I had the pleasure in playing The Harvester (Rhodes, Iowa) about two years ago and when I saw recently the amount of focus on quality layouts that don't cost you your second born I thought back to a number of layouts that different people had mentioned and one did in fact stick out that is mentioned from time to time but because it's neither designed by the "preferred" architects here nor is it located in an area where much attention (media and otherwise) generally favors.

The Harvester by architect Keith Foster (a very talented designer with other winning layouts like Coral Canyon in St. George, UT; The Quarry in San Antonio, TX; Haymaker in Steamboat Springs, CO and SunRidge Canyon in the Scottsdale, AZ area, to name just a few.

At the top of the list is his work at Harvester from roughly the 8 layouts I have played is his work there in the middle of Iowa.

The layout is impeccably groomed and provides a healthy amount of width and was in firm and fast mode when I played it.

Foster was blessed with a rolling piece of property - those believign that Iowa is dead flat would be dead wrong. The Harvester also presents a serious challenge for those who want all that it can muster -- the layout tips out at 7,300 yds and plays to a 75.6 CR and 137 slope. The next tee boxes are more than fair with a length of 6,775 yds and a corresponding drop to 72.9 CR and 133 slope.

When the course opened in 2001 it did receive a good bit of fanfare -- I believe Golf Magazine featured the course among the top 10 new courses one can play in 2001. Of the listing of modern public courses I have played (post 1960) I would rate The Harvester among the top 30-40 courses in America.

Unfortunately, location is everything in many instances and the Iowa layout suffers because it doesn't automatically draw high interest beyond those lucky folks who happen to live nearby.

To Foster's credit although width is provided there is always the optimum side to approach the putting surfaces.

You also have some rather unique holes -- the short 2nd -- named "Wright Way" -- is well done. It provides for a split fairway and should you opt for the risky right side you'll need a minimum carry of 250 yards to get into the right position.

To borrow a well used expression -- The Harvester looks like it's always been there. Length is important but it's not the be-all / end-all when playing.

The finishing four are also superbly created. The uphill par-5 15th called "Big Hog" is indeed a big handful unless you execute three solid shots. The downhill par-4 16th features a double cut-off fairway landing area and the player has to decide how far is enough to hit from the tee. The par-3 17th features the obligatory frontal H20 hazard but the diagonal angle of the green suffers no fools at anytime.

The closing hole is also a grand climax -- I loved the tag name -- "Promised Land." Plays 565 yards and gives a boomerang look with H20 hugging the right side. One of the really unique aspects of the hole is how Foster inserts a fairway bunker on the left side of the hole that stretches to 305 yards from the tips -- the amount of space between the left bunker and the H20 on the right will give better players some pause before pulling the trigger.

There is a middle peninsula for those who opt for the three-shot hole sequence. Again, all the elements are tied together and The Harvester delivers consistently.

Like I said before -- there are plenty of "heartland" public courses spoken here on GCA -- The Harvester, IMHO, is in the very top tier of quality layouts that with just a bit more fanfare / attention would be spoken about even more frequently.

Matt,

Harvester is in the Golfweek Top 100 Modern, so although it may be under the radar with some magazines....  

Matt:

Thanks for hilighting one of my favorites courses.  Because it is about a 3 hour drive for me, I usually take a trip at least once a year to play the Harvester and have probably played the course 25-30 times.  

I agree that holes 15, 17 and 18 are outstanding.  I am not a big fan of the 16th, primarily because I think the longer landing area is too small and it is essentially random whether a ball hit over the hill winds up in the fairway or in the creek.  Nonetheless, I think the green is one of the best on the course (front to back and right to left slope bunkered front right).

Other holes I think are unique:

3 - 180 yard par three to a peninsula green with water on 3 sides.  What makes the hole unique is the huge green, which has a hump in the middle.  The player needs to decide between playing to the safe side of the green, leaving a very difficult 2 putt or going for the pin.

4 - long par five with great slopes challenging the 2nd and a green that slopes from front left to back right.

12 - bunkerless par four with uphill 2nd to a green with multiple levels.  

13 - great short par four.

The only hole I consider weak is the 5th, primarily because the green is so big and the fairway so wide for a short par four.  It is a good place for a short par four because of the difficult of 3 and 4 .  I just think the scale of the hole is off and the need for making any decisions on the hole is nonexistent.

Interestingly, my friends from the area are lukewarm about the course.  I suspect it is because of the high price relative to others in the area (but still cheap by national standards).  Most people I know that have travelled to get there rave about the course.

Jason:

I don't see eye-to-eye with you on 3rd -- to me it's the garden variety shot over a frontal H20 hazard -- although I do like the  Look at the 3rd and compare it to the 17th -- big difference in my mind. The angled green at the latter makes for a more exacting approach.

Re: 12th hole -- if memory serves is there not a greenside bunker to the left side ? Agree it's a demanding hole without being overly shaped / designed.

I'm probably too biased because of my familiarity with the course to know if it is over or under rated.  

I agree the 17th is more exciting than the 3rd, but I still think the 3rd is a terrific hole simply because the green is large but the target area for having an easy par is so small.  Here are the drawings from the web site:







I checked the web site and you are correct that there is a bunker on 12.  I've never seen it come into play so I forgot about it.

I too am a big fan of the Harvester. I think it is very solid and many of the good holes have already been discussed so I won't go into them. I'm with Jason in that I think the lower landing area on 16 is too small. Because of that, I have a hard time hitting driver there and then still have about 200 in.

I think 17 is a more difficult par 3 than No. 3 IMO because of the angle of the green and the wind seems more confounding there to me I think because of the proximity to the lake.

As someone who enjoys Keith Foster's work, I've played several of his courses (including four this calendar year).

Of the courses I have played of his, I would rank them like this:
Best: Harvester
Next grouping: Gateway National, Quarry, Bandit, SunRidge Canyon, Texas Star
Not quite as good: Shephards Crook
Bottom: Buffalo Run

Buffalo Run was the most recent Foster that I played and, frankly, the one I thought was the least interesting.

I love the course, just don't like the fairway bunker short of the water on hole #6.  I would rather have my ball roll in the water and take the penalty than have to play a long bunker shot over water.  Double penalty potential if one goes in the bunker.

Gary K.

Bill V:

When I was last out in the Colorado area in August I drove by where Buffalo Run is located and the amount of houses has clearly accelerated since my visit to the area a year earlier when I played the course.

Tim P:

I agree with your assessment on Haymaker -- few people really know how good the layout is and often when public golf in Colorado is discussed Haymaker gets little of the more glowing reports that public courses closer to Denver seem to generate.

Mike:

Let me start again OK.

Harvester is 52nd and I believe it deserves to be higher rated not just with Golfweek -- which seems to be the "preferred" rating on this board. There are other magazines that have failed to really speak about the layout in greater detail.

Yes, being rated by Golfweek is a plus -- no doubt. I just think the position it occupies now fails to really itemize just how very good the course is -- especially when I see other layouts that have occupied a higher position because of either geographical bias or the fact that a more noted / preferred architect has done the layout. The same can be said, I might add, with Black Mesa and Greywalls in Marquette, MI.

I said this before and bears repeating -- Harvester is not in a media capital of note and having Keith Foster -- a very talented gentleman as its designer -- who clearly flies under the radar for a good many people.

I would drop plenty of courses NOW in the top 100 modern listing because many of them just happen to be overpriced resort oriented layouts that draw attention to them for plenty of reasons but yet have little to do with compelling architecture IMHO.

Mike -- my issue with ratings is that the different publications all suffer from the same problem -- little cross comparison and the static nature of how the courses in the elite echelon seem to hold their position as if frozen forever in time. A number of raters seem to simply take the belief that if course "X" is presently there -- then it must always be there.

My issue is less with Golfweek but with other pubs and my general views I have expressed about how such solid layouts are always looking in from the outside when they are indeed so compelling and even more noteworthy than many might surmise. In my travels Mike -- I often play courses that will likely never get much attention (e.g. The Hideout in Monticello, UT) is one that comes to mind but are worthy of serious national acclaim for the catgeory they occupy.

Re: 3 & 17 at the Harvester:

I have to go along with Matt on this, though I haven't played The Harvester anywhere near the 25-30 times Jason has.

The 3rd is as Matt says a fairly run of the mill over the water par 3.  I think it would be a much stronger hole if it wasn't so easy all around the green, its very black/white, you are either in the water (bad) or not (no problem).  As it is it is too easy to take an extra club if you aren't feeling your swing early in the round (which is usually true for me on any 3rd hole) and the up and down isn't very difficult since there's nothing back to make you think twice about going long, and that little bunker left doesn't look like much trouble (haven't ever been there so I can't say for sure)  I don't figure I'd ever see a reason to change my strategy of playing one more club and going for the back of the green regardless of the pin position.  Any hole I know how I'm going to play pretty much regardless of pin position, tee marker position and wind isn't a winner in my book.

The angled green at 17 offers a much more interesting shot.  As someone who misses left via pull or hook but hardly ever misses right, the water right holds little fear for me, I can aim at the rightmost pin without too much worry.  But due to the angle that play really requires precise distance, there is no room for a mishit.  If you fly into one of those bunkers I know from experience that it is possible to leave yourself with a buried downhill lie with water behind you -- talk about a terrifying shot!  Though I rarely work the ball on par 3 approaches, the last time I was there the pin was back right and I had a good feeling about a fade as I was waiting on the group ahead so I aimed it at the back bunker and faded a nice high 7 iron right at it, just a hair long into the back fringe.  My friends were surprised to see me going left to right even after I told them I was going to do it beforehand.  Any hole that gets me to want to work the ball has something going for it!

Chris:

Yes, you are certainly right.

Generally, from my experiences, architects do have a tendency to fallback on the "tried & true" situations and the typical "par-3 over water" shot is one of the most common.

Foster is not unique in this regard as many courses seem to feature this aspect in their overall designs. It's no different than the typical run-of-the-mill cops / lawyers show you see on television.

It's a safe mechanism but candidly, as you mentioned, gets a little old in the tooth.

Harvester, fortunately, saves the better of these types of holes for the 17th -- the 3rd comes very early in the round so it's overall impact is less so -- nonetheless -- it does detract in my mind to some degree because it is so formulaic.

You might be surprised to note that even Sebonack has such a hole with the 8th.

Chris, there are instances in which it's not the architect who wants to add such holes but the client who believes having such a hole is a poweful statement -- when the reality is nothing more than a boring repetition of "been there / done that."

One of the more under-appreciated par-3 holes at Harvester is the 8th -- plays downhill and is neatly diagonally angled from lower right to top left. Bunkers are well-positioned on either side of the green and the putting surface features a slight rib cage that runs perpendicular to the line of play.

Matt,

C'mon...you can admit it.  

Golfweek has it about right with Harvester #52 on the listing of Top 100 Modern courses.  Heck, they even rate it higher than you do, as you only have it in your top 30-40 "public" courses built since 1960, where the Golfweek listing includes all of them.

Speaking of geographic distribution, I am planning to drive the 8+ hour round trip to Harvester on my next business trip to Sioux Falls.   But, your point is well taken...only a few of us nuts are willing to do that sort of thing to see a new golf course.  

Doug,

Nice report, but why does your friend Moe refer to himself in the third person?  

Mike;

Moe does so many of these trips and reports for GKL that he finds it amusing to refer to himself thus, and of course we tease him about his constant reference to 'The Wife'. If you want to read a very large series of reports of a lot of courses, go to the Vacation/Travel section of
golfkentuckylinks.com

Moe and his friend Ron Watterson are the creators. Still the best golf website I have found. If you enjoy it, by all means join our forum and tell us about your experiences with golf. We are always interested in stories, even if not in Kentucky or surrounding stats.

Doug,

Thanks for the link!  

I understand his colorful writing style and find the third person reference pointedly amusing.  

Matt, when do you post your SH/Ballyneal/DR comparison?  Your fans, and probably your anti-fans, too, are eagerly waiting.