True North Golf Club private again

[Howard Riefs]

Interesting development in N. Michigan as True North Golf Club returns to private status in 2012. 

http://www2.cybergolf.com/newsletters/viewblast.asp?id=302664&courseid=2816

The course, designed by Jim Engh, opened as a private club in 2004. It then went public a few years later with the plan to return to private once the economy strengthened. Perhaps that's now.  Last year, it ranked #33 on Golf Digest's list of "Best Courses You Can Play" in the U.S.

The club is focusing on National Memberships, and added a two more cabins; the property can now accomodate 32 people a night.

Also a positive development that they're re-doing the 18th hole.   

[Mark Saltzman]

What's wrong with 18?

[Howard Riefs]

What's wrong with 18?

George describes it well in this thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38856.msg811119.html.

...As for the 18th hole:
The landing area on the drive is not to small as Chris had mentioned.  This is because the effective landing area spans from the left fairway island, down across the rough and cart path that splits them, and includes the right landing zone (see pic below).  When I tried to play to the left fairway, I over-cooked a fade (ok...I sliced it) and my ball ended landing on the rough between the fairways and kicking down to the lower fairway. 

The issue with the hole comes on the third shot of players that have taken the long route to the hole.  If you do not get to the very end of the fairway (probably the last 30-50 yds, which can be a long shot if you're not long off the tee), you have trouble with the three or four tall trees acting as multiple sets of goal posts between you and the hole.  Depending on where the trees are in relation to your line of play, you may or may not have a angle into the green (which plays severly uphill from the second shot landing zone).  I ended up having to punch a gap wedge between two trees and up onto the green.  It was a fun shot, but it isn't for everyone...

It's definitely an interesting hole...

Here is an aerial from the website

So does David.

…
In regards to the 18th, I was not a big fan.  One, from the back tee I felt the left FW option was highly un-doable without the command of a big hook.  The angle made it really tough, and without trying to play a big hook the trees directly off the tee box were in play.  I also felt like the actual LZ left was semi-blind.  As George points out, the lay-up is really do or die.  You have to be at the end of the fairway to have a clean look at the green, which again like he points off can require a long shot, maybe even a FW medal for some who aren't long or mis-hit there tee ball. 

[Mark Saltzman]

Thanks, Howard.  I actually thought it was a pretty interesting/fun hole.  Will see if I can find some ground-level pictures to post.

[Howard Riefs]

Thanks, Howard.  I actually thought it was a pretty interesting/fun hole.  Will see if I can find some ground-level pictures to post.

It would play better if they would have cut down those four trees at the end of the right fairway. As it is now, playing it down the right fairway requires an exacting 2nd shot that's a tall ask for a higher handicap.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Why wouldn't everyone use the shorter route? Even if the second shot does not carry the rough, it still looks like a much easier third short from there.

Ulrich

[Mike Demetriou]

anyone know who purchased it?

[Steve Lang]

  Guess a lot of those Chicago folks are doing better...  and can now get away across the lake to Pure Michigan

[Mark Saltzman]

Howard,

Why can't precision be demanded on the second shot on a par-5 to leave an easy third shot? Don't pull it off, pay the consequences. Par-5s need not easily be reached in 3 by someone who fails to take the brave line on the tee shot and is short/offline with his second.

[Howard Riefs]

Howard,

Why can't precision be demanded on the second shot on a par-5 to leave an easy third shot? Don't pull it off, pay the consequences. Par-5s need not easily be reached in 3 by someone who fails to take the brave line on the tee shot and is short/offline with his second.

I don't disagree with you on the need for precise shots. But this hole confounds me. 

Typically, on a par 5 hole with alternate fairways, the demanding second shot is required on the more direct, challenging route; which on this True North #18 hole would be via the left fairway. This design requires demanding second shots playing from both fairways.

Furthermore, based on this scorecard (http://www.oobgolf.com/courses/scorecard.php?id=19985), the hole measures:

Blue:      572
White:    555
Gold:      485

Based on those numbers, it requires the golfer playing from the white (6,300 yds) tees to have both a drive and 2nd shot each in excess of 260 yards to be parallel with the green, thereby avoiding the trees that guard it. That's a new definition of precision.

 

[Jon Wiggett]

Howard,

assuming that the hole is measured along the right hand fairway and and the shot from the third shot layup point is 80 yards that leaves 470 for the first 2 shots. which means a 250 drive leaves a 220 second. I would imagine that double digit handicappers will be getting a shot here so don't see what the problem is.

I would get rid of all the central trees and rely on awkward lies and the odd bunker to spice the hole up.

Jon