Also for what it is worth. When I first wrote up Sweetens -- seems a hell of a long time ago now -- I commented that Rob and Tad had thrown the kitchen sink at the project. I also said there were features that some might think over the top, notably building a mount to deliberately make a par three blind, and the sleepered lion's mouth bunker on 5, which I still think is potentially quite dangerous.
So if someone were to say that the course is a little too full-on, I would empathise with that view. Incongruent, which in this context I take to mean out of place or ill-fitting, I am not so sure about. Yes, obviously the golf course site is now much more contoured than the surrounding flood plain. But it is all so small-scale that it does not bother me in the slightest. If they'd built a big hill on the property, I think I would see it differently.
Rob may disagree, but I think Sweetens speaks very clearly to what it is, the debut effort by an undoubtedly talented architect who was fortunate enough to land a project close to his home and to which he could therefore devote a huge amount of time. And we can't ignore the golf development market in which it was created. I have written on many occasions how hard it is to get established as a golf architect, simply because finding projects is so tough when you first start up. But in the present market conditions, it is much, much harder. So many talented young people are getting by on small scale bunker jobs, desperately looking for that one project that will vault them up to the next level. And when they get it, if they are lucky enough to do so, you bet your life they are going to throw every good design idea they have ever had at it. Partly because it's the nature of a creative person to want to put your good ideas into practice, and in the present circumstances, who can tell whether you'll ever get another chance? And partly because each project is a marketing tool, the key one in fact, to help you get the next project.
There's not much of a respite at Sweetens, the features come at you hole after hole. Mike says he likes the second hole, and I can see why -- I think that's probably the most straightforward, classically styled hole on the property. This full-on nature is partly to do, I think, with the factors I discussed in the para above, and partly because it's a nine hole course -- there's just less room to do a breather hole. An interesting comparison, though unfortunately not one many on here will have seen, is with Jonathan Davison's Heritage course at Penati in Slovakia, also the architect's debut effort, a dream of a sandy site. Penati is mostly much more classical, and though bold in places, shows a lot more restraint than you'll see at Sweetens. Why? Partly because it's 18 holes, and there's more space to spread out the bold features, and partly because it reflects the mindset of an architect who, though it's his first project, feels he has a good position in a growing market, and is confident that other projects will follow.