Just how good (architecture wise) is Bay Hill ?

[Matt_Ward]

I've watched the golf this week from Orlando and seeing what Tiger is doing simply astounds me -- if such a word can ever apply to the world's #1 player. I just hope Ernie can hang close enough to make a go at the big man by late Sunday afternoon.

I've played Bay Hill a few times and I agree in much of what Tom Doak says about the course in his book "Confidential Guide."

Yes, they've grown the rough up to put a premimum on driving and I think that's fine given what the pros did last week at the Honda Classic. Far too often the pros get too comfortable and should be pushed to grind a bit.

I see Bay Hill as being long, difficult in key spots, however, certainly not imaginative in its design pattern. You do have the factor of H20 in selected spots (most notably the 18th -- with its wonderful wall of rocks guarding the green  ), but the layout is simply drab and minus the connection to AP and the annual visit of the Tour the course would simply be just another flat, long and utterly drab Florida layout.

Is such an assessment too harsh from those who've played the course?

[Matt Kardash]

I have never played this course, but from seeing it every year on TV i can safely say that i would never want to play it. How many forced carries into greens are there? When Roger Maltbie was doing the fly-bys, all i kept hearing was "...and yet another carry over water".

Sure this course is tough, and brutal(17th on thursday was a joke, 5% of the players hit the green!!!!!!), but just compare it to next weeks event at TPC and you can appreciate the difference in a well-designed brutally hard course and a poorly designed brutal course. AT Bay Hill the greens are usually hard as rock, but you either can't bounce it in becuase of water or because the gap between the bunkers is less than 10 feet.

I think I hate this place.

[A_Clay_Man]

I've never played it but just from the posts above I am shocked that it stirs such emotion as to hate.

From my perspective, Arnie is really trying to make this as close to, or even harder, than a major. Certainly the wellington(?) cabin bit is emulating another southern swing venue.

As for the course, the only Dick Wilson design I've had plenty of experience on is Dubbs dread, and the narrowness of green openings is a motiff he utilizes which I assume is what raised the question about Flynn being the father of the aerial game.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

I've never played Bay Hill, but have a feeling similiar to Matt Kardash. Bay Hill doesn't come across well on television. Nothing stands out to make you want to play it. No charm whatsoever. I'd probably like to see #18, but that is about it.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

I am by no means a great fan of the course, but I do not hate it.

Tough to believe there is really much Wilson left here, as Palmer seems to have made changes every year.

The one point of disagreement is that it is a flat site. It is not exactly hilly, but there is certainly more movement in the site than most Florida courses. 2, 3, 5, 11, 16 and 17 are all downhill. With 4, 7, 8, 9 14 and 18 being uphill. I always thought the land was what gave the course relative interest.

From a challenge standpoint, it certainly has all the characteristics needed, however it does lack charm.

I think I like about 6 holes, which has always being my problem with Bay Hill. Too many holes like the 15th for my tastes.

[ChipOat]

Played Bay Hill 6-7 times.  Gets my vote as one of the most underrated in the U.S.A.  The opening hole's a bit tough for my taste but so's Winged Foot West.

Several outstanding holes IMO (#'s 6, 13 and 18)

A couple of ordinary holes , to be sure (#'s 2, 10 and 15) but we're not talking Top 10 here.

I'd play it every day with no problem.

Matt Ward:

Bay Hill FLAT??  I'll bet it's got at least as much elevation change as Baltusrol Lower - maybe even more on the front 9.  Are we talking about the same course?

[TEPaul]

I spent a little less than a week at Bay Hill some years ago and I don't have much idea how much that Wilson course has changed over the years but it did seem to me a very characteristic Dick Wilson Florida course. Like most of Dick Wilson's later work it's a typical 1960s aerial course in the style of that particular era which certainly wasn't one of the great eras of golf architecture although in a way it was quite distinctive in the direction it was going.

The Florida courses of Wilson and RTJ have always seemed similar to me in many ways. Architecture with those two was  starting to really stretch things out distance-wise bigtime and frankly to the better golfers back then that was a lot of the indication of quality.

Don't forget in the era of the 1960s the rankings were based on difficulty not quality (the first rankings were called the 200 TOUGHEST courses--and eventually that morphed into the 100 BEST and such). But what constituted high course ratings and toughness? Distance did to the tune of about 90%!

So that's the general feeling one gets from southern Wilson courses of that era in my opinion---particularly tee to green. Most of those type courses are the flanking bunker variety on the drive, and, face it, at Bay Hill if you hit your drives all day long right down the middle and long you'll be just fine. (#6 & #11 sort of look like it would be best to hug one side but believe me it really doesn't matter that much--distance-wise it would matter on #6 but #11 is virtually meaningless). So how much tee shot interest is there in architecture like that?

The greens of Dick Wilson are another matter altogether though and Bay Hill (like Pine Tree) is an excellent example of that! They really are the aerial era variety although interestingly there does appear to be smaller areas of ground game possiblilities--but in my years of playing Wilson courses I've never seen a good player try to use those ground game aspects of those design---they just don't function very well and again appear more stylistic than anything else.

So for that reason I believe the green-end and approach shot architecture of Wilson really is a sort of a combination of the on-set of the aerial game with vestiges of ground game architecture that isn't very useful. As such it's sort of fascinating in an architectural evolutionary sense.
 
But again the greens of Wilson are interesting. Primarily their interest and demand is all in the high variety of the shapes of the greens in combination with occasionally interesting contours to match and make for some pretty interesting nuancy strategic possibilities but really all of the aerial variety. In combination with those varied green shapes he threw a lot of meaning into them with the dimension of those shapes in various areas like shallowness (lack of depth in the corners etc). Good examples would be greens like #16, 17, 18 (and a few on the front nine I can't remember that well, perhaps #2!).

The 1960s Wilson courses I know are largely the same this way. One might say the approach shots can have a ton of sucker pins and semi-sucker pins. Many of his greens to the approach shots of even really good players are sort of what Nick Price said the other day---a good player should look at the greens as a red areas and a green area.

So in that I suppose there's some architectural and even strategic interest in the approach shot architecture of Wilson. A course like Bay Hill and Pine Tree are really designed primarily for the very good player who is very skilled with an aerial shot inventory of maybe curving the ball, hitting higher softer shots and always erring on the fat side of the pin. The short side of these kinds of green shapes and dimensions is generally well bunkered or protected by water. I don't know how interesting this type of thing is but it is architecture that does require good aerial shots and some thought as to stay semi conservative on approaching--basically exactly the way Tiger is playing and has for the last three years there.

So that's Bay Hill and Wilson in the 1960s in the south to me. A certain kind of architecture--very much transitioning into aerial golf architecture that was coming on bigtime at that time with little vestiges of the old ground game architecture that was more stylistic and fairly non-functional.

I can't imagine that courses like these would be that interesting to play for the lesser level of player. The potential options for a lesser levels are sort of pat and boring--come up short--chip over things etc.

I don't know Dick Wilson's inventory that well but the little I do know I would say that his northern architecture with increased topography is much better and much more interesting. And I would also say his earlier courses--those in the 1950s as opposed to the 1960s was much more interesting.

I think a course like Meadowbrook is far more interesting and enduring to a much larger variety of players than a course like Bay Hill, for instance.

And some of the other northern courses like Deepdale, Bidermann, NCR and even Radnor Valley are some of the most interesting of anything he did compared to his southern courses. Anyone can see those earlier courses are more interesting because Wilson had not yet gotten so far into aerial architecture in the 1950s.

[A_Clay_Man]

Thanx Tom, A wonderful unbiased acknowledgement of one of the twists and turn in the history of the evolution of the designers game.

Dubbs dread has shots that fit every descroption. My brain hurts too much to count but the number of greens completley surrounded by bunkers is definitley high, but there is some ebb and flow variety.

I never knew about the 200 toughest, how and when did the mindset of putting emphasis on difficulty come about? Golden agers? earlier? Was it a marketing ploy? Just asking, cause theres no such thing as a stupid question.

[ChipOat]

Tom Paul:

Meadow Brook may be a touch better than Bay Hill but that's no knock on BH - MB is a darn good golf course built on a better piece of property.

Good greens, plenty of elevation changes, 4 or 5 really fine holes - what's not to like?  A couple of flat holes (#'s 1 and 9) but this IS Florida we're talking about.

I think BH is as least as good as Deepdale IMO.

[ian]

The course is a very "good" golf course. It will never be a great course and Palmer's bunkers definately do nothing for me. They are the typical low faced trap rake aemoba bunkers typical to a lot of 70's work I'd rather forget. Wilson's routing is quite good. He created a rolling course that features a series of up and downhill holes. The strategies are clear from the tee and alternate routes are available to the timid. The course has a lot of heroic shots and the greens are almost always best approached from the air. Nothing wrong with that, other than the club becomes a little one dimentional. I'm a bump and run guy (my English roots are showing), but I only hit pitching wedges all around the greens. Greens are gentle contoured and the bunkers are mid depth. It really represents Palmers playability ideal that he and Ed Seay have been building for the last 20 years.

If you haven't played it, go play it, I was glad I did. You'll enjoy the day, make some good scores, and lose a few balls in the water. Fun all the same, priceless if you actually meet Palmer there.

[Matt_Ward]

chipoat:

Underrated in the nation? Surely you jest -- right? I might consider it's underrated for Florida but given the fact that the Sunshine State has so few "memorable" courses what does that say?

Look, Bay Hill may not be dead flat in all areas but let's not get carried away and make it out to be location in the Black Hills.

Regarding Baltusrol, I see the course having a bit more roll than you believe -- plus, while I respect Baltusrol I'm not a big fan of the layout either.

I don't doubt that Bay Hill can be tough. Heck, if you grew 6-inch rough on most courses you get a very similar type outcome. The reality is that architecture in Florida is limited because you either accept the site you've been dealt ( in many cases it's boring city with water pinching in on the holes many times) or you monkey around with it with all the bulldozer and shapers you can find to "create" something. If you do the later you'll often be accused of creating an artificial design.

If you ask me about hills in Florida you can only seriously talk about places such as Innisbrook / Copperhead, Black Diamond, The Ravines in Middleburg -- even Jupiter Hills (more so because of the utter uniqueness of where it's located just off Highway A1A.

I just believe Bay Hill gets a pass many times because of it's relationship with Arnie and holding an annual PGA Tour stop. I don't see the course being near the qualitiy work you get with other Dick Wilson courses -- namely NCR in Dayton, or if you need a Florida apples-to-apples comparison -- how about Pine Tree?

What amazes me is that many people who advocate the integration of the air and ground games look at Bay Hill and say otherwise. The course is about aerial period. If you don't come in a mile high in the air and land softly in all situations  you have little opportunity for long term success. Creativity is not at the top of the vocabulary I would use in describing Bay Hill.

Bay Hill also profits having Tiger Woods show up each and every year and once again re-establish to all those wannabees that he is the KING of golf.

[ChipOat]

Matt Ward:

Yes, I do mean one of the most underrated in the whole US of A.

I agree the ground game is pretty much irrelevant there but, again, I'm not nominating it for Top 10.

I happen to enjoy BH more than Pine Tree (which I've only played once) and about as much as NCR, which I played once many years ago.

BH may get a pass from the press regarding AP's changes to Dick Wilson's original design.  I'm not familiar with them but have heard that leaving well enough alone would have been a good idea.

I don't consider it a flat course at all.  It might be behind Meadow Brook but it's right up there w/Deepdale (both of which I know well) and I would gladly play it every day.  

[Matt_Ward]

chipoat:

If you look at your last statement it sums up things quite well about the standing of Bay Hill. Meadow Brook and Deepdale are both fine clubs -- are they top 100 in the USA? No, in my opinion. If you think Bay Hill is at the level of top 100 I'd like understand that but cannot for the reasons I've already stated.

The course gets a free ride because of Arnie and because you have Tiger showing up each spring and bagging another victory. Heck, Tiger would love to play courses like Bay Hill every week because they factor in only one element -- the boring rendition of the long and high shot pattern. The course has been "doctored" over the years and the elements of Dick Wilson are slowly being eliminated. I really do love the natural "rock wall" fronting the 18th green!

I don't doubt the course is tough. Like I said if you grow hay for rough on many Sunshine State courses and obviously keep the H20 formula in play on a number of holes you're bound to see a few high scores.

If you want imaginative routing and clever design you can see that at places such as Innisbrook / Copperhead, Black Diamond, World Woods / Pine Barrens and Ocean Hammock. As has been pointed out to me (correctly I might add in specific instances  ) many times on GCA -- a course can be tough but is it great? Bay Hill, in my book, may deserve attention for the former but not for the later.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chipoat,

Now you really have me confused.

You would play Deepdale everyday, and enjoy it ?

I like Dick Wilson, but the number of doglegs, and severity of the greens makes your affinity for playing it every day a question of the current state of your mental faculties  

It is a wonderful setting, but playing it every day

Do you want to reconsider your statement, or
should I call you when your head clears ?  

[Steve_L.]

Florida has a number of terrific golf courses, despite limited elevation change and encroachment by wetlands...  

Bay Hill is first and foremost as subdivision golf course complete with several road crossings, developed in an era which delivered golf in a manner not ordinarily found today...  For those who have been to Scottsdale - I would compare the setting to Orange Tree in Northeast Phoenix/Scottsdale translated to Florida...  The Lodge and Facitilites are architecturally dated, but still comfortable - less impressive than I had expected before my first trip there...

Beyond the setting, the Palmer group has continued to tweek the course beyond much of its original character.  It's fun to play - and VERY difficult...  Bunkers are very deep, greens are treacherous (and are not holding well), and super fast for the tournament.  The course benefits in reputation by its connection with Arnold Palmer - which isn't all bad...  There are several holes (including 8 and 17) which are super hard, even with today's players and technology.

I'd say it's not great and isn't a design marvel, but does seem to identify the best player in golf, at least the past 4 years...!

[ChipOat]

Pat Mucci:

"It" refers to Bay Hill so either I wasn't clear enough or you were only skimming my post.

However, it happens I used to be privileged (spell?) to play Deepdale most every weekend for over 10 years.  It's a pleasure to play except for a couple of very severe greens.

So I consider my head quite clear, thank you.

Matt Ward:

Meadow Brook not Top 100?  Would you get a consensus on that?

I think both MB and BH are better than that.  Not Top 20 but easy Top 100 IMO.

[noonan]

I have played NCR South 40 times or so in my life.

Playing that 6900 yard monster every day will make you want to quit golfing.

My 5 handicap chop action is lucky to hit 85 from the tips.

NCR has alot of elevation change.

The greens require an ariel attack ........beginning from the mound that fronts the 440 yard #1.

Tee shots must be placed carefully in the correct side of the fairway or a unlevel lie will await you.

Any approach shot placed above a pin will result in much work to avoid a 3 putt.


NCR is a beautiful course and routing.

A HIGHLY skilled golfer can beat the course up.

Normal players have difficulty playing NCR on a daily basis.

Jerry

[Doug Sobieski]

I thought I might provide some insight into the actual Dick Wilson aspect of Bay Hill (of which I can confidently say that there is absolutely none remaining).

First of all, the routing of the golf course was actually inherited by Wilson. If my recollection is correct, RTJ was initially tabbed for the project and had a routing in place.

Secondly, there are many who believe that there is a Joe Burbeck-type controversy regarding who was truly responsible for the design. Over the years, there was a woman who would regularly refer to her father as the actual initial designer of the golf course (I can't recall his name today, but could find out with a couple phone calls). He may have overseen the project for Wilson, but nevertheless she and others in her family indicated that her father was truly responsible for much of the design. Take that for what it's worth.

As far as anything Wilson that remains, keep in mind that PCDC fully renovated the course in '79 and '89, made some additional major changes in the '90's, and fully regrassed all of the greens two summers ago, including the recontouring of many. To give an idea of how drastic some changes to the original product were, #18 was at one time a short par five, with the green sited above the bunkers behind the current green, with a relatively steep slope down to the pond. Since the routing wasn't even Wilson's, I would say there is nothing of his left.

Regarding the course being overrated, wouldn't it need to be ranked by someone today to be overrated? Yes, many use the connection to Mr. Palmer to give it undue praise, but it is what it is. A long, difficult golf course, with several interesting holes, a bit more change in elevation than most of Florida, and a history that includes many wonderful tournaments. It can't help it that it's built in a 40 year old residential community. Many of the changes over the years have been to keep current with the technology of today.

As far as the aerial nature of the golf course, that's 100% correct. However, does Muirfield Village get a "pass" on that topic because of the JWN connection. MV has one less forced carry than BH, but MV has one more hole with water in play for the good player. I'm not saying that they are in the same category, which of course they are not; however, as far as very highly ranked golf courses, MV puts a very similar premium on the aerial game but that doesn't cause many to question it. Personally, I feel that if it weren't for JWN and the tournament, the course would definitely not be where it is in the various rankings today. It is a great golf course, but it does get a boost because of those factors.

Regards,

Doug

[John_Conley]

Matt Ward:

FWIW, people in the area LOVE Bay Hill and many consider it the best in Orlando.

Doug Sobieski:

What do you know anyway?

I usually say that Bay Hill would never be held in high regard if the housing it winds through were low-end, Palmer hadn't settled there, and course conditions weren't top notch.

As for difficulty, it isn't very hard compared to a lot of stuff in Florida.  It plays long from the back tees, but what course won't?  You can stray pretty wide and only have rough to contend with on most holes.  (I assume you'd aim AWAY from the water, which usually borders fairways and seldom is directly in play.)

Doug's conspiracy theory was documented a few years ago in the Orlando Sentinel's tournament preview where they reached a conclusion that nobody really knows who to credit the design to - RT Jones, Dick Wilson, Joe Lee, Arnold Palmer, etc...

[Doug Sobieski]

John:

I hope you've had the chance to play it from the middle tees. It is actually a lot of fun from there. There are a lot of decisions to be made off the tee, and it's a lot of fun playing challenging shots to holes like 3, 8, 11, 17, and 18 with much shorter clubs in your hand. Plus, there is plenty of room to drive the ball, which to a guy like me is a big plus!!!

In the Shootout every day there, my favorite way to play the course was always alternating tees (odds from the back tees, evens from the middle tees). All of the par fives are even numbered, and you play two par threes from the up tees!!! It's really a blast.

I haven't seen the new greens in person yet, but I'll be there next week to give you my two cents on the changes.

Sobe

[John_Conley]

Doug:

I've played it twice.  One of those rounds was only 9 on the Championship course because I played the parking lot to make it 18.  That was my point.  It is not a hard layout.  It can be set up tough with length and rough, just like any other course.

[ChipOat]

Doug Sobieski:

I believe Matt Ward speaks most passionately and eloquently for those who believe Bay Hill is overrated/insufficiently criticized.  One should never discount his opinions on these matters even if one does not totally share them.

I'm evidently one of the few voices that sides with the "underrated" camp.  Not Top 20 - just deserving of more respect (higher ranking?) than it has historically enjoyed.  Every new Pac/Bandon/Sand Hills/Friar's Head pushes our older courses like BH a notch further down the list, to be sure.

Just clarifying.

[TEPaul]

Doug Sobieski:

Good job on reporting some of the architectural evolution of Bay Hill. Interesting stuff. The fact that the golf course is or was originally designed as primarily an aerial course doesn't really bother me that much. All of us should realize that a ton of courses starting sometime after WW2 were designed that way. Why not? Aerial golf was coming on strong with the equipment and everything was beginning to get irrigated--so to go aerial in design seems in retrospect sort of a natural thing to do. I don't see that as automatically making that architecture bad. I do think it's different though, that's for sure. I don't think basically aerial reliant architecture could ever be quite so interesting as the more multi-optional courses of pre-WW2 with their alternative ground game architecture but again so what? All of it just goes into the interesting melting pot known as the "evolution of golf architecture in 20th century America".

[TEPaul]

Also, I played down there for a week straight one time quite a few years ago. A bunch of us went there that week. Some of them we're pretty good players too. I was playing well back then but I've never been long--short really but very straight. We played the course everyday from the tips and it was in immaculate shape. But those greens--their shapes, the way they're bunkered and protected makes most of the course on approaching an aerial reliant golf course and real hard to score on because of that. If one likes to play bunker shots and greenside recovery shots all day as Faxon did yesterday (unbelievably well all week actually) then that's sort of what you have to do at Bay Hill if you want to score well.

Some may like architecture like that some may not. Personally, I like the more combined ground game alternate style--it just accomodates everybody better and makes playing golf more fun to me--more optional, more interesting. There's a lot of approach shots in golf that a design like Bay Hill takes away from you--if you don't like to play bunker and recovery shots all day that is!

[TEPaul]

Since no one has done it and so as not to start a separate thread on a performance and a non-architectural subject I thought it'd be appropriate to mention on this Bay Hill thread the historic and more than slightly amazing performance of Tiger Woods yesterday.

I do realize that many, and many on here want to see more interesting and tighter more competitive tournaments than that one was but personally, I'm very glad to be alive to see someone perform on the level Tiger Woods is.

He's won in almost every conceivable way a golfer could but yesterday he pulled off another kind of win if you ask me. Yesterday may have been his first at applying the adage of "be careful of the sick golfer". What he did yesterday is just another notch in the on-going astonishing career of this man.

I've seen a lot of tournament golf in my time but this guy is getting close to putting a few cracks in some of the eternal mysteries and enigmas of golf itself---something no one before him has done in my book.

I don't see his competition as folding, being intimidated exactly and whimping out as some on here have said. This fellow is simply in another dimension that no one else is, can be or ever was!

I love to see tight and exciting competition as much as the next guy but I also really like to see someone, in any walk of life who can actually take what they do to a level no one has ever seen before or almost ever imagined.

Bay Hill played tough and -8 was probably pretty representative of some pretty competitive golf at the top level. But -19 this week on that course on Woods's part is another dimension!