[Steve Lang]

   Bogey,


So I guess you're not going 90 minutes out from your habitat again soon to play SC...  how long did it take to matriculate through 27 holes, did you play different tees?

[archie_struthers]

 


Every time it I think JAKA has lost a couple miles off his fastball he says something like this!

Golfweek started ranking 9 hole courses in case someone wanted to get in a quick round before they went out of business.

[Craig Sweet]

Does a golf course HAVE to accommodate the ground game?   Does a golf course HAVE to take into consideration your inability to hit a lob wedge? Does a golf course HAVE to take the driver out of your hand on every hole? Half of the holes? Any of the holes?

[David Ober]

Does a golf course HAVE to accommodate the ground game?   Does a golf course HAVE to take into consideration your inability to hit a lob wedge? Does a golf course HAVE to take the driver out of your hand on every hole? Half of the holes? Any of the holes?

Absolutely not.


Next! 

[Paul Rudovsky]

I certainly do not think a golf course has to accommodate a ground game, or has to take your driver out of your hands on some, many, or all holes.  However, I do think a good part of a golf course SHOULD accommodate a ground game and SHOULD give the player options on a bunch of tee shots.  No question that hitting a flop shot off of tight lie takes more physical skill that playing a run up with a putter, hybrid, 6-iron etc.  But at the same time playing the run up with any of those types of clubs takes more brainpower and knowledge of the course.  Shots through the air simply require brainpower regarding wind direction/speed and green firmness and slope.  Run up shots require understanding the subtle slopes present in the last 10-15 years before the front edge of the green.


And forcing a player to chose between several club options off the tee creates a very different problem for the player...choice can be very vexing in this game (which is on reason why Pinehurst #2's greens give so many players with all sorts of skill sets real fits).  Choice = indecision for many players...and few things are worse than indecision in golf.


 

[Ally Mcintosh]

I am enjoying this thread, not because I agree about Sweetens Cove: It could be the best course in the world. I haven’t seen it.


But because people are openly questioning that supposedly reported “fun” and “cool” “wow factor” might just be about aesthetics and appeasing architecture nerds rather than any long term satisfaction in playing the course. Not to say it can’t be both but...


Going back to an oft-stated point I’ve made about links courses, it’s the flatter, more subtle ones that promote the ground game more than the dramatic bold ones that people tend to rave about. On the latter, people love watching and congratulating themselves as they bump their ball up and around huge slopes, giggling at the “fun” for the first few times. Then they settle in to needing to score well or win a match and realise the percentage game is to take as many of those contours out of play as possible. On a flatter course, the percentage shots tend to be numerous and the use of single slopes or kicks become integral parts of play as you learn them.... It’s a bit like the tortoise and the hare. The tortoise will win the long game (repeated plays).


There’s no doubt cameras catching shadows and big movements have contributed. Even the term “golf course porn” should be a giveaway.

[Sean_A]

I have never played SC. Interestingly, I was keen to see the course until I watched a few things on YouTube. The course didn't strike me as horrid, but I did lose my appetite to visit. It looks as though every thing was chucked into the design. Conversely, after watching YouTube, the Winter Park 9 seems an attractive proposition.

Ciao

[Jeff Schley]

I have never played it, but in today's age of VERY few new courses being built, I'd choose having something for players to play that is unique as opposed to nothing for sure. Not top 100 or 200, who cares. The golfing masses will decide with it's wallet if it will survive and thrive, which it appears to be doing right now well. If it doesn't appeal to one, just skip it in the future as we do with plenty of courses we have played.

[Tom_Doak]

Bogey:


Congratulations on starting a thread that is critical, without starting a flame war.  [You're one up on Ran  ]


By chance, I stopped in there two weeks ago today, on the road back home from South Carolina.  The course does have the advantage of being close to the highway!  I pointedly did not say who I was, just walked up and paid my green fee.  They were very accommodating and full of tips for a first-time visitor on how to enjoy the place.


I had not read everything about the course but I was still quite surprised by some aspects:


a)  the play-all-day weekend rate, which is worth a thread of its own, so I will start one after this
b)  the large greens.  Their new setup [two flags on each green] seems to be a very good way to utilize this feature, but from a practical standpoint, building 10,000 sf greens on nearly every hole is a burden on a small course
c)  the drainage issues.  I guess that is the cards they were dealt in using that site, but I know if I built a course that goes underwater a couple of times per year, it would be a cause celebre.  It's possible that the elevation of the greens [which you didn't like] is due in part to these drainage issues.


I did think the work was very creative.  It reminded me of Mike Strantz's work in many respects.  Some of the golf shots are more fun to take pictures of [or videos] than to actually play.  On the other hand, hitting a rope hook 7-iron to the back left hole location at the 6th was a shot I haven't tried to hit in ages.


I do think the course gets a bit of a pass because it's only nine holes.  If you had a full 18 that was all that wild, people would be more likely to say it was "too much", and I think your observation that it sours after multiple plays is a reflection of that same criticism.  I was curious to see their finished Landmand course, to see if they would tone it down a little bit for a full 18.  [Spoiler alert:  they would not.]

[Mike Hendren]

Does a golf course HAVE to accommodate the ground game?   Does a golf course HAVE to take into consideration your inability to hit a lob wedge? Does a golf course HAVE to take the driver out of your hand on every hole? Half of the holes? Any of the holes?

Of course not - unless it wants to be considered great. Then again I always use The Old Course as a benchmark even for parkland golf. The most obvious  exception I can think of is Peachtree.  Nothing rolls like a ball.


Steve, we mixed up the middle and front markers and each 9 was just under2 hours.


Lou, hope you’re well - yes there are few    who are more blessed than me.


Mike

[Mike_Young]

I've played SC twice now.  While it may not be my taste, it seems to fit the taste of a segment of the golfing public that was tired of the golf they grew up playing and the clubs of their parents.  AND I agree with them more than I do what our golf clubs across the country have become.  The atmosphere and the surrounds are what create so much of the SC style.  They taught me something.  And I am betting they taught many something.  And that is that social media can move a needle big time...I have seem groups come thru our place on cold weekends and they had flown to ATL, driven to Aiken GC, then across to The Fields and then to SC before back to the airport.  People drive 800 miles overnite to play there. Places like Bandon and Sandhills allowed SC to present as it did with firepits, covered shelters and internet sales of merchandise etc.  I'm not sure how long it will be the "item" but all have to admit it has been good for golf...as the millennial types grow older, hopefully they will embrace what they have found and take it with them and hopefully the next group behind them will realize one can play golf without all of the F&B and frills the frat boy clowns have placed on so many of our private clubs across the country.  And while I might not agree with the style or the efficiencies etc, you have to admit it has been good for golf and hope it continues.

[Tom_Doak]

They taught me something.  And I am betting they taught many something.  And that is that social media can move a needle big time...I have seem groups come thru our place on cold weekends and they had flown to ATL, driven to Aiken GC, then across to The Fields and then to SC before back to the airport.

Mike:


I agree that the marketing has worked VERY well since the very well-connected new owners got involved three years ago . . . those connections explain a lot of the attention in big media [NYT].  Before that, the place may have been seen as cool, but it was still struggling to survive.


I do wonder if that buzz is social media buzz is replicable very many more times before it becomes obsolete.  It's pretty easy for almost any new course to attract attention when there are only eight of them a year!  Hopefully that is not the future, and getting attention will get a little bit harder again.

[Mike_Young]

TD,I'm thinking the same golfers attracted to the social media aspects now will continue to "acquire" a taste as they get more and more into it.   TTF might be next....   

You ever think about golf design this way?:Do you ever ask yourself what living architect has the most rounds played in a given year on their courses?

Now lets change that to music.  We have different genres which attract different volumes of listeners...destination clubs, private clubs, muni clubs, public clubs just like genres of music.  Each one of these genres attracts a different listener.

 And before social media you needed a resort selling rooms or a RE development that could afford to advertise for the golf.  Because the average course cannot afford to advertise as needed. 

Social media is the best thing to happen to regional golf in years. 

[Parker Page]

No one interested in outright defending Sweetens? Alright, I’ll take the bait.


Living in Nashville, I have been down to Sweetens a few times a year since 2015. It has not soured for me, nor do I find the allure purely due to “fun.” Yes, the ethos of the place suits me just fine, and I enjoy the dressed down, laid back nature that continues to draw many back.


What really keeps me coming back is the architecture. Yes, it has drainage issues. The turf is good when it’s good, but it’s not in the same sentence as Sand Hills or Ballyneal or Shinnecock, et al. Yes, all the greens are pushed up (see the reason for drainage issues). But I haven’t played a better match play course. Strategic concerns dictate play on every hole. Yes, you can make a pile of birdies, but miss your line, and you can make double or be in your pocket just as easily. I could go hole by hole, how about just holes 5 and 6?


Five is one of the best driveable par 4’s I have played. Pull driver, and you may have an eagle putt, but you can also end up in the Lion’s Mouth, or stuck under the lip short right. Even missing left with driver short of the bunker requires a decision on how to climb that 6+ foot slope - putt, chip, flop? Lay back with something less than driver, and you never get in trouble. You now have an easy par, but eagle is off the table, and birdie is no guarantee with sloping greens. Also, with the back pin placement, you have to think about how you want to approach it. Fly it with your wedge over the Lion’s Mouth? Or take something less lofted and punch it to the right of the bunker and try to catch the slope?


On 6, the decision starts on the tee. Just about everyone hits driver, but how much do you challenge the water on the left. Flirt with it, and your second shot is shorter to all pin positions, and you’re angled away from the water close to the green. Bail out to the right on your drive, and your approach is longer, you’re hitting back toward the water, and you could be blocked out by a few trees. Even if you’re in the fairway, you have to decide how you want to attack the pin position of the day on a very sloped green. Missing the green requires a decision again between putting, chipping, and flopping.


Does it push the envelope in places between strategic and absurd? Yes. Would it work as an 18-hole course? I’m glad we don’t have to decide. I love it and am grateful that I get to play it as often as I do. So far I have heard that it disappoints because it doesn’t drain well, and hipsters like it. I would be interested in hearing a more “vigorous” architectural debate.

[Don Mahaffey]

The challenge for all modern cult classics with followings built on social media and the internet is sooner or later they will become the subject of a real critique.


Wolf Point may be in that group and while I love the golf course and what we did, it’s never really been the subject of serious criticism like all the greats.


Sweaters, WP9, WP...all deserve real study to back up the hype. I happen to believe that one or two can withstand it, but maybe not all will survive and come out on the other side ranked as high.

[Mike_Young]

The challenge for all modern cult classics with followings built on social media and the internet is sooner or later they will become the subject of a real critique.


Wolf Point may be in that group and while I love the golf course and what we did, it’s never really been the subject of serious criticism like all the greats.


Sweaters, WP9, WP...all deserve real study to back up the hype. I happen to believe that one or two can withstand it, but maybe not all will survive and come out on the other side ranked as high.

DM,I see what you are saying but I don't know that it matters now.  All of those you mention have helped steer so many away from the clubs that were getting all of the hype because they had the ad dollars and the maintenance budgets to hype them.  Plus, I really don't know how to critique architecture beyond what i like...

[Tom_Doak]

Does it push the envelope in places between strategic and absurd? Yes. Would it work as an 18-hole course? I’m glad we don’t have to decide. I love it and am grateful that I get to play it as often as I do. So far I have heard that it disappoints because it doesn’t drain well, and hipsters like it. I would be interested in hearing a more “vigorous” architectural debate.

Well, you made some points right here [or dismissed points that others had made, I'm not sure].  And Bogey did basically say, as nicely as he could, that it's a bomb-and-gouger's paradise, with few real options around the greens except L-wedge.  [I mean, you could putt or chip, but the greens are so elevated and the targets are often narrow enough that the average guy is in danger of going back and forth.]


Honestly, though, I've been smiling since I read your post and Don M's post about "serious criticism" and "vigorous architectural debate", because I don't believe they really happen that often.  But I don't want that topic to overshadow any serious discussion of Sweetens Cove, so I will start a separate thread.


As to Sweetens, the place it reminded me of most was Tobacco Road, which I happened to visit again a few days before SC.  The Road is the darling of many, but it never gets anywhere in the rankings world, and nobody really questions why.  I think the big difference is that Tobacco Road is so close to Pinehurst that it is inevitably compared with all of those courses [which helps it in some respects, but hurts it in others], whereas Sweetens and Wolf Point and other courses in Bogey's "architectural wasteland" can just continue to exist in their own little fantasy worlds.

[Keith Phillips]

I've never been to Sweetens but my son played with a group last year.  He's reasonably well-traveled - many high end privates, the best of southwest Ireland, northwest England, Pinehurst, Mammoth, etc.  He and his buddies played Sweetens for two days and he described it as 'the most fun he's ever had playing golf.'  Now maybe he wouldn't like it as much the second or third time, but that was good enough for me and I can't wait to visit!

[Don Mahaffey]

Tom,
Please don't misinterpret me here. The three course I mentioned have all garnered strong followings and Sweetens especially has a large following. If you're making a movie, you want a high critics score on rotten tomatoes, or a high audience score? You probably want both but if you're the guy funding it, the audience pays the bills.


My experience at WP was being told certain things would never work...then people played and they did work...beautifully.  Isn't golf full of these sorts of examples? If anything, in golf creation we probably revert to what the experts or critiques think is good TOO MUCH!


But, it'd still be nice to talk about why those things work rather than the basic..."it's fun to play". You like to analyze,  don't you want to learn more about what triggers that response when players fall in love with a place that doesn't follow norms? That's what I mean by study, not..."lets grade it down because the people playing it can't describe why they love it."

[Mike_Young]

TD makes a good comparison when he mentions SC and TR above.  People like SC and many consider it the most fun they have had playing golf.  Arguing architectural merits will not change anything.  It has been good for golf. 

[Kyle Harris]

Go play Winter Park 9 and see if you have the same reaction.


I played WP9 and thought it was in a nice area, cheap to play but its dead flat and has very little architectural interest except some greens that slope?  Matt Ginela has been promoting it so every yahoo has been flocking to it.


Don't be afraid to go against the wind.  I need to go see SC.

Did you break 40?


If so, did you break 40 again, in the same manner?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
Please don't misinterpret me here. The three course I mentioned have all garnered strong followings and Sweetens especially has a large following. If you're making a movie, you want a high critics score on rotten tomatoes, or a high audience score? You probably want both but if you're the guy funding it, the audience pays the bills.


My experience at WP was being told certain things would never work...then people played and they did work...beautifully.  Isn't golf full of these sorts of examples? If anything, in golf creation we probably revert to what the experts or critiques think is good TOO MUCH!


But, it'd still be nice to talk about why those things work rather than the basic..."it's fun to play". You like to analyze,  don't you want to learn more about what triggers that response when players fall in love with a place that doesn't follow norms? That's what I mean by study, not..."lets grade it down because the people playing it can't describe why they love it."

That would be better addressed on the other thread!

[Adam Lawrence]

They taught me something.  And I am betting they taught many something.  And that is that social media can move a needle big time...I have seem groups come thru our place on cold weekends and they had flown to ATL, driven to Aiken GC, then across to The Fields and then to SC before back to the airport.

Mike:


I agree that the marketing has worked VERY well since the very well-connected new owners got involved three years ago . . . those connections explain a lot of the attention in big media [NYT].  Before that, the place may have been seen as cool, but it was still struggling to survive.


I do wonder if that buzz is social media buzz is replicable very many more times before it becomes obsolete.  It's pretty easy for almost any new course to attract attention when there are only eight of them a year!  Hopefully that is not the future, and getting attention will get a little bit harder again.

I am not the right person to opine objectively on SC because Rob and Tad are close friends, and I have been emotionally invested in the place since I was the first journalist to see it in 2012 and then returned for its official opening.


But one thing I think I can say with a degree of authority is that its survival is something of a miracle, and that is a fairly important part of the affection that people have for it. Sweetens was right on the brink of ceasing to exist any number of times until it was taken over by the big name consortium that now owns it in 2019 (not three years ago Tom, fwiw). The Dylan Dethier piece in the New York Times that indirectly led to the course being bought out literally saved it. Without that, it would have died.


I do think that the social media (and merch) success of the course causes a degree of hostility from some quarters, and I understand that (I am a long, long, long way from being a hipster and I have often said that if I were supreme dictator of the universe, then possession of a hipster beard would be punishable with death). But Sweetens' success against the odds is a crucial part of its appeal.

[Thomas Dai]

Some thoughts from afar and only influenced from reading herein and elsewhere.
They are not meant as criticism rather they are intended to highlight how outside factors such as the thoughts and opinions of fellow golfers, those in the business, the media including social media etc rather than personal on-site experience influence thinking.
Hence, in summary over time I’ve got the impression that Winter Park is essentially about golf in the community rather than architecture, that WP was/is, and don’t take this the wrong way, an unusual architectural opportunity made possible as it was a wealthy individuals pastime and that SW is recent era niche golf with niche architecture/facilities. I wish all three every success and hope they thrive.
Are these impressions, perceptions might be a more appropriate word, valid?
Atb

[Parker Page]

Well, you made some points right here [or dismissed points that others had made, I'm not sure].  And Bogey did basically say, as nicely as he could, that it's a bomb-and-gouger's paradise, with few real options around the greens except L-wedge.  [I mean, you could putt or chip, but the greens are so elevated and the targets are often narrow enough that the average guy is in danger of going over and back].

As to Sweetens, the place it reminded me of most was Tobacco Road, which I happened to visit again a few days before SC.

Thanks for pointing out, Tom, that I neglected a part of Michael’s criticism. I think calling Sweetens a bomb-and-gougers paradise is oversimplifying. Bomb-and-gouge implies that a long hitter can afford to be inaccurate with his drives because he can just gouge it out of the rough with a wedge. The problem with applying this to Sweetens is that the course doesn’t have any rough from which to gouge. It is always an advantage to be long, but if you don’t have the right angle, then you’re cooked on 3, 5, 6, and 7 (and sometimes 1). Yes, a bomber may make 3-4 birdies, but he may make 3-4 doubles to match them without the accuracy and touch to go along with his length.


I also don’t think I agree that the lob wedge is the only option around the greens because of the tight lies and, actually, the height of the greens. Indeed, the greens are so high that chipping a 60 degree won’t get the ball high enough or with enough steam to get up the hill. And most players aren’t confident enough to open up a 60 from a tight lie. If I miss 5 greens on a nine at Sweetens, then I typically find myself putting two, wedging two, and chipping one.


And finally, the Tobacco Road comparison makes sense. Rob himself has said on many occasions that Mike Strantz is his architectural hero.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()