Tiger,

Thanks for your response. I assume that you know him well and I am sorry if I have upset you in any way. I feel like I am blasting his work though, what is wrong with that? I don't know the guy and from the pictures on his website he looks like a prince of a fellow. Work ethic? Not in Question. The question I have is, If the man takes his work seriously and understands the business, Why on the 5 that I know of Arthur Hills Golf Courses that I have played is there a shot that has absolutely no smart, safe or solid play? 80-yard lay-ups don't count. I am just wondering how he got this job at such a wonderful piece of property and with what was probably quite a substantial budget. What courses ae the owners at Longaberger looking at when they hire him? I see nothing on his resume that would lead me to believe that he is capable of building a great golf course and he didn't. I think the thing that annoys me the most is he just doesn't seem to learn anything. Every course just has 2-8 absolutely stupid golf holes. The finisher at Pipestone is so bad and the same with Fox Run, does an architect really ever hear about what people think of his work,if so, how much? There is absolutely zero chance that Hills received postive feedback about No.2 or No.18 at Pipestone- zero chance. Same goes for Fox Run No.18. Where is his development as an architect?  These courses were built 10 years before LB and he is still pulling the same crap. Come out to Ohio and see for yourself, I would love to hear you say that you would trust this man to design your golf course after seeing these holes!!!!!

Brent,

THat is some funny stuff there at the end. What gave you the impression that I don't like his work?   The reason you didn't see any 80-yard layups at the CPC is because it is hole #4 that requires that shot. It is 563 from the back. I don't know, maybe a 100 foot dropoff, not great at judging. The hole turns left and the landing area is downhill to a small target protected by water right and kind of short. The shot I had was 227 middle and I thought what am I supposed to do? I can't stop it on that green, it runs away into a hazard, there is a hazard short and right, the left side is gunch. I could think of no smart thing to do. I feel like I play a pretty cerebral game and it is very annoying to have that taken away by the architect with unfailing consistency. I have not played the 18th at Cypress or the 17 hole course there.  

So far, here is a list of terms/phrases that people have used to describe his work:

- Fine
- Nice
- Decent
- Par 5's he designs are below average
- perfectly serviceable "in the generic Myrtle Beach way"
- Enjoyable
- to paraphrase, not less than adequate
- the course didn't really "do it" for me
- takes his work seriously
- a good businessman
- good work ethic
- disappointing given the land it sits on
- the land was worthy of a better course
- quite good
- bunker work could have been more inspired
- tremendously fun
- a bit contrived
- the owners got their moneys worth
- I don't mind them at all
- one of my favorite public courses
- not an artist or the most creative

I tried to be fair and pull comments both good and bad. Let's forget for a moment who we are talking about. If someone were describing an architect's work to you with these words and phrases, what would you think? Would you be eager to visit his courses? Would you think he had a large body of work, or had he designed just a few courses? Would you think you'd find a lot of strategy when you played?

Just curious.

Doug,

From the composite that you posted, it would strike me that Arthur Hills does not make the list of architects whose work a GCA-geek feels like he just has to seek out. That's not exactly damning with faint praise, how many architects are by consensus "must see" for the well-rounded architecture buff? Maybe 60 or so? How many of those are alive and working today, perhaps 30-odd?

One can be a very talented and hard-working building architect and never be discussed in the same breath with Frank Lloyd Wright. Same with golf course designers, not every name is sufficient to induce an aficionado buy a plane ticket.

The funny thing about the trip up there, is that you pass a little Ross course on the way- Granville golf course. I haven't played it in about 17 years, but I remember thinking, I wouldn't mind just playing there today. How right I was.

Now we're talking, Glenn. When I was in the area spectating at the CPC I played at Granville every day. It was also a popular spot for some of the guys who missed the cut (in fact I played with one of them and his caddie). If we're talking about my scale of value, the greens fees at Granville and Longaberger would easily be reversed. The course at Granville, even in its currrent somewhat debased form, utitlizes its terrain most effectively that Longaberger by several times over. I purely love Granville Golf Club, it's one of my favorite courses anywhere.

Brent,

I played it as a very young man and I still was able to recognize that there was something different going on, by different, I mean that someone put some hard work into it or whoever did it was a genius. I thought it was really cool and it would be amazing if it was in great condition. Greens fees? Doesn't matter, I am imposing a Hills embargo on myself, it will never happen again.  I am glad that you enjoyed Granville so much though, I guess that fits the bill as a hidden gem.

Jordan,

You are correct on all three counts. Are you defending the course, the man or just trying to make me understand something?

All of the above.

And nothing rude intended.

Jordan,

Never thought anything rude was intended. What national recognition has Longaberger received? What are you trying to make me understand? What I don't understand is how as an all my life Ohio golfer, why we can't get a 'real' architect in here to design a fabulous golf course on what has to be considered an unbelievable property.I still can't believe it, he had everything at his disposal and throws a Doak 4 at us.

Though sometimes the GD rankings can get out of hand, IMO, last year it was voted by people for 5-stars.

It was a top-10 new course when it opened, which is nice.
(BTW Harbour Point was #1 in that category in 91')

Courses that are pretty nice (or so I hear) in Ohio...

...Longaberger Golf Club
...Muirfield Village
...Inverness Club
...The Golf Club...(Pete Dye)
...Sand Ridge
...Camargo
...Scioto
...Canterbury

Jordan,

Oh, definitely a 5 star experience, as long as you take the golf course out of the equation!!!! Have you ever heard of NCR? It is in Ohio and I well never mind I am not going to discuss it and Longaberger in the same sentence. There are many other golf courses in Ohio. Many,many, many more. If you would like to hear 50 that I would rather play than LB, I could easily do it, easily.

Jordan,

Good Question. Absofreakinlutely I did. I figured that this place would be different though, it was going to be in marvelous shape and the land was going to be awesome and it was supposed to have been a top 200 experience. I didn't think about who designed it until the end- on purpose. I think this guy is a clown!! I have never once thought I could be newsanchor or a fireman or a golf course architect, this guy makes me wonder about the latter. I don't think I could be this bad on my worst day.

Now, after he built the course, it was decided to put houses around the course, at least its outskirts and on a few holes, and then the course went from very beautiful to waaaaay cntrived.  The thing is, there is nothing Arthur can do about other people[/color] putting in houses.  Some say the course is bad because of the houses, and while that is fine, people also have to realize that the architect does not put in the houses on the course, rather he builds and designs the golf course itself.  Think about that for a second, and you may have a new respect for the course.

jordan,

not necessarily.  i have no idea of the Hills' work/contract at Harbour Point (and you may...) but often the golf course architect also plays a key role in masterplanning the community.  that said, he is often limited greatly by the real estate drivers, number of lots, set backs etc... the point being that just playing the course, we dont have a complete understanding of the limitations and demands put on the architect during the time of design/construction.

so you're right. but you're also wrong.  i've even confused myself.

Kirk, I don't know if you've played it, but Legacy Ridge in Westminster, CO is an Art Hills design.  It has a couple of good holes but several awful ones.  And, since housing has been mentioned, the growth of housing on Legacy Ridge has really detracted from the atmosphere.  

I'm not blaming Hills for the housing, but I do blame him for some silly holes (e.g., #5, a par 4 requiring an iron from the tee to a green guarded by an artificial pond (with no option to drive the green), #6, a par 5 with a creek bisecting the fairway so one must hit an iron to the landing area, in order to see the green on the dogleg left--5 iron, 3 wood is not an unusual sequence of shots, etc.).  Here's a link showing #6.  http://www.golfexperience.com/legacyridge/lr6.htm