Arcadia Bluffs...great or just great looking?

[Matt_Ward]

Tim W:

Good point to your story -- glad to see you had some sort of female view to take your mind off the slogging of your two other playing partners.

The truth be told -- too many of the high profile name courses are nothing less than a disaster to play during the high season.

When I was at Pac Dunes last year you had players with caddies who were literally plumbing approach shots
Fortunately, I was able to bypass these clowns after the 5th hole and jumped over to #12 and played from there on -- later on I returned and got the rest of the round in.

Rich in a previous post says Arcadia Bluffs was timed out at 4:30 hours per round, however, I have to see that to believe it. My round there was stalled by people who just could not handle more than chip'n putt at best. Look, I'm no tour pro for sure, but when people are taking veal cutlet size divots you have to wonder "what's wrong with this picture?"

Last point -- I don't really care if Arcadia is natural or not -- I just say the course is really fun to play (when the crowds aren't Times Square jammed) and isn't that a big part in why we play the game?

[John_McMillan]

Rich -

I'd be curious whether the pro shop itself is aware of the pace of play numbers.  When I booked a group to play there in fall 2000, I was looking at a particular tee time, and trying to estimate whether our group could make an 8:30 dinner time.  I stated that with a 4.5 hour round, we should be able to make it, and the pro shop clerk corrected me and stated that golf at Arcadia Bluffs takes 5.5 hours plus to complete.  To me, that was a curious stance for a pro shop to take - talk about setting up self-fulfilling expectations.  As far as walkability, it's nice that the course "encourages" it - but I really don't see how it's feasible.  There are some green to tee walks that are monsters - 8 to 9, 16 to 17 stand out in my memory.

As far as whether the course is manufactured - the contours may be natural, but they did remove a great deal of the trees on the course (which probably contributed to the course's environmental problems).  In my view, they went overboard in opening up views of Lake Michigan from everywhere on the course.  I think they could have left a number of trees on the course, and created areas where views were "punched through" the trees with greater dramatic effect.  

As far as the "dunes" nature of the course - it is not on a dunes, it is technically on a bluff (hence the name of the course).  The area I took Dick to visit near Point Betsie really is a dune.  There is a difference - in dunes areas more hills and valleys are created by blowing sand collecting in areas.  Unfortunately (for golfers), golf course construction is not possible in a true dunes area in Michigan.  Fortunately (for golfers) golf at a place like Arcadia Bluffs - on a 150 foot bluff overlooking Lake Michigan - is possible.  

[Tim_Weiman]

John McMillan:

Your comments about tree removal at Arcadia intrigue me.  Did you have in mind specific locations on the property where you would have preferred some were left in place?

As for setting the wrong expectations, that was exactly my biggest complaint about the staff at Whistling Straits.  The starter kept telling everyone to expect six hour rounds.

And guess what?  He was dead right.........unfortunately.

[John_McMillan]

Tim,

As I recall, hole 1 played straight east (away from the lake), 2 turned north, then 3 through 6 or 7 played west back towards the lake.  This whole area was pretty much de-foliated - which opens up the views of Lake Michigan from any place on this stretch.  I think on some of the holes from 3 through 7, it would have been neat to play through trees, or with them on one side or another of the fairway, with occasional views of Lake Michigan opened up around the greens.  

You've referred to the "kaleidoscope" of the wetlands that Fazio created at Sand Ridge - and I think some of that would have worked well at Arcadia Bluffs.

[Tim_Weiman]

John McMillan:

I went to AB's site to re-fresh my memory.  I came away thinking that more trees mgiht be difficult to work in most places throughout the course.

It would probably take another site visit for my to visualize how it might be done.

[John_McMillan]

Tim,

I'm not sure what you mean by "difficult to work in."  If you look to to the North of the property, or to the South, you get a good idea of what was there before the golf course - pretty much trees everywhere.  Trees could have been placed at just about any place on that course - just by not clearing them.

[Tim_Weiman]

John McMillan:

What I meant was deciding where to leave existing trees in place.

It's not something I could think through on the basis of one visit.  I'd need to spend far more time there to take a crack at what you are suggesting.

It seems like they went to the extreme of removing just about everything, wanting to open up the whole place from the clubhouse on down to the water.

I just wonder how many trees could be left and not spoil the overall concept.  Conversely, if you removed most and left just a few here and there, the remaining ones might well look out of place.

Again, I'm not saying something couldn't be done, but I believe it would take alot of careful thought to get it right.