On Tuesday I had the opportunity to play for the first time this season (we have been drenched during the month of May here) and the occasion was a corporate outing at the Graham Cooke-designed Glen Arbour, just outside of Halifax. It is part of a ritzy golf course community and now that I've visited a few times, I thought I'd offer my views. If others here have visited I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.
Certainly I have to start by saying that they treat you very well and the way they run the club is above reproach. The same can be said for course conditioning. The day I was there was the first day they had been open in nearly 2 1/2 weeks and while it was a little soggy in spots and the greens were not quick, I would have been shocked if it had been anything but that way. They are babying the course in prep for the LPGA's 2005 BMO Women's Open coming in July so I'm not surprised it was in fine shape.
Cooke was given a hilly piece of property to work with that encompassed several lakes and creeks. He certainly has produced a good-looking, scenic course. The people in my group were all from Toronto and at one point they began talking about what courses there would match this just in terms of good looks. They came up with a very short list, although as to its validity, I have no idea.
I am not qualified to offer an opinion on his architecture other to note which holes and features I did and did not care for. I find the opening hole difficult, which is not something I would expect for such a hole. Some of the uphills around the course are quite extreme, which would make walking a challenge. But walking (if you can handle it) may be the preferred option to riding a cart (as we were doing) because they enforce a strict cartpath rule and the location of the paths means you have very long walks to your ball if it's on the wrong side of the fairway (or worse). A 90-degree rule would make this course much more playable out of a cart because the paths often don't seem to be in very good places.
There were a few holes I didn't like - #7, a typical par 3 guarded by water all around a la Pete Dye; #8, a sharp dogleg left short par 4; and #10, similar in some ways but a dogleg right. A number of holes have forced carries off the tee over water hazards or environmentally sensitive areas, while #6 (a par 5) has a creek at the bottom of a hill about 160 yards from the green, which to a player like me means you need a very good tee shot to ensure you can carry the creek on your second - not my favorite design feature.
There are a number of holes that I did like because they were all right in front of you to see from tee to green, something I enjoy. Hole 14 (I think; please correct me if I'm wrong, someone) is a par 5 that has one of the lakes along its left side, and has a green that is elevated on the edge of the lake with a large bunker running down from the green on its left to the lake, perhaps 15-20 feet below the green surface. A heroic shot to the green if you are going for a left pin placement, but incredibly attractive. Number 18 is another very attractive par 5, downhill with the lake on your right starting about halfway along. Just a very pretty hole, especially at the green.
It is not my favorite course. Right now I need to play out of a cart beause of physical problems, and it is the toughest cart round I've ever played. Even if I was in good shape physically I'm not sure I'd want to walk 18 with some of those hills, although thankfully few transits from green to next tee are too lengthy. The hills affect shotmaking obviously, and my preference these days is for flatter courses (perhaps a sad commentary on my shotmaking abilities now!). But I think Cooke delivered what he was asked to deliver, a scenic, eye-pleasing course that can help sell expensive homes and be able to command top dollar for outings and green fee players.
But for me, I think I'd rather play Digby Pines.
