness but for JNC or others to weigh in and say the guy has done little that's worth playing is really talking out of one's hat without the homework to back that erroneous claim up.


Matt,

Well, when you have shown that you can build a course at the highest level, it's hard for anyone to say you can't do it.  From then on it's only a question of whether you lived up to your ability.

As for all of those Art Hills courses you have played, I am frankly a bit surprised that you never managed to figure out you were looking at the work of several different associates, with little input from the principal.  In fact, if my sources are to be believed, Mr. Hills sold out the business to his associates three years ago, and is no longer involved much at all.  And if that's true, then all your homework counts for nada.

Richard Hetzel

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #139 on: November 01, 2010, 08:51:20 PM »
Tom,

Just out of curiosity, at what point did he become "not so much" involved in recent designs? Only since selling, or was most of the work by his associates?
Best Played So Far This Season:
Crystal Downs CC (MI), The Bridge (NY), Canterbury GC (OH), Lakota Links (CO), Montauk Downs (NY), Sedge Valley (WI)

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #140 on: November 02, 2010, 08:28:59 AM »
ok- so if a given associate is responsible for 3 courses, what's a representative sampling, 1 or 2?   ;D
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Cliff Hamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #141 on: November 02, 2010, 09:29:21 AM »
As I always state when Mr. Hills name comes up - Newport National is among the best publics in New England.  Per Tom Doak's comment though Drew Rogers did most if not all of the design for the firm. 

FWIW this from Ron Whitten's recent review of new courses in GD:

GOLF HOLE OF THE YEAR
Chicago Highlands Golf Club in the Chicago suburb of Westchester, was built atop an old landfill capped by 20 feet of soil, enough to allow Arthur Hills to sculpt the land into a faux links. It has a number of clever, unusual holes, the best being the 344-yard ninth, intended to be a reachable par 4 from all six tees.

Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2010-12/best-new-courses?currentPage=1#ixzz148DDi3ZF

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #142 on: November 02, 2010, 10:50:52 AM »
Tom,

Just out of curiosity, at what point did he become "not so much" involved in recent designs? Only since selling, or was most of the work by his associates?


Richard:

I have no idea of the answer to your question.  I had better things to do in those years than to keep tabs on Arthur Hills & Associates!

Craig Van Egmond

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #143 on: November 02, 2010, 10:55:55 AM »

The name of the firm is Arthur Hills Steve Forrest and Associates and has been since at least 2005.

Chris_Blakely

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #144 on: November 02, 2010, 11:14:26 AM »

But there are some people who measure greatness if a guy is able to do a Ballyneal or Rock Creek or some such other course that is in the top .0001 percent of all courses. I never said Hills has demonstrated that level of greatness but for JNC or others to weigh in and say the guy has done little that's worth playing is really talking out of one's hat without the homework to back that erroneous claim up.


Matt,

Well, when you have shown that you can build a course at the highest level, it's hard for anyone to say you can't do it.  From then on it's only a question of whether you lived up to your ability.

As for all of those Art Hills courses you have played, I am frankly a bit surprised that you never managed to figure out you were looking at the work of several different associates, with little input from the principal.  In fact, if my sources are to be believed, Mr. Hills sold out the business to his associates three years ago, and is no longer involved much at all.  And if that's true, then all your homework counts for nada.





Which is why I have siad on all these numerous Art Hills threads that his newer courses seem to be alot better than his olderr courses.  The assoicates are the ones more or all responsible for the final product.

Chris

Matt_Ward

Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #145 on: November 02, 2010, 11:19:41 AM »
Tom D:

We have had this discussion regarding who gets credit for courses -- in my mind, and others as well, if someone is working under the shingle of the main man listed -- then the main man gets the credit -- pure and simple. Wthout the main man the likelihood of a given project becoming reality would have been small - if not at all possible.

No doubt associates often have a direct and clear involvement -- there are numerous instances of this as you and others well know. The issue is when you work for someone the firm and the main principle is the owner of such contributions. One of the good things with this site is that such contributions have been noted.

By the way Tom -- homework of courses does count for something.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #146 on: November 02, 2010, 11:50:25 AM »
I'm not sure I really understand guys keeping their brand alive by keeping their name on the masthead and having little to no involvement in a given course.  Obviously, I get it financially.  Or to prop your offspring up.  How many guys, perhaps aside from some tour players selling their name, actually got into golf architecture primarily to turn a profit?  Just think Tom, you can be killing it in your dotage by phoning it in!!
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 11:52:47 AM by Jud Tigerman »
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Ken Fry

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #147 on: November 02, 2010, 12:37:24 PM »
I'm not sure I really understand guys keeping their brand alive by keeping their name on the masthead and having little to no involvement in a given course.  Obviously, I get it financially.  Or to prop your offspring up.  How many guys, perhaps aside from some tour players selling their name, actually got into golf architecture primarily to turn a profit?  Just think Tom, you can be killing it in your dotage by phoning it in!!

Didn't a guy by the name of Ross kind of do that?????

Ken

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #148 on: November 03, 2010, 09:52:05 AM »
The ongoing dispute regarding the necessity of seeing an adequate number of courses by an architect in order to properly evaluate his body of work is important.  It is not limited to criticism of GCA.  Certainly, if one wishes to rank the work of a prolific film director, the critic would better be served if he viewed as many works as possible.  Similarly, literary critcs benefit from the same exposure.  That is why there exist professional critics; they have the time to do the "homework" as Matt Ward puts it.
However, it is a more difficult task when it comes to evaluating golf courses because of the time and expense needed to go and see courses which are spread all over the world.  Thus there are fewer individuals who have the ability to see the requisite samples.

I note that this does not keep any individual from making a perceptive review of a course.  If that review exposes weaknesses in the architect's work and other reviews of other courses suggest a similar weakness, then a reader might fairly conclude that the weakness is habitual and characteristic of the architect.  Accordingly, a series of reviews by mutiple critics may be as telling as the review of a single more travelled critic; indeed that method likely filters out any bias that may be held by the single reviewer.

Finally, I suggest that , in the end, the analytical ability and taste of the reviewer is of critical importance.  This may be a matter of the reader's taste, but a critic who has seen 100's of courses but doesn't "get it" won't provide better information than one who is less experienced but has a better understanding of what makes a course "great'.

Matt_Ward

Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #149 on: November 03, 2010, 12:11:50 PM »
SL:

The issue is that too many people want to provide "expert" opinions when they don't have the samples to back it up. A sample size doesn't have to be that many -- but it needs to be somewhat representative. That's why I suggested it include courses from other areas of the country and some different subject categories (private, public, resort, etc, etc).

GCA works when people can share detailed info and comment from such perspectives. Once people get into the extrapolating game it becomes nothing more than educated guesses -- often times the lack of a solid sample pool prejudices the outcomes that are ultimately posted.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back