Old Barnwell v The Tree Farm

[Tom_Doak]

In the GOLF DIGEST Best New post, Sam Morrow complained that there is too much complaining about the results of polls, and not enough discussion of the architecture, and I agree totally.  So, here's one of two posts I will make to try and get a discussion of the architecture started.


I can't include the GD Best New Private Course winner, The Covey, in this discussion because I haven't seen it, and I'm not sure how many people will have seen it and the others here.  But surely lots of people have seen Old Barnwell and The Tree Farm on the same trip over the past year, even though they were a little further apart than I expected!


I attempted to play both of them in one day, with two associates, on the day before we went up to Pinehurst for The Renaissance Cup.  It was a long day . . . neither course is an easy walk, and I was certainly tired by the end of it, and didn't play very well the last 18, which might have influenced my opinion of Old Barnwell a little.


For those who think I might be biased between the two, think again.  While I did do the routing for The Tree Farm, I made only one visit during the construction, and the set-up was for Zac Blair and Kye Goalby to make the design decisions, not me.  So you could just as easily argue that I would be biased AGAINST that course because it wasn't going to be what I envisioned.  Meanwhile, I'd only seen a routing map of Old Barnwell and tried my best not to look at photos of it until I could go see for myself, but the designers are two of my associates, and I love those guys and their work.  So, call it even.  If I'm honest, I expected more of Old Barnwell [based on the buzz I'd been hearing] than I did of Tree Farm.


So, I was surprised that I liked them pretty evenly.


For The Tree Farm, I liked that Zac [who is a very straight hitter] kept more trees than I would have, so that a decent portion of the difficulty of the course is based on driving straight and tee-to-green play.  I thought that the topography offered chances to open things up and see across from hole 5 to hole 3, for example, but I was glad they didn't do as much of that as other modern courses do.


I thought that the greens contouring was interesting without being too severe.  There were a couple of recovery shots around the greens that were extremely hard, but I shouldn't have missed in those spots.  The bunkers were really deep, often head-high, which I'm not a big fan of, but it makes you want to avoid them.


I loved the ambience of the starting par-3 and the finishing drivable par-4, which was totally Zac's idea.  It's a lovely spot to sit and watch people in the morning or evening light.


My favorite holes were 7, 9, 10, 11, and 18.  I thought 7 was a great drivable hole:  the little bunker 30 yards short is diabolical, and the green has enough movement to shed an indifferent wedge shot, as it should.  Full disclosure:  I had supervised the shaping of a different green off to the right on my one visit, which would have made it much harder to drive the green, and kudos to Zac for abandoning that one.


My least favorite hole was 17, which tells you I missed the green short, and that was that.  I was also not a big fan of 13, which was one of the holes Zac fell in love with early in the planning process . . . it's a cool idea for a hole, but it should have just stayed on top of the plateau instead of going down below, IMHO.




On to Old Barnwell.  The ambience around the clubhouse is much different, but still good . . . much broader spaces.  The clubhouse is yet to be finished but it looks like it will be beautiful.


The first hole was one of my favorite holes.  If you go for it in two you have to carry it all the way there; the approach is offset to the left, but the closer you get to the green the more awkward the angle for the pitch.  Many have commented on the berm at the start of the fairway . . . it's cool but it's just window dressing, really.


There are three "drivable" [for somebody] par-4 holes, starting with the 2nd, and for my tastes that's at least one too many.  This is a good hole but probably my third choice of the three.


I was not exactly surprised how difficult the greens were, because Brian Schneider has a real talent for building great [but severe] greens . . . but I was surprised that in all the praise I'd heard for the course going in, I'd not heard anyone mention that the greens are very difficult, in terms of getting up and down when you miss them.  [I wasn't alone in this: one of my associates, who's a very good player, really struggled around the greens and complained often about how difficult they are.] 


Most of the greens start at the high tie-in point and rely on fill to soften the slopes into pinnable areas -- completely the opposite of my approach to building greens, but I'm fine with that.  I thought that the greens contours themselves were fine, but that the recovery shots were quite difficult and pretty repetitive.  It seemed I was often chipping or pitching up to a green that wasn't very receptive, and if I went too far it was off the other side and down for a similar recovery shot.  More to the point:  there are only a few holes where you can miss to a particular side of the green and leave yourself a reasonable up and down.  For most of them, at least three of the four sides of the green are a "bad" side.


My favorite holes were 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, 14, and 18.  I picked the first hole for my annual eclectic 18 and have already explained why.  I enjoyed the little corner of the 3rd green and 4th hole [which apparently they had to buy from a neighbor].  I wrong-sided myself at the 9th and would enjoy another crack at it, and I hit one of my best shots of last year at the 14th, after driving wide right into a bunker and having to hit a 50-yard bunker shot over a lot more sand.


My least favorite holes were 8 and 15.


In the end, I would probably rate both courses a 7 on the Doak Scale.  They're both a bit different than the rest of what's being built right now, and they're both worthy of a return visit.  If The Covey is really better than the two of them, it must be very good.


But what did you think

[Michael Chadwick]

Are you trying to bring back the Dismal Red vs Ballyneal era???


I have thoughts, but will get to them later.

[Tom_Doak]

Are you trying to bring back the Dismal Red vs Ballyneal era???

I have thoughts, but will get to them later.

That's my other post! 

[Sam Morrow]

Thanks Tom, this is good stuff, I haven't seen either yet but they both look really cool and good to see them both soon.

[Tom_Doak]

I got a text from Zac Blair about starting this thread but he did say thanks.

[Ben Sims]

There’s only a couple places where the greenside recovery shots are as potentially exacting as OB. One of those places is Royal Dornoch (another is early Old Macdonald but I digress). Actually I find the greenside recovery at Dornoch overall to be extremely similar to Old Barnwell.

[Ben Sims]

Most of the greens start at the high tie-in point and rely on fill to soften the slopes into pinnable areas -- completely the opposite of my approach to building greens, but I'm fine with that.

Tom,

I promise I’m not trying to dominate the conversation. There’s just a lot of meat on the bone and that’s not been the case around here of late. I’m as guilty as anyone for that.

This part above leapt off the screen when I read it. You say this isn’t how you build greens but both architects have worked for you a great deal. Can you add to this?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Most of the greens start at the high tie-in point and rely on fill to soften the slopes into pinnable areas -- completely the opposite of my approach to building greens, but I'm fine with that.

Tom,

I promise I’m not trying to dominate the conversation. There’s just a lot of meat on the bone and that’s not been the case around here of late. I’m as guilty as anyone for that.

This part above leapt off the screen when I read it. You say this isn’t how you build greens but both architects have worked for you a great deal. Can you add to this?

Ben, before I got down to your post, I had already decided to pull this comment out to start a new thread about green building: I figured that if enough architects responded, it could be a real eye opener (and a rare new subject) for most on here… I’ll wait now to see if it naturally develops.


Suffice to say that I tend more to Tom’s approach, looking to cut from tie-in points where possible rather than fill. I think I recall Tom saying Bill Coore works more with fill also.

[Tom_Doak]

There’s only a couple places where the greenside recovery shots are as potentially exacting as OB. One of those places is Royal Dornoch (another is early Old Macdonald but I digress). Actually I find the greenside recovery at Dornoch overall to be extremely similar to Old Barnwell.

Ben:


Your comment about the difficulty of recovery shots leaped off the page to me, as well.  But what surprised me was that no one had said anything like that in reviews of the course I had seen prior to that.


P.S.  Ballybunion has got to be in that class, too.

[Jimmy Muratt]

For those who think I might be biased between the two, think again.  While I did do the routing for The Tree Farm, I made only one visit during the construction, and the set-up was for Zac Blair and Kye Goalby to make the design decisions, not me.  So you could just as easily argue that I would be biased AGAINST that course because it wasn't going to be what I envisioned. 

Tom,


Interesting comment above as this has been one of the lingering questions in my head as the Tree Farm project progressed.   What would Tom have done differently if this was his project from start-to-finish?   Although different, it kind of brings me back to questions that I had during the Sebonack and Old Macdonald projects where concessions had to be made.  As with any collaboration, there are often good things that come out of it but it's rarely what any of the individuals envisioned originally.  So, with your role at the Tree Farm of just doing the routing and the course ultimately being  "not being what you envisioned", I'm wondering if it's actually beneficial to have different folks involved throughout the process.   In my opinion, you and Bill Coore are the best routers of a golf course in the world so I certainly understand Zac's desire to have you involved.   It would just be difficult to then just tell you, "thanks, we've got it from here"... 


I was hoping you could expand on what you envisioned for the course as you worked on the routing and highlight a few of the things that you would have done differently.


You mentioned some of the clearing and detail work along with holes like 13 and 17 which you weren't fond of.  Staying up on the left ridge on 13 makes sense, the vast waste area on the right seems a bit overkill and I imagine was expensive to clear.   I'm guessing Zac wanted to draw your eye to the green and tempt you to hug the right side but I think the hole would be just as visually stimulating with a few trees on the right where you could still catch a peak.   


I do really like the 17th hole but I have a soft spot for somewhat penal short par 3s.   I enjoy having a short iron in hand and knowing that I need to hit a good shot or will pay the price.  I think there is plenty of room there to still play safe if desired, just can't miss short...

[Sean_A]

There’s only a couple places where the greenside recovery shots are as potentially exacting as OB. One of those places is Royal Dornoch (another is early Old Macdonald but I digress). Actually I find the greenside recovery at Dornoch overall to be extremely similar to Old Barnwell.

Ben:


Your comment about the difficulty of recovery shots leaped off the page to me, as well.  But what surprised me was that no one had said anything like that in reviews of the course I had seen prior to that.

P.S.  Ballybunion has got to be in that class, too.

Tom

I didn’t find recoveries at Old Barnwell that difficult. Maybe I was lucky? Although there are terrible places to be around some greens.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Most of the greens start at the high tie-in point and rely on fill to soften the slopes into pinnable areas -- completely the opposite of my approach to building greens, but I'm fine with that.

This part above leapt off the screen when I read it. You say this isn’t how you build greens but both architects have worked for you a great deal. Can you add to this?

Ben:


I can, but if I explain it all, there's not going to be much discussion like Ally is hoping for, so . . . ?


I will say that some of it is due to the nature of the property.  Old Barnwell has a lot of big slopes and a lot of green sites where there aren't natural contours for a green already there.  If you're placing fill, that's not a problem, though it has consequences as I've touched on.  But if you're looking for natural green sites, like I am, you might conclude that it wasn't as good a site for that as The Tree Farm.  [I can't say for sure because I never tried to route anything for Old Barnwell.]


I'm sure some of it is a conscious choice by Brian and Blake to try to do something different than my style, which they did, but maybe they had to.


The majority of architects build the majority of their greens by bringing a little pad of fill to the place they want it, the same way that most building architects site their houses.  Fill pads solve most of the drainage issues so you can concentrate on the contours for putting and the nature of the approach shot.  But they also make the green sites feel repetitive, because every green sits up and the recovery shots are generally up onto the table, or up and out of a bunker.


I try to find green sites where the surface drainage is kind of already there so I don't need fill.  It helps a lot if it's sandy and if you have the right kind of topography, and if you have those things, you have a much bigger palette of options for green types.  #10 at The Tree Farm is a great example:  it's tucked behind that little ridge, just past where the surface drainage goes from heading back toward the tee to falling away to the back right of the green, so you can build a punchbowl-ish green there without having too much water drain across the green.  Didn't need any fill to build that one.  #9, up on top of a dome, is the opposite, but you didn't need any fill to build that one, either.  One of the best compliments I've ever had on my routing work was when Zac said that when he did his routings he would walk up to the green and try to figure out what sort of green to build there, but when he walked my routing he could see that there was an idea for a green already half there.


So, really, your question is more about routing than it is about building greens.

[Tom_Doak]

For those who think I might be biased between the two, think again.  While I did do the routing for The Tree Farm, I made only one visit during the construction, and the set-up was for Zac Blair and Kye Goalby to make the design decisions, not me.  So you could just as easily argue that I would be biased AGAINST that course because it wasn't going to be what I envisioned. 

Tom,


Interesting comment above as this has been one of the lingering questions in my head as the Tree Farm project progressed.   What would Tom have done differently if this was his project from start-to-finish?   Although different, it kind of brings me back to questions that I had during the Sebonack and Old Macdonald projects where concessions had to be made.  As with any collaboration, there are often good things that come out of it but it's rarely what any of the individuals envisioned originally.  So, with your role at the Tree Farm of just doing the routing and the course ultimately being  "not being what you envisioned", I'm wondering if it's actually beneficial to have different folks involved throughout the process.   In my opinion, you and Bill Coore are the best routers of a golf course in the world so I certainly understand Zac's desire to have you involved.   It would just be difficult to then just tell you, "thanks, we've got it from here"... 

I was hoping you could expand on what you envisioned for the course as you worked on the routing and highlight a few of the things that you would have done differently.

Jimmy:


I'm not going to touch the latter question, because that's unfair to the other guys, and it presupposes that I thought a lot about exactly how we would shape particular greens, which I didn't do.  I usually leave those details to working on site with my associates.  That's a collaborative process, which I've given a good head start by choosing where to build the green.  [And occasionally, they convince me to move one:  for example, Brian Schneider got me to move the 5th green at Ballyneal well to the right, and make the 6th tee shot blind, instead of the green being where today's 6th tee is and the next tee being up on top of the dune in back.]


So, to the first part of your question, yes, I think it's better to have different people involved through the process.  I think the greens at Pinehurst #10 turned out so good and so varied because I had Eric, Brian Schneider, Brian Slawnik, Blake, Angela, Parker Anderson, Joe Wandro, and myself each shaping a couple of them.  I've had more than one friend with no design experience think to themselves that they would be great architects if they had a team like that behind them.  [And yes, they might, but it baffles me why they think they would be better at placing the green and doing the editing than any one of those associates would be, or why those associates would volunteer to make a newbie look good, instead of advancing their own careers.  I'm just lucky I've treated them well, and that I keep finding better places to work than they can find for themselves.]


Collaboration is great as long as everyone is on the same team, which isn't that easy to pull off.  It works a lot better if you've been part of the same team for years and you have respect for all of the other players . . . but if you don't have that, maybe the approach we took at The Tree Farm wasn't so bad, as opposed to me wrestling with Zac to try and get my way, and leaving Kye to third chair, when he's used to being second chair or first.  [That was why Sebonack didn't work well, IMO.]


For me, The Tree Farm was kind of an experiment, to see whether I'd be happy just doing the part that I did, and letting the rest of the project evolve on its own from there, or whether I am too much of a control freak for that.  [If I'm not, then I could make a VERY good living just routing golf courses without spending nearly as much time in transit.]  There were points along the way where I thought the experiment had failed, but now that the course is complete, I'm pretty happy with where they got to, and with my contribution to that. 


Of course, I believe it would have been better if I'd been there with my whole crew, but we didn't have time to do that, partly because Brian was building Old Barnwell.  And I think it should be mentioned here that Brian and Blake did have Eric and Brian Slawnik on site a little to shape some greens for them, because they know better than anyone how much those guys bring to the table.

[Blake Conant]

Tom, thanks for starting the thread and appreciate the feedback. I’ll be curious to hear others thoughts and plan not to engage much after this post.


I was hoping you’d discuss your thoughts on the routing or strategy a bit more, but you seem to largely focus on the greens. Would love to hear your thoughts on the former if you care to share. A couple things to clarify re: the greens.


Im trying to think of the greens where we imported dirt to build a pad and I think there are 2: 14 and 7. 16 was a big cut/fill exercise shoving a bunch down from 17 tee and behind 5 green, but we only brought in fill for the approach. We used fill for the fairways on 6/7 to get them to drain, but 6 was built on a soft little high. 7 was also on a soft elevated ridge, but we brought in a lift of fill to match the earthwork. Most greens were simply cut/fill balances.


1 was pushed up from dirt generated by the swale cutting across, but it basically ties in at grade on the back
2 is native grade and cut down on either side
3 is slightly above native grade and we made the big cut to the right of the green and cut slightly left of the green. We cut a couple feet behind the green to build the backboard. We did a lot of work here to get this area to drain.
4 was a cut fill balance
5 is cut fill balance
6 was push up
7 was fill
8 was benched into the hill
9 was push up
10 is at grade
11 was cut fill balance
12 was cut fill balance
13 is at grade. We cut more on the right so balls would settle out rather than roll into the woods.
14 is fill
15 is push up
16 was a downhill shove
17 was benched into a slope
18 is at grade


The idea that Brian and I suddenly started building greens a drastically different way than we’ve built them before is a bit silly, but I can see how someone would come to that conclusion. We had a mix of greensites sitting on top of broad highs/ridges (2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 15, 18), pitched slopes that were between 1-6% (1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 14) and pitched slopes greater than 6% (8, 12, 16, 17). More often than not we cut around the green and then filled the pad where we needed to hold it up. If we had leftover fill we did something weird with it.


Tom, you played an incredibly difficult set up the day we played. The first 6 holes were the hardest pin on each green. I think we played the vast majority of the holes with the toughest pin. It’s a good reminder for everyone that unless you’re actively looking for other pin positions and how you’d play them, your impression of the course may differ greatly from someone else. I think OB plays very different on a day to day basis depending on the pin, one of its strengths.


As for recovery shots around the greens, i disagree that the vast majority only have one safe place to miss. 7 or so fit that description. Again, I do think the first 6 holes having the hardest pins influenced Tom’s opinion here, but I’ve also heard enough people say they quickly learned where to miss their second go around and it varies depending on the pin location. I’m confident that the set isn’t overly penal or repetitive.


Tom, hopefully you get a chance to play again, and hopefully with fresh legs.


One comparison I’ll make between the two courses that probably influenced a lot of bigger design decisions is this: Tree Farm spent a lot of time trying to slow water down and OB spent a lot of time trying to speed water up.

[Tom_Doak]

Hi Blake:


Thanks for chiming in.  And maybe my sense of proportion is wrong -- I've only seen Old Barnwell once.  But have you ever "pushed up" a green for me the way you built 6, 7, or 9 at OB?  That was the stretch that gave me the impression, combined with the naturally high green sites at 2 and 3.


Also, it's not me you should question about the difficulty of the recovery shots, it's Ben Sims, who has played it a lot more than I have.


It's hard for me to address the routing without ever really looking at a map of the course.  The crossover from 5 to 6 and 16 to 17 was the hardest part, and that worked fine; 17 was not my favorite hole but you had to get back up there somehow.  I did like the flow of it at the start, in particular, and the little loop-the-loop at 10-11-12 was interesting, don't see something like that often.


As to strategy, it's hard to analyze on a first pass around the course when I'm struggling to play well.  There were several holes [3, 8, 9, 10, 15] where my first instinct of where to hit the tee shot was just wrong, if that's what you were going for . . . some of that is that you can't see most of those greens from the tee, which is more common at Old Barnwell than normal.  [The same comment has been made about Pinehurst #10, and it's true, though I wasn't conscious of it when I did the routing . . . some of it has to do with the distance from the clubhouse to the crest of the hill at 1 & 3.]  But, all of the bunkering and how it affects strategy to different pins, it would take me a while to tackle all of that.

[Zac Blair]

For those who think I might be biased between the two, think again.  While I did do the routing for The Tree Farm, I made only one visit during the construction, and the set-up was for Zac Blair and Kye Goalby to make the design decisions, not me.  So you could just as easily argue that I would be biased AGAINST that course because it wasn't going to be what I envisioned. 

Tom,


Interesting comment above as this has been one of the lingering questions in my head as the Tree Farm project progressed.   What would Tom have done differently if this was his project from start-to-finish?   Although different, it kind of brings me back to questions that I had during the Sebonack and Old Macdonald projects where concessions had to be made.  As with any collaboration, there are often good things that come out of it but it's rarely what any of the individuals envisioned originally.  So, with your role at the Tree Farm of just doing the routing and the course ultimately being  "not being what you envisioned", I'm wondering if it's actually beneficial to have different folks involved throughout the process.   In my opinion, you and Bill Coore are the best routers of a golf course in the world so I certainly understand Zac's desire to have you involved.   It would just be difficult to then just tell you, "thanks, we've got it from here"... 


I was hoping you could expand on what you envisioned for the course as you worked on the routing and highlight a few of the things that you would have done differently.


You mentioned some of the clearing and detail work along with holes like 13 and 17 which you weren't fond of.  Staying up on the left ridge on 13 makes sense, the vast waste area on the right seems a bit overkill and I imagine was expensive to clear.   I'm guessing Zac wanted to draw your eye to the green and tempt you to hug the right side but I think the hole would be just as visually stimulating with a few trees on the right where you could still catch a peak.   


I do really like the 17th hole but I have a soft spot for somewhat penal short par 3s.   I enjoy having a short iron in hand and knowing that I need to hit a good shot or will pay the price.  I think there is plenty of room there to still play safe if desired, just can't miss short...

Jimmy I felt inclined to comment on a few things from this post ... 1) when this first was getting started I had some back and forth with Tom and he laid out a few options for how it could work. I am a little foggy at this point exactly what each was but generally the options were a) he could take a look at my routing and point out a few holes he felt were good and I could piece it together b) he could do the routing ... as he mentioned this was a somewhat new idea/experiment for him to see if just doing the routing for a client would be something that would work. so from my perspective there was never a "thanks, we've got it from here"moment. I felt like we all knew what Tom was being hired to do and I never went into thinking I could do a better job then he could after getting the routing.2) I'm not sure 13 could work without clearing the trees in the valley ... unless it would become a hole where you just hit A (landing area) to B (layup area) to C (green). 13 is virtually a 90 degree dogleg so in order to allow people (not just long long hitters that get it way up the landing area) to go for the green in two there needed to be a decent amount of clearing.

[Blake Conant]

Thanks Tom. I get that it’s easier to discuss Tree Farm’s routing as opposed to ours because, well, you did that one!


As to the greens, on 6 I quickly decked out a pad so we could see how it looked as the earthwork evolved, but Brian built the green. I imagine that was constructed similar to how you would have us do it. I do take your earlier point that you might’ve found fundamentally different places to put greens (and holes) and that affects how they play and how they’re built.


7 I don’t think I’ve ever built a green for you like that and I’m not sure I’ll build a green like that anytime soon! Largely a product of routing a hole through a valley that drains at less than 1%. I think it turned out well, but that was a lot of work that I think we’d much rather avoid in the future.


9 is one I spent a lot of time on and Brian’s advice was the same as yours: Lower it 12-18”. I liked it more up in the air, so I fiddled around on the green for a couple hours and might’ve shaved 4-6” off, but not the whole 18”. I think we both like how it plays now, but a foot lower would be a lot more forgiving.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, you played an incredibly difficult set up the day we played. The first 6 holes were the hardest pin on each green. I think we played the vast majority of the holes with the toughest pin.

Also . . . why did they do that?  They knew we were all coming, right?  They must have a very wrong impression of my golf game to think making the course as hard as possible will impress me! 

[Blake Conant]

Tom, you played an incredibly difficult set up the day we played. The first 6 holes were the hardest pin on each green. I think we played the vast majority of the holes with the toughest pin.

Also . . . why did they do that?  They knew we were all coming, right?  They must have a very wrong impression of my golf game to think making the course as hard as possible will impress me! 

Haha I texted our super about it after 6 and he laughed and basically asked what took me so long to complain! I was told they just had a string of events and a lot of play and it was time to even out the wear so the pins were in spots they don’t use as often. My ego was incredibly deflated once I learned our presence had absolutely zero effect on their decision making.

[Bill Crane]

Tom, you played an incredibly difficult set up the day we played. The first 6 holes were the hardest pin on each green. I think we played the vast majority of the holes with the toughest pin. It’s a good reminder for everyone that unless you’re actively looking for other pin positions and how you’d play them, your impression of the course may differ greatly from someone else. I think OB plays very different on a day to day basis depending on the pin, one of its strengths.

This comment by Blake really struck me.   
The experience of doing ratings the last few years supports my opinion that it is difficult to rate a course based on only one round.   
I played many rounds at Chechessee Creek over the last fourteen years and I believe it is under-rated since all the angles of every shot are so well thought out - an assessment one may not grasp in one round. Most folks just focus on the push up greens without fully comprehending the strategy.
However, having read the old and new Confidential Guides, I am convinced Tom Doak is one of the few people who can really comprehend the myriad details of a good course to give it an accurate rating.
Maybe even his perception may be affected by tough pin positions.   What does that say about the rest of us dilettants with our amateur interest in G C A ?

[Michael Morandi]

While what you say about Tom compared to most of us is true, shouldn’t raters be capable of imagining how a shot might be played to a different hole location and, assuming a group is not breathing down their neck neck from behind, hit a few chip shots from around the greens to these different locations? Tour pros do this all the time in their practice rounds.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,


I have been here at Golf Club Atlas since its inception and even before (Tommy Naccarato’s Traditional Golf.com), but I don’t think I have ever seen a thread like this.


One might say it is “next level” illustrating the difference between well traveled golf architecture junkies and professionals who actually work in the business.


So thanks especially to you and Blake and to Zac Blair as well.


I can’t help but wonder Ran’s impression of the thread.


Tim

[Tom_Doak]

I played many rounds at Chechessee Creek over the last fourteen years and I believe it is under-rated since all the angles of every shot are so well thought out - an assessment one may not grasp in one round. Most folks just focus on the push up greens without fully comprehending the strategy.
However, having read the old and new Confidential Guides, I am convinced Tom Doak is one of the few people who can really comprehend the myriad details of a good course to give it an accurate rating.
Maybe even his perception may be affected by tough pin positions.   What does that say about the rest of us dilettants with our amateur interest in G C A ?

Bill:


They did catch me on a bad day.  But I often gain more information from watching other people's shots than from watching my own, and I know that my playing partner was frustrated by how hard Old Barnwell was around the greens.  [I wasn't playing well enough to gripe about it; he was.]  I hadn't heard that in any review of the place before going there, so it came as a big surprise to me.


I've argued here recently that all of that SHOULD BE part of the rating process.  Asking everyone to judge the course based on "average conditions" if they did not play in average conditions, is asking them to discount their own experience.  If raters go to the course on random days [instead of all for one event], then in the aggregate they are seeing the course as it really is from day to day.  So if Old Barnwell's superintendent is going to run out of easier hole locations and have to throw all the hard ones at some group, that's part of how it gets rated, but he should probably check to see who's coming that day! 


Or maybe he should stop babying the other groups during the week and use 2-3 of those hard pins every day, so he doesn't have to use them all at once.


I feel like I'm dragging the course here, which is not my intent.  I gave it a 7, that's a pretty good rating on the Doak scale.  My commentary has been about the things I didn't expect, rather than the positives of the course, which have been very thoroughly talked about on other threads . . . but not here, so far, for some reason.  I wish there were more people participating and telling me why I'm wrong.

[/size][size=78%] [/size]

[Kyle Casella]

Tom,


I have been here at Golf Club Atlas since its inception and even before (Tommy Naccarato’s Traditional Golf.com), but I don’t think I have ever seen a thread like this.


One might say it is “next level” illustrating the difference between well traveled golf architecture junkies and professionals who actually work in the business.


So thanks especially to you and Blake and to Zac Blair as well.


I can’t help but wonder Ryan’s impression of the thread.


Tim

Tim- agreed. This is one of the best threads in a long time!


I also played both recently and really enjoyed both courses. I agree with Tom on the difficulty of the greens at Old Barnwell. I really liked the push up style greens at 6 & 7, as I thought it was nice variety. Fortunately I had a good ball striking day and hit a lot of greens, but there were some crazy putts out there!


Tom- I thought the comment on Zac leaving more trees than you would have at TF was interesting. I found the corridors to be quite wide, so I wondering what specifically you may have done differently in relation to trees.

[Tim Gallant]

What a great (and interesting) thread!
There’s already been so much written about both courses that even now, it feels tough to find something new to write, so most of my points will relate to Tom’s initial post.

Re: TF

• I think 6 is the best hole on the course, and surprised it wasn’t called out in the OP. I love the look of the drive with clear rewards for hugging the left, and a green to die for, just snuggled in that little pocket. I also have a soft spot for holes that offer the chance to play two different shot shapes (like Dornoch’s Foxy)
• I felt the greens had a great overall balance in terms of tilt vs. Sloped vs. raised. Shots around the green do feel quite varied
• I didn’t mind/notice the bunker depth as there wasn’t anything at TF that you don’t see on a seaside links course (see North Berwick’s Redan or bridal path bunkers). More bunkers should be like that in the States.
• I didn’t love the Redan. The tee was way left, which means you’re coming on the green straight-on, negating the rollout. The kicker was essentially a backstop, which isn’t quite as much fun. I would remove the left tee ground and shift the tee to where I believe the forward tees are (10 yards right).
• 16-18 are lovely - I disagree on 17. A short, original par-3. There’s plenty of room to miss long left (common for a right-y to pull it), and deep right. It’s true that short is death, but it’s only 150 yards.

Overall, the course is a wonderful addition to the golf world. A Doak 7 seems maybe a touch low? Maybe because you were involved (albeit only at the start), you’re being humble, but I’d have it as a Doak 8. A course that will continue to strengthen as the native areas continue to flourish. One question for Zac: why the new bunkers on 1?! I loved the ridge only, and it made it feel distinct from the others, and anything I’ve seen stateside.

Re: OB

• I’ll just get it out of the way that I LOVE OB.
• In a world where strategic golf reigns supreme, this feels like a 1 of 1 blend of heroic and strategic golf that thrills and invigorates.
• Does the course not get an extra bump for originality? Creativity? Uniqueness? I think it’s a wonderful blend of natural and unnatural. You’ll get something like 10 or 18 green, which just lays so nicely on the ground, and complement that with 14 or 9. But whether built or found, everything has a purpose.
• Agree on 1 - what a simple, yet vexing proposition.
• Love the green on 3 and especially that back portion. Have you seen a green built like that in the last 30 years? I’ve not.
• I kind of wish 6 green sat more on the ground. It’s there, but that little roll-off on the right did make me think it wasn’t a ‘found’ green. Could something have been built that just took the tilt ?
• 7 is another hole I’ve genuinely never seen another like it. I love how the fairway is wide from side to side, but each individual’s line of charm will be different, but will require precision nonetheless. The green would get my attention every time.
• 10 is a perfect green on the ground. Surprised there’s not more love for this hole. I also love how there’s trade-off here - not just in a classic risk reward sense. That there’s good and bad all over, and it’s up to the player to decide what they want to deal with
• Loved 12 and 14. Most have mentioned it, so won’t go into more detail

Maybe because I play at one of the more unique courses in the world, but I put a high premium on originality and uniqueness. I’ve not seen many holes like I saw at OB and I could play those greens all day every day. I’d have it as a Doak 9, but I appreciate I might be in the minority