News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Kyle- Thanks for the detailed description. GolfWeek has photos of 14 holes in their current edition.
92
Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group / Re: Design Gut Check?
« Last post by Dan_Callahan on Yesterday at 03:31:03 PM »
Maybe I'm just getting old and grumpy, but I can't understand what seems to be the conventional belief that using cutting edge technology automatically makes something better. I have a former student who is in Milan right now and is texting me photos of the many extraordinary buildings built by hand, the detail in stained glass windows in the churches, etc., and they beat the bag out of what is built today with modern technology. As a writer, I feel the same way about AI. I disagree with colleagues about this all the time. I simply don't believe that the work that ChatGPT spits out is better than what the human brain can create when it is really focused and applied. The courses that Raynor and Ross and MacKenzie designed with rudimentary technology surpass most of what is constructed today. Newer technology is interesting, and maybe makes life more efficient, but I will never believe it automatically makes anything better. Hell, all things being equal, as much as I love being able to Google anything whenever I want, or watch a streaming broadcast of the Master's, my life was better/more enjoyable before cell phones existed. It just was.
93
I do not buy the premise that Hanse should be lumped together with C&C and Doak in terms of design approach/ethos. My sample size is small but neither PH4 or SS Black are minimalist. Castle Stuart is faux links which I do not see the other architects embracing as an approach although I know that it was the brief given to Hanse. In terms of the SS courses that represent all of the Triumvirate, Black is very different from Red and Blue


Perhaps I am biased because I have a higher regard for the C&C and Doak courses I have played. The Big 3 or the Great Triumvirate might be a catchy categorization, but it is not an accurate one.



94
I haven't carried more than 10 clubs in many years. There is just no need for it and it forces me look for creative ways to advance the ball which make the round more enjoyable. Carrying 14 clubs is a choice, an unnecessary one at that.
95
Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group / Re: Design Gut Check?
« Last post by Kalen Braley on Yesterday at 03:17:02 PM »
Someone bringing receipts does not equal not taking criticism well.

I then got lost when some implied Tom Doak is eschewing technology.


Just today I was discussing with a client the possibility of building all of the conceptual designs I've got rattling around in my brain . . . if I do THAT deal I will invite you to come over and eat crow in person.


Tom,

Per chance is this the one you may have alluded to a few years back on a TR thread?  :)

"I do hope to find a client someday who wants me to build something as out of the box as Tobacco Road.  I've got some ideas for that, which I can't really use anywhere else."

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67854.msg1623867.html#msg1623867
96



Had a conversation with Ran about this point many years ago and I may be mis-remembering but he may have disagreed with my point that a 6000 yard course from the back/member tees is much better than a 6600 yard course where one plays from 6000. 



97
Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group / Re: Design Gut Check?
« Last post by Tom_Doak on Yesterday at 02:54:18 PM »
Someone bringing receipts does not equal not taking criticism well.

I then got lost when some implied Tom Doak is eschewing technology.


Ha, yes, but Ben has less experience with my work than many people here.  The last time we had this same discussion, I think he had seen, what was it Ben, two of my 45 courses?  That's what ticks me off; I could not think of anyone here who is LESS qualified to judge the breadth of my work.


Ben, FYI, I've been employing Brian Zager the past 2 1/2 years to work on Lido and also on a new project in Florida.  The technology is interesting, and I know Brian believes that it has good application to a site with more complex interest, and I've been trying to let him show me what he can do on the computer.  But the idea that it's going to be BETTER off the computer than it would be if I went out there and worked on the ground with a great shaper . . . well, I'm just not convinced of that, yet, at least not for me.  The results might be more DIFFERENT and maybe it would make my work look more like Jim Engh's, but that's not a direction I'm looking to go.


Just today I was discussing with a client the possibility of building all of the conceptual designs I've got rattling around in my brain . . . if I do THAT deal I will invite you to come over and eat crow in person.
98
Broomsedge Golf Club
(Pronounced “Broom Sedge”)

I recently played at Broomsedge Golf Club, the Mike Koprowski / Kyle Franze designed club in Rembert, South Carolina. It was their 28th day of play, so it is still very much in preview play mode. Broomsedge is located 45 minutes from Columbia and about two hours from Charlotte. We played Tree Farm in the morning and Old Barnwell the following day, along with a site tour of another project in development, so it was a great tour of the new golf options in South Carolina.

For those who have not listened to Andy Johnson’s podcast with Mike Koprowski, I highly encourage doing so. The background on Mike is quite fascinating. After a career in the Air Force and in education reform, while living in Pinehurst, he cold emailed Kyle Franz to ask to help out on the Southern Pines project. He cobbled together the funds to buy the land for Broomsedge with an agricultural loan and eventually put together an investor group to help him fund the build out. An amazing story that is differentiated in the world of golf development.

The site is quite small relative to other new projects (< 200 acres). While the routing is intimate, with many holes running in close proximity to one another, the scale of the golf is definitely not small given the variety of terrain. The architects did a good job of getting themselves into and out of corners and somewhat reminiscent of urban sites like Claremont, Wilshire, and others that have similar property constraints. The course is split into two distinct sections, the first five holes playing back and forth along a narrow rectangle, with the remaining holes sitting in a larger triangle shaped portion that is diagonal to the top of the rectangle. The land is quite varied in its topography, with several ridges and valleys cutting across the different sections. This makes for some interesting and very challenging golf holes.

We tee’d off late and played greensomes in order to make sure we saw all 18 holes, so my memory of a few spots is a bit fuzzy (Google does not yet have aerials unfortunately). Generally, I thought it was a very challenging golf course, the most challenging of the three we played. The first five holes offer no quarter and the fairway bunkers are often a stroke penalty (thankfully we didn’t hit out of any but I would not have liked to do so). The tops of many bunkers and the numerous waste areas are filled with the eponymous plant, which will be menacing when fully mature. On a firm, fast day the course will be a stern test.
The greens on whole are truly excellent. Many contain one or two defining features that need to be approached from the correct place in the fairway, but offer the aggressive player the ability to hit it close and make a putt. Upon a few days reflection, the greens were my favorite of the three courses we played. I appreciated the desire to challenge with slopes and positioning, rather than over the top features.

The one thing that didn’t work for me was some sections of bunkering. To me, there are just too many bunkers both visually and strategically, especially in the section of the golf course that houses holes 9 - 15. The bunkers are deep, with sharp edges and surrounded on the exit side in many cases with broomsedge. Unlike the greens, which show a lot of restraint, the bunkers are in your face and almost maximalist.

Total yardage is as follows:
GreenBlack: 7,501
Blue: 6,903
Blue/White: 6,619
White: 6,326
Green: 5,686
Red: 4,982

Yardages listed as Black (tips) / and Blue/White combo (tees we played).

Hole 1 - 493 / 455

Hello! 455 to open, straight out of the car after 90 minutes. Thankfully a fairly generous fairway with few major obstacles awaits. The tee shot is slightly blind but there is a nice aiming point reference bunker in front of the tee. Despite being immediately adjacent to the second hole, from the fairway all you can see is the third (playing parallel) and fourth (playing opposite) beyond across a small valley. The crest of the fairway sits above the green, offering a slightly downhill second. The green is angled front right to back left, with a string of bunkers extending from ~50 yards short all the way to back left of the green. The green is open to the right allowing the player to bring the ball in from that side.

Hole 2 - 517 / 453

This is my favorite hole on the course. The hole plays down a valley between the first and third holes with an extremely generous fairway. However, there is a large hill on the left side that can be used as a speed slope to get your ball a lot closer to the hole than if you play to the right or left of the slope. There is a small (infuriating?) bunker right in the middle of the hill at the crest. Once you get down into the fairway there is a magnificent view all the way out to the farthest side of the property, giving the golfer a glimpse of what is to come. The greensite here is excellent, with the green perched into the side of a hill on a shelf. The slope to the right of the green is the spot to hit it, as to avoid a sharp fall off left and long of the green. The copious short grass, when fast, will send errant shots in those directions a long way from the hole. The green is excellent, sloped right to left with a gentle swale in the middle.

Hole 3 - 494 / 455

At this point, I hope you like 450 yard holes! This one plays up a valley to a very challenging green, with bunkers on either side of the fairway. The bunkers constrict the player the closer one gets to the hole. The second plays uphill, to a well protected and crowned green with bunkers left and long right. We shuddered at the thought of a back right hole location, perched on a crowned peninsula with two deep bunkers beyond. While an excellent green, it is definitely a challenge coming in from ~180-200 yards!

Hole 4- 531 / 414

This is classic boundary line hole, where challenging the boundary will give you a better angle to approach. It plays slightly uphill with OB hard right and a group of bunkers on the left side. The OB stakes are VERY visible and no more than a foot or two from the edge of the fairway. They run all the way to and around the green on the right side, and are about 7-10 paces from the right side of the green. With the bunkers and broomsedge grass to the left, this is an extremely intimidating tee shot. The green is sloped from right to left, so the player’s eye wants to aim right but OB lurks. A left miss will run away from the hole and leave the player thinking about coming back towards the OB.

Hole 5 - 230 / 188

Playing downhill and perpendicular to 1-4, this is the last of the holes in the rectangular portion of the property. The green slopes left to right and back to front, with a tier in the back. There is a large bunker, flush to the green, running the length of the green from front left to back right. There is a large cross bunker ~40 yards short of the green and another short right. Shots to the left will use the slope and come down towards the green. The pin was on the back tier and that back bunker was a magnet for our group! A right miss is major trouble as the hill runs hard away from the right of the green.

Hole 6 - 212 / 170 (left green) ; 128 / 108 (right green)

A double green complex with at least 150 yards of tee box wrapping around the edge of the lake. There is a high tee on the left side that plays to the left green and a low tee on the right side that plays to the right green. Both holes require a carry over a small lake. The left green sits almost flush to the edge of the lake and is angled front right to back left. The green sits in a bowl, with bunkers long, but there is the option to aim a bit right and use the slopes to get closer to the hole. From the high tee, it is a downhill shot, but intimidating. The right green is a more direct approach and actually slightly uphill.

After the long, challenging start, I think most players will prefer the breather to the right green (and there are few breathers at Broomsedge). As we played the left green, we’d just played 2,135 yards of par 20 through six holes. As a thought exercise, extrapolate that to 6,405 of par 60…tough!! The other downside of the left green is the walk. It is a LONG walk around the lake, and then another long walk back to the 7th tee.

Hole 7 - 409 / 384

This is a gentle hole, playing slightly blind off the tee with a generous fairway. I don’t remember the fairway obstacle too well, but I think there was a lot of room left and a few fairway bunkers on the right. The green is elegant, with two bunkers on the left guarding a higher side, with the lower side open to the right. It is narrow front to back but wide, and in a push-up style. Although the land is the least severe I thought Koprowski and Franz excelled here in creating interest, as they did at the 17th with similar topography. I think I also like this hole because the bunkers were more restrained.

Hole 8 - 311 / 243

Woah, this is a fun one! Playing well downhill into a large valley, the green rises again from the low point. There are bunkers long and right that guard the back right portion of the green, but for most players they won’t be a major factor. There is a big kicker short left of the green and another large slope coming back to the green on the back left. The green itself is three tiered, with a subtle thumbprint in the middle and a false front. There is a lot of space to hit it, but you need a good shot to get on the green.

Hole 9 - 563 / 495

A reachable par five, sloping right to left with bunkers guarding the entire left side of the tee shot and some bunkers that longer hitters may reach jutting out into the middle from the right side. There is a forced carry and the penalty for not making it is severe. There is a load of room right, but it will leave a much longer shot into the green. The green is sited on the back of the ridge that houses the right green on six and gives the player the option to use the contours on the right to bring their longer second shot into the hole from the right.

Hole 10 - 405 / 405

The tenth plays parallel opposite the ninth, down into a valley and back up to a green that is on a ridge behind the eighth green. A crushed drive may make it down to the bottom, leaving a short approach back up to the green. There are deep bunkers about 100 yards short of the green in the fairway and a deep bunker guardian the left of the green. The green is very open to the front, with a large false front. Another solid, yet challenging par four.

Hole 11 - 170 (left green) / 135 / 127 (right green)

The scorecard only lists the right green, which I was sad to miss, as it looks truly excellent. The left green also sometimes plays as a green for the 13th, so this is an interesting part of the property with multiple routings in a short section. The right green is well guarded and benched into a hill. I suspect it will make many lists of great short one shot holes. The longer version, the left green, is very downhill to well guarded green. The ridge that rises behind it is the same ridge that contains the 7th green, 8th tee, and 13th green that we played. There are ~15-20 bunkers in the hill behind the green, along with a large bunker guarding the front right. This is the area that seems too cluttered with bunkers and just didn’t fit my eye. I’ll touch on that again when I discuss the high version of the 13th. The low version of 11 is, in my opinion, just an ok hole. When paired with the left green on 6, it’s a similar mid iron to downhill green.

Hole 12 - 423 / 376

The tee shot here is relatively straightforward, with some trees and bunkers creeping in on the left side, asking the player to hug the right boundary line. The green is tucked back into a corner of property, with a runoff long and a tricky bunker to the right. With a good drive, we had less than 100 yards in and it felt like, finally, a respite on a par four with a good chance for birdie. Another excellent green complex that I remember liking but don’t remember in great detail.

Hole 13 - 410 / 392

I think the version we played was substantially shorter than the version on the card (or I hit a LONG tee ball). The lower version of the hole would play into a large mound that kicks the ball right to left, with the green well protected by the bunker complex that guards the green we played for the low version of 11. The high version requires the player to challenge a low area of native grass on the right and numerous bunkers to left in order to get a good look. The better angle is as far right as possible. After a good drive, we had about 75 yards to a small green perched on top of the ridge close to the eighth tee box. To the left and short of this green is the aforementioned 15-20 bunker complex terraced into the hillside. I liked the strategy of this hole, but I think less would have been more when it comes to bunkers and placement.

Hole 14 - 396 / 351

This shorter par four plays from the ridgeline near the eighth tee down into a valley and back up to an elevated green against the edge of the property. A deep fairway bunker must be carried from the tee, along with several more lining the right side, almost running the length to the green. The green is elevated, shallow and well bunkered, running from high left to low right.

Hole 15 - 409 / 329

I heard this described as “drivable” but I am not sure exactly who could drive it at these distances. Nonetheless, it is a very interesting hole. Similar to the fourth, it runs hard against the boundary with OB lurking feet, if not inches, from the fairway running all the way up to the green. Three large cross bunkers bisect a large fairway, which runs away to the left of them. There is a distinct advantage to challenging the OB not just to get closer to the green, but to avoid having to hit a shot carrying a small greenside bunker with OB lurking directly beyond. This green reminds me of many “classic” greens; small, back to front slope with a couple of defining ridges. A memorable hole.

Hole 16 - 453 / 415

I liked this hole and the next quite a bit. A sweeping dogleg left running back downhill towards the 7th tee, it has some reminiscence of a shorter version of 2 at Augusta National. Sandy waste areas guard the left and right side of the fairways. The green is shaped like a scrunched version of Africa and guarded by a bunker about 20 yards short left and one on the right. There was a nice ripple in the middle of the green and the back falls away, especially on the right. Long is no good!

Hole 17 - 453 / 415

This dogleg left takes you back into the other corner of the property. As previously mentioned, this is one of the flatter spots on the site and I thought the architects excelled with the subtle landforms. A wide fairway asks you to challenge a sandy expanse and three fairway bunkers up the left to cutoff the most distance. A shot to the right must carry one bunker and stay short of another three. Playing farther right, and thus having a longer approach, will give the golfer the best angle to a slightly elevated green guarded at the front by two deep bunkers.

Hole 18 - 629 / 539

A challenging par five to close offers options to the longer hitter. Deep bunkers guard both sides of a generous fairway, with those who choose to challenge the carry of about 250 yards from the Blue tee able to cut significant distance off the hole via a downslope, thus giving them a chance at going for the green in two. Otherwise, a player will need to layup over a Principal’s Nose bunker complex short of the lake that also guards the sixth hole. The green, wide at the front and narrow at the back sits flush with its left side against the lake and its right side inches from a large greenside bunker. The back pin we played was extremely challenging, with perhaps a six yard wide window for perfection. Did the author skull one into the lake from the bunker? We’ll never know.

I really liked the areas of the golf course where multiple greens converge and think they were cleverly done. The 8, 10, 11, 13 section has five greens within 100 yards of one another. Similarly, 2, 5, 6 (times two), 9, and 18 are all close to one another. The golf course is hard, make no doubt about it, but there is plenty of space off the tee and the green complexes will reward good shots with chances for birdie. I look forward to seeing how this one matures.
99
Kyle, would your work be a candidate for an opinion piece, then a thread for the DG?


No, I don't think it's worth that. I have nothing to say other than what I did and was more posting a discussion thread for other's own assessments if ever done.

In reading reviews across this site and others I think we tend to steer toward what we know or could speak to. So many golf course reviews discuss anything other than golf or the golf course. I used this as an exercise to check myself in this regard, too, and wanted to see if I could plot any trends in my own biases as I rate things vs. how I would review them.

That is to say that the courses I am most compelled to write about likely have a higher returnability rating than raw golf course rating and that the more substanstive writings would probably be about places with high deltas between the two. Or interesting ones.

"What's the best golf course I've played that I wouldn't return to?"  ;D
100
Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group / Re: Design Gut Check?
« Last post by Erik J. Barzeski on Yesterday at 02:13:53 PM »
Well it seems that you don't seem to take criticism very well I was making a point that you have a design style or approach that you are comfortable with and probably will never go out of the box it has worked well for you and you don't want to take the risk on doing something really different some would say 'stuck in your old ways' - some projects have been a huge success and others haven't
Tom is the last person here who needs anyone defending him, and I'm not aware of any history between you two or anything much beyond what was mentioned here… but to this and the rest of what you've written, wow. I don't remember the last time I read something that came off as so wildly off base.

How would you categorize Tom's "style or approach"? Would you rather he build a lousy, terrible golf course? Is not creating across multiple kinds of terrain and land a variance of "style or approach"? It's not like Tom's built only parkland golf courses. Or links courses. Or wide sandbelt-style golf courses.

Just because you don't like the few Doak courses you've played and seem to feel you have "different tastes" doesn't back the opinions you've shared here. At all.

Thanks for the chuckle, I guess.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]