So I always have to ask what is its future beyond supplying grasses? Seems a shame to let it pass away...
It always seemed like it may have been a Ross testing ground for construction or some routing concepts.
Steve, could you expand on these thoughts?
"A Ross testing ground" is a bold statement (I love bold statements).
Paging Mr. Buie.
Peter,
Well, from playing it numerous times, being told and challenged about it, and reading a little about the old "Little 9" hydrid's history based upon Ross plans implemented with one of his main guys, plus with a revisit on Google Earth, my main memories/thoughts are related to:
#1, 3, 4 downhill and uphill fairway widths and slopes, and bounding balls, especially with hard and dry conditions, playin the lay of the land
#2 downhillish benign looking vs semi-hellish looking par 3's framing
#5 uphill gradual to steeper slope par 5 settings, good sledding hill down versus golfing hill up
#6, that terraced downhill dogleg right par 4, is more distance better or worse... severe downhill lies risks? [size=78%] [/size]#7, flat dogleg right around hillside, trees and bushes be damned, cursed, or heroics from? shot shaping versus accuracy or why not both? benched greens and pushed up shapes combined?
#8, longish flat par 3 into the wooded corner, kinda boring
#9, straight away up the hill shortish par 4, bland is boring again but still have to execute
On the #1 course, most of the settings just seemed to be more refined less abrupt than the Little 9, I always liked:
- the friendly fairway width on the opening tee shot, and the danger lurking on the 1st green.
- the par 3's settings, downhill wide open, uphill benched, across the waters
- 5th's gentle fairway terracing down to the hole
- once the looks of danger were known, negotiating tee to green was usually half the problem
So maybe the testing was how plans get interpreted, how much guidance is needed?
Interested in all things SPCC... like who built homes on the other parts of the second 18?