[Mac Plumart]

I find one of the most important things regarding playing a golf course is the course’s routing.  Not being an expert in golf course construction, irrigation, or drainage, I am not qualified to say if a course’s routing is ideal or not.  Should hole #2 have been positioned somewhere else?  Could a better hole have been developed if the architect took the high road versus the low road?  And questions like that are not my specialty.  Perhaps it could be argued that unless you actually did the routing (or a routing) for the course, studied the topo maps, walked the property, and got to know the soil, natural formations, and the like…then you don’t know if the routing is ideal or not.  But regardless, a golfer (especially one who walks the course) knows if the routing is good, the walk is pleasant, the holes flow one into the next, and the challenges presented from one hole to the next are appealing.

With that in mind, I start this thread about Seth Raynor and Shoreacres.

The routing of a golf course has been touched upon by many fans of golf course architecture.  In Brad Klein’s book “Rough Meditations” he has a section called “Routing is Destiny”, in which he says that the routing of a golf course is the most important element.  And although he says that most of the time the course’s routing is determined by the developer, we, on GCA.com, seem to assign most of the blame and/or credit of a course’s routing to the architect of the course.  For better or worse, maybe the architect is like the quarterback of a football team.  The team wins and the quarterback wins and he gets all the credit.  The team loses and the QB gets the blame.  Perhaps it comes with the territory.  

Another thing we talk about on this site is natural looking golf courses.  We quote Max Behr all the time about how the hand of man needs to be concealed all the time…nothing but Mother Nature’s work should be noticeable by the naked eye.  

But yet, we seem to laud Seth Raynor’s work.  Given all his un-natural looking features, geometric bunkering and mounding, I was having a heck of a time reconciling this as the two concepts seemed to be at direct odds with one another.  In fact, I started a thread on this exact topic…

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,47557.0.html

Although some reconciliation regarding the love of Raynor and the acceptance of natural looking golf course was made on my part, deep down I still wondered if Mr. Raynor could be considered truly great.  And to make matters worse on my psyche, I read Geoff Shackelford’s “The Art of Golf Design” where he seems to be of the mind that great golf courses have to be natural looking.

So, there I was…kind of stuck on what GREAT golf courses and golf course architects were all about.  Who was right?  Why were they right?   I was keen to find out, but a bit confused.  And at this time, I had played The National Golf Links of America (a MacDonald course where Raynor was “discovered”), Lookout Mountain, and Yeaman’s Hall.  And then it happened, I got the invited to Shoreacres.  Playing this course would answer all my questions regarding these concepts.

On the first hole, I saw a really nice looking golf hole…some cool cross bunkering…a nice green complex…but with some unnatural looking shapes.  I felt that my dilemma was coming to a head and I would have my question answered before this round was over.

And as the course flowed by the fourth hole, I felt I knew the answer.  I saw this site…





And wondered why the unnatural looking features on the first hole mattered, if I enjoyed the shots and, therefore, the hole.  

I don’t know if seeing the ravine/swale really had much to do with my question directly, but I knew that this course would be defined not by the mounding of the humps and hummocks or the shapes of the bunkers.  Rather it would be highly correlated to the architect’s use of the land the course was on.  And in this case the most striking geographical feature was this ravine.  And Raynor used this ravine like a maestro.  

Much like the sand dune Ross had to deal with at Seminole, Raynor had the swale/ravine at Shoreacres.  He takes you up over that ravine, beside that ravine, down into the ravine, and back out.  






He took the most striking feature of the land and embraced it and made the golfer never forget it.  In fact, maybe it could be said that a great course knows it place and anyone who plays it will never forget that place.  Due to this meshing of the course and the land the course it is on, a course cannot be replicated with much success on another site.  It is simply too unique, if routed well.  And if routed well, that means embracing natural features…and maybe that is very much akin to building natural golf courses.

In fact, you can use the same hole concepts (redan, eden, short, long, Biarritz, etc) but if you embrace the natural features of the land that each and every hole is built on, then the holes will feel unique and they will feel more natural than they might look in a photograph.  And it was seeing photographs of golf courses without being on the courses that was causing my dilemma.  Perhaps this relates to another thread we had on GCA not too long ago…

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,47494.0.html

What I found out during my round at Shoreacres was that to me the routing is key.  And in my non-technical way of looking at it routing centers on…how does the course flow and how naturally do the holes fit together.  Route the course well and it will have to naturally fit with the land and the end product will be a memorable golf course that will be unique and all its own.  I believe Raynor does this…and, therefore, Raynor is indeed a great architect.

[Sven Nilsen]

I don't agree with the routing of your photos.

The first picture is not the second hole, but the fourth (perhaps you didn't intend it to represent the 2nd, but the way you wrote the lead in suggests this).

Also, the 2nd and 3rd pictures should be reversed in order, as the 11th hole (3rd photo) is played before the 12th hole (2nd photo) and would give a better depiction of the players encounter with the ravine on those two holes.

[Mac Plumart]

My bad on the second hole...I'll change that.

The other photos were not intended to be in any order...I just wanted to show the ravine.

[Mac Plumart]

Well, I'm a bit disappointed.

There is a thread going around right now asking for non-architects to stop posting/commenting about routing. 

And I come up with the idea to start an entire thread about routing and no comments are made.  BOO!!!

I am sincere about the finding and feelings regarding Raynor and Shoreacres, but I thought for sure someone would say something about the routing comments/threads.

Oh well...

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,

I may be wrong but there does not seem to be a great emphasis on routing in older golf architecture books; The Links, The Architectural Side of Golf, Golf Architecture for example whereas Doak devotes a chapter to the routing in The Anatomy of a Golf Course which makes me think that routing has become more difficult nowadays and needs to be stressed.

Is it a fair statement to suggest that the routing of golf courses has become a much greater skill of late.  Given that the modern architect invariably has less promising land to work with than the Golden Age architects did has it meant that the creativity level has had to increase in tandem? Did the latter day maestros have it easy?

Cheers Colin

[Tim_Cronin]

This is a generalization, but there is far more imagination in present-day routings than in the very old days, is there not? The Old Course was out and back. Then came the double loop. A varied routing is hugely important. The best give a player different wind conditions on every hole if conceived properly.

Mac, good thread.

[Howard Riefs]

Shoreacres is similar to various modern day courses that feature dramatic and abrupt native contour.

For example, in Ran's interview with Mike DeVries (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/mike-devries-april-2002/), they discussed how he routed Kingsley. Mike addresses how "some holes or portions of a course are readily apparent, but it's how they fit into the entire puzzle that is really importat. Certainly, Raynor faced the same challenges in designing Shoreacres.  

Here's Mike's answer in its entirety.


9) Very little earth was moved at Kingsley. The course exhibits some dramatic and abrupt native contour. How many potential routings did you come up with before settling on the final sequence of holes, as it exists today? (Could you explain the process of routing the course, please.)

I don’t know the actual number of routings I did, but it was a lot. Some holes or portions of a course are readily apparent, but it is how they fit into the entire puzzle that is really important. There is a great short par five on the Kingsley property that crosses holes 2, 3, 4, and 6 in some part, but it didn’t fit in with anything else in the proper manner, so it is out-of-luck.

I spend a great deal of time trudging across the property, getting to know and sense the lay of the land so that when I sit down and plot holes on a topographic map, I have some sense of where a feature is and what it feels like on the ground. That ultimately lets me ‘see and feel’ the golf holes better as a circuit. Of course, some areas are less accessible and that is not always practical, but it is very important to really get to know the land.

I look for ‘natural’ holes that fall across the landscape (see the par 5 above that never materialized), greensites of all sorts, teeing locations, significant trees or ground contours, vistas or relations to features external to the property, and anything else that attracts attention.

Ultimately, I start trying to put all of these parts together into holes and piece them into consecutive hole combinations. Start looking at possibilities for access, power, water, etc. and how those might fit in. Add the owner’s desires. Look at budget considerations. Pull it apart and put it back together.

Cook these for as long as you can, because you always miss something along the way. Visit the site more and walk the routing if you can. Go over and over the various issues until I feel confident that we have the best balance of all the factors to produce the best rhythm and flow to the course possible.

[Terry Lavin]

I love Shoreacres and I've played it a lot but in my amateur opinion it's greatest strength is not its routing but rather its mind numbing simplicity. The ravine holes are the most spectacular on the course, to be sure, but I question the strength of the routing because it fails the most basic test of building up to a crescendo and finishing with a bang. That may well be due to the insistence on returning nines but all of the drama at Shoreacres is in the middle of the course. 4-6 on the front and 11-15 on the back feature the ravines, the meandering brook, the dropshot shortie and the majestic split fairway three shotter. The closing holes on each nine are rather underwhelming. Which is a niggling complaint of course, but to me it suggests that the routing was not all that significant.

In Chicago if you want the best example of routing genius look at Olympia Fields North which is Shoreacres on steroids with a routing that makes sense in the early going but which fairly explodes on the 12th tee and just gets better, tougher and more reflective of the natural gifts of the land on which it was built. Pure natural routing genius in my amateur opinion.

[Tom_Doak]

I question the strength of the routing because it fails the most basic test of building up to a crescendo and finishing with a bang. That may well be due to the insistence on returning nines but all of the drama at Shoreacres is in the middle of the course. 4-6 on the front and 11-15 on the back feature the ravines, the meandering brook, the dropshot shortie and the majestic split fairway three shotter. The closing holes on each nine are rather underwhelming. Which is a niggling complaint of course, but to me it suggests that the routing was not all that significant.

In Chicago if you want the best example of routing genius look at Olympia Fields North which is Shoreacres on steroids with a routing that makes sense in the early going but which fairly explodes on the 12th tee and just gets better, tougher and more reflective of the natural gifts of the land on which it was built. Pure natural routing genius in my amateur opinion.

Terry:

I would not agree with you on this at all.

Shoreacres had its ravines to work with, and most of them are away from the clubhouse, with the exception of #11 and the less dramatic #2.  Indeed, a lot of the sequence is due to the decision to place the clubhouse on the lakefront, which was probably not Raynor's choice to make.  In fact, Raynor did a lot of projects with the Olmstead Bros. landscape architects, and for a housing project like Shoreacres, they or someone like them would have had a say in the routing plan.

Still, I disagree with your premise about where the crescendo should be.  If you always save the best bits of the course to finish with a bang, and you only have say six holes of interesting ground to work with, why the hell would you bore me to death for 9-12 holes and then finish with a bang?  The pacing of Shoreacres is similar to Royal Portrush or Bandon Dunes or Pacific Dunes, and those routings are generally lauded, except by the guys who believe a big crescendo at the end is the only way to go.

Are your tastes in music similar?  Does a song have to have a certain pace for you to enjoy it?

[Sean_A]

I don't know anything about Shoreacres, but I definitely disagree with the judge.  I prefer the great stuff to be split up in sections of the course and if there is gonna be a weak hole or two, get them near the end or in the middle if possible.  Any good archie can make these holes passable - TOC's 18th teaches us that.  The crescendo is a bad cliche.

Ciao 

[Melvyn Morrow]

I believe many a designer/architect is trying to reinvent the wheel as far as GCA is concerned. Add to this the modern love for complexity of design and construction processes, then one has to wonder who actually designed what where and when.

As Sean has raised the 18th on TOC, how many actually have looked let alone studied that Hole or for that matter the 17th.






Quite a few who have played TOC on many an occasion over the years where rather surprised when a few months ago I submitted a few aerial shots of this part of the course. The distinctive smoothness of the 1St fairway compared to the multi bumps and dips on the17 & 18 fairways, even to the point of actually seeing the true extent of The Valley of Sin.

What was once playable is now overshadowed by the aerial game combined with the freedom to hit the modern ball with today’s modern clubs over what was once a great fairway with rather testing humps and bumps. However play the 17th & 18th with Hickory and all of a sudden many of the old features come into play. In other words good design does stand up to the test of time, many of our great courses are still there like Askernish just waiting to be rediscovered.

We only see what we want to notice, but does that minimise the original routing or the actual design of the Hole or the course come to that. Perhaps we need to see more aerial photos of the older course and compare them with some of the modern to see just how well designed they had to be. Will the current courses stand the same test of time and still remain affective or will the ball rollback (if it ever is allowed to materialise) kill off the design as being just too complicated and lacking in flexibility?

Hence why I believe GCA should be explained to anyone playing a new course, After all golf is as much about navigating the courses as it is in trying to sink the ball in the least number of strokes.

Melvyn

[Ally Mcintosh]

 Perhaps it could be argued that unless you actually did the routing (or a routing) for the course, studied the topo maps, walked the property, and got to know the soil, natural formations, and the like…then you don’t know if the routing is ideal or not.  

In essence, this is correct because most have no ideas of the limitations the site and brief place on the architect...

That said, it would be churlish to say that you can't make some sort of judgement without this knowledge and like Sean, I tend to like the good sections broken out in a couple of places... One of my loves for Baltray (4-7 and 12-15 being world class)...

[Mac Plumart]

Shoreacres is similar to various modern day courses that feature dramatic and abrupt native contour.

For example, in Ran's interview with Mike DeVries (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/mike-devries-april-2002/), they discussed how he routed Kingsley. Mike addresses how "some holes or portions of a course are readily apparent, but it's how they fit into the entire puzzle that is really importat. Certainly, Raynor faced the same challenges in designing Shoreacres.  

Here's Mike's answer in its entirety.


9) Very little earth was moved at Kingsley. The course exhibits some dramatic and abrupt native contour. How many potential routings did you come up with before settling on the final sequence of holes, as it exists today? (Could you explain the process of routing the course, please.)

I don’t know the actual number of routings I did, but it was a lot. Some holes or portions of a course are readily apparent, but it is how they fit into the entire puzzle that is really important. There is a great short par five on the Kingsley property that crosses holes 2, 3, 4, and 6 in some part, but it didn’t fit in with anything else in the proper manner, so it is out-of-luck.

I spend a great deal of time trudging across the property, getting to know and sense the lay of the land so that when I sit down and plot holes on a topographic map, I have some sense of where a feature is and what it feels like on the ground. That ultimately lets me ‘see and feel’ the golf holes better as a circuit. Of course, some areas are less accessible and that is not always practical, but it is very important to really get to know the land.

I look for ‘natural’ holes that fall across the landscape (see the par 5 above that never materialized), greensites of all sorts, teeing locations, significant trees or ground contours, vistas or relations to features external to the property, and anything else that attracts attention.

Ultimately, I start trying to put all of these parts together into holes and piece them into consecutive hole combinations. Start looking at possibilities for access, power, water, etc. and how those might fit in. Add the owner’s desires. Look at budget considerations. Pull it apart and put it back together.

Cook these for as long as you can, because you always miss something along the way. Visit the site more and walk the routing if you can. Go over and over the various issues until I feel confident that we have the best balance of all the factors to produce the best rhythm and flow to the course possible.

This is exellent stuff!!  Thanks for sharing Howard.

[Terry Lavin]

I question the strength of the routing because it fails the most basic test of building up to a crescendo and finishing with a bang. That may well be due to the insistence on returning nines but all of the drama at Shoreacres is in the middle of the course. 4-6 on the front and 11-15 on the back feature the ravines, the meandering brook, the dropshot shortie and the majestic split fairway three shotter. The closing holes on each nine are rather underwhelming. Which is a niggling complaint of course, but to me it suggests that the routing was not all that significant.

In Chicago if you want the best example of routing genius look at Olympia Fields North which is Shoreacres on steroids with a routing that makes sense in the early going but which fairly explodes on the 12th tee and just gets better, tougher and more reflective of the natural gifts of the land on which it was built. Pure natural routing genius in my amateur opinion.

Terry:

I would not agree with you on this at all.

Shoreacres had its ravines to work with, and most of them are away from the clubhouse, with the exception of #11 and the less dramatic #2.  Indeed, a lot of the sequence is due to the decision to place the clubhouse on the lakefront, which was probably not Raynor's choice to make.  In fact, Raynor did a lot of projects with the Olmstead Bros. landscape architects, and for a housing project like Shoreacres, they or someone like them would have had a say in the routing plan.

Still, I disagree with your premise about where the crescendo should be.  If you always save the best bits of the course to finish with a bang, and you only have say six holes of interesting ground to work with, why the hell would you bore me to death for 9-12 holes and then finish with a bang?  The pacing of Shoreacres is similar to Royal Portrush or Bandon Dunes or Pacific Dunes, and those routings are generally lauded, except by the guys who believe a big crescendo at the end is the only way to go.

Are your tastes in music similar?  Does a song have to have a certain pace for you to enjoy it?

Thanks for the post, Tom.  I like being reminded of my inadequacies!

As for my taste in music, the tenor of your post reminds me only of that jangly pop tune, "Stuck in the Middle Again" by the not very legendary Stealers Wheel, because everything that is undeniably great at Shoreacres is stuck in the middle.  Not that the other holes are deficient, just not nearly as thrilling.

[Mac Plumart]

Terry...I think that is a good point.  The middle holes at Shoreacres are amazing.  I liked the ending...as I loved walking back to the understated club house with the Lake in the background.  But to each their own...I love Harbour Town due to its uniqueness and routing.  And in this instance, I do call it pacing...which explodes from tightness/claustrophobia with the walk up 17 and then the widest fairway on the PGA Tour with 18.  Really cool!!

I guess the point I reconciled in my mind during this round was that a natural golf course doesn't have to be 100% clear of any man-made features.  In fact, that is impossible.  People with a keen eye will always notice the hand of man.  Tom Doak pointed out to me on a thread awhile back that the bunkering on 17 at Sand Hills didn't look natural as it had too much concentration of bunkers and that much concentration of seperate sand bunkers doesn't naturally occur in that region.  In fact, he noted similar things about his own 3rd hole at Ballyneal.  But, to me, I don't care.  Okay...it wasn't 100% totally natural occuring...but it looked damn close...and I truly thing that is what the likes of Behr and Mackenzie were going for...don't make something ghastly and totally unnatural...do your best and most golfers will accept it.

BUT, if you incorporate the natural features of the land the course is on (the ravine at Shoreacres, the swale at Inverness, the wide openness of Sand Hills, the Peconic Bay in Southampton, the coal mine remains at the PDGC of WV) in your routing, then the course will have its sense of place and feel natural and unique.

At least, that is my story and I'm sticking with it.

[Jud_T]

Mac,

I love Shoreacres!  I think his use of the ravines is brilliant, subtle and very aesthetically pleasing yet the high handicapper is never overly taxed with a huge carry.  Some better players decry how the course takes driver out of their hands too often. I actually know a guy who turned down a membership application for this reason (go figure..).  It's my favorite course in the metro Chicago area.  Of course I may be biased as my only eagle came on #11...  

Terry,

If you were whipping me 5&4 for $1 a yard would you really want the best holes at the end?  

[Howard Riefs]

Shoreacres had its ravines to work with, and most of them are away from the clubhouse, with the exception of #11 and the less dramatic #2.  Indeed, a lot of the sequence is due to the decision to place the clubhouse on the lakefront, which was probably not Raynor's choice to make.  In fact, Raynor did a lot of projects with the Olmstead Bros. landscape architects, and for a housing project like Shoreacres, they or someone like them would have had a say in the routing plan.

If only the clubhouse was placed elsewhere on the site and Raynor was able to route the course with holes on the lakefront. I would be interested to learn the backstory of the location of the clubhouse. Was it a decision driven by David Adler, who designed the clubhouse? Anybody know?

Present day, if you could place the clubhouse at any location on the site, it would make for an interesting Armchair Architect competition.

[Sven Nilsen]

Shoreacres had its ravines to work with, and most of them are away from the clubhouse, with the exception of #11 and the less dramatic #2.  Indeed, a lot of the sequence is due to the decision to place the clubhouse on the lakefront, which was probably not Raynor's choice to make.  In fact, Raynor did a lot of projects with the Olmstead Bros. landscape architects, and for a housing project like Shoreacres, they or someone like them would have had a say in the routing plan.

If only the clubhouse was placed elsewhere on the site and Raynor was able to route the course with holes on the lakefront. I would be interested to learn the backstory of the location of the clubhouse. Was it a decision driven by David Adler, who designed the clubhouse? Anybody know?

Present day, if you could place the clubhouse at any location on the site, it would make for an interesting Armchair Architect competition.

Other interesting questions:

1.  Was Raynor given a particular parcel of land to work with or did he choose the land the course is currently on?
2.  Was the access road always in place or was it built around the course?
3.  Is the creek that comes into play on 2 completely natural or was it rerouted as part of the construction?
4.  When was the clubhouse built in relation to the construction of the course?
5.  Did the pond on 8 exist or was it added as a retention pond.

[Ian Andrew]

because it fails the most basic test of building up to a crescendo and finishing with a bang.

Terry,

WOW - I always thought the goal was the best collection of holes.

I love Shoreacres and feel the finish was determined by the clubhouse location.
Surely you wouldn't chsnge the location for a stronger 18th ... would you?

[Sven Nilsen]

Mac:

To make up for my rather rude entry into this thread yesterday, I wanted to provide some constructive comments on your topic.

I disagree with Terry's point that the best holes at Shoreacres are in the middle of the course.  I'd rephrase it to say the best holes at Shoreacres are interspersed throughout, and provide a series of crescendos as the player continues with their round.  In my mind, the property is divided into four generalized areas:  (a) the flatter ground near the clubhouse (holes 1, 9, 10, 17 and 18); (b) the ravine holes (7, 11, 12, 13, 15); (c) the boundary holes, each with distinctive features and some showing hints of the effects on the terrain of the ravine (2, 3, 4, 5); and (d) the connectors (6, 8, 14, 16).  If you break the course into thirds, each series of six holes looks like this:

1st Third - An excursion away from the clubhouse, peaking your interest of the terrain to be seen later in the round at the 2nd (the landforms created by the creek that runs up the left and around the green make this hole almost claustrophobic from the tee), 4th and 5th.  A good variety of holes:  the wide first, the tight second, the precise third, the longer 4th and 5th, all culminating at the Biarritz Green of the 6th.

2nd Third - Your first real look at the ravine on 7 (as well as peaks at 11 and the tee of 12), followed by a challenging uphill par 3 and the snaking fairway of the 9th.  The course begins to show its teeth on the Road Hole 10th (a great contrast to the 9th as the wind will be from the opposite direction), followed by two of the best holes on the course, the 11th which seems to skim over the top of the ravine, and finally the tee shot on the 12th which takes you down to its depths.

3rd Third - Starts with a bang as you play your tee ball out of the ravine and up to the curving fairway of the 13th.  As the trek to the clubhouse begins, the player is faced with the demands of the Redan on 14 and then there last look at the ravine on the 15th (in my opinion the most picturesque hole on the course).  The long 16th followed by the shorter 17th are a great combo in the shots required to negotiate each safely.  To close it out Raynor asks for three well struck shots before reaching the home hole, mere steps from the 1st tee where the journey began.

What amazed me about Shoreacres, in addition to what I thought was a wonderful routing, was the way Raynor was able to create and link plateaus of playing areas on the most difficult parts of the course.  If you walked a straight line on the 11th from tee to green, you'd probably end up descending and ascending a couple of hundred feet.  But the actual walk from the tee to the fairway, along the fairway and from fairway to green is pretty much level.  You play around and/or over the elevations, but you don't play the elevation.  The 15th, in particular, stood out as a hole that made the best of some pretty tough land.  Your drive plays out to a wide area that falls off on the left into the ravine, giving the player the option to flirt with the left side as much as possible to shorten the play into the green.  A well-placed drive will leave you in range to go for it, but those that must lay up are faced with a decision.  If the pin is on the right, do you lay-up to the left of the center-line bunker leaving you a longer shot in but from a better line?   And if the pin is left, those same bunkers seem to force the player further right than they want to be.  

[Mac Plumart]

Sven...

First off, great post.  Good stuff to read in there.

Secondly, your first post wasn't rude...especially for this site!     I screwed up a picture, you pointed it out.  You actually were kind of clever/funny saying you disagreed with the "routing" of my photos...and the thread is titled "Routing...".  I got the joke!!

[George_Bahto]

I love Shoreacres and it is a feature course in the Raynor book

That stretch of holes, 10 thru 15, might  be the best 5-hole, continuous stretch of holes he ever built

[Mac Plumart]

George...I sure would love more of your thoughts on Shoreacres and/or Raynor's routing.  I've heard Fishers Island displays his best work regarding routing.  Agree/disagree?

Also, Sven talks about three sections of the golf course.  You mention holes 10-15, I think Ran does as well in his write up, and Terry mentions "stuck in the middle".  And, yes, I agree 100% that those holes in the middle are GREAT.  Really, really good work. 

But I felt the hole course was great.  Every single hole, not one clunker...not even close.  It starts off well, eases you into the round, builds to some seriously great holes, with one memory after another before and after the "ravine" holes.  But the finish is really good too.  16, 17, and then 18.  That finish is pretty sweet coming back to the clubhouse and Lake.

That place is something special.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()