Although, it apparently wasn't the first time it got tested in a non-member tournament (I think they held an AJGA tournament there), yesterday the PA Golf Association held a regional qualifier on Hanse Design's French Creek.
All that resulted pretty much inspired me to write up a full-blown analysis of a whole lot of things---the golf course, its routing, its architecture, the way various types of players approach it, play it, critique it and even how officials and tournament administrators have to deal with it.
I'll preface by admitting that Gil Hanse is a good friend of mine and the architect I've probably been closest to over the years. We've even done a few little things together here and there.
First of all, nobody, not anyone, has ever said the routing of French Creek is very good. Everyone knows it's chopped up by a country road in some pretty unfortunate ways that created some "green to next tee" disconnects and probably required that a few holes got wedged into places that weren't ideal (particularly #8). In a few other places wetlands and radical topography required some pretty interesting applications in balance and sequence.
Despite all this the individual holes of French Creek are really cool to me regardless of how they lay out in relation to one another on the site.
Next, the architectural features on the course----eg the actual hole movements and layouts, use of topography for architecture, use of fairway and green angles and such, internal green designs, contours and shapes, some tee designs and particularly the bunkering is really special to me, even breathtaking in spots (just about all the bunkering of French Creek is about as good of a particular style as there is in the world with new course design, in my opinion. Basically I just can’t imagine how bunkering of this particular style could ever be any better and better looking than this, although old fashioned rugged looking bunkering certainly is and always has been a Hanse Design specialty). French Creek also uses a lot of fairway width with a purpose as many of the holes that have some real fairway width also have a whole lot of other danger areas and different features in, on or around them. There’re also some pretty healthy forced carries on the course that put demand on tournament setup people to be realistic.
One thing French Creek is in spades is a “thinking” player’s course. There’s no question at all even really good players have got to take the time and use their concentration to ultra engage with the course from tee to green and around and on the greens or they can semi-hang themselves all over that course, not to mention plenty of water hazards, O.B’s and really high thick fescue and a few other areas that give “Wild Country” (left of #14) new meaning.
I should also say that a Pa State Am qualifier like this one with a field of around 80 players (22 spots and ties ) had probably 30 players in it that are very good and maybe about 15 of them who have careers where they have really gone low in tournaments such as US Am qualifiers on hard courses. By really low I mean in the low 60s.
On some subsequent posts I’d be glad to go through every single hole on the course and critique it, particularly in the context of something like what was held there yesterday (yesterday I did not get over to holes 4-8 but I know them well).
For now, I’ll critique 3-4 holes that have always seemed most salient or controversial in most players’ minds, including my own.
#3, where I spent most of the morning. This hole can play around 215 although we had it at 195. In my opinion, what it is, what the green is, the hole should not be more than about 150-160. The carry is too total, there’s way too much danger around it, particularly to the right and the green is too shallow, particularly on the right, and the surface is too radical for the length the hole is. There is no question at all that this hole sort of had to be where it is and what it is in a routing and sequence sense. To start the course where Gil did there was really no alternative than to do this par 3 exactly where it is and what it is. It just doesn’t need to be as long as it is, in my opinion. I feel a little responsible for the pin position yesterday because if I’d gotten there an hour earlier I would have almost insisted the position be shifted about three steps left on the left section.
#4: In my opinion, this hole needs to lose its back tee permanently. It’s too far back to be used in a general sense even for good players and after that it’s really hard for even good players to figure out where to lay up or how to go for that green. I don’t know what the total hole distance is from back there but I think the hole would be a lot better, particularly for good players, if played from the members tees of 483. That way it might become one of the more interesting “go/no go” high risk/reward short par 5s around. That way the “scoring spectrum” on it might be amazingly good.
#14: There’s no question at all that this hole gets the most criticism of any on the course and probably by a mile or two. I spent the afternoon on this one and I’ve never had an officiating/spotting workout like that in my 20 plus years of officiating. #14 is another good example of a routing and sequencing problem across some highly radical and difficult ground for golf and generally I think Hanse Design did a good job of it----they certainly did a gutsy job of it! The point is they just had to “get from here to there” somehow. In my opinion, the real problem with this hole is they just did “one thing too much or one thing too many” (like overacting that always seems to be a danger in golf architecture) on it and that very definitely is that fescue/rock strewn area right in the middle of the long shot/high risk tee shot area. Gil and French Creek, I swear to God if you just lost that fescue/rock strewn area in there and got it into fairway (even if that took a modicum of regrading) you’d really have something quirky but special with #14. I’d also recommend losing the trees that are between the fairway and cart path short and on the right (leave the one at the end to aim at) and build a two-foot high rock wall to take the place of the O.B. stakes on the right. All of this would make that highly dangerous (and blind now) green much more acceptable.
So how did it go in qualifying?
One of the best players in the field, a guy who could win the State Amateur must have gone ballistic in anger and failed to qualify. Some guy nobody ever heard of shot a 65 and there were a couple of others in the 60s or under the par 71. 22 and ties qualified at 75 or better.
To me that means the course produced a most interesting “scoring spectrum” and in the final analysis that’s a very good thing, perhaps even the most important barometer of a good golf course and good and thoughtful and interesting architecture.
Gil, I told (in jest) Mark Petersen (Pa’s Executive Director) that you are now the architect who is “Enemy #1” in the world of officials and golf administrators. MY GOD, what a workout it was to officiate at French Creek yesterday. We suspected that going in but now we know!
And lastly, having spent the afternoon on #14 I don’t think there was more than a few players who DID NOT have something critical to say about that hole with the exception of a member who was playing and then this young kid who looked like an advertisement out of Lilly Pulitizer who I saw over on #3 who almost made a hole in one by banking his shot off the end of the middle radical ridgeline in the green and backing it down to rim the cup. I asked that kid on #14 what he thought of the course and he essentially gasped; “Ive never seen a golf course remotely like this one in my life and I’ve never had more fun on any golf course in my entire life”.
Clearly, that says a whole lot about all of what French Creek is!!
Lastly, a whole lot of the players were trying to drive #15 and that created a huge backlog on that hole as we had to radio back and forth to get players on the green to wait to let following groups drive. One guy hit the ball way over the green and down into the 11th fairway from where he pitched back rather nicely. I told Petersen that was actually your 17th option on one of the most multi-optional holes around. It’s a very cool hole and it also created a real “scoring spectrum.