Ron - love your passion for the great quality of the public golf here in Western NY. Ravenwood is a great place to play - I'm about a mile away and used to play here exclusively - still use the range all of the time. It has some very very good holes (but a couple that I really dont like - I am sure Mr Lyon & I can discuss that!).
Please be sure to express those opinions as the holes come up. I’d like to get some back & forth going to reward Ron for his efforts. If only we could get JNC to come out of his shell and express his opinions.
John gave me a little preview of some of the holes you don’t like, so I think we’ll have some good discussions there.
My biggest complaint is that for the most part the greens are too tame - sure a few have some great movement (#9 for example) but a few of the holes would be even better with some movement built into them (#8 & for example).
Revisiting the course after several years really showed me how much GCA.com has changed my perspective on courses over time. Years ago, I paid less attention to the greens and focused more on the overall layout and tee-to-green challenges (e.g. hazard placement / angles / variety etc.).
The first time I played Ravenwood (back in 2002-2003) was the first time I met Ron Montesano (golfing blind date from his brother-in-law that was a co-worker of mine). I was blown away by the “feel” of the course and the overall routing. The course seemed to flow effortlessly and I even commented to Ron during the round that I could sense the energy of the place. A few weeks later, I read an interview with Robin Nelson that touched on his work in Asia and his study of “feng-shui.” It would seem that studying the principles of feng-shui could only help with routing.
While the routing is still impressive after all these years, the lack of movement in many of the greens was obvious upon my return trip, even more so given how large they are. I don’t have any familiarity with other Robin Nelson designs, so I don’t know if that’s a general characteristic of his work, or if the “benign” greens were intentional given that the course would draw high volumes of public golf.
You mentioned number 8 as a green where more contour was needed, but I would have liked much more slope on #7 (right to left) to create more difficulty for those who bail out right on their drives. I’m sure we’ll get to others as the tour continues.
As for Mill Creek & Ravenwood - IMHO - Greystone is better than both!!
My initial impression is that you are correct about Greystone (despite the A-Bomb that is the 18th hole). However, I probably need to get back to Greystone to refresh my memory there, especially after a few more years of learning from GCA.com.
#1 is a very good starter - for me the green is tough to hit - not sure if it's the shallowness or the uphill makes picking the right club tough - probably a combination of the both.
Totally agreed. The tee shot is not too demanding or intimidating to open the round, and the challenge lies in controlling your approach distance. The more you flirt with the bunker on the right, the more the “effective depth” of the green increases.
Nelson used a number of uphill approaches at Ravenwood which add to the challenges (#1,5, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18 and 10 to a lesser extent). On top of needing to adjust your distances for the effective playing length, you also need to execute the shots without the visual reassurance of seeing the green surface. The shots aren’t “blind,” but more “uncertain.” (depending on your definition of “blind.”)
Drove by there yesterday, December 4th and the place was packed! Gotta love that!
Today, the course website read “Closed for the Season.” Alas, another one bites the dust in Western New York.