Just how good (architecture wise) is Bay Hill ?

[George Pazin]

I agree totally with your comments regarding Tiger, Tom P. - I feel lucky to be witnessing this. Although yesterday I only watched the highlights, since watching Tiger with a big lead going into Sunday is generally not teribly exciting. Impressive, though.

3 cheers for Ty Tryon - tied for 10th. I hope he comes on & secures his card.

I always wonder how tourneys like yesterday affect the young bucks like Scott, Tryon, Howell, Rose, etc. Do they get discouraged at all by Tiger's otherworldliness?

Matt W -

Please don't read anything sinister into this, but I wonder if you might compare & contrast the test offered by Bay Hill versus the test offered by the Black. I haven't played either, so feel free to share as many (or as few) thoughts as you'd like.

[Matt_Ward]

chipoat:

Meadow Brook is a fine course -- is it top 100 you ask? I don't see it although the course was at one ten a member of the GD listing.

Let's keep in mind this -- Meadow Brook would be hard pressed to crack the Island's top ten! I don't include it that high and if you notice the thread on LI's top courses you won't see Meadow Brook mentioned in that lifty company either.

Just realize that a course not achieving top 100 consideration doesn't mean the course is bad -- it's just NOT THAT GOOD!

Getting back to the Bay Hill debate ...

John Conley:

Glad to know the locals love Bay Hill -- the issue was about Bay Hill's standing in comparison to the great courses from around America.

chipoat:

I don't doubt that Bay Hill is tough -- like I said before grow hay just off any fairway and you can be sure the boys will be struggling. Ditto the hard greens -- make'm impossible to hold even with the balls they're hitting today and you'll see balls run over. Add in a few other "natural" touches like the rock wall in front of the 18th hole and waaaa-laaaaa you have instant demanding course!

I don't define greatness in a course by its measure of difficulty -- although I place more emphasis on it than a number of people who post on GCA, who are forever waxing on about the quirk or some other esoteric aspect.

Bay Hill has AP -- Bay Hill has a Tour stop -- Bay Hill gets national television exposure. Bay Hill is usually demanding -- except for Tiger! The course, in my opinion, offers little else and I agree with Tom Doak, that, on the whole, the State of Florida is the king of the flat-earth-society and minus a few layouts of distinction, that I previously mentioned and just a few others, the formula followed in many of the designs is quite predictable.

[Steve_L.]

Florida can't much help being flat earth society...  And Bay Hill is hillier than 80% of the golf courses in the state...  

Bay Hill has treacherous greens, deep bunkers, and water - rough or no rough its a strong course...  The greens ARE fast, its not a weakness, part of it's character.  I've heard the same said about Augusta Ntl. (not to use ANGC and BH in the same sentence on purpose).  

I don't call Bay Hill great - but I call it tough and fun to play.  It's connection with Arnold Palmer adds an intangible...  I guess I accept it for what it is...

Speaking of flat earth - isn't the TOC on a pretty flat site..?

[Matt_Ward]

Steve L:

Can you help me to understand if you are equating the lack of playing options at Bay Hill (the dominance of the aerial game) to the many strategic options you find at TOC? Yes, TOC is flat, but what's lacking in terms of the multiple ways you can play the course?

My point about Florida is that in order to create "strategy" at many Florida courses the interplay of water and sand can become an over-kill type theme. Is Bay Hill tough? Sure -- I concede that -- except for Tiger. But what does that have to do with architectural quality?

I'd be most curious to see how those knowledgeable about Sunshine State golf stack up the best courses there. Does Bay Hill crack the top five? The top ten?

Steve, you say "not to use ANGC" in a sentence but let's be clear -- you did mention them together for some linkage purpose.

One last thing -- "tough and fun" is how you describe Bay Hill. In order to crack a top 100 nationwide listing I would automatically think such courses are "great" because they do offer so much more than just courses that are "tough and fun." What do you think?

[Doug Sobieski]

chipoat:

I can't figure out where I was discounting what Matt said. You'll see that I agreed with just about everythiing he mentioned!!! I was just providing some facts and offering an opinion on another aerially oriented golf course for discussion purposes, to see if the association to a great player is any cause for the praise it receives.

Regards,

Sobe

[TEPaul]

Is the subject here really if Bay Hill deserves to be in the top 100 or higher on the top 100 if it is on there? To my way of thinking that's ridiculous. I think even I've seen well over 100 courses in America that deserve to be considered superior to Bay Hill.

[Doug Sobieski]

TEPaul:

I wholeheartedly agree. I think that if someone were to assert that it still belonged on a Top 100 list somewhere, they are being swayed too much by Mr. Palmer. But it is still a very good golf course when compared to courses in Florida.

Matt:

I think it may hang on in the latter stages of the top 10 in the state depending upon who you ask. There have been too many courses with greater interest built in the last 10 years.

[ChipOat]

Doug Sobieski:

I did not mean to infer that you were discounting Matt Ward's opinion although, having re-read my post, I can see how that might be a reasonable interpretation of my verbiage.

I DID mean to clarify that it was I who was NOT discounting Matt Ward's opinion on Bay Hill although I do not share it.

Sorry for the confusion.

Matt Ward:

I have never played Bay Hill when there was any deep rough to speak of.  I just like the routing, the greens, the par 5's in particular.

Perhaps I would like it even better if there was any Dick Wilson left in it.

As to Meadow Brook, I happen to think it belongs in any LI Top 10.  For instance, although it clearly lacks the charm, ambience, history and overall appeal of Garden City Golf Club, I believe that, hole-for-hole, MB is as good as GCGC.

[TEPaul]

What in the world could Arnold Palmer have to do with whether or not Bay Hill is considered a great course architecturally? Arnold is certainly a famous golfer and all and all deserves to be considered that. But as far as architecture is concerned Arnold Palmer after many decades in and around the business could not be considered by any serious student of architecture to be a particularly significant or positive influence on really top notch architecture. Anybody who seriously thinks that is prone to falling for the most obvious in American "name" marketing!

[Doug Sobieski]

chipoat:

Thanks for the clarification. I actually think you and I could compare some very similar notes on our opinion of Bay Hill. Since you enjoy the course, I'm sure I could relay some fun stories about it (like in 1992 when Kenny Knox hit his second to #17 from the middle of #16 fairway!!!) Personally, I spent most of my career there and it is the most important place to me in my life (including having my wedding reception there!!). That's why I always need to take a step back when comparing it to other courses since I am clearly biased toward the place.

Personally, I wish there was a bit more variety in the length of the par 3's (which is one of the biggest weaknesses of the course to me). Hitting four 3-irons is not my idea of fun (except at Bandon)!! I am one of few people that thinks #2 is the best par three on the course. I think that is due to the ground game (the only place on the course?) where from 225 yards the play is to bounce it in off the slope on the right.

I was driving in the car today thinking about the par fives. They have nice variety. #12 unreachable by most, #16 reachable by all, and #6 and #4 in the middle. #6 to me creates more anxiety than just about any hole I've ever played (largely because I hook the ball!). From a technology perspective, #12 is a good gauge of how far the ball is going today. In 1990, it was remarkable if someone went for that green in two. Today it is commonplace.

What I think holds the course back (aside from variety in the par threes) is the lack of variety on the second shots to the par fours. Of course this relates to the constant demand of being able to hit high long irons (or in the case of Loren Roberts in 1994, fairway woods, as he hit woods to the last three greens in the final round). Plus, there are only two par fours under 400 yards, and there is no real strategy from the tee.

Briefly, a quick story for those that know the course. In 1994 during the state amateur, a college player that was in the top 10 at the time drove it in the left rough on #9. Hitting 7-iron for his second, he caught a flier, and as he looked on in horror, his ball hit the cart path behind the green, bounced up on the roof of the lodge, and went over onto the closely mown lawn on the other side near the pool. It was in bounds. He sized up the shot by looking through the breezeway between the buildings, and promptly hit sand wedge over the building (about 70 yards) onto the fringe about 25 feet from the hole. Unfortunately the putt lipped out

Overall, I think it made sense when it fell off all of the ranking list in the 1990's. There just aren't enough "wow" holes in my opinion to warrant it anymore.

Regards,

Doug