Have You Seen Shoreacres Lately?

[JR Potts]

PCraig:

3, 9 and 16.  I also think the 13th is a bit too treed on the left side from the bottom tee.

RE: 3 - The third hole lacks the risk needed for a drivable par 4.  I enjoy it - but I don't think it's a world-class hole.  
RE: 9 - Good golf hole that is well bunkered, but the fairway is so wide that it's just a smash and pitch hole.
RE: 17 - Again, given the short distance of the hole and ample fairway, I don't think there's anywhere to hide the flag to truly defend the hole. Again, a good hole - but one that is easily overpowered.

I'm nitpicking when discussing the above holes - as they're all good holes - but they're just the weakest three on a great course.

Edited to correct hole number and typos.

[Ian Mackenzie]

PCraig:

3, 9 and 16.  I also think the 13th is a bit too treed on the left side from the bottom hole.

RE: 3 - The third hole lacks the risk needed for a derivable par 4.  I enjoy it - but I don't think it's a world-class hole.  
RE: 9 - Good golf hole that is well bunkered, but the fairway is so wide that it's just a smash and pitch hole.
RE: 16 - Again, given the short distance of the hole and ample fairway, I don't think there's anywhere to hide the flag to truly defend the hole.  Again, I good hole - but one that is easily overpowered.

I'm nitpicking when discussing the above holes - as they're all good holes - but they're just the weakest three on a great course.

JRP,

Re. #3, I submit the following: at around 309 yards, it presents a great opportunity for a risk/reward play. Bunker on right at 180 that mustbe cleared, bunker at 240 on left, OB and woods left, large mound short and left of green blocking view of green from left side, 4-5' of elevation change on the green from front to back up to a plateau with a bunker behind the green then more junk, then Sheridan Rd. Place a well-struck driver to right of hole and you have a good line in. Or, you can hit the green which I have done once in countless rounds there. Unless the pin is upfront there, par is a good score.

Re. #9, totally agree. last time I played it, I blocked my drive terribly and had 141 into the green and was starring right down the flag with a great angle from the 18th fairway.

Re. #16, the fairway is now even wider, but the black tees play close to 475 if I recall to a hole that sets up as slight drifting dog leg right. from the Raynor tees, it is more like 420, but uphill to a green now that feels crowned into bunkers on all sides. Easy to hit fairway and perhaps even green, but I do see what you are saying. perhaps that's where Tom Doak pointed out that the course needed more teeth in the par 4s.

[JR Potts]

17, not 16.  Sorry for the confusion.  16 is a really good par 4.

[Tom_Doak]

RE: 3 - The third hole lacks the risk needed for a derivable par 4.  I enjoy it - but I don't think it's a world-class hole.  
RE: 9 - Good golf hole that is well bunkered, but the fairway is so wide that it's just a smash and pitch hole.
RE: 16 - Again, given the short distance of the hole and ample fairway, I don't think there's anywhere to hide the flag to truly defend the hole.  Again, I good hole - but one that is easily overpowered.

I'm nitpicking when discussing the above holes - as they're all good holes - but they're just the weakest three on a great course.

We discussed adding another bunker on the right side on #9 on Sunday.  I think it will go in this fall.  Of course you'll be able to lay back from it and still reach the green with ease, but if you hit driver right, there might be something there to make you regret it.

Number three, there is no way to add length, so we'll just have to settle for you being frustrated if you don't make your three.

[JR Potts]

Tom:

You going to set it into the 9th fairway?

If so, it will be a nice addition.  Might help the 18th hole as well as the best line if you want to take a run at it in two is up the 9th fairway.

[JR Potts]

JRP,

Re. #3, I submit the following: at around 309 yards, it presents a great opportunity for a risk/reward play. Bunker on right at 180 that mustbe cleared, bunker at 240 on left, OB and woods left, large mound short and left of green blocking view of green from left side, 4-5' of elevation change on the green from front to back up to a plateau with a bunker behind the green then more junk, then Sheridan Rd. Place a well-struck driver to right of hole and you have a good line in. Or, you can hit the green which I have done once in countless rounds there. Unless the pin is upfront there, par is a good score.

Here's where I disagree.  The large mound protecting the left side of the green  (presumably there to protect the green) is one of the best places to be.  The healthy rough makes it an ideal place to play a chip.  Now, I guess you could grow that grass wild but it would be out of character with the rest of the course.  

I contend that the hole would play a bit harder and give the player a bit more to think about with short grassed mounds directing the ball away from the green site or catapulting the ball through the green (as a shot from the sides of that green or behind it will be treacherous) in lieu of the rough.  As it stands now, it's a 300 yard hole with 80 yards of driving area off the tee and not a particularly hard green as most everything there slopes back to front.

Again, it is perfectly fine hole...but my comment is that it's one of the weakest Par 4s on such a great course.  I take it from Tom's comment that he generally agrees but like me, is fine with it.

All the above being equal, I'm sure for the 2 players going through Shoreacres a day that can possibly reach the mound/green, it's not too big of a concern.

[Ian Mackenzie]

17, not 16.  Sorry for the confusion.  16 is a really good par 4.

I hear you on 17, JR.
I have seen many players hit driver and be just 30-40 yeards short. Young guys could even hit the green as the FW is very firm.  I usually hit a hybrid on right side of FW for better angle into green.
The only intimidating thing about the hole is the 10 foot deep bunker short and left of green.

[PCCraig]

JR,

Thanks.

I tend to agree with Ian's thoughts on #3, 9, and 17. I think I've said this before on here but I think #3 might be my favorite greensite. I just love the little, deep, bunker behind the green, the mound on the left, the severe plateau, etc. It's an easy tee shot, but I still think it's a fun pitch shot and a cool green. It would certainly be a scarier target with a 7 iron vs. a pitch wedge.

I've played SA many times, but not since the recent round of work. So I'm curious, wouldn't you think these short par 4's are even more necessary and/or welcome after the lengthening of many of the formerly mid-length par-4's into 'driver-long iron' holes?

[JR Potts]

PCraig:

We're nitpicking in this thread, right?  You asked me to.

But to answer your other question, yeah, the lengths are a very welcome respite - but - the Par 5s are short so those are welcome respites as well.

My comments are not length related, per se, they're interest and strategy related.  There's just not a whole lot to the holes.

Remember, I posted on this thread that it's my favorite course in Illinois - and elsewhere that it's my favorite course in America.  And I meant it.

[PCCraig]

PCraig:

We're nitpicking in this thread, right? 

Yep! 

[Jon Wiggett]

RE: 3 - The third hole lacks the risk needed for a derivable par 4.  I enjoy it - but I don't think it's a world-class hole.  

Number three, there is no way to add length, so we'll just have to settle for you being frustrated if you don't make your three.

Tom,

I do not know the hole in question but I believe Mr. Potts was suggesting a lack of risk (and reward) on the drive. It seems from your comment you seem to feel that adding length would be the best answer but why is not beefing up the strategy of the hole possible?

Jon

[Brad Isaacs]

Trees short right of 8 serve no purpose that I can tell except obstruction of view.

Is that an old t-box just to the right of 8 in the trees, for number 16?

My favorite part of course is the stretch of 11, 12 which just might be my favorite  "short" that I have yet to play, 13 from the lower t, 14 and 15.

16 is good strong long 4 but the visual drama of the previous 5 holes isn't there.

I am sure I would be in that fairway bunker on rt side of 9 fairway if it exists in future.

The changes as described have made it more playable, and harder as well.

Great golf course.

[Steve Salmen]

I haven't played Shoreacres in several years.  It has what I believe to be one of the greatest holes I've ever played, architecturally: the 10th.  The ditch and creek on the right seem to move and kink in exactly the right place to shape the hole like the Road Hole.

It is a long, hard hole but quite fair.  The false front is not too severe, nor is the Road Bunker prohibitively deep.  You will be fairly penalized if you go left off the tee by probably having to wedge out of the cabbage.

[Bill Vogeney]

Played it last summer for the first time. It was, in a word, spectacular. Perfect condition. Firm and fast. Spectacular green complexes. I enjoyed every shot, every step. A great walk in the park. It made me want to play every possible Raynor course possible. I'm still at one. Bummer

[Anthony Butler]

I'm doing a project at Abbott Labs starting on Sept.20 for six weeks.. Perhaps a letter to the office is in order..

[Kyle Casella]

I played Shoreacres in August. First time playing any golf in the Chicago area. I was absolutely blown away by both the design and conditioning. I really enjoyed the par threes, especially the Short and Eden. The green at the short hole is very devilish. I also LOVED their version of the road hole with that ravine standing in for the building.

I thought the long par 4's were appropriate length (played from blacks), especially with the way the course was conditioned. I was probably getting 10-15 extra yards of roll. The fairways and run-ups were some of the best I've seen anywhere.

I mentioned the other day to someone that I think this is by far the best course I've played that's built on flat ground. With the exception of 10-13, there isn't much elevation change, yet the way Raynor incorporated some of the natural creeks and bunkering didn't make it feel flat. The greens had terrific movement.

I have some pictures, will try to post. Unfortunately I only took three.

[Jordan Wall]

When I played Shoreacres earlier this summer I felt as if I had just completed a tour of a museum.

Fantastic doesn't even begin to cut it.

Shoreacres is, design-wise, without a doubt one of the best golf courses I have ever seen and has to be considered a pioneer golf course for GCA.

While I do t know what the course looked like before Mr. Doak touched it up, what it looks like now is as good as I can ever imagine being. Tree removal had opened up angles to greens that, as I hear, we're not options pre tree-removal.  The playing corridors are very large and inviting, but even so missing on the wrong side of the fairway pretty much means you're dead to nuts in most cases.

The new back tees make some of the holes downright brutal. Absolute monsters. I believe 7 is 495. Just no chance with anything but a great drive.

[Joel_Stewart]

I played Shoreacres yesterday and I'll join the chorus saying its a great experience.  

It surprised me a bit that when you drive in which boarders the 1st hole, it looks extremely flat except for some distinctive Raynor mounding.  As you experience the 4th hole, you first encounter the deep ravines which populate the golf course.



I was a little skeptical that the course at 6500 yards would be much of a challenge but I can tell you no matter what your handicap is, its all you want and then some.  

It still baffles me how Raynor could have the restraint not to start or finish the course on Lake Michigan.

Its an architectural gem that should be studied.  Kudos to the relatively new superintendent who came from Merion to have the course in such firm and fast conditions.  Furthermore, kudos to Tom Doak who I called in my excitement as I was exiting the club to express my appreciation.  The member who I played with (who is a golf industry titan) gave Tom all the credit for restoring this gem.

[Phil McDade]

It still baffles me how Raynor could have the restraint not to start or finish the course on Lake Michigan.

 

Did Raynor have a choice? I heard a story somewhere that the membership wanted the land closest to the lake reserved for the clubhouse. And although I don't know how much land the club originally owned alongside the lake, it's a pretty narrow wedge right now.

[Tom_Doak]

It still baffles me how Raynor could have the restraint not to start or finish the course on Lake Michigan.

 

Did Raynor have a choice? I heard a story somewhere that the membership wanted the land closest to the lake reserved for the clubhouse. And although I don't know how much land the club originally owned alongside the lake, it's a pretty narrow wedge right now.

No. He had no choice.  Shoreacres was basically a real estate development, and just like today, the really good property along the lake was reserved for lot sales to the Armours, Swifts and Fields's of the world...

This is true of many of Raynor's courses, and it's always amazed me.  Yeamans Hall is another good example ... all that river frontage, and he only got down to the river twice, for a green and a tee.  The rest was reserved for homes by the Olmstead Brothers' land plan, and Raynor did not seem to argue about it too much and just went and built a great course inland.

The only course where he really used a lot of frontage is Fishers Island.  And Waialae had three more holes along the ocean before they changed it.

[Bart Bradley]

Tom

Interesting you mentioned Yeaman's. Ran asked me which I liked better Yeaman's or Shoreacres.  Would you be willing to share your thoughts about how the two compare?

Bart

[Joel_Stewart]

It still baffles me how Raynor could have the restraint not to start or finish the course on Lake Michigan.

 

Did Raynor have a choice? I heard a story somewhere that the membership wanted the land closest to the lake reserved for the clubhouse. And although I don't know how much land the club originally owned alongside the lake, it's a pretty narrow wedge right now.

No. He had no choice.  Shoreacres was basically a real estate development, and just like today, the really good property along the lake was reserved for lot sales to the Armours, Swifts and Fields's of the world...

I'm aware of that, I guess I come from the Fazio, Nicklaus, RTJ Jr. camp which would be to whine and beg for the club house to be moved so the 18th could end on the lake  .  If you take a look at Google Earth, it doesn't look like a real estate development unless the lots are 50 acres each?   It seems to me that if 1 home was moved or eliminated, then the lake could have come into view?

[Terry Lavin]

Played SA today. Blustery, cool and misty. The fairways were still firm and the greens were rolling out nicely. The work around the greens has made the course a lot faster and more fun. The tree removal took away corridors and presented vistas that just astonished me. I've been playing SA for 20 plus years and was gobsmacked to stand on 9 green and look 1/3 of a mile across to the 5th fairway without a single tree obstructing the view. The turf still needs another season to blend, but the course is better than most could ever have imagined.

Great plan, Tom Doak, and great execution by the in house staff at Shoreacres.

[Jason Way]

Poking around and I came across this old thread.  Brian Palmer and his crew continue to forge ahead with making Shoreacres even better.  It's worth a trip back if you haven't been there in more than a year.


In the meantime, in case you haven't seen it, Jon Cavalier did a course tour on my blog:


https://geekedongolf.com/2016/04/06/shoreacres-tour-by-jon-cavalier/

[Terry Lavin]

It's probably worth noting that Joel's aerial, posted above, was taken before the tree removal.