Tommy Naccarrato writes:
You almost got me!
Seriously, most of the holes have the adequate width and non-overuse of sand bunkers , but used more intelligent positions that could have really worked with a great routing. As it is, I think you have to many holes where there is a bit too much ball above and below your feet—at least the way I see it, but your concept of holes is very good. My favorite being the 12th, where the left side and its “double bubble” hillside approach could be a lot of fun to negotiate!
Great job on the concept, but work on the use of the hills more as a way to get the ball to the hole, rather then always as a defense and vice versus. This means I like a lot of that. It reminds me of a lot of William Watson’s work that requires the carrying of shots over a bluff. it works on some of your holes, but a few of them it doesn’t. You really worked on hard on this I can tell, probably more then the rest, but it just falls sort on interesting routing; angle of attack is so close to being very good that I’m willing to give you credit!
BTW, Every superintendent in America would be wanting to kill you for putting their shop so close to the clubhouse and the first tee! (They want privacy; out of sight and out of mind!)
Ron Whitten writes:
As I’ve reviewed each entry, I looked first the practice range. This architect has positioned his to the west-northwest, which is good for morning golfers in the summer months (since they won’t be looking into the rising sun as they warm up) but bad for golfers who want to work on their game late in the day, as they’ll be looking into the summer setting sun. With a range in excess of 350 yards in length, it wouldn’t take much to put an alternate afternoon tee at the far end to solve that problem.
Every entrant had attempted to route a course with tee boxes close to previous greens, a once-common, now-rare design trait that has been abandoned by most golf architects for legal liability reasons and demands of cart paths. Still, on this sandhills site, where presumably the main paths will be maintenance ones, it’s admirable to position tees near previous greens. This is the first entry I’ve reviewed that did it right, in some cases, by most often having the member’s tee closest to the previous green, rather than the back tee. Thus, regular golfers leaving the fourth green step right onto their tee. Big hitters have to walk a bit back to their tee. Likewise from the fifth green to sixth tee and from the eighth tee to ninth green.
But on most other holes, the back tee is closest to the previous green, which makes for a slower pace of play by average golfers.
I love that the routing does not return to the clubhouse at the ninth hole. I fear the desire for a “sunset round” has forced most contestants to manipulate returning nines rather than just letting the land dictate the flow of the course. What’s more, this architect seems to have each hole playing in a slightly different wind condition from the previous and subsequent ones. That’s ideal, but not that easy to do, particularly on a rugged piece of property.
I also like that the overnight cabins are kept far away from the course property, not cluttering up the natural scenery. They’re overnight cabins. Nobody using them will care that they can’t sit on the porch and watch golf.
My personal feeling is that the best golf holes are those that look and play differently from each tee on a hole. Unfortunately, I don’t see much tee variety on any hole here. Yes, the tees sit at slightly different angles from one another on each hole, but only slightly different. I would have loved to have seen a bit more expansive use of the wide open spaces. (I do notice some alternate tees on seven, nine, 15 and 18. Sadly, the architect’s descriptions of those holes makes no mention of those alternate tees or how they might vary the demands of those holes.)
I’m not a big fan of alternate fairways. It’s been my observation that most of such holes fail, because everyone plays either one fairway or the other. It’s rare that the design of such a hole really does provide reason to use one fairway on one day, but the other fairway on the next. Take No. 13 on this course. The strategy is clear, play up the “safe” left side but face a carry over a bunker into the green, or carry the bunkers to reach the right-hand fairway to set up a hazardless approach into the green. But, according to the scale, the carry over the bunkers on the right is nearly 250 yards, thus discouraging all but a few really long ball amateurs to even attempt. Even big hitters will likely pass, because the angle of that right-hand fairway is such that they may well easily carry over the cross bunker, only to end up driving through the fairway. There’s also the prevailing south wind to consider on this hole. A tee shot attempting to carry the cross bunker may be pushed to the left and end up in trouble anyway. While I don’t discourage this sort of alternate-route strategy, I’d like the hole a lot more if it had more tee boxes spread across the land. A tee box to the right of the 12th green might convince more big hitters to play down the right-hand fairway, because they’d now be driving down the axis of the fairway, rather than across it. A shorter tee on the right might encourage average hitters to gamble down the right hand fairway, since they’d have to carry the bunkers anyway just to hit the “safer” left-hand fairway.
There are some very nice holes on this routing. I like the simple bunker shapes – the sandhills winds will reshape them countless times in the future – and the bunker placement is both austere yet extremely varied. There are enough twists and turns to the holes and enough extremes in the widths of fairways, so as to provide ample variety. Three of the four par 3s play in distinctly different directions as do three of the four par 5s. (Arguably, the second and fifth encounter different wind conditions even though both play to the southwest.) Best of all, there is versatility in the greens. Some are modest in contours; some are tiny in size; some are bunkerless.
CONCLUSIONS TO ENTRY 19: I really like this course. The routing is expansive yet compact in terms of maintenance and irrigation, two expenses that architects should always consider (but often overlook). There is a certain grace to its simplicity. Nothing seems forced, nothing seems artificial. This is the first routing I’ve reviewed that I could actually envision being built in the sandhills. I would like to see one additional set of tees on the scorecard, an official set combining parts of middle and front markers, that would measure around 6,100 yards. A 6,400 yard course, as Barney Adams has documented, requires consistent 250-yard tee shots to play in regulation. That well beyond the reach of most average golfers, whether they wish to admit that or not.