Birdsfoot Golf Club

[George Pazin]

Been getting into too many theoretical arguments lately, so I thought I'd do an old fashioned mini report on a new course I played a couple weeks ago with JohnV. Hopefully he'll add some thoughts, since he's more experience & a better golfer than me. Please don't ask for rankings/ratings - I haven't the breadth of experience to really comment on this.

First, some general comments, non-architectural:

35 minutes northeast of downtown Pittsburgh, designed by Ault, Clark & Assoc., this public course allows walking ($39 to walk on weekend), though most appeared to be riding. They also try to space out tee times, in an effort to keep things moving. Unfortunately, they aren't tough enough rangering, so slow play still gets ignored. Our foursome was repeatedly held up by the twosome in front of us. When I pointed out on the 5th tee how out of position this twosome was to a ranger, he looked surprised & didn't even notice - he thought I was referencing our foursome. Oh well.

Playing conditions were pretty decent for a new course - the full 18 just opened about a month ago. Not really firm & fast, but given how much rain we've had, probably about as firm as a new course could be. Nice to see it wasn't super green & soft. The course is pretty open for a parkland course. Trees are mostly on the periphery on the front 9, some holes were as treeless as you can get in the 'Burgh. Some trees on the back, particularly on holes 13-17. (Ask JohnV if the trees on 14 & 15 are in play... ).

Terrain is fairly extreme, as are most of the Burgh courses I've played - the old privates must have gotten all the good sites! Seriously uphill & downhill drives resulted in some wacky distance drives, particularly from John & one of our playing partners, a long hitting lefty (can't remember that Aussie word - mollydooker?). They each had a couple drives over 350, after a big assist from gravity & the wind.

Holes I really liked: (distances are black tees - I played blues in front of them, but I figured you guys are ore interested in blacks)

#5: A 517 yard par 5, uphill all the way. Still reachable, the most intriguing feature was that you could bail out left into the 14th fairway. Not at all good for a public course, since anyone in the 14th fairway or left rough is definitely in play (I know, since I was narrowly missed later in the round), it'd be interesting to see if anyone used this during a slow time. An unintentional alternate fairway, if you will. The stance in that area is at least flat. The hole plays safer but longer out to the right, & there isn't a clearcut area to place your layup, since it's really uphill.

#6: 332 yard par 4 - Definitely driveable, as it's slightly downhill. Pretty simple if you layup, but the gentle right curve to the hole, the deeeeep greenside bunker on the right, and death 20 yards over the green (guess how I know) make things interesting.

#9: 188 yard par 3 over mucho gunk. Carries probably only 150, bunker left, trees right. Neat tee shot (3rd shot for me). One negative on this hole: long walk around the gunk.

#11: 164 yard par 3, ringed by a long wraparound bunker left long & right. Green had decent front to back tilt, too. Not well thought out for the walker, we exited the green through the bunker. Fortunately, I had already thrashed the sand with my 2nd shot, so JohnV observantly told my not to bother raking the green till we exited out the same way. Pretty clever guy...

#12: 458 yard par 4: Driver half wedge for John & lefty, since this hole plays WAAAAAY downhill. It looks a mile long from up on the tee, but it actually plays somewhat short. Severe false front made the green interesting with the hole location up front, particularly when you're playing a partial wedge. Back half of green ran away, so a pin back there would probably be pretty cool, too.

#13: 500 yard par 5, significantly uphill. Lefty felt it was the toughest hole on the course, but it probably wouldn't have been as tough for him if he hadn't insisted on driver off the tee. You big hitters will never learn.... A significant left to right cant to the fairway made the fairway tough to hit & hold. Your approach, whether it's your 2nd or 3rd, better not be short, since the hole gets progressively steeper as one nears the green.

#15: 355 yard par 4 - Probably actually a better hole from the tee I played, where it was 310 & driveable. Pretty good contour & slope to the green sufficiently punished my wedge that flew the green.

#16: 505 yard par 5 - John said it would likely be a 4 if WPGA held a tournament there. He oughta know - driver sand wedge with inferior Nike technology. The most interesting thing about this hole is the semi skyline green. Nothing much behind if except trees pretty far away makes the green a little deceptive.

Holes that were a little questionable:

#s 7 & 10: both shortish par 4s with drives into a hillside. Probably not a lot one could do, given the terrain, but I didn't think either was particularly interesting.

#13 (discussed above) might be disliked by a lot of people, given the severity of the the right to left cant of the fairway. I liked it, but could see how others wouldn't.

#18 was pretty weird. A 440 yard par 4 with alternate fairways, separated by a rough/bunker hill. We came to the conclusion (in hindsight) that there was no real reason to go left, which would seem the safer play from the hole diagram, since the right fairway runs out into rough & bunkers after about 260 yards. The left fairway would be pretty much unhittable, since you're going over a mound/hill to a fairway running diagonally & sloping away from you. I suppose someone might be able to hold that fairway, but I think the approach is much easier from the right, probably even from the rough or bunkers. A bigger hitter could maybe even carry the whole centerpiece & get a kick off the hill, down & into the fairway. That's what I did - from the blue tee that was 40 yards in front of the black tee. I'm pretty sure bigger hitters could reach the same hill I hit - John seemed to think so. Approach was a wedge off a pretty downhill stance, so it's not necessarily easy, but it's not too tough either.

Here's a link to the site if you feel like looking a photos or the scorecard.:

http://www.birdsfoot.com

Feel free to ask questions - hopefully I'll be able to answer them.

[Forrest Richardson]

Very interesting. Ault Clark are good guys and it's great to see some of their work. I cannot believe the logo...what was the client thinking! With a great name like Birdsfoot they they sure blew an opportunity to create a memorable mark.

[JohnV]

George, you need to get out and see some more of the older courses in Pittsburgh.  They certainly got their share of hilly terrain.

The greens at Birdsfoot were pretty interesting.  The courses that I've seen by Ault & Clark do seem to have good greens.  Not just flat areas separated by ledges, but some real interesting movement.  The greens on the 9 they did at Hannastown are also good.

There is an area in the middle of the course (5, 6, 14) that seems to be pretty dangerous.  As George said you can play 5 down 14.  Also the trees on the right of 14 push you out into the 5th fairway.  One of the guys in our group almost got hit when we were playing 14.  I hope they have good liability insurance there.

One thing about the course is that the 1st and 10th holes start at the bottom of a hill and go up to the place where many would have put the clubhouse.  Probably this is because access for cars and the like would have been difficult if the course had started on top.  Unfortunately it also means that the driving range goes straight up a hill.

It almost seemed that there was a "reverse-Jones" design philosophy.   Instead of regular mounds alongside many fairways there were regular pits placed in some hillsides along holes.

In general, I would agree with George's assessment of the holes, although I didn't like the 9th as much as he seems to.

The course is fun to play and for $39 on the weekend not a bad deal.  Not a top 100, but still one of the nicer public courses in the Pittsburgh area that I've seen.

[Forrest Richardson]

If you "play 5 down 14" I am sure the judge and jury will be happy to hear your reasons, after which they will render their verdict and award your homes, cars and pensions to the poor young chap who lost his left ear.

[JohnV]

The way I played 5 down 14, it would have been known as The Case of the Unintended Hook.  I'm sure Mr. Mason or Mr. Cochran would have no problem getting me off.  

[Bye]

This is one ugly course!

[Scott_Burroughs]

I like that they put 36-hole rates on the website, just like the GB&I club web sites do regularly.

I looked at the picture of the hole on the "architect" link, thinking it was supposed to be a Birdsfoot hole, and I thought to myself that it looked a lot like a par 3 at Wyncote in SE Pa (also an Ault/Clark design).  Then I noticed it was that hole at Wyncote.  

[George Pazin]

Scott -

I'm sure you noticed that you're actually looking at the Ault, Clark website within a frame. It'd be a tough course to walk 36, but it could certainly be done.

Bye -

Are you just trying to throw us off your real identity?  

Actually, I wouldn't say the course is ugly & I wouldn't say it's pretty - but then again, my tastes aesthetically definitely run toward the rough look like the courses in the UK. There are some mounds which appear to be abandoned sand traps. That's obviously the case on 17, a par 3 which has bunkers galore in the photos, but are mostly grassing over now. I'm guessing it was too much of a maintenance headache. Other than that, it pretty much looks like most parkland courses built in the last 10 years in western PA.

JV -

I'll take your word on the other hilly privates. I was surprised at how gently rolling Fox Chapel was when I was there last summer, and my distant recollection of Oakmont from the 83 Open is that it's not as severe as most, either.

As for #9, I wouldn't say it was a great hole, really nothing more than a decent carry to an okay green. I just like hitting over chasms. Or into chasms, & then over chasms, as the case may be.

[Scott_Burroughs]

I figured it out, George, that was just my initial impression.

[Bye]

Scott -

I'm sure you noticed that you're actually looking at the Ault, Clark website within a frame. It'd be a tough course to walk 36, but it could certainly be done.

Bye -

Are you just trying to throw us off your real identity?  

Actually, I wouldn't say the course is ugly & I wouldn't say it's pretty - but then again, my tastes aesthetically definitely run toward the rough look like the courses in the UK. There are some mounds which appear to be abandoned sand traps. That's obviously the case on 17, a par 3 which has bunkers galore in the photos, but are mostly grassing over now. I'm guessing it was too much of a maintenance headache. Other than that, it pretty much looks like most parkland courses built in the last 10 years in western PA.

JV -

I'll take your word on the other hilly privates. I was surprised at how gently rolling Fox Chapel was when I was there last summer, and my distant recollection of Oakmont from the 83 Open is that it's not as severe as most, either.

As for #9, I wouldn't say it was a great hole, really nothing more than a decent carry to an okay green. I just like hitting over chasms. Or into chasms, & then over chasms, as the case may be.

Nope!!

That 17th hole couldn't get any uglier!

[George Pazin]

Pulling forward for Matt to see.

-----

As a side note, I mentioned in my initial post that the old clubs got all the good gentle rolling terrain. After seeing Oakmont & the Pittsburgh Field Club recently, I'm starting to think that they have much the same severe terrain as everyone else, they just use it better so it's not as noticeable.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Birdsfoot is really quite good for a daily fee facility. The terrain is quite good -- love the uphill driving range .

The holes are a good mixture and contrary to what some have said I found the 18th -- par-4 465-yards from the tips -- to be quite good. Sure does make you think about what you're going to do. I simply busted driver over the bunkers on the right side bunkers -- caught the downslope and had a PW from about 125 yards to a pin that was placed ALL the way in the back area. Talk about a tough pin placement! The slightest -- I mean the slightest push or pull and you fall off into never, never land. If you don't have the b*lls to hit your approach strong enough you're left with a tough two putt.

Birdsfoot was in very good shape for the time I was there (immediately before the US Amateur at Oakmont) and I have to say hats off to the superintendent because he understands how important the maintenance needs to dovetail with the design. He is not simply a grass grower.

I would certainly recommend the course for those traveling through the Pittsburgh area who are looking for a course that won't disappoint -- so what if the name is a bit different.

[George Pazin]

Matt -

Uphill driving ranges in Pittsburgh are not that uncommon - we try to save our better land for the course. I guess it's really more of a warm up range than a fix your swing & learn your distances range.

Regarding the 18th, I'd say it requires considerable thought the first time you play it, but after examining the left fairway, we all agreed in our foursome that no sane person would try to use it. If anything, it's harder to hit, longer to go around & the various obstacles on the right aren't that bad relatively speaking. I did the same thing as you, except from one or two tee markers up. I probably had a 220-230 carry & was left with a 110 yard pitch to a front hole location. It wasn't as easy as it appeared, though it did result in one of my few good birdie attempts all day long.

FWIW, I think the name is referencing a bird indigenous to the site. Hope the facility thrives - it's a solid addition to the Pittsburgh daily fee scene.