[Mike Hendren]

Not wanting to hijack the Kiawah visit thread I thought I'd ask this on a separate thread.  Barney is concerned about my well-being, citing my recent criticism of golf courses but I had to risk this one. 
 
I'm a big Dye fan, but this course seemed formulaic at times and imposed upon rather than integrated with the landscape.  The strips of rough seemed out of place and the whispy 4 feet high eye-brows backing fairway pot bunkers were an eyesore. 
 
Please set me straight, seriously.
 
Mike Hendren (for John)

[Bruce Wellmon]

Sacrilege.
Step away from the keyboard, son. 
 

[Jason Topp]

I think it is a fair question.  The course is a bit formulaic in the sense that the holes seem very similar to those at PGA West and TPC Sawgrass to my eye.  I also agree that some of the volcano bunkers seem a bit strange and out of place.
In its defense, however, I would say:
1.  The holes present terrific strategic alternatives to the player.  In some ways these Dye courses remind me of Raynor's in that they tend to almost be template courses.
2.  The setting near the ocean and the breezes that come into play make the place a much more enjoyable experience than its brethern.
3.   There are some pretty unique one of kind holes such as the 3rd and the 14th that are very memorable and interesting tests.
4.  People's reports on the difficulty of the course vary wildly.  I suspect those views depend on the strength of the wind and the tees used.  I played it from a couple of different but pretty manageable sets of tees on days with a reasonable breeze off the ocean and found it a very manageable course.
 

[Steve_ Shaffer]

A low handicap(2) friend played there a few years ago and on consecutive days shot 85 & 73 as very windy conditions prevailed on the first day.

[Josh Tarble]

1.  The holes present terrific strategic alternatives to the player.  In some ways these Dye courses remind me of Raynor's in that they tend to almost be template courses.

This is a very interesting comment - maybe one that deserves its own thread - but I've always wondered why Raynor gets such credit for utilizing the same templates while with Dye it's almost a bad thing?

[John Kavanaugh]

Why do you think you "getting it" matters? What does it say about a course when you "get it"?

[Rob Marshall]

It's been a while but it did nothing for me. I thought the holes blended together. I liked the par 3's but that's about it.

[Joe Bausch]

How my eyes and cam saw the course a few years ago:

http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/albums/oceancourse/

[John Foley]

Bogey


I'm aghast! I think the Ocean course is fantastic - it is strategy galore and calls for incredibly exacting shots in order to play your best. Sometimes the best strategy is to not attempt the heroic shot but to step back and then regroup and love how the course allos you that. Given the site and what he manipulated to come up with this is a tremendous place. I love the simplicity of the figure 8 routing. I love, given the location, the elevation changes you are presented with. Not sure I'd want any more from a course in that setting.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well, all points are true, really.

Like Ocean Course (been years since I played, but I am really one of those course collectors, rarely go back to famous courses like that, and not really on my way to anywhere)

It is mostly the same Pete Dye holes.  I will disagree that Dye had 18 templates he used over and over again...... Perry Dye once told me Pete had 19 template holes to work from......

As to the manufactured look, well, he started out kind of a minimalist, but as he was required to top himself, somewhere along the way went the other direction, moving massive amounts of earth to be more spectacular.  Pete often tells the story that a hurricane destroying the dunes during construction gave him the perfect opportunity to rebuild them to his needs, whereas they had been protected ground before that.

[Mike Hendren]

Barney, in my vernacular "get it" equates to agreeing with the consensus - in this case The Ocean Course being rated an 8. 
 
A few points to back my contention that it's a 7- (whatever the heck that means):
 
It lacks the width to be strategic. 
 
It lacks the green and greenside randomness of say, TPC Sawgrass and is the antithesis of Ross' strategy to defend par at and on the green.  One is almost granted respite when pulling the putter out.
 
The holes don't blend into the environment - the transitions are abrupt.  While rarely mentioned, The Honors Course beautifully blends with the native Tennessee landscape - as well as any course I've played (and likely attributable to David Stone's sense of place and nature).
 
I have to respectfully disagree with Rob - there's not a great short hole on the premises.
 
Particularly on the back, Dye chose to use the native sandy areas as borders, rarely if ever having them encroach on the line of play. 
 
OMG, have I typed myself into thinking it's a 6?  Is Barney correct that I've turned into a jaded critic? 
 
FWIW, like Spyglass I didn't find the course to be all THAT difficult.  Look for my upcoming book titled You Too Can Shoot 94 on The Ocean Course.
 
Bogey
 
 
 

[Jason Topp]

It lacks the width to be strategic. 
...
I have to respectfully disagree with Rob - there's not a great short hole on the premises.
 
Particularly on the back, Dye chose to use the native sandy areas as borders, rarely if ever having them encroach on the line of play. 
 

Bogey

I disagree with each of these points.
- I thought there was a lot of width on most of the holes. From the tour on Blue Golf - the 2nd, 5th, and 7th all have 60 yards of potential lines off the tee that leave the ball in the fairway.  On the back - most of the fairways are 40 yards wide althought they do narrow in certain spots.
- I would contend that the 5th, 8th and 14th are terrific holes.  The 5th is a more reasonable version of 17 at Pebble Beach and a better hole visually.  The 8th is a very good reverse redan and the 14th is a unique one of a kind shot to a green perched on a hill that slopes towards the tee in front and away from the tee in back.  I agree 17 is a clunker although not bad when played from a pretty short yardage.
- I found the native areas to force a fair amount of decision making off the tee, particularly in a match where I was giving up a lot of strokes.  Many of the holes are S shaped.  My opponent played the steady routes, often reaching the green in an extra shot and I felt pressure to try and take on the inside corner to try and have a shot at birdie to win the hole.  It was one of the more enjoyable matches I have played.

[Pete Lavallee]

Hmmm, I think I'll disagree too. Plenty of width off the tee. As far as the putting surfaces I have never encountered more double breaking putt than at KOC! And I mean 20-30 foot putts with considerable reverse break from the first to second half of the putt. Perhaps Bogey negotiates these with an ease I am not familiar with! As Tom Doak is want to point out, when you play a Dye Tournament course from the white tees all the driving angles are neutered. The cape style driving lines are obliterated and your left with fairly straight holes. I don't know how you get around this if you are trying to present a 7,500 yard test from the tips; the turning points on the doglegs just can't work for both the black and white tee golfer. As for tying in to the surrounds this seems a ridiculous gripe as the place was mostly flat and swampy; how exactly does one tie in nicely with a swamp?

[Mike Hendren]

Pete and Jason, way to step up!
 
However Pete, how good is the architecture if it is neutered from the forward tee?
 
Jason, we'll just need to disagree on the one shotters.  Specifically, the 5th at TOC will need to rent a sizeable U-Haul to carry the jock-strap of the 17th at Pebble Beach.  Admittedly, I hold the latter in much higher regard than the cognoscenti.  As for the first one-shotter on the back, too bad Donald J. Ross isn't still around to school Pete on how to design a volcano hole.  At least Pete could have turned it against the ocean for a great skyline vista.
 
Bogey
 
 

[Pete Lavallee]

Pete and Jason, way to step up!
 
However Pete, how good is the architecture if it is neutered from the forward tee?
 
Bogey

I won't go all Mucci on you and ask you top name five holes that prove your point, so name just one world class dogleg hole on a Championship Course (i.e., longer than 7,300 yards) that is equally strategic for the 300 and 200 yard driver.

[Mike Hendren]

Pete,  I'll go Mucci on you and totally avoid the question by asking "Is it a championship course or a resort course? Why can't it be both?

[Kalen Braley]

Pete and Jason, way to step up!
 
However Pete, how good is the architecture if it is neutered from the forward tee?
 
Bogey

I won't go all Mucci on you and ask you top name five holes that prove your point, so name just one world class dogleg hole on a Championship Course (i.e., longer than 7,300 yards) that is equally strategic for the 300 and 200 yard driver.

Pete,  I'll take a crack at it.
 
#18 at Pebble.  Plays just as strategic from the tips as it does from the forward tees...  The key is keeping the tees on the same line to the fairway more or less.

[Pete Lavallee]

Kalen,

You've proved my point for me!  Now days the 18 the at PB is a two shot hole for elite golfers and a three shot hole for resort guests. We are talking about making a dogleg par 4 interesting for both the 200 and 300 yard driver.  I don't see how anyone can build a golf course that's interesting both from 6000 and 7500 yards. Now Torrey South might fit that description simply because all the par 4's except #7 are dead straight; frankly quite boring but accommodating for both classes of golfers.

[James Brown]

How many 8s are more scenic that the Ocean course? 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()