I still feel Dunes at Seville is one of the best routings I have ever played.

What's worse than a wine snob........a golf snob?

Steve

What's worse than a wine snob........a golf snob?

Steve

Steve...funny you should make the analogy.  I was thinking exactly the same thing today.  I enjoy a good bottle of wine.  I can also enjoy a good bottle of $5 wine.  To me it is similar to golf.  Every course is not Augusta, National, Pine Valley etc. and every wine is not Lafite, Mouton, Petrus, etc.  Oenophiles should be able to enjoy wine without always critiquing ad nauseum.  Drink and enjoy!  Don't always over analyze.  Golf is the same.  Enjoy the game!

Tiger,

Whether or not you're a fan of Art Hills, I don't see how starting a thread in this fashion and with this title can be helpful. Anyone who is not familiar with the history of bashing/defending the architect - either because they're new to the site or haven't paid close attention to (or have forgotten about) the past threads on the topic - will come into this thread and see a meanspirited post with absolutely zero evidence to back it up. Not even the names of the offending courses are included! At the very least, you could have linked to past threads with which you now find yourself in agreement where you didn't before...this type of post, and indeed thread, seems to me to bring discredit upon GolfClubAtlas and perpetuates certain characterisations of the site which may exist outwith the circle of regular posters here.

Cheers,
Darren

Darren:

3 cheers for you, I agree

Cary

Darren and Cary, please pull my finger. Sean, I liked Half Moon and much of the renovation work Art showed me. I do not mind you not being interested in my thinking alot of him as professional. I do and will say so. However, I have been exposed to some of his lesser works before and chose to over look them. Now I went to Art Hillland in naples and got a hard reality check. Art does what his clients want. To quote a wonderful GCA guy I finally met this week. His courses drain well. I find far too much reverse strategy. A dog leg right with traps on the right but the green sets up for the shot from the wide open side of the fairway. There is no benefit in trying to gain distance and angle by challenging the traps. Far too many greens make no sense at all. They do not fit the hole. Each of the two Art courses I played this week had 2 unplayable greens. I have yet to play a par 5 that stands out of even feels like a good hole. I am sorry for posting this but Glenn, Tommy and Adam got the joke. The joke is on me. Again please pull my finger so I can transfer the joke to you.

Interesting example of "reverse strategy" that Tiger provides- a DLR bunkered on the inside turn with the green opening to the wide side.  Reminds me a lot of one of my favorite opening holes, at OSU Scarlet, where instead of bunkers on the inside, it had crab apple (I think) and spruce trees.  Challenge the corner successfully and you have a relatively easy short iron over a large bunker.  Play safe left to the wide side of the fairway and you have a much longer iron to a green open from that angle.  And what is wrong with this?

Come to think of it, there are/were a couple of holes on Scarlet that were bunkered similarly to the criticized Hill hole, #3 which I saw Curtis Strange double bogey in the last round of the NCAA from the inside bunker, and #10 to a lesser extent.   BTW, the architect of record there is Alister MacKenzie.

As to Hill's par 5s, any number of architects could be criticized for less than inspiring three shot holes.  Not picking on MacKenzie, my favorite architect by a long shot, but three out of his four at CPC are hardly masterpieces, and the sets at Valley and Pasatiempo are hardly inspiring.  

Interesting example of "reverse strategy" that Tiger provides- a DLR bunkered on the inside turn with the green opening to the wide side.  Reminds me a lot of one of my favorite opening holes, at OSU Scarlet, where instead of bunkers on the inside, it had crab apple (I think) and spruce trees.  Challenge the corner successfully and you have a relatively easy short iron over a large bunker.  Play safe left to the wide side of the fairway and you have a much longer iron to a green open from that angle.  And what is wrong with this?
.  

There is an article by Tim Liddy about this in one of the earler Golf Architecture magazines - Pete Dye favours this approach according to Mr Liddy.

His theory is the better player who takes on the corner and the bunkers recieves his just reward by having a shorter club in his hands - rather than a better angle. The poorer player or those unwilling to take on the hazard have a longer club in their hand but a better angle and therefore more of a chance. Works better on dogleg holes obviously.

Or should the guy who hits close to the hazard ALWAYS have the better angle as well as the shorter club.

Sounds pretty democratic?

I don't think Art spends that much time on site anymore, his Associates do most of the work and you can see the changes. Look at Pelican Bay or Foxfire before it was rebuilt and you will see pretty classic Art Hills stuff, shallow bunkers, nice cross bunkering, subtle risk/rewards, but of the  later stuff that I have seen, it almost always consists of a birthday cake green surrounded by bunkers neccesitating an aerial approach.
That being said, I still enjoy playing them as much as I like a bottle of 2 Buck Chuck.

Steve

Glenn,

Back in the 1970s with mush balls and persimmon, I hit the ball longer than average.  You appear to be acquainted with Scarlet, but on #1, I could just clear the inside corner trees with a fade which left me from an 8 to a SW over the greenside bunker.  However, as often as not, I over cut the ball or didn't hit it solid which sometimes resulted in an unplayable lie under a spruce and a double bogey or worse.  From the other side of the fairway the hole was easy bogey, hard par.  The bunker at the inside corner of #3 was reachable with a 3-wood sometimes, but they planted some trees there which made the option of hugging that side less desirable.  The safe shot on that hole was a 3-wood to the wide side of the DLL hole and a middle iron from there.  It was an awkward hole for me.

bmogg,

You are not a fellow Buckeye, are you?

I personally value variety highly, so I like holes that go against the grain sometimes.  This concept of reverse strategy doesn't make sense to me as it suggests that there is but a single way of making a hole play.  Perhaps Tiger was thinking of reverse or negative camber.  If golf is supposed to be democratic and the best courses are those that appeal to all types of players, perhaps more holes ought to be designed this way.  

Steve Lang,

Of course you get that I was just pulling your leg, right?  You know more about golf than most and are smart enough to realize that you're only scratching the surface.  However, please remember that experience and education have little to do with getting "it".  And if you can't readily see the devil's hand in modern architecture or that Fazio and Kincaid are really the same dark entity seeking to control and prostitute two mediums, well, you will never get "it".  On the plus side, you and yours can continue to enjoy the great game of golf in all of its aspects even without the approbation of our superiors.  As it has been said, "ignorance is bliss".  

   

Quote from: Lou_Duran on December 12, 2006, 10:59:49 PM

Interesting example of "reverse strategy" that Tiger provides- a DLR bunkered on the inside turn with the green opening to the wide side.  Reminds me a lot of one of my favorite opening holes, at OSU Scarlet, where instead of bunkers on the inside, it had crab apple (I think) and spruce trees.  Challenge the corner successfully and you have a relatively easy short iron over a large bunker.  Play safe left to the wide side of the fairway and you have a much longer iron to a green open from that angle.  And what is wrong with this?
.  

There is an article by Tim Liddy about this in one of the earler Golf Architecture magazines - Pete Dye favours this approach according to Mr Liddy.

His theory is the better player who takes on the corner and the bunkers recieves his just reward by having a shorter club in his hands - rather than a better angle. The poorer player or those unwilling to take on the hazard have a longer club in their hand but a better angle and therefore more of a chance. Works better on dogleg holes obviously.

Or should the guy who hits close to the hazard ALWAYS have the better angle as well as the shorter club.

Sounds pretty democratic?

Brett,

Should there always be an opening for the guy who challenges the hazard?  Some here would think so, because that was so prevalent in the Golden Age. On the other hand, if I said that, it would be "formula."

I have heard Pete talk about the "inside"-"inside" bunker theory, which he (and I) like on long par 4's to try to build something that still plays very long, if conservative.  

I think the classic "inside at DL"-"outside at green" theory works best on typically downwind holes, where spin is reduced and the frontal opening becomes more important. Or, where we contour the green so steep front to back that the frontal opening allows playing a bit short, making it the better shot.  Truly, for better players, I think the green contours are more important strategy determinants than bunker placement any more.  They hardly consider bunker placement in their deliberations.

Frankly, I sometimes wonder why some folks here hold on to and defend so strongly the "inside at DL"-"outside at green" theory when it is both repetitive when other options are available, and of course, when the game has changed enough to demand gca's come up with new strategies.

I always find a few holes on each Hills course worth emulating in some way, and I think Art Hills courses are getting better all the time.  While I felt his traditional style often lacked the visual pop of other gca's when that was the design emphasis in the 80's-90's, he does allow his numerous young associates to push the envelope quite a bit these days, from what I have seen.  Unless you have played a lot of his courses, I think it would be a mistake to type cast the Hills office these days based on playing just a few.

Tommy Williamsen says:  

"If I have one critique of his original work is that he seems to design courses that have a number (4-6)of great holes, a number of average holes and some that just seem to be questionable."

INTERESTING THAT PEBBLE BEACH HAS BEEN CHARACTERIZED NEARLY VERBATIM WITHOUT THE ARCHITECTS BEING CASTIGATED.   IN FACT, A GOOD NUMBER OF CLASSIC COURSES WITH THE NEED TO CONNECT CERTAIN HOLES IN A COMPACT ROUTING ARE SUCEPTIBLE TO THIS CRITIQUE.
 
"The Links at Lighthouse Sound, for instance, has one of the better finishing holes in the Ocean City area.  If you hug the left side and hit a good tee shot you can go over a bunch of trees and maybe get on the green.  If you can't bust it or hit an average drive you can take the more conservative three shot route.  It is a ball.  Yet numbers one and ten just seem to lack any real strategy. they are parallel with a lake between them and just a drive and an iron without requiring much thought."

I FIND THE LAST TWO SENTENCES A BIT PUZZLING.  IS IT INAPPROPRIATE FOR AN ARCHITECT TO DESIGN A COUPLE OF HOLES WHICH PERHAPS REQUIRE A RELATIVELY NARROW RANGE OF SHOTS?  I'VE SEEN PETE DYE DO THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES, AND AGAIN, HE DOESN'T GET RAGGED ON HERE.  NOS. 9 AND 18 AT STONEBRIDGE RANCH CC (DYE COURSE) ARE JUST AS DESCRIBED- PARALLEL HOLES AROUND A LAKE OF SIMILAR DISTANCE, ONLY THAT #9 IS A DLR AND #18 IS A DLL.  BUT EVEN HERE THERE ARE SOME OPTIONS.  KEEP IT CLOSE TO THE LAKE AND THE SECOND IS SHORTER AND AT A BETTER ANGLE.  PLAY SAFE TO THE WIDE SIDE AND THE SECOND SHOT IS LONGER AND BRINGS IN THE SLOPE OF THE FAIRWAY TOWARD THE LAKE MORE IN PLAY.   AND THERE IS ALWAYS THE OPTION FOR TIMID OR CONSERVATIVE PLAY- 4 IRON, 4 IRON, .5-SW.  CURIOUSLY, WHEN I'VE PLAYED THESE TWO SEEMINGLY ONE DIMENSIONAL HOLES, MY MIND WAS OCCUPIED WITH PROBABILITIES AND POSSIBILITIES.  THEY SURELY DIDN'T LACK INTEREST AS A RESULT OF NOT REQUIRING THOUGHT, THOUGH PERHAPS IT WAS OF A DIFFERENT KIND.