[Tommy_Naccarato]

The reason why more routings aren't killed and they live on forever is because they are too expensive to kill. This is how Kyle Phillips keeps on getting work.

[Forrest Richardson]

A routing "too expensive" to kill is one dictated by site selection or other influences such as property shape, restrictions on land use or — notwithstanding — an investment in irrigation, drainage or other issues. Only the core layout across land of similar types can be re-routed with ease, but even so, it depends on what's beneath the course.

At Industry Hills I would submit that the routing is largely set by the landfill and topographic influences. As a routing Industry Hills is a tribute to the American ideal that "golf can be created anywhere." Which, by the way, I do not find totally at odds with good golf and good golf courses. To the contrary, I find it simply what the American approach often ends up to be.

[Matt_Ward]

Forrest:

The argument that Industry should get a "pass" on the lack of its golf pedigree (should I dare use the word) because it is such an engineering marvel in being located on a former garbage dump is really irrelevant IMHO.

This is the same argument people throw forward regarding Shadow Creek. In simple terms it goes like this -- look at what man was able to overcome ... even if the golf isn't thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat great or even good.

I am not schooled in anyway to determine if the existing layout can be modified given the land area the course(s) are located, but I would hope that there lies the possibility that a makeover could add what clearly is missing now.

[Forrest Richardson]

I'm not giving it a "pass", Matt. But the story behind the course is partially about its engineering. That is the story behind any art and science combination — of which a golf course qualifies nicely.

Industry Hills (The Ike) is a very good golf course in many respects. One of the best attrributes is that it probably cannot be duplicated. It's is unique among a sea of golf courses that are very much the same.

You may not like the design or the challenge there. You may long for something different or better, in your opinion. That's OK. I do agree, a transformation of the place would be very interesting indeed.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Forrest, Do you really actually expect any of us to believe the YOU think the Ike is a really good golf course?

(I'm trying to find a way to record the sound of my head hitting the table repeatedly or the sound uncontrolled laughter, and where I can link it here)

[Tommy_Naccarato]

And Oh yes, I hope it can NEVER be duplicated! The thought of it makes me want to go stick my head on a Funicular track and push the call button.

[Forrest Richardson]

You did put your head on the funicular track, but I was the one who pushed the call button!

The Ike is a good course — really good. I played there many times when I was around 14-16 years old, and probably a half dozen times more recently. My mother was obtaining her doctorate at the time I first played there — it became a good place to dump me.

The trees have become too overbearing. Many holes have the same look/feel, but I can easily recall many holes (6-7) of unique character. It is a wonderful layout which represents the best of technology in golf construction which marked an era when architects stopped at no roadblocks to bring golf to even the most difficult of sites.

You don't have to like it, Tommy. That's OK.

[Matt_Ward]

Forrest:

I'd like to know when you individually assess courses what percentage of engineering / building the facility is included in your overall findings? Second question -- if it is t-h-a-t critical then what about the quality of the holes that are produced?

It seems to me that the engineering aspect at Industry Hills is really the defining ingredient for you in mentioning how good the overall layout is.

I don't doubt for a moment the builidng / engineering aspect of any course but how does that work (or does it) in concert with the final disposition of the actual holes created?

Clearly, someone can do great things from a creation standpoint because of the inherent issues with a given site but if the totality of the holes created do not rise to an equal or greater level then how is it possible to say a superior golf course has been created?

I look at the work you did at The Hideout and let's say for argument sake the engineering needed was totally
significant -- my response would be to acknowledge that in any review, but ultimately the holes created would still take the front and center emphasis for me.

[Forrest Richardson]

Matt,

First of all, I don't "assess" courses — I "enjoy" them. I am not a rater, I'm a lover of golf.

I enjoy Industry Hills based on the total experience — the setting, which is smack in the middle of an industrial neighborhood is a nice surprise; the hilltop routing is exciting; the holes (as said previously: many, but not all) are interesting; and the story behind the place is wildly intriguing.

At all courses I take into account the setting; the routing; the variety/enjoyment of holes; and the story (or lore) behind the place.

To Answer your first question: I'm not that wild about the engineering, unless it is part of the story. That goes for any course. Had The Hideout had a grand engineering story — which it did by way of the radiation mitigation – this would possibly be part of the overall charm. At The Hideout, however, this story is quiet, I think it's the course which speaks for most who visit and play.

At Merion, for example, the story of the reclaimed quarry is a really neat aspect. At Bandon I'm fascinated by the story of how Mike Keiser acquired the property. At The Old Course I'm amazed at the integration of the course to the town — both in physical and emotional terms.

The holes created at any given course are absolutely the most important aspect, but they can be balanced by many other factors.

I have played some of the most charming golf of my life at insignificant country courses in the hinterland of England — I would take that experience any day over some of the "highly rated and regarded" courses on any number of lists. I have played golf on poorly conceived holes that just happen to flank the Atlantic Ocean — again: Great golf and a wonderful experience — it balanced out the awful design and, in my view, would be well worth it...and such places deserve credit. They may not be A+, but they are great in different aspects.

Just because a golf course could have been made better does not mean it should be thrown under the bus.

To come full circle — At Industry Hills I find a fascinating course that is partly made so by the story behind it. Not an A+, perhaps a B-. At another site it may have been a C-

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

With the extreme tree encroachment, maybe sometime in the future the opportunity to rectify the poor holes will occurr.  The time will come soon to clear out a few thousand trees--there will still be thousands remaining.  I hope that someone participating in this site will get the job!

[Forrest Richardson]

I agree. Tree thinning is essential there.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()