News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Eric_Dorsey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Why Colonial is great, and could be even better...
« on: January 12, 2004, 04:11:49 PM »
Colonial is a great track no doubt, and will always be on the top-100 list in US.  IMO, it needs an upgrade.  I know Keith Foster came in during 1999 after the tourney and re-furbished it, and did a marvelous job - the greens are fabulous now.  But the design wasn't changed at all.  Here's why I say this:

#18 is a total joke now to the pros and most good golfers.  Colonial has great closing holes with 12-17 being strong (although #12 & #14, though good, do resemble each other quite a bit) and with good variety.  #18 needs to give the pros a kick in the arss with a few more yards and snugging the water up to or more around the front of the green.  I think there's a few yards to move the tee's back, I'm not positive though.

#7 needs to be re-designed to it's old glory - before the flood project ruined #7 & #8 (one of the best par-3's in the US I have read BTW).  The tee here can be moved back also a few yards.  PLUS, the channel coming off the Trinity River is right up next to the green on it's left.  This would make a great green site snugging the green up to the creek, while keeping the same green shape and contours as they are adequate IMO.

#8 is a strong par-3, but could be lengthened.  I believe there has been talk of putting a championship tee out on a man-made peninsula on the Trinity.  This would be great, if such a thing could be pulled off.  Core of Engineers might not allow this though.

#13 could be much more dramatic also.  I could take on a Augusta National #12 aura with some improvements.  The water isn't a factor here at all.  I'm not sure here, but I know this hole, while it's a good par-3, could be GREAT.


Colonial is sadly left off of everybody's 'top-blah, blah, blah' lists.  It's a shame too, because the strategy is so abundant @ CCC.  After all, how can all the accolades the pros give it be wrong??  They see all the best courses, year after year.

dorse
« Last Edit: January 12, 2004, 04:15:14 PM by dorse72 »

Matt_Ward

Re:Why Colonial is great, and could be even better...
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2004, 05:11:25 PM »
dorse72:

Colonial is likely one of the most overrated golf courses in the country to be nationally rated and the issue stems DIRECTLY from the amount of air time it has received over the years because of the Invitational PGA Tour stop. The fanfare attached to Hogan's success there and all the hoopla when Annika played this past year has provided a "boost" to the course when in actuality the architecture is really lite weight stuff when you expose the course to a national perspective.

I don't doubt Colonial is a very good layout -- for Texas. When you make the leap to nationwide status that's another story in itself. I'll concede for the sake of argument the fanfare attached to the three-hole stretch near the Trinity but the rest of the course is simply middle-of-the-road stuff in terms of having the kind outstanding architecture merits needed to merit a top 100 position IMHO.

Dallas National is simply eons beyond what you find at Colonial. If you have not played it then I would urge you to see / play it.

P.S. When you say the pros reaffirm Colonial I can understand that after one plays such scintilating designs as Torrey Pines, TPC Scottsdale, The Hope rotation of courses, the abysmal Florida string of courses (save for TPC / Stadium). Compared to that slop Colonial is indeed impressive.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Why Colonial is great, and could be even better...
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2004, 05:59:35 PM »
dorse:  Half of you is right on and the other half being facetious.  I just can't tell which is which.

If Colonial is one of the great courses in America, then you, an amateur, wouldn't be able to suggest five things to improve it.

Or perhaps you don't really think it's that good, and you're pulling our leg by pointing out obvious deficiencies.

Which is it?  Take a clearer stand, so the boys here will know which side needs to be shot down.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why Colonial is great, and could be even better...
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2004, 06:27:35 PM »
Tom Doak,

Of course, but you "pros" could point to at least a dozen deficiencies at Pine Valley, Shinny, Sand Hills, and maybe, but only maybe, Pacific Dunes.  Please!  ;)

I get a kick out of the various constituencies in the golf business.  The archies don't think that anyone adds much value to design unless they have degrees in landscape architecture, training in agronomy, and hands-on experience with the dirt.  Some would add playing ability to this list.  The construction contractors think that the archies are vastly overrated hand shakers and self-aborbed pretty boys.  The superintendents blame both for maintenance problems.  The club professionals can't stand the members because they are rude and demanding, and often don't much care about the superintendents because they aren't immediately responsive to their demands.  The one constant is that they all seem to have varying degrees of disdain for their customer, the golfer.

Re: Colonial, it is one of the best in TX, a state not known for its fabulous golf courses.  The club has one of the largest maintenance budgets anywhere.  It serves a huge membership very well, and despite recurrent problems with its bent greens, it has a 10+ year waiting list.  Its major limitations are that it lacks room to expand, the topography is very unexciting, and its location on the river bottom coupled with the large membership makes growing grass difficult.  It is also one of the most family and customer oriented clubs that I've had to pleasure to be invited to.  From my standpoint, it is a course that I enjoy playing, but haven't done so for several years because it is just not worth to me the $100+ to do so.  It does allow walkers, and it has a caddie program.  Cart golf does prevail, which, in my opinion, is largely uncontrolled and contributes to the problems with conditioning, specially in the winter.  On the plus side, a round in under four hours is nearly a guarantee.  Even the old guys don't tolerate slow players, including members like Mark Brooks.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why Colonial is great, and could be even better...
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2004, 06:30:03 PM »
Matt,

More overrated than Harbour Town and Bobby Jones's course near central in ATL (Eastgate?)?  I think not.

Eric_Dorsey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why Colonial is great, and could be even better...
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2004, 02:53:43 AM »
dorse:  Half of you is right on and the other half being facetious.  I just can't tell which is which.

If Colonial is one of the great courses in America, then you, an amateur, wouldn't be able to suggest five things to improve it.

Or perhaps you don't really think it's that good, and you're pulling our leg by pointing out obvious deficiencies.

Which is it?  Take a clearer stand, so the boys here will know which side needs to be shot down.

Actually,  my stance is right where I said it was.

Colonial is a great course, but could be even greater.  I'm not sure what being an amateur has to do with anything??  I don't see Greg Norman chiming in here or Jack Nicklaus or Palmer??  And unless some local club pros are in this forum AND designing golf courses, which I certainly haven't heard of them, then being an amateur has nothing do with anything.  Hell, we're all amateurs.  Amateur arm-chair architects.  

Just because your a famous, well known designer, on his way to being one of the best, which it looks like now - does that mean you can come here and throw your weight around and take jabs like that like Holyfield vs. 'Glass-eye Joe' ??  

I know Colonial like the back of my hand.  I also played college golf and play to a 4 handicap - I know golf.  Just because I'm an amateur doesn't mean anything here does it??  Unless I totally missed your intent on that one - I think I'm in the right here.

Can't Augusta National be improved?? can't Cypress Point - God Forgive Me - be improved somehow.  Not that anyone would dare to it - it probably could right??  #18 possibly put out on the bridge like Mackenzie originally intended??  

Colonial IS one the top courses in the country - easily top-50 as the rankings have always showed.  I am an amateur, and I just did suggest 5 things to improve CCC.  Whether or not a pro as yourself would approve that's debatable.  But that's what this forum is for right??  CCC has it's share of deficiencies, but so do all the other great courses, save maybe a handful.

I totally agree with fellow Texan Lou Duran's comment about Harbour Town.  Harbour Town has some great holes, but for it to over take CCC as best non-major course on the tour, save Riviera  - no way.  Harbour Town is great and unique, but can seem like a total 'JAIL' of trees sometimes.  CCC, while it has it's share of 'chutes' and greens nestled in among groves of pecans, it has the right amount of 'open-ness' to it too.

Just my take on it.  Whether this thread goes anywhere or not, I just want everyone to remember what a great course it is and how it always gets overlooked.  And it's probably because of the tourney there every year.  It's never mentioned in the same breath as Southern Hills.  While an awesome track, SH is not 5 or 6 majors better than CCC.  
« Last Edit: January 13, 2004, 02:57:24 AM by dorse72 »

Mike_Sweeney

Re:Why Colonial is great, and could be even better...
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2004, 08:15:18 AM »
Tom,

When did you turn Pro? You better call The American Society of Golf Course Architects because they don't have you listed ;).

Come on Tom, this is Golf Club Atlas. Are we not allowed to express opinions about Presidential candidates because we are not Professional Politicians. If we take your logic then only Professional Golfers/Architects like Sergio Garcia should be allowed to build/renovate PGA tour courses. Your contributions are valued here but that was a silly statement.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2004, 08:19:42 AM by Mike_Sweeney »

Tom_Ross

Re:Why Colonial is great, and could be even better...
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2004, 08:31:41 AM »
dorse72,

Hearing someone make a statement like, "I know golf" is almost as convincing as someone that says, "trust me".  So let's take a look at what you know based on the 5 improvements you see for CCC

1 - you state that you know CCC "like the back of my hand", but yet you're not sure if there is additional space to add more length to the 18th.

2 - 3 of your 5 suggestions involve adding length, but none of them give any detail about what additional strategy/penalty/difficulty/angle-of-play this is adding other than length.  Any Joe SixPack that got cut from his high-school golf team and now has a 580cc driver can say "add more length".

3 - Your other two suggestions are to bring water closer to the green.  Again, you add no level of detail about what this does to improve the hole.  For example, are you looking to recontour the 18th fairway to also slope towards the water so the shot must be played above their feet and further bring the chance of water into play since it's now "hugging" the greenside, or do you just want to see water near the green?  Are you suggesting that the greenside be recontoured so that shots that come up short could roll back into the water?  Should that new 18th tee now sit at an agle such that the tee-shot may play through the fairway and have to come over the water or end up on the right mounds?

So before you go off on another rank on Mr.Doak or any other architect, why don't you spend a little bit of time on the details and reasoning of your improvements so that you don't look like the 90% of the uninformed public that thinks length and water make for improved golf courses.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Why Colonial is great, and could be even better...
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2004, 09:36:12 AM »
If I took a careful look at the courses I'd rank among the top fifty in the world, I don't believe there are any of them where I would suggest five changes to the course.  And, if I were trying to make the case for a different course in the top 50, I certainly wouldn't start by citing things that ought to be different on it.

That was my point.  That, and I've never heard of dorse before yesterday, so I didn't realize what a good player he is.

Matt_Ward

Re:Why Colonial is great, and could be even better...
« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2004, 10:02:04 AM »
Lou:

With all due respect -- just because something is among the best in Texas how does one then make the big time leap to say it belongs in the top 100 or even higher?

Second, just because a course has a 10-year wait to join doesn't mean squat to me. There are plenty of places in the USA with a big time wait -- many times people want to go there because the social aspects are just as crucial, if not more so, than the golf component.

Lou -- I can't see the argument that Harbour Town is BEHIND Colonial. If you can make a case I'll all ears. Regarding East Lake I do agree it's not top 100 caliber either. Rees did a fine job, however, the course also lacks a number of details you routinely see with legitimate members of such an august grouping.

Tour events have the habit in elevating certain courses and it doesn't hurt to have a Hogan / Annika connection that I made at the outset. I don't doubt Colonial is a fine course and likely would be among the top 200 courses in the USA, but the playing field is a bit more competitive than many might think --just look at Dallas National and you can see the attributes Colonial lacks IMHO.

dorse:

I have to ask you this -- when you say Colonial is in your top 50 I have to ask how many o-t-h-e-r top courses have you played? For instance -- take the ratings by GD -- how many of the current top 100 have you played? It's possible that when people have small sampling sizes they MAY truly believe the courses they have played belong but when the sampling size increases it's possible, even likely, that courses originally picked might lose their position. Just something to keep in mind.

One last thing -- and this is to the wider audience -- opinions are fine provided you can make a case through some sort of examples, comparisons / contrasts and other such rigorous examinations. When people simply state -- "I think this / that" it loses a good deal of its firepower and becomes nothing more than a "shoot from the hip" approach.  I really don't learn that much from that limited approach. ;)

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why Colonial is great, and could be even better...
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2004, 11:09:10 AM »
Matt,

First of all, you don't have to pull punches with me.  My opinions are just that, and since I put them out there for public consumption, they are free game.

I understand that you believe Colonial to be vastly overrated.  My comment was that it is one of the best in a state not known for its great courses.  Having said that, I too think that it is overrated, though in my book it is a top 100, well down on the page.  And you and I know that from say 50 - 250, the relative differences are very small and most highly subjective.

Without going on a hole by hole comparison, Harbour Town to Colonial, I find that the latter has more variety, it is better bunkered, and requires a better short game to score well.  One way to play HT, specially on the long holes, is to hit short of the greens and chip up for par.  This is much harder to do at Colonial because of the deep, tight bunkers and higher profile greens

Both courses have small greens, but Colonial, for the most part, has more width and possible angles of approach.  BTW, I've played Colonial 20+ times, and Harbour Town 5+.  So if I am full of it, it is due to a lack of sohphisticated discernment, not experience.

I do believe that Dallas National is several notches above Colonial, and I look forward to see where it debuts on the various lists.

Dorse,

I like Southern Oaks a lot.  It is another excellent daily-fee course in the south Dallas/Tarrant counties area where, unfortunately, the demographics just won't support so many of them.  It is my understanding that it was for sale last year for around $4MM, or about 50 cents on the dollar.  I do like the old style pushed-up greens and small, free-flowing, deep bunkers.  From the back tees, it is very difficult, particularly the closing four or file hole stretch.  Why it cost so much to build, nobody really knows.  It does have some bad soil, and the terrain is rather boring in areas.

I don't know that much about what "Brooksie" (as they used to call him at Colonial) is doing.  He did some work at Walnut Creek CC in Mansfield which is not held in very high regard.  He managed the old Carswell AFB course in Fort Worth for a time, and I believe he did some changes there.  That course has been totally redone by John Colligan, a former Brauer associate, and is now Hawks Creek.  It is my understanding that the Colonial CC membership liked it so much that the club tried to buy it from the redevelopment authority.


Tom Doak,

My comments to you were a little toungue-in-cheek.  But I've been around enough some of your colleagues/peers to gather that opinions of "lay people" do not seem to carry much weight.  I am just not aware of that many industries where what the consumer thinks is summarily dismissed.  I play with an architect friend 10 times a year, and all I have to do is suggest how he might have done something differently to get a rise out of him.  Unfortunately, he plays better mad, so I normally wait till the 19th hole to give it to him.  Come to think of it, he hasn't called me lately.

Tom Ross,

Apparently you haven't been around gca.com long.  Tom Doak is "in"; a poster boy of this site.  Everybody loves his stuff, and since he gives us a bit of his very valuable time, he is somewhat sheltered.  If I was Tom Doak, I would gladly accept criticism, deserved and otherwise, from people who get around the country playing a variety of golf courses.  Hopefully, his head is not so pumped up with such threads as "in praise of Tom Doak", that he doesn't appreciate that some good ideas may reside outside of his own nogin.

If you really want to see aggressive posts (some would say offensive and defammatory), please research the archives under Fazio, Nicklaus, Rees Jones, ASGCA, Pascuzzo (sp), and several others.  Not that these guys know anything, or really care what we think.            

Matt_Ward

Re:Why Colonial is great, and could be even better...
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2004, 11:51:41 AM »
Lou:

A few comments ...

You see Colonial as a top 100 course but I can't speak to your sampling size to make such an inclusion. From my perspective -- it's not in the rarified air of great courses for a host of reasons I stated and others that you included at the outset.

I also take a different viewpoint regarding courses that you say fall between 50-250. There is a major reason why courses don't make say the ultimate elite -- the top 50. Those courses are simply bullet proof in so many ways -- they are the mega elite in American golf. I even believe that the top 10 in American golf is really about 15 courses -- more or less.
I also see differences for courses that crack the second fifty (those within the top 100) when compared to courses that are just outside the distinction -- like Colonial. I don't see the leveling off until you get somewhere between 125-250 -- that's when the margins become a bit more blurred as to significant differences. Colonial would be in that front section of such courses IMHO.

Regarding Harbour Town -- the ultimate aspect of differences IMHO lies with the routing and pacing of holes. At Harbour Town you have a much more sophisticated balancing act of holes. The pacing is also well done because there is never a routine / shot pattern to fall back upon. Just look at the closing stretch of holes from #13 all the way to the end. Truly unique stuff indeed.

I don't doubt Colonial is quite good given the flat nature of the site but how many of the holes are really memorable? At Harbour Town you have quite a few and I believe an argument can be made that the combo of par-3's is truly unqiue and testing. The short par-4's are also stellar with the 9th and 13th leading the way. Ditto the combo par-5's you face.

I concede the width argument and I believe a gentle tweaking of a few trees at Harbour would only add to the course. Still, I would assess Harbour Town as a bonfide top 100 course.

Eric_Dorsey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why Colonial is great, and could be even better...
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2004, 03:05:15 PM »
dorse72,

So before you go off on another rank on Mr.Doak or any other architect, why don't you spend a little bit of time on the details and reasoning of your improvements so that you don't look like the 90% of the uninformed public that thinks length and water make for improved golf courses.


Mr. Ross,
Not sure what you mean by 'rank' ??  Is that a 'hip' term your trying to use?  And if you read Tom's post, he ranked on me first I do believe.  And why would you say 'any other architect'??  That has nothing to do with it.

My post was simply to bring attention to a great course.  I honestly could care less to go into as much detail as you want, I am no architect.  To an 'amateur', I thought I brought up interesting observations about CCC.  I agree length and water don't make a great course.  But there is no doubt, that a hole like #18 in particular @ CCC is lacking where the course crying out for a difficult finish.  The hole is a push-over now, much like #18 @ Doral.  Technology has caused this and there's no going back either.  So either it's a 9-iron for the likes of Corey Pavin, and a flip SW for Mickelson, or they try and do something.  I do know how much room is behind the 18th BTW, I - not being an architect, am not sure how close to the trees and the 14th fw CCC could take the #18 tee back.  I'm sure relocating the green is out of the question, but I'm not sure.

The tone of this forum seems rather hostile and arguementative.  Is this what the moderators of GCA want this to be?  I have read my initial topic-starter and saw no hostile intent there whatso-ever.  If this is the norm to get 'jumped' on when you make a post, than no wonder there are so many 'outsiders' looking in.  

Mr. Ward, I agree with your observations, and not one to post often, I will take into consideration - I 'preciate it!  as we say here in the Lone Star State.  I still think CCC could put HT to the canvas.  :D  

Lou's observations about playing CCC @ HT were right on.  But he left out 1 very important thing.  At HT, you can get way with hitting a 3-iron off of every tee.  In NO WAY, could you do this @ CCC and go for par, which verifies it's status as the superior course - it forces you to hit the driver, and work it none-the-less.


Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back