Dan,

Can you post a picture?  Id like to see no.9 and the difference in strategic decision off the tee.

....calling Mr Boe - picture of no 9 if you have one.

#9 is dead center on top pic (back nine on bottom - Kinloch was AOTD #338):


from behind #9 green:


from club web site:

http://www.kinlochgolfclub.com/page/8-173.htm

James, #18 is a fairly easy finishing hole for the better players, as long as you don't hook one in to the water, as it's not a long par 4.  I'm not sure on this, but i think they either have, or there was talk of changing the routing so that #9 is the finishing hole, when the club hosts events like the Virginia Am, which certainly makes sense.  You need a cart to get from #9 to #10.  Also note that the course has an excellent 19th hole to settle any unresolved matches.

There have been a lot of postive comments about this golf course. What am I missing? Based on the photo it reminds me of numerous other upscale modern golf courses. What separates it from the rest?

Tom,

I was one of the many blown away by the place. It does represent the best of modern golf in terms of service and conditioning.

However the soul of the place really is the golf course. There are 18 good to outstanding golf holes that fit the ground perfectly. Nothing seems artifical to the golf course (crazy mounding, forced routing, severe greens, etc.). There is a series of interlocking lakes and streams that the course plays around and through that impinge on the golf course just enough to set-up a couple of different options on those holes. The sheer size of the place while still maintaining the walkability aspect is not often seen. This size in combination with the maintenance also leads to multiple playing options.

The day I spent at Kinloch it was with something less than my A game. But it was clear to me based on my game and watching my playing partners that the course is truly playable for all level of golfers. It's just as interesting and fun for the mid handicapper as it is for the low handicapper although with the options available they are approaching the course differently.

Bill

The fairways and the contours of the fairways, and the perimeters of the fairways don't look too natural; the bunkering also has a mass production look to them IMO. The fairways, the perimeters, the bunkers and some of the manipulated streams give the course a somewhat contrived photographic impression.

Tom,

On the ground I found it very natural for this part of Virginia. But I'm interested in hearing the comments of others.

NAF,

The shuttle ride from 9-10 and back to the clubhouse wasn't an issue for me in my thoughts on the course. The walks between the golf holes on the nines, I found very reasonable in terms of distance and slope.

Bill

as I said in my initial post, I think what makes Kinloch good is options..Bill reaffirmed this point in his post

and yes, there are long distances between the 9s but you can walk them if you want, I'm guessing, and I don't find that to be a fatal flaw

I see your point, NAF...would I prefer if there was no long walk?  of course.....but as I said I don't consider this fatal....

NAF -- I thought 9 was a great, wild, VERY good hole.....I only wish it had options for me, but, alas, I can't fade the ball if my life depended on it...a hook/draw sometimes, but not the former....

I think it also gets points because it I thought it was a pretty difficult par 5, as besides the dog leg and split fairways you have water hazards to contend with and an uphill approach shot, if I remember correctly....

The 9th to me epitomizes the high/low route of many of Kinloch's optional holes (say 2,4,9,11),  If you take the high road and go left of the valley/gully/burn then you have to usually hit a layup and then a wee pitch.  Fine.  But I saw my playing partner hit driver/3 wood and just miss the green and he is not a long hitter (not a short hitter either).  Going right which should shorten the hole requires a hard cut or a big draw way right of the trees and then you have to carry wetlands/rough terrain on your second and bunkers pinch you in (if you are short) as well.  That is just too much going on if you go right in my estimation along with the uphill nature.  I'd never go right and take my chances left and I (in previous days) was not a short plunker.. Now Matt Ward would also go right!!

On the 11th, again I will sing praises to Lester for providing options, I'm not sure they all work though.  The right route is much easier to reach but the fairway is narrow (25-30yds wide), you must carry a cross bunker as well.  Fine, you do that, then you have to carry a burn short of the green and contend with fronting bunker center to the find the correct side of the oblong green.  That is just too much going on, almost overload.  I think that given the options, there should be more open doors to the greens etc.  But the course is Vinnie Giles' home and I guess players of that caliber should have all the shots.

That all being said, these are par 5s.. not par 4s.

I'll applaud the attempts the golf course takes to be interesting.  It just didnt all fit in my estimation.

NAF,

I understand your point about the bunkers not looking natural. Sand bunkers of any color don't look natural on any parkland course using the definition of natural being something that would occur in nature.

To me a natural looking bunker on a parkland course is one that fits the natural flow of the land forms. Bad parkland bunkers look like gouges in the ground or ones that are of a perfectly round shape.

To me the bunkers at Kinloch fit the natural flow of the land and were well placed.

Bill

...if the clubhouse were not so lavish, and the maintenance budget were cut in half, would those who heap praises upon it’s architecture really still feel the same way about it?

I sometimes think that modern courses would benefit, at least by those on here, by spending a little less and looking a little more rustic than Augusta perfect like.

Boy, this thread has staying power!

I agree with NAF.  The sand is too white, and the walk from 9 to 10 is long and somewhat unnatural.  They also continue to augment natural drainage ditches with stones and running water; I wish they wouldn't do that.

Cabell just mentioned that we might not tout Kinloch so strongly if the club personnel, amenities, and course conditioning weren't first class.  However, they are an essential part of the club.  A member pays handsomely for the privelege of experiencing all these things, on a very nice golf course.

As a medium long hitter with a draw, I don't even consider the right side on 9 and 11.  But I will play the ball both ways on 2, 4, and 15.

I think 9 is really hard.  A perfect layup second shot down the left leaves about 130 uphill.  Very tough par.  You have to hit a great drive there to take a crack at the green from the back tees.

My favorite stretch of holes is 4-8.  I like the front nine better than the back, but 10 and 12 are very nice long par 4s.

One comment about architecture and minimalist design.  If you compare the course sloping with the surrounding native forested areas, you will see they match quite well.  I think if you asked Lester how much dirt they moved, the answer might be less than you think.

I enjoy Kinloch immensely.  Save for the ride between 9 and 10, it is an enjoyable walk in a nice park, and I am challenged to hit a wide variety of shots, while negotiating a wide variety of hazards.  And they treat you like king for a day.

I agree completely that Phil Owenby is an outstanding director of golf.  The entire staff is terrific, but let me also single out Tom Horton, the membership director.  In just five years, Kinloch has nearly filled their local membership, despite the sizable initiation fee.  An impressive testament to understanding what the customer wants.  Tom is smart, funny, and a great playing partner.