[Jason Thurman]

The Great Mark Saltzman did a photo tour a few years back: https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,54404.0.html


I've never been to Streamsong. Then again, I've also never actually read most of The Canterbury Tales, but that hasn't stopped me from having lots of opinions about it. I'll try to check out Mark's Sparknotes as I have a second and come back to throw some SERIOUS criticism at the wall.

[Jason Thurman]

Right out of the gate, I’m reminded of my single biggest architectural pet peeve.
 
Donald Ross never wrote “gentle handshake.” What in the hell kind of self-respecting Scotsman would? My mother taught me when I was 8 years old that a “gentle handshake” is not to be strived for.
 
Donald Ross wrote of a “firm handshake.”* The openers at No. 2, Northland, Broadmoor, Mid Pines, and you know, pretty much every course that Ross actually routed reflect this.
 
I tend to find fiddly, technical, drive-and-pitch par 4 openers dissatisfying. Let’s be honest, I’m probably gonna get a chance to hit a pitch shot on most par 4s anyways. But I want to make two free-and-wide shoulder turns coming out of the gate. And I haven’t played the hole, but I’ve played a few of Tom Doak’s short par 4s before, and there’s at least reason to suspect it might be this kind of gentle handshake for the guy who’s not real crisp after a long night of $30 hot dogs and booze:
 
 
 
And yet, who’s gonna argue that the angles on this hole aren’t inviting? I don’t know if I like the “100 foot climb” up to the top of the dune to start the round either. Then again, like most numbers golfers tell you, it’s not quite an accurate one. And the view it reveals highlights the wonderful landscape surrounding, and gives you a great look at the technical elements of the hole. It gets you ready to play some golf. I know, because I’ve never played the course, but just looking at 9 year old photos makes me itchy, especially in light of the rain outside my window today.
 
And I think I like the way that the view of the green seems to open up just a bit for the weaker player who just plain slices one. It’s a nice touch of accommodation without being too cloying. And the line-of-charm here actually helps the average right-handed weaker player while asking some extra discipline of the stronger player who can rightfully flirt with it to open up a chance to birdie ‘em all.


* I cannot find where Ross actually wrote this, but I'm almost certain I recall it from somewhere in Golf Has Never Failed Me.

[Tim Gavrich]

It's interesting to see some mentions of 9 to 11 as examples of a weaker spot on the course, because I feel just the opposite. 11 is my favorite hole on the whole property because it strikes me as necessary bit of modulation on a golf course that could otherwise threaten to overwhelm golfers. It holds the course together.


There's a strong sense of dynamics on the Blue that helps make it my favorite of the three courses. The opening 7 holes function like the musical technique of a fortepiano note that subsequently builds back to forte. The opening tee shot is the loud bit - a big introduction to the property - and the next six holes build back to that volume level. 7 is the big photo spot in part because the preceding ramp-up of the dynamics make it feel like the culmination of a set piece.


8 and 9 are, in musical terms, a diminuendo to the quiet, piano section of 10 and 11, where you have to work a little harder to hear what's going on.


From a golf perspective, 11 is brilliant to me because it does a lot with that quietness. Because the setting makes most of the three Streamsong courses feel and look like they could have only been built there, it makes sense to regard them as being in almost a vacuum, which means their capacity to influence golf holes elsewhere is rather limited. Not so with Blue 11, which is a hole that could be built in any number of different places because of the relatively quiet plot of land it's on. Its blistered-looking green contours could be fashioned out of any relatively featureless land. The fact that there's not much going on around the green draws your eye to a relatively small piece of land for really the first time all round, because up to that point you've been impressed and almost distracted by the vastness of the site, and you will be again in about a hole's time.


I was just going through my photos of Blue and one potential nit jumped out at me. Both 17 and 18 have big diagonal bunker complexes oriented at more or less the same angle relative to the axis of each hole. They serve slightly different purposes with regard to hole strategy, but I'd be curious if that similarity was intentional or if it was more a function of the tilt of the land on both those holes. There's a little sense of "Here's a diagonal upslope; let's bench in a string of bunkers here" a couple times in a row to close out the round.

[Ira Fishman]

Tim,


I made the comment about 9-11. I know even less about music theory (nothing) than about Gca theory (fill in the blank), but I did find that the holes interrupted the positive energy I was feeling, especially coming off of 8 which is one of my favorite holes for the reasons stated in my OP. To risk a musical analogy, it felt a bit like listening to an Illinois Jacques piece based on some swing and then hitting some flat water. Now, perhaps the fact I only played the tee shot on Number 7 because I was afraid to cross the bridge (my wife did two putt for me) may have affected my view of the overall flow.


Ira

[John Kirk]

I don't have any serious criticism about Streamsong Blue.  Here are some trivial observations about a course I played one and a half times about eight or nine years ago.

I didn't appreciate the resort as much as I should have because I was too tired.  I was staying in Lakeland away from other friends, during a period where I was drinking quite a bit.  It was also brutally hot there, 85 and humid in late January.  As a result I wasn't as happy and carefree as usual.  My version of "playing Stone Eagle in 110 degree weather".  It was a great experience, but I didn't make the most of it.

It's rare for me to fall head over heels for any course the first time, and this is no exception.  I liked but did not love both courses.  Solid designs with compelling strategic options and spectacular conditioning with lightning fast greens.  I preferred the Red course, perhaps because of its audacity.  There are four par 4s that are really long, including the 15th hole, which was definitely a par 5 for me.  I thought Red #15 was a great hole.


On the Blue course, the par 5s were notably good.  My favorite par 3 was the 16th hole, but that may be partly because I love long par 3s where the tee shot suggests long iron rather than  fairway wood, and it's a bit unusual to play a par 3 hole where the slope feeds the ball to the green from left to right.  My favorite par 4 is probably the 4th hole, which is spectacular.  To the person who mentioned that they felt the elevation change to the green was insurmountable on a full approach shot, a less powerful player could theoretically take a long club (wood or iron) and try to bounce the ball into the hill, or even try to run it up the slope.  Risky, but doable.

Here are is a list of comments or questions:

1.  It's a pretty hard course.  What's the course record?

2.  Does the 4th hole still have those enormous sandy areas on each side of the fairway?  I would think those are hard to maintain.

3.  Does anyone else think the pot bunker in the 3rd fairway is exactly where you want to hit the drive, and is therefore too penal?

4.  I misjudged the 11th hole approach shot as much as I've ever misjudged a distance.  If I recall correctly, the green sits in a little depression, so you can only see the top half or third of the flagstick from the fairway.  I had about 200 yards left, but there seemed to be a bit of wind into our faces.  I hit a medium 4 iron, pulled it a bit and ended up 30-40 yards long, and pitching back to the green for an easy bogey.  It's a very unusual approach shot.

5.  Is the 13th hole inspired by the 6th hole at Pacific Dunes?

6.  Is the 18th hole inspired by the 18th hole at Old Macdonald?  I found similarities in both cases.

To summarize, Streamsong is a great place for shotmaking, and based on what appeared to be developing at the time, a place to enjoy first class accommodations while making those shots.  As an Oregon resident, it is a long way to travel to play golf.

[Tom_Doak]

Here are is a list of comments or questions:

1.  It's a pretty hard course.  What's the course record?

2.  Does the 4th hole still have those enormous sandy areas on each side of the fairway?  I would think those are hard to maintain.

3.  Does anyone else think the pot bunker in the 3rd fairway is exactly where you want to hit the drive, and is therefore too penal?

4.  I misjudged the 11th hole approach shot as much as I've ever misjudged a distance.  If I recall correctly, the green sits in a little depression, so you can only see the top half or third of the flagstick from the fairway.  I had about 200 yards left, but there seemed to be a bit of wind into our faces.  I hit a medium 4 iron, pulled it a bit and ended up 30-40 yards long, and pitching back to the green for an easy bogey.  It's a very unusual approach shot.

5.  Is the 13th hole inspired by the 6th hole at Pacific Dunes?

6.  Is the 18th hole inspired by the 18th hole at Old Macdonald?  I found similarities in both cases.

To your questions that aren't opinions:


1.  I don't know, hopefully Kyle Harris will answer.  They haven't had many competitions, but a lot of very good players have been there, so I'm sure someone has gone pretty low.


5.  Yes, it was.  There was a huge blob of sand along the left side falling off dangerously into the lake, and I worried someone might lose a cart over there, so we decided to cut down the whole left side several feet . . . and then that reminded me of 6 at Pacific.  The two holes are somewhat different, but I did think of it for sure.


6.  No, it wasn't.  All the mounds short of the green were there to start with -- we actually took out an additional one -- but the whole idea of the approach was based on the little slope at the left of the green, and using it to make it hard to get up and down if you bailed left with your second shot.  I never really thought about another hole there.

[Peter Pallotta]

I remember way back to when Tom first mentioned this project in Florida -- and the excitement & interest based on the fact that the site had been mined, and so had interesting features instead of being Florida flat. Now on another thread Tom raised the 'critical lens' of an architect finding the best solution for the site. So putting those together, a 'critique' might explore if Tom made the best out of the site he was given. Did he?

[Tom_Doak]

I remember way back to when Tom first mentioned this project in Florida -- and the excitement & interest based on the fact that the site had been mined, and so had interesting features instead of being Florida flat. Now on another thread Tom raised the 'critical lens' of an architect finding the best solution for the site. So putting those together, a 'critique' might explore if Tom made the best out of the site he was given. Did he?

Peter:


That question is a bit harder to answer than normal, too, because a few of the decisions were made in order to accommodate the routing of the Red course.  But it's always a hard question for someone who is not intimately familiar with the property, to know what other opportunities were there.


However, I can say that Bill Coore thought the routing was the best solution for the two courses, too, and he understood the topo better than anyone here does, so the conversation should probably stick to assessment of the individual holes and not the whole.

[Steve Lang]

   THIS IS NOT SERIOUS CRITICISM, IT LOOKS LIKE SERIOUS INQUISITION.


PETER, HAVE YOU BEEN TO STREAMSONG?  HAVE YOU MADE THE BEST EFFORT TO GET THERE???

[Kalen Braley]

I have a couple questions....

How much material did you end up moving at Blue?
Did you and Bill take it basically as you found it or did you have one of your associates manipulate it first to create some interesting land formations to figure out how to use?
And how does this stack up to the amount you moved at Pac Dunes, Ballyneal, and Dismal Red?

[Mike Sweeney]

Tom,


Complete poppycock. Your words from the other thread:

No one has mentioned it on the Streamsong thread, but one of the things I really like about Streamsong is that even though there is water in play, it doesn't feel like the ponds on other Florida courses at all, because most of the elevation changes coming out of the water are so abrupt.

Long before TPC Sawgrass and Streamsong, there were dozens of historic Florida golf courses on great sand sites:
 
http://www.floridahistoricgolftrail.com

The problem is - Florida has bad zoning, so they get screwed up. They were good/great at one point, I think...

[Tom_Doak]

I have a couple questions....

How much material did you end up moving at Blue?
Did you and Bill take it basically as you found it or did you have one of your associates manipulate it first to create some interesting land formations to figure out how to use?
And how does this stack up to the amount you moved at Pac Dunes, Ballyneal, and Dismal Red?

This IS starting to look like the Inquisition.


Bill and I both thought the site had a lot of really cool and unusual landforms and we did not have anyone do anything to it before we did the routing; that really would have been gilding the lily.  Dave Axland was just coming back from building Lost Farm and Bill was excited to hear which site Dave thought was better, Lost Farm or Streamsong. 


There were a handful of holes on each course that required MAJOR work, but the majority of holes on each course were like the other courses you named -- they didn't require anything more than shaping greens and bunkers.  On the Blue the holes that were earthmoving exercises were 9 [in the landing area], 13, and 14 [the start of the fairway had to be filled, because there wasn't enough dry land for 14 and 15 to be parallel right there].  15 was a beautiful hole to start with -- it was one of the only holes that both Bill and I found independently -- but we took out a low ridge on the left to get some of the fill for 14, and it lost some of its feel from that.  There was also a drainage issue on the right side of 15 the year after the course opened, and to resolve it they had to take out some native area and re-grass it with Bermuda, which also took away from its character I think.


So, that's more earthmoving than Dismal River, but about the same as Ballyneal.  It's harder to quantify Pacific Dunes; we didn't move earth to make shapes any more than at Dismal, but we did have to sand cap holes 4, 12, and 13 with three feet of material, which was significant.

[Paul Rudovsky]

Tom--


My only criticism of Blue (and it also obviously applies to Red), is that because of the way you and Bill divided up the two courses, I have always felt it was somewhat difficult to sense where one was on the property and in relation to the other holes.  That is a little disorienting, at least to me.


Anyone else have that feeling?


Otherwise I have always loved both courses...and especially loved #4 Blue.

[Peter Flory]

I have nothing bad to say about Streamsong even if I turn off all of my filters.  I go every Spring and am about to head down again in a couple weeks.  It's just so unique in it's atmosphere/ setting and the architecture is daring.  On Blue, I absolutely love #1, 4, 17, and 18. 

I share Paul's feeling that I can get a little lost out there due to the way that the Blue and the Red divided up the land, but since it's in the middle of nowhere and I love both courses, I'm OK with that feeling. 

Streamsong's existence made me stop saying bad things about Florida golf.  Water as a hazard at Streamsong is used sparingly and in a variety of ways.  And there is always a way to avoid it if you want to play conservatively.  I'm usually there with higher handicap players and it plays really well for them without being too easy for me. 

[Ian Andrew]

Tom,

This isn't intended as a criticism because my answer - to myself - is to just learn to hit a three wood better so you'll actually carry one (self criticism - and use that against me if you like)

Why no gap / option in playing over the cross bunkers of the 17th?

The shot from below - the lay-up - is impossible (elevation, distance, green slope direction, angle)
Playing there is conceding its four shots.

Being long enough to carry them is really rare unless your naturally long.
It's beyond me and I never thought I was a short player (note the lack of a three wood above)
Can't lay up too close because going i the bunkers is death.

I'll never be fond of a short iron followed by a long iron/ / 3 rescue/ wood on a five as my only alternative.

Here's my question - not criticism - just a question - but seems like the right forum to do so.

The concept seems a little much for the average player because of the cross bunkers being so penal.
Had / have you ever considered a break in that bunkering?

It's a hole I like conceptually, but not as much when playing it.

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:


It is very rare for me to build a hazard fully across a fairway, so yes I certainly considered leaving a break on the 17th and we went back and forth about it for a while as a group [myself, Bruce Hepner, Eric, Mike McCartin, and Rich Mack].


The shapes there are mostly natural -- there was a strong abrupt slope all the way across, and some hollowed out forms where the bunkers are.


Rich [who is a 2 handicap] was in favor of making it cross bunkers, so I started thinking about how to make it feasible for those who couldn't get over them in two, and positioned the green according to that.  From the trailing edge of the middle bunker to the middle of the green is 145 yards.  So, it's NOT impossible to lay up and still get on in three, but you have to lay up pretty close to the cross bunker to be comfortable getting home.  That was the goal, anyway.  You are right that the slope and orientation of the green are difficult, so you would much rather be over the bunkers in two if you can make it than hitting a long club in.


In the Renaissance Cup final match, my friends Ed and Roy Vomastek were 1-up coming to that hole, and after Roy hit a shortish tee shot, Ed really wavered on whether to try to carry the cross bunkers on his second shot, thinking that his dad [who was about 80 then] might not be able to get home in three if Ed laid up.  But, he got his layup pretty close to the bunkers, and Dr. Roy hit a 7-wood into the middle of the green, so their name is on the trophy, and I was pleased to see the hole at least worked for some of the golfers, some of the time.  [The ghost of Mrs. Dye, however, regularly reminds me that it's a par-6 for many golfers.]


I figured it would always be easy to take out that middle bunker and establish fairway later if the hole proved too difficult, but nearly all of the comments that have reached me have been that it's one of the best holes on the course, and whatever they hear at Streamsong has not been enough for them to ask us to change it.


P.S.  Messing around with Google Earth:  if you have 200 yards to carry the middle bunker [too far for most people] then it's 175 to get into the bunker and 183 to carry the bunker to the left on the perfect line.  So, if you're hitting a short iron to lay up, you really ought to be able to get over with a solid shot.  It's just risky. 


P.P.S.  To be honest, as someone here pointed out earlier, it's the big bunker across the left on 18 that I think is gratuitous.  It only bothers the weaker player.  Yet in contrast to 17, there was almost no discussion of that one.  I think that's because of the crest in the fairway; we would always look from the top of the hill.  From there it's no problem, but it is a big problem for short hitters who won't even see it coming.  However, as I've mentioned before, I don't usually change things on my courses unless it's been identified as a problem by the client.  I am not a perfectionist with other people's money!

[Mike Baillie]

First, great to see Ian posting again.  He and others like him on here add to the learning of a keen golfer yet novice in terms of GC architecture like me plus surely others.

I agree with Ian's comment on 17 about the lack of option with the cross bunkers on the second shot.  I recall playing quite left once but only a bit of room before the trees.  Some one else on the thread critiqued the long uphill approach on the 4th.  That approach one of my favs of Tom's along with 11 and 16 at Pasatiempo.

That said to me the key to enjoyment of playing at Streamsong Red or Blue is tee selection, much more than elsewhere.  If the player can have 4/5 hybrid or mid iron in hand for their second at four they have a chance.  If they can clear the cross bunker in two on 17 same sort of thing. The adding of the combo tees helps many of us as long as we make a sensible tee choice.

Contradicting myself just a tad, I consider a 450 yard hole like 18 a par 4.5.  I found for the most part taking 6 out of play by playing the second left avoiding the bunkers, then hoping for a pitch and putt.  Not being able to clear the cross bunker on 17 means a 5.5 which is harder for many of us accept.  Solution, move up!

Finally, as others have noted the short par 4s are quite interesting.

[Jason Thurman]

Again, I haven’t played it. But I’ve consumed as much of the course from a distance as I can reasonably attempt in the last couple days. I’ve tried to really understand it. And there are parts of it that definitely would require some on-the-ground experience to see. But there’s also a lot that I think can be gleaned from at least attempting to study it from photos and other people’s posts all over this DG, in good faith.
 
And part of the reason I buy into that idea is because it appears to be a course with a really unique balance of understated shaping and unprescriptive strategy in a rather spectacular environment.
 
Consider the idea of a course like Pebble Beach – the gold standard for resort courses. It’s loaded with spectacular holes, but not necessarily with variety within how those holes present. It doesn’t take a lot of plays in a lot of conditions to begin to understand where you should and shouldn’t hit the ball. It gives the holes a tangible quality. Even before you play Pebble Beach, you might know you need to avoid the right side on 1 and prioritize accuracy over distance to set up an approach. It won’t take a player with a savvy eye for strategy very long to know that you’d rather miss right of that green than left. And that same general logic holds throughout the course. You can usually see that there are places to hit the ball, and places to avoid. Certainly after a play or two, you can understand the central challenges of each hole. It’s a very digestible course in that sense. It’s spectacular, demanding, and thrilling… but it’s not deceptive.
 
Streamsong Blue strikes me as a course that would take a LOT of plays to “figure out.” A course that reveals more and more of itself over time. And I’m not saying anything groundbreaking there – that’s sorta the Doak ethos right? From photos, it looks like a wonderfully alluring driving course. Step to the tee on 2 at Pebble, and you know exactly where to hit it. Step to the tee on 2 at the Blue, and you understand quickly why we praise width all the time. Several potential lines jump out, and you’ll want to play it over and over to see how they all work. And if you miss your intended line, there’s still a pretty good chance that you’ll feel like you get a valid taste of a different strategy. I’ve played Pebble once, and I pulled my tee shot on 2 into a bunker, and I want to play it again so that I can play the hole the “right way.” I want to play Streamsong Blue 6 times so that I can get a feel for the 6 different lines I want to take on the 2^nd hole.
 
So… great. We’ve proven it’s a course with width, and strategy, and most of us know those to be good things. But part of the appeal of the course for me is that it doesn’t appear to have a ton of “right answers.” It’s loaded with alluring shots… the drive at 3, the approach at 4, the drive at 8, acreage to explore at 11… and plenty more. But those are all shots where I might vary my strategy from one play to the next for 6 plays, 12 plays, maybe forever. And that’s awesome!
 
The downside? Well, without a WRONG answer now and then, the lack of risk can compromise thrills. That’s part of why I find that approach to 4 so sexy. Or the tee shot on 7. I mean, 7 seems like it might be a little much. Then again… as a guy who hasn’t played the course, I can only imagine that I probably made an ace on 5 and then driving the green on 6 so by the time I’m standing on 7 tee, I’m ready to be challenged. In the context of the rest of the course, a brutally tough par 3 fits very nicely there from my vantage point.
 
So I appreciate that the course finds a certain balance. From a distance, I question whether that balance is paced the way I’d like. I’m on record – I’d rather not open with a drive-and-pitch par 4. I’m not sure I want to come home with three monsters either. I suspect that, for me, the pacing might not quite feel as ideal as the holes themselves.
 
But I gotta say, after two days of looking at photos and reading people’s takes, it’s shot WAY up my list of courses I’d like to play. And not just once, but over and over. It seems like almost the perfect member’s course, where you can find new good spots and new bad spots round after round.
 
A couple questions for guys who have been there:
What are playing conditions like? How firm and tight are the fairways? Are those bunkers “native” sand, or filled? If native, are they spoils from mining with a unique character? And how unplayable are the native areas – they look unplayable…

[Peter Flory]

On the annual Spring trip that I take to Streamsong, it is with family members and their friends.  There are several guys who average in the 100-110 range per round.  But they absolutely love it.  They can play quickly out there and there is tons of width.  I'll watch more carefully how they play 17 and 18 this year to see how they deal with it.  My guess is that they'll be short in 2 naturally (without purposefully laying up), then they'll hack over the traps, and then they'll hit their approach shots. 

So maybe the holes are easy for low and very high handicappers, but difficult for mid due to where the hurdles happen to be placed.  I honestly never really noticed the cross bunkers on 18 because they've never been in my way.  My memory of the hole was more about the contours in the landing area and the dunes beyond on the approach. 

[Tom_Doak]

A couple questions for guys who have been there:
What are playing conditions like? How firm and tight are the fairways? Are those bunkers “native” sand, or filled? If native, are they spoils from mining with a unique character? And how unplayable are the native areas – they look unplayable…

Jason:


That's a pretty thorough analysis for someone who hasn't been there yet.  I hope you get a chance soon.


The bunkers are all the native sand -- mostly just what was there when we stopped digging, although they may have imported sand into a few of them where the soils in a particular spot were not so sandy.  A lot of the approach of the 2nd hole was a heavier soil, and we wound up digging out a big area and capping it with sand during construction.  Unless Kyle Harris comes on and tells me they've replaced all of the sand.


The long grass at the margins of the course is called Cogan grass [I think that's the right spelling] and it is not really native to Florida -- the Department of Environmental Quality originally insisted we remove it all, but that would have caused more problems than it solved.  You will lose a ball in Cogan grass pretty easily, but we worked hard from before the opening of the resort to identify likely lost-ball areas and either convert them to turf or thin them out on a regular basis.  That's one reason the fairways are so wide 

[Steve Lapper]

I'm not sure it's "serious criticism," but after 10+ plays of the Blue, I find myself really enjoying 15 holes out there. Only the stretch of 9-11, and the mysterious placement of a hidden bunker under the prominent knob on the right side of #18's fairway leave me feeling less than admiring.


 The tee shot on 9 is daunting and a great example of a risk-reward visual deception. Taking on the far right is definitely a better line for the longer hitters who think they'll have a chance to reach in two, yet the advantage yielded isn't that much better than taking on the middle of the grass horizon. I've seen a bomber like Steve Scott take on the right hand side with a baby draw only to find himself with a bad bounce into a corner by the maintenance cart path. Hardly the best reward for an otherwise perfectly struck drive.


  For the average hitter, you tack your 2nd shot down the right to open up the green, but for whatever reason, the green seems to have only 1-2 receptive pin positions. It seems to me to have the most pinball-like feel of all the greens and longer shots, even when well-struck, seem to skid off into corners or go thru the green,


  #10 presents beautifully from the tee but also seems to have a more repellent-like nature to it as well. Lower trajectories are severely penalized, unless played short of the green and are fortunate enough to run out of enough steam  to stay on the putting surface.


  #11 is a tough and demanding hole, but the effective landing area for an average driver who takes on the left-side line of charm is ridiculously tight...especially when the wind is up. Bailing out to the wider right side was always a let-down because even a well played 2nd shot had next to no chance of holding the green. The green complex is unquestionably cool and aesthetically minimalist, but again a good shot has to be placed somewhere short of it in order to hold that green. I recall hitting two great shots once, playing it 30yds short (downwind that day) and still ending over the back making bogey. All the other plays always left me feeling similarly. Getting to #12 was always something to look forward to.


  Lastly, I don't understand why there is a blind-to-the-tee last bunker over the right-side fairway hump on #18?? All it seems to do is over-penalize a very well-struck drive that clears all the nearer ones. Only a carry of 310-320 would clear it. In truth, I've only found it once (a dreaded shank), but I've witnessed several really strong players find it, see that they have no chance to get it onto the green ( concave at the bottom) and make bogey or worse. Generally, I've no problem with hazards that are blinded to the tee, but this one seems to feel, and play, with an unnecessarily egregious effect .


  All of this said, some of the very best holes across the complex are found on the Blue(#'s 4,8, 12&13,15), but for those holes at the turn, and that crazy bunker, it falls behind the other two for me. Cheers!


 

[Tom_Doak]

  Lastly, I don't understand why there is a blind-to-the-tee last bunker over the right-side fairway hump on #18?? All it seems to do is over-penalize a very well-struck drive that clears all the nearer ones. Only a carry of 310-320 would clear it. In truth, I've only found it once (a dreaded shank), but I've witnessed several really strong players find it, see that they have no chance to get it onto the green ( concave at the bottom) and make bogey or worse. Generally, I've no problem with hazards that are blinded to the tee, but this one seems to feel, and play, with an unnecessarily egregious effect .

We were very concerned about the prospect of long hitters on 18 going over the hill right, for an easier angle into the green.  Bill Coore even squeezed the start of #7 Red fairway a little bit to make sure people didn't try to go over there from the tee on 18 Blue.  I don't remember the particular small bunker you're talking about and don't remember if it has always been so severe, but it sounds like it is enforcing the point I was trying to make. 

[John Kirk]

A hat tip to Steve Lapper for the type of serious criticism this thread requests.  In order to make these types of detailed comments, he not only displays his familiarity with course details, he also remembers the shots of at least one playing partner.

Really good post, Steve.

In my case, if I recall correctly, I had no problems with #9, probably because I played for the greatest margin of error on this longer par 5.  I think I played safely through the green, and hit a 9-iron either on and near the green, and made 5 or 6.  I liked #10 more than you, and I hit a 6-iron onto the green for par, probably into a mild breeze.

Regarding #11, I agree with the assessment of the narrow left side option.  I may have ended up there by mistake by pulling my drive.  I can't remember why I was there.  I misjudged the second shot by a huge margin.  #11 gets some extra credit from me for being unusual.  At first glance, I didn't even know where I was aiming on the second shot.  Having the green sunken below fairway grade was disorienting.

Here's another detail.  On the short 13th hole, I decided against trying for the green with a driver because I concluded that Tom would likely make the layup the superior choice.  I hit 5-iron down into the trough, followed by sand wedge up to the green and made par.

[Ira Fishman]

So we are now several days into a thread where Tom invited critiques. Yet not once has he agreed or partially agreed with a negative comment. Rather he either has dismissed, ignored, or rationalized them away. It appears that “Serious Criticism” is only what he defines it to be. To refer to the parallel thread, such would be the approach embraced by Harold Bloom who authored his version of the CG.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

So we are now several days into a thread where Tom invited critiques. Yet not once has he agreed or partially agreed with a negative comment. Rather he either has dismissed, ignored, or rationalized them away. It appears that “Serious Criticism” is only what he defines it to be. To refer to the parallel thread, such would be the approach embraced by Harold Bloom who authored his version of the CG.Ira

Ira:


I am sorry but I won't let that post pass.


I started off the thread trying not to respond to honest critiques, so as not to be seen as argumentative.


Then people started asking me direct specific questions, which I have done my best to answer.


I have not "ignored" any post here, I just haven't responded and immediately declared somebody was right and I have seen the error of my ways.  [Do you think Jack Nicklaus, or Bill Coore would?]  However, in my P.P.S. to Ian a few posts back here, I did agree with whoever was the earlier poster who said the big bunker well short of the green on 18 was unnecessary, and I communicated such to Kyle Harris via email this afternoon, to ask if they will consider removing it.  So that makes you incorrect in your statement just above.


The two other things I brought up to Kyle were the runoff on the back of #7 -- which he reports has already been changed and is much less severe than when I last saw it, or when Don Mahaffey's ball got wet -- and the daily setup of tee markers on #3 and #4, which impacts people's perception of the difficulty of that shot up the hill on #4.  Unfortunately, the "ideal" place for #4 tee for some people would be right behind #3 green, and we avoid doing that for safety reasons, and also because it's a distraction.  Instead, they move the white markers between the back and middle tees, and do the same on #3 in tandem.


I have read along, but I really don't know how you expect me to respond to posts like, say, Steve Lapper's.  Other posters have volunteered that they love 9, 10, and 11, so the particular nits he has picked there are not necessarily "correct", they are just his opinion.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion. 


But just because Steve Scott got a bad bounce one time on what they both expected was a good drive down the right edge on #9, when he had literally a hundred yards left of that he could have driven into safely . . . does not make it a bad hole.  That's my opinion, and I will stick with it for now.


Several people have agreed with Mr. Lapper that the landing area on 11 is "ridiculously tight", and it's certainly tight; if we were having a beer I might have agreed just to appease you.  Since I'm at my computer instead, I just measured it on Google Earth.  It is 23 yards between the bunkers, between 265 and 275 yards off the back tee.  Is that ridiculous?  It is actually not much narrower than most fairways on the PGA Tour each week, or from the Principal's Nose to the O.B. fence at St. Andrews.  Also, if you hit it 250 you can go dead at the left bunker, and have 45 yards between the middle bunker and the left rough.  [So, I am fine with "tight", but maybe not "ridiculous".]  But I might also think that's okay, and that if you want to get home easily in two, you have to take on that bunker and your fear of it, or wimp out and go right and blame the architect for a bad design.     I had thought, when someone else first brought it up, that maybe it should just be a mound instead of a bunker in the middle, so it wouldn't extract so much penalty if you hit it, and that's an option.  But when Steve L objected to it, honestly, that made me more likely to keep the bunker.


Ira, the bottom line is, being the architect means taking in the criticisms as well as the praise, and once you have done that for a while, you stop worrying too much about other people's preferences.  It's okay for everyone to have a hole or two they don't like, as long as it's not the same hole.  And it might even be okay then.  We don't have to pander to you if we don't want to.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()