Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Eric Smith on October 27, 2010, 03:37:56 PM
-
I read this earlier: "Those of you sticking up for the work of Rees Jones, Arthur Hills, etc., need to wake up."
Call me Rip Van Winkle ;), but I have liked a couple of Hills' courses going on almost 20 years!
When the Arthur Hills Course at Palmetto Dunes opened on Hilton Head Island, it was completely different than most anything around. He put rumple in the fairways. He starts you off with a semi blind Dell-like green on the first hole. He designed a golf course with a ton of fun shots to be played throughout. A good set of par 3's. Sure, there are plenty of water hazards, but, c'mon, it's at the beach in SC. The two finishing holes are memorable with 18 being a reachable par 5 with a blind green.
The resort already had two popular courses on site. The original RTJ course and a more testing George and Tom Fazio course. I think Hills delivered a very good and different product for his clients with this one.
I'll play the Hills any chance I get when down there. Here are a few of someone else's pics of the golf course.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1239/547432803_59cf6a96be_b.jpg)
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1031/547326646_551b6719bf_b.jpg)
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1397/547302628_23381523f8_b.jpg)
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1040/547353199_20caca75cb_b.jpg)
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1425/547353039_0684aea402_b.jpg)
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1066/547280059_36185bf969_b.jpg)
from behind 18 green
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1071/547226581_6a4ed3de82_b.jpg)
Funny thing is his course down the road at Palmetto Hall may be even slightly better than this one...
Anyway, anyone else enjoy playing some of Hills' work? Which ones stand out to you as his best?
Cheers,
Eric
-
It's interesting: while he has no courses among my very favorite, Hills has designed a few in Michigan that I like quite a bit. Red Hawk in Tawas--not far from the Gailes--is truly a fun and interesting course, without any of the silly quirkiness that he's known for. I also like Shepherd's Hollow in Clarkston (nothwest of Detroit), which has some superb holes and a couple of silly ones.
-
Eric,
I hear Chicago Highlands may be his best work, although I haven't played enough of his courses to know if that's a 'world's tallest midget' statement or not. I've probably played 5-6 of his courses, three of which have been extremely disappointing (Bay Harbor and Stonewall Orchard and Bolingbrook, two publics in Chicago). Longaberger is probably up there in his upper echelon.
Jim
-
I used to love playing the Hills course when I worked at PD in the late 80's.
It was an innovative and interesting course with a lot of width in places,narrow in others.
Rees' Haig Point on Daufuskie was also a pro's favorite and a beautiful spot(although I wasn't enamored with the 20 hole thing)
who knew I'd spend 16 years working at two of his best courses
-
This is interesting to see as I'm almost done reading "Driving the Green: The Making of a Golf Course" by John Strawn. If you're interested in Hills and his work at all it's a neat look into his mindset and the way he works...both good and bad.
I've played a handful of Hills' designs and on each course I find that there are always quite a few interesting and fun holes, but then there are usually two or three holes that are just plain bad which outweigh the good. He builds alot of short drivable par-4's and usually has a very long, long, mid, and short par-3 set as well as prototypical risk reward par-5s. For every long hole there is a short hole, every dogleg left there is a right, etc... I think he designs with "balance" in mind.
I played three of his designs this year in the Chicago area, two public and one private. The first was Bollingbrook Golf Course which I think might be one of the worst designs I've ever played. Flat, long, wet, and boring with zero interest except for a couple short par-4's. The next was Stonewall Orchard which has some very good holes and is set in a neat area NW of Chicago with a property devoid of homes. The last was Chicago Highlands just west of the city which I did like and when it comes to Arthur Hills it should be considered the climax of his design career (firm, fast, a good set of greens with alot of movement...it's a fun course).
-
I used to love playing the Hills course when I worked at PD in the late 80's.
It was an innovative and interesting course with a lot of width in places,narrow in others.
Jeff, I didn't realize you had worked there. I was there in the early 90's. Clark Sinclair was the head pro (he hired me) and would you believe he STILL is?!
-
I used to love playing the Hills course when I worked at PD in the late 80's.
It was an innovative and interesting course with a lot of width in places,narrow in others.
Jeff, I didn't realize you had worked there. I was there in the early 90's. Clark Sinclair was the head pro (he hired me) and would you believe he STILL is?!
Yes Eric, i moved over to Long Cove in late 88 after a freak cart incident at PD.....
something about a cart rolling down the stairs of the Jones clubhouse..........3 times :o :o ;D ;D
Chip Pellerin was the DOG and seemingly bought my explanation ;D
and yes I remember Clark
-
Eric - Shaker Run north of Cincinnati is a Hills gem. Great variety of holes and challenge.
-
FWIW---At The Landings Club in Savannah GA there are six GC's...2 by Hills, 2 by Palmer (one of which has since redone by Tim Liddy)
one by Willard Byrd and one by Tom Fazio.
The two Hills offerings (Oakridge and Palmetto) are the most popular of the six...the former because it's the most player--friendly and forgiving, the latter because it is the most challenging.
-
Eric-I think a lot of the criticism of Arthur Hills' work stems from the fact that he has designed a boatload of golf courses and so few of them are remotely memorable. His body of work is a mile wide and an inch deep. Living in Art's home state (Ohio), I have played a fair share of his courses and he has done the Buckeye state no favors when it comes to his designs. There are a number of solid, serviceable golf courses in Tressel land but nothing that stands out (see the discussions of Longaberger on this board to get a taste of how he performed on a terrific site...the sentiment is mixed at best).
To me, the quality of his golf courses has often depended upon which design associate worked on them. Olde Stone in Kentucky is a very cool course with a lot of neat features. Newport National in Rhode Island is very enjoyable and well regarded. Drew Rogers was the Hills' associate who worked on both of them.
When I first went to Hilton Head in the late 1980's, we stayed at Palmetto Dunes. At that time, the Hills course was very much played up as the shining star in their three course galaxy. The last time I was in Hilton Head (a couple of summers ago), the Jones course (which had been redone) was promoted as the center of the Palmetto Dunes universe. I have played the Hills course twice and enjoyed it both times. What I recall is that it is almost a model for what a true resort course should be. It is relatively short. It has few fairway bunkers (probably due to the amount of water hazards on the course). It has a good mix of hard and easy holes so the casual golfer won't get too frustrated. If I remember correctly, I am not that big a fan of the 17th hole (my memory has it as a par four with a canal running down the left side with an approach shot over the hazard to a green pretty close to the water). I did enjoy some of the greensites but I think the rumpled nature of the fairways tapers off as you get beyond the first hole...but my memory could fail me on that account. I wouldn't decline to play there, but I think there are more interesting public options. If anything, that sort of sums up my attitude towards much of Hills' work: solid but not spectacular.
Thanks for posting the pictures. I have met Art Hills and he is a tremendously nice fellow. Send me an IM and I will tell you how I got him to say the "F" word.
-
I used to love playing the Hills course when I worked at PD in the late 80's.
It was an innovative and interesting course with a lot of width in places,narrow in others.
Jeff, I didn't realize you had worked there. I was there in the early 90's. Clark Sinclair was the head pro (he hired me) and would you believe he STILL is?!
Yes Eric, i moved over to Long Cove in late 88 after a freak cart incident at PD.....
something about a cart rolling down the stairs of the Jones clubhouse..........3 times :o :o ;D ;D
Chip Pellerin was the DOG and seemingly bought my explanation ;D
and yes I remember Clark
That's hilarious! We have a bit in common then. My first day on the job I had a major cart accident in front of the Jones clubhouse. A car pulled up to the bag drop and I took their bags out of the trunk. I loaded 2 bags on the back of a cart and placed 2 more on the front seat of the cart, like I had been trained to do earlier that morning. One of the bags on the seat slipped down and depressed the gas pedal....a long slow 5-7 seconds later the cart smashes into a brand new Lincoln Town Car. The Japanese foursome whose bags I had just unloaded stood there quietly in disbelief. As did I. Had a meeting later that afteroon with Clark and Chip, who was still the Director of Golf when I was there, and they spared me from dismissal. But I am forever known as Crash by my friends who were on staff with me back then.
-
Eric - Shaker Run north of Cincinnati is a Hills gem. Great variety of holes and challenge.
Personally I do not care for Shaker Run. It is not the worst course around, but I would never use the word 'gem'. It has a good local reputation, owing partly to its conditioning which I hear may have fallen off, and architecturally I don't think it's all that great. I will add a disclaimer to say that I have not played the course in quite awhile, but I was never that impressed.
In the area, I do like Weatherwax, which had to be one of his first designs. 36 holes, and only a couple that I don't care for. Quite a few could be improved by a simple adjustment or two, but overall I've always enjoyed playing there.
Pipestone, just south of Dayton, is not very enjoyable at all. There are two or three holes that could charitably be described as decent and far too many - #2, #3, #6, #9, #12, #18 - that are just plain poor. I do hear that the infamous weed field on #9 (infamous because I ranted about its stupidity to my playing partners every time I played the course) has been filled in, which is at least a step in the right direction.
-
Hills did the renovation on my home course, Bethesda Country Club, in the early 90's, before I was a member and before I had ever seen the course. The work was well-received by the membership, and I assume was perceived as well done by members of other clubs in Montgomery County because since then Hills has done renovations at Burning Tree, Chevy Chase, Congressional (Gold), Woodmont, and Manor. He has also done renovations at Fairfax and Belle Haven. I assume that if people at these clubs were complaining about his work, he wouldn't keep getting retained by other similarly situated clubs.
I haven't played many of his original designs, but I am generally not a fan.
-
My only exposure to Arthur Hills' architecture has been the Links course at Halfmoon Bay, Ca., which was one of the most disappointing courses I have ever encountered. The holes lacked any imagination, bunkers were very ordinary and the entire course just seemed to be disjointed. It seemed as though it was called a links course because it was near the ocean (although up on a cliff) and was quite wide open for the most part but it did not feel or play in anyway like a true links.
I have heard good things of some of his courses but that experience would make me very cautious about visiting another one of his courses.
-
Sounds like quite a mixed bag from all of the responses thus far.
Bill,
Your memory is good regarding the 17th. It is a love/hate thing with the tee shot there for me as well, always has been. I followed Tiger during the Golfworld Palmetto Dunes Intercollegiate tourney and watched him take an 8 there, finish with 80 and lose the tournament to Stewart Cink or maybe it was Chris Tidland. Anyway, if you hook it there you're in the lagoon. If you push it you're over the dunes into Shipyard. If you crush it straight with driver you can go through the fairway. I always tried to play a push draw 5 wood there. Worked out fine about half the time!
There is rumple on 10 as well as on 17 and 18 from my memory.
Send me a pm on the 'F'.
-
This is interesting to see as I'm almost done reading "Driving the Green: The Making of a Golf Course" by John Strawn. If you're interested in Hills and his work at all it's a neat look into his mindset and the way he works...both good and bad.
Pat,
I have that book and for some damn reason could never get into it. I'll take another look, thanks.
-
I have played some Arthur Hills courses, and to be honest he is my least favorite designer. My three experiences with Hills courses are
- Bighorn Mountain- Not even close compared to the Fazio Canyon course, it has horrible bunkers that you can putt out of. Some of the worst designed holes I have seen, one including a downhill 500 yard par 4 with a ravine crossing the fairway at 270 yards, leaving usually around 240 yards into the green. I have no clue how members enjoy playing this course compared to the Fazio, but suprisingly a good amount of members prefer the mountain.
Crosscreek- There has been plenty of threads talking about the dissapointment here. One of the best properties you will see in So-Cal and the golf course is very average.
Heritage Eagle Bend- IMO a zero. I had a thread about it, the worst golf course I have ever played in my life. Every hole was either way downhill or straight uphill.
So I may sound blunt, but I have not enjoyed my rounds on his courses, and have no interest to see more.
-
I think for what he designs (or gets paid to design) he does decent enough work. When I think of Arthur Hills, I think of "residential, cart golf". With that said, I have played a few of his courses that are devoid of homes and such, but are still pretty much cart golf. To be fair to Art, he designs what he gets paid to do and I try to judge his work within that framework. I think it is unfair to judge him against other big name GCA's (I will place him ahead of Rees though!) since he is not securing the best land, with high rollers paying him a huge design fee and free artistic reign, but I could be wrong. I feel if you judge him by that standard (residential, cart golf with some resort courses), with a few exceptions, he makes fair, playable for all types, golf courses. Overall, his courses are pretty consistent, and I can expect a decent round of golf when I play a new Hills' course.
I am surprised that I have played this many Hills' courses.
I liked:
Red Hawk (MI)
Forest Akers West (MI)
Hills Course at Boyne (MI)
Shepherd's Hollow (MI)
I somewhat liked:
Longaberger GC (OH)
Hawkshead Links (MI)
Coosaw Creek (SC)
Fox Run GC (KY) (all except the last 2 holes which should be completely bulldozed)
Fieldstone (MI)
Fox Hills (MI)
Pheasant Run (MI)
Legendary Run (MI) (The front 9 is good, the back 9 not so much)
Lakes of Taylor (MI)
Weatherwax (both courses) (OH)
Kinda disappointed:
Bay Harbor (MI)
Shaker Run (OH)
East GC (OH)
Pipestone (OH)
Red Hawk Run (OH)
Wetherington CC (OH)
Turnberry GC (OH)
Kinsale CC (OH)
Want to Play soon:
Eagle Ridge (KY)
Hills Course at Palmetto Dunes (I liked those pictures!)
-
Eric - Shaker Run north of Cincinnati is a Hills gem. Great variety of holes and challenge.
Very overrated, and completely going by the wayside. I heard they lost a bunch of greens recently and since it is in receivership, it is being operated on a shoestring budget.
-
Very overrated, and completely going by the wayside. I heard they lost a bunch of greens recently and since it is in receivership, it is being operated on a shoestring budget.
I'm sure you're more up to date on it than I am Rich, but the "O" word has always fit in my opinion. Hard to believe it hosted the Public Links just a few years ago (the year that Michelle Wie reached the quarters, hoping to win the thing and qualify for the Masters).
How were you only "kinda disappointed" by Pipestone? You've played more Hills courses than me so maybe your expectations were set differently, but that's a very generous opinion of the course. Wetherington I've only played once and it wasn't my favorite, but it was far better than Pipestone. I try to keep an open mind about anybody's courses - which can be difficult with Hills because he seems to be the Franzia of architects on this site - but Pipestone is just a mess of a golf course.
-
His re-do of the former member's re-do of his Dunes at Seville is actually quite challenging. Not bad at all really.
-
Very overrated, and completely going by the wayside. I heard they lost a bunch of greens recently and since it is in receivership, it is being operated on a shoestring budget.
I'm sure you're more up to date on it than I am Rich, but the "O" word has always fit in my opinion. Hard to believe it hosted the Public Links just a few years ago (the year that Michelle Wie reached the quarters, hoping to win the thing and qualify for the Masters).
How were you only "kinda disappointed" by Pipestone? You've played more Hills courses than me so maybe your expectations were set differently, but that's a very generous opinion of the course. Wetherington I've only played once and it wasn't my favorite, but it was far better than Pipestone. I try to keep an open mind about anybody's courses - which can be difficult with Hills because he seems to be the Franzia of architects on this site - but Pipestone is just a mess of a golf course.
So what is your take on this hole? ;D
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af43/nashcarr/th_Pipestone.jpg) (http://s992.photobucket.com/albums/af43/nashcarr/?action=view¤t=Pipestone.jpg)
-
At one point in time I had never played a Hills course, or a course that I would rate as a zero (because it should never have been built). Then I played White Clay Creek in Delaware and killed two birds with one stone.
-
I have experience with two Art Hills designs. The first is the aforementioned course at Palmetto Hall in Hilton Head.... don't remember a whole lot about it other than I was 17 years old and I shot a million. I was trying out a driver that had too flexible a shaft and I spent the whole day fighting a terrible hook.
The other is Legacy Ridge in suburban Denver, which I play frequently, if only because my parents live on it.
It really isn't all that bad to play except for two holes which I absolutely hate (and a couple others that are awkward). It does contain, however, one of my favorite holes in Denver, which is the par-4 13th (this is the one you can see driving on 104th Ave approaching Sheridan Blvd.).
However, the par-fives are all very poor. #6 in particular is really bad. 570 yards from the tips, but you have to lay up off the tee because an environmentally sensitive creek crosses the fairway at 280 out and cannot be carried. The fairway ends and as it does so, there are clusters of trees on either side creating a giant tunnel that you must hit your second shot through. Unless you lay up your tee shot to the dead center of the fairway (which drops off severely on the right and the left), then you have to hit a rope hook or a huge slice just to lay up on your second shot. As if that wasn't bad enough, the fairway in the driving area has a big hump jutting out into the left two-thirds of the fairway which can hold your ball up in rough or kick it off the fairway altogether.
#11 is another stupid par-five similar to #6, except that you have to hit your tee shot over the creek and through the chute.
Then there's #18, which is a 500 yard par-five with a 10 foot wide fairway and thick woods on either side that make you feel like you've somehow been transported to a completely different golf course.
I find in general that it is just way, way too narrow for a public course. There is plenty of wide open space available on many holes yet they have very narrow and uneven mowing lines to all the fairways. The fairways also pinch in at strange spots which aren't visible from the tee, so you often find yourself thinking you are in the fairway when you are actually well off it. It's too close to US Open for my liking.
-
Someone has to like his work...he has had a long and very successful career! His recent courses that I am aware of are all residential properties where the ultimate goal is to sell lots. I think he does a great job of designing aesthetically pleasing golf courses, the kind that attract your "average" golfer who just wants something nice to look at.
Personally, I like some of his work as well...not top 10 stuff, but enjoyable. I worked at an Art Hills course in Indy (Hawthorns) for a few years. It had some bland holes, but also some very good ones including some solid short par 4's and a nice 5, 3, 4 finishing stretch.
Paging Ryan DeMay....
-
Newport National - Newport RI
Very very good green sites, cool routing & some very strong par 3's
-
Off the top of my head, I can think of two Hills courses I've played.
El Conqistador in Puerto Rico really was a dud..but then again the terrain is so severe there I don't really think anything should have bee built there. About the only thing I remember besides the extreme elevation changes are the the iguanas that basically lived a quite idyllic life in the bunkers or tanning on the greens. Interesting hazards to have to putt around.
But Olde Stone in KY is a solid course. Some really nice short par 4s and a really cool par 3 with a huge kick plate to play over. I'm sure Mayhugh has some photos.
-
I've played a couple Art Hills courses, off the top of my head Black Gold and Journey at Pechanga.
His courses can be a lot of fun and there were good holes within both, however there were also shockingly bad golf holes too. At least for these two courses however he tackled some terrain that most architects would likely pass on, and made decent golf courses from where there easily could not be one. This would be fine to me if they weren't so overpriced, but that's not his fault because if the average Joe is willing to pay that and enjoy his round.
So I think Arthur Hills is successful, but not particularly good.
-
Personally, I like some of his work as well...not top 10 stuff, but enjoyable. I worked at an Art Hills course in Indy (Hawthorns) for a few years. It had some bland holes, but also some very good ones including some solid short par 4's and a nice 5, 3, 4 finishing stretch.
Brian,
Interesting comment about Hawthorns. I only played it once but thought it was one of the worst courses I had ever seen and that the finishing stretch had two awful holes. I missed my drive a little left on #16 only to find there was a blind pond over there and then #18 was rather strange too...I don't remember much about it. Didn't help that it was a housing course. I couldn't imagine spending money to play it especially given some great affordable public courses in the area. You couldn't have paid me to try it again!
I do think Hills has done some decent stuff. Of the nine or so courses I've played, a few are decent. I am one that actually likes Longaberger and think that Ironbridge and Glacier in Colorado are both fun, although perhaps not architectural masterpieces!
-
So what is your take on this hole? ;D
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af43/nashcarr/th_Pipestone.jpg) (http://s992.photobucket.com/albums/af43/nashcarr/?action=view¤t=Pipestone.jpg)
Unintentionally duck-hooked drive led to a 7-iron approach and a 2-putt birdie. But nothing was as absurd as that weed field on the ninth hole.
However, before the piling-on gets too thick, I will repeat that I do like Weatherwax quite a bit. Biggest problems there are that the course gets too much water, two par-5s (4 on Meadows, 4 on Woodside) have patches in front of the green that need to be cut, and a couple of holes (7 on Highlands, 9 on Woodside) would be immensely better if a bunch of trees are removed. None of that has anything to do with the architecture though.
-
Washington County (30 minutes north of Milwaukee) is a good test. Treeless, on a high rolling site with some long views of the countryside, the front is a clockwise loop around the perimeter of the property and the back works clockwise around the inside.
Worth a play if your in the area playing Erin Hills or West Bend CC
-
Adam,
I forgot about The Dunes @ Seville. I thought the GCA there was very good. I'd play there again in a heart beat if going back to the Tampa area. That course owes me. I couldn't keep it out of the sand the day we played it in the Dixie Cup!
Rich,
If you are thinking of going down to Hilton Head, play both the PD course and the one at P Hall. I think you'll enjoy them both. Get in touch with me and I'll try to meet you down there this winter. Joel Zuckerman and I are just beginning to plan a GCA Lowcountry get together around the first week of January. Not sure how many we can take, but for now, we've got plenty of room for more -- so stay tuned.
-
I've only played a couple of his courses - one is the aforementioned Legacy Ridge. I sure liked that course a lot better before all the houses were built - but that's not the course's fault. Not too memorable a course to me, although the 13th is a fun hole, if memory serves, a downhill par four with a tree that is rather inconvenient off the tee.
I do, however, remember Walking Stick in Pueblo, Colorado. A fun course that contains some really lovely arroyos that the holes hug and wind around and over. The arroyos are used well, and while the greens aren't too exciting, getting there is a load of fun. But beware the walking stick cactus itself. It's a mutha.
On the basis of those courses I wouldn't want to make a case for Hills as a great designer, but Walking Stick especially is a lot of fun, not especially difficult, and a nice looking course.
Wow, is that praise or an indictment? I guess that depends on the golfer.
-
I think it is unfair to judge him against other big name GCA's since he is not securing the best land, with high rollers paying him a huge design fee and free artistic reign, but I could be wrong.
I'm calling you out Richard.
How about comparing his firm to a small duo working with a local town and a little more than $1MM with housing plans?
How about to a first time solo design on a flat cattle ranch with a superintendent and a small untrained crew?
How does the firms work compare then?
-
His re-do of the former member's re-do of his Dunes at Seville is actually quite challenging. Not bad at all really.
This course was the surprise hit of the Dixie Cup two years ago. Lots of really good holes.
-
Hills did the renovation on my home course, Bethesda Country Club, in the early 90's, before I was a member and before I had ever seen the course. The work was well-received by the membership, and I assume was perceived as well done by members of other clubs in Montgomery County because since then Hills has done renovations at Burning Tree, Chevy Chase, Congressional (Gold), Woodmont, and Manor. He has also done renovations at Fairfax and Belle Haven. I assume that if people at these clubs were complaining about his work, he wouldn't keep getting retained by other similarly situated clubs.
I haven't played many of his original designs, but I am generally not a fan.
I have played all of the above courses and felt AH did a fine job on all of them. I think some of his best work is renovating/remodeling.
As for his original work I think Thorobred in MI and Lakeside at the GC of Georgia are two of his best.
-
His re-do of the former member's re-do of his Dunes at Seville is actually quite challenging. Not bad at all really.
This course was the surprise hit of the Dixie Cup two years ago. Lots of really good holes.
Here is a link to some pictures of the Dunes course from the 2008 Dixie Cup:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38198.0/
-
I think it is unfair to judge him against other big name GCA's since he is not securing the best land, with high rollers paying him a huge design fee and free artistic reign, but I could be wrong.
I'm calling you out Richard.
How about comparing his firm to a small duo working with a local town and a little more than $1MM with housing plans?
How about to a first time solo design on a flat cattle ranch with a superintendent and a small untrained crew?
How does the firms work compare then?
Mike,
I see your point here. However, I guess Art has a lot more golf courses in his portfolio than many small teams all added together. Maybe being so established in his own niche places him (whether he wants to be or not) up with the Jones' (no pun intended).
I used to be a lot more critical of ALL GCA's, UNTIL, I went to Lost Dunes this past May and listened to Mr. Doak talk about designing Lost Dunes CC. In the past I had never taken into consideration all of the constraints (seen and unseen), roadblocks and unintended design changes that made the designing aspect change for the better or worse....Now I try and think of what things were out of the architect's control.
That being said, how about all of the "homemade golf courses" out there, and they are easy to find, that can compare to the small design firms, or even compare to one professionally, trained GCA designed golf course?
I guess there is no easy answer to this because in the end, it's all personal opinion on what pleases the eye from an aesthetic standpoint and your own golf game as well.
PS: Where is this flat cattle ranch course, and how did it turn out? You have me wondering!
-
Eric-I think a lot of the criticism of Arthur Hills' work stems from the fact that he has designed a boatload of golf courses and so few of them are remotely memorable. His body of work is a mile wide and an inch deep. Living in Art's home state (Ohio), I have played a fair share of his courses and he has done the Buckeye state no favors when it comes to his designs. There are a number of solid, serviceable golf courses in Tressel land but nothing that stands out (see the discussions of Longaberger on this board to get a taste of how he performed on a terrific site...the sentiment is mixed at best).
To me, the quality of his golf courses has often depended upon which design associate worked on them. Olde Stone in Kentucky is a very cool course with a lot of neat features. Newport National in Rhode Island is very enjoyable and well regarded. Drew Rogers was the Hills' associate who worked on both of them.
When I first went to Hilton Head in the late 1980's, we stayed at Palmetto Dunes. At that time, the Hills course was very much played up as the shining star in their three course galaxy. The last time I was in Hilton Head (a couple of summers ago), the Jones course (which had been redone) was promoted as the center of the Palmetto Dunes universe. I have played the Hills course twice and enjoyed it both times. What I recall is that it is almost a model for what a true resort course should be. It is relatively short. It has few fairway bunkers (probably due to the amount of water hazards on the course). It has a good mix of hard and easy holes so the casual golfer won't get too frustrated. If I remember correctly, I am not that big a fan of the 17th hole (my memory has it as a par four with a canal running down the left side with an approach shot over the hazard to a green pretty close to the water). I did enjoy some of the greensites but I think the rumpled nature of the fairways tapers off as you get beyond the first hole...but my memory could fail me on that account. I wouldn't decline to play there, but I think there are more interesting public options. If anything, that sort of sums up my attitude towards much of Hills' work: solid but not spectacular.
Thanks for posting the pictures. I have met Art Hills and he is a tremendously nice fellow. Send me an IM and I will tell you how I got him to say the "F" word.
Interesting! Exactly what I have posted about Hills and many other threads about his work!!! His newer work IMO is much better than some of his older designs where I surmise that his assoicates were less involved.
Chris
-
I've always liked the Hills Course at Palmetto Dunes in Hilton Head. It's been in good condition when I've played there as opposed to Harbour Town.
Has anyone played Wolfdancer near Austin , TX? I was in Austin recently and drove by the Hyatt Regency Lost Pines but didn't stop in. Looks like it has received good reviews:
Ranked #56 in Golfweek Magazine's "Top 100 Resort Golf Courses for 2009"
Voted #6 In "Texas' Top Golf Courses You Can Play" by Golfweek Magazine for 2008
Voted #4 in "Top 50 you can play in Texas for 2008"by the Dallas Morning News
Voted "Top Ten New Courses you can play in 2006" by Golf Magazine
"Best Golf Experience in Central Texas for 2006" by Avid Golfer Magazine
www.wolfdancergolfclub.com
-
Richard
I don't buy the constraint argument on the whole.
To compare architects you can look at some of the components.
Take a look at the green complexes - every architect has 18 opportunities here.
Then take a look the individual holes - there should be at least a couple opportunities even on less than site or client.
cheers
-
Michael Whitaker, Thanx for posting the link to the Pix.
One of the re-ocurring motifs I've seen on AH courses is an unnecessary over shaping, in areas that are rarely in-play, but clearly visible. My first reaction is "Look at me, I can move dirt". Either that or his contract provided this incentive??
-
I really enjoyed playing Palmetto Dunes twice (although it was in my pre-GCA mindset). It was one of my favorites in the Hilton Head area. The Legacy in Henderson, NV, Palmetto Hall, and Camelback Inn are courses where I was less sold on the architecture.
On his corporate website, he has a section about "good versus great". The last set of pictures show holes with creeks meandering near the green and into the fairway. I actually like "good" better than his design because it looks more subtle and realistic. His design could be at home on a Trump course, although you can "hear" the noise it makes going over the rocks.
-
Guys, all this interesting but often side-related yak yak talk about the other elements that are involved is wonderful but frankly the only thing that matters is the finished product. That's what golfers play and that's what is analyzed.
Art Hills courses, from the ones I have played focus for the most part on the "art" dimension -- think of TF-lite.
Hard to imagine that a guy with that many courses in his portfolio -- so few are critically acclaimed as being especially noteworthy.
-
Guys, all this interesting but often side-related yak yak talk about the other elements that are involved is wonderful but frankly the only thing that matters is the finished product. That's what golfers play and that's what is analyzed.
Art Hills courses, from the ones I have played focus for the most part on the "art" dimension -- think of TF-lite.
Hard to imagine that a guy with that many courses in his portfolio -- so few are critically acclaimed as being especially noteworthy.
Agreed. That's why it was disappointing to learn that Hills was chosen as the architect for Chicago Highlands, the newest course built in Chicagoland. The land offered some interesting challenges and it seems to me that others would have done more inspired work. As it is, there are still at least six or seven very good holes, which is why it would appear to be just outside the Top 100 Golfweek Modern at this point in time. Given the blank canvas that the land provided, I consider that a mild disappointment.
-
I have experience with two Art Hills designs. The first is the aforementioned course at Palmetto Hall in Hilton Head.... don't remember a whole lot about it other than I was 17 years old and I shot a million. I was trying out a driver that had too flexible a shaft and I spent the whole day fighting a terrible hook.
The other is Legacy Ridge in suburban Denver, which I play frequently, if only because my parents live on it.
It really isn't all that bad to play except for two holes which I absolutely hate (and a couple others that are awkward). It does contain, however, one of my favorite holes in Denver, which is the par-4 13th (this is the one you can see driving on 104th Ave approaching Sheridan Blvd.).
However, the par-fives are all very poor. #6 in particular is really bad. 570 yards from the tips, but you have to lay up off the tee because an environmentally sensitive creek crosses the fairway at 280 out and cannot be carried. The fairway ends and as it does so, there are clusters of trees on either side creating a giant tunnel that you must hit your second shot through. Unless you lay up your tee shot to the dead center of the fairway (which drops off severely on the right and the left), then you have to hit a rope hook or a huge slice just to lay up on your second shot. As if that wasn't bad enough, the fairway in the driving area has a big hump jutting out into the left two-thirds of the fairway which can hold your ball up in rough or kick it off the fairway altogether.
#11 is another stupid par-five similar to #6, except that you have to hit your tee shot over the creek and through the chute.
Then there's #18, which is a 500 yard par-five with a 10 foot wide fairway and thick woods on either side that make you feel like you've somehow been transported to a completely different golf course.
I find in general that it is just way, way too narrow for a public course. There is plenty of wide open space available on many holes yet they have very narrow and uneven mowing lines to all the fairways. The fairways also pinch in at strange spots which aren't visible from the tee, so you often find yourself thinking you are in the fairway when you are actually well off it. It's too close to US Open for my liking.
Matthew is spot on about Legacy Ridge--#6 is one of the worst holes I've ever seen. There are several other at least somewhat goofy holes at Legacy, some of which are actually fun to play (e.g., #7, #9, #13). The randomness of the fairway lines is a common feature on the course--you often don't know where the fairway is located within the playing corridor and this isn't done in a clever way--it just seems random.
I've also played Pipestone outside of Dayton and, while I don't remember many specifics (the day was brutally cold, causing me to forever dispute my brother-in-law's insistence that golf can be played in Dayton in November), I do remember that several holes were total headscratchers. I've heard that about other Hills courses--even the better regarded ones tend to have at least one hole that is awful (often a par 5 requiring a layup off the tee--one of my least favorite types of holes).
-
I've played a number of Arthur Hills courses, particularly in the Denver area and a couple here in Phoenix. Probably a few of his courses that I'm unaware are even his.
A few stand out in my mind, including Legacy Ridge in Denver. I only played there 2-3 times, but have always had a soft spot for it since the first time I played there was the first time I broke 80. That said, I agree with the comments on it. It's a strange mix between a few really nice holes, some completely forgettable holes, and a couple that are just terrible.
The two I'm familiar with in Arizona are Stonecreek and the Padre course at Camelback GC. Both are fair to OK courses, not special, but nothing you could possibly expect to be special given their location. I just recently played Padre for the first time and was actually quite impressed with it. It was different from the typically bland modern Art Hills look i was expecting. Not a ton of holes with interest, but for a very low profile course I liked the bunkering and felt like the course had a lot of width.
-
My favorite Hills course (actually done by Hills before his staff got large) was Tammeron in Durango, Colorado. It has since been modified (added 9-holes) and re-worked bunkers by Todd Schroeder. It is a great routing, very interesting with loads of surprises. I also liked the fact that the design sold residential lots, but did so with a great eye toward preservation of open space and allowing the golf to come first. I believe it still has one of the best horseshoe greens...a par-4 with the tee shot to a diagonal along a ledge, and then a drop-shot second to a highly unusual green (across a pond) where yours truly has had more than once been cornered into hitting a sand wedge from one lobe to the other. Maybe someone can post this green.
-
Matthew — In fairness, Keith Foster (while with Hills) pretty much did all the work at Stonecreek. Also, Greg Nash re-did three holes...so, 16% Nash and the rest mostly Foster. Also, Padre was (and still is) a great Red Lawrence design remodeled and twisted into the current layout with Hills bunkers and lake additions and re-dos. The Forrest/Hills Office deserves credit, but I think there are loads of Lawrence qualities still at play at Padre. I was very surprised that Marriott did not focus on the legacy of Lawrence at Padre...to me, it would have been a great story to go with the history there.
-
Thanks for that info, Forrest. There isn't much info available about Stonecreek, but I knew I had looked it up and seen his name associated at one point. A few funky holes out there, but I like that layout overall.
Interesting about Padre, as well. I had never been there before a couple weeks ago and was pretty impressed with the course vs. my expectations. Sad to see the condition they have let the Indian Bend course get into.
Tamarron (now called Glacier Club, I believe) is a course I have played a few times and had no idea it was Art Hills. Some really fun holes there and a really interesting routing in a great location. Given that most of his courses I am familiar with are on relatively plain suburban plots, it's interesting to reflect on what he did in that much more unique spot.
-
Forrest- I've played the old and the new 18 hole course. Wasn't aware it was a Hills. It had the feel of a Jones course. Which I suppose is a compliment.
The hole I believe you reference is the 8th.
The website uses Flash, so copying and pasting is beyond me. But here's a link to their course picture page. BTW, the pic they use for this hole is abysmal.
http://www.glacierclub.com/newpage/pictures.html
-
Maybe it can be had on Google Earth.
-
Wasn't Stone Creek a complete redo of a Roy Dye design which was minimalist in nature, particularly given the desert location?
-
Would this be the hole at Tamarron/Glacier Club you are referring to Forrest?
http://www.theglacierclub.com/static/index.cfm?contentID=47
-
Ahh, the Old Mummy Mountain (then Anasazi, now Stonecreek). yes, Roy Dye and a tremendous course. But, hardly minimalist! Mummy Mountain involved lots of earthwork and massive mounds...some as high as Roy could manage! The old par-3 Dell hole was great fun. A longish par-3 to an L-shaped green. The back portion was completely hidden behind a 20 ft. mound and you could do nothing but try and land it on top of the hill and hope for a lucky bounce. I played Mummy Mountain many, many times and was inspired by many of the interesting holes. Roy Dye was a creative guy. A shame that he did not get to finish much of his work.
-
Re: Glacier (Tammeron) — Yes, No. 7. But the green was literally a big U-shape and there were, in reality, two greens separated by a great bunker.
-
That's how I remember it, too. Looks like they have done some work to the hole.
Of course, it's been 15 years at least since I played there.
-
Arthur Hills is the prototypical modern architect: lots of style, very little substance. On the surface, his courses might like good for the undiscerning eye. However, when you look closer you realize that the courses are very manufactured, with tons of containment mounds, contrived bunkers, and un-natural greens. He also relies on water for defense on a lot of courses.
I've played two of his courses: Olde Atlanta and Fiddler's Creek (in Naples, FL). Both courses share a few characteristics. The first is the heavy use of containment mounding, which he uses to line both sides of every fairway. This gives the course a very artificial feel. It's as if you're experiencing a postmodern sculpture rather than a golf course.
The second characteristic is that both courses are filled with vapid, unmemorable golf holes. I can't recall more than five holes at Fiddler's Creek. I can vaguely remember most of the holes at Olde Atlanta, but only because I've played it three times. However, I could not describe specific features of any one of the 36 greensites on the two courses. I can only remember that were generally very artificial.
Third, each course features two or three holes that pretty much unplayable for most golfers. These holes usually involve unreasonable carries over water. These holes include the 11th and 18th at Olde Atlanta, and the 1st and 17th at Fiddler's Creek.
I'm guessing that Hills has done better courses than these two (or at least I would hope so). However, which of his courses even match up to the work of architects like Doak, C & C, Lester George, George, Strantz, Mike Young, Mike Strantz, Brian Silva, or countless others? Hell, Fazio and RTJ II build much more interesting courses than Hills.
-
Arthur Hills is the prototypical modern architect: lots of style, very little substance. On the surface, his courses might like good for the undiscerning eye. However, when you look closer you realize that the courses are very manufactured, with tons of containment mounds, contrived bunkers, and un-natural greens. He also relies on water for defense on a lot of courses.
I've played two of his courses: Olde Atlanta and Fiddler's Creek (in Naples, FL). Both courses share a few characteristics. The first is the heavy use of containment mounding, which he uses to line both sides of every fairway. This gives the course a very artificial feel. It's as if you're experiencing a postmodern sculpture rather than a golf course.
The second characteristic is that both courses are filled with vapid, unmemorable golf holes. I can't recall more than five holes at Fiddler's Creek. I can vaguely remember most of the holes at Olde Atlanta, but only because I've played it three times. However, I could not describe specific features of any one of the 36 greensites on the two courses. I can only remember that were generally very artificial.
Third, each course features two or three holes that pretty much unplayable for most golfers. These holes usually involve unreasonable carries over water. These holes include the 11th and 18th at Olde Atlanta, and the 1st and 17th at Fiddler's Creek.
I'm guessing that Hills has done more courses than these two (or at least I would hope so). However, which of his courses even match up to the work of architects like Doak, C & C, Lester George, George, Strantz, Mike Young, Mike Strantz, Brian Silva, or countless others? Hell, Fazio and RTJ II build much more interesting courses than Hills. Courses like Camp Creek in Panama City Beach, FL or Kaluhyat at Turning Stone were not architectural masterpieces (Camp Creek was much of those two), but at least I can remember all of the holes at each course.
-
Arthur Hills is the prototypical modern architect: lots of style, very little substance. On the surface, his courses might like good for the undiscerning eye. However, when you look closer you realize that the courses are very manufactured, with tons of containment mounds, contrived bunkers, and un-natural greens. He also relies on water for defense on a lot of courses.
I've played two of his courses: Olde Atlanta and Fiddler's Creek (in Naples, FL). Both courses share a few characteristics. The first is the heavy use of containment mounding, which he uses to line both sides of every fairway. This gives the course a very artificial feel. It's as if you're experiencing a postmodern sculpture rather than a golf course.
The second characteristic is that both courses are filled with vapid, unmemorable golf holes. I can't recall more than five holes at Fiddler's Creek. I can vaguely remember most of the holes at Olde Atlanta, but only because I've played it three times. However, I could not describe specific features of any one of the 36 greensites on the two courses. I can only remember that were generally very artificial.
Third, each course features two or three holes that pretty much unplayable for most golfers. These holes usually involve unreasonable carries over water. These holes include the 11th and 18th at Olde Atlanta, and the 1st and 17th at Fiddler's Creek.
I'm guessing that Hills has done more courses than these two (or at least I would hope so). However, which of his courses even match up to the work of architects like Doak, C & C, Lester George, George, Strantz, Mike Young, Mike Strantz, Brian Silva, or countless others? Hell, Fazio and RTJ II build much more interesting courses than Hills.
Amazing what an expert you are on Hills with 2 courses under your belt.... ;)
-
Arthur Hills is the prototypical modern architect: lots of style, very little substance. On the surface, his courses might like good for the undiscerning eye. However, when you look closer you realize that the courses are very manufactured, with tons of containment mounds, contrived bunkers, and un-natural greens. He also relies on water for defense on a lot of courses.
I've played two of his courses: Olde Atlanta and Fiddler's Creek (in Naples, FL). Both courses share a few characteristics. The first is the heavy use of containment mounding, which he uses to line both sides of every fairway. This gives the course a very artificial feel. It's as if you're experiencing a postmodern sculpture rather than a golf course.
The second characteristic is that both courses are filled with vapid, unmemorable golf holes. I can't recall more than five holes at Fiddler's Creek. I can vaguely remember most of the holes at Olde Atlanta, but only because I've played it three times. However, I could not describe specific features of any one of the 36 greensites on the two courses. I can only remember that were generally very artificial.
Third, each course features two or three holes that pretty much unplayable for most golfers. These holes usually involve unreasonable carries over water. These holes include the 11th and 18th at Olde Atlanta, and the 1st and 17th at Fiddler's Creek.
I'm guessing that Hills has done more courses than these two (or at least I would hope so). However, which of his courses even match up to the work of architects like Doak, C & C, Lester George, George, Strantz, Mike Young, Mike Strantz, Brian Silva, or countless others? Hell, Fazio and RTJ II build much more interesting courses than Hills.
Amazing what an expert you are on Hills with 2 courses under your belt.... ;)
Point taken :) However, it's not like I'm going to seek out his work after seeing those two golf courses.
-
Jon, I think your review of the two Hills courses you played is probably spot on. However, I don't know that containment mounding is anymore of an Arthur Hills trademark than anyone else who was building courses in the 80's and 90's. I think that criticism should be directed more at the trends of the time as most courses built in the states during that period exhibit the overuse of artificial mounds. That said, he was part of the trend so...
After reading through this thread I checked out the Arthur Hills website and he has quite a large body of work. So I'm sure there are themes in his courses that have come and gone. Most of the responses on this thread jive pretty well with my experiences with Hills courses. It seems he's built a lot of solid, acceptable golf holes with few standouts. The land his projects have been on, and the restrictions of residential golf could be blamed for some of the shortcomings. However, Mike Nuzzo does accurately point out that every architect has at least 18 opportunities per course (greensites) to make his mark. Also, with the size of his portfolio you'd expect more excellent courses. Did he deliver when given an exceptional site (Bay Harbor, Half Moon Bay,...)? I'll reserve judgement because I've not played these courses, but many on this site think he did not deliver on these occasions.
There are a few Hills courses that I really did enjoy. Chaska Town Course (neighbor to Hazeltine) was a good track with an excellent set of par threes. I also liked Champion Trace near Lexington, KY. I wasn't very fond of the over use of water hazards on the holes near the clubhouse, but otherwise I thought the course made good use of the rolling rural KY terrain.
-
Richard
I don't buy the constraint argument on the whole.
To compare architects you can look at some of the components.
Take a look at the green complexes - every architect has 18 opportunities here.
Then take a look the individual holes - there should be at least a couple opportunities even on less than site or client.
cheers
I don't really compare "components" of a golf course with components of another course. I am not that nit-picky. If I did that my favorite course would be comprised of nothing less than 14 architects. I do look at the elements of design, but when I walk off the 18th green I either liked the course (as a whole) or I did not (as a whole).
I understand AH is not a favorite here, but his courses are generally fair (unless you hit the lone tree in the middle of the fairway on many of his designs), and fun to play for the most part. I'm not saying he should be considered in the top tier of architects. Besides, all (most anyway) of those guys are pushing up daisies.
-
I've only played a couple of his courses - one is the aforementioned Legacy Ridge. I sure liked that course a lot better before all the houses were built - but that's not the course's fault. Not too memorable a course to me, although the 13th is a fun hole, if memory serves, a downhill par four with a tree that is rather inconvenient off the tee.
I do, however, remember Walking Stick in Pueblo, Colorado. A fun course that contains some really lovely arroyos that the holes hug and wind around and over. The arroyos are used well, and while the greens aren't too exciting, getting there is a load of fun. But beware the walking stick cactus itself. It's a mutha.
On the basis of those courses I wouldn't want to make a case for Hills as a great designer, but Walking Stick especially is a lot of fun, not especially difficult, and a nice looking course.
Wow, is that praise or an indictment? I guess that depends on the golfer.
Kirk, I like Walking Stick too. However, as with a course Forrest mentioned, I believe that Walking Stick is really Keith Foster not Hills. In my mind, that is why it is substantially better than any of the other "Hills" courses I have played. Walking Stick is more playable and more interesting than the Hills courses I've played. I don't like Legacy Ridge at all. As others have stated, the par fives are terrible, especially #11--a blind tee shot over trees to a narrow landing area with OB left and an environmentally sensitive (OB) area right. Hills' TPC at Eagle Trace is one of the worst courses I've ever played--blind water hazards abound and that's just the beginning. The PGA Tour couldn't move the Honda Classic from Eagle Trace quickly enough for the players (wait, maybe Eagle Trace isn't that bad after all if the Tour players didn't like it...). He's credited with redoing Green Gables CC in Denver a few years ago. Not sure how much he had to do with it, but I think it's mediocre except for the nice driveable par 4 5th and an excellent redo of the par 3 14th that abuts the clubhouse and lake. He reversed two parallel par 4s (#2 and #3) that play in opposite directions up and down a hill with a bisecting stream, and I'm quite puzzled as to why. Hard to know what limitations his firm had in the renovations, but it's not my cup of tea. Hills also redesigned one of the Camelback courses in 1999. I had heard a few years back that the Camelback members were very unhappy and going to blow it up and start over--I certainly concurred--but I guess the recession prevented that. As I reflect on the Hills courses, I guess I contrast them with Pete Dye. Pete's courses are challenging but there is a craftmanship to the work that makes you take notice; I find Hills' courses to be overly penal in many respects, with blind water hazards and blind shots to small unreceptive greens. Maybe I'm just not a good enough player; or maybe I just don't get what Hills is trying to do.
-
Sean:
You raise a very valid point.
There are way too many people who extrapolate a broad viewpoint based on a sample size that is way too small to do so.
I am not a Hills fan but I have played roughly 20 or so of his designs. I would have hoped he would have made something of a dent among the top tier courses that are favored for national consideration but for whatever reason few have done that.
Nonetheless, people should realize that particular biases and preferences are at work here. Before people make generalized comments a workable sample size would be helpful to establish some sort of credibility before final judgement is passed.
-
Richard
I don't buy the constraint argument on the whole.
To compare architects you can look at some of the components.
Take a look at the green complexes - every architect has 18 opportunities here.
Then take a look the individual holes - there should be at least a couple opportunities even on less than site or client.
cheers
I don't really compare "components" of a golf course with components of another course. I am not that nit-picky. If I did that my favorite course would be comprised of nothing less than 14 architects. I do look at the elements of design, but when I walk off the 18th green I either liked the course (as a whole) or I did not (as a whole).
I understand AH is not a favorite here, but his courses are generally fair (unless you hit the lone tree in the middle of the fairway on many of his designs), and fun to play for the most part. I'm not saying he should be considered in the top tier of architects. Besides, all (most anyway) of those guys are pushing up daisies.
I guess I really do not make the distinction between fair and unfair on golf courses (golf, like life, is unfair), but I would describe his architecture as fluky. This is mainly due to his over-reliance on water hazards in a very penal way.
18 at Olde Atlanta is a good example. It is a dog leg right par five with a massive lake as its centerpiece. Off the tee, any drive that is not perfectly shaped will end up in the lake on the outside of the dogleg. The second shot is then a long iron or wood over this same lake, which slices across the fairway. It requires a substantial carry to reach the other side, meaning death to women and children. The green then juts out into the lake, meaning that the angle of play is away from the lake. The hole has no strategy, especially since the green offers no real opportunity to be reached in two. The hole is awkward in presentation, and it makes very poor use of angles.
For the most part, his courses are "fair" in that they are bland and unexciting. He combines these 13 or so dull holes with 1-2 decent holes and 2-3 bad holes. The final product is modern architecture at its worst. How can architect's move so much land and get so little.
Hills certainly is not alone in his use of containment mounding, although he seems to be the poster boy for it. It's almost as if he has painted on a canvas for his whole life, refusing to see the ruggedness, randomness and charm that is a key part of so many great golf courses.
-
Sean:
You raise a very valid point.
There are way too many people who extrapolate a broad viewpoint based on a sample size that is way too small to do so.
I am not a Hills fan but I have played roughly 20 or so of his designs. I would have hoped he would have made something of a dent among the top tier courses that are favored for national consideration but for whatever reason few have done that.
Nonetheless, people should realize that particular biases and preferences are at work here. Before people make generalized comments a workable sample size would be helpful to establish some sort of credibility before final judgement is passed.
Matt,
Simply put, we have not all played as many courses as you! I make my judgments based on only a few Hills courses, mainly because that's all I wish to play from him. I would rather spend my time traveling to see Golden Age layouts than going to see Hills efforts like Bay Harbor or Half Moon Bay for tons of dollars. I will certainly learn more about architecture from a Thendara or Hackensack than I will from Hills Blueprint #7. I have seen and read enough on Hills courses to know to avoid them like the plague. Why would I go out of my way to see more?
-
I know that there is NO FAIR in golf! BUT, some of my best rounds have come on Hills courses. Go figure. Maybe that sways my idea of fair. I guess "straight forward" would be a better term.
I know I am losing this battle, so I am bowing out!
-
JNC:
Here's what you posted ...
"I'm guessing that Hills has done more courses than these two (or at least I would hope so). However, which of his courses even match up to the work of architects like Doak, C & C, Lester George, George, Strantz, Mike Young, Mike Strantz, Brian Silva, or countless others? Hell, Fazio and RTJ II build much more interesting courses than Hills."
Re-read what you posted -- you made definitive comments on Hills -- based on how many courses you have personally played ?
This is the same approach quite a few others have done to the likes of Rees Jones and Tom Fazio. I don't doubt you and others can have opinions on the courses you have played -- but don't go extrapolating that limited sample size into 100% certain labels of the person in question.
Let me say this -- you say you don't wish to play other Hills courses. OK -- but who's to say he doesn't do something that's really outstanding? I can't say that for sure. Guess what? Neither can you.
It helps if people would evaluate just what they have played and then add to their comments when they have played others. If you or others chose not play other Hills courses -- so be it. But let's not strain credibility even more than you have already -- OK ?
-
JNC:
Here's what you posted ...
"I'm guessing that Hills has done more courses than these two (or at least I would hope so). However, which of his courses even match up to the work of architects like Doak, C & C, Lester George, George, Strantz, Mike Young, Mike Strantz, Brian Silva, or countless others? Hell, Fazio and RTJ II build much more interesting courses than Hills."
Re-read what you posted -- you made definitive comments on Hills -- based on how many courses you have personally played ?
Most of my comments were on characteristics that were shared by the two Hills courses that I have played. Read my entire post minus the introduction in conclusion (which deliberately drew strong conclusions about Hills from what I have seen of his work). I played two courses of his which I found uninspiring and expendable. Does this mean I should withhold judgment on his work?
Besides, will you or anyone else here deny that he builds artificial layouts with uninteresting green sites? This isn't a contest to see who has played the most Hills golf courses, or who has the biggest sample size from which to make the most credible statistical analysis. We are trying to determine the truth about Arthur Hills as an architect. Is his work garbage? Or does he build good golf courses from which we can draw inspiration? I think his courses are garbage, and I don't need to see 50 of them to know that.
This is the same approach quite a few others have done to the likes of Rees Jones and Tom Fazio. I don't doubt you and others can have opinions on the courses you have played -- but don't go extrapolating that limited sample size into 100% certain labels of the person in question.
Let me say this -- you say you don't wish to play other Hills courses. OK -- but who's to say he doesn't do something that's really outstanding? I can't say that for sure. Guess what? Neither can you.
It helps if people would evaluate just what they have played and then add to their comments when they have played others. If you or others chose not play other Hills courses -- so be it. But let's not strain credibility even more than you have already -- OK ?
-
Sean:
You raise a very valid point.
There are way too many people who extrapolate a broad viewpoint based on a sample size that is way too small to do so.
I am not a Hills fan but I have played roughly 20 or so of his designs. I would have hoped he would have made something of a dent among the top tier courses that are favored for national consideration but for whatever reason few have done that.
Nonetheless, people should realize that particular biases and preferences are at work here. Before people make generalized comments a workable sample size would be helpful to establish some sort of credibility before final judgement is passed.
Matt, what would you view as a workable sample size?
I'm also curious about your comment above that "for whatever reason few have done that." What reason(s) would you give? Mine would be that his courses are penal and lack interest.
-
Doug:
It sure as hell can't be just two (2) courses.
JNC:
The issue is making sweeping judgements across the board. You have played two - count-em two AH courses. How would you like it if someone evaluated your work with only two examples?
Re-read what I sent to you in my last response. I have no issue with people providing their opinions on what they have played -- I do have issue with anyone extrapolating comments from such a tiny sample of courses and then saying look see at how poor that architect is across the board. Credibility is something that people on blog sites should be interested in maintaining -- despite your knowledge of courses (which is considerable) you badly undercut yourself with such broad and ignorant statements. You're better than that. I value your comments on what you have played -- does it hurt to just simply stick to that rather than throwing forward such broad generalizations?
From the 20 or so AH courses I have played I would be hard pressed to say if any would make my personal top 100. But keep in mind, that doesn't mean to say that all of the places of his that I have played are dogfood or not worthy of a round of golf.
Just a thought for you to think about -- nothing more. Thanks ...
-
has anyone played his course in portugal, Oitavos dunes. never played it but its meant to be pretty good
-
Doug:
Allow me to elaborate a bit more ...
The top tier of courses in the USA is extremely competitive -- as it should be.
I also think way too many people get laser-focused on just a few people and therefore side with their design styles without realizing that other talented people are out there. I respect a good bit what JNC provides -- of the courses he actually has played.
Art Hills, from the 20 or so courses I have played -- most of them happen to be in FL and therefore are limited to what can be done there.
I did play his work in Colorado -- Ironbridge -- and it was quite good. Is it at the level of Ballyneal ? No, not at all close but it's less fault of Hills and more credit to Doak and his team -- it also helps to have such a grand site as the layout in Holyoke.
Is it as good as Four Mile Ranch or Red Sky Ranch (Norman) -- no, but it's likely a shade below those two.
I did like Longaberger in OH -- but it would be a stretch to say it's a bonafide top 100 course.
The very top layer of American courses is very competitive and certain states are clearly more demanding to get noticed than others.
-
I've played a number of his original designs (all public), and thought they were generally pretty lame. I've also played a number of his renovations (all private), and though they were generally pretty good -- though none would be characterized as spectacular, just solid. All of the latter examples are non-residential.
-
JNC,
The reason you're getting some pushback lately is that you're making very strongly worded general statements about architects work, and then admittedly don't have the experience to back up the strength of the statements. If your posts were worded to cover the courses you've played instead of generalizing about an architect's body of work I think you'd receive less pushback.
I agree with you regarding not seeking out Hills' courses--if you don't like the two you've played don't seek out more. I've only played a few Rees Jones' original designs and I don't particularly seek out more of them because I wasn't impressed with the ones I played. However, I wouldn't necessarily make broad statements about his work, even if my internal hunch is that the trends I've spotted in a few courses probably apply to most of the others as well. I've played nine Hills' courses with a few in the "good" range overall, a few mediocre, and a few worse than that!
-
I really liked The Golf Club at Cedar Creek in Aiken, GA. It felt like he grasped the area there and was very playable.
However, I really disliked Halfmoon Bay, Cross Creek and Black Gold.
Played Halfmoon once and was bored to tears and have never been back, Cross Creek was full of layup shots and gimmicks, and Black Gold was just not fun or interesting.
-
I think I have played 7 Hills courses and 5 of them I like quite a bit. The disappointments being Legacy in Las Vegas and Coosaw Creek in Charleston.
Here's one close to me, River Islands just outside of Knoxville, TN. I know John Stiles has played it...anyone else been? I'm pretty sure Hills was hired for this project based on the original owner's appreciation for the two courses he did on Hilton Head. It's routed over land next to a river, and its really cool because the old farm land that it is on is where the river bends back and forth and there are some actual islands in the stream that you play across to. I haven't been over there in several years, but it is a solid public golf course and a good all around value.
(http://www.elitegolfcourses.com/riverislands/riweb21.jpg)
(http://www.elitegolfcourses.com/riverislands/riweb17.jpg)
(http://www.elitegolfcourses.com/riverislands/riweb19.jpg)
(http://www.elitegolfcourses.com/riverislands/riweb15.jpg)
(http://www.elitegolfcourses.com/riverislands/riweb20.jpg)
(http://www.elitegolfcourses.com/riverislands/riweb23.jpg)
(http://www.elitegolfcourses.com/riverislands/riweb22.jpg)
(http://www.elitegolfcourses.com/riverislands/riweb12.jpg)
(http://www.elitegolfcourses.com/riverislands/riweb11.jpg)
(http://www.elitegolfcourses.com/riverislands/riweb10.jpg)
(http://www.elitegolfcourses.com/riverislands/riweb7.jpg)
(http://www.elitegolfcourses.com/riverislands/riweb6.jpg)
-
This is interesting to see as I'm almost done reading "Driving the Green: The Making of a Golf Course" by John Strawn. If you're interested in Hills and his work at all it's a neat look into his mindset and the way he works...both good and bad.
Pat,
I have that book and for some damn reason could never get into it. I'll take another look, thanks.
Eric,
I picked up a copy of "Driving the Green" only recently on a trip to Hay on Wye (a town on the Welsh border known for its vast amount of second hand book shops). I'm reading it at the moment, and at times its interesting but I'm finding it mostly hard going, but I shall soldier on! To be honest, I'd never heard of Art Hills and in fact for a while I wasn't sure if the book was fictional or not and it was only on a google search for Ironhorse that I found the course, its architect and the story to be factual ::)
I've never played any of his courses, but I've just got to the bit about Seville, which I take it is the Dunes GC? Well I haven't played Pine Valley either, but I dont see anything that looks like Pine Valley (something mentioned in the book and the clubs website) from the pics Mike W links to?
Cheers,
James
-
Eric:
How long is the hole pictured that plunges downhill ?
Interesting green design.
-
Eric:
How long is the hole pictured that plunges downhill ?
Interesting green design.
Matt,
This is the 2nd hole -
401 blue tees
350 white tees
Most try to play their tee shot out to around the 150 marker just before the fairway drops downhill, so a lot of 3 or 4 woods here. If you do play driver over the hill, as you can see, the fairway narrows and with the zoysia grass, you may find yourself with a hanging downhill lie. Still, with the shallow nature of this green in mind, the prospect of hitting a sand wedge from down around 75 - 100 yards can be enough incentive to take the risk from the tee as opposed to having to play a 6 or 7 iron (or more, depending on how far you lay back) from up top.
-
Eric-River Islands has always intrigued me. Thanks for posting the pictures. A few years ago, we spent Spring Break in Pigeon Forge/Gatlinburg and I thought about making the drive over to play it. Unfortunately, the weather and family obligations conspired against that plan. How does River Islands compare to other public options in the Knoxville area?
-
Eric-River Islands has always intrigued me. Thanks for posting the pictures. A few years ago, we spent Spring Break in Pigeon Forge/Gatlinburg and I thought about making the drive over to play it. Unfortunately, the weather and family obligations conspired against that plan. How does River Islands compare to other public options in the Knoxville area?
Bill,
It ranks right up there at the top, imo. Especially if you're where you stayed, over in Dollywood country!
There are other good options on the West / SW side of Knoxville, but they're not as close as you might hope they would be coming from Pigeon Forge.
-
Point taken :) However, it's not like I'm going to seek out his work after seeing those two golf courses.
I just don't get this attitude.
If you are a true fan of GCA, why would you write someone off after playing just 2 of his courses? It is not like AH is someone with small portfolio and 2 courses would be a significant number of examples. Why would you not want to play his other works, especially those that are regarded higher, if you really want to learn about GCA. People don't learn just from the best examples, they learn a lot from the worst as well (on what not to do).
Arthur Hills has built enough courses to have significant footprint in the world of golf over the past several decades and deserves a study. Even if his style is not something that you like, studying his courses will give you an insight on why he was such a popular architect during his time and what features made it so. And that knowledge can be used to compare perhaps other architect who built more interesting courses but who is not very popular to see what tweaking may have made his design more acceptable to general public (though it may not be something the architect wants).
Studying from the best is great. But breadth is just as important if you really want to understand architecture and its history.
-
I really wish we'd get a post here from Mike Dasher. He is/was a registered member...not sure if he survived the cut from 1,500 to 1,200.
Anyway, as I understood it, Arthur Hills' design company had at one point three business units under the parent. This was invisible to the public, but Dasher did the work in Florida and the Southeast and others handled the other two areas of focus. Art oversaw all this.
There is a thread in the archives where people go on and on and on about their disdain for his work around Ohio and Michigan. (Home turf for Hills as he lives in Toledo I think.)
The work Art Hills has with his name on it in Florida is quite good. Not in a World Top 100 kind of way, but usually fun to play and better than average. I was fortunate enough to sit in on a presentation from Dr. Hurdzan about the challenges when working in Florida because it is mostly flat. Hills (and Dasher) handle this challenge better than most.
Basing a decision to avoid his courses after a sample of two is like seeing a Pirates split-squad game at the end of Spring Training and writing them off as unwatchable. Yes, they do represent the team, but it would be a lot different if they had their ace throwing with their full roster in July.
The Dunes is terrific. The first 54 holes at Bonita Bay are great fun. (I think Creekside may be NLE, which would be a shame.) The municipal Cypress Head in Port Orange is quite enjoyable. Stoneybrooke West. There are many more. Most of the Hills stuff I've seen is in Florida, but I've also played others like Chaska Town that was used for the US Am a few years back.
-
As best i can tell, I have played the following courses that are attributed to Hills (though as noted previously, many of them may be more the product of Keith Foster or someone else working in his name):
Heritage Highlands, Tucson, AZ
Quail Creek, Green Valley, AZ
Camelback Padre, Scottsdale, AZ
Stonecreek, Paradise Valley, AZ
Heritage Eagle Bend, Aurora, CO
Tamarron, Durango, CO
Legacy Ridge, Arvada, CO
Walking Stick, Pueblo, CO
The Legacy, Las Vegas, NV
Of those, only Tamarron and Walking Stick strike me as interesting sites, and I would also be inclined to qualify those as my favorite of the courses I've played. Many of the rest are fairly typical housing community courses and are pretty forgettable as so many of those courses tend to be (which I have come to believe is almost the point).
-
Eric:
There is a rock pictured at the bottom of hill -- can strong players get to that point and have a simple flip 60 degree wedge from there?
I like the greensite for what it provides.
-
Matt,
Yes. I've seen plenty of tee shots end up down in front of the creek. It's a big poke for sure.
(http://www.elitegolfcourses.com/riverislands/riweb17.jpg)
Speaking of that creek...can I share a story here?
I actually worked there at River Islands on the maintenance crew, very briefly, after several years of working inside golf operations. I was gung ho on taking my golf course work experience to the 'next level' - to get the full breadth of what operating golf courses was all about. Well, I lasted 3 weeks out there. I loved the early mornings on that huge property along the river...who wouldn't? I'm telling you that place was magical. The smell of fresh cut grass, the occasional moo from the locals, this pristine river running all around the property and some really beautiful golf holes with perfect zoysia turf. I had my doubts though that it was my calling. Early one morning I was fly mowing the steep bank of the creek bed to the left of 2 green (shown in the picture), slipped on the wet grass and fell in with that damn mower. Scared the living $#*% out of me.
I needed to go...I thought, 'I'm not cut out for this job, so why am I out here trying to kill myself?' But I left with a few good takeaways - I learned a little more than I knew before about golf course maintenance, I got to cut holes!, and I learned to appreciate the heck out of everyone who does the job day in and day out. A few years later I became GM of a golf course 20 minutes from there. It too was a great learning experience. Our superintendent and I worked really well together and I believe that the brief time I spent inside 'outside' at RI helped foster our relationship.
Final note - Not a day goes by, when I am push mowing the banks on the edge of my back yard, that I don't think about slipping and falling into that creek bed!
Sorry for the diversion...back to Hills.
-
Point taken :) However, it's not like I'm going to seek out his work after seeing those two golf courses.
I just don't get this attitude.
If you are a true fan of GCA, why would you write someone off after playing just 2 of his courses? It is not like AH is someone with small portfolio and 2 courses would be a significant number of examples. Why would you not want to play his other works, especially those that are regarded higher, if you really want to learn about GCA. People don't learn just from the best examples, they learn a lot from the worst as well (on what not to do).
Richard,
Is it really so hard to understand? If one likes to play golf on interesting (in a good way) courses and time is not unlimited, why seek out courses that one is unlikely to appreciate? I've played 3 Hills courses that I know of (Legacy Ridge, Pipestone and Fiddler's Creek) and none of these has me clamoring for more. I'm with Mr. Lyon--while I might not turn down an invitation to play a course just because Hills' name is attached to it, I have no intention of making a concerted effort to seek out his courses.
Life is too short for bad golf courses, bad beer, etc.
-
John Conley's post reminded me of something: I HAVE played another Hills course--one of the courses at the original Bonita Bay. I thought it had a couple neat holes, and it was less artificial than the others as I recall. However, it was very nondescript, and I cannot remember too many holes specifically. Furthermore, it had wetlands on both sides of the fairway on nearly every hole. This was partially an environmental constraint, I am sure. However, that did not make it fun to play.
When I posted that I had only played two of his courses, I had this sneaking suspicion that I had played another one of his courses, but I could not remember playing any of his that I particularly liked. After that Bonita Bay mention, I realized I was right suspect I had played another one of his layouts. The fact that it was so unmemorable that I could not recall playing it says something bad about the course and his architecture in general.
-
Tim:
When you have a very small sample size don't you think you are making a major leap to presume that all future Hills courses will be the same as what you have already played ?
If I felt that way about Rees Jones -- another whipping boy on GCA -- then I would not have played his stellar work at Olde Kinderhook just outside Albany to name just one clear example. I don't presume that architects have track records and that the fingerprints from one layout automatically mean the same scenario time after after time.
The issue is not about saying people can't have opinions. They absolutely should. But comment on what you know from actually playing -- not merely by then painting with the widest of brushes and saying that all future work from such a handiwork is a waste of one's time.
JNC:
Glad you upped your portfolio of Hills courses played. ;D
I have played the layouts at Bonita Bay and concur with you there. There are a few holes of note but FL does present major challenges -- and are the same challenges to just about any architect who works there.
-
Matt,
I don't regard 3 courses as that small of a sample size--I think I've only played 3 Doak courses, for example (but I don't play as often as you rater folks).
Like I said, I'm not forswearing any and all Hills courses based on the 3 courses I've played, but I think I have some idea of Hills' style, tendencies, etc. and I'm not a big fan.
-
Tim:
Sample size does matter.
Thing of any polls conducted -- under your reasoning someone can have an opinion without being somewhat in the ball park.
That's not fair to the architect involved.
Remember what I said -- I didn't say people can't have opinions of what they have played -- it's taking that very small sample size and then applying a permanent label to all other work -- current and future.
-
I rather liked Blue Mash here in the DC area - it's not as good as Laurel Hill, but it's not sitting on quite as good land, either. Every Hills course that I recall playing were solid, though admittedly not spectacular, with the exception of UofM, which of course is just a Hills restoration of Mac and Max.
When you market the way Hills does - spreading yourself a little thin (I assume not charging premium rates), and not necessarly demanding the best land, you are not going to get Ferraris. But some of his Toyotas are quite good for what they are. Blue Mash, for instance, is comparable or better with any of the DC upscale daily fees, and yet is cheaper than most.
-
Matt,
I don't think I've done what you suggest. I'm open to playing another Hills course if I've heard good things about it from trustworthy sources (e.g., Walking Stick), but I'm not planning my next vacation around one of his courses.
Do you really think that one can't develop meaningful opinions about an architect's work after playing 2-3 courses? If the argument is that an architect has churned out dozens or even hundreds of courses so 2-3 courses is too small of a sample, I'm not sure that speaks well of the architect. And I'm not sure that's true. For example, I think you can get a sense of Ross' work by playing only a few courses (assuming the courses are reasonably true to Ross). Obviously, you learn more by playing more, but that doesn't mean you haven't learned anything after sampling a few courses.
-
Ever so often the topic of Arthur Hills legacy comes up and its a mixed bag in my eyes. On the one hand he has built 200 some golf courses so he must be doing something right, people keeping hiring him. On the other hand after 200 courses I don't think he has any courses ranked on any top 100 lists and that is a pretty poor batting average in my book.
I have played a grand total of 10 Hills courses and while none of them were awful, none of them were great. He seems to build courses that are a solid 4-5 on the Doak scale. I would not return to any of those courses nor would I recommend them to others. His course Gaillardia Country Club in Oklahoma City was so well thought of that they brought in Tom Kite of all people to remodel/fix it.
So, I probably would not seek out any more Hills course if other opportunities were available.
At the end of the day, Arthur Hills has made a good living doing what he wants to do and that's hard to beat.
-
Ever so often the topic of Arthur Hills legacy comes up and its a mixed bag in my eyes. On the one hand he has built 200 some golf courses so he must be doing something right, people keeping hiring him. On the other hand after 200 courses I don't think he has any courses ranked on any top 100 lists and that is a pretty poor batting average in my book.
I have played a grand total of 10 Hills courses and while none of them were awful, none of them were great. He seems to build courses that are a solid 4-5 on the Doak scale. I would not return to any of those courses nor would I recommend them to others. His course Gaillardia Country Club in Oklahoma City was so well thought of that they brought in Tom Kite of all people to remodel/fix it.
So, I probably would not seek out any more Hills course if other opportunities were available.
Well, sure. But a lot of people don't necessarily have regular access to Doak 6 or above courses. Doak 5s include Royal Aberdeen , St. Andrews - New and Jubilee , Cavendish, Stoke Poges, Saunton, Worcester, and East Lake. As someone who (1) lives in an area (DC) that has very few 6s or above, and (2) has limited private club access in any event (and this not only describes myself but most people), I find a guy who can regularly produce 4s and 5s, and that a regular joe can get access to without getting very lucky or blowing a very large amount of money to be no small accomplishment as far as GCA goes. This is particularly true when, as a certain other way off topic thread has shown, the current economy provides the challenge of making quality architecture affordable.
-
Arthur Hills is the prototypical modern architect: lots of style, very little substance. On the surface, his courses might like good for the undiscerning eye. However, when you look closer you realize that the courses are very manufactured, with tons of containment mounds, contrived bunkers, and un-natural greens. He also relies on water for defense on a lot of courses.
I've played two of his courses: Olde Atlanta and Fiddler's Creek (in Naples, FL). Both courses share a few characteristics. The first is the heavy use of containment mounding, which he uses to line both sides of every fairway. This gives the course a very artificial feel. It's as if you're experiencing a postmodern sculpture rather than a golf course.
The second characteristic is that both courses are filled with vapid, unmemorable golf holes. I can't recall more than five holes at Fiddler's Creek. I can vaguely remember most of the holes at Olde Atlanta, but only because I've played it three times. However, I could not describe specific features of any one of the 36 greensites on the two courses. I can only remember that were generally very artificial.
Third, each course features two or three holes that pretty much unplayable for most golfers. These holes usually involve unreasonable carries over water. These holes include the 11th and 18th at Olde Atlanta, and the 1st and 17th at Fiddler's Creek.
I'm guessing that Hills has done better courses than these two (or at least I would hope so). However, which of his courses even match up to the work of architects like Doak, C & C, Lester George, George, Strantz, Mike Young, Mike Strantz, Brian Silva, or countless others? Hell, Fazio and RTJ II build much more interesting courses than Hills.
Jon,
First of all, you impugn a lot of talented modern designers with your opening sentence. I wonder if you can really make that case.
But Hills' courses aside, is there really such a sharp line dividing the new masters you mention at the end of your post and everybody else? And just out of curiosity, how many courses from, say, Mike Young or Lester George, can you speak authoritatively on the way you do about Olde Atlanta and Fiddlers Creek? Have you played any of their "bad" ones?
My reason for weighing in is not to defend Hills. I agree with what many have said here: his portfolio is way too thick to not have more courses seriously weighed against the county's best.
In my view, Hills was the product of the times he worked. A great bulk of the his courses were tied into real estate, and he might even have had some sort of partnership with certain large housing developers. It was a way to pay the bills, and probably a pretty good one. That's the route he chose and is open to criticism for it, but I think let's keep it in mind. As such, he wasn't holding out for great properties and many if not most of his courses were sharing land with a bunch of other things. He also built a lot of courses on unworthy golf sites.
I also think he and his team went through certain aesthetic phases. There's a period of work in the late '80's and early '90s where he seemed to minimally defending greens, often with just one (but sometimes more) circular bunkers. You see it a little at Olde Atlanta, and when you do come across it, it looks dated and really out of scale. When I think of Hills from this era I think of strange sizes and shapes. I also think there was a tendency toward narrowness that also doesn't mix well with today's tastes, although that could have had to do with sacrificing space to developers.
However, up until a year or so ago (and it may still be this way), his firm's recent work has tried to embrace contemporary design trends. A handful of projects were turned over to younger staffers like Brian Yoder and Chris Wilczynski, and you can see more room, variety and bravado in their designs (Wolfdancer in Texas and Sand Golf Club in Sweden come to mind).
For the record I've played 12 Hills courses.
-
John Conley's post reminded me of something: I HAVE played another Hills course--one of the courses at the original Bonita Bay. I thought it had a couple neat holes, and it was less artificial than the others as I recall.
After that Bonita Bay mention, I realized I was right suspect I had played another one of his layouts. The fact that it was so unmemorable that I could not recall playing it says something bad about the course and his architecture in general.
Bonita Bay opened with 18 holes. Then across the street they added Creekside. Then 18 more were added, with nine holes tacked on to nine existing to form the Bay Island and Marsh 18s.
About 25 years ago the original 18 was ranked about #70 on the Golf Digest list. A very strong amateur I know called it the greatest test of driving he'd ever seen. Like Derek says, Hills' resume is the result of his era.
Your tagline says LOVES CLASSIC COURSES. Art Hills did not usher in the new-classic era. Neither did Robert Von Hagge, Robert Trent Jones, or Dick Wilson. Compared to his contemporaries, I've always considered the Hills name an endorsement in Florida.
For an unusual body of work, I'd love your thoughts on the late Dave Harman. If you played the wrong two from his portfolio, which certainly includes Magnolia Plantation, and wrote him off it would be a pity.
-
I kind of see both sides of this argument. For the past few years, I've taken 1/4 of a regular time at Stonewall Orchard with some buddies. They like it primarily since we have an early time on Sunday and the greens are some of the best conditioned of the area's publics. I'm considering dropping out next season simply because the course is underwhelming, the 18th hole is one of the silliest closing par 5's you'll ever see, tough and pricey. I've also played Bay Harbor and seen his renovation work at Ivanhoe and U of M, both of which, while not horrible, could have been better. It's a bit of a conundrum. Given that I don't get to play as much as some here, why not seek out the best possible courses or return to those that I know and love? Yet this leads to a sort of insularity. I've liked or loved all the courses of X GCA so I seek out more of his designs, which I'm predisposed to like, and I'm happy in my ignorance...Yet there's that uncovered gem or new designer that I may overlook, or even that really special Art Hills track, that I miss due to my cocoon of a portfolio of courses....... :-\
-
John Conley,
Any chance you've played the 27 hole River Strand GC between Tampa and Sarasota? I was down there for a wedding and the groom booked us there for the day. We had a ball and I recall it had a variety of enjoyable par 3's (one with a beautiful Biarritz green), the greens were firm and lightning quick and the fairways plenty wide. The groom sprays it everywhere off the tee, yet he won the big cash that day!
I thought a lot of the bunker work was good as well. Some of them were just ok. I have some pics at home somewhere.
-
I have played 9 original AH courses (I thought El Conquistador was his, if it is 10 course) and 2 renos. Unlike some I thought they were fine for their locations and the one I disliked is the LPGA at Daytona Beach while the ones I enjoyed the most were Golf Club of Georgia (played them twice, two Septembers in a row).
I have only played one Doak course, the Renaissance Club in Scotland. It rained hard both days, I played with some really nice people (including Rich Goodale), met some other great people, I liked the Pro and his staff, but the course wouldn't make my top 30 in Scotland. So it's hard to make an opinion based on only 1 or 3 courses, and I've loved everything I've read about TD and his courses.
-
John Conley,
Any chance you've played the 27 hole River Strand GC between Tampa and Sarasota? I was down there for a wedding and the groom booked us there for the day. We had a ball and I recall it had a variety of enjoyable par 3's (one with a beautiful Biarritz green), the greens were firm and lightning quick and the fairways plenty wide. The groom sprays it everywhere off the tee, yet he won the big cash that day!
I thought a lot of the bunker work was good as well. Some of them were just ok. I have some pics at home somewhere.
I have not. I've lived in Florida for 18 years and have not spent much time in Sarasota/Bradenton. Sounds like many of the Hills courses I've seen and liked.
-
Gary,
What 30 Courses in Scotland are better? According to Golfweek (interpolating Modern and Classic) there's only 14, a few of which are somewhat overrated in my opinion. I'm genuinely interested as RCAA is one of Doak's I haven't played...
-
Gary,
What 30 Courses in Scotland are better? According to Golfweek (interpolating Modern and Classic) there's only 14, a few of which are somewhat overrated in my opinion. I'm genuinely interested as RCAA is one of Doak's I haven't played...
JUd, I think you should play RC and make your own opinion. My 30 Scottish courses would be my opinion, and mine only. GOLFWEEK's opinion is also their opinion, should I move RC to 15 on my list? :)
-
Eric,
Thanks for jogging my memory. We lived in Tampa when River Strand was brand new. I've only played the original 18 holes, and I did enjoy it. I remember the biarritz green you mentioned. It was a good set of par 3s, and the course had a feel and look that was atypical of FL...
-
Tim:
Let me just say this ...
If you concur with JNC then you are saying that non-existent sample size doesn't matter and one can then brand a person by such a limited portofolio because of what that person has already played.
If you are truly "open to playing another Hills course" -- which JNC was not -- then that's a different matter.
Tim, when someone just plays 2-3 courses from an architect with a large portfolio it becomes very difficult to really glean anything that you can say with total certainty or even near certainity. What happens if one simply played the turkeys of that total ? What of someone simply played the elite best ? A small sample size in your case and in JNC's -- limits one's perspective. I never said you can't draw conclusions from the ones played -- but no person has the wherewithal to then extrapolate that tiny sample size and say that playing all others would be a waste of time.
Tim -- remember this -- I don't doubt people may not have the opportunity or desire to play a representative sample. That's fine. That's your call and JNC's. What I object to is the desire to brand that small -- very small sample size -- into larger conclusions.
To use baseball terms -- think of it like a batting average -- if a guy hits home runs in two straight at-bats do we then proclaim he is in the same league with Babe Ruth? Doubt it very much. Ditto if he should just strike out in two at-bats. If I recall correctly Willie Mays didn't get a hit for the first 40 or so at bats. Under your reasoning Durocher should have thrown him back into the minors.
-
Tim:
Let me just say this ...
If you concur with JNC then you are saying that non-existent sample size doesn't matter and one can then brand a person by such a limited portofolio because of what that person has already played.
If you are truly "open to playing another Hills course" -- which JNC was not -- then that's a different matter.
Tim, when someone just plays 2-3 courses from an architect with a large portfolio it becomes very difficult to really glean anything that you can say with total certainty or even near certainity. What happens if one simply played the turkeys of that total ? What of someone simply played the elite best ? A small sample size in your case and in JNC's -- limits one's perspective. I never said you can't draw conclusions from the ones played -- but no person has the wherewithal to then extrapolate that tiny sample size and say that playing all others would be a waste of time.
Tim -- remember this -- I don't doubt people may not have the opportunity or desire to play a representative sample. That's fine. That's your call and JNC's. What I object to is the desire to brand that small -- very small sample size -- into larger conclusions.
To use baseball terms -- think of it like a batting average -- if a guy hits home runs in two straight at-bats do we then proclaim he is in the same league with Babe Ruth? Doubt it very much. Ditto if he should just strike out in two at-bats. If I recall correctly Willie Mays didn't get a hit for the first 40 or so at bats. Under your reasoning Durocher should have thrown him back into the minors.
Matt, I don't think you answered my question (other than saying "more than 2").
Matt, what would you view as a workable sample size?
-
That's just what I was going to ask. Statistics would say 20-30, but that seems excessive in a field where the results are far from random....
-
Doug:
There's no perfect answer partner.
I would say this -- if someone is assessing the quality of people like TF, JN or AH then you need to have a sample size of no less than ten (10) courses because of the sheer number of courses completed. And they should be a diverse lot -- by that, I mean from different areas of the country. Playing all of someone's work just in Florida is a limited situation at best. I would also say that within the sample size it would help if the courses were from different categories -- private, resort, ccfad, muni or low level budget/fees, etc, etc.
Doing that allows for some semblance of reasonable discussion. No doubt the specific courses played will determine plenty. It's possible that someone could play 10 JN courses and each of them really was no that good. It can happen.
I will say this again so no one thinks otherwise.
I never said people can't have opinions on what they have played. It's the notion one can then extrapolate that into something broader and more definitive about the overall skillset of a given architect.
-
I kind of see both sides of this argument. For the past few years, I've taken 1/4 of a regular time at Stonewall Orchard with some buddies. They like it primarily since we have an early time on Sunday and the greens are some of the best conditioned of the area's publics. I'm considering dropping out next season simply because the course is underwhelming, the 18th hole is one of the silliest closing par 5's you'll ever see, tough and pricey. I've also played Bay Harbor and seen his renovation work at Ivanhoe and U of M, both of which, while not horrible, could have been better. It's a bit of a conundrum. Given that I don't get to play as much as some here, why not seek out the best possible courses or return to those that I know and love? Yet this leads to a sort of insularity. I've liked or loved all the courses of X GCA so I seek out more of his designs, which I'm predisposed to like, and I'm happy in my ignorance...Yet there's that uncovered gem or new designer that I may overlook, or even that really special Art Hills track, that I miss due to my cocoon of a portfolio of courses....... :-\
Jud:
I don't think the 18th hole is half as bad as the 10th...now THAT is a goofy hole! :)
The 18th to me is really just driver, 6 iron to the left side of fairway, bunt PW to the front of the green...try to 2 putt. I actually like the 4th (?) hole: the short par-4 with water on the right, the 2nd, and the short par-3 on the back....all pretty good and pretty interesting golf holes.
I will say that it is a nice place to play golf as there are no homes, generally quick pace of play, and it's usually in good condition.
-
Doug:
It sure as hell can't be just two (2) courses.
JNC:
The issue is making sweeping judgements across the board. You have played two - count-em two AH courses. How would you like it if someone evaluated your work with only two examples?
Re-read what I sent to you in my last response. I have no issue with people providing their opinions on what they have played -- I do have issue with anyone extrapolating comments from such a tiny sample of courses and then saying look see at how poor that architect is across the board. Credibility is something that people on blog sites should be interested in maintaining -- despite your knowledge of courses (which is considerable) you badly undercut yourself with such broad and ignorant statements. You're better than that. I value your comments on what you have played -- does it hurt to just simply stick to that rather than throwing forward such broad generalizations?
From the 20 or so AH courses I have played I would be hard pressed to say if any would make my personal top 100. But keep in mind, that doesn't mean to say that all of the places of his that I have played are dogfood or not worthy of a round of golf.
Just a thought for you to think about -- nothing more. Thanks ...
I kind of agree with Matt to a point.
You could play 30 or 40 courses designed by Donald Ross, but if they were all the ones he never saw with his own eyes or the ones that have evolved one way or another over the years, you wouldn't have much good to say about him. At least compared to those who know Pinehurst, Seminole, etc.
I think you just have to keep an open mind and try to be smart. Two or three courses from a person or firm that has designed hundreds around the world is simply not enough of a sampling upon which to make sweeping declarations as JNC Lyon did. On the other hand, the quality of work on almost all of Doak's or C&C's work is so high, if you've played 2 or 3 you can probably speak intelligently.
Then again, I think even Tom Doak said on this board that once you've seen about 3 courses from an architect you can kind of figure out what they're all about. But again, just try to be smart and honest about what you say.
-
Derek,
Even for Doak, if you went to Charlotte Golf Links (the first of his I played) and perhaps 1-2 others of his lesser known work, would you really expect Pac Dunes and some of the other greats that he's built? Charlotte Golf Links is very average--nothing bad but just not that memorable. I certainly was surprised to find out when I became more interested in the topic that the designer of that course had built some of the finest in the world, and it took playing more of his work to get over that skepticism. Lost Dunes did the trick pretty well, and Ballyneal and Rock Creek confirmed things! Had I played Riverfront and Quail Crossing instead, however, perhaps the questions would have remained. (I haven't played either, so I'm totally guessing).
-
Derek,
Even for Doak, if you went to Charlotte Golf Links (the first of his I played) and perhaps 1-2 others of his lesser known work, would you really expect Pac Dunes and some of the other greats that he's built? Charlotte Golf Links is very average--nothing bad but just not that memorable. I certainly was surprised to find out when I became more interested in the topic that the designer of that course had built some of the finest in the world, and it took playing more of his work to get over that skepticism. Lost Dunes did the trick pretty well, and Ballyneal and Rock Creek confirmed things! Had I played Riverfront and Quail Crossing instead, however, perhaps the questions would have remained. (I haven't played either, so I'm totally guessing).
Andy,
This is where we have to be practical when we try to evaluate someone's work. Arthur Hills has been running a design business for the greater part of 30 years. Otherwise he'd never be able to usher into existence the several hundred courses that bear his name. Tom Doak on the other hand, despite his success, is an artisan. There's a vast discrepancy between the number of courses they've built and the way they operate as architects.
They're just different and we have to acknowledge that. Because he's more an artisan and is also more of a public figure, Doak's career can be viewed contemporaneously, in an evolving arc: we're all witnessing and evaluating it as it happens. Because the product is limited (compared to Hills' work) and happening in this hyper-informative age, those of us willing to follow architecture are month-by-month the creators and creations of his repuation.
That's why we can look at any of Doak's early courses and not hold them against him. He's in the process of telling us a story--there's a narrative being built. Hills isn't doing that anymore. We're looking backwards at him and making out own stories that align with out perceptions.
-
This discussion has gone badly off the rails.
Anyone can have opinions about an architect based on whatever evidence he thinks relevant.
If you think those opinions are wrong, then give reasons why you think they are wrong. You might note, among other things, that there are courses X, Y and Z he hasn't played that contradict his opinions.
But the Matt Ward response that you are not entitled to an opinion unless you have played a Matt Ward approved number of courses is nuts
If Matt doesn't like JNC's opinions, then do JNC the courtesy of telling him why he is wrong. But do not tell him that he has no right to his opinions.
Bob
-
Matt,
I agree that sweeping generalities based on a small sample size are not appropriate. The real question is, after you've played 3 courses of a given GCA and been completely underwhelmed, why would you bother playing the fourth if there are likely better options available, barring glowing reviews from informed sources?
-
Art Hills has been given the opportunity to renovate a large number of classic and "well known" courses: Inverness, Milwaukee CC, Oakmont, U of M, Ivanhoe, Oakland Hills, Point 'O Woods, etc.
One listed on his website really stood out to me: Crystal Downs. Can someone with knowledge of his involvement explain what he did there?? The renovation is listed in 1991.
Ken
-
Jud:
The issue is keeping an open mind -- think of it this way -- if an architect has struck out from two or three other courses you have played -- it's possible with a better site and some additional elements (like a budget to work with) that they can deliver a much better effort -- even one for state or national acclaim.
Like I said before -- I have no issue with opinions on what someone has played -- it's extrapolating that into some sort of broad assetive statements that based on such a limited sample that the architect in question is totally unable to deliver a top shelf effort.
Bob C:
Get real.
I never said people can't have opinions on what they have played. Read what I wrote -- not what you think I wrote. I simply said that when you take a limited sample of just 2-3 courses from someone who has 150 or more courses to their credit it would help if you had a broader sample size before making definitive comments about whether such a person has the goods to be a golf architect.
-
Tim:
Let me just say this ...
If you concur with JNC then you are saying that non-existent sample size doesn't matter and one can then brand a person by such a limited portofolio because of what that person has already played.
If you are truly "open to playing another Hills course" -- which JNC was not -- then that's a different matter.
Tim, when someone just plays 2-3 courses from an architect with a large portfolio it becomes very difficult to really glean anything that you can say with total certainty or even near certainity. What happens if one simply played the turkeys of that total ? What of someone simply played the elite best ? A small sample size in your case and in JNC's -- limits one's perspective. I never said you can't draw conclusions from the ones played -- but no person has the wherewithal to then extrapolate that tiny sample size and say that playing all others would be a waste of time.
Tim -- remember this -- I don't doubt people may not have the opportunity or desire to play a representative sample. That's fine. That's your call and JNC's. What I object to is the desire to brand that small -- very small sample size -- into larger conclusions.
To use baseball terms -- think of it like a batting average -- if a guy hits home runs in two straight at-bats do we then proclaim he is in the same league with Babe Ruth? Doubt it very much. Ditto if he should just strike out in two at-bats. If I recall correctly Willie Mays didn't get a hit for the first 40 or so at bats. Under your reasoning Durocher should have thrown him back into the minors.
Matt, I don't think you answered my question (other than saying "more than 2").
Matt, what would you view as a workable sample size?
;)
-
Matt, I'm reading what you wrote. It goes:
"I simply said that when you take a limited sample of just 2-3 courses from someone who has 150 or more courses to their credit it would help if you had a broader sample size before making definitive comments about whether such a person has the goods to be a golf architect."
Of course a broader sampling helps. That's always true. But you are saying something else, something that is both more interesting and less true. You are saying that it's not possible to be right about an architect after having played only a small sampling of his courses. That is the gist of your objections to JNC.
Specifically, what you don't address is whether JNC - even with his small sampling - is actually right.
Why not take another approach to views you don't agree with? Tell us what it is that is wrong with them rather than dismissing them because of the sample size used.
Bob
-
Bob:
Try to remember this -- JNC made a broad generalization from such a limited sample size. That kind of statement is bound to undermine anyone's credibility.
I'll say this again in case you or anyone else missed what I wrote several times -- I have no issue with people having specific opinions on courses they have played. That's fine. But if someone is going to throw an architect under the design bus of greatness then they need to demonstrate some serious homework. Playing 2-3 courses from someone's portfolio which is considerably more than that doesn't show that at all.
Bob, how would you like to be judged for the totalty of your work from someone who has only seen 2-3 samples of it ? How thorough is that kind of due diligence?
I can't speak to what JNC spoke about because the Hills courses he listed I have not played. I have played roughly 20 or so others and I have said based upon that sample size that it's rather disappointing that AH has not had any of his courses receive star billing -- I've played Bay Harbor in MI which is one of his "best" and it's just as not as good as the site he had to work with in my mind.
Bob, like I said before -- i have no issue with a person saying what they wish about specific courses they have played -- but one cannot then presume -- and it's a stretch for sure -- to go beyond that limited grouping of courses and then say that overall the architect is incapable of having a design worthy of a visit either from existign stock or future ones that come forward.
-
Matt,
You still have not answered my big question: Do agree or disagree with my view on Arthur Hills' architecture?
So far, you have made your point about large sample sizes repeatedly. That's fine, I probably should see more Hills courses. However, the question here is not who has seen more Hills courses. The question is how good is his architecture.
-
JNC:
I can't comment on the specifics you mentioned concerning the AH courses you played.
I have not played them.
It would be helpful if you came to the table and simply admitted that making definitive comments on what an architect has either done or in all future cases is not worth playing is really shortsighted on your part -- especially when gleaned only from playing just 2-3 courses. You generally provide interesting course comments and that comes from having played courses. Your crystal ball skills, respectfully, are just not there.
At the same time I have played a few Hills courses that are worthy of being sought out. Are they at the level of a Old Macdonald or Ballyneal or others in the top .001 percent of courses? No, but that doesn't mean they would not provide their share of worthy golf entertainment.
I did say that from the ones I have played he has not been able to hit a home run of the magnitude worthy of top 100 status in my own portfolio of courses played. That doesn't mean to to say the guy is worthless and that nothing he has done is either worth playing from existing stock or future ones. That's what you said.
If I had to apply a design grade to his work -- the interesting answer is that the more recent work is a good bit better. Likely the contributions of some of his associates has helped in that regard.
Hope my answer has helped ...
-
JNC:
I can't comment on the specifics you mentioned concerning the AH courses you played.
I have not played them.
Matt,
I made those general conclusions about Hills the architect to contribute something to the bigger discussion on Hills. If I had simply described the Hills courses I have played, it would have been useless to most people, who have not played the three courses in question. Instead, I choose to establish some themes that were common to these courses and use those themes to draw some bigger conclusions about Hills as an architect. These comments got people, including you, thinking about Hills architecture and discussing it with some vigor.
This is one reason why I often post such strong statements about golf courses. I think there is too much of a consensus on here of "to each his own" when it comes to golf course architecture. That mindset does not accomplish anything, and it gets boring after awhile.
Matt, I agree that I would be credible about Hills if I had plenty 20 courses rather than 3. However, I believe I am perceptive enough about GCA to play three of his golf courses and make some definitive conclusions about his architecture. Besides, it is not like these are three Hills courses I know anything about. I have seen and read plenty of information about his golf courses, including posts on here about courses like Bay Harbor, Longaberger, and Half Moon Bay. By corroborating this information from what I have seen of his architecture in person, I am able to make some educated judgments about his golf courses.
-
John Conley's post reminded me of something: I HAVE played another Hills course--one of the courses at the original Bonita Bay. I thought it had a couple neat holes, and it was less artificial than the others as I recall.
After that Bonita Bay mention, I realized I was right suspect I had played another one of his layouts. The fact that it was so unmemorable that I could not recall playing it says something bad about the course and his architecture in general.
Bonita Bay opened with 18 holes. Then across the street they added Creekside. Then 18 more were added, with nine holes tacked on to nine existing to form the Bay Island and Marsh 18s.
This might be part of the reason Bonita Bay was unimpressive to me. I played one of the layouts that consisted of half of the original layout. The course had two sets of back-to-back par threes, and it featured a long par four closer with a long carry over water off the tee. If a layout is spliced up from its original layout, it will almost always end up worse off than before.
About 25 years ago the original 18 was ranked about #70 on the Golf Digest list. A very strong amateur I know called it the greatest test of driving he'd ever seen. Like Derek says, Hills' resume is the result of his era.
I remember reading right before playing Bonita Bay that it had been highly ranked in the past. Despite the fact that the course had been chopped up, I still expected some good architecture. What I saw was a layout that was very high difficulty and style and very low on fun. When someone (especially a strong amateur player) calls a course a great test of driving, it throws up a red flag for me. This statement usually means that the course is very narrow, with very little strategy off the tee. I remember that this was the case at Bonita, where any wayward drive was relegated to the swamps.
I can see how this ranking was a product of the era, where difficulty was heralded over variety and options. I think I would puke if I read some of the courses that were ranked behind Bonita Bay on the list. However, I am not sure that I buy the statement that Hills' course is a "product of his era." Pete Dye was building great courses in that era, even if others were not. If Hills was unable to build great courses in that era, it was due to a lack of vision and creativity on his part.
Your tagline says LOVES CLASSIC COURSES. Art Hills did not usher in the new-classic era. Neither did Robert Von Hagge, Robert Trent Jones, or Dick Wilson. Compared to his contemporaries, I've always considered the Hills name an endorsement in Florida.
I think RTJ and Wilson built many more great courses if I am not mistaken. Two of my favorite layouts are RTJ courses, in fact. Wilson worked under Flynn, and RTJ worked under Stanley Thompson. This shows up in RTJ's early work, which involves plenty of strategy and flair, much more than Hills. From my understanding, the same can be said of Wilson, though I have not played any of his courses so I cannot really comment. However, if Hills' name is an endorsement in FLA, Florida golf is worse off than I thought...
For an unusual body of work, I'd love your thoughts on the late Dave Harman. If you played the wrong two from his portfolio, which certainly includes Magnolia Plantation, and wrote him off it would be a pity.
I know nothing about Dave Harman's work. What are some of his best layouts?
-
JNC, yes stay away from Art Hills courses then. Even if you play some of the best ones you'll have things that bother you. It's like your expectation is to be the equal of your favorite architect and then you express disappointment when it's not. Who set the high Art Hills expectation for you?
A study was done about 10-15 years ago trying to figure out which architect added the most value to real estate developments. Surprisingly, it wasn't Nicklaus. Art's run in the SW Florida market was so hot he even was dubbed the "Mayor of Naples".
What would you telll me if I left a Julia Roberts flick and said there wasn't enough gore and action for my taste? Probably that I was in the wrong theatre.
-
JNC:
Let me respond to your last post ...
How do you presume to draw "general conclusions" from just playing three courses? How is that fair to the archtect and how can you say that the courses you have played is representative of his main portfolio of courses designed by AH?
You can only really talk about the courses you have played -- for you then to make a major leap to extrapolate from that limited number of courses and then say anything else in the AH portfolio would be a waste of time playing only undercuts your own credibility and shows a real inertia in doing some homework prior to making such a claim.
I find it amusing that you presume to draw "some themes" from the ones you have played and then parlay that into some broader application of all his work -- excuse me, but what is that based upon ?
You say you post "strong statements" on golf coursers. Nothing wrong with that -- if you have done the personal homework to make such claims. You have not done the homework -- it'ds akin to saying your Cliff notes version is no less in quality than the actual book itself. Frankly, you still don't get it. Let me add that I find your comments on courses that you have actually played to be well done in many ways -- even when I don't agree with it but I know in those instances that you have taken the time to do the heavy lifting in those cases.
You say you are perceptive -- well you flunked the course with me on what you saw with AH courses and then how you can widen that narrow homework assingment into a broader generalization that has no standing. How do you presume to make an "educated judgement" when it's based on such a limited personal sample size.
Let me point out AH had two (2) courses once in the GD top 100 listing -- Eagle Trace and the original Marsh Course at Bonita Bay. You are right -- that original course was eventually split to make for other courses at that complex -- I personally believe that was a mistake but the goal then was to have all the courses use the pre-existing clubhouse.
If anything -- the original Marsh Course was quite good -- there was plenty of space to land the ball but if one were especially wayward the just penalties were certainly appropriate in my mind. I'll offer moreon a few other courses of AH I have personally played -- not just gleaned from what others have said.
-
Let me point out a few of the AH courses I have played -- not all are well done -- some much less so -- but there are a number that are far from being totally predictable and bland.
I mentioned Eagle Trace in my previous post to JNC -- given the limited nature of FL topography a nicely done layout with only 27 greenside bunkers and a only a total of 41 for the course -- quite small for a FL course of this caliber.
Bonita Bay (Marsh) - the original 18 was as tough test of driving but I found it very fair. Green contours on the original 18 were more than your cookie-cutter type.
Dunes GC (Seville, FL) -- wonderful piece of property that gets lost in the shuffle of attention to nearby World Woods.
Big Horn -- AH did the original 18 and even in all the years since is still one of the better courses in the Coachella Valley.
Walking Stick -- fine public course in Pueblo, CO -- walkable and uses the native terrain well.
Harbour Pointe / Mukiteo, WA -- GD's best affordable public in 1991 (I believe) and while the front side is fairly ordinary -- the inner half uses the rolling terrain and wonderful views of the nearby water areas to great effect.
Hyatt Regency Hill Country Resort / San Antinio -- doesn't get the notice like The Quarry -- Keith Foster's top tier layout there -- but Hyatt is no easy layout when stretched and Hills has done well to keep the average plaer in mind without maxing out the demand meter.
I'll add a few more as well.
-
Couple of other AH courses I have played that won't be rated top 100 but are still worth a play for those in the area ...
Half Moon Bay -- love the closing hole but a number of the interior holes are rather so-so / pedestrian.
Bay Harbor -- should have been really much better -- still solid holes among the Quarry & Links side.
Longaberger -- good land but the overall consistency of the holes is quite varied. Doesn't have the design goddies -- more vanilla in terms of the challenges.
Cross Creek - could have been better but has its moments.
Colonial Spring (LI, NY) -- just a dud of a course -- nothing really compelling.
Chaska Town Course -- not like the big brother next door but far from being mediocre too.
In all, the book on AH is that in certain instances he has designed quality layouts -- they may not rise to the level of super stardom but there are a few that are well worth checking out when in those respective areas.
-
Being from the dc area as well I have seen a lot of Hills. Additonally has new designs such as Blue Mash and Waverly Woods in MD. I think he does a decent job on his renovations where his routing is basically set and he sells himself as keeping with the original architect's intentions. His new courses seem more contrived and harsh. I find that his courses are not real high on the fun factor despite his use of short par fours and threes. The courses seem uncomfortable but not in a good way, meaning he doesn't seem to make the discomfort as part of his plan to deceive the player visually.
I am just not a big fan.
He also has finished Arundel Mannor a private (for one guy) course near Annapolis. I played it once and it seemed to be a lot more fun with some neat shots than some of his other original designs. I need to get there at leapt one more time to really critique the place.
Hills did the renovation on my home course, Bethesda Country Club, in the early 90's, before I was a member and before I had ever seen the course. The work was well-received by the membership, and I assume was perceived as well done by members of other clubs in Montgomery County because since then Hills has done renovations at Burning Tree, Chevy Chase, Congressional (Gold), Woodmont, and Manor. He has also done renovations at Fairfax and Belle Haven. I assume that if people at these clubs were complaining about his work, he wouldn't keep getting retained by other similarly situated clubs.
I haven't played many of his original designs, but I am generally not a fan.
-
Paul:
Just for curiosity -- how many AH courses constitutes "a lot?"
I do agree with your take on Waverly Woods -- I have played it and it's fairly mundane with little to really make it standout.
I do believe that far too many architects think they have the wherewithal to step into the renovation / restoration side of the biz and it often doesn't work out well.
Arundel Mannor sounds very interesting -- what else makes it captivatign versus the likes of other AH courses you have played ?
-
Bob and JNC,
No one is saying that you cannot criticize AH courses that you have played. If you have played those courses and you have strong opinions, this is the place to lay them down.
What is not helpful is when you make a generalization of AH's works when you have played so few (and not even his best works) of his vast portfolio. I think people need to stay away from general evaluation of an architect unless they have played significant number of his courses.
-
Richard:
Can you outline what is "significant" -- I said it would need to be the following:
1). At least 10 -- especially for someone with 100+ courses
2). In varied areas of the USA or elsewhere
3). Be a range of private, public / resort, muni, etc, etc.
-
Matt, I would not go that far. I think if you play 3 out of 5 of the architect's best know examples, I think you can start to make some general thoughts (at least on his strengths).
-
It doesn't matter a jidbit. Its always best to focus comments on courses played rather than on the architect(s).
Ciao
-
Richard:
You must have missed what I posted -- if an architect has 100+ courses in his portfolio - playing a minimum of 10% is really needed to get a good sense of what he done.
Let me also point out that having variety in different areas of the country is also helpful -- ditto if they fall into varying categories.
-
Matt,
You keep on calling everyone out for not playing enough Art Hills courses in your opinion; according to you no one plays enough courses to be able to question your opinions.
IMO, he was given two very stellar sites in Half Moon Bay and at Crosscreek. He blew it big time on both of those sites and built very mediocre golf courses. Wouldn't you be able to judge an architect by how they handle the best sites given to them?
-
PFerlicca:
You can question anything you want of me.
I never said I was an expert on AH courses or that others can provide more insights than I.
Just have the homework to back it up.
You mentioned two places such as Half Moon Bay and Crosscreek. No doubt he could have done better than what was done there. I played both of them and was hoping for better. I simply added the fact that the guy has done some quality work in other locations so we move away from the notion that people can spit out opinions without doing some serious homework.
How would you like it if I evaluated your work product simply from 2-3 samples and never bothered to do any further digging? Would you appreciate that sort of effort on my part? Would anyone?
I have played a more representative sample of AH courses than most others on this site. No doubt there may be others who have not come forward or those who lurk and don't wish to converse. Fair enough. All I said is that AH has done a better job than many might claim. Could he have done better? Sure -- never said he could not.
But there are some people who measure greatness if a guy is able to do a Ballyneal or Rock Creek or some such other course that is in the top .0001 percent of all courses. I never said Hills has demonstrated that level of greatness but for JNC or others to weigh in and say the guy has done little that's worth playing is really talking out of one's hat without the homework to back that erroneous claim up.
-
But there are some people who measure greatness if a guy is able to do a Ballyneal or Rock Creek or some such other course that is in the top .0001 percent of all courses. I never said Hills has demonstrated that level of greatness but for JNC or others to weigh in and say the guy has done little that's worth playing is really talking out of one's hat without the homework to back that erroneous claim up.
Matt,
Well, when you have shown that you can build a course at the highest level, it's hard for anyone to say you can't do it. From then on it's only a question of whether you lived up to your ability.
As for all of those Art Hills courses you have played, I am frankly a bit surprised that you never managed to figure out you were looking at the work of several different associates, with little input from the principal. In fact, if my sources are to be believed, Mr. Hills sold out the business to his associates three years ago, and is no longer involved much at all. And if that's true, then all your homework counts for nada.
-
Tom,
Just out of curiosity, at what point did he become "not so much" involved in recent designs? Only since selling, or was most of the work by his associates?
-
ok- so if a given associate is responsible for 3 courses, what's a representative sampling, 1 or 2? ;D
-
As I always state when Mr. Hills name comes up - Newport National is among the best publics in New England. Per Tom Doak's comment though Drew Rogers did most if not all of the design for the firm.
FWIW this from Ron Whitten's recent review of new courses in GD:
GOLF HOLE OF THE YEAR
Chicago Highlands Golf Club in the Chicago suburb of Westchester, was built atop an old landfill capped by 20 feet of soil, enough to allow Arthur Hills to sculpt the land into a faux links. It has a number of clever, unusual holes, the best being the 344-yard ninth, intended to be a reachable par 4 from all six tees.
Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2010-12/best-new-courses?currentPage=1#ixzz148DDi3ZF
-
Tom,
Just out of curiosity, at what point did he become "not so much" involved in recent designs? Only since selling, or was most of the work by his associates?
Richard:
I have no idea of the answer to your question. I had better things to do in those years than to keep tabs on Arthur Hills & Associates!
-
The name of the firm is Arthur Hills Steve Forrest and Associates and has been since at least 2005.
-
But there are some people who measure greatness if a guy is able to do a Ballyneal or Rock Creek or some such other course that is in the top .0001 percent of all courses. I never said Hills has demonstrated that level of greatness but for JNC or others to weigh in and say the guy has done little that's worth playing is really talking out of one's hat without the homework to back that erroneous claim up.
Matt,
Well, when you have shown that you can build a course at the highest level, it's hard for anyone to say you can't do it. From then on it's only a question of whether you lived up to your ability.
As for all of those Art Hills courses you have played, I am frankly a bit surprised that you never managed to figure out you were looking at the work of several different associates, with little input from the principal. In fact, if my sources are to be believed, Mr. Hills sold out the business to his associates three years ago, and is no longer involved much at all. And if that's true, then all your homework counts for nada.
Which is why I have siad on all these numerous Art Hills threads that his newer courses seem to be alot better than his olderr courses. The assoicates are the ones more or all responsible for the final product.
Chris
-
Tom D:
We have had this discussion regarding who gets credit for courses -- in my mind, and others as well, if someone is working under the shingle of the main man listed -- then the main man gets the credit -- pure and simple. Wthout the main man the likelihood of a given project becoming reality would have been small - if not at all possible.
No doubt associates often have a direct and clear involvement -- there are numerous instances of this as you and others well know. The issue is when you work for someone the firm and the main principle is the owner of such contributions. One of the good things with this site is that such contributions have been noted.
By the way Tom -- homework of courses does count for something.
-
I'm not sure I really understand guys keeping their brand alive by keeping their name on the masthead and having little to no involvement in a given course. Obviously, I get it financially. Or to prop your offspring up. How many guys, perhaps aside from some tour players selling their name, actually got into golf architecture primarily to turn a profit? Just think Tom, you can be killing it in your dotage by phoning it in!!
-
I'm not sure I really understand guys keeping their brand alive by keeping their name on the masthead and having little to no involvement in a given course. Obviously, I get it financially. Or to prop your offspring up. How many guys, perhaps aside from some tour players selling their name, actually got into golf architecture primarily to turn a profit? Just think Tom, you can be killing it in your dotage by phoning it in!!
Didn't a guy by the name of Ross kind of do that?????
Ken
-
The ongoing dispute regarding the necessity of seeing an adequate number of courses by an architect in order to properly evaluate his body of work is important. It is not limited to criticism of GCA. Certainly, if one wishes to rank the work of a prolific film director, the critic would better be served if he viewed as many works as possible. Similarly, literary critcs benefit from the same exposure. That is why there exist professional critics; they have the time to do the "homework" as Matt Ward puts it.
However, it is a more difficult task when it comes to evaluating golf courses because of the time and expense needed to go and see courses which are spread all over the world. Thus there are fewer individuals who have the ability to see the requisite samples.
I note that this does not keep any individual from making a perceptive review of a course. If that review exposes weaknesses in the architect's work and other reviews of other courses suggest a similar weakness, then a reader might fairly conclude that the weakness is habitual and characteristic of the architect. Accordingly, a series of reviews by mutiple critics may be as telling as the review of a single more travelled critic; indeed that method likely filters out any bias that may be held by the single reviewer.
Finally, I suggest that , in the end, the analytical ability and taste of the reviewer is of critical importance. This may be a matter of the reader's taste, but a critic who has seen 100's of courses but doesn't "get it" won't provide better information than one who is less experienced but has a better understanding of what makes a course "great'.
-
SL:
The issue is that too many people want to provide "expert" opinions when they don't have the samples to back it up. A sample size doesn't have to be that many -- but it needs to be somewhat representative. That's why I suggested it include courses from other areas of the country and some different subject categories (private, public, resort, etc, etc).
GCA works when people can share detailed info and comment from such perspectives. Once people get into the extrapolating game it becomes nothing more than educated guesses -- often times the lack of a solid sample pool prejudices the outcomes that are ultimately posted.
-
Isn't critical analysis of individual courses more important than an overview of the architect as a whole? I think critical analysis of enough individual courses leads to a general view of the work of the architect, and besides, we learn more from looking at specific courses than totaling up the good and bad. If all anyone had seen of Fellini was his work after maybe 1963, they should think he was a hack, but if they had only seen his films done in the 1950s, they would think he was one of the 3 or 4 absolute geniuses of the art. Go figure.
-
Jeff:
JNC provided a reach beyond the limited AH courses he had played and then said that any other work by AH would be waste of his time given what he had played. You say a "general view" can be done -- what's "enough individual courses" for that to happen.
I have tried to point out that when a person tries to apply a tag to an architect it's important to have enough evidence to make a claim. You're right -- to use a baseball example -- if somoone had seen Willie Mays -- prior to '66 they'd likely have one opinion -- those who saw him with the Mets in '73 would have thought much differently.
-
Jeff,
I agree individual course reviews are best. If those reviews give a misleading impression, the best approach is for someone concerned to just write a review about another course by that architect that demonstrates something different.
Probably somewhere along the way I've played 5 or 6 Hills' courses. None struck me as particularly good or bad. Just ok.
Speaking of Arthur Hills, I just moved from Franklin, TN where he was building a course called Westhaven. There were several holes I liked and had an Oakmont feel to them (#13, #18).
Wish someone could write how the course has turned out.
-
Tim:
People can do cumulative summaries of someone's career. For those who want to engage in providing assessments across a longer reach of time it helps to be able to critique courses from within that portfolio -- and frankly one cannot do that without having an adequate sample size in my mind. JNC is a very perceptive course assesser but I simply took issue with him making a blanket assessment on Hills without having the homework / personal research to say so.
I have no doubt that people can critique an individual course -- the issue is taking that small number of courses -- in the discussion it was roughly 2-3 and then saying with definity that such a designer is not worth seeing with any of his other courses.
-
Tom D:
We have had this discussion regarding who gets credit for courses -- in my mind, and others as well, if someone is working under the shingle of the main man listed -- then the main man gets the credit -- pure and simple. Wthout the main man the likelihood of a given project becoming reality would have been small - if not at all possible.
No doubt associates often have a direct and clear involvement -- there are numerous instances of this as you and others well know. The issue is when you work for someone the firm and the main principle is the owner of such contributions. One of the good things with this site is that such contributions have been noted.
By the way Tom -- homework of courses does count for something.
No no, Matt. We can give credit to the associates of Modern architects but not to the associates or partners if the case may be of the Old Dead Guys.
-
JC:
Touche !
-
Matt,
Supposing an architect built many courses and none had received particular acclaim. But, then, you stumbled upon one of this architect's courses that you were really impressed with.
To my mind, the best thing would be to write what you found so appealing about the course. It would be a whole lot better than arguing another poster wasn't qualified to comment because he hadn't seen enough of that architect's work.
If something is really good, I'd rather hear about it (the golf course), than anything about the credentials of any poster here.
-
Tim:
I don't doubt people can "stumble" upon a course that they may really like. Great. The issue is whether that course represents the norm or is the one-time effort that rests outside the usual production of layouts that is produced.
I never said AH hits big time compelling architecture with his layouts -- I define "compelling architecture" as those that would have a solid claim to be rated among the best in the nation. JNC pointed out that given his tiny sample of actual courses played -- he opined that anything that AH has done would be a waste of time to play.
Tim, it's clear to me you either don't understand or don't want to concede the obvious -- people should not make generalized claims about the worthiness of someone's work if they have not taken the time to be a bit more involved with the homework it takes to make such claims. I posted the AH courses I have played and while a few are especially noteworthy -- there aren't any I would say would make a final top 100 USA listing. Does that mean to say the guy designs dogfood layouts. No -- it just means that many of his courses don't rise to the highest of highs. I believe JNC is interested in only those courses that are in the highest of altitudes. Fair enough for him. But not fair, in my mind, to opine that AH has nothing of value that is worth playing. I believe he has demonstrated that.
-
I believe JNC is interested in only those courses that are in the highest of altitudes.
Matt,
That's far from the truth. In fact, I often avoid courses in the "highest altitudes" because they likely required a great deal of hype to reach those heights. When I went to London, I avoided expensive, well-known courses like Sunningdale, Walton Heath, and Wentworth like the plague. I am sure they are good courses, but I was not going to spend time and money seeing them when I could see other courses that I knew were to my liking. That's also why I played North Berwick and Royal Dornoch instead of St. Andrews and Carnoustie. Would TOC and Carnasty have been interesting? Sure, but I think the courses I picked were much better choices for many different reasons.
Matt, I am not being elitist here. I simply try to pick out courses that I feel will be lots of fun to play, will be unique, and from which I can learn something about golf course architecture. This could vary from Royal Dornoch all the way to a 116-year-old nine holer in Central New York. I choose to avoid Hills courses because I have learned from reading about his courses and playing his courses in the past that I will not be inspired by his work. Why play a bad course when you can play a good one instead? Variety for variety's sake is worthless.
-
I played a Hills course Tuesday, Cross Creek in Temecula.
I took my first photo tour and will try to get it up this weekend, but I'll share my overall impressions which were similar to the other Hills courses I've played. Arthur Hills seems to miss opportunities to stand out. I think there was one great hole on the entire course, however the site was fantastic and could've rivaled Rustic Canyon or been even more impressive.
I don't know what his firm charges, but it appears there's less thought behind each hole and shot. It's possible in the case of his courses the developers and golfers get what they pay for. Not every course can be great, and I think Arthur Hills' courses in general are better as a contrast to great architecture instead of an example.
All that said, I had tons of fun, paid 22 bucks for an online tee time and shot my best score in months. Not a bad day at all. 8)
-
JNC:
Here's what you originally posted --
You stated the names of some of the more preferred archies on this site at the end of your post.
You then made a generalized comment on the overall value of AH courses -- based on what sort of sample size ? Two courses ?
Which you later amended to three (3) played. How do you presume to throw a generalized tag around the neck of someone's work with such a tiny sample to base it upon.
JNC, you are an astute and often times laser-like analyzer of courses -- but in those cases you have demonstrated homework that is much more than a scratch the surface type. I have tried on this thread to point out that the AH firm (since some people take umbrage that he even does the heavy lifting anymore) has done some interesting designs that I have played which are scattered around the country. I have not said that these layouts are at the Balyneal, Clear Creek, levels. But there are a few worthy of someone's time and $$ to play. I think it's fair to say -- what Alex Miller said is true -- that often times when AH firm hashad superior sites they have failed to ge the most out of it (e.g Half Moon Bay, CrossCreek, Bay Harbor, etc, etc).
Variety is worth doing -- as you indicated in your post. I'll say this again - for what it's worth -- avoid the blanket tag-line approach to a designer -- especially when you extrapolate conclusions from a findings list that is so utterly small. AH is e-z to shoot at because his portfolio of courses doesn't have the one or two home run designs that make most top 100 lists. He does have a few layouts that I have played that are worth playing -- not as the prime attention spots but as secondary ones which are indeed better than his general norm.
*****
Arthur Hills is the prototypical modern architect: lots of style, very little substance. On the surface, his courses might like good for the undiscerning eye. However, when you look closer you realize that the courses are very manufactured, with tons of containment mounds, contrived bunkers, and un-natural greens. He also relies on water for defense on a lot of courses.
I've played two of his courses: Olde Atlanta and Fiddler's Creek (in Naples, FL). Both courses share a few characteristics. The first is the heavy use of containment mounding, which he uses to line both sides of every fairway. This gives the course a very artificial feel. It's as if you're experiencing a postmodern sculpture rather than a golf course.
The second characteristic is that both courses are filled with vapid, unmemorable golf holes. I can't recall more than five holes at Fiddler's Creek. I can vaguely remember most of the holes at Olde Atlanta, but only because I've played it three times. However, I could not describe specific features of any one of the 36 greensites on the two courses. I can only remember that were generally very artificial.
Third, each course features two or three holes that pretty much unplayable for most golfers. These holes usually involve unreasonable carries over water. These holes include the 11th and 18th at Olde Atlanta, and the 1st and 17th at Fiddler's Creek.
I'm guessing that Hills has done better courses than these two (or at least I would hope so). However, which of his courses even match up to the work of architects like Doak, C & C, Lester George, George, Strantz, Mike Young, Mike Strantz, Brian Silva, or countless others? Hell, Fazio and RTJ II build much more interesting courses than Hills.
-
JNC:
I never said the AH courses you played didn't fit your description -- but you say that avoidance of all other AH courses is what you intend to do.
That's fine.
But you drew such a DEFINITIVE CONCLUSION on a very tiny sample size.
I would hope that a bright mind such as yours would realize that.
AH may not have a course at the same level of the archies you mentioned. OK. That can happen. That doesn't mean to say that other AH courses may provide a worthy round of entertaining golf from a design that is far beyond the small sample size you drew your conclusions from.
I salute your desire to search out other courses -- some way off the beaten path.
AH has a few of them - I noted them for those so inclined. There may be others that posters can provide as well. If push came to shove and I had to decide between an AH and Doak course -- the latter would be preferred. Batting averages do count for something but I do believe that variety has its place otherwise only the same people would be lauded when other missing courses would remain in the shadows of ignorance.
-
I played a Hills course Tuesday, Cross Creek in Temecula.
I took my first photo tour and will try to get it up this weekend, but I'll share my overall impressions which were similar to the other Hills courses I've played. Arthur Hills seems to miss opportunities to stand out. I think there was one great hole on the entire course, however the site was fantastic and could've rivaled Rustic Canyon or been even more impressive.
I don't know what his firm charges, but it appears there's less thought behind each hole and shot. It's possible in the case of his courses the developers and golfers get what they pay for. Not every course can be great, and I think Arthur Hills' courses in general are better as a contrast to great architecture instead of an example.
All that said, I had tons of fun, paid 22 bucks for an online tee time and shot my best score in months. Not a bad day at all. 8)
Alex, sorry you had to play Cross Creek. :-\ It is truly one of the great wastes of property that I am familiar with in California, the area of the front 9 is somewhat reminiscient of Garden City. So I would say with a decent design firm, we might have been looking at something superior to Rsutic.
-
This is slightly off-topic from where this thread has traveled, but I mentioned here earlier that there was a period in the late '80's/early '90's when Hills seemed to minimally bunker his greens, often with circular-shaped bunkers (sometimes just a single one right in front or even right behind).
I was flying through Salt Lake City yesterday and looking out the plane window. Below I see a course near the airport with some of this kind of bunkering. I said to myself, that looks like an Arthur Hills course. It occurred to me today to look it up, and lo and behold, it's called Wingpointe, a 1990 Arthur Hills design.
Which has nothing much to do with anything I guess other than to illustrate a point.
-
A good place to see diversity from one architect on one property--in this case Arthur Hills--is the Golf Club of Georgia. This is not an opinion of either the Lakeside or Creekside course; simply throwing it out there and saying it can be awfully tough to pigeonhole designers to a singular style.
-
Matt,
Regarding "generalized claims", I simply believe the best approach is to respond by discussing a course that is contrary to the "generalized claim".
So, now I know Matt Ward doesn't think JNC Lyon is qualified to discuss Arthur Hills' overall body of work. The problem is that doesn't tell me anything about which AH courses are truly worth going out of one's way to see.
If you have done write ups on such courses, why not simply refer the reader to that thread?
By the way, I am still hoping someone will provide a report about Hills' course in Franklin, TN called Westhaven.
-
Tim:
If you had taken the time to read this thread from start to end you would have seen various AH courses that were listed as worth checking out. They are not in the same league as Ballyneal or Rock Creek or others that are often discussed to the nth degree on this site.
AH has plenty of courses within his portfolio and I do believe, from the 20+ courses of his I have played, that he has only hit a certain level in terms of design differentiation. The folks on this site often want something above and beyond and when AH has had sites that are clearly very good ones the outcome has been a good bit less than what many believe he could have done -- examples of that includes the likes of Bay Harbor in MI, CrossCreek and Half Moon Bay in CA, to name just a few.
Yet, he and his firm have done some interesting work in other locations and I did mention the ones I believe would have some worthy interest. The problem comes when people apply broad taglines to an architect -- both good and bad -- without including the body of personal research to support such claims.
-
Isn't critical analysis of individual courses more important than an overview of the architect as a whole? I think critical analysis of enough individual courses leads to a general view of the work of the architect, and besides, we learn more from looking at specific courses than totaling up the good and bad. If all anyone had seen of Fellini was his work after maybe 1963, they should think he was a hack, but if they had only seen his films done in the 1950s, they would think he was one of the 3 or 4 absolute geniuses of the art. Go figure.
I am blown away (in a good way) by the above, particularly when the "author" routinely discredits his political and philosophical opponents with savage gusto on the basis of a nuanced opinion or forecast not achieving the suggested results (e.g. Friedman on monetary policy in Japan). Indeed if we were to consistently apply the Goldman Rule, we are all idiots and hacks so there is no need for the Discussion Group. ;)
SL_Solow comments mirror my own made here years ago, and perhaps are shared by Matt W and others. In my opinion, we are generally on more solid ground discussing individual courses than the skills, motives, and careers of the architects.
Another contributor once noted that critical acclaim and popularity are two entirely different things. While this sounds elitist, he is probably right. However, from a practical standpoint, can an architect cater to the critic while ignoring the populace (consumer preferences)? Perhaps so if there were more individual owners with very specific clientele (e.g. Wolf Point, Sand Hills, maybe Bandon) and an industry with sound economics.
As to Art Hills, I share Matt's opinions, though my familiarity with the architect is not as extensive. Just this week I played Wolfdancer east of Austin and was favorably impressed. It is cart golf, but the first 12 holes have the site attributes and attention to detail that are typically found in Fazio courses. Unfortunately, the final six are on bottom land, and though they are solid holes, they are a bit of a let-down (flipping the nines might actually help- starting slow and building to a strong finish). Nevertheless, it is an enjoyable course- my favorite to-date from this group- which I hope to play again some day.
-
Lou:
I never said people should not only opine on courses they have personally played. That's great -- for them to stay in within their comfort zone. It's when people venture beyond that and presume to be the "expert" based only a very tiny sample that the issues begin to boil up.
-
Lou; nice to hear from you. However, it would be easier to consider your comments if you didn't have to lead off with an irrelevant political potshot on almost every post. I can get that from every side of the spectrum at many other sites.
Matt your probably correct on overgeneralizations based on a limited sample. The problem that is somewhat unique to this exercise is that golfers have to choose where to play and most of us have limits on our time due to jobs etc., our ability to travel, and cost. So it is not surprising that someone who plays a limited number of courses by an architect reaches a conclusion about his desire to see more. Perhaps he will miss something good, but given his choices and his experience he is playing the odds. That is where the professional critic who has the ime and resources comes in. But, of course, the reader has to respect the analytical ability and the judgment of the critic or all the experience in the world won't matter.
-
SL:
Clearly limited time and $$ dictate what people decide to do when visiting prospective courses. I think people should judge the totality of what it is said and seek out sources that can provide a much fuller perspective.
Those choosing not to do are free to play what they wish.
GCA is quite influential with a very active inner circle of folks who really want to see top tier designs of all sorts. AH, in my mind, has not hit the home run ball to the same degree as others. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a few layouts worthy of one's time and attention.
-
SL,
WOW! I am so sorry I alluded to your post. But it puzzles me why you would waste your extraordinary intellect in considering and commenting on my irrelevant potshots. Really, why not just ignore me altogether as I will you in the future?
Matt,
Of course people can opine on anything they wish without regard to their level of knowledge, intelligence, experience, insight, etc. It is particularly easy to do so in a medium such as this one, and I applaud Ran and Ben for not being too sensitive with the delete button. Most of us who've been here awhile know whose opinions we trust and value.
Though we might have different perspectives on what makes a good golf course, I know that when you post something on the subject that it will be based on substantial consideration and depth as well as breadth of experience. Personally, I don't think it is appropriate to state strong opinions about a course without playing it, or of an architect without having seen a good sample of his work.
Architects seem to work in different niches, and I agree that Hills has not penetrated the top. I have, however, found some of his courses challenging and enjoyable. I think he understands the fundamentals of gca- and yes, I do believe there are specific do's and don't's- and if he was able to secure a Fazio or Nicklaus-like budget, or a Doak or C & C site, that perhaps he could get one over the fence. Just speculating, mind you! ;)
-
Lou, I meant it when I said it was nice to hear from you. I enjoy your perspective on GCA which is why I come here; to exchange views on relevant posts. But if you choose to ignore my posts, that is your choice. I didn't know you were so sensitive. Heck, your "shot" wasn't even directed at me. And just so there is no mistake, I don't care which side of the political spectrum you or anyone else is on for these purposes. That's not why we come here. The bandwidth being wasted on another thread on this page is extraordinary.
-
Lou:
Glad you're back.
The thing about Hills is that clearly the people who have hired him see value in what he provides. Given his length of service in the design arena -- he has proven staying power at least from the standpoint in being $$ successful.
He's had a few stellar sites but the national acclaim is always lacking. Interestingly, he reminds me of Joe Paterno -- not as an active coach / designer now but more dependent upon his surrogates to do the heavy lifting. Some of the more recent AH work is also far better than his earlier stuff in my mind.
-
I've played a couple Art Hills courses, off the top of my head Black Gold and Journey at Pechanga.
His courses can be a lot of fun and there were good holes within both, however there were also shockingly bad golf holes too. At least for these two courses however he tackled some terrain that most architects would likely pass on, and made decent golf courses from where there easily could not be one. This would be fine to me if they weren't so overpriced, but that's not his fault because if the average Joe is willing to pay that and enjoy his round.
So I think Arthur Hills is successful, but not particularly good.
I played Black Gold this week, on January 3, and I agree that he is successful but not that good. Black Gold is perfect for OC with good conditioning, good views, elevated tees and a waterfall behind no. 18 signature hole. I had low expectations and they were met. We played at Black Gold because my playing partner had a meeting in the afternoon and Arroyo Trabuco had a tournament.
The next day I played at Rustic Canyon.
-
OK, I skimmed the first page and skipped to the last post. I'm certain its all been said several times. Yet, when these threads come up, I wonder what's wrong with building ordinary golf courses for ordinary golfers for developers on an ordinary budget? Maybe not for gourmet golfers or those trying to figure out the best of the best. Trust me, as our President Elect is fond of saying, most golfers don't notice or particularly care. There was that excellent post by Tom D. that said it didn't cost that much more to do great work, but I suspect, like most things in golf, it's pretty site and market specific.
-
I think his course at Fiddlers Creek from tee to green is pretty darn good with the exception of the 18th hole.