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.


Jeff Goldman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #150 on: November 03, 2010, 02:37:01 PM »
Isn't critical analysis of individual courses more important than an overview of the architect as a whole?  I think critical analysis of enough individual courses leads to a general view of the work of the architect, and besides, we learn more from looking at specific courses than totaling up the good and bad.  If all anyone had seen of Fellini was his work after maybe 1963, they should think he was a hack, but if they had only seen his films done in the 1950s, they would think he was one of the 3 or 4 absolute geniuses of the art.  Go figure.
That was one hellacious beaver.

Matt_Ward

Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #151 on: November 03, 2010, 02:55:09 PM »
Jeff:

JNC provided a reach beyond the limited AH courses he had played and then said that any other work by AH would be waste of his time given what he had played. You say a "general view" can be done -- what's "enough individual courses" for that to happen.

I have tried to point out that when a person tries to apply a tag to an architect it's important to have enough evidence to make a claim. You're right -- to use a baseball example -- if somoone had seen Willie Mays -- prior to '66 they'd likely have one opinion -- those who saw him with the Mets in '73 would have thought much differently.

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #152 on: November 03, 2010, 03:12:37 PM »
Jeff,

I agree individual course reviews are best. If those reviews give a misleading impression, the best approach is for someone concerned to just write a review about another course by that architect that demonstrates something different.

Probably somewhere along the way I've played 5 or 6 Hills' courses. None struck me as particularly good or bad. Just ok.

Speaking of Arthur Hills, I just moved from Franklin, TN where he was building a course called Westhaven. There were several holes I liked and had an Oakmont feel to them (#13, #18).

Wish someone could write how the course has turned out.
Tim Weiman

Matt_Ward

Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #153 on: November 04, 2010, 12:41:41 PM »
Tim:

People can do cumulative summaries of someone's career. For those who want to engage in providing assessments across a longer reach of time it helps to be able to critique courses from within that portfolio -- and frankly one cannot do that without having an adequate sample size in my mind. JNC is a very perceptive course assesser but I simply took issue with him making a blanket assessment on Hills without having the homework / personal research to say so.

I have no doubt that people can critique an individual course -- the issue is taking that small number of courses -- in the discussion it was roughly 2-3 and then saying with definity that such a designer is not worth seeing with any of his other courses.

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #154 on: November 04, 2010, 01:25:19 PM »
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.

No no, Matt.  We can give credit to the associates of Modern architects but not to the associates or partners if the case may be of the Old Dead Guys. 
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

Matt_Ward

Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #155 on: November 04, 2010, 01:29:09 PM »
JC:

Touche !

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #156 on: November 04, 2010, 03:53:42 PM »
Matt,

Supposing an architect built many courses and none had received particular acclaim. But, then, you stumbled upon one of this architect's courses that you were really impressed with.

To my mind, the best thing would be to write what you found so appealing about the course. It would be a whole lot better than arguing another poster wasn't qualified to comment because he hadn't seen enough of that architect's work.

If something is really good, I'd rather hear about it (the golf course), than anything about the credentials of any poster here.
Tim Weiman

Matt_Ward

Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #157 on: November 04, 2010, 06:37:36 PM »
Tim:

I don't doubt people can "stumble" upon a course that they may really like. Great. The issue is whether that course represents the norm or is the one-time effort that rests outside the usual production of layouts that is produced.

I never said AH hits big time compelling architecture with his layouts -- I define "compelling architecture" as those that would have a solid claim to be rated among the best in the nation. JNC pointed out that given his tiny sample of actual courses played -- he opined that anything that AH has done would be a waste of time to play.

Tim, it's clear to me you either don't understand or don't want to concede the obvious -- people should not make generalized claims about the worthiness of someone's work if they have not taken the time to be a bit more involved with the homework it takes to make such claims. I posted the AH courses I have played and while a few are especially noteworthy -- there aren't any I would say would make a final top 100 USA listing. Does that mean to say the guy designs dogfood layouts. No -- it just means that many of his courses don't rise to the highest of highs. I believe JNC is interested in only those courses that are in the highest of altitudes. Fair enough for him. But not fair, in my mind, to opine that AH has nothing of value that is worth playing. I believe he has demonstrated that.


JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #158 on: November 04, 2010, 09:09:06 PM »
I believe JNC is interested in only those courses that are in the highest of altitudes.

Matt,

That's far from the truth.  In fact, I often avoid courses in the "highest altitudes" because they likely required a great deal of hype to reach those heights.  When I went to London, I avoided expensive, well-known courses like Sunningdale, Walton Heath, and Wentworth like the plague.  I am sure they are good courses, but I was not going to spend time and money seeing them when I could see other courses that I knew were to my liking.  That's also why I played North Berwick and Royal Dornoch instead of St. Andrews and Carnoustie.  Would TOC and Carnasty have been interesting? Sure, but I think the courses I picked were much better choices for many different reasons.

Matt, I am not being elitist here.  I simply try to pick out courses that I feel will be lots of fun to play, will be unique, and from which I can learn something about golf course architecture.  This could vary from Royal Dornoch all the way to a 116-year-old nine holer in Central New York.  I choose to avoid Hills courses because I have learned from reading about his courses and playing his courses in the past that I will not be inspired by his work.  Why play a bad course when you can play a good one instead?  Variety for variety's sake is worthless.
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas

Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #159 on: November 04, 2010, 09:16:16 PM »
I played a Hills course Tuesday, Cross Creek in Temecula.

I took my first photo tour and will try to get it up this weekend, but I'll share my overall impressions which were similar to the other Hills courses I've played. Arthur Hills seems to miss opportunities to stand out. I think there was one great hole on the entire course, however the site was fantastic and could've rivaled Rustic Canyon or been even more impressive.

I don't know what his firm charges, but it appears there's less thought behind each hole and shot. It's possible in the case of his courses the developers and golfers get what they pay for. Not every course can be great, and I think Arthur Hills' courses in general are better as a contrast to great architecture instead of an example.

All that said, I had tons of fun, paid 22 bucks for an online tee time and shot my best score in months. Not a bad day at all.  8)

Matt_Ward

Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #160 on: November 05, 2010, 11:39:24 AM »
JNC:

Here's what you originally posted --

You stated the names of some of the more preferred archies on this site at the end of your post.

You then made a generalized comment on the overall value of AH courses -- based on what sort of sample size ? Two courses ?
Which you later amended to three (3) played. How do you presume to throw a generalized tag around the neck of someone's work with such a tiny sample to base it upon.

JNC, you are an astute and often times laser-like analyzer of courses -- but in those cases you have demonstrated homework that is much more than a scratch the surface type. I have tried on this thread to point out that the AH firm (since some people take umbrage that he even does the heavy lifting anymore) has done some interesting designs that I have played which are scattered around the country. I have not said that these layouts are at the Balyneal, Clear Creek, levels. But there are a few worthy of someone's time and $$ to play. I think it's fair to say -- what Alex Miller said is true -- that often times when AH firm hashad superior sites they have failed to ge the most out of it (e.g Half Moon Bay, CrossCreek, Bay Harbor, etc, etc).

Variety is worth doing -- as you indicated in your post. I'll say this again - for what it's worth -- avoid the blanket tag-line approach to a designer -- especially when you extrapolate conclusions from a findings list that is so utterly small. AH is e-z to shoot at because his portfolio of courses doesn't have the one or two home run designs that make most top 100 lists. He does have a few layouts that I have played that are worth playing -- not as the prime attention spots but as secondary ones which are indeed better than his general norm.

*****

Arthur Hills is the prototypical modern architect: lots of style, very little substance.  On the surface, his courses might like good for the undiscerning eye. However, when you look closer you realize that the courses are very manufactured, with tons of containment mounds, contrived bunkers, and un-natural greens. He also relies on water for defense on a lot of courses.

I've played two of his courses: Olde Atlanta and Fiddler's Creek (in Naples, FL).  Both courses share a few characteristics.  The first is the heavy use of containment mounding, which he uses to line both sides of every fairway.  This gives the course a very artificial feel.  It's as if you're experiencing a postmodern sculpture rather than a golf course. 

The second characteristic is that both courses are filled with vapid, unmemorable golf holes.  I can't recall more than five holes at Fiddler's Creek.  I can vaguely remember most of the holes at Olde Atlanta, but only because I've played it three times.  However, I could not describe specific features of any one of the 36 greensites on the two courses.  I can only remember that were generally very artificial. 

Third, each course features two or three holes that pretty much unplayable for most golfers.  These holes usually involve unreasonable carries over water.  These holes include the 11th and 18th at Olde Atlanta, and the 1st and 17th at Fiddler's Creek.

I'm guessing that Hills has done better courses than these two (or at least I would hope so).  However, which of his courses even match up to the work of architects like Doak, C & C, Lester George, George, Strantz, Mike Young, Mike Strantz, Brian Silva, or countless others? Hell, Fazio and RTJ II build much more interesting courses than Hills.

Matt_Ward

Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #161 on: November 05, 2010, 11:45:37 AM »
JNC:

I never said the AH courses you played didn't fit your description -- but you say that avoidance of all other AH courses is what you intend to do.

That's fine.

But you drew such a DEFINITIVE CONCLUSION on a very tiny sample size.

I would hope that a bright mind such as yours would realize that.

AH may not have a course at the same level of the archies you mentioned. OK. That can happen. That doesn't mean to say that other AH courses may provide a worthy round of entertaining golf from a design that is far beyond the small sample size you drew your conclusions from. 

I salute your desire to search out other courses -- some way off the beaten path.

AH has a few of them - I noted them for those so inclined. There may be others that posters can provide as well. If push came to shove and I had to decide between an AH and Doak course -- the latter would be preferred. Batting averages do count for something but I do believe that variety has its place otherwise only the same people would be lauded when other missing courses would remain in the shadows of ignorance.

Jon Spaulding

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #162 on: November 05, 2010, 12:57:44 PM »
I played a Hills course Tuesday, Cross Creek in Temecula.

I took my first photo tour and will try to get it up this weekend, but I'll share my overall impressions which were similar to the other Hills courses I've played. Arthur Hills seems to miss opportunities to stand out. I think there was one great hole on the entire course, however the site was fantastic and could've rivaled Rustic Canyon or been even more impressive.

I don't know what his firm charges, but it appears there's less thought behind each hole and shot. It's possible in the case of his courses the developers and golfers get what they pay for. Not every course can be great, and I think Arthur Hills' courses in general are better as a contrast to great architecture instead of an example.

All that said, I had tons of fun, paid 22 bucks for an online tee time and shot my best score in months. Not a bad day at all.  8)

Alex, sorry you had to play Cross Creek. :-\ It is truly one of the great wastes of property that I am familiar with in California, the area of the front 9 is somewhat reminiscient of Garden City. So I would say with a decent design firm, we might have been looking at something superior to Rsutic.
You'd make a fine little helper. What's your name?

Derek_Duncan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #163 on: November 05, 2010, 04:08:00 PM »
This is slightly off-topic from where this thread has traveled, but I mentioned here earlier that there was a period in the late '80's/early '90's when Hills seemed to minimally bunker his greens, often with circular-shaped bunkers (sometimes just a single one right in front or even right behind).

I was flying through Salt Lake City yesterday and looking out the plane window. Below I see a course near the airport with some of this kind of bunkering. I said to myself, that looks like an Arthur Hills course. It occurred to me today to look it up, and lo and behold, it's called Wingpointe, a 1990 Arthur Hills design.

Which has nothing much to do with anything I guess other than to illustrate a point.
www.feedtheball.com -- a podcast about golf architecture and design
@feedtheball

Jason Walker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #164 on: November 05, 2010, 04:32:09 PM »
A good place to see diversity from one architect on one property--in this case Arthur Hills--is the Golf Club of Georgia.  This is not an opinion of either the Lakeside or Creekside course; simply throwing it out there and saying it can be awfully tough to pigeonhole designers to a singular style.

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #165 on: November 05, 2010, 05:06:24 PM »
Matt,

Regarding "generalized claims", I simply believe the best approach is to respond by discussing a course that is contrary to the "generalized claim".

So, now I know Matt Ward doesn't think JNC Lyon is qualified to discuss Arthur Hills' overall body of work. The problem is that doesn't tell me anything about which AH courses are truly worth going out of one's way to see.

If you have done write ups on such courses, why not simply refer the reader to that thread?

By the way, I am still hoping someone will provide a report about Hills' course in Franklin, TN called Westhaven.
Tim Weiman

Matt_Ward

Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #166 on: November 06, 2010, 12:15:53 PM »
Tim:

If you had taken the time to read this thread from start to end you would have seen various AH courses that were listed as worth checking out. They are not in the same league as Ballyneal or Rock Creek or others that are often discussed to the nth degree on this site.

AH has plenty of courses within his portfolio and I do believe, from the 20+ courses of his I have played, that he has only hit a certain level in terms of design differentiation. The folks on this site often want something above and beyond and when AH has had sites that are clearly very good ones the outcome has been a good bit less than what many believe he could have done -- examples of that includes the likes of Bay Harbor in MI, CrossCreek and Half Moon Bay in CA, to name just a few.

Yet, he and his firm have done some interesting work in other locations and I did mention the ones I believe would have some worthy interest. The problem comes when people apply broad taglines to an architect -- both good and bad -- without including the body of personal research to support such claims.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #167 on: November 06, 2010, 12:55:42 PM »
Isn't critical analysis of individual courses more important than an overview of the architect as a whole?  I think critical analysis of enough individual courses leads to a general view of the work of the architect, and besides, we learn more from looking at specific courses than totaling up the good and bad.  If all anyone had seen of Fellini was his work after maybe 1963, they should think he was a hack, but if they had only seen his films done in the 1950s, they would think he was one of the 3 or 4 absolute geniuses of the art.  Go figure.

I am blown away (in a good way) by the above, particularly when the "author" routinely discredits his political and philosophical opponents with savage gusto on the basis of a nuanced opinion or forecast not achieving the suggested results (e.g. Friedman on monetary policy in Japan).   Indeed if we were to consistently apply the Goldman Rule, we are all idiots and hacks so there is no need for the Discussion Group.   ;)

SL_Solow comments mirror my own made here years ago, and perhaps are shared by Matt W and others.  In my opinion, we are generally on more solid ground discussing individual courses than the skills, motives, and careers of  the architects.

Another contributor once noted that critical acclaim and popularity are two entirely different things.  While this sounds elitist, he is probably right.  However, from a practical standpoint, can an architect cater to the critic while ignoring the populace (consumer preferences)?  Perhaps so if there were more individual owners with very specific clientele (e.g. Wolf Point, Sand Hills, maybe Bandon) and an industry with sound economics.

As to Art Hills, I share Matt's opinions, though my familiarity with the architect is not as extensive.   Just this week I played Wolfdancer east of Austin and was favorably impressed.  It is cart golf, but the first 12 holes have the site attributes and attention to detail that are typically found in Fazio courses.  Unfortunately, the final six are on bottom land, and though they are solid holes, they are a bit of a let-down (flipping the nines might actually help- starting slow and building to a strong finish).  Nevertheless, it is an enjoyable course- my favorite to-date from this group- which I hope to play again some day.
   

Matt_Ward

Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #168 on: November 06, 2010, 01:00:50 PM »
Lou:

I never said people should not only opine on courses they have personally played. That's great -- for them to stay in within their comfort zone. It's when people venture beyond that and presume to be the "expert" based only a very tiny sample that the issues begin to boil up.


SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #169 on: November 06, 2010, 08:34:29 PM »
Lou; nice to hear from you.  However, it would be easier to consider your comments if you didn't have to lead off with an irrelevant political potshot on almost every post.   I can get that from every side of the spectrum at many other sites.

Matt your probably correct on overgeneralizations based on a limited sample.  The problem that is somewhat unique to this exercise is that golfers have to choose where to play and most of us have limits on our time due to jobs etc., our ability to travel, and cost.  So it is not surprising that someone who plays a limited number of courses by an architect reaches a conclusion about his desire to see more.  Perhaps he will miss something good, but given his choices and his experience he is playing the odds.  That is where the professional critic who has the ime and resources comes in.  But, of course, the reader has to respect the analytical ability and the judgment of the critic or all the experience in the world won't matter.

Matt_Ward

Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #170 on: November 07, 2010, 01:15:03 PM »
SL:

Clearly limited time and $$ dictate what people decide to do when visiting prospective courses. I think people should judge the totality of what it is said and seek out sources that can provide a much fuller perspective.

Those choosing not to do are free to play what they wish.

GCA is quite influential with a very active inner circle of folks who really want to see top tier designs of all sorts. AH, in my mind, has not hit the home run ball to the same degree as others. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a few layouts worthy of one's time and attention.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #171 on: November 07, 2010, 05:40:10 PM »
SL,

WOW!  I am so sorry I alluded to your post.  But it puzzles me why you would waste your extraordinary intellect in considering and commenting on my irrelevant potshots.  Really, why not just ignore me altogether as I will you in the future?

Matt,

Of course people can opine on anything they wish without regard to their level of knowledge, intelligence, experience, insight, etc.  It is particularly easy to do so in a medium such as this one, and I applaud Ran and Ben for not being too sensitive with the delete button.  Most of us who've been here awhile know whose opinions we trust and value.

Though we might have different perspectives on what makes a good golf course, I know that when you post something on the subject that it will be based on substantial consideration and depth as well as breadth of experience.  Personally, I don't think it is appropriate to state strong opinions about a course without playing it, or of an architect without having seen a good sample of his work.

Architects seem to work in different niches, and I agree that Hills has not penetrated the top.  I have, however, found some of his courses challenging and enjoyable.  I think he understands the fundamentals of gca- and yes, I do believe there are specific do's and don't's- and if he was able to secure a Fazio or Nicklaus-like budget, or a Doak or C & C site, that perhaps he could get one over the fence.  Just speculating, mind you!  ;)       

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #172 on: November 07, 2010, 07:19:47 PM »
Lou,  I meant it when I said it was nice to hear from you.  I enjoy your perspective on GCA which is why I come here; to exchange views on relevant posts.  But if you choose to ignore my posts, that is your choice.  I didn't know you were so sensitive.  Heck, your "shot" wasn't even directed at me.  And just so there is no mistake, I don't care which side of the political spectrum you or anyone else is on for these purposes.  That's not why we come here.  The bandwidth being wasted on another thread on this page is extraordinary.

Matt_Ward

Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #173 on: November 07, 2010, 07:27:59 PM »
Lou:

Glad you're back.

The thing about Hills is that clearly the people who have hired him see value in what he provides. Given his length of service in the design arena -- he has proven staying power at least from the standpoint in being $$ successful.

He's had a few stellar sites but the national acclaim is always lacking. Interestingly, he reminds me of Joe Paterno -- not as an active coach / designer now but more dependent upon his surrogates to do the heavy lifting. Some of the more recent AH work is also far better than his earlier stuff in my mind.

Scott Weersing

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Arthur Hills courses
« Reply #174 on: January 06, 2017, 04:35:39 PM »
I've played a couple Art Hills courses, off the top of my head Black Gold and Journey at Pechanga.

His courses can be a lot of fun and there were good holes within both, however there were also shockingly bad golf holes too. At least for these two courses however he tackled some terrain that most architects would likely pass on, and made decent golf courses from where there easily could not be one. This would be fine to me if they weren't so overpriced, but that's not his fault because if the average Joe is willing to pay that and enjoy his round.

So I think Arthur Hills is successful, but not particularly good.


I played Black Gold this week, on January 3, and I agree that he is successful but not that good. Black Gold is perfect for OC with good conditioning, good views, elevated tees and a waterfall behind no. 18 signature hole. I had low expectations and they were met. We played at Black Gold because my playing partner had a meeting in the afternoon and Arroyo Trabuco had a tournament.


The next day I played at Rustic Canyon.