Ron Whitten writes:
Nice double-ended practice range aligned to the northwest, so early morning golfers won’t be squinting into the sun and evening golfers wanting to practice can still keep the setting sun to their back. Only concern is crosswinds from the south, which would accentuate slices. But on this routing, I can’t see an easy alternative location for the range.
My pet peeve is architects who position tee boxes close to previous greens to help make the course walkable and aid in pace of play, but commit the error of placing the back tees (rarely used) as the closest tee boxes to previous greens. On this course, the architect has done that on a considerable number of holes, but on certain holes he has the regular tees closest to the previous green, which is the way I think it should be done. His members tee on nine is closest to the eighth green. His members tees on 13 are closest to the 12th green, and his 14th regular tees are closest to the 13th green. But those were probably not intentional. Too bad. Would liked to have seen more of that.
Clearly this architect was more interested in routing the course within the best available landforms and less concerned with the “sunset round” requirement (although he provided that with holes 15-18) and unconcerned with returning nines. For this, I applaud him/her. And while I’m not sure the opening two holes are on that dramatic a piece of land to justify the long walk from two to three, I do like that he kept his ninth hole atop the gentle rise, where other designers played up and down and up and down on it. I don’t like that he/she has several holes in a row that encounter the same wind situation. Three through five all move directly west, while 12 through 13 (13 from the right-hand tees) all play directly east. Seven and eight play in the same direction. Seventeen and 18 also play in the same direction.
I would have liked to have seen more variety in the lines and angles in this routing, which would have been so easy to accomplish. Repositioning the tee boxes on 17, for instance, or repositioning the 17th green.
I fear the architect, like all contestants, was fearful of creating too many long walks, but to best use the land – and provide variety – sometimes a long walk is the best solution. This architect realizes that, as evidence by the distance between the second green and third tee. Given that, I’m surprised the didn’t move a bit more around the property instead of stringing holes along the same line.
I like that the par 3s play in four different directions. (Technically, the 13th from one set of tees plays due south, same as the seventh, but I’m considering the other set of tees on 13.) I like the short, generous, downwind opening par 5, but the sixth, although longer, plays in the same direction, and the par-5 18th also finishes downwind.
Except for the fourth green, most greens seem very similar in size and shape, mostly ovals perhaps 35 yards deep, but without seeing green plans and suggested contours, I can’t really judge whether the architect intended such similarity or in fact has more variety intended in subtle contours within the greens. There are a considerable number of “unguarded” greens in this design, which I don’t find to be a flaw. I like that. Most holes on most courses are overbunkered. It’s encouraging to find a course that uses ground contours around some holes as the primary hazard.
CONCLUSIONS TO ENTRY 21: The basic routing is sound, and with some adjustments, the strings of holes in one direction could be remedied. The bunkering is nicely random yet strategic, and the course seems fairly easily walked. If this architect were hired, I’d urge him to relocate the clubhouse and cottages to a less intrusive locale and to adjust some holes to change wind directions more often. I’d also want details on what he/she envisions for each green in terms of size and contours.
Tommy Naccarato says:
Too many holes one after another running into the same direction makes for an incredible unmemorable course. (In my experience) Don’t get me wrong, but some of my favorite courses like the Old Course can get away with it, but then again, how many people really talk about holes #2 through 6 there? You did use some great portions of land though, and that’s big in my book! I also liked the fact that #3 is back at the clubhouse after the round gets started. It makes for an interesting opening loop!
I think you rely a bit too much on sand—all 65 bunkers, which isn’t a lot unless the holes are already in a field of sand which they are. You must show restraint and not overpower the golf course.
The clubhouse vista of #18 is outstanding! Very unique.
Great job all in all!