[Andy Troeger]

Jason,
What is the yardage difference between the tees you played and the tips? Do the tips spread out the yardages on those short fours at all? I have to admit, I think you have a pretty valid complaint in that it looks like a lot of hybrid, wedge holes.

[David_Elvins]

I am happy to go out on a limb and say that, based on the photos, the golf course is absolutely terrible.  The Ranch in San Jose would be the only golf course I have seen that would come close for horribleness.

Thanks for posting the photos, Jason. A very interesting place.

[Sean_A]

Jeepers!  And I thought I saw it all.  I honestly had no idea "courses" like this were built.  Anybody can see there is way too much elevation change to take seriously, but it might make for a great boozers game in a 20some. 


Ciao 

[Jason Thurman]

Andy, there's not much difference. I played from a bit over 6100. In retrospect, I should've played from the tips at 6600. I'm a 9 handicap and hit it plenty far enough, but I also knew how severe the course was and thought scooting up would make it more playable.

Still, most holes are only about 20 yards apart, and it's often 20 yards steeply downhill. I really don't think my club choice from the tee would've changed more than once or twice on a par 4 or 5 had I played one tee back.

From one tee further back, that run of short par 4s becomes 5 straight holes of 340-350 with 13 at 315 as the only one outside that range.

[Richard Choi]

Thank you for the tour. I think I could have used your entire thoughts on this course verbatim for my thoughts on my photo tour of Salish Cliffs. This course looks even worse. Yikes!

[Andy Troeger]

Jason,
Thanks for posting--after hearing quite a bit about the course its nice to see the tour via your photos. I also went and looked at Criss' site and his tour of the course. Its hard for me to make too strong of a judgement from the photos given that I do like places like Tobacco Road and Wolf Creek that are thrill-ride types of golf experience. I will say that Eagle Ridge doesn't appear to be in the league of those courses from these photos--it lacks the variety of hole types and more importantly the width that allows those courses to be played.

Doug,
If you really want to know why this course isn't rated by GolfWeek or GOLF, look at the variety of responses on this thread. I'm sure Eagle Ridge has its fans, but there are going to be a lot of raters that will absolutely hate it. It might be the most polarizing golf course in the country, given that the Golf Kentucky website rated it best public in the state while Jason and others think its the worst golf course they've ever seen. I'm not sure of many places with that kind of spread! I'm a bit surprised to be honest that Digest has it at #6 in the state, but we don't count playability or walkability so that has to help.

Truthfully there's not a single course I really want to see within a 3 hour drive of Eagle Ridge, so the chances of me making it from New Mexico are slim at best. I'd still enjoy a shot at #13, but I have to admit some of the criticisms levied look pretty accurate to me from the photos--especially with all the short fours. Ironically, the course looks like it would be fun for travelers to play one day a year, but awful for repeated play. That seems to bear out in who visits.

[Doug Ralston]

What can I say? Well, quite a bit, actually.

First of all Jason's pix do little to convey what you will find when you play the course. Need I say the I think he plays the course mindlessly, then acuses it of being mindless golf. I have talked about, and need not repeat, the many ways to minimize risk on the site. As for the width of the 'playing corridors', he must have seen someplace different, because a lot of it is much wider than he implies. No? Please see other reviews on GKL.

Yes, best not just take my opinion, or Jason's for it. Go to GKL and see what others said when the reviewed for the open ratings we gave. ER did not just win, it won by a mile. So perhaps not everyone though it was unplayable.

Jason's mom apparently hits it further than me, but not smarter. The course has far more give than they found. I wish I could still play. I would get a group of memebers here who are nearer than Andy, and actually take them to see the ER I play.

All that said, it truly is a course that seperates opinion extremely. "We played Hidden Cove, Old Silo and Eagle Ridge, and on the way home all we could talk about was Eagle Ridge" Foreleft on GKL. What were they saying? Read the reviews for the rating and see.

Early on, when Ron and Moe created GolfKentuckyLinks, they did their own ratings around the state. When they tried ER, neither was comfortable with it at all. In fact, they too pooh poohed me when I came back raving about it.. But when many others went to Eastern KY to play the State courses + Stonecrest, they came back with ER on the brain, and my opinions began to garner some support. Now that many have tried it, it seems quite a few, not just myself, see it as something special and just plain a blast to play. It will never be loved by all. It will alway be controversial.

But I hope you will consider it, nevertheless, when anywhere near. I suspect many golf purists here will agree with Jason. But there WILL be a few who will laugh and try it again. Yes, even here there will be a few.

Doug

[David_Elvins]

Doug,

What is your opinion of the 4th hole? 

[Keith Doleshel]

David,
The golf course you referenced in San Jose is The Ranch, and I'm not sure anything could surpass that golf course in terms of terrible architecture.  This could come close.  Its does look like once of those places you almost have to play once, just to experience it. 

[David_Elvins]

David,
The golf course you referenced in San Jose is The Ranch

Thanks Keith, fixed my typo.  I would recommend that The Ranch should be one of the first 15 courses in California visited by anyone who has an interest in golf course architecture. 

It seriously made me want to give up playing golf for about a week after I played it. 

[Doug Ralston]

Doug,

What is your opinion of the 4th hole? 

David;

It is the hardest par-5 on the Planet. Seriously. I think it is great to play, but as Jason points out, I never kept score, I just played for laughs. I am a very short hitter and play #4 or #5 tees here. Only on #13, where no one would play forward because of what it is, do I use back tees. On #4, if the course is cut well, and I have found it like that almost always is, you can mediate your risk by keeping left on the shot to the lower fairway. Again, hitting that slope will most always have it come back to the fairway.

The course is short. I think you should never use driver except for #14.

I also wanna say in my many visits there I NEVER had my ball plug at #13. I simply cannot believe the conditions were as bad as Jason describes. And if indeed the State is cutting their budget that much, it will make the course more ball-hungry. I would be sorry indeed.

Also, the 'playing corridors' are wider than Jason claims, period. Please look carefully at his own picture of the approach shot at #14, a hole he claims was narrow. The fairway is WIDE! True, all misses are bad there, but much availavle to hit. I simply have found a different course than Jason has. *shaking my head*

Steve Forrest [not Art Hills] was given a piece of land to attempt to lay out a golf courses upon. Land like few ever imagined a course would be on. I personally think he did a fantastic job at making something unique and fun. But again, never gonna be universally loved. Different!  Also I would like to challenge anyone else to find 18 holes there, with very little moving of dirt [the State certainly offered a budget, well, you guys know far more about that sort of thing than me]. I know it is a beloved tradition to trash Art Hill here, but here he did great, IMO, with what he had. Not every architect would tell someone offing them a budget "sorry, can't make a course there", I suspect. So ER is what it is. Still, I think you cannot convey it in pix, because such elevation swings do not resolve in photos.

Doug

[Jason Thurman]

Doug, you're correct about 14 having ample width up to about the 230 mark, but you can see from the pic of the tee shot how it is pinched by two trees at the 250 mark. It might be plenty wide for a shorter hitter, but it's a par 5 that STRONGLY discourages pulling driver, even after, as you said, 13 other holes where it's also the wrong play. I don't understand how you can claim a course has plenty of width after saying there's only one driver hole. I was able to pull driver on 18, but that was all.

As for 4, I can see the area of first cut short and left of the fairway. I believe that's probably the only place to hit it with any sort of safety on that shot. So yes, it's possible to play the hole without losing a ball as long as you walk up to the very edge of the top fairway and are able to see the "rough" short instead of the "gunch" everywhere else. But again, it's a VERY dictated, very option-free hole. You pretty much MUST go hybrid, 5 iron, 7 iron (or whatever three clubs let you hit the driving zone, layup zone, and green, which are all about 30 yards wide and literally the only places on the hole you can hit without losing a ball or missing your target by less than 7 yards).

I do believe I've read accounts from many architects on this very site who have turned down a project on a property incapable of producing a serviceable course. In my opinion, the property in Louisa is better suited to hiking than golf, and should never have had a course built on it. As you mention though, I'm just one guy, and there are plenty of fans of the course.

[Andy Troeger]

Doug,
The irony of this discussion is that you like the course, and perhaps Hills/Forrest designs in particular, for the very reasons others hate them. They tend to be unique, perhaps because they don't conform to what many of us consider desirable architectural traits!

Just for the sake of evaluation, looking at Eagle Ridge through the Digest criteria based primarily on the variety of comments here and on GKL since I've followed the corresponding thread there...

Shot Values--the course doesn't test length, even from the tips, and there's often not much reward for a "good shot" when your strategy is occasionally to aim for the woods. The 4th looks like a total disaster, although I'd like to play it just to see how silly it is in person. By your own admission, parts of the course make you laugh. This score can't be better than a middling one.
Playability--looks like a disaster when "all misses are bad"
Resistance to scoring--ironically I think this course is far harder for a mediocre/bad player than a good one who probably could hit 4-iron off every tee and play very well. I don't consider that a good thing, but it appears true. Accuracy is valued above all else.
Design variety--there's certainly some of this there, but there's also a lot of par fours playing the same distance and a sameness about the green angles. Eagle Ridge looks pretty average in this category.
Memorability--obviously a strength, perhaps for better or worse depending on your viewpoint!
Conditioning--apparently varies, but that's pretty normal
Aesthetics--again a strength
Walkability--apparently not good.

GolfWeek, with focus on ease and intimacy of routing among others, is never going to favor Eagle Ridge. Give up the conspiracy theory! Digest at least has a couple categories that fit the experience, and with Playability and Walkability not counting, its possible to see how its #6 in Kentucky using those criteria.

I can see how it would be a fun experience if you're not worried about score and you like mountain scenery and exhilirating shots. Can anyone imagine actually holding a competition on this course?  I mean, stroke play on any level would be a total nightmare with provisional balls, going back to the tee, etc. Can one really play this course by USGA rules and not be out there all day?

Doug, your requirements for great golf strike me as being basic conditioning, unique features, and great mountain scenery, and Eagle Ridge provides all of those. I just think you're causing yourself needless frustration if you don't see that Eagle Ridge isn't going to fit the criteria of many folks here that are a bit different, to say the least. Enjoy Eagle Ridge, but don't concern yourself too much that its never going to be on the national lists as you think it should be!

[Doug Ralston]

A fair Post Andy;

But, I assert that ER covers more of those aspects than you, through Jason, ascribe to it. {Not walkability though, LOL}. Instead of trying to argue it myself, like I am alone, let me show a posting on GKL, by a player who is not a golf dilitante like myself, but a +4 handicapper who has played many courses.

"WOW Thurman. I have always agreed with most of your opinions in the past. We are far apart here. I've always played the ones, but we did move up one on our second 18 once and I thought you still had options. I play some Florida golf and that is much more demanding target golf than ER. #1 is all you want. Yes you can take advantage of a wider fairway if you lay up but the shot into that green is not very easy from distance. #2 is another hole where you can hit all you want, but the smart play to the fairway is hybrid or long iron well left of the traps. Pretty easy green area. #3 is pretty easy. Downhill to big green. #4 is insane and I think they need to find a way to grade out more fairway. If you hit driver you will run into the rough unless you keep it to one side. The second shot is even tougher but you do have some bail out left about 150 out but that leaves you with an awkward angle to the green. You can bomb driver on #5, just stay left and miss the bunker. Short enough hole to hit 4 iron if you want though. Green area is treacherous. #6 is my favorite hole on the course. If it is soft you can bomb it out there to a very wide area. If it is firm you need to hit driver down the left side and try and get down that hill leaving you with a wedge shot. But normally it is 160 to 180 shot up that hit to a great green area. #7 from the backs is a very tough driver. Really no option to hit anything else with the forced carry. You have more options off the tee from the 2s. The tree is a little gimmicky but it adds to an already great golf hole. You just have to chose to hit it short, left, right, or past the tree. Another solid green area. Lots of rough and cool bunkers. #8 is a solid par 3 downhill over the heather to a large green. Nice undulations. #9, I did not like the first time I played it. Seemed to short. But it is tight. Have to stay right and decide if you are laying up short of the bunker or going over it. Another great green area but green is usually roughed up. #10 might be the weakest hole on the course. Short and simple. From the 2s you have a chance to drive it. But you have the options to hit to your favorite approach distance. I like options too. Pretty tough green. #11 is a really cool little par 4 with tons of options. Another pick you poison but the closer you get to the green the tighter and more treacherous it gets. Another great green area. #12 is short but not so sweet. Misses left or right could be very costly. Green seems smallish for such penal misses. #13 is gimmicky but it is a draw. Not sure where else you get to hit that shot normally with the view. It is probably a 6 or 7 iron off the tee but I can never resist going for the green. If you miss right you may have a chance to find your ball. I have hit balls all over the place. First time I played it though, I hit 5 wood on the green. Not even close to my favorite hole on the course but it is always fun. #14 is pretty boring. It is reachable in two if you bust one. Easy three shot hole if you like. Keep your drive to the left. #15 is a great hole. I would not suggest driver on this hole. Hit it at the left bunker and stay short of it. Green area is one of my favorites on the course. Especially if it is quick. Its in a low spot with bunkers on left and crap on right. You can hit it long or short but please hit it straight. #16 is my second favorite hole, right behind #6 which you said is extremely similar. Similar maybe but why the h not. They are awesome holes. I would love to play 18 of them. Forget the par 5s and 3s. You can hit driver here. Further you go right toward the junk, the more you will be rewarded. I don't mind bombing mine over to #6 because I don't want any part of the crap on the right. Another fantastic green area. #17 is cool visually and for having a big green it can play pretty tough because it is very long and exposed to the most wind on the course. #18, I don't like much. Never been a fan of uphill holes but you got to get back to the clubhouse eventually right? Bomb a drive. Usually a blind second shot. You have to cheat towards the left because you don't want to miss right. Ball feeds a little right too.
One thing I will add and I have said it before. Green areas on this course are impressive. Lots of bunkers, undulation, some good collection areas< and some serious gunge that comes very close. I think it is a great design job with the land they had to work with. #4 need some help. It would be nice to see your landing area on #2. There is many ravines and gunge to lose balls in. If it were sea level and all the crap was water it would be called a masterpiece. Great cape holes. They may be short but they are fantastic. I will be there in three weeks and can't wait. I think it is hard to slope a course like this. If you are on, you can score very well on this course. If you are off you can have your personal worst on this course. Easily. Many people want to ignore their score on this course. I say take the challenge. Just understand that your parameters will be stretched. Second trip to the course, I was on. Course almost seemed easy to me. My last trip I was off and I wasn't sure I could finish.
I really do believe you have many options on how to play most of the holes. It is just a bunch of work trying to figure out what those options are. I would for sure recommend laser. With the elevation changes it is still hard to calculate clubs for carries and lay ups.
It will be interesting to see where ER ends up in next years rankings after such a well liked member raked it over the coals like you did. Shame on you Thurman  Let me know when you want to go to Fox Run and I will meet you there."

Foreleft [aka another Jason], was one of several on GKL who are regualr, serious golfers, and who voted ER FAR ahead of courses like Old Silo, Hidden Cove, of Lassing Pointe. Again and by all means go look at explainations of why people voted thus. many will cover aspects other than those you ascribe to me.

Anyway, I am done. I think anyone anywhere near should go look for themselves. Then they can either say 'Wow, great' or 'I just saw the very nadir of architecture, and darn that ole Art Hills again!" 

Doug

[Andy Troeger]

Anyway, I am done. I think anyone anywhere near should go look for themselves. Then they can either say 'Wow, great' or 'I just saw the very nadir of architecture, and darn that ole Art Hills again!" 
Doug

I certainly won't argue with that sentiment. If I'm ever in the area, I would absolutely give it a try. I'm one who likes the "unique" stuff even if I know it isn't great by classical design standards. Most folks here can't stomach Wolf Creek, which I enjoyed a lot! I can't say its great design, but its fun in a "once in awhile" manner. If that gets people to the golf course more than any number of run of the mill designs, so be it. I'd personally rather play something wild like Eagle Ridge even if its a bit odd in spots than something boring through another housing development where I find myself wondering about where to eat dinner by the sixth hole.

[Criss Titschinger]

I think anyone anywhere near should go look for themselves. Then they can either say 'Wow, great' or 'I just saw the very nadir of architecture, and darn that ole Art Hills again!" 

I think this is where I ultimately net out. Love it or hate it, you will have a strong opinion of the course after playing it.

I agree with Doug that the course is wider than some give it credit for. I did some rough Google Earth calculations, and most fairways were over 40 yards wide. Yes, the driving area on 7 is fairly narrow for a hole its length, but it's much wider than the par 5s #3 and #18 at Fox Run (up by Cincinnati).

Would I want to play ER every day? No. Is it for everyone? No. Should a golf course have been built on the land? Eh, probably not.

Is it a unique experience? Yes. Do I think it's worth a play? Yes.

Maybe I just like the banter that this course always provides. There certainly wasn't this type of debate going on in the Hidden Cove thread.

[jonathan_becker]

Thanks for the photos and to everyone for the entertainment.   

[Jason Thurman]

Criss, I believe your Google Earth measurements. But keep in mind  that, while fairways might be 40 yards in spots, almost all of them are only that wide at the 200 yard mark from the back tees. My issue with Eagle Ridge isn't purely narrowness, but also that it basically forces you to lay up off every tee. I'd like to know how wide those fairways are in the landing area for a driver, which I hit once all day and wouldn't change if I returned.

Doug, if Lefty Jason shows up to the GKL outing, I'm holding him to that +4 handicap you've assigned him. But you'll note that he doesn't say anything different than what I say factually. He mentions gunch lurking everywhere, the gimmicky tree in the 7th fairway, disaster lurking everywhere, and compares the place to Florida golf with a lot of elevation change. I agree with all that. I just don't enjoy any of those things, and he does. You can tell we have different attitudes about it when he says that if all the forest and wild native grass were replaced by water, it would be called a masterpiece. I can't think of any waterlogged masterpieces, but I suspect we just have different attitudes.

I agree totally that anyone in the area should see it. It's definitely... memorable.

[John Mayhugh]

I finally made it over to Eagle Ridge for the first time yesterday.  Some thoughts:

There are a few major negatives with the course:

• It is pretty much not walkable. There are 9 miles of cart paths on the course.
• There is ample risk, but not much reward.  On 9-10 of the holes, the only sensible option off the tee is to hit a tee shot in the 210-220 yard range.  There is generally decent width at this distance, but not when you go beyond it on those holes. On many of the holes, trying to hit it further would be idiotic - on others just mostly silly.
• On most of the holes, there is a significant risk of lost balls.  This is both off the tee and with the approach shots.  The round feels like you are just hitting from one target to another.
• Being accurate on the distances hit is really important, and that's probably the average player's biggest weakness (more so than direction).  The large variety of downhill shots make the distance more difficult to judge, and make it far tougher for the first time player.  This is a HUGE weakness for a resort course that may have visitors with only a single play.

What about positives?

• Scenic - no doubt about that.
• Some really bold looking holes
• Could be really entertaining for a match play round, assuming you had loads of cheap golf balls.  I think this is the only context where the course works.  It would be mostly miserable (and time consuming) for a foursome to actually card scores w/o liberal interpretation of the rules. But in match play (using old balls!), I think you could have a great time.

This is certainly an extreme piece of property, and the course reflects the ruggedness of the surroundings. It's not a great course, and probably not even a good one. But it is rather unique, and it seems like there should be a place for oddities like this.  Will I be back?  I would like to play there again, but maybe with hickories and lots more balls than I brought the first time around.  Just in case.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()