Is Forest Dunes Weiskopf's Best?

[Eric_Terhorst]

The specific criticism that you can’t get close to a front pin might be true at Red 1 and 6 and 8 and 14 and 15, so maybe twice a round.  On the other holes there is plenty of opportunity to land short and run up if you play a lower trajectory shot.  If you pound a drive and insist on hitting a high wedge in there, maybe it’s not as easy to get close.  It’s gotta suck when an expert golfer can’t hit a shot his mom can. 

To Tom's point about moms, I watched my wife hit a low running 6-iron 90 yards onto Red 8, to a front right pin, that went in to the hole for a birdie 3.  Take that, "expert golfer".   

[Eric_Terhorst]

Looking to take a group to Forest Dunes for a couple days and hoping to get some insight into the golf experience there.  I've heard the original FD described as having a mix of the pristine and the rustic (PV-like).  Generally, I'm a fan of Weiskopf designs and if FD is in fact at the top of his list, I think I'll like it.  The Loop is a common discussion item here I know and while I'm certain it will make for a great 18 hole experience, I'm intrigued at just how different the loops will play.  Not all of my guys are architecture enthusiasts but they know really good golf when they see it.  Would appreciate any comments.

Brad, if you generally like Weiskopf courses, you'll like Forest Dunes.  It's underrated as a strategic golf course with a wonderful variety of holes, particularly in the par 4s.  Ignore the comments about trees interfering with play and the course being soft.  It's built on the same sand as the Loop and drains well, but is definitely a different, more mature surface--it's wall-to-wall bent grass that's been around awhile and won't play as firm and fast as the Loop's newer fescue fairways and newer bent grass greens.  Unless you catch it after a bad spate of rainy weather, the Forest Dunes surface will probably suit your group just fine. 


Forest Dunes is played more in the air, the Loop more on the ground.  They're both excellent golf courses.

[Jerry Rossi]

Weiskopf's original course and the Loop offer a dichotomy that may not exist anywhere else.  Loop = fescue, brown, walkable, fast & firm, ground-game.  Forest Dunes = green, soft, 'get the yardage and fire away' golf, pretty, and carts.  I concur that playing Forest Dunes first is wise advise.  Many of my playing partners preferred the Dunes to the Loop; I however, cancelled tee times at Dunes to get a 4th and 5th round in at the Loop.  Not much memorable about Weiskopf's course except the fancy impressed concrete 'stone' cart paths and the motorbike carts.  Resort was comfortable and enjoyable.

I second all this, especially the "not much memorable" part about the Weiskopf course.  It reminded me of Lake Arrowhead which is the course right outside the entrance to Sand Valley in Central WI....good course, lots of trees, nothing special....but Lake Arrowhead was/is a fraction of the cost of FD.


Overall, I think all that the property offers makes it worth a trip, even though the short course wasn't yet built when I was there (it was under construction) and I didn't get to play the Loop both ways because we had to leave the next morning and they had an event.  All that said, once was enough for me and I have almost no desire to go back and what little I do is simply to see the Loop on back to back days/both ways but it would be hard to get me to sacrifice a day at Kingsley to make that happen.

[Steve Lang]

Jerry Rossi,


Seriously, FD like Lake Arrowhead??  Good course, lots of trees, nothing special???  Maybe my 40 yrs ago memory isn't great on LA, but would never equate it with FD.


LA is certainly cheaper, but have you payed at TKC lately? 

[Jerry Rossi]

Jerry Rossi,


Seriously, FD like Lake Arrowhead??  Good course, lots of trees, nothing special???  Maybe my 40 yrs ago memory isn't great on LA, but would never equate it with FD.


LA is certainly cheaper, but have you payed at TKC lately?

What's TKC?
I think LA is a totally fine/average golf course....my thoughts with FD are the same.  Half the praise I hear about it are the conditions it was it, which does nothing for me.  Not a bad course, just nothing special IMO.  The set up there is very cool with the short course, putting green, 2/3 good courses and everything so close together.

[Phil Burr]

TKC = The Kingsley Club.

[Jerry Rossi]

TKC = The Kingsley Club.

Thanks Phil.


Steve - yes I have played Kingsley and think it's in another league than FD.  Probably my 2nd favorite MI course to Crystal Downs. 

[Brad Steven]

Well, after much anticipation, we just returned from Roscommon with rounds at FD and the Loop.  Since this topic generated some interest when I posted initially, I thought I'd close the loop (ha) with some takeaways. 


Forest Dunes - I loved it, as did the group.  Could go on with detail but it's a dandy all the way around.


The Loop ... hmmmm ... well, my humble take is that the reversible design is really brilliant.  We played counter-clockwise the first day and then clockwise the second day and I think the biggest compliment I could give is that the second day, it didn't feel like I was playing a golf course backward.  Frankly, it really did feel like two different golf courses - but with identical playing conditions (obviously).  Only one hole struck me as a little awkward playing clockwise.  It rained about 2" the 24 hours before we played and it was still impossibly firm and fast.  Looks off the tee were great both ways ... with plenty of width.  Love that you could find balls in the long grass too when hit off line. 


The green contouring was ... brilliant, diabolical and gratuitous.  The internal sloping is utterly confusing most of the time and the sloping around the edges is really penal.  I still don't know if it was fun or torture.  Respectfully, and notwithstanding the architect's comments in an earlier response, I think the combination of heavy sloping, both internal and along edges leading to severe runoffs along with the firmness of the turf pushes past skillful shot making to something where the vagueries and whim of the turf play an outsized role.  For every shot I hit where I gauged the bounce, the rollout and the green contours properly and ended up with a ball close to the hole, I hit 5 shots that I thought were good ... that ended up not.  This isn't the wounded musing of a good golfer frustrated that he can't throw darts, it just simply feel that the rewards just aren't balanced.  Frankly, why would a designer want to neutralize skill ... make it so that a fine result can come from a shot hit by a scratch golfer or his mother?  I don't get it.  I guess if the Loop was a members course, and people played it regularly, the green contouring would be better understood and the player could use it to their advantage.  Whereas, by definition, people playing the Loop are mostly there one time, without time to become familiar.   


Anyway, it's brilliant, innovative, controversial and I'd recommend it to anyone in the area.     And by the way, why does it sound (and feel) like the golf course is built on a plywood platform?  Is it the sandcapping?  Couldn't hardly get over the sounds of the golf course. 

[Sean_A]

Better players are less tolerant of the vagaries that a bouncing or rolling ball are subject too on less than perfect (green-like) surfaces too.  It's frustrating to think you've hit a good shot only to have the ground contours dictate otherwise - but sometimes the rub of the green works your way too.

One of the most important things I learned from The Old Course was that every little contour around the greens that made it hard to get close to the hole WOULD HAVE BEEN A BACKSTOP IF YOU HAD JUST PLAYED TO THE CORRECT SIDE OF IT.


Sime “good players” just won’t accept that they might have been out of position and that’s their own fault.

Similar to TOC, you often don't know you are out of position until after the fact. It would take time to learn the greens and hole locations.

The Loop both ways was about what I expected in terms of playing the courses. I play a lot of hilltop and funky golf so I am well used to the vagaries of the ground game...it takes time to learn the land and the conditions. The more of this style of golf played the more one can draw from experience. The Loop could have been toned down a bit, but in the long run, why? The Loop will find its customers and settle in well.

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

Better players are less tolerant of the vagaries that a bouncing or rolling ball are subject too on less than perfect (green-like) surfaces too.  It's frustrating to think you've hit a good shot only to have the ground contours dictate otherwise - but sometimes the rub of the green works your way too.

I've always thought of it as a toss of the coin. Can't prove this,  but for every 'bad' bounce there must be a good one?  It's just that golfers never want to acknowledge the helpful ones?

[Sean_A]

Better players are less tolerant of the vagaries that a bouncing or rolling ball are subject too on less than perfect (green-like) surfaces too.  It's frustrating to think you've hit a good shot only to have the ground contours dictate otherwise - but sometimes the rub of the green works your way too.

I've always thought of it as a toss of the coin. Can't prove this,  but for every 'bad' bounce there must be a good one?  It's just that golfers never want to acknowledge the helpful ones?

My theory is that nearly all "bad bounces" are actually preditcable bounces, but lack of player experience renders these bounces in "the lap of the gods". 

Ciao

[Mike Schott]

How good are the players in your group?  One of the interesting debates among the guys from No Laying Up on their recent Michigan trip was what they thought of the Loop, and what was interesting was that the good players didn't enjoy themselves, while the higher handicappers loved it.  And that's not because it's easy, but because the way those two types of golfers consume their rounds.  The good players didn't like the super firm conditions (and I'd agree when I played it a couple years ago, it was really, really firm, maybe too firm), and pushed up greens on some holes that made scoring near impossible.  I had a similar criticism when I played it, that you could not get anywhere near a front pin, because if you tried to bounce one up, you'd hit a hill and die, and if you carried it to the green, you were bouncing to the back if not over the green. 


But for the higher handicappers, they saw a place where they were almost certainly not going to lose any golf balls.  Higher handicappers may struggle with chips and pitches off of tight lies, but you can putt from everywhere at the Loop, so they weren't chunking chips all day.  They could be more creative with shots that were easier to hit, while lower handicappers tend to want to hit certain shots a certain way, and get frustrated when it's hard to do so.


That said, I still think the Loop is really good and it would be a shame to miss it if you're there.  We stayed one night so we could play it both ways, and the accommodations were nice.  Not super luxurious, but everything we needed. I haven't played the Weiskopf.

I appreciate the insight Bill ... my guys range from +1 to 11 with most between 4 and 8.  So, relatively speaking a pretty good group.  The premise that the better golfer enjoys fast and firm conditions that requires a ground game less than the higher handicapper is my experience too.  True, just about anyone can hit a shot off a tight lie from 40 yards around the green with a putter but that doesn't mean they'll hit it well or the ball will end up close ... higher handicappers just have a lesser expectation and the result will bother them less. Better players are less tolerant of the vagaries that a bouncing or rolling ball are subject too on less than perfect (green-like) surfaces too.  It's frustrating to think you've hit a good shot only to have the ground contours dictate otherwise - but sometimes the rub of the green works your way too.  Until I play the loop I guess I won't know for sure what I think of the way the greens receive shots - whether through the air or along the ground - but I'm looking forward to it that's for sure. 


I'm a sucker for a parkland gem like Forest Dunes seems to be but I really have come to enjoy the creativity that's engendered by the width, firm playing surfaces and large, complex greens at places like Bandon, Streamsong, Sand Valley etc.  That's really fun golf if you ask me (notwithstanding the frustration of not being able to throw darts with short irons).


 

Lower handicap players get frustrated when they try to play a power game when that's the wrong choice for the course. I played The Loop with a long, low handicap player. It was the end of the first season and the course was very firm. He kept trying to bomb it off the tee and ended up OB or just in the woods when a long iron or 3 wood would have been a smarter play. It a course that requires thoughtful shot making.

[Ally Mcintosh]

How good are the players in your group?  One of the interesting debates among the guys from No Laying Up on their recent Michigan trip was what they thought of the Loop, and what was interesting was that the good players didn't enjoy themselves, while the higher handicappers loved it.  And that's not because it's easy, but because the way those two types of golfers consume their rounds.  The good players didn't like the super firm conditions (and I'd agree when I played it a couple years ago, it was really, really firm, maybe too firm), and pushed up greens on some holes that made scoring near impossible.  I had a similar criticism when I played it, that you could not get anywhere near a front pin, because if you tried to bounce one up, you'd hit a hill and die, and if you carried it to the green, you were bouncing to the back if not over the green. 


But for the higher handicappers, they saw a place where they were almost certainly not going to lose any golf balls.  Higher handicappers may struggle with chips and pitches off of tight lies, but you can putt from everywhere at the Loop, so they weren't chunking chips all day.  They could be more creative with shots that were easier to hit, while lower handicappers tend to want to hit certain shots a certain way, and get frustrated when it's hard to do so.


That said, I still think the Loop is really good and it would be a shame to miss it if you're there.  We stayed one night so we could play it both ways, and the accommodations were nice.  Not super luxurious, but everything we needed. I haven't played the Weiskopf.

I appreciate the insight Bill ... my guys range from +1 to 11 with most between 4 and 8.  So, relatively speaking a pretty good group.  The premise that the better golfer enjoys fast and firm conditions that requires a ground game less than the higher handicapper is my experience too.  True, just about anyone can hit a shot off a tight lie from 40 yards around the green with a putter but that doesn't mean they'll hit it well or the ball will end up close ... higher handicappers just have a lesser expectation and the result will bother them less. Better players are less tolerant of the vagaries that a bouncing or rolling ball are subject too on less than perfect (green-like) surfaces too.  It's frustrating to think you've hit a good shot only to have the ground contours dictate otherwise - but sometimes the rub of the green works your way too.  Until I play the loop I guess I won't know for sure what I think of the way the greens receive shots - whether through the air or along the ground - but I'm looking forward to it that's for sure. 


I'm a sucker for a parkland gem like Forest Dunes seems to be but I really have come to enjoy the creativity that's engendered by the width, firm playing surfaces and large, complex greens at places like Bandon, Streamsong, Sand Valley etc.  That's really fun golf if you ask me (notwithstanding the frustration of not being able to throw darts with short irons).


 

Lower handicap players get frustrated when they try to play a power game when that's the wrong choice for the course. I played The Loop with a long, low handicap player. It was the end of the first season and the course was very firm. He kept trying to bomb it off the tee and ended up OB or just in the woods when a long iron or 3 wood would have been a smarter play. It a course that requires thoughtful shot making.

This is a strange discussion and not my experience at all. Maybe you should reframe it as “lower handicappers who have little to no experience of playing true firm and fast conditions don’t like the vagaries of firm and fast conditions”.


Most regular links players would love The Loop, whether they were a +4 or a 24 handicap.

[Steve Lang]

  ... or perhaps reframe it as never underestimate the golfer ego's impact on both play and critical thinking... independent of the gca


ps Forest Dunes' offerings have been fun annual summer play(s)...  now what's next for the site???

[Ally Mcintosh]

... or perhaps reframe it as never underestimate the golfer ego's impact on both play and critical thinking... independent of the gca


ps Forest Dunes' offerings have been fun annual summer play(s)...  now what's next for the site???

I do hope to make a return visit sometime to see the new 18 which should be coming soon I believe?….


The Bootlegger was a bit of fun too…. Robin & I ran round - literally - in 20 minutes during some heavy rain. As we started, a 10-ball was coming off the tenth green. We were thankful for the rain clearing the course.

[Mike Schott]

How good are the players in your group?  One of the interesting debates among the guys from No Laying Up on their recent Michigan trip was what they thought of the Loop, and what was interesting was that the good players didn't enjoy themselves, while the higher handicappers loved it.  And that's not because it's easy, but because the way those two types of golfers consume their rounds.  The good players didn't like the super firm conditions (and I'd agree when I played it a couple years ago, it was really, really firm, maybe too firm), and pushed up greens on some holes that made scoring near impossible.  I had a similar criticism when I played it, that you could not get anywhere near a front pin, because if you tried to bounce one up, you'd hit a hill and die, and if you carried it to the green, you were bouncing to the back if not over the green. 


But for the higher handicappers, they saw a place where they were almost certainly not going to lose any golf balls.  Higher handicappers may struggle with chips and pitches off of tight lies, but you can putt from everywhere at the Loop, so they weren't chunking chips all day.  They could be more creative with shots that were easier to hit, while lower handicappers tend to want to hit certain shots a certain way, and get frustrated when it's hard to do so.


That said, I still think the Loop is really good and it would be a shame to miss it if you're there.  We stayed one night so we could play it both ways, and the accommodations were nice.  Not super luxurious, but everything we needed. I haven't played the Weiskopf.

I appreciate the insight Bill ... my guys range from +1 to 11 with most between 4 and 8.  So, relatively speaking a pretty good group.  The premise that the better golfer enjoys fast and firm conditions that requires a ground game less than the higher handicapper is my experience too.  True, just about anyone can hit a shot off a tight lie from 40 yards around the green with a putter but that doesn't mean they'll hit it well or the ball will end up close ... higher handicappers just have a lesser expectation and the result will bother them less. Better players are less tolerant of the vagaries that a bouncing or rolling ball are subject too on less than perfect (green-like) surfaces too.  It's frustrating to think you've hit a good shot only to have the ground contours dictate otherwise - but sometimes the rub of the green works your way too.  Until I play the loop I guess I won't know for sure what I think of the way the greens receive shots - whether through the air or along the ground - but I'm looking forward to it that's for sure. 


I'm a sucker for a parkland gem like Forest Dunes seems to be but I really have come to enjoy the creativity that's engendered by the width, firm playing surfaces and large, complex greens at places like Bandon, Streamsong, Sand Valley etc.  That's really fun golf if you ask me (notwithstanding the frustration of not being able to throw darts with short irons).


 

Lower handicap players get frustrated when they try to play a power game when that's the wrong choice for the course. I played The Loop with a long, low handicap player. It was the end of the first season and the course was very firm. He kept trying to bomb it off the tee and ended up OB or just in the woods when a long iron or 3 wood would have been a smarter play. It a course that requires thoughtful shot making.

This is a strange discussion and not my experience at all. Maybe you should reframe it as “lower handicappers who have little to no experience of playing true firm and fast conditions don’t like the vagaries of firm and fast conditions”.


Most regular links players would love The Loop, whether they were a +4 or a 24 handicap.

The typical golfer in the US has no idea of how to play in firm and fast conditions. It's not handicap dependent. It's grip it and rip it golf.