Sand Valley 3 "will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68"

[Tim Gavrich]

Oh, and Tom Doak will design it 



Mike [Keiser], with sons Michael and Chris, will be building a third 18-hole course at Sand Valley and as of last night, confirmed [Tom] Doak has been hired to build it.

"I keep trying to slow them down," says Keiser, in reference to his sons and the pace of new courses they are setting in Wisconsin. "But I’m not winning this battle."

The Keisers opened the first course at Sand Valley, built by Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw, in 2017. This summer, they opened Mammoth Dunes by David McLay Kidd, and the Sand Box, a par-3 course by Coore and Crenshaw (with significant input from Jim Craig and the Keiser boys). They had routings for a third 18-hole course from Doak, Gil Hanse and Mike DeVries, and there were votes for all of the above within the extended Keiser camp—Josh Lesnik of Kemper Sports included.

Doak came out as the leader of this smaller pack with the proposal of a shorter course. Which is to say, it will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68. The complete opposite to what is aptly named Mammoth Dunes.

"We are excited to build what Tom has wanted to build his entire career, which is a course that throws par and distance out the window," says Michael Keiser, 37, and who has lived in the Nekoosa area now for three years. "My dad has always focused on fun and playability, and this routing expands upon that theme."


https://www.golfadvisor.com/articles/tom-doak-sand-valley

[John Kavanaugh]

I hope it is also 15% less expensive.

[BHoover]

I hope it is also 15% less expensive.

I have to give credit where credit is due — this is brilliant. Well done.

[Peter Pallotta]

I hope it is also 15% less expensive.

I think 15% less wide would be better.
Money is just money, after all.

[Tim Gavrich]

I think this could be a paradigm-shifting course. A noteworthy, brand-new layout with a par under 70 should help mold people's perspectives because while a lot of us architecture nerds visit the Sand Valleys of the world, a lot of traveling golfers aren't as curious as we are.


People will initially scoff at the notion of playing a "short" course until they realize how much fun they're having, and look down at their scorecard and see a 7 on the front of their score, rather than an 8. They'll also appreciate that a shorter course means an easier 36-hole walking day.

[John Kavanaugh]

It won't mean diddly if it has an inordinate number of par 3's or if you have to wait on greens to clear on short par 4's.

[John Kavanaugh]

Hybrid golf for hybrid lives.

[Jud_T]

Although I was holding out hope for Mike DeVries (#4?), this is a brilliant decision.  Tom will undoubtedly do a great job and this makes a ton of sense as part of a 36 hole day, not to mention that 6000 yards is what most golfers should be playing.

[Tom_Doak]

It won't mean diddly if it has an inordinate number of par 3's or if you have to wait on greens to clear on short par 4's.

I have never noticed that to be a problem at any of the courses in the UK we have talked about as models - Swinley Forest, Rye, West Sussex, Cavendish, St. Enodoc.  They all have four or five par-3's and only one par-5.  [St. Enodoc has two par-5's, so it's par-69.] 


My current routing has five par-3's and NO par-5's, although there are a few 450+ yard holes we could turn into a par-5 if we want to, and either of two short holes could turn into a drivable par-4.


Overall, though, even if there are one or two short par-4's where guys are thinking about going for the green, you'll be waiting a lot less on greens to clear for this course than you would at Pacific Dunes, or Cabot Cliffs ... or Augusta National, for that matter.

[John Kavanaugh]

Sad then isn't it that the headline is yardage and par.

[Peter Pallotta]

It won't mean diddly if it has an inordinate number of par 3's or if you have to wait on greens to clear on short par 4's.

But that's not very likely at all, is it? Our Tommy has many a trick up his sleeve, no?
My total guess: while Tim is right, this course will be more appreciated by golfers than by those who merely play golf.
And as with West Sussex (as per John M's profile), it may be a ton of fun, but it won't be 'easy'.
P
Just saw Tom's post - oh sweet Mary and Jesus, no Par 5s: thank you. I may never play it, but just knowing that it's there, without a Par 5, is gratifying enough!

[Morgan Clawson]

Congratulations Tom Doak!

Can't wait to see this new course come together.

Sand Valley is golf's version of Silicon Valley.  There's so much creativity coming out of that place right now.

[Tim Gavrich]

Sad then isn't it that the headline is yardage and par.

I got you to comment five times - how bad could I have done?

[Tom_Doak]

Sad then isn't it that the headline is yardage and par.

Actually, it is sad, now that you mention it.  There is so much urgency today to "sell" one's ideas, instead of just putting them out there so people can judge for themselves.  Hell, your brother in law will probably be making judgments about whether this is the best course at Sand Valley or the worst, before we have even broken ground 


Swinley Forest and Rye and those places do not "sell themselves" as par-68 courses in any way, shape or form.  Nor do they make any apologies for what they are, because that's a superficial analysis, and their members only care that they are full of good golf.  I'd guess more than a few guests come and play them and don't even notice what the par was, until they are adding up their score at the end.


It would be nice to take the same approach here.  Heck, I tried to convince Lew Thompson at Forest Dunes not to say anything about the course being reversible until opening day [or day two], but as you can see from Matt Ginella's story today, Lew is not so great at keeping things in confidence!

[V_Halyard]

Well, this will certainly be one thread where GCA educated guesses, conjecture and opinion may prove to be less sustainable.  lol    Congrats Tom!

[Peter Pallotta]

Ha!
Here's one: if I'm reading the topo map right (ha ha, fat chance) my conjecture is that there won't be too many bunkers on the new course. The routing will use the dips & hollows and elevation changes to create/enhance the strategic interest and ideal lines of play.

Yes, maybe not so much other conjecture, V -- as T notes above, all the developers have suddenly become such open books that Matt can tell us exactly what's going happen this year and next and the year after that, and why, and with whom....       

[Mike Nuzzo]

I hope it is also 15% less expensive.

Barney
By your math it should be 25% less. Area is 2 dimensional. (with a little added back for greens unless they are smaller too)
Congratulations Tom & Sand Valley

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have never noticed that to be a problem at any of the courses in the UK we have talked about as models - Swinley Forest, Rye, West Sussex, Cavendish, St. Enodoc.  They all have four or five par-3's and only one par-5.  [St. Enodoc has two par-5's, so it's par-69.] 

The only problem with that example is that in my experience, golfers over there (and in Australia) just simply play faster than they do here.  Perhaps part of their overall culture, so I would worry a bit that fast play won't occur in Wisconsin with all those par 3 holes, unless you import all golfers, or at least make them play match rather than stroke play.  (Another cool idea I wish a course would try somewhere, at least one day a week)


Kudos on abandoning the traditional 7K course on a resort though.  I doubt back tees on those courses get played 0.5% of the time.  And, as one of a daily double round, as previously noted, the shorter course should work well.  I imagine the best scenario is for that to be played second, and it might be a course where the afternoon tee times will be more sought after than the morning times (maybe first day as a warm up, who knows)

[V_Halyard]

Ha!
Here's one: if I'm reading the topo map right (ha ha, fat chance) my conjecture is that there won't be too many bunkers on the new course. The routing will use the dips & hollows and elevation changes to create/enhance the strategic interest and ideal lines of play.

Yes, maybe not so much other conjecture, V -- as T notes above, all the developers have suddenly become such open books that Matt can tell us exactly what's going happen this year and next and the year after that, and why, and with whom....     

I saw that Peter!  LOL. It reads like a National Security Council of Golf briefing.
Hmmm The NSCoG... I like that
- Vaughn

[Eric Smith]

Nice to read some good news this morning. Congratulations, Tom. I’m excited for all involved. Sand Valley really is extraordinary and will only get better with this addition.

[Kyle Harris]

You don't play Par 3's slower, you just wait more proportionally to the amount of play on the hole.


Or have I been missing all those 7 hour rounds on Par 3 courses?

[John Kavanaugh]

I hope it is also 15% less expensive.

Barney
By your math it should be 25% less. Area is 2 dimensional. (with a little added back for greens unless they are smaller too)
Congratulations Tom & Sand Valley

In all honesty if I follow the same logic used earlier in the week the course should be 8% less expensive. I stretched hypocrisy, as I often do, because I was not wearing pants at the time of my post. My apologies.


On another note, for those who believe just based on the information provided that a 36 hole walking day will be made easier by this design...Let me say that just this Sunday I walked 36 holes at Trinity Forest. A course built without question intended for Tour play.


One other note: I could get fully onboard of this concept if there were only one set of tees that play at a true yardage as advertised. I have yet to play a resort course in my adult life that does not deceive the consumer about the length of the tees played. I take little liberty saying that every course is 5% shorter than advertised. I call it the motion of the ocean conundrum.

[BCrosby]

Congrats Tom. Great news. Even better news is that you are designing a kind of course you have wanted to design for a long time.

I'd guess that the future of golf architecture lies somewhere near the intersection of reversible courses and interesting short courses. So exciting times.

Bob

[V_Halyard]

I hope it is also 15% less expensive.

Barney
By your math it should be 25% less. Area is 2 dimensional. (with a little added back for greens unless they are smaller too)
Congratulations Tom & Sand Valley

In all honesty if I follow the same logic used earlier in the week the course should be 8% less expensive. I stretched hypocrisy, as I often do, because I was not wearing pants at the time of my post. My apologies.


On another note, for those who believe just based on the information provided that a 36 hole walking day will be made easier by this design...Let me say that just this Sunday I walked 36 holes at Trinity Forest. A course built without question intended for Tour play.


One other note: I could get fully onboard of this concept if there were only one set of tees that play at a true yardage as advertised. I have yet to play a resort course in my adult life that does not deceive the consumer about the length of the tees played. I take little liberty saying that every course is 5% shorter than advertised. I call it the motion of the ocean conundrum.

Come on John, just because I play from the Whites or blues doesn't disqualify me from saying I played a 7500 yard course!! 

[Adrian_Stiff]

6000 yards Par 67 is the same as 7250 yards par 72 in terms of length difficulty.


The real fun courses at 67 par are close to 5000 yards.


I expect the length is derived from half the holes being over 400 yards.


I am pretty sure it will be good though with Tom at the wheel.