Bumping this after reflecting on the course as presented in the GAP Member Play Day today.
There is a tremendous amount of golf in the reasonably compact grounds of the club. This is a fun golf course to play. The thought that most commonly came to mind was "crafty". In a good way.
Just a few thoughts:
Some of the course feels a little tight--they could probably stand to lose the balance of the evergreens on the property, as there are some fine hardwood trees that provide a measure of safety and shade. In addition, it may improve vistas across the course. It's the club's decision, though.
It struck me as a course where a good amount of local knowledge is needed. Speaking for myself, I found the greens difficult but not impossible.
others in my group found them very difficult.
There was more room off the tee and into the greens than I expected on most holes.
The fescues on the bunkers may have been a little much. It works at the courses "up the street", my personal opinion is the course is strong enough without it. In other words, I'm not sure what the additive is.
(I would say this even if my slightly pulled 5-iron on #4 didn't settle into the fescue above the left greenside bunker. For the record, couldn't play directly at the flag, I hit out to the front of the green, flag was back, chip and putt for 4.)
I think the routing is excellent. Again, some of it feels a little cramped, but, as the saying goes, you can't have it all. I feel it's very similar to Glen Ridge in terms of routing on a small piece of property. There just isn't anywhere else to go.
I do think this routing is a little stronger at Llanerch than GR, there seems to be a little more variety in terms of change of direction, moreso on the second nine holes. I seemed to feel there was more internal elevation change on the property at Llanerch, whereas GR has more total elevation change from the clubhouse (1,10 tee, 9, 18 greens) down to the 4th and 16th holes. Slightly different apples to compare here.
Looking at the oldest historic aerials, it appears there were some holes between the clubhouse and West Chester Pike that gave way to Parking Lot, Pool and tennis. Having said that, it's their club, they can do what they want.
It appears, from a comparison of aerials, that not a lot was changed in terms of routing. Looking at older aerials, from the 1940s, as compared to one from say, 2008 after the Master Plan implementation, much is very similar. It does appear that #2 and #3 holes are newer, but a lot of the bunkering is very similar. If any, there may be less bunkers now. What Stephen did seems very much in line with what was built initially. I am not sure what the club's mandates were, whether they chose an "architectural high water mark" or if they had other criteria. The point is, it works.
Beyond the routing, the design of the greens made a positive impression. There are different looks represented here, from single tiers and shelves, to three tiers (ex. #12), to small humps (ex. #7), to greens that are simple extensions of the fairway and lay softly (ex. #11). Very good as a set, although I really like Glen Ridge's concept of slightly offset greens, favoring a shot from one side of the fairway or another. But, that's Findlay vs. Park, Jr. Further, my understanding is Findlay hired a local construction crew depending on where he was, so there is likely variation among courses as to overall appearance. This is fine, it is what it is.
We took carts as a condition of competition, but this seems as it would be a really good walking course. I would like to play it again. This seems to meet the "18th green back to 1st tee test". I would have gladly gone back to 1 tee given the opportunity.