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.


Patrick Hodgdon

  • Karma: +0/-0
In the recent Bellerive thread Bill Shamleffler has this to say about the course:

Quote
I can tell you that Bellerive always had a reputation as being a brute of a course, but uninspiring.  The belief was that little strategy was required.  It was just hit a solid decent length drive in the fairway, then hit the green.  There were no situations in which certain angles could give the skilled golfer a better shot at a birdie or par, or where certain approaches needed to be "learned", it was the prototype "everything you need to know is right in front of you", and no advantage to the thinking golfer or to the golfer who had learned the course.

This is not a knock on the course, for it is still a quality test of golf for what it offers.  It is a very good course but not a great course.  It is good enough to host a major, but it then offers the additional necessary factors that some better courses can not offer (i.e. enough room for large galleries and sponsor tents, enough room for parking, enough room for car traffic, etc.)  

I have not played Bellerive but I did very much enjoy Bill's description and analysis on the course. Why? Because I thought it fit perfectly for another good but not great course that I have played that also gets what I feel is an inflated rating because it hosts the PGA Championship: Hazeltine National.

I've played Hazeltine 5-6 times now and every time I walk away feeling it lacks the character, subtlety, and strategy of some of the "great" courses I have had the privilege to play.  Sure its a fine course, has some nice holes and provides a test to even the best players in the world. But as Bill calls Bellerive, I too would call Hazeltine: uninspiring.

What other courses that you consider a "good" course but not "great" get lumped in or inflated to "great" because of the big tournaments they host?
« Last Edit: May 10, 2011, 12:58:48 PM by Patrick Hodgdon »
Did you know World Woods has the best burger I've ever had in my entire life? I'm planning a trip back just for another one between rounds.

"I would love to be a woman golfer." -JC Jones

Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Torrey Pines South

Carl Nichols

  • Karma: +0/-0
Congressional?

Aronomink?

Baltusrol?

 

Mitch Hantman

  • Karma: +0/-0

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Patrick:

"Championship" courses tend to lack "Character/Subtlety/Strategy" to most golfers with a handicap over 10-15 because quite frankly they aren't good enough to see it. Different horses for different courses. Hence when this question comes up you hear the same golf courses mentioned over and over and over again: Medinah, Torrey Pines, Atlanta Athletic, East Lake, every golf course Rees Jones has ever set foot on, etc...

And it works the other way too. I played with a couple Northwestern golfers last year who called Shoreacres the most overrated and boring golf course they've ever seen. Why? They thought it was way too easy.

And then there is another group of people, on here in particular, that lump courses together and make statements that a course lacks subtlety and is "the clear little sister" to another course...but haven't played the course in question. It's amazing how hard it is to see character/subtlety/strategy when you've never been there.  ::)

For the record, I think Bellerive is a better and more well rounded course than Hazeltine. In my opinion, Hazeltine's front nine is dull in spots and a bit goofy. But I like the back nine there alot and think the 10th and 16th holes are really really good.
H.P.S.

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
To follow up on my first point, Patrick, and to use your example of Hazeltine. When I played there, I played it from about ~6700 yards on an early May day last year that was probably 50* and the wind was blowing 20mph. I felt that the weakest holes there were the longer par-4's that the PGA guys would be playing it from 450-500 yards, but I was playing from ~400 yards. The greens on these holes are designed to hold a shot from ~200 yards, not a 150 yard 8 iron, so the green looses interest from me, the 4 handicap.

The only other way to combat the PGA guys from shooting -20 under is to have them play a golf course that is either a) really really tight, b) features alot of tight tree lined doglegs (like Southern Hills) or c) have really hard greens which usually need a lot of slope or a lot of speed.

Hazeltine just defends par differently than a place like Southern Hills. Hazeltine just defends par using its length, and doesn't beat the player up a second time once he reaches the green. Most 20 handicapers aren't going to see the subtlety in Hazeltine.

And again, it works both ways. JB Holmes hit a 4-iron over the dogleg and onto the 13th green at Shoreacres...think he saw any subtlety?
H.P.S.

Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Congressional?

Aronomink?

Baltusrol?

 

Woah! I haven't played Aronimink, but even from just seeing it on TV I don't think it fits this group. It looked wonderfully intersting AND difficult.

Tom Yost

  • Karma: +0/-0

"Championship" courses tend to lack "Character/Subtlety/Strategy" to most golfers with a handicap over 10-15 because quite frankly they aren't good enough to see it.

Hmm...    :-[



And it works the other way too. I played with a couple Northwestern golfers last year who called Shoreacres the most overrated and boring golf course they've ever seen. Why? They thought it was way too easy.



I'm convinced that very skilled golfers measure "easy" not so much by how easy it is for them, but by the observation of a lack of truly penal elements that would more affect the average golfer.




Richard Choi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Tom, what does interesting architecture matter to really good players if the conditioning is so soft that you can shoot at the pin no matter where you are? In those situations, the only "interesting architecture" that matter to those players would be water hazards and out of bounds.

You can see why those players would flock to Rees Jones courses.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Atlanta Athletic club would be my top of the list....

But no way Aronimink should be on the list....if it doesn't show character, subtlety and strategy....then something is wya out of whack....I could play that course everyday....
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Carl Nichols

  • Karma: +0/-0
Just trying to stir the pot for some discussion. Never played Aronimink, and while it looked good on tv, most of that seemed to be about the greens and the incredible conditions. Is it strategic tee to green?

Patrick Hodgdon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Pat thanks for the response. I know this topic has been discussed before here but I think it's interesting to debate and I'd like to know more whether what I think and feel about courses such as Hazeltine is right or if I'm missing something.

Patrick:

"Championship" courses tend to lack "Character/Subtlety/Strategy" to most golfers with a handicap over 10-15 because quite frankly they aren't good enough to see it. Different horses for different courses. Hence when this question comes up you hear the same golf courses mentioned over and over and over again: Medinah, Torrey Pines, Atlanta Athletic, East Lake, every golf course Rees Jones has ever set foot on, etc...

Why can't a 10-15 see it? Is it simply because they can't hit it long enough? Or can't hit it straight enough? In other words why do they miss it when the better players don't? What would have to change for them to see it?

And it works the other way too. I played with a couple Northwestern golfers last year who called Shoreacres the most overrated and boring golf course they've ever seen. Why? They thought it was way too easy.

Interesting. So they'd rather go play Medinah? What did they shoot at Shoreacres? If Shoreacres had longer tees would they have seen it?

For the record, I think Bellerive is a better and more well rounded course than Hazeltine. In my opinion, Hazeltine's front nine is dull in spots and a bit goofy. But I like the back nine there alot and think the 10th and 16th holes are really really good.
Agree that the 10th and 16th are nice holes. Again I think it certainly is a good course just not great one and certainly not inspiring like say an Interlachen or a Holston Hills or even say CommonGround. The point is you don't go home after playing a course like Hazeltine and think of alternative ways to play the holes. You don't think "oh maybe I should go 3-wood, 4-iron on that par 4 next time instead of challenging that bunker with the driver and trying to get to a 7 or 8 iron left. Or "man I should play that par-5 as a 3 shot hole instead of going for it in 2 because the risk is higher than the reward for trying in 2. You simply come back and try and pound the ball down the fairway as far as you can on just about every hole.

To follow up on my first point, Patrick, and to use your example of Hazeltine. When I played there, I played it from about ~6700 yards on an early May day last year that was probably 50* and the wind was blowing 20mph. I felt that the weakest holes there were the longer par-4's that the PGA guys would be playing it from 450-500 yards, but I was playing from ~400 yards. The greens on these holes are designed to hold a shot from ~200 yards, not a 150 yard 8 iron, so the green looses interest from me, the 4 handicap.

So I'm curious if Hazeltine holds up in terms of its character/strategy to other "non-pro/scratch amateur" golfers in the 10-15 handicap range if they just play the right tees? Or does your description of hitting a green from 150 with an 8 iron instead of 200 with a 5-6 iron like the pros seem to point to the fact it doesn't work?

You also mention the green loses interest to you from 150 yards because it was built to receive shots from 200 and not provide a challenge once you get there. This seems pretty silly to me that it can't be both, for instance do the greens at Augusta for example lose interest to Tiger or Phil if he has 150 left while half the field has 200 left?

It sounds like when you build a "championship" course you have to sacrifice the elements that make golf fun? Why couldn't Hazeltine have both the length to challenge Pros and host a tournament and have interesting greens?

The only other way to combat the PGA guys from shooting -20 under is to have them play a golf course that is either a) really really tight, b) features alot of tight tree lined doglegs (like Southern Hills) or c) have really hard greens which usually need a lot of slope or a lot of speed.

Hazeltine just defends par differently than a place like Southern Hills. Hazeltine just defends par using its length, and doesn't beat the player up a second time once he reaches the green. Most 20 handicapers aren't going to see the subtlety in Hazeltine.

So Hazeltine's only defense is it's length. What is subtle or strategic about length? How does it give any character to the course other than calling it in Bill's term, a brute? If length is the only defense isn't it simply a mindless "hit as far as you can hit and then hit it again" slugfest every round? If length is the only redeeming attribute of the course is the 10-15 handicap really "not able to see the character/strategy/subtlety" or does it just not exist?

And again, it works both ways. JB Holmes hit a 4-iron over the dogleg and onto the 13th green at Shoreacres...think he saw any subtlety?

Can a course have both the length to challenge a modern pro and the character/subtlety/strategy that we enjoy in many of the classic courses as well as some being built today or are they mutually exclusive? Is it fair to want more than what Hazeltine gives you?
Did you know World Woods has the best burger I've ever had in my entire life? I'm planning a trip back just for another one between rounds.

"I would love to be a woman golfer." -JC Jones

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back