Does Arthur Hills work for Free?

« **Reply #225 on:** April 27, 2006, 03:18:13 PM »

A friend just got back from Half Moon Bay, a Hills design, and had rave reviews. LOVED the course.

Goes to show his courses really aren't all that bad after all...

After all the trash he got, its kind of surprising isn't it...

I mean, someone actually really enjoyed a Hill's golf course!

« **Reply #226 on:** April 27, 2006, 03:20:32 PM »

Jordan,

How many Hills courses have you played? I really don't think one person liking a golf course that Hills did changes a whole lot. I talked to a guy the other day at the range about Longaberger and he didn't like it, but he really didn't give any good reasons why. Also, he said he liked this Yankee Trace course a lot and it is pretty average at best. Opinions differ, some people don't mind playing a course with 12 good holes and 6 OMG that is bad holes.

« **Reply #227 on:** April 27, 2006, 03:21:34 PM »

Jordan - why is that surprising? Many people have reported they find that course to be damned good - in fact a few have (including myself) in this very thread...

This is why I find it problematic to broad-brush any architect, or to put it better, don't like using absolutes.

TH

« **Reply #228 on:** April 27, 2006, 03:25:42 PM »

Quote from: Glenn Spencer on April 27, 2006, 03:16:28 PM

Mike,

You said you played the golf course a couple of times, can you tell me what about it besides the routing makes you think that it was not DR. I am surprised by this. I would think that 1,2,5,6,8,11,12,13,16,17 and 18 could very easily be DR. So, the one thing we have not discussed about this is, if not DR then who?

It was routed and built in 1898. Probably by local golfers or a pro. 22 years later DR comes thru town....he may have suggested a few things and possibly someone from Miami Valley crew came over and "touched it".....personally I did not see much DR at in the green complexes esp #2 ( ithink that is the downhill par 3.....

« **Reply #229 on:** April 27, 2006, 03:31:19 PM »

Quote from: Jordan Wall on April 27, 2006, 03:18:13 PM

A friend just got back from Half Moon Bay, a Hills design, and had rave reviews. LOVED the course.

Goes to show his courses really aren't all that bad after all...

Jordan, I'm not sure that shows much at all. Your friend likes the course and so does Tom Huckaby. I've certainly heard some contra views on Half Moon Bay too. But, that particular topic probably doesn't need to be explored on this thread.

« **Reply #230 on:** April 27, 2006, 03:35:12 PM »

Tim:

Then what is the point of this thread?

I truly believe that the quality golf one finds at HMB-Ocean, as well as a few other courses mentioned on this thread, means that it is painting with far too broad of a brush to say that Hills sucks at his job... which as far as I can tell is what Glenn is maintaining.

In any case I also believe given the Hills-bashing going on here, Jordan was just honestly surprised that a good Hills course could possibly exist. If all one knew about Hills was what he read in this thread, well wouldn't one also be surprised to hear this?

TH

« **Reply #231 on:** April 27, 2006, 03:37:21 PM »

ok.

It may not say much.

I know people that have played many, many courses, and many Hills courses and seem to like about all of them that they play. Even Longaberger. Actually, that got real high reviews from my coach.

I dont mind people's opinions but asking if he works for free is rather rude, IMO.

If you really dont know the answer is no.

If I dont like a course or a few courses I would not say the architect is bad (or that he works for free)...

I cant wait till the day you Hills-haters play a course, not knowing who the architect is, loving the course, and then finding out it is a Hills design...

« **Reply #232 on:** April 27, 2006, 03:40:09 PM »

Tom,

I can see how you think that is what I was trying to say. It isn't quite right though

I am really just asking how can I or the dummy next door or my mailman not realize that a golf hole is so bad and unplayable for all skill levels and an architect that gets all this work and has worked at Oakmont, Oakland and Inverness not see it.

« **Reply #233 on:** April 27, 2006, 03:42:47 PM »

Jordan,

How many Hills courses have you played?

« **Reply #234 on:** April 27, 2006, 03:43:10 PM »

Glenn:

Fair enough.

Perhaps the answer is because he knows far better than you, me or the mailman the realities that go into a design, the site limitations, the wants of the client, etc.?

I just find it odd that people out of the profession seem to believe it's so simple, and that they could do it better than those who devote their lives to it.

My assumption always goes the other way - that is, I assume these architects know what they're doing and I, a simple golfer and consumer, really have no clue.

I see you choose to go the other way - fair enough. I just bet my take is right FAR more often than yours.

« **Reply #235 on:** April 27, 2006, 03:43:31 PM »

Tom,

My point was just that this thread is impossibly long and a discussion of Half Moon Bay probably merits its own thread (which has probably occurred).

I think Jordan was being somewhat facetious--he plays a Hills course in the Seattle area and likes it.

I'm not on a "Hills sucks" kick (even though at times Glenn appears to be), but I am inclined to believe (based on my limited experience of playing Hills courses and some of the holes shown here), that Hills produces a lot of mediocrity and some downright silly holes. But, I can't speak to Half Moon Bay, Newport National or some of the other courses cited here in Hills' favor.

« **Reply #236 on:** April 27, 2006, 03:48:55 PM »

Tim:

Fair enough, understood. But see my reply to Glenn...

And yes, HMB-Ocean has been discussed many times in here, with far more positive takes given than negatives.

TH

« **Reply #237 on:** April 27, 2006, 03:50:20 PM »

Tom,

No doubt you are correct!!! No doubt!! How about this then, if Arthur gets tempted to build something CRAZY, why can't he just do a straight-forward par 4 with no shenannigans? I would rather see that. I think this is where he gets into trouble in my book, just build a regular old hole then. Shaker Run is a wondrful golf course for the most part. 3 is a little shaky, although gorgeous, but when I get to 6, I just feel like, a good player or bad can make an 8 here without hitting a less than average shot. It is not fair. It ruins the entire game, it is like playing a game without a referee, who cares who wins? It is not a test of anything.

« **Reply #238 on:** April 27, 2006, 03:54:46 PM »

Glenn:

I have no real answer to that. I just find two possible reactions to this situation:

1. He's incompetent at his job;

2. Perhaps more is going on than we know about, in each situation.

Maybe in the end the true answer lies somewhere in between. And it's very fair to wonder why, and ask these questions, when you see "odd" golf hole after odd golf hole.

It's the conclusions I have a hard time with.

But I should reveal my bias, also: I really don't care too much about any architect's overall body of work... I much prefer to discuss individual courses.

TH

« **Reply #239 on:** April 27, 2006, 03:56:11 PM »

The carnage at No. 6 at the NIKE qualifier at Shaker Run in 94? was enormous. I scraped away with a nice little birdie 5, but some others didn't. The girls-lol and the guys at the Publinx last year were really struggling there as well. One day MW birdied it, the next day she hit the exact same tee shot and had no shot and I don't remember what happened. The trees are way too obtrusive and it becomes about luck.

« **Reply #240 on:** April 27, 2006, 04:00:36 PM »

Tom,

I will go along with what you say. My conclusions may be too broad, but I am telling you it is hard to ignore Pipestone 1,2,6 and 9 are all really, really bad and they certainly make you wonder about the competence. I have seen some people mention bad holes here and there, but without a word of a lie depending on preference 3 of these 4 are among the top ten worst holes in America by an established architect.

« **Reply #241 on:** April 27, 2006, 04:07:19 PM »

Glenn:

I haven't read all the posts on this thread so perhaps you've answered this question but allow me to ask it anyway. Let's say you feel there is a really bad hole on a course, or for that matter, a few bad holes. Let's also say that you view the rest of the course to be really good with some really outstanding holes. Does that make the course bad in your opinion?

I really wonder why there are so many negative posts when golf is such a great game and there are so many really good courses for us to play. I played Maryland National once and I came away feeling that I enjoyed the course and felt that there were many interesting and challenging holes; same for Blue Mash. Now I didn't go over every hole in minute detail, but I felt the overall experience was very positive.

I have mostly been exposed to AH's renovations as he has done quite a few in the Washington, DC area. My objection to his restoration work is that it seems to be very repetitive and his bunkering was not very interesting, however, I then had to think of what the membership wanted. They had seen his other restorations and liked what they saw and knew what to expect. What's wrong with that - for me I would prefer the imagination of Gil Hanse or Ron Forse but if that's what the membership wanted - so be it.

I have a friend in Columbus who regularly plays the top courses in the area including Muirfield, Double Eagle, etc., and he thinks that Longaberger is a great course and the big problem with the course is that it is very difficult to get a tee time. He told me it is a must play when I come out to Columbus and we play the above mentioned courses. It looks like I will have to pay close attention to #8.

« **Reply #242 on:** April 27, 2006, 04:31:57 PM »

Jerry,

Don't forget about #4 while at Longaberger.

I do think one bad hole ruins a golf course. It has to be bad in the sense of unfair though. I don't like to play a hole that I can make an 8 on for no reason. I feel that Shaker Run is a good golf course overall, but No.6 ruins it and therefore I don't think that a tournament should be played there. It is unfair and anything can happen. If Longaberger wants to sit up there in Nashport and call itself a good, fun little golf course that is fine by me, but it should not be hosting tournaments of the importance that the CPC has, peoples lives are changed by this tournament and unfair couple of golf holes have no right to be a part of such an event. I believe this is part of the discussion about #7 at Shinnecock 04 or #18 Olympic 98, Meeks seem to be genuinely upset that factors beyond golf were coming into play. I feel the same with an unfairly stupid hole, It doesn't accomplish anything and a great player can be robbed of his destiny.

« **Reply #243 on:** July 05, 2006, 03:53:21 PM »

« **Reply #244 on:** August 22, 2008, 05:48:04 PM »

Glenn Spencer;

We played Pipestone today. I must agree with you, especially about #2. I hit a perfect 3-wood right down the middle, came up over the hill, and found that balls in the fairway are funneled into the lake! The only place to hit it long is into the deep rough right. So lay up, eh? Well, if you do, then your second shot has the same fate! It will funnel from the fairway to the water. So you must lay up twice, then hit a long approach to this par-5. And the 1st time you play it there is no way to imagine it.

On the third my blind second went straight down the fairways again, only to run into a small grassy creek right, while the blind fairway narrows and turns slightly left.

I will never return to Pipestone.

But Glenn; I did not see your problem with #6 at Shaker Run, which I think is quite a good course. I hit it right over that small tree onto the green. We are talking #6 on the 'Lakeside' nine, right?

I think the claim that Art 'should have done better with that land' that I hear so often here is absurd, though. No way to prove 'you' would have done better. If THAT is your only complaint about a course, like Bay Harbor Quarry, I am not likely to buy it without a visit.

BTW, played Red Hawk in Michigan and it is excellent! No way to dissuade me on that one.

Doug

PS: Revived old topic that deserves reconsideration IMHO

« **Reply #245 on:** August 22, 2008, 11:44:06 PM »

Things I learned from this thread:

1. Don't know the significance of "bump";

2. Aren't Paul Dye and Pete Dye one and the same? Paul is Pete's first name;

3. Roger Rulewhich is my Art Hills, Glenn Spencer. Doesn't stop me from playing his courses;

4. Art Hills designed two fine courses that I played in Michigan...Bay Harbor in Petoskey and his eponymous course at Boyne. Loved them both. Solid from start to finish.

5. I'd like to play Longaberger one day.

« **Reply #246 on:** August 23, 2008, 12:10:29 AM »

I have just played the best Art Hills course I've ever played at Boyne Highlands. I think Ronald is correct that it's very good and noteworthy in that respect.

However, I find it difficult to believe that the almost universal criticism exhibited on this thread is not without some basis in reality.

« **Reply #247 on:** August 23, 2008, 12:44:19 AM »

David,

I wish you had the opportunity to play Boyne. It was quite good and in many ways the diametric philosophical opposite of most Arthur Hills courses I've played.

It was also great to see you again, and we have to plan another get together over golf or beer very soon.

« **Reply #248 on:** August 23, 2008, 12:51:31 PM »

Bay harbor was very picturesqe but a huge dissapointment from and architectural standpoint in my opinion. Now my opinion may not be worth much, but for those who would like to see a couple of pretty good Arthur Hills designs check out

1. Red Hawk Golf Club
East Tawas, Mi
www.redhawkgolf.net

2. Sheperds Hollow
Clarkston, Mi
www.sheperdshollow.com

« **Reply #249 on:** August 23, 2008, 03:06:20 PM »

Wow, I have to disagree with you lads on Bay Harbor. The Quarry nine was Strantzian in its surreal setup. It requires much courage and self-trust to pull of the shots. The Links has every shot known to golf in its nine holes, although I will admit that its ninth hole is a complete departure from the preceding eight. Can't believe they ran out of acreage! That little downhill par three that plays like a Redan is fabulous, as is the short par five that runs up the bluff, along the harbor. The best part of Bay Harbor is that it is not exceedingly long...it has a fine collection of short and medium par fours that do not require testosteronitis to get home in two. None of the nines reaches the magical 3500 yard figure from the tips. I'd play those two again and again. Can't comment on the Preserve, though, as I didn't play it.

News:

Jordan Wall

Glenn Spencer

Tom Huckaby

Mike_Young

Tim Pitner

Tom Huckaby

Jordan Wall

Glenn Spencer

Glenn Spencer

Tom Huckaby

Tim Pitner

Tom Huckaby

Glenn Spencer

Tom Huckaby

Glenn Spencer

Glenn Spencer

Jerry Kluger

Glenn Spencer

ed_getka

Doug Ralston

Ronald Montesano

Mike_Cirba

Mike_Cirba

David Neveux

Ronald Montesano