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.


Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« on: January 27, 2011, 10:17:16 PM »
Just revisited Sugarloaf Mountain today, almost exactly two years after my first visit.  In 2009 the greens were a mess of granulated sand.  Today, they are fully filled in with overseed and run smooth, albeit slowly.  The rest of the course is overseeded and still a little scruffy.  The bunkers are well maintained for the most part.  The price is right, but there is minimal service, if you're looking for that.

Here is the 15th green from two years ago, and then from today.








Andy Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2011, 03:04:26 PM »
Bryan, thanks for the update. Can you post more pictures of the course currently?
"Perhaps I'm incorrect..."--P. Mucci 6/7/2007

Mike Cirba

Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2011, 03:13:46 PM »
Bryan,

For those looking for good golf and good architecture and less concerned with things like service, is it a good value when in the area?

Nice to see it coming along...thanks for the update.

Andy Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2011, 11:43:06 AM »
Hi Mike.  You know my background and where I come from--conditioning is not a big deal for me.  However, we were there last April and the conditioning was bad.  It effected playability and really impacted enjoyment.

With one caveat, compared to other courses in the Orlando area this is a terrific value, with terrain very different than your BFF Falcon's Fire. But if the conditioning is as it was last April your playing partners may leave you stranded in the parking lot at the end of the round--and its a long way to anywhere from SLM. ;)
"Perhaps I'm incorrect..."--P. Mucci 6/7/2007

Frank Sullivan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2011, 03:56:47 PM »
The condition of the course is much better than last April.  As Bryan mentioned, the overseed has helped quite a bit, and the greens are very healthy, although a bit slow.

If you make a trip up to Sugarloaf Mountain, be sure to play Bella Collina...it is very close to SM and a lot of fun.


Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2011, 04:10:32 PM »
Sugarloaf was a bit of a snoozer as far as I was concerned.  It does have a number of good holes and it has some nice elevation which is surprising given its location, but it has to be Coore & Crenshaw's least inspiring layout.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Mike Sweeney

Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2011, 08:37:45 PM »
Sugarloaf was a bit of a snoozer as far as I was concerned.  It does have a number of good holes and it has some nice elevation which is surprising given its location, but it has to be Coore & Crenshaw's least inspiring layout.

Which still puts it above 95% of the courses in Orlando. Maybe 97%.

Frank Sullivan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2011, 09:15:44 PM »
Sugarloaf was a bit of a snoozer as far as I was concerned.  It does have a number of good holes and it has some nice elevation which is surprising given its location, but it has to be Coore & Crenshaw's least inspiring layout.

Which still puts it above 95% of the courses in Orlando. Maybe 97%.

Couldn't agree more.

Sev K-H Keil

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #8 on: February 10, 2011, 05:00:01 AM »
Sugarloaf Mountain is a great example that solid (not great) GCA --- even in poorly maintained condition --- is still is more fun to play than mediocre GCA in great condition --- I would rate SM just behind Old Memorial, Black Diamond and World Woods in a 100 mile radius --- of course, Streamsong might be the game changer...

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #9 on: February 10, 2011, 12:13:00 PM »
Andy,

Didn't take a lot of pictures this time.  I posted quite a few from the visit two years ago.  It looks pretty much the same except for the fairway overseeds and the vastly improved greens.  Oh, and they were maintaining the bunkers and waste areas with a Sandpro.  Here are a few that I took this year with one more comparison to two years ago.


The 14th green then and now.







The 14th green currently.  The difference in the greens is astounding.




The short par 4 uphill 15th currently.




The 17th, a long, long drop shot par 3 with a green that runs away.





jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #10 on: February 10, 2011, 12:22:02 PM »
Andy,

Didn't take a lot of pictures this time.  I posted quite a few from the visit two years ago.  It looks pretty much the same except for the fairway overseeds and the vastly improved greens.  Oh, and they were maintaining the bunkers and waste areas with a Sandpro.  Here are a few that I took this year with one more comparison to two years ago.


The 14th green then and now.







The 14th green currently.  The difference in the greens is astounding.




The short par 4 uphill 15th currently.




The 17th, a long, long drop shot par 3 with a green that runs away.






Bryan,
Overseeding is like food coloring.
be curious if there's any bermuda left underneath come mid may/June
I enjoyed the course a lot when I was there, but growing in overseed isn't exactly rocket science or a long term solution.
but perhaps it provides enough playing surface to collect green fees all winter
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #11 on: February 10, 2011, 12:24:28 PM »
Mike,

Yes it's good value for the buck with good architecture.  I think it was $59 and they were giving out a $35 coupon for a return visit within 14 days.  I like elevation change so it stacks up very well against the flatter Orlando or south Florida courses.  Conditioning at SLM is a non-issue now compared to other Orlando area courses.

As for service, there is essentially none.  There was one very nice fellow running both the shop and the snack bar. Later on there was also one kid cleaning carts.  That was all the visible "service".  Quite fine by me.  But, quite a difference from Sawgrass the day before.

Terry,

A snoozer?  Less inspired than Talking Stick North?  I'm not as huge a C&C fan as some on here, but, SLM is a good course now that the conditioning is not an issue.  Which holes do you feel make it the least inspiring of C&C's efforts.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #12 on: February 10, 2011, 12:25:17 PM »
Bryan,

Someone told me that they were there recently and that the conditions were poor and the parking lot almost empty.

That can't be a good sign, especiall with the type of winter the north is experiencing.

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #13 on: February 10, 2011, 12:35:10 PM »
Sugarloaf was a bit of a snoozer as far as I was concerned.  It does have a number of good holes and it has some nice elevation which is surprising given its location, but it has to be Coore & Crenshaw's least inspiring layout.

Which still puts it above 95% of the courses in Orlando. Maybe 97%.

Couldn't agree more.

Central Florida is not the most exciting area for great golf, that's for sure, but my one day experience at Sugarloaf was underwhelming enough for me to say that I actually preferred the International course at Champions Gate to Sugarloaf.  For that matter, on a day in, day out basis, I greatly prefer Bay Hill and Country Club of Orlando.  Finally, in my judgment, Lake Nona may be the best golf course in town, despite the fact that it's a FAZIO!  I know this might be an offense punishable by banishment, to prefer Fazio to C&C, but I just said it.  Ready, Aim, FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRE
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2011, 12:37:35 PM »
Jeff,

That's a good question re the underlying Bermuda. The greens are a very tight knit, so it's possible there's not much Bermuda underneath.  Perhaps someone from the area could get us some pictures in June, and we could see.

Patrick,

When was the someone there?  I was only playing public access course while there, but the conditioning was on a par with others like Osprey Ridge and the Dunes at Seville and even Sawgrass.  World Woods conditioning was better with greens were that were faster and just as dense and smooth.  Conditioning at Deltona and Victoria Woods were generally worse - the overseed on the greens was pretty spotty.  All things said and done, the conditioning was fine, although I'm sure not up to Seminole standards.  

The parking lot was relatively empty.  The housing development looks non-existent.  The green fees were low.  I'm a bit surprised they're still in business. It must be worse in the summer.


Andy Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2011, 03:29:57 PM »
Quote
Someone told me that they were there recently and that the conditions were poor and the parking lot almost empty.
Pat, that certainly was the case last April--poor conditioning and a parking lot with 3 cars on a beautiful Wednesday afternoon. 

Glad to hear from Bryan that things are better now. I hope to post some pictures in April when we return.
"Perhaps I'm incorrect..."--P. Mucci 6/7/2007

Will Peterson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2011, 08:47:57 PM »
Played Sugarloaf in Dec and in Feb.  Much better in Feb as the overseeing was still growing in in Dec.  It seemed like there was a decent amount of bermuda in the playing areas, and the greens were smooth on both visits (not too fast).  The bunkers are starting to show a lot of neglect and if you are off the main playing area it gets very rough very fast.  Both days the parking lot was over half full.

I really enjoyed the design, and hope they can keep it going without too much more deterioration.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2011, 09:37:14 PM »
Bryan,

The fellow was there within the last month.

You have to remember, while you played a number of courses, and made a comparative analysis, I think this person came from the North, a snowbird/snowflake, with higher expectations.

Certainly, the impression that I got from him is that he won't be going back there any time soon, if any time at all.

With Winter being a time of influx of golfers from the north, hearing remarks like the ones relayed to me, would take Sugarloaf Mountain off my destination list.

I would think that golfers from the north would rather stay at the hotel and play the courses at Grand Cypress.

J Cabarcos

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #18 on: October 23, 2012, 10:40:49 AM »
Apparently things have gone downhill at Sugarloaf Mountain- Golf Operations have CLOSED and the place is now DEFUNCT. I was reading through the boards in search of decent Orlando Golf options amongst the multitudes and quickly spotted the Crenshaw and Coore's design.  After trying to get a tee time only to encounter a disconnected number, I called their management company Hampton Golf and was told the news.

This is pretty sad information in light of the fact that there are so many mediocre golfing options in Orlando.  But, hey I guess those courses are strategically close to I-4 corridor where Mickey resides.

I think I am going to have to shlep up to World Woods, after all.

Brad Tufts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #19 on: October 23, 2012, 10:51:20 AM »
That's too bad...I played there in March and it was a solid layout, even if the conditions were a bit lacking.  The greens were pretty nice, the bunkers had collapsed in a few locations, but it looked like a sudden influx of cash could fix those issues pretty quickly.

The staff seemed upbeat about the situation at the time, but no surprise that it couldn't make a go.

Maybe someone will step in and take it over on the cheap?
So I jump ship in Hong Kong....

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #20 on: October 23, 2012, 11:47:07 AM »
Wow, what a terrible turn.  It is an excellent layout on a very good piece of land. 

I can't say I'm surprised.  About two years ago I had a day off from work so I drove over to play and it was closed two days a week for "maintenance" at the time.  When your revenue doesn't cover the cost of opening up for the day it is a very bad sign.

Here's the question: if someone GAVE you the golf course, could revenue cover the maintenance cost?  My guess is no, which is why we're here. 

So sad.  Thanks for sharing, even though I'm not happy about the news.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #21 on: October 23, 2012, 12:04:37 PM »
It is about 75 miles from the new Streamsong Resort. I wonder if the Resort could have some effect on the revitalization of Sugarloaf.

It's a shame that this sandbelt of Florida is essentially ignored for play while guys like Terry Lavin prefer to go dunk balls at Fazio courses.

My message to Terry: You can hit balls at targets on the driving range too, and save yourself the expencse! ;D
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #22 on: October 23, 2012, 12:17:31 PM »
So sad.   :-[ 

As recently as Sept 21 Hampton was promoting it with green fees of $19.95 including cart.  I guess even that wasn't enough to get people out.   Apparently even a good golf course isn't enough to get people to come if the location is isolated and there is no resort and nothing else there.

Garland,

Streamsong is south of Orlando and Sugarloaf is north; there is no synergy.  Streamsong is equally isolated - it'll be interesting to see if their resort and the fact that there are two courses will be enough to draw people to the location.  It is somewhat similar to World Woods which is also not the busiest course in the world.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #23 on: October 23, 2012, 12:30:33 PM »
Bryan,

It seems to me to be an education problem. The same problem exists here in the Pacific northwest. People here believe a proper golf course has to have trees, because that is almost all they see. That in part is why Chambers Bay has been struggling since opening. Of course, the high green fee has blame there too, but I am hoping that when the US Open is played there, that it gets praised for its lack of trees with statements like golf as it is meant to be. Perhaps that would open some eyes in the PNW.

My only attraction to go play golf in Florida would be courses on the sand belts there. I have been hoping that Sugarloaf Mountain would be one I could play.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Pete Buczkowski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sugarloaf Mountain, Now and Then
« Reply #24 on: October 23, 2012, 01:02:57 PM »
Apparently things have gone downhill at Sugarloaf Mountain- Golf Operations have CLOSED and the place is now DEFUNCT. I was reading through the boards in search of decent Orlando Golf options amongst the multitudes and quickly spotted the Crenshaw and Coore's design.  After trying to get a tee time only to encounter a disconnected number, I called their management company Hampton Golf and was told the news.

This is pretty sad information in light of the fact that there are so many mediocre golfing options in Orlando.  But, hey I guess those courses are strategically close to I-4 corridor where Mickey resides.

I think I am going to have to shlep up to World Woods, after all.

Hi Everybody - As usual with these situations it is complicated (Note: I am a member of the course but otherwise not affiliated).  Golf Operations are closed for the foreseeable future (through at least the end of the year), but it is due to the ownership structure and may or may not be permanent.  The land and development has been in bankruptcy for some time but the golf operations had been funded by a potential buyer of the property.  The main contribution was to cover the insurance on the land to allow the golf course to operate.  That buyer has pulled out but there are other negotiations taking place. The operating and maintenance budget were extremely small since nobody actually owned the golf course.  Hampton is just the management company.  As a side note the course is still being maintained; but golfers are not allowed due to the insurance gap.

The course needs to draw the local market as well as snowbirds to be successful.  It is pretty remote and the conditioning challenges are well documented.  Ultimately though there were a few design features built in that the land could not support which lead to the course's decline.  This was a combination of the general shape of the land and soil properties combined with the severe rainy climate.  As an example the course opened with a lot of open sandy areas, most notably in front of 15 tee.  The slope from 15 down to 14 fairway is severe, and when summer rains dumped 6 inches in two hours, a lot of the sand slid onto 14 fairway.  This caused some asthetic issues to 15 (grassed over with grass that doesn't match) and major conditioing issues to 14, which has never recovered.  Many of the C&C bunker faces have fallen in as well which were subsequently dumbed down for the worse.

Pete

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back