Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Tom_Doak on January 30, 2025, 07:45:24 PM
-
In the GOLF DIGEST Best New post, Sam Morrow complained that there is too much complaining about the results of polls, and not enough discussion of the architecture, and I agree totally. So, here's one of two posts I will make to try and get a discussion of the architecture started.
I can't include the GD Best New Private Course winner, The Covey, in this discussion because I haven't seen it, and I'm not sure how many people will have seen it and the others here. But surely lots of people have seen Old Barnwell and The Tree Farm on the same trip over the past year, even though they were a little further apart than I expected!
I attempted to play both of them in one day, with two associates, on the day before we went up to Pinehurst for The Renaissance Cup. It was a long day . . . neither course is an easy walk, and I was certainly tired by the end of it, and didn't play very well the last 18, which might have influenced my opinion of Old Barnwell a little.
For those who think I might be biased between the two, think again. While I did do the routing for The Tree Farm, I made only one visit during the construction, and the set-up was for Zac Blair and Kye Goalby to make the design decisions, not me. So you could just as easily argue that I would be biased AGAINST that course because it wasn't going to be what I envisioned. Meanwhile, I'd only seen a routing map of Old Barnwell and tried my best not to look at photos of it until I could go see for myself, but the designers are two of my associates, and I love those guys and their work. So, call it even. If I'm honest, I expected more of Old Barnwell [based on the buzz I'd been hearing] than I did of Tree Farm.
So, I was surprised that I liked them pretty evenly.
For The Tree Farm, I liked that Zac [who is a very straight hitter] kept more trees than I would have, so that a decent portion of the difficulty of the course is based on driving straight and tee-to-green play. I thought that the topography offered chances to open things up and see across from hole 5 to hole 3, for example, but I was glad they didn't do as much of that as other modern courses do.
I thought that the greens contouring was interesting without being too severe. There were a couple of recovery shots around the greens that were extremely hard, but I shouldn't have missed in those spots. The bunkers were really deep, often head-high, which I'm not a big fan of, but it makes you want to avoid them.
I loved the ambience of the starting par-3 and the finishing drivable par-4, which was totally Zac's idea. It's a lovely spot to sit and watch people in the morning or evening light.
My favorite holes were 7, 9, 10, 11, and 18. I thought 7 was a great drivable hole: the little bunker 30 yards short is diabolical, and the green has enough movement to shed an indifferent wedge shot, as it should. Full disclosure: I had supervised the shaping of a different green off to the right on my one visit, which would have made it much harder to drive the green, and kudos to Zac for abandoning that one.
My least favorite hole was 17, which tells you I missed the green short, and that was that. I was also not a big fan of 13, which was one of the holes Zac fell in love with early in the planning process . . . it's a cool idea for a hole, but it should have just stayed on top of the plateau instead of going down below, IMHO.
On to Old Barnwell. The ambience around the clubhouse is much different, but still good . . . much broader spaces. The clubhouse is yet to be finished but it looks like it will be beautiful.
The first hole was one of my favorite holes. If you go for it in two you have to carry it all the way there; the approach is offset to the left, but the closer you get to the green the more awkward the angle for the pitch. Many have commented on the berm at the start of the fairway . . . it's cool but it's just window dressing, really.
There are three "drivable" [for somebody] par-4 holes, starting with the 2nd, and for my tastes that's at least one too many. This is a good hole but probably my third choice of the three.
I was not exactly surprised how difficult the greens were, because Brian Schneider has a real talent for building great [but severe] greens . . . but I was surprised that in all the praise I'd heard for the course going in, I'd not heard anyone mention that the greens are very difficult, in terms of getting up and down when you miss them. [I wasn't alone in this: one of my associates, who's a very good player, really struggled around the greens and complained often about how difficult they are.]
Most of the greens start at the high tie-in point and rely on fill to soften the slopes into pinnable areas -- completely the opposite of my approach to building greens, but I'm fine with that. I thought that the greens contours themselves were fine, but that the recovery shots were quite difficult and pretty repetitive. It seemed I was often chipping or pitching up to a green that wasn't very receptive, and if I went too far it was off the other side and down for a similar recovery shot. More to the point: there are only a few holes where you can miss to a particular side of the green and leave yourself a reasonable up and down. For most of them, at least three of the four sides of the green are a "bad" side.
My favorite holes were 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, 14, and 18. I picked the first hole for my annual eclectic 18 and have already explained why. I enjoyed the little corner of the 3rd green and 4th hole [which apparently they had to buy from a neighbor]. I wrong-sided myself at the 9th and would enjoy another crack at it, and I hit one of my best shots of last year at the 14th, after driving wide right into a bunker and having to hit a 50-yard bunker shot over a lot more sand.
My least favorite holes were 8 and 15.
In the end, I would probably rate both courses a 7 on the Doak Scale. They're both a bit different than the rest of what's being built right now, and they're both worthy of a return visit. If The Covey is really better than the two of them, it must be very good.
But what did you think ???
-
Are you trying to bring back the Dismal Red vs Ballyneal era??? ;)
I have thoughts, but will get to them later.
-
Are you trying to bring back the Dismal Red vs Ballyneal era??? ;)
I have thoughts, but will get to them later.
That's my other post! ;)
-
Thanks Tom, this is good stuff, I haven't seen either yet but they both look really cool and good to see them both soon.
-
I got a text from Zac Blair about starting this thread but he did say thanks.
-
There’s only a couple places where the greenside recovery shots are as potentially exacting as OB. One of those places is Royal Dornoch (another is early Old Macdonald but I digress). Actually I find the greenside recovery at Dornoch overall to be extremely similar to Old Barnwell.
-
Most of the greens start at the high tie-in point and rely on fill to soften the slopes into pinnable areas -- completely the opposite of my approach to building greens, but I'm fine with that.
Tom,
I promise I’m not trying to dominate the conversation. There’s just a lot of meat on the bone and that’s not been the case around here of late. I’m as guilty as anyone for that.
This part above leapt off the screen when I read it. You say this isn’t how you build greens but both architects have worked for you a great deal. Can you add to this?
-
Most of the greens start at the high tie-in point and rely on fill to soften the slopes into pinnable areas -- completely the opposite of my approach to building greens, but I'm fine with that.
Tom,
I promise I’m not trying to dominate the conversation. There’s just a lot of meat on the bone and that’s not been the case around here of late. I’m as guilty as anyone for that.
This part above leapt off the screen when I read it. You say this isn’t how you build greens but both architects have worked for you a great deal. Can you add to this?
Ben, before I got down to your post, I had already decided to pull this comment out to start a new thread about green building: I figured that if enough architects responded, it could be a real eye opener (and a rare new subject) for most on here… I’ll wait now to see if it naturally develops.
Suffice to say that I tend more to Tom’s approach, looking to cut from tie-in points where possible rather than fill. I think I recall Tom saying Bill Coore works more with fill also.
-
There’s only a couple places where the greenside recovery shots are as potentially exacting as OB. One of those places is Royal Dornoch (another is early Old Macdonald but I digress). Actually I find the greenside recovery at Dornoch overall to be extremely similar to Old Barnwell.
Ben:
Your comment about the difficulty of recovery shots leaped off the page to me, as well. But what surprised me was that no one had said anything like that in reviews of the course I had seen prior to that.
P.S. Ballybunion has got to be in that class, too.
-
For those who think I might be biased between the two, think again. While I did do the routing for The Tree Farm, I made only one visit during the construction, and the set-up was for Zac Blair and Kye Goalby to make the design decisions, not me. So you could just as easily argue that I would be biased AGAINST that course because it wasn't going to be what I envisioned.
Tom,
Interesting comment above as this has been one of the lingering questions in my head as the Tree Farm project progressed. What would Tom have done differently if this was his project from start-to-finish? Although different, it kind of brings me back to questions that I had during the Sebonack and Old Macdonald projects where concessions had to be made. As with any collaboration, there are often good things that come out of it but it's rarely what any of the individuals envisioned originally. So, with your role at the Tree Farm of just doing the routing and the course ultimately being "not being what you envisioned", I'm wondering if it's actually beneficial to have different folks involved throughout the process. In my opinion, you and Bill Coore are the best routers of a golf course in the world so I certainly understand Zac's desire to have you involved. It would just be difficult to then just tell you, "thanks, we've got it from here"...
I was hoping you could expand on what you envisioned for the course as you worked on the routing and highlight a few of the things that you would have done differently.
You mentioned some of the clearing and detail work along with holes like 13 and 17 which you weren't fond of. Staying up on the left ridge on 13 makes sense, the vast waste area on the right seems a bit overkill and I imagine was expensive to clear. I'm guessing Zac wanted to draw your eye to the green and tempt you to hug the right side but I think the hole would be just as visually stimulating with a few trees on the right where you could still catch a peak.
I do really like the 17th hole but I have a soft spot for somewhat penal short par 3s. I enjoy having a short iron in hand and knowing that I need to hit a good shot or will pay the price. I think there is plenty of room there to still play safe if desired, just can't miss short...
-
There’s only a couple places where the greenside recovery shots are as potentially exacting as OB. One of those places is Royal Dornoch (another is early Old Macdonald but I digress). Actually I find the greenside recovery at Dornoch overall to be extremely similar to Old Barnwell.
Ben:
Your comment about the difficulty of recovery shots leaped off the page to me, as well. But what surprised me was that no one had said anything like that in reviews of the course I had seen prior to that.
P.S. Ballybunion has got to be in that class, too.
Tom
I didn’t find recoveries at Old Barnwell that difficult. Maybe I was lucky? Although there are terrible places to be around some greens.
Ciao
-
Most of the greens start at the high tie-in point and rely on fill to soften the slopes into pinnable areas -- completely the opposite of my approach to building greens, but I'm fine with that.
This part above leapt off the screen when I read it. You say this isn’t how you build greens but both architects have worked for you a great deal. Can you add to this?
Ben:
I can, but if I explain it all, there's not going to be much discussion like Ally is hoping for, so . . . ?
I will say that some of it is due to the nature of the property. Old Barnwell has a lot of big slopes and a lot of green sites where there aren't natural contours for a green already there. If you're placing fill, that's not a problem, though it has consequences as I've touched on. But if you're looking for natural green sites, like I am, you might conclude that it wasn't as good a site for that as The Tree Farm. [I can't say for sure because I never tried to route anything for Old Barnwell.]
I'm sure some of it is a conscious choice by Brian and Blake to try to do something different than my style, which they did, but maybe they had to.
The majority of architects build the majority of their greens by bringing a little pad of fill to the place they want it, the same way that most building architects site their houses. Fill pads solve most of the drainage issues so you can concentrate on the contours for putting and the nature of the approach shot. But they also make the green sites feel repetitive, because every green sits up and the recovery shots are generally up onto the table, or up and out of a bunker.
I try to find green sites where the surface drainage is kind of already there so I don't need fill. It helps a lot if it's sandy and if you have the right kind of topography, and if you have those things, you have a much bigger palette of options for green types. #10 at The Tree Farm is a great example: it's tucked behind that little ridge, just past where the surface drainage goes from heading back toward the tee to falling away to the back right of the green, so you can build a punchbowl-ish green there without having too much water drain across the green. Didn't need any fill to build that one. #9, up on top of a dome, is the opposite, but you didn't need any fill to build that one, either. One of the best compliments I've ever had on my routing work was when Zac said that when he did his routings he would walk up to the green and try to figure out what sort of green to build there, but when he walked my routing he could see that there was an idea for a green already half there.
So, really, your question is more about routing than it is about building greens.
-
For those who think I might be biased between the two, think again. While I did do the routing for The Tree Farm, I made only one visit during the construction, and the set-up was for Zac Blair and Kye Goalby to make the design decisions, not me. So you could just as easily argue that I would be biased AGAINST that course because it wasn't going to be what I envisioned.
Tom,
Interesting comment above as this has been one of the lingering questions in my head as the Tree Farm project progressed. What would Tom have done differently if this was his project from start-to-finish? Although different, it kind of brings me back to questions that I had during the Sebonack and Old Macdonald projects where concessions had to be made. As with any collaboration, there are often good things that come out of it but it's rarely what any of the individuals envisioned originally. So, with your role at the Tree Farm of just doing the routing and the course ultimately being "not being what you envisioned", I'm wondering if it's actually beneficial to have different folks involved throughout the process. In my opinion, you and Bill Coore are the best routers of a golf course in the world so I certainly understand Zac's desire to have you involved. It would just be difficult to then just tell you, "thanks, we've got it from here"...
I was hoping you could expand on what you envisioned for the course as you worked on the routing and highlight a few of the things that you would have done differently.
Jimmy:
I'm not going to touch the latter question, because that's unfair to the other guys, and it presupposes that I thought a lot about exactly how we would shape particular greens, which I didn't do. I usually leave those details to working on site with my associates. That's a collaborative process, which I've given a good head start by choosing where to build the green. [And occasionally, they convince me to move one: for example, Brian Schneider got me to move the 5th green at Ballyneal well to the right, and make the 6th tee shot blind, instead of the green being where today's 6th tee is and the next tee being up on top of the dune in back.]
So, to the first part of your question, yes, I think it's better to have different people involved through the process. I think the greens at Pinehurst #10 turned out so good and so varied because I had Eric, Brian Schneider, Brian Slawnik, Blake, Angela, Parker Anderson, Joe Wandro, and myself each shaping a couple of them. I've had more than one friend with no design experience think to themselves that they would be great architects if they had a team like that behind them. [And yes, they might, but it baffles me why they think they would be better at placing the green and doing the editing than any one of those associates would be, or why those associates would volunteer to make a newbie look good, instead of advancing their own careers. I'm just lucky I've treated them well, and that I keep finding better places to work than they can find for themselves.]
Collaboration is great as long as everyone is on the same team, which isn't that easy to pull off. It works a lot better if you've been part of the same team for years and you have respect for all of the other players . . . but if you don't have that, maybe the approach we took at The Tree Farm wasn't so bad, as opposed to me wrestling with Zac to try and get my way, and leaving Kye to third chair, when he's used to being second chair or first. [That was why Sebonack didn't work well, IMO.]
For me, The Tree Farm was kind of an experiment, to see whether I'd be happy just doing the part that I did, and letting the rest of the project evolve on its own from there, or whether I am too much of a control freak for that. [If I'm not, then I could make a VERY good living just routing golf courses without spending nearly as much time in transit.] There were points along the way where I thought the experiment had failed, but now that the course is complete, I'm pretty happy with where they got to, and with my contribution to that.
Of course, I believe it would have been better if I'd been there with my whole crew, but we didn't have time to do that, partly because Brian was building Old Barnwell. And I think it should be mentioned here that Brian and Blake did have Eric and Brian Slawnik on site a little to shape some greens for them, because they know better than anyone how much those guys bring to the table.
-
Tom, thanks for starting the thread and appreciate the feedback. I’ll be curious to hear others thoughts and plan not to engage much after this post.
I was hoping you’d discuss your thoughts on the routing or strategy a bit more, but you seem to largely focus on the greens. Would love to hear your thoughts on the former if you care to share. A couple things to clarify re: the greens.
Im trying to think of the greens where we imported dirt to build a pad and I think there are 2: 14 and 7. 16 was a big cut/fill exercise shoving a bunch down from 17 tee and behind 5 green, but we only brought in fill for the approach. We used fill for the fairways on 6/7 to get them to drain, but 6 was built on a soft little high. 7 was also on a soft elevated ridge, but we brought in a lift of fill to match the earthwork. Most greens were simply cut/fill balances.
1 was pushed up from dirt generated by the swale cutting across, but it basically ties in at grade on the back
2 is native grade and cut down on either side
3 is slightly above native grade and we made the big cut to the right of the green and cut slightly left of the green. We cut a couple feet behind the green to build the backboard. We did a lot of work here to get this area to drain.
4 was a cut fill balance
5 is cut fill balance
6 was push up
7 was fill
8 was benched into the hill
9 was push up
10 is at grade
11 was cut fill balance
12 was cut fill balance
13 is at grade. We cut more on the right so balls would settle out rather than roll into the woods.
14 is fill
15 is push up
16 was a downhill shove
17 was benched into a slope
18 is at grade
The idea that Brian and I suddenly started building greens a drastically different way than we’ve built them before is a bit silly, but I can see how someone would come to that conclusion. We had a mix of greensites sitting on top of broad highs/ridges (2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 15, 18), pitched slopes that were between 1-6% (1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 14) and pitched slopes greater than 6% (8, 12, 16, 17). More often than not we cut around the green and then filled the pad where we needed to hold it up. If we had leftover fill we did something weird with it.
Tom, you played an incredibly difficult set up the day we played. The first 6 holes were the hardest pin on each green. I think we played the vast majority of the holes with the toughest pin. It’s a good reminder for everyone that unless you’re actively looking for other pin positions and how you’d play them, your impression of the course may differ greatly from someone else. I think OB plays very different on a day to day basis depending on the pin, one of its strengths.
As for recovery shots around the greens, i disagree that the vast majority only have one safe place to miss. 7 or so fit that description. Again, I do think the first 6 holes having the hardest pins influenced Tom’s opinion here, but I’ve also heard enough people say they quickly learned where to miss their second go around and it varies depending on the pin location. I’m confident that the set isn’t overly penal or repetitive.
Tom, hopefully you get a chance to play again, and hopefully with fresh legs.
One comparison I’ll make between the two courses that probably influenced a lot of bigger design decisions is this: Tree Farm spent a lot of time trying to slow water down and OB spent a lot of time trying to speed water up.
-
Hi Blake:
Thanks for chiming in. And maybe my sense of proportion is wrong -- I've only seen Old Barnwell once. But have you ever "pushed up" a green for me the way you built 6, 7, or 9 at OB? That was the stretch that gave me the impression, combined with the naturally high green sites at 2 and 3.
Also, it's not me you should question about the difficulty of the recovery shots, it's Ben Sims, who has played it a lot more than I have.
It's hard for me to address the routing without ever really looking at a map of the course. The crossover from 5 to 6 and 16 to 17 was the hardest part, and that worked fine; 17 was not my favorite hole but you had to get back up there somehow. I did like the flow of it at the start, in particular, and the little loop-the-loop at 10-11-12 was interesting, don't see something like that often.
As to strategy, it's hard to analyze on a first pass around the course when I'm struggling to play well. There were several holes [3, 8, 9, 10, 15] where my first instinct of where to hit the tee shot was just wrong, if that's what you were going for . . . some of that is that you can't see most of those greens from the tee, which is more common at Old Barnwell than normal. [The same comment has been made about Pinehurst #10, and it's true, though I wasn't conscious of it when I did the routing . . . some of it has to do with the distance from the clubhouse to the crest of the hill at 1 & 3.] But, all of the bunkering and how it affects strategy to different pins, it would take me a while to tackle all of that.
-
For those who think I might be biased between the two, think again. While I did do the routing for The Tree Farm, I made only one visit during the construction, and the set-up was for Zac Blair and Kye Goalby to make the design decisions, not me. So you could just as easily argue that I would be biased AGAINST that course because it wasn't going to be what I envisioned.
Tom,
Interesting comment above as this has been one of the lingering questions in my head as the Tree Farm project progressed. What would Tom have done differently if this was his project from start-to-finish? Although different, it kind of brings me back to questions that I had during the Sebonack and Old Macdonald projects where concessions had to be made. As with any collaboration, there are often good things that come out of it but it's rarely what any of the individuals envisioned originally. So, with your role at the Tree Farm of just doing the routing and the course ultimately being "not being what you envisioned", I'm wondering if it's actually beneficial to have different folks involved throughout the process. In my opinion, you and Bill Coore are the best routers of a golf course in the world so I certainly understand Zac's desire to have you involved. It would just be difficult to then just tell you, "thanks, we've got it from here"...
I was hoping you could expand on what you envisioned for the course as you worked on the routing and highlight a few of the things that you would have done differently.
You mentioned some of the clearing and detail work along with holes like 13 and 17 which you weren't fond of. Staying up on the left ridge on 13 makes sense, the vast waste area on the right seems a bit overkill and I imagine was expensive to clear. I'm guessing Zac wanted to draw your eye to the green and tempt you to hug the right side but I think the hole would be just as visually stimulating with a few trees on the right where you could still catch a peak.
I do really like the 17th hole but I have a soft spot for somewhat penal short par 3s. I enjoy having a short iron in hand and knowing that I need to hit a good shot or will pay the price. I think there is plenty of room there to still play safe if desired, just can't miss short...
Jimmy I felt inclined to comment on a few things from this post ... 1) when this first was getting started I had some back and forth with Tom and he laid out a few options for how it could work. I am a little foggy at this point exactly what each was but generally the options were a) he could take a look at my routing and point out a few holes he felt were good and I could piece it together b) he could do the routing ... as he mentioned this was a somewhat new idea/experiment for him to see if just doing the routing for a client would be something that would work. so from my perspective there was never a "thanks, we've got it from here"moment. I felt like we all knew what Tom was being hired to do and I never went into thinking I could do a better job then he could after getting the routing.2) I'm not sure 13 could work without clearing the trees in the valley ... unless it would become a hole where you just hit A (landing area) to B (layup area) to C (green). 13 is virtually a 90 degree dogleg so in order to allow people (not just long long hitters that get it way up the landing area) to go for the green in two there needed to be a decent amount of clearing.
-
Thanks Tom. I get that it’s easier to discuss Tree Farm’s routing as opposed to ours because, well, you did that one!
As to the greens, on 6 I quickly decked out a pad so we could see how it looked as the earthwork evolved, but Brian built the green. I imagine that was constructed similar to how you would have us do it. I do take your earlier point that you might’ve found fundamentally different places to put greens (and holes) and that affects how they play and how they’re built.
7 I don’t think I’ve ever built a green for you like that and I’m not sure I’ll build a green like that anytime soon! Largely a product of routing a hole through a valley that drains at less than 1%. I think it turned out well, but that was a lot of work that I think we’d much rather avoid in the future.
9 is one I spent a lot of time on and Brian’s advice was the same as yours: Lower it 12-18”. I liked it more up in the air, so I fiddled around on the green for a couple hours and might’ve shaved 4-6” off, but not the whole 18”. I think we both like how it plays now, but a foot lower would be a lot more forgiving.
-
Tom, you played an incredibly difficult set up the day we played. The first 6 holes were the hardest pin on each green. I think we played the vast majority of the holes with the toughest pin.
Also . . . why did they do that? They knew we were all coming, right? They must have a very wrong impression of my golf game to think making the course as hard as possible will impress me! ;)
-
Tom, you played an incredibly difficult set up the day we played. The first 6 holes were the hardest pin on each green. I think we played the vast majority of the holes with the toughest pin.
Also . . . why did they do that? They knew we were all coming, right? They must have a very wrong impression of my golf game to think making the course as hard as possible will impress me! ;)
Haha I texted our super about it after 6 and he laughed and basically asked what took me so long to complain! I was told they just had a string of events and a lot of play and it was time to even out the wear so the pins were in spots they don’t use as often. My ego was incredibly deflated once I learned our presence had absolutely zero effect on their decision making.
-
Tom, you played an incredibly difficult set up the day we played. The first 6 holes were the hardest pin on each green. I think we played the vast majority of the holes with the toughest pin. It’s a good reminder for everyone that unless you’re actively looking for other pin positions and how you’d play them, your impression of the course may differ greatly from someone else. I think OB plays very different on a day to day basis depending on the pin, one of its strengths.
This comment by Blake really struck me.
The experience of doing ratings the last few years supports my opinion that it is difficult to rate a course based on only one round.
I played many rounds at Chechessee Creek over the last fourteen years and I believe it is under-rated since all the angles of every shot are so well thought out - an assessment one may not grasp in one round. Most folks just focus on the push up greens without fully comprehending the strategy.
However, having read the old and new Confidential Guides, I am convinced Tom Doak is one of the few people who can really comprehend the myriad details of a good course to give it an accurate rating.
Maybe even his perception may be affected by tough pin positions. What does that say about the rest of us dilettants with our amateur interest in G C A ?
-
While what you say about Tom compared to most of us is true, shouldn’t raters be capable of imagining how a shot might be played to a different hole location and, assuming a group is not breathing down their neck neck from behind, hit a few chip shots from around the greens to these different locations? Tour pros do this all the time in their practice rounds.
-
Tom,
I have been here at Golf Club Atlas since its inception and even before (Tommy Naccarato’s Traditional Golf.com), but I don’t think I have ever seen a thread like this.
One might say it is “next level” illustrating the difference between well traveled golf architecture junkies and professionals who actually work in the business.
So thanks especially to you and Blake and to Zac Blair as well.
I can’t help but wonder Ran’s impression of the thread.
Tim
-
I played many rounds at Chechessee Creek over the last fourteen years and I believe it is under-rated since all the angles of every shot are so well thought out - an assessment one may not grasp in one round. Most folks just focus on the push up greens without fully comprehending the strategy.
However, having read the old and new Confidential Guides, I am convinced Tom Doak is one of the few people who can really comprehend the myriad details of a good course to give it an accurate rating.
Maybe even his perception may be affected by tough pin positions. What does that say about the rest of us dilettants with our amateur interest in G C A ?
Bill:
They did catch me on a bad day. But I often gain more information from watching other people's shots than from watching my own, and I know that my playing partner was frustrated by how hard Old Barnwell was around the greens. [I wasn't playing well enough to gripe about it; he was.] I hadn't heard that in any review of the place before going there, so it came as a big surprise to me.
I've argued here recently that all of that SHOULD BE part of the rating process. Asking everyone to judge the course based on "average conditions" if they did not play in average conditions, is asking them to discount their own experience. If raters go to the course on random days [instead of all for one event], then in the aggregate they are seeing the course as it really is from day to day. So if Old Barnwell's superintendent is going to run out of easier hole locations and have to throw all the hard ones at some group, that's part of how it gets rated, but he should probably check to see who's coming that day! ;)
Or maybe he should stop babying the other groups during the week and use 2-3 of those hard pins every day, so he doesn't have to use them all at once.
I feel like I'm dragging the course here, which is not my intent. I gave it a 7, that's a pretty good rating on the Doak scale. My commentary has been about the things I didn't expect, rather than the positives of the course, which have been very thoroughly talked about on other threads . . . but not here, so far, for some reason. I wish there were more people participating and telling me why I'm wrong.
[/size][size=78%] [/size]
-
Tom,
I have been here at Golf Club Atlas since its inception and even before (Tommy Naccarato’s Traditional Golf.com), but I don’t think I have ever seen a thread like this.
One might say it is “next level” illustrating the difference between well traveled golf architecture junkies and professionals who actually work in the business.
So thanks especially to you and Blake and to Zac Blair as well.
I can’t help but wonder Ryan’s impression of the thread.
Tim
Tim- agreed. This is one of the best threads in a long time!
I also played both recently and really enjoyed both courses. I agree with Tom on the difficulty of the greens at Old Barnwell. I really liked the push up style greens at 6 & 7, as I thought it was nice variety. Fortunately I had a good ball striking day and hit a lot of greens, but there were some crazy putts out there!
Tom- I thought the comment on Zac leaving more trees than you would have at TF was interesting. I found the corridors to be quite wide, so I wondering what specifically you may have done differently in relation to trees.
-
What a great (and interesting) thread!
There’s already been so much written about both courses that even now, it feels tough to find something new to write, so most of my points will relate to Tom’s initial post.
Re: TF
- I think 6 is the best hole on the course, and surprised it wasn’t called out in the OP. I love the look of the drive with clear rewards for hugging the left, and a green to die for, just snuggled in that little pocket. I also have a soft spot for holes that offer the chance to play two different shot shapes (like Dornoch’s Foxy)
- I felt the greens had a great overall balance in terms of tilt vs. Sloped vs. raised. Shots around the green do feel quite varied
- I didn’t mind/notice the bunker depth as there wasn’t anything at TF that you don’t see on a seaside links course (see North Berwick’s Redan or bridal path bunkers). More bunkers should be like that in the States.
- I didn’t love the Redan. The tee was way left, which means you’re coming on the green straight-on, negating the rollout. The kicker was essentially a backstop, which isn’t quite as much fun. I would remove the left tee ground and shift the tee to where I believe the forward tees are (10 yards right).
- 16-18 are lovely - I disagree on 17. A short, original par-3. There’s plenty of room to miss long left (common for a right-y to pull it), and deep right. It’s true that short is death, but it’s only 150 yards.
Overall, the course is a wonderful addition to the golf world. A Doak 7 seems maybe a touch low? Maybe because you were involved (albeit only at the start), you’re being humble, but I’d have it as a Doak 8. A course that will continue to strengthen as the native areas continue to flourish. One question for Zac: why the new bunkers on 1?! I loved the ridge only, and it made it feel distinct from the others, and anything I’ve seen stateside.
Re: OB
- I’ll just get it out of the way that I LOVE OB.
- In a world where strategic golf reigns supreme, this feels like a 1 of 1 blend of heroic and strategic golf that thrills and invigorates.
- Does the course not get an extra bump for originality? Creativity? Uniqueness? I think it’s a wonderful blend of natural and unnatural. You’ll get something like 10 or 18 green, which just lays so nicely on the ground, and complement that with 14 or 9. But whether built or found, everything has a purpose.
- Agree on 1 - what a simple, yet vexing proposition.
- Love the green on 3 and especially that back portion. Have you seen a green built like that in the last 30 years? I’ve not.
- I kind of wish 6 green sat more on the ground. It’s there, but that little roll-off on the right did make me think it wasn’t a ‘found’ green. Could something have been built that just took the tilt ?
- 7 is another hole I’ve genuinely never seen another like it. I love how the fairway is wide from side to side, but each individual’s line of charm will be different, but will require precision nonetheless. The green would get my attention every time.
- 10 is a perfect green on the ground. Surprised there’s not more love for this hole. I also love how there’s trade-off here - not just in a classic risk reward sense. That there’s good and bad all over, and it’s up to the player to decide what they want to deal with
- Loved 12 and 14. Most have mentioned it, so won’t go into more detail
Maybe because I play at one of the more unique courses in the world, but I put a high premium on originality and uniqueness. I’ve not seen many holes like I saw at OB and I could play those greens all day every day. I’d have it as a Doak 9, but I appreciate I might be in the minority :)
-
I'd prefer the thread be Old Barnwell & The Tree Farm rather than versus, because what's worth celebrating is how different the two courses are from one another despite their proximity and similar opening years. Tree Farm possesses a calming sense of intimacy and isolation on its property. You feel the presence of the surrounding woods more acutely, the land never lacks in scale, and I've noted elsewhere my fondness for the restraint particularly in the front nine and the surprising number of green sites without bunkers. My favorite hole is the 5th, even though I didn't have to deal with the Kyebrows!
Old Barnwell is brawny, almost unnervingly open off the tee, because you feel like you're going to get baited into a wrong line, and the clarity of the question reveals itself the closer you get to the green (or in my case, as I was walking off it). I felt like Old Barnwell had me thinking about where I was trying to put my ball more than most American courses I've seen. But maybe I'm already damaged goods in this regard because I've gone with driver down to 7iron off the tee at Ballyneal's 12th--and still have little assurance of what's the best way to handle that hole!
I had 36 hole days at both courses on back to back days last February. My scores were nearly identical across all four rounds oddly. The difference in how those strokes accumulated was from screwing up a few drives at TF but putting better on those greens, whereas I was always in play at OB but then screwing things up closer to the hole. I wouldn't consider Old Barnwell harder, nor a harder walk, but more intellectually demanding.
When I fly across the country to visit Aiken again, I'll be disappointed if I miss either of these courses. The variety between them, and their mutual high-quality, results in a special combination for members and guests who have friends at each. I think Tom is one point too low on the Doak scale for one of the courses. I know I'm keeping my opinions in the middle, but I adore both, and look forward to seeing how the clubs continue to express their own characters now that lodging is completed at Tree Farm and getting closer at OB.
And while we're at it, Broomsedge also appears to have differentiated itself from both Tree Farm and Old Barnwell. Amazing that the region can lend itself to such an array of architectural and aesthetic variety.
-
But maybe I'm already damaged goods in this regard because I've gone with driver down to 7iron off the tee at Ballyneal's 12th--and still have little assurance of what's the best way to handle that hole!
A: Hit the bunny down the left side and leave yourself a wedge from the pocket over there.
-
I'm not quite ready to give up on this thread. I'm surprised there isn't more discussion. While I've probably read more about both courses than all other new builds combined, I feel a lot of the conversation has centred on the vs. part, rather than what makes them individually unique/interesting/philosophically different.
In light of the recent threads about group think and discussion, it would be great to get some more input here, especially as the amazing individuals who helped build these courses are GCA members :) So:
@zac, was there something about TF that turned out different to how you wanted it to on the course (good or indifferent)? What are some of your favourite greens to putt on and why? What about favourite shots to play. As a PGA Tour pro, are there any shots that you think might make a very good player nervous, or ones that really suit your eye personally?
@Nick S, same first question about OB - anything that turned out different to how you thought it might based on your initial conversations with Brian and Blake? Anything that you learned through the design/build process that might not be obvious to us mere mortals? Also, now knowing what the Big course is like, is there something you'd like the third course to be/not be as a riff off the first?
@Brian S / Blake, you've talked about the Lido being inspirational, but how important was Llanerch / other consulting gigs in testing out some different ideas before bringing that to a new build like OB? Is there something that turned out well at OB that you'd like to try some more in the future? Every course is site specific, but is there an element or style at OB that you feel resonates with the type of golf you want to design/build moving forward?
Others, let's hear it. From 'this is the best course i've played' to 'I don't get it'. Let's get some good conversation going :)
-
Tim,
How many on this site have actually played both courses?
I’ll ask a counter-question: Name any course designed by a TD current or past associate (including Hanse, DeVries et al) that Tom has given higher than a 7? Why do you think OB or TF is better than all of them?
-
Tim,
How many on this site have actually played both courses?
I’ll ask a counter-question: Name any course designed by a TD current or past associate (including Hanse, DeVries et al) that Tom has given higher than a 7? Why do you think OB or TF is better than all of them?
If social media is to be believed, then every single one of us on GCA has played both ;D
I’ll come back on your second question tomorrow, which deserves a more considered response.
-
Tim,
How many on this site have actually played both courses?
I’ll ask a counter-question: Name any course designed by a TD current or past associate (including Hanse, DeVries et al) that Tom has given higher than a 7? Why do you think OB or TF is better than all of them?
If social media is to be believed, then every single one of us on GCA has played both ;D
That’s part of my problem. Social media is like a herd of sheep.
-
Tim, thanks for the questions and continued engagement around this thread. I’m not on social media, so my ego-fueled dopamine hits come mostly on this website when I see a mention of Old Barnwell!
I’ll provide a separate response to your questions, but before I do that, I want to share a story about my first time playing at Tree Farm. We were still under construction at OB, with only 7 holes that had been completed when I had my first chance to experience The Tree Farm’s preview play in late April 2023. Though the course was still very much “in-process”, I was blown away by the routing and the scale of the place. When I say scale, I’m not just talking about “bigness” – there are moments at the Tree Farm that are remarkably intimate (my favorite among these is the 6th green site) – I’m talking about the ability of the holes to accordion between the two extremes.
I left the property with a pit in my stomach. Though I never viewed our two clubs in the “us vs. them” terms generally presented in the very niche world of golf media, I definitely feared that Old Barnwell would never be able to match the achievements of Kye, Zac, and Tom. That previously mentioned ego of mine, for the first time in the entire development process, was selfishly concerned that the golf architecture nerds on this site and elsewhere would classify OB on a lower level than the other new course across town. I was jealous, and in some ways remain so!
What I couldn’t have known then was just how different the courses would be from one another, and as a complete amateur in the world of golf course development, I didn’t appreciate how two very different pieces of land would challenge the designer/builders to do very different things. Apples and oranges, and all that. Though I’m biased, I think it’s fair to say that both groups succeeded in producing exceptional golf courses. Having had the chance to play TTF five and a half times now, including once with Zac and 10 holes in miserably rainy conditions with Kye, I can unequivocally state that it’s one of my favorite golf courses. Each visit reveals something new, and while I find most of the ink is devoted to its finishing stretch of 13-18, I think you could make a more compelling argument that holes 4-11 contain the course’s pinnacle. But of course, that’s part of what it makes TTF so good, that two golf tragics can share a drink on the porch behind the wonderfully situated 18th green and argue about what stretch of holes constitutes the best golf on the property with neither being wrong or right.
-
Tim,
How many on this site have actually played both courses?
I’ll ask a counter-question: Name any course designed by a TD current or past associate (including Hanse, DeVries et al) that Tom has given higher than a 7? Why do you think OB or TF is better than all of them?
Ally,
Thanks for the questions. I had a quick scan and Tom gave an 8 to Cape Wickham, which I believe is the highest from a former associate. However, that’s slightly misleading as most of Hanse’s best known courses weren’t online when the books came out, and (as has been discussed here), Tom is pretty balanced at giving praise to contemporaries (his C&C scores are in-line and maybe even slightly higher than his co-authors).
Re: Old Barnwell itself, I mulled it over, and I hasten to add I am a mere amateur. But, in my mind, Old Barnwell does a few things that I think set it apart from others:
- It has been talked about (by Brian S no less) that Old Barnwell balances the natural with the unnatural. While the obvious will be to point to the steeplechases, I find greensites like the 16th much more interesting. I believe Brian talked about being intentional with not trying to hide the fact that something is unnatural, which gives a slightly different stylistic look, but also impacts on play. For example, the 16th green has much more of a Braid-esq benched green, which means the miss left is likely to be more troublesome than if they tapered the left side more to blend in with the natural tilt of the land. I found a few examples where the decision to not blend created interesting looks, interesting choices and unique shots (at least for a modern).
- To the above, I’ve not played a new design that has shifted so dramatically from Tom and Bill’s core tenant, which aligns with one of Mackenzie’s 13 rules (discussed on the other thread). I like it.
- We talk about most modern courses pandering to the masses (especially off the tee), but I really feel like OB is a chess match where there is no right or wrong answer. Again, Brian S talked on a pod about risk reward being more than just ‘If you take on that bunker and succeed, you’ll get the perfect approach spot.’ Instead, it always felt like a trade-off, and how you answer that trade-off depends on your own individual strengths and comfort levels. 12 and 13 are great examples of that. At 12, you can take the high-line, which is relatively safe, but your angle keeps getting worse. Or you can go low, which brings the high grass into play. And while your angle improves dramatically (by 10x), you’re blind. It’s all a give and take. If you’re a high ball-flight player, I can imagine you taking the high line and hoping you can stop the ball coming into a slope that runs away. But if you’re ok with blindness, the lower line might be wise! And your feelings might change depending on what club you have in your hand and what your comfort levels are. I feel this was my internal monologue the entire round, which I’ve only encountered at a few modern courses (Ballyneal, St Patricks, Barnbougle) and a few old ones (TOC, Melbourne, etc)
- I feel the green complexes are some of the most interesting that I’ve encountered. Brian and Blake are clearly some of the best shapers in the world, and OB feels like an expression of what they believe interesting greens are. I feel they deviate drastically from a lot of new builds that feature at resort courses, where you likely can’t get away with such steep contouring because of pace of play. But they also feel different than some of the greens at Landmand. While you could describe them as bold, I feel they are interesting to putt, but equally, have a profound impact on approach shots, and recovery shots. I suppose you could say the same about other modern courses, but I’ve not seen a set of greens so complex and original on a modern build.
I’m only regurgitating what others have said, but that resonated with me. Is that groupthink? Perhaps. But you asked what was different, and I’ve tried my best to answer :)
Have you played a modern course that you think is a Doak 9 or 10? What about it made it unique/special?
-
Tim, thanks for the questions and continued engagement around this thread. I’m not on social media, so my ego-fueled dopamine hits come mostly on this website when I see a mention of Old Barnwell!
I’ll provide a separate response to your questions, but before I do that, I want to share a story about my first time playing at Tree Farm. We were still under construction at OB, with only 7 holes that had been completed when I had my first chance to experience The Tree Farm’s preview play in late April 2023. Though the course was still very much “in-process”, I was blown away by the routing and the scale of the place. When I say scale, I’m not just talking about “bigness” – there are moments at the Tree Farm that are remarkably intimate (my favorite among these is the 6th green site) – I’m talking about the ability of the holes to accordion between the two extremes.
I left the property with a pit in my stomach. Though I never viewed our two clubs in the “us vs. them” terms generally presented in the very niche world of golf media, I definitely feared that Old Barnwell would never be able to match the achievements of Kye, Zac, and Tom. That previously mentioned ego of mine, for the first time in the entire development process, was selfishly concerned that the golf architecture nerds on this site and elsewhere would classify OB on a lower level than the other new course across town. I was jealous, and in some ways remain so!
What I couldn’t have known then was just how different the courses would be from one another, and as a complete amateur in the world of golf course development, I didn’t appreciate how two very different pieces of land would challenge the designer/builders to do very different things. Apples and oranges, and all that. Though I’m biased, I think it’s fair to say that both groups succeeded in producing exceptional golf courses. Having had the chance to play TTF five and a half times now, including once with Zac and 10 holes in miserably rainy conditions with Kye, I can unequivocally state that it’s one of my favorite golf courses. Each visit reveals something new, and while I find most of the ink is devoted to its finishing stretch of 13-18, I think you could make a more compelling argument that holes 4-11 contain the course’s pinnacle. But of course, that’s part of what it makes TTF so good, that two golf tragics can share a drink on the porch behind the wonderfully situated 18th green and argue about what stretch of holes constitutes the best golf on the property with neither being wrong or right.
Nick - thank you very much for chiming in! I couldn't agree more re: TF, and I'd side with you that the run from 4-11 is pretty special. I think in my last post I also called out 6 greensite. So great.
I'll look forward to your responses on the OB questions. Thanks again. It's always fun (and unique) to get a client's POV on here.
-
Have you played a modern course that you think is a Doak 9 or 10? What about it made it unique/special?
Tim, the only modern course that I’ve played that I’d rate a Doak 9 is The Loop… but bear in mind I’ve only seen about ten courses combined from Renaissance, Hanse and C&C.
-
Have you played a modern course that you think is a Doak 9 or 10? What about it made it unique/special?
Tim, the only modern course that I’ve played that I’d rate a Doak 9 is The Loop… but bear in mind I’ve only seen about ten courses combined from Renaissance, Hanse and C&C.
At the risk of further diverting this very interesting thread: For C&C, Friar’s Head and Te Arai South are 9s; For Doak: Ballyneal and Cape Kidnappers are 9s. For both, Bandon Trails, Pac Dunes, SS Blue, and St. Andrews Beach are darn close to 9s. For the rest that I have played: SS Red and Te Rai North are 8s; Old Mac is a 7; Castle Stuart, SS Black, PH4, Kapalua Plantation, and Sheep Ranch are 6s. And I am trying to use my understanding of the definitions for the DS.
-
I guess I'll add my two cents. I played them in late April of last year. Tree Farm one day and OB the next. I liked both courses but came away enjoying OB more. Not entirely sure why. At TF you can run the ball onto the greens on 17 holes. It played very fast, had a great routing that used the terrain well, was in great condition, and had fun shots. It is not as demanding as OB. It is scruffier and has sand in play more than OB. (Scruffy isn't a bad word, just a descriptor)
I don't know if this is true, but I felt that OB had more grass to mow. My crooked shots still landed on grass. Although it was on a sandy site, it felt more manicured. I enjoyed the variety of holes, especially the par fours. No two were remotely alike. It was not possible to run the ball onto as many greens as TF.
I enjoyed both courses but for different reasons. AT TF It was fun to bounce some shots onto the greens. Flying them all the way to the hole is discouraged for players who don't hit it very high with spin. The greens were very firm. At OB I enjoyed figure out how best to use the contours of the greens. They are both fun, and while they share similar terrain, they are very different from each other. Kudos to both design teams.
-
I'm not quite ready to give up on this thread. I'm surprised there isn't more discussion. While I've probably read more about both courses than all other new builds combined, I feel a lot of the conversation has centred on the vs. part, rather than what makes them individually unique/interesting/philosophically different.
In light of the recent threads about group think and discussion, it would be great to get some more input here, especially as the amazing individuals who helped build these courses are GCA members :) So:
@zac, was there something about TF that turned out different to how you wanted it to on the course (good or indifferent)? What are some of your favourite greens to putt on and why? What about favourite shots to play. As a PGA Tour pro, are there any shots that you think might make a very good player nervous, or ones that really suit your eye personally?
@Nick S, same first question about OB - anything that turned out different to how you thought it might based on your initial conversations with Brian and Blake? Anything that you learned through the design/build process that might not be obvious to us mere mortals? Also, now knowing what the Big course is like, is there something you'd like the third course to be/not be as a riff off the first?
@Brian S / Blake, you've talked about the Lido being inspirational, but how important was Llanerch / other consulting gigs in testing out some different ideas before bringing that to a new build like OB? Is there something that turned out well at OB that you'd like to try some more in the future? Every course is site specific, but is there an element or style at OB that you feel resonates with the type of golf you want to design/build moving forward?
Others, let's hear it. From 'this is the best course i've played' to 'I don't get it'. Let's get some good conversation going :)
Tim
I think there are several things that turned out differently than I initially envisioned years ago—maybe even right when we first got the property. But one of the things I’ll always be grateful for is how much I learned from Tom and especially Kye, since we were talking and working together every day. Kye was great at explaining why certain things wouldn’t work or would present challenges, whether it was related to routing, drainage, or construction.
If you had talked to me early on, I probably would have told you I envisioned more bunkering and a more dramatic style, but I had a conversation with Kye early in the process that changed my perspective. He made the point (and I probably won’t get this story exactly right) that it might actually be cool to zag while everyone else is zigging—in other words, to avoid getting caught up in the “arms race” of creating the next super-dramatic, eye-candy golf course that’s been so popular in recent years. That idea really resonated.
Another example was a conversation I had with Tom while walking the site—he pointed out that with the natural topography and the big ridges and valleys, water was going to move FAST through certain areas, making it unlikely that we’d be able to have a ton of sandy native areas. That was something that turned out different than I originally thought, but it makes sense given how the land functions.
If I’m being fully transparent, the Redan on 15 is probably the one thing I’d take a do-over on. I’m a huge Raynor/Macdonald fan and have seen Redans all over the world. I know which ones I love the most, so when Tom included in his field notes, "Sets up perfect for a Redan if you're into that sort of thing," it felt like a no-brainer. The goal when building it was to put a bit of a modern twist on it, making it so that good players couldn’t just avoid using the kicker—something I’ve seen happen a lot in other Redan-style holes. I also personally preferred the angle of the Redan at North Berwick over most Macdonald/Raynor versions, so we leaned toward that look. That said, my hesitation isn’t about how the hole turned out—it’s more about how much it gets compared to other people’s favorite versions of the Redan template. If I could go back, I think we might have been able to create a unique-to-The-Tree-Farm par 3 that still had some Redan characteristics without being put into a direct comparison with so many other great versions.
The only other thing I might tweak is adding one or two more drives that have some trouble in the middle of the fairway. Most of the fairways are pretty generous, but after seeing how the late addition of the center bunker on 7 transformed that drive and hole, I think it might have been interesting to introduce that element one or two more times throughout the course.
Favorite Greens to Putt On
I really enjoy putting on a lot of different greens out there. My goal was to rely mainly on tilt rather than overloading greens with internal contours, so I love putting on 3, 4, and 5 for that reason. That said, 8, 12, 16, and 18 all have pretty dramatic internal contours, and I really enjoy putting on those as well. Most of them (maybe except 18) give you a chance to use slopes to get the ball close if you miss on the wrong side.
Overall, I think there’s a lot of variety, and so much of it depends on where the hole is cut that day. I wanted the greens to always offer some kind of fun, and I think that carried through in the final design.
Favorite Shots to Play
Man, there are a lot.
I’ve always had an affinity for 4, and I think it’s just because it’s a really tough shot where you feel so rewarded when you pull it off. The back tee at 275+ yards makes hitting a good driver in there feel awesome.
I also really like the touchy wedge shot into 5—it seems straightforward, but you really have to think about where to land it, and it obviously has to be struck well to hold.
9 is a polarizing hole—some people love it, others think it’s too easy or too short—but I’ve always loved the shot into that green in two. Typically, it’s a long iron, and I just love watching (or hoping) to hit that shot perfectly and knock it on in two.
12 sticks out as well—that green is pretty diabolical for a long shot in, and you have to run something in rather than risk going over. Watching the ball use all the slopes and contours on the ground to (hopefully) end up where you want is one of my favorite things.
I mentioned 15 earlier, and Redans in general are always exciting because there’s almost nothing better than pulling off the perfect shot that uses the kicker.
But honestly, 18 might take the cake for my favorite shot at The Tree Farm. The way the ball moves on the ground, and hoping you get the right bounce/roll/distance to either get it on the green or feed it around to the back left corner when the pin is there, is so fun. Especially when there’s a crowd on the patio, first tee, and putting green watching.
Probably more shots than you were looking for, considering that’s about a third of the course, but I just really enjoy a lot of the stuff out there.
Shots That Make a Great Player Nervous
I think there are a lot of shots at The Tree Farm that can make great players nervous—at least, they make me nervous. A lot of them come from around the greens.
Something I feel doesn’t get mentioned enough about The Tree Farm is the range of short-game shots and recovery options you’re presented with. You can: Putt it, chip it straight at the hole, play away from the hole and use a slope to feed it back … I remember hearing Geoff Ogilvy talk about Pinehurst No. 2 once. He said everyone thinks it’s so diabolical around the greens (which it is), but he had a conversation with an older couple in a bar in town, and they actually preferred No. 2 over other courses because it let them putt the ball. They could basically wave the white flag, putt it onto the green, take their bogey, and move on. Meanwhile, better players might try to take on the shot, screw up, and make a worse score than the person who just accepted bogey.
I love that story, and while I’m not saying our greens are Pinehurst No. 2, I do think The Tree Farm offers that same kind of creativity and choice. If you want to take on the shot, you can—but if you miss, you bring double or worse into play.
For example, say you hit a nice shot to a back-left pin on 1, and it rolls just over the green. Now you’re short-sided. If you want to take it on and try to get a chip close, you risk making double. If you just accept that you messed up, you can putt it on the green, take your bogey, and move on.
That might be favorite thing about The Tree Farm—it makes you think about your decisions almost every hole. I also think there are some situations that don’t seem scary at first, but over time, they can create some serious scar tissue. Things like: Missing right on 8 off the tee or finding the bunker right of 17 green. Those aren’t immediately terrifying, but if you get caught in those spots a few times, they definitely start creeping into your mind.
-
commenting regarding Tom's least favorite holes at TF...
"My least favorite hole was 17, which tells you I missed the green short, and that was that. I was also not a big fan of 13, which was one of the holes Zac fell in love with early in the planning process . . . it's a cool idea for a hole, but it should have just stayed on top of the plateau instead of going down below, IMHO."
[/size][/color]
[/size]I've played it 4 times. Each time with good golfers ranging from 10 to +5 HCs. On 13 and 17, I have seen a safer strategy from a weaker player lead to a better score than a more bold strategy from a better player. I think that's fun. In hindsight this was due to the aggressive player failing to execute their strategy. But also, their strategy might not have been that good- going at the flag off the tee (on 17 this only really applies if the pin is on the right half of the green). I like the little reveal you get after crossing the road (and canned Gatorade). However, I can't make an argumenta that 13 is better now than it would have been if it stayed up there to the left. I would love to know what that hole would have been like.[/color]
[/size]Regarding the thread in general, I think it's high praise considering most seem to prefer OB. Also, let's not forget, ZB is one of us. He likes golf and golf course architecture. And he happens to be on the PGA Tour. A very unique individual. He was made fun of for saying he was going to build a course. The road is never perfectly smooth and there were forks in the road that had to be navigated, but he did it.[/color]
-
Tim, thanks for the questions and continued engagement around this thread. I’m not on social media, so my ego-fueled dopamine hits come mostly on this website when I see a mention of Old Barnwell!
I’ll provide a separate response to your questions, but before I do that, I want to share a story about my first time playing at Tree Farm. We were still under construction at OB, with only 7 holes that had been completed when I had my first chance to experience The Tree Farm’s preview play in late April 2023. Though the course was still very much “in-process”, I was blown away by the routing and the scale of the place. When I say scale, I’m not just talking about “bigness” – there are moments at the Tree Farm that are remarkably intimate (my favorite among these is the 6th green site) – I’m talking about the ability of the holes to accordion between the two extremes.
I left the property with a pit in my stomach. Though I never viewed our two clubs in the “us vs. them” terms generally presented in the very niche world of golf media, I definitely feared that Old Barnwell would never be able to match the achievements of Kye, Zac, and Tom. That previously mentioned ego of mine, for the first time in the entire development process, was selfishly concerned that the golf architecture nerds on this site and elsewhere would classify OB on a lower level than the other new course across town. I was jealous, and in some ways remain so!
What I couldn’t have known then was just how different the courses would be from one another, and as a complete amateur in the world of golf course development, I didn’t appreciate how two very different pieces of land would challenge the designer/builders to do very different things. Apples and oranges, and all that. Though I’m biased, I think it’s fair to say that both groups succeeded in producing exceptional golf courses. Having had the chance to play TTF five and a half times now, including once with Zac and 10 holes in miserably rainy conditions with Kye, I can unequivocally state that it’s one of my favorite golf courses. Each visit reveals something new, and while I find most of the ink is devoted to its finishing stretch of 13-18, I think you could make a more compelling argument that holes 4-11 contain the course’s pinnacle. But of course, that’s part of what it makes TTF so good, that two golf tragics can share a drink on the porch behind the wonderfully situated 18th green and argue about what stretch of holes constitutes the best golf on the property with neither being wrong or right.
Nick,
Very classy post. Happy to see that.
Tim Weiman
-
Justin I took the liberty of increasing the font size.
commenting regarding Tom's least favorite holes at TF...
"My least favorite hole was 17, which tells you I missed the green short, and that was that. I was also not a big fan of 13, which was one of the holes Zac fell in love with early in the planning process . . . it's a cool idea for a hole, but it should have just stayed on top of the plateau instead of going down below, IMHO."
[/size]I've played it 4 times. Each time with good golfers ranging from 10 to +5 HCs. On 13 and 17, I have seen a safer strategy from a weaker player lead to a better score than a more bold strategy from a better player. I think that's fun. In hindsight this was due to the aggressive player failing to execute their strategy. But also, their strategy might not have been that good- going at the flag off the tee (on 17 this only really applies if the pin is on the right half of the green). I like the little reveal you get after crossing the road (and canned Gatorade). However, I can't make an argumenta that 13 is better now than it would have been if it stayed up there to the left. I would love to know what that hole would have been like.[/color][/size]
[/size]Regarding the thread in general, I think it's high praise considering most seem to prefer OB. Also, let's not forget, ZB is one of us. He likes golf and golf course architecture. And he happens to be on the PGA Tour. A very unique individual. He was made fun of for saying he was going to build a course. The road is never perfectly smooth and there were forks in the road that had to be navigated, but he did it.[/color][/size][/color]
-
Most of the greens start at the high tie-in point and rely on fill to soften the slopes into pinnable areas -- completely the opposite of my approach to building greens, but I'm fine with that.
Tom,
I promise I’m not trying to dominate the conversation. There’s just a lot of meat on the bone and that’s not been the case around here of late. I’m as guilty as anyone for that.
This part above leapt off the screen when I read it. You say this isn’t how you build greens but both architects have worked for you a great deal. Can you add to this?
Ben, before I got down to your post, I had already decided to pull this comment out to start a new thread about green building: I figured that if enough architects responded, it could be a real eye opener (and a rare new subject) for most on here… I’ll wait now to see if it naturally develops.
Suffice to say that I tend more to Tom’s approach, looking to cut from tie-in points where possible rather than fill. I think I recall Tom saying Bill Coore works more with fill also.
Could you guys show what you mean by this with pictures? I think I know what you mean but I am not sure I do.
-
Try this.
Tree Farm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW2GFSE_-2Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW2GFSE_-2Q)
Old Barnwell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asGBALP6xXo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asGBALP6xXo)
-
Tom, you played an incredibly difficult set up the day we played. The first 6 holes were the hardest pin on each green. I think we played the vast majority of the holes with the toughest pin.
Also . . . why did they do that? They knew we were all coming, right? They must have a very wrong impression of my golf game to think making the course as hard as possible will impress me! ;)
LOL.
Club Pros hear that line pretty much every Ladies Day.
Sometimes that's just where the pins happened to go.
I will agree with Ben that there are a lot of tough up and downs at Old Barnwell. 1,2,3,4,6,9 13, come to mind as particularly challenging.
Epic thread.
Thanks for all the great contributions.
-
Tim,
Please forgive my delinquent response. My answers won't mean much because I was very, very hands off in this process, but I'll do my best to respond anyway.
Q: Did anything turn out differently than I expected based on my initial conversations with Brian/Blake?
A: Believe it or not, we didn't get into too much detail regarding what the course would look like, so the stick figure routing they provided early in the process (and my own experience walking that routing) was all I had at my disposal when visualizing what it would become. As the construction went on, they did make one substantial change from that routing: turning 13 from a par 3 with the green sitting on the ridge that now constitutes the hog's back feature on the now par 4 version of the hole, which is one of my favorites. I'll let them speak for themselves, but it's my understanding that once they started clearing trees and saw just how unique and deep that drop on the right side of that ridge was, it made sense to utilize that natural landform as a penalty if you pushed your drive too much to the right. The result is what I view as a very compelling question you need to answer on the tee: how much danger of the bunkers on the left are you willing to take on in order to have a significantly better angle at an already difficult green?
Q: Anything that I learned during the design/build process that isn't obvious to mere mortals?
A: Yes, that in order to get some holes to be functional from a drainage and playability perspective, we had to move a TON of earth. The fairways on 3, 6, and 16 all required weeks of transferring fill from our retention pond near the maintenance facility to those specific areas. In my mind, it seemed like that work took forever. I thought the design/build process would be much less boring!
Q: Is there something I have in mind for what the third course should be?
A: Nope! Though I know enough now to think I know more than I do, I'd be silly not to let Brian and Blake do what they do best on a different piece of property that has surprisingly different characteristics, given that it is adjacent to the first course.
-Nick
I'm not quite ready to give up on this thread. I'm surprised there isn't more discussion. While I've probably read more about both courses than all other new builds combined, I feel a lot of the conversation has centred on the vs. part, rather than what makes them individually unique/interesting/philosophically different.
In light of the recent threads about group think and discussion, it would be great to get some more input here, especially as the amazing individuals who helped build these courses are GCA members :) So:
@zac, was there something about TF that turned out different to how you wanted it to on the course (good or indifferent)? What are some of your favourite greens to putt on and why? What about favourite shots to play. As a PGA Tour pro, are there any shots that you think might make a very good player nervous, or ones that really suit your eye personally?
@Nick S, same first question about OB - anything that turned out different to how you thought it might based on your initial conversations with Brian and Blake? Anything that you learned through the design/build process that might not be obvious to us mere mortals? Also, now knowing what the Big course is like, is there something you'd like the third course to be/not be as a riff off the first?
@Brian S / Blake, you've talked about the Lido being inspirational, but how important was Llanerch / other consulting gigs in testing out some different ideas before bringing that to a new build like OB? Is there something that turned out well at OB that you'd like to try some more in the future? Every course is site specific, but is there an element or style at OB that you feel resonates with the type of golf you want to design/build moving forward?
Others, let's hear it. From 'this is the best course i've played' to 'I don't get it'. Let's get some good conversation going :)
-
Nick,
Very happy to hear that the property for the third course is different.
Much as I admire what Tillinghast did at Winged Foot, a club with, say, the Winged Foot West course and nearby Quaker Ridge (which has a much different topography) would be better than the two Winged Foot courses.
Hope you are well.
Tim Weiman
-
I'm not quite ready to give up on this thread. I'm surprised there isn't more discussion. While I've probably read more about both courses than all other new builds combined, I feel a lot of the conversation has centred on the vs. part, rather than what makes them individually unique/interesting/philosophically different.
In light of the recent threads about group think and discussion, it would be great to get some more input here, especially as the amazing individuals who helped build these courses are GCA members :) So:
@zac, was there something about TF that turned out different to how you wanted it to on the course (good or indifferent)? What are some of your favourite greens to putt on and why? What about favourite shots to play. As a PGA Tour pro, are there any shots that you think might make a very good player nervous, or ones that really suit your eye personally?
@Nick S, same first question about OB - anything that turned out different to how you thought it might based on your initial conversations with Brian and Blake? Anything that you learned through the design/build process that might not be obvious to us mere mortals? Also, now knowing what the Big course is like, is there something you'd like the third course to be/not be as a riff off the first?
@Brian S / Blake, you've talked about the Lido being inspirational, but how important was Llanerch / other consulting gigs in testing out some different ideas before bringing that to a new build like OB? Is there something that turned out well at OB that you'd like to try some more in the future? Every course is site specific, but is there an element or style at OB that you feel resonates with the type of golf you want to design/build moving forward?
Others, let's hear it. From 'this is the best course i've played' to 'I don't get it'. Let's get some good conversation going :)
Tim
I think there are several things that turned out differently than I initially envisioned years ago—maybe even right when we first got the property. But one of the things I’ll always be grateful for is how much I learned from Tom and especially Kye, since we were talking and working together every day. Kye was great at explaining why certain things wouldn’t work or would present challenges, whether it was related to routing, drainage, or construction.
If you had talked to me early on, I probably would have told you I envisioned more bunkering and a more dramatic style, but I had a conversation with Kye early in the process that changed my perspective. He made the point (and I probably won’t get this story exactly right) that it might actually be cool to zag while everyone else is zigging—in other words, to avoid getting caught up in the “arms race” of creating the next super-dramatic, eye-candy golf course that’s been so popular in recent years. That idea really resonated.
Another example was a conversation I had with Tom while walking the site—he pointed out that with the natural topography and the big ridges and valleys, water was going to move FAST through certain areas, making it unlikely that we’d be able to have a ton of sandy native areas. That was something that turned out different than I originally thought, but it makes sense given how the land functions.
If I’m being fully transparent, the Redan on 15 is probably the one thing I’d take a do-over on. I’m a huge Raynor/Macdonald fan and have seen Redans all over the world. I know which ones I love the most, so when Tom included in his field notes, "Sets up perfect for a Redan if you're into that sort of thing," it felt like a no-brainer. The goal when building it was to put a bit of a modern twist on it, making it so that good players couldn’t just avoid using the kicker—something I’ve seen happen a lot in other Redan-style holes. I also personally preferred the angle of the Redan at North Berwick over most Macdonald/Raynor versions, so we leaned toward that look. That said, my hesitation isn’t about how the hole turned out—it’s more about how much it gets compared to other people’s favorite versions of the Redan template. If I could go back, I think we might have been able to create a unique-to-The-Tree-Farm par 3 that still had some Redan characteristics without being put into a direct comparison with so many other great versions.
The only other thing I might tweak is adding one or two more drives that have some trouble in the middle of the fairway. Most of the fairways are pretty generous, but after seeing how the late addition of the center bunker on 7 transformed that drive and hole, I think it might have been interesting to introduce that element one or two more times throughout the course.
Favorite Greens to Putt On
I really enjoy putting on a lot of different greens out there. My goal was to rely mainly on tilt rather than overloading greens with internal contours, so I love putting on 3, 4, and 5 for that reason. That said, 8, 12, 16, and 18 all have pretty dramatic internal contours, and I really enjoy putting on those as well. Most of them (maybe except 18) give you a chance to use slopes to get the ball close if you miss on the wrong side.
Overall, I think there’s a lot of variety, and so much of it depends on where the hole is cut that day. I wanted the greens to always offer some kind of fun, and I think that carried through in the final design.
Favorite Shots to Play
Man, there are a lot.
I’ve always had an affinity for 4, and I think it’s just because it’s a really tough shot where you feel so rewarded when you pull it off. The back tee at 275+ yards makes hitting a good driver in there feel awesome.
I also really like the touchy wedge shot into 5—it seems straightforward, but you really have to think about where to land it, and it obviously has to be struck well to hold.
9 is a polarizing hole—some people love it, others think it’s too easy or too short—but I’ve always loved the shot into that green in two. Typically, it’s a long iron, and I just love watching (or hoping) to hit that shot perfectly and knock it on in two.
12 sticks out as well—that green is pretty diabolical for a long shot in, and you have to run something in rather than risk going over. Watching the ball use all the slopes and contours on the ground to (hopefully) end up where you want is one of my favorite things.
I mentioned 15 earlier, and Redans in general are always exciting because there’s almost nothing better than pulling off the perfect shot that uses the kicker.
But honestly, 18 might take the cake for my favorite shot at The Tree Farm. The way the ball moves on the ground, and hoping you get the right bounce/roll/distance to either get it on the green or feed it around to the back left corner when the pin is there, is so fun. Especially when there’s a crowd on the patio, first tee, and putting green watching.
Probably more shots than you were looking for, considering that’s about a third of the course, but I just really enjoy a lot of the stuff out there.
Shots That Make a Great Player Nervous
I think there are a lot of shots at The Tree Farm that can make great players nervous—at least, they make me nervous. A lot of them come from around the greens.
Something I feel doesn’t get mentioned enough about The Tree Farm is the range of short-game shots and recovery options you’re presented with. You can: Putt it, chip it straight at the hole, play away from the hole and use a slope to feed it back … I remember hearing Geoff Ogilvy talk about Pinehurst No. 2 once. He said everyone thinks it’s so diabolical around the greens (which it is), but he had a conversation with an older couple in a bar in town, and they actually preferred No. 2 over other courses because it let them putt the ball. They could basically wave the white flag, putt it onto the green, take their bogey, and move on. Meanwhile, better players might try to take on the shot, screw up, and make a worse score than the person who just accepted bogey.
I love that story, and while I’m not saying our greens are Pinehurst No. 2, I do think The Tree Farm offers that same kind of creativity and choice. If you want to take on the shot, you can—but if you miss, you bring double or worse into play.
For example, say you hit a nice shot to a back-left pin on 1, and it rolls just over the green. Now you’re short-sided. If you want to take it on and try to get a chip close, you risk making double. If you just accept that you messed up, you can putt it on the green, take your bogey, and move on.
That might be favorite thing about The Tree Farm—it makes you think about your decisions almost every hole. I also think there are some situations that don’t seem scary at first, but over time, they can create some serious scar tissue. Things like: Missing right on 8 off the tee or finding the bunker right of 17 green. Those aren’t immediately terrifying, but if you get caught in those spots a few times, they definitely start creeping into your mind.
Zac,
Just a note to say thank you for posting here (and apologies for the delay in writing this! I blame a continual sickness that seems to come home from nursery these days!!).
Your last part resonated with me, and I think is true with a few great courses (none more than the Old Course) where ignorance is often bliss and the more you build up scar tissue, the more difficult the exam becomes. For example, if you've ever missed long at 11 on the Old, you know it's an auto bogey (likely double).
12 is a wonderful putting surface. We had a back pin both rounds and it was incredible to watch the creativity on display as our eight person foursome group tried to get it close.
-
Tim,
Please forgive my delinquent response. My answers won't mean much because I was very, very hands off in this process, but I'll do my best to respond anyway.
Q: Did anything turn out differently than I expected based on my initial conversations with Brian/Blake?
A: Believe it or not, we didn't get into too much detail regarding what the course would look like, so the stick figure routing they provided early in the process (and my own experience walking that routing) was all I had at my disposal when visualizing what it would become. As the construction went on, they did make one substantial change from that routing: turning 13 from a par 3 with the green sitting on the ridge that now constitutes the hog's back feature on the now par 4 version of the hole, which is one of my favorites. I'll let them speak for themselves, but it's my understanding that once they started clearing trees and saw just how unique and deep that drop on the right side of that ridge was, it made sense to utilize that natural landform as a penalty if you pushed your drive too much to the right. The result is what I view as a very compelling question you need to answer on the tee: how much danger of the bunkers on the left are you willing to take on in order to have a significantly better angle at an already difficult green?
Q: Anything that I learned during the design/build process that isn't obvious to mere mortals?
A: Yes, that in order to get some holes to be functional from a drainage and playability perspective, we had to move a TON of earth. The fairways on 3, 6, and 16 all required weeks of transferring fill from our retention pond near the maintenance facility to those specific areas. In my mind, it seemed like that work took forever. I thought the design/build process would be much less boring!
Q: Is there something I have in mind for what the third course should be?
A: Nope! Though I know enough now to think I know more than I do, I'd be silly not to let Brian and Blake do what they do best on a different piece of property that has surprisingly different characteristics, given that it is adjacent to the first course.
-Nick
I'm not quite ready to give up on this thread. I'm surprised there isn't more discussion. While I've probably read more about both courses than all other new builds combined, I feel a lot of the conversation has centred on the vs. part, rather than what makes them individually unique/interesting/philosophically different.
In light of the recent threads about group think and discussion, it would be great to get some more input here, especially as the amazing individuals who helped build these courses are GCA members :) So:
@zac, was there something about TF that turned out different to how you wanted it to on the course (good or indifferent)? What are some of your favourite greens to putt on and why? What about favourite shots to play. As a PGA Tour pro, are there any shots that you think might make a very good player nervous, or ones that really suit your eye personally?
@Nick S, same first question about OB - anything that turned out different to how you thought it might based on your initial conversations with Brian and Blake? Anything that you learned through the design/build process that might not be obvious to us mere mortals? Also, now knowing what the Big course is like, is there something you'd like the third course to be/not be as a riff off the first?
@Brian S / Blake, you've talked about the Lido being inspirational, but how important was Llanerch / other consulting gigs in testing out some different ideas before bringing that to a new build like OB? Is there something that turned out well at OB that you'd like to try some more in the future? Every course is site specific, but is there an element or style at OB that you feel resonates with the type of golf you want to design/build moving forward?
Others, let's hear it. From 'this is the best course i've played' to 'I don't get it'. Let's get some good conversation going :)
Nick,
Thanks for coming back on the questions. It's so fun to hear about the build process that doesn't get talked about a lot, even if it feels mundane at the time! The thing that I really can't ever imagine knowing myself is the line between - yes, this is the best possible solution, but we'll need to move some dirt, vs. no, we need to find an alternative solution. I admire all GCAs because I don't think I could ever make that distinction no matter how much of a fan I am of the subject.
Can't wait to see how the 3rd course turns out and know B&B will knock it out of the park.
-
Going with a group next week to Tree Farm and we have an opening for an overnight stay (Tue-Wed) due to a family emergency. Send me a PM if you're interested and I can give you details.
-
Tim,
Please forgive my delinquent response. My answers won't mean much because I was very, very hands off in this process, but I'll do my best to respond anyway.
Q: Did anything turn out differently than I expected based on my initial conversations with Brian/Blake?
A: Believe it or not, we didn't get into too much detail regarding what the course would look like, so the stick figure routing they provided early in the process (and my own experience walking that routing) was all I had at my disposal when visualizing what it would become. As the construction went on, they did make one substantial change from that routing: turning 13 from a par 3 with the green sitting on the ridge that now constitutes the hog's back feature on the now par 4 version of the hole, which is one of my favorites. I'll let them speak for themselves, but it's my understanding that once they started clearing trees and saw just how unique and deep that drop on the right side of that ridge was, it made sense to utilize that natural landform as a penalty if you pushed your drive too much to the right. The result is what I view as a very compelling question you need to answer on the tee: how much danger of the bunkers on the left are you willing to take on in order to have a significantly better angle at an already difficult green?
Q: Anything that I learned during the design/build process that isn't obvious to mere mortals?
A: Yes, that in order to get some holes to be functional from a drainage and playability perspective, we had to move a TON of earth. The fairways on 3, 6, and 16 all required weeks of transferring fill from our retention pond near the maintenance facility to those specific areas. In my mind, it seemed like that work took forever. I thought the design/build process would be much less boring!
Q: Is there something I have in mind for what the third course should be?
A: Nope! Though I know enough now to think I know more than I do, I'd be silly not to let Brian and Blake do what they do best on a different piece of property that has surprisingly different characteristics, given that it is adjacent to the first course.
-Nick
I'm not quite ready to give up on this thread. I'm surprised there isn't more discussion. While I've probably read more about both courses than all other new builds combined, I feel a lot of the conversation has centred on the vs. part, rather than what makes them individually unique/interesting/philosophically different.
In light of the recent threads about group think and discussion, it would be great to get some more input here, especially as the amazing individuals who helped build these courses are GCA members :) So:
@zac, was there something about TF that turned out different to how you wanted it to on the course (good or indifferent)? What are some of your favourite greens to putt on and why? What about favourite shots to play. As a PGA Tour pro, are there any shots that you think might make a very good player nervous, or ones that really suit your eye personally?
@Nick S, same first question about OB - anything that turned out different to how you thought it might based on your initial conversations with Brian and Blake? Anything that you learned through the design/build process that might not be obvious to us mere mortals? Also, now knowing what the Big course is like, is there something you'd like the third course to be/not be as a riff off the first?
@Brian S / Blake, you've talked about the Lido being inspirational, but how important was Llanerch / other consulting gigs in testing out some different ideas before bringing that to a new build like OB? Is there something that turned out well at OB that you'd like to try some more in the future? Every course is site specific, but is there an element or style at OB that you feel resonates with the type of golf you want to design/build moving forward?
Others, let's hear it. From 'this is the best course i've played' to 'I don't get it'. Let's get some good conversation going :)
Speaking of build Nick, is the berm on the right side of 6 for drainage?
Ciao
-
Here's a great video with Nick about the mission at Old Barnwell:
https://content.schwab.com/web/retail/public/corporatesponsorships/challengers-video-nick-schreiber.html?CAT=All
As an aside, a shout out to my host at Tree Farm. Great company & host and even better at making pairings for the foursomes matches ;)
-
Speaking of build Nick, is the berm on the right side of 6 for drainage?
Ciao
Sean,I asked the same question at the club a while ago. Yes, that berm, and others on the course - e.g. the one on the right of 8 - were added for that purpose.