[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob,

One would think that those who believe Seminole to be a GREAT course should be able to wax eloquently about its virtues and in specific detail.

But it seems that all they can do is ask questions.

Off line, I have waxed eloquently about its virtues, to Rich Goodale, who made the inquiry

Asking questions isn't all I can do, it's what I chose to do,

P.S. Stop whining !
      Where is MDugger when you need him ?  

JohnV,

Seminole is difficult to forget, especially if you've played it a few times.  The three finishing holes are almost impossible to forget, unless of course, you've enjoyed the liquid lunch  

[Michael Dugger]

I'm right here Pat, I never let you too far out of my sights

[Patrick_Mucci]

MDugger,

I'm glad you're still there.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

[rgkeller]

"Asking questions isn't all I can do, it's what I chose to do"

Mr. Mucci:

I had a feeling that you had yourself confused with Socrates.

[Michael Dugger]

Why am I needed again?  I just reread the post and don't see where my services would be needed.  Do you need me to post some pictures of Daytona or Tampa or something?

I hope you have a good Thanksgiving too, Pat, may your cook be deep frying your turkey.  I hear it is all the rage.

Although, I've never tried it personally so how could I really know?

[EAF]

I can vouch for Quassi about not remembering too many holes from "great golf courses." For example, I can fodly recall #1 to #7 of Spyglass but, I can't recall the rest of the course very well. Based on the pictures of Seminole I've seen, the course does look like most flat Florida courses. Sometimes the design details are overlooked during an ocassional visit.

I have not had the pleasure of actually playing Seminole so I am not commenting on the "greatness" of Seminole.

Does anyone else have the experience of playing a "great" course and not being able to recall all the holes?

[Patrick_Mucci]

EAF,

Perhaps, after # 5, all the hole look alike at Spyglass
One certainly remembers the first five holes at Spyglass, they are quite distinctive, the balance of the golf course has a sameness.

That's not the case at Seminole.

Any comparison of Spyglass to Seminole is strictly .........

[Michael Dugger]

Ok, how about we really talk about Seminole now?

For those of you knowledgeable in such things, how do the greens complexes at Seminole compare to Pinehurst #2?  

Is the driving game at Seminole more or less demanding than that of Pinehurst #2 or some of Ross' other significant designs?

Does it possess enough world class holes to be truly considered great?

Is it playable for all classes of golfers?

[Matt_Ward]

EAF said ...

"Does anyone else have the experience of playing a "great" course and not being able to recall all the holes?"

Just a thought to consider -- any "great" course by definition is one you would not forget the details of EACH hole. That's the reason why a "great course sticks out soooooooo much to start with.

[CHrisB]

(My "discussion on demand" comments directed toward Patrick have been deleted. Sorry Pat! And thanks for the offline message...)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris B,

I don't think that "discussion on demand" is a good tactic with me.  In fact, I can guarantee you that you've taken the wrong approach on this issue.

rgkeller made a snippy remark, as he has done many times, and I responded, that I'm not obligated to answer, especially to a wise guy remark, and that I did fulfill Rich Goodale's request by responding directly to him.

Though Rich Goodale and I agree and disagree on various issues, I understand the good spirit in which he asks a question, and I'm happy to reply to him.   When I feel that the spirit of the request is less then genuine, or in a wise guy tone, I can and do choose to remain silent.  Having a temper tantrum, directed toward me, won't lead to a favorable response.  I have a rebellious nature, I'd suggest that you try another approach.
 
I didn't provide Rich with a hole by hole, shot by shot description, because I don't have the time right now.
But, I gave him a general overview which I hope he found informative.

Let rgkeller fill you in on Seminole, he's the experienced expert.

[rgkeller]

" Stop whining !"

I'm not whining.

I'm chuckling.

[TEPaul]

rgkeller said;

"One would think that those who believe Seminole to be a GREAT course should be able to wax eloquently about its virtues and in specific detail."

rg:

OK, I will--at least I'll go into it in detail. But do I think it's a great golf course? Well, yeah, sort of--pretty much--but the reasons to me are very interesting.

First of all, I might say that Seminole's architecture just might be the subtlest of any great golf course. And in that just may be the reason some such as quassi wonder what the big deal about the course is. He's by no means the first who's thought that nor will he be the last.

Probably more than any other great course I know or course that has great potential Seminole really does depend upon what I call a course's "ideal maintenance meld" to show its stuff completely. If it doesn't have that or isn't in that setup (ideal maintenance meld) it can seem pretty sleepy, pretty mundane to play or even look at. When it's like that (not in its ideal maintenance meld) what it appears to be is basically a really nice member's course.

But when they ratchet up the maintenance meld to its ideal--look out--the course comes alive like klieg lights on high and the subtelty of the architecture has an effect that even very good players struggle to notice and deal with properly. Can you say something like this about any course or a course that has pretty good architecture? No way! Does this take Seminole over the top? It does not, although it can get close!

Like a number of other courses that are sometimes largely misunderstood Seminole does depend to be the best it can be on wind. But even without wind in its "ideal MM" it can be really something to play.

And I pretty much agree with you about the questionable holes. To me they're #1, #9 and #15. I'd throw #10 in there too probably. Why are they questionable? For a variety of reasons.

#1 Probably the best that could be said about it is its a nice "get into the round" hole. The subtelty of it is pretty much the drive is sort of visually undirected and good players can hit a good drive in the wrong direction and the wrong length either right or left and get in the rough. It's just hard to see where you need to go on that tee shot but of course minimal experience takes care of that. The approach and the green just aren't that much--certainly not great.

#2 Not a demanding tee shot which is relatively common with much of Ross's architecture. #2 and #11 are basically very similar holes in type and look and direction and they remind a lot of people of each other--maybe too much. Both holes depend on extremely good back to front sloping greens for their challenge and demand and greatness. They are right there both uphill and not easy to approach club selection-wise. In the Coleman when Seminole really is in its ideal MM its best to play to a front pin on #2 by actually coming up a bit short of the green! Not the same though on #11.

#3 A fairly interesting drive on a left to right curving par 5 that's very reachable by longer players. The uphill back to front sloping green makes this hole too. You can be above the hole here putting for eagle and make bogie. Is that over the top? Probably.

#4 As Ian Andrews and golfers like David Eger have said this one could be one of great architecture's subtlest holes. Some say the architecture is almost perfect. This is a very unusual hole for Ross in that its a 'ridge runner' and for some reason Ross rarely did that. He was primarily a high tee/valley/high green site router and architect. This hole is long and straight with some subtle topography and beautifully placed architecural features and there's all kinds of interesting ways of approaching this green that doesn't look as difficult to approach as it is.

#5 a good par 3 in the 190 something range where you have to fly the ball to the green and the wind can play havoc on this one for a variety of reasons--like coming out of a semi-gurarded chute with very different wind factors at the other end of the hole.

#6 In my opinion is the best architectural hole at Seminole, certainly the best of the par 4s and 5s. It just may be one of the most perfect classic architectural holes in the world in the way it unifies the demands and options from tee to green. It uses subtle left to right natural topography on the drive with bunkering and waste on the left and green orientation that's about perfect on a left to right diagonal that allows for all kinds of interesting distance, direction and trajectory shotmaking. It's best to keep near the left on the tee unless you want to progressively get out of kilter with the green's orientation or unless you're Ben Hogan. The green is perfectly bunkered both sides and basically screams at you to try ot hit a fade approach up into a quartering prevailing wind--the green is subtly raised from the fairway. Some may miss it at first but this hole is right up there in the world for truly great subtle architecture both natural and man made throughout.

#7 Sometimes a hard hole for those who aren't long but to be honest this is one I never really got. I'd probably add it to the others I'd consider somewhat questionable in the greatness category. For those not long the hole has cross carry bunkers on the drive and a pond on the approach somewhat short of the green and its routed against a quartering headwind (that seems to turn more into the player possibly due to the treelining to the left of the next hole). But other than those things that's about it.

#8 One of the really fine flatland long par 3s anywhere. The diagonal cross bunkering short of the green is great old architecture. The technology today may have minimized the interest and demand here though. I don't think Donald ever visualized the good player flying 3 and 4 irons high and directly onto this 235 yd par 3.

#9 This is the true weak link in Seminole's architecture, in my opinion. I've tried every way I can think of to figure out how this hole could be considered good as it is today and has always been, and I just can't. This hole is a great candidate to have something done to it. There're probably all kinds of ways of going about improving it but as it is and has been it's not much more than an old Florida sort of mundane medium length par 5.

Back nine later. In a quick broad brush analysis Seminole has some really world class par 4s although most extremely subtle but impactful and requiring of the things I mentioned above and it has some other par 4s that are semi-mundane. Seminole has par 5s that I'd consider semi mundane at best but that's not that unusual for Donald Ross, in my opinion. Ross was definitely no Tillinghast, Crump or Hugh Wilson when it came to tough and great par 5s. But the par 3s at Seminole are right up there with the best of any golf course anywhere--although they might not at first look like it. Throw in the wind and Seminole's "Ideal maintenance meld" and they'll compete with any in the world in sort of a non-super-penal way.

I should say that I haven't been to Seminole for maybe 7-8 years now but my Dad was there for decades and I know the place for maybe forty years now and I know it like the back of my hand. To me it was a really good course then, probably somewhat great but in those days it was sleepy and not maintained in a tournament mode as it now sometimes is and can be so well.

And then along came Barry Van Gerbig and the Coleman tourney and I saw a course that was hard to imagine could lie there asleep as it had and then come alive like it could and did! And even more interesting, it was pretty hard to see the difference but when you went out to play it My God was it something else. And if that wasn't amazing enough they could take it down and almost put it back to sleep in little over 24 hours. I didn't know it at the time in the early 1990s but seeing Seminole like that was when the concept of the "ideal maintenance meld" must have begun to get somewhere in my mind but back then I wasn't in the slightest bit interested in golf architecture.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'd say that # 10 goes from a fairly benign hole to a feroucious hole with a wind from the north.
I've seen balls hit with spin into the wind, hit the green and back up into the water.

A strong wind from the east, west and south can also have a dramatic effect on the play of the hole and make it exponentially more difficult then on a calm day.

What most people don't realize is that the wind shrinks the greens in half, with most of the greens feeding balls into the surrounding bunkers, of which there are many.

Sitting directly on the Atlantic Ocean, calm days aren't common.

rgkeller,

I can differentiate chuckling from whining, and you were definitely whining.  Perhaps Seminole should put some ponds next to their greens so that you'd feel better about the architecture and the golf course.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

#10 is basically a pretty mundane little hole. What the whole thing revolves around is the water hazard left and covering much of the front and left of the green. That basically creates lots of intensity in certain situations and the hole's entire strategy revolves around it--somewhat on the drive and definitely on the approach. Without the water hazard on that hole it would be approximately twice as mundane as it is or more so. #10 is challenging sometimes but it's no great golf hole no matter how you slice it. Because of that water hazard along and it and front and left of the green, though, anyone can definitely stub their toe on that hole.

[ian]

Why is it so great?

From my perspective, I have always admired a course that gets everything possible out of a site. Some sites are so good, there is no way to know if the course is perfect. Cypress Point and Crystal Downs come to mind. Great courses on unbelievable sites. Other sites seem to be used as good as you can imagine. Pine Valley and Merion are great examples. Some courses begin on sites that are not poor, but lack the elements to be concidered great. Muirfield and Pinehurst are my two favourite examples. These are the sites where the architect shows how truly great they are by delivering an outstanding golf course by getting every last good hole out of the land with a great routing and design. This to me also describes Seminole. While Seminole is on the ocean, the setting can not compete with Cypress or many of the other great ocean side courses; but Seminole remains an architectural marvel. The routing is a standout, the course uses the terrain wonderfully to create many different approaches into varrying green sites. Where the course comes alive is with the wonderful greens and bunkers that make a player manufacture shots to keep the ball on the green. Throw in the constant wind, the ever changing directions of the holes and you have a wonderful test of shotmaking.

Seminole is great, add the clubhouse, and this is why it is special.

[Tyler Kearns]

Has much work been done to Seminole over the years? My recollection is that Dick Wilson renovated the bunkers, and then Brian Silva restored them, neither altering the shapes--it was more of a style issue. Is the routing the same?

Best regards,
Tyler Kearns

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()