Arthur Hills courses

[Adam Clayman]

Forrest- I've played the old and the new 18 hole course. Wasn't aware it was a Hills. It had the feel of a Jones course. Which I suppose is a compliment.

The hole I believe you reference is the 8th.
The website uses Flash, so copying and pasting is beyond me. But here's a link to their course picture page. BTW, the pic they use for this hole is abysmal.

http://www.glacierclub.com/newpage/pictures.html

[Forrest Richardson]

Maybe it can be had on Google Earth.

[SL_Solow]

Wasn't Stone Creek a complete redo of a Roy Dye design which was minimalist in nature, particularly given the desert location?

[Matthew Petersen]

Would this be the hole at Tamarron/Glacier Club you are referring to Forrest?



http://www.theglacierclub.com/static/index.cfm?contentID=47

[Forrest Richardson]

Ahh, the Old Mummy Mountain (then Anasazi, now Stonecreek). yes, Roy Dye and a tremendous course. But, hardly minimalist! Mummy Mountain involved lots of earthwork and massive mounds...some as high as Roy could manage! The old par-3 Dell hole was great fun. A longish par-3 to an L-shaped green. The back portion was completely hidden behind a 20 ft. mound and you could do nothing but try and land it on top of the hill and hope for a lucky bounce. I played Mummy Mountain many, many times and was inspired by many of the interesting holes. Roy Dye was a creative guy. A shame that he did not get to finish much of his work.

[Forrest Richardson]

Re: Glacier (Tammeron) — Yes, No. 7. But the green was literally a big U-shape and there were, in reality, two greens separated by a great bunker.

[Matthew Petersen]

That's how I remember it, too. Looks like they have done some work to the hole.

Of course, it's been 15 years at least since I played there.

[JNC Lyon]

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.

[JNC Lyon]

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 more 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.  Courses like Camp Creek in Panama City Beach, FL or Kaluhyat at Turning Stone were not architectural masterpieces (Camp Creek was much of those two), but at least I can remember all of the holes at each course.

[Sean Leary]

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 more 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.

Amazing what an expert you are on Hills with 2 courses under your belt....

[JNC Lyon]

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 more 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.

Amazing what an expert you are on Hills with 2 courses under your belt....

Point taken    However, it's not like I'm going to seek out his work after seeing those two golf courses.

[Matthew Sander]

Jon, I think your review of the two Hills courses you played is probably spot on. However, I don't know that containment mounding is anymore of an Arthur Hills trademark than anyone else who was building courses in the 80's and 90's. I think that criticism should be directed more at the trends of the time as most courses built in the states during that period exhibit the overuse of artificial mounds. That said, he was part of the trend so...

After reading through this thread I checked out the Arthur Hills website and he has quite a large body of work. So I'm sure there are themes in his courses that have come and gone. Most of the responses on this thread jive pretty well with my experiences with Hills courses. It seems he's built a lot of solid, acceptable golf holes with few standouts. The land his projects have been on, and the restrictions of residential golf could be blamed for some of the shortcomings. However, Mike Nuzzo does accurately point out that every architect has at least 18 opportunities per course (greensites) to make his mark. Also, with the size of his portfolio you'd expect more excellent courses. Did he deliver when given an exceptional site (Bay Harbor, Half Moon Bay,...)? I'll reserve judgement because I've not played these courses, but many on this site think he did not deliver on these occasions.

There are a few Hills courses that I really did enjoy. Chaska Town Course (neighbor to Hazeltine) was a good track with an excellent set of par threes. I also liked Champion Trace near Lexington, KY. I wasn't very fond of the over use of water hazards on the holes near the clubhouse, but otherwise I thought the course made good use of the rolling rural KY terrain.

[Richard Hetzel]

Richard

I don't buy the constraint argument on the whole.
To compare architects you can look at some of the components.
Take a look at the green complexes - every architect has 18 opportunities here.
Then take a look the individual holes - there should be at least a couple opportunities even on less than site or client.

cheers

I don't really compare "components" of a golf course with components of another course. I am not that nit-picky. If I did that my favorite course would be comprised of nothing less than 14 architects.  I do look at the elements of design, but when I walk off the 18th green I either liked the course (as a whole) or I did not (as a whole).

I understand AH is not a favorite here, but his courses are generally fair (unless you hit the lone tree in the middle of the fairway on many of his designs), and fun to play for the most part. I'm not saying he should be considered in the top tier of architects. Besides, all (most anyway) of those guys are pushing up daisies.

[Doug Wright]

I've only played a couple of his courses - one is the aforementioned Legacy Ridge. I sure liked that course a lot better before all the houses were built - but that's not the course's fault. Not too memorable a course to me, although the 13th is a fun hole, if memory serves, a downhill par four with a tree that is rather inconvenient off the tee.

I do, however, remember Walking Stick in Pueblo, Colorado. A fun course that contains some really lovely arroyos that the holes hug and wind around and over. The arroyos are used well, and while the greens aren't too exciting, getting there is a load of fun. But beware the walking stick cactus itself. It's a mutha.

On the basis of those courses I wouldn't want to make a case for Hills as a great designer, but Walking Stick especially is a lot of fun, not especially difficult, and a nice looking course.

Wow, is that praise or an indictment? I guess that depends on the golfer.

Kirk, I like Walking Stick too. However, as with a course Forrest mentioned, I believe that Walking Stick is really Keith Foster not Hills. In my mind, that is why it is substantially better than any of the other "Hills" courses I have played. Walking Stick is more playable and more interesting than the Hills courses I've played. I don't like Legacy Ridge at all. As others have stated, the par fives are terrible, especially #11--a blind tee shot over trees to a narrow landing area with OB left and an environmentally sensitive (OB) area right. Hills' TPC at Eagle Trace is one of the worst courses I've ever played--blind water hazards abound and that's just the beginning. The PGA Tour couldn't move the Honda Classic from Eagle Trace quickly enough for the players (wait, maybe Eagle Trace isn't that bad after all if the Tour players didn't like it...). He's credited with redoing Green Gables CC in Denver a few years ago. Not sure how much he had to do with it, but I think it's mediocre except for the nice driveable par 4 5th and an excellent redo of the par 3 14th that abuts the clubhouse and lake. He reversed two parallel par 4s (#2 and #3) that play in opposite directions up and down a hill with a bisecting stream, and I'm quite puzzled as to why. Hard to know what limitations his firm had in the renovations, but it's not my cup of tea. Hills also redesigned one of the Camelback courses in 1999. I had heard a few years back that the Camelback members were very unhappy and going to blow it up and start over--I certainly concurred--but I guess the recession prevented that. As I reflect on the Hills courses, I guess I contrast them with Pete Dye. Pete's courses are challenging but there is a craftmanship to the work that makes you take notice; I find Hills' courses to be overly penal in many respects, with blind water hazards and blind shots to small unreceptive greens. Maybe I'm just not a good enough player; or maybe I just don't get what Hills is trying to do.

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

You raise a very valid point.

There are way too many people who extrapolate a broad viewpoint based on a sample size that is way too small to do so.

I am not a Hills fan but I have played roughly 20 or so of his designs. I would have hoped he would have made something of a dent among the top tier courses that are favored for national consideration but for whatever reason few have done that.

Nonetheless, people should realize that particular biases and preferences are at work here. Before people make generalized comments a workable sample size would be helpful to establish some sort of credibility before final judgement is passed.

[JNC Lyon]

Richard

I don't buy the constraint argument on the whole.
To compare architects you can look at some of the components.
Take a look at the green complexes - every architect has 18 opportunities here.
Then take a look the individual holes - there should be at least a couple opportunities even on less than site or client.

cheers

I don't really compare "components" of a golf course with components of another course. I am not that nit-picky. If I did that my favorite course would be comprised of nothing less than 14 architects.  I do look at the elements of design, but when I walk off the 18th green I either liked the course (as a whole) or I did not (as a whole).

I understand AH is not a favorite here, but his courses are generally fair (unless you hit the lone tree in the middle of the fairway on many of his designs), and fun to play for the most part. I'm not saying he should be considered in the top tier of architects. Besides, all (most anyway) of those guys are pushing up daisies.

I guess I really do not make the distinction between fair and unfair on golf courses (golf, like life, is unfair), but I would describe his architecture as fluky.  This is mainly due to his over-reliance on water hazards in a very penal way.  

18 at Olde Atlanta is a good example.  It is a dog leg right par five with a massive lake as its centerpiece.  Off the tee, any drive that is not perfectly shaped will end up in the lake on the outside of the dogleg.  The second shot is then a long iron or wood over this same lake, which slices across the fairway.  It requires a substantial carry to reach the other side, meaning death to women and children.  The green then juts out into the lake, meaning that the angle of play is away from the lake.  The hole has no strategy, especially since the green offers no real opportunity to be reached in two.  The hole is awkward in presentation, and it makes very poor use of angles.

For the most part, his courses are "fair" in that they are bland and unexciting.  He combines these 13 or so dull holes with 1-2 decent holes and 2-3 bad holes.  The final product is modern architecture at its worst.  How can architect's move so much land and get so little.

Hills certainly is not alone in his use of containment mounding, although he seems to be the poster boy for it.  It's almost as if he has painted on a canvas for his whole life, refusing to see the ruggedness, randomness and charm that is a key part of so many great golf courses.

[JNC Lyon]

Sean:

You raise a very valid point.

There are way too many people who extrapolate a broad viewpoint based on a sample size that is way too small to do so.

I am not a Hills fan but I have played roughly 20 or so of his designs. I would have hoped he would have made something of a dent among the top tier courses that are favored for national consideration but for whatever reason few have done that.

Nonetheless, people should realize that particular biases and preferences are at work here. Before people make generalized comments a workable sample size would be helpful to establish some sort of credibility before final judgement is passed.

Matt,

Simply put, we have not all played as many courses as you!  I make my judgments based on only a few Hills courses, mainly because that's all I wish to play from him.  I would rather spend my time traveling to see Golden Age layouts than going to see Hills efforts like Bay Harbor or Half Moon Bay for tons of dollars.  I will certainly learn more about architecture from a Thendara or Hackensack than I will from Hills Blueprint #7.  I have seen and read enough on Hills courses to know to avoid them like the plague.  Why would I go out of my way to see more?

[Richard Hetzel]

I know that there is NO FAIR in golf! BUT, some of my best rounds have come on Hills courses. Go figure. Maybe that sways my idea of fair. I guess "straight forward" would be a better term.

I know I am losing this battle, so I am bowing out!

[Matt_Ward]

JNC:

Here's what you posted ...

"I'm guessing that Hills has done more 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."

Re-read what you posted -- you made definitive comments on Hills -- based on how many courses you have personally played ?

This is the same approach quite a few others have done to the likes of Rees Jones and Tom Fazio. I don't doubt you and others can have opinions on the courses you have played -- but don't go extrapolating that limited sample size into 100% certain labels of the person in question.

Let me say this -- you say you don't wish to play other Hills courses. OK -- but who's to say he doesn't do something that's really outstanding? I can't say that for sure. Guess what? Neither can you.

It helps if people would evaluate just what they have played and then add to their comments when they have played others. If you or others chose not play other Hills courses -- so be it. But let's not strain credibility even more than you have already -- OK ?

[JNC Lyon]

JNC:

Here's what you posted ...

"I'm guessing that Hills has done more 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."

Re-read what you posted -- you made definitive comments on Hills -- based on how many courses you have personally played ?

Most of my comments were on characteristics that were shared by the two Hills courses that I have played.  Read my entire post minus the introduction in conclusion (which deliberately drew strong conclusions about Hills from what I have seen of his work).  I played two courses of his which I found uninspiring and expendable.  Does this mean I should withhold judgment on his work? 

Besides, will you or anyone else here deny that he builds artificial layouts with uninteresting green sites?  This isn't a contest to see who has played the most Hills golf courses, or who has the biggest sample size from which to make the most credible statistical analysis.  We are trying to determine the truth about Arthur Hills as an architect.  Is his work garbage?  Or does he build good golf courses from which we can draw inspiration?  I think his courses are garbage, and I don't need to see 50 of them to know that.

This is the same approach quite a few others have done to the likes of Rees Jones and Tom Fazio. I don't doubt you and others can have opinions on the courses you have played -- but don't go extrapolating that limited sample size into 100% certain labels of the person in question.

Let me say this -- you say you don't wish to play other Hills courses. OK -- but who's to say he doesn't do something that's really outstanding? I can't say that for sure. Guess what? Neither can you.

It helps if people would evaluate just what they have played and then add to their comments when they have played others. If you or others chose not play other Hills courses -- so be it. But let's not strain credibility even more than you have already -- OK ?

[Doug Wright]

Sean:

You raise a very valid point.

There are way too many people who extrapolate a broad viewpoint based on a sample size that is way too small to do so.

I am not a Hills fan but I have played roughly 20 or so of his designs. I would have hoped he would have made something of a dent among the top tier courses that are favored for national consideration but for whatever reason few have done that.

Nonetheless, people should realize that particular biases and preferences are at work here. Before people make generalized comments a workable sample size would be helpful to establish some sort of credibility before final judgement is passed.

Matt, what would you view as a workable sample size?

I'm also curious about your comment above that "for whatever reason few have done that."  What reason(s) would you give? Mine would be that his courses are penal and lack interest.

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

It sure as hell can't be just two (2) courses.

JNC:

The issue is making sweeping judgements across the board. You have played two - count-em two AH courses. How would you like it if someone evaluated your work with only two examples?

Re-read what I sent to you in my last response. I have no issue with people providing their opinions on what they have played -- I do have issue with anyone extrapolating comments from such a tiny sample of courses and then saying look see at how poor that architect is across the board. Credibility is something that people on blog sites should be interested in maintaining -- despite your knowledge of courses (which is considerable) you badly undercut yourself with such broad and ignorant statements. You're better than that. I value your comments on what you have played -- does it hurt to just simply stick to that rather than throwing forward such broad generalizations?

From the 20 or so AH courses I have played I would be hard pressed to say if any would make my personal top 100. But keep in mind, that doesn't mean to say that all of the places of his that I have played are dogfood or not worthy of a round of golf.

Just a thought for you to think about -- nothing more. Thanks ...

[Thomas McQuillan]

has anyone played his course in portugal, Oitavos dunes. never played it but its meant to be pretty good

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

Allow me to elaborate a bit more ...

The top tier of courses in the USA is extremely competitive -- as it should be.

I also think way too many people get laser-focused on just a few people and therefore side with their design styles without realizing that other talented people are out there. I respect a good bit what JNC provides -- of the courses he actually has played.

Art Hills, from the 20 or so courses I have played -- most of them happen to be in FL and therefore are limited to what can be done there.

I did play his work in Colorado -- Ironbridge -- and it was quite good. Is it at the level of Ballyneal ? No, not at all close but it's less fault of Hills and more credit to Doak and his team -- it also helps to have such a grand site as the layout in Holyoke.

Is it as good as Four Mile Ranch or Red Sky Ranch (Norman) -- no, but it's likely a shade below those two.

I did like Longaberger in OH -- but it would be a stretch to say it's a bonafide top 100 course.

The very top layer of American courses is very competitive and certain states are clearly more demanding to get noticed than others.

[Carl Nichols]

I've played a number of his original designs (all public), and thought they were generally pretty lame.  I've also played a number of his renovations (all private), and though they were generally pretty good -- though none would be characterized as spectacular, just solid.  All of the latter examples are non-residential.