Johnny Miller's Thanksgiving Point (with pics)

« **Reply #25 on:** March 06, 2007, 06:04:13 PM »

Kalen, I'm not saying it's a bad hole. (I try not to based on photos alone.) I didn't realize you could lay up down by the kids' tees. Does that actually work well? Based on your photos, it looks as if you're then playing two blind shots on a par-three, one uphill and one downhill.

Just curious...

« **Reply #26 on:** March 06, 2007, 06:05:10 PM »

Kalen,

Perhaps I should qualify that with can you win the hole in a match with only a putter. If I remember the story correctly, AM pridefully dumped a couple in the ocean, after which his opponent played the hole with a putter and won the hole.

« **Reply #27 on:** March 06, 2007, 07:27:09 PM »

Quote from: Tom Dunne on March 06, 2007, 06:04:13 PM

Kalen, I'm not saying it's a bad hole. (I try not to based on photos alone.) I didn't realize you could lay up down by the kids' tees. Does that actually work well? Based on your photos, it looks as if you're then playing two blind shots on a par-three, one uphill and one downhill.

Just curious...

Tom,

I don't know about the layup shot down below as I've never tried it. With it being 180 to the middle of the green and playing at least a club downhill its never been a problem to just go for the green as its just a long mid-iron for me.

If I moved to the back tees where it plays 245 yards then I would think more strongly about doing that, but then again, my game or ego is nowhere close to pretend that I should be playing from those set of tee boxes.

While a layup would be partially blind, the shot into the green from the kids tees is not blind.

« **Reply #28 on:** March 06, 2007, 07:34:35 PM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on March 06, 2007, 06:05:10 PM

Kalen,

Perhaps I should qualify that with can you win the hole in a match with only a putter. If I remember the story correctly, AM pridefully dumped a couple in the ocean, after which his opponent played the hole with a putter and won the hole.

Hi Garland while I think it is a pretty silly analysis for the hole I will entertain you.

And my answer would be yes, it would be doable. You could putt your ball down the cart path to the bridge, then putt it over the bridge, and then putt it over to the green complex eventually making it on the green. I'm guessing it would take at least double digits in strokes, but yes it could be done.

That being said, I have absolutly no idea why this matters. Could you play 12 or 13 at AGNC with a putter? Or how about the 5th or 14th at PD? Or any other course that has high grasses, ponds, lakes, streams or bunkers that must be carried to make a progression on the hole.

« **Reply #29 on:** March 06, 2007, 07:45:00 PM »

Kalen,

It was a measure that Alister Mackenzie used. You brought up his hole, I brought up his measure. No big deal.

I learned to play golf in windswept locals without significant water hazards. That's the way I prefer it, so I am not enthused about the hole, that's all.

I can understand why it is attractive to others.

« **Reply #30 on:** March 06, 2007, 07:48:17 PM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on March 06, 2007, 07:45:00 PM

Kalen,

It was a measure that Alister Mackenzie used. You brought up his hole, I brought up his measure. No big deal.

I learned to play golf in windswept locals without significant water hazards. That's the way I prefer it, so I am not enthused about the hole, that's all.

I can understand why it is attractive to others.

Fair enough Garland, I was just generally confused as to where the putter discussion was going, but you appear to have answered my question.

And once again, I would just re-iterate that it looks a lot tougher than it plays because it has so much more space down there that it appears from the tee.

« **Reply #31 on:** March 06, 2007, 08:13:31 PM »

Quote from: Kalen Braley on March 06, 2007, 09:12:02 AM

Quote from: Matt_Cohn on March 06, 2007, 01:29:47 AM
I played here in 2000 so my memory is hazy, but...

First of all, this course can be hard, and very very long from the back tees. It's nothing that would shock you if you've played a few Johnny Miller courses; I like most of his courses, and I liked this one. There is a lot of containment mounding, yes, and it sometimes struggles in comparison to the *giant* scale of the place. You can see the scale of things in almost every photo. This is a big course in a big place.

Matt,

You are right, the scale of the place is "giant" indeed especially when you are the 7th tee or various other ones with the Wasatch mountains in the background.

The containment mounding is there, but most fairways are so wide, it usually doesn't come into play that much.

Having played there 4 or 5 times, I agree, containment is not a factor here. Not like I experienced at Lakota where I received numerous favorable bounces.

« **Reply #32 on:** March 06, 2007, 08:35:09 PM »

I agree the 3's are the most visually interesting - nice pics to be sure.

Its that time of year where sunlight, warmth, and a little natural fertilizer can't come too soon!

DST begins March 11th!

« **Reply #33 on:** March 07, 2007, 12:41:49 PM »

This course was just O.K. Not really worth going out of your way for. The pictures illustrate the importance of tying in features to the natural. Not just creating them with a big machine. The back nine utilizes the river much better as evidenced by the "bite off as much as you can chew" hole photo, above.

« **Reply #34 on:** March 07, 2007, 01:39:11 PM »

Thanks for the pics.

For bearing on the routing, here's TP from above, which was AOTD #162, the sole entry from Utah:

FYI, that is a shrunken version of the original AOTD above, for the full-sized version, click here

« **Reply #35 on:** March 07, 2007, 01:55:26 PM »

Am I right in seeing that the 7th hole is a sore thumb that juts out into the back nine and you have to retrace your steps all the way back the hole to get to the 8th tee?

« **Reply #36 on:** March 07, 2007, 02:50:38 PM »

You are indeed right.

Thats the biggest beef I have with the course...but using that peice of land makes for one very nice par 3.

« **Reply #37 on:** March 07, 2007, 03:02:52 PM »

What would have been wrong with a 7th hole playing to what is now the 17th green from the area of the 8th tee (water 3 sides, but safe layup area short), and building the 17th green on the other side of the river with it's tee in the area of the current 7th green?

Oh I know! When you are as skilled as JM, hitting over water is no problem. Forget about Geoff Ogilvy's dad. Who cares about him anyway. Besides, everyone plays cart ball in the US, so forget about golf (which is played by walking). Furthermore, if they can't afford to hit a few in the water, they shouldn't be out here.

« **Reply #38 on:** March 07, 2007, 03:09:13 PM »

Even if done that way, the golfer would still have to go to the green and return. It is an awkward transition point for sure, but at least there are two very nice golf holes there.

As to what Johnny could or couldn't have done with the routing, I guess you'll have to give him that feedback.

That being said, the whole purpose of this post was to show the GCA community at least one offereing in Northern Utah. Its not the nicest in the state or northern utah for that matter, but its of interest enough to take note. Don't forget the mission statement of this site found on the homepage. Its all about exploration and seeing whats out there...

« **Reply #39 on:** March 08, 2007, 02:35:31 AM »

Thanksgiving Point is a VERY strong track, especially for Utah. I'd have a hard time having anyone talk me out of it being at least a top 5 course in the state, and probably the best public track in Utah. The collection of Par 3s is first class, the tips are over 7800 yards and lends itself as an excellent site for tournament golf, and the rolling fairways and greens are unique to most Utah courses I've played.

As much as I enjoy Thanksgiving Point, one of my only beefs is that so many of the holes run north-south and a strong wind often blows through the course making most every hole play longer or shorter than the actual distance. With such a vast piece of property it would have been nice to see more east-west holes, but overall the course is great.

There is no doubt that the course is very difficult and will give high handicappers fits, but does every course have to be designed to cater the high handicapper? There are TONS of flat, easy courses in Utah golfers can go to if they don't like Thanksgiving Point. Personally I like the variety of having a tough, championship caliber course available to the general public for that area. Along those same lines, I love the 17th hole. Awesome! The green/landing area is HUGE and I've never had an issue finding grass (not always the green!) from the tips.

If you had to design the ONLY course for a vast region/state etc. then I think you'd for sure want to make the course more tame or "playable" for all skill levels than Thanksgiving Point is. But when you have as many courses as the greater Salt Lake City area has I think it is great to design a big, tough course that features plenty of hazards, requires forced carries, and offers a different overall experience than any other public course in the region. In fact, there aren't many public Salt Lake City area courses than can even stretch out to over 7200 yards and most of that area is 4000 - 5500 elevation!

« **Reply #40 on:** March 08, 2007, 12:43:15 PM »

Bill S:

I concur with your comments 100%.

The nature of what constitutes quality public golf in and around the SLC area is not especially deep.

However, TP is very strong and quite compelling in so many ways. No, it's not at the level of Bethpage Black but from my experiences in playin a broad range of public courses from around the USA for over 30 years I'd say TP would clearly crack into my personal top 100 public.

The key thing about playability is people need to play from tees that suit their games. When people can't carry a tee ball "x" amount of yards make it point to play from tee boxes beyond their ability then all the bitching and moaning about being unfair is just rubbish.

« **Reply #41 on:** March 08, 2007, 12:58:03 PM »

Thanks Matt and Bill,

The handicap challenged amongst us can just go play the crappy flat courses. We are so honored.

« **Reply #42 on:** March 08, 2007, 01:22:06 PM »

Quote from: Matt_Ward on March 08, 2007, 12:43:15 PM

Bill S:

I concur with your comments 100%.

The nature of what constitutes quality public golf in and around the SLC area is not especially deep.

However, TP is very strong and quite compelling in so many ways. No, it's not at the level of Bethpage Black but from my experiences in playin a broad range of public courses from around the USA for over 30 years I'd say TP would clearly crack into my personal top 100 public.

The key thing about playability is people need to play from tees that suit their games. When people can't carry a tee ball "x" amount of yards make it point to play from tee boxes beyond their ability then all the bitching and moaning about being unfair is just rubbish.

Agreed Matt,

The one thing that makes it stand out over any other place is its grand scale with the surronding mountain ranges. I've never played anything else quite like it.

One thing I will add about public golf in the SLC area. While there are not many great courses, there are quite a few good courses which are a great value. Most of them are under $30 and they are solid, fun to play courses with many interesting holes.

As was mentioned in another thread going around, if you want to play some fun and interesting tracks and keep the expenses to a minimum, then Salt Lake is a good place to go.

« **Reply #43 on:** March 08, 2007, 06:06:32 PM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on March 06, 2007, 04:19:37 PM

Kalen,

The forced carry yes. But even more than that, golf is played on land. When a hole is surrounded on three sides with water, and what looks like junk on the fourth side then you are stretching the definition of golf. I am sure Johnny Miller would be able to keep his ball dry 99 times out of 100 on that hole. But how would his dad do. I like Geoff Ogilvy's characterization of much of current golf design. His feels designers are designing for him and his game and not permitting his dad to have any fun playing the game. Geoff has news for the designers. It is people like his dad that are the real consumers of their work.

Garland -
There is no doubt that the majority of golf "consumers" are higher handicapped players. However, does that mean tougher courses with forced carries should be avoided all together?? What is wrong with a variety of course types? There are plenty of new courses that are very playable (Kapalua, Carlton Woods, Loomis Trail, etc) and some that aren't as much (Thanksgiving Point, Wolf Creek in Mesquite, Sanctuary, etc). I just don't see the need to make every course as "playable" as a course like San Francisco Golf Club (no water hazards or forced carries). Don't get me wrong, I love SFGC. I feel every style of course is great for the game; from the Jim Engh style where you feel like you are taking your golf ball to an amusement park to the relatively striaght forward nature of St. Andrews. There is hardly a shortage of great courses to play in the world so that Geoff Ogilvy's Dad can stay busy and have fun. If Thanksgiving Point doesn't fit your style, that's OK, you don't have to play it. There are lots of great courses that fit your game and are very fun to play.

One other thought, most every new course I've played offers at least 4 sets of tees which would allow players to select the appropriate tee box for their skill level and game type. Just because a course requires a golfer to hit some forced carries, hit safely away from water, etc. doesn't make it a bad course. Is the horsepower in a Porsche 911 a "bad" feature just because not every driver can handle it? Porsche isn't trying to cater to the 80 year old grandma, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have Porsche cars out there. Honda, Toyota, and Nissan all make cars that fit a wider demographic and they sell A LOT more cars, but I'm OK with the Porsches of the world as well.

One last thing, help me understand the concept that "golf is played on land." Obviously I understand in order to hole out you are generally going to be rolling that in with a putt. But clubs are designed with various degrees of loft in order to get the ball in the air. I'd say for most golfers that 70%-90% of a golf ball's travels are in the air. The 17th hole at Thanksgiving Point can play as short as 145 yards from the forward tees. I would say the vast majority of golf consumers can handle a shot like that by hitting the ball in the air. Who would ever consider playing a hole with just a putter? I know that is not your statement, but the only courses designed just for putters are miniature golf courses.

« **Reply #44 on:** March 08, 2007, 06:20:00 PM »

Bill,

I think I offer a better alternative playability wise and routing wise with no degredation in quality with the following.

Quote from: Garland Bayley on March 07, 2007, 03:02:52 PM

What would have been wrong with a 7th hole playing to what is now the 17th green from the area of the 8th tee (water 3 sides, but safe layup area short), and building the 17th green on the other side of the river with it's tee in the area of the current 7th green?
...

Kalen responded that there would still be a walk back from my proposed 7th green. To that I would point out that the old 7th tees could be used for the 8th and there would not be much of a walk. Placing the 17th all on the same side of the river allows high handicappers the opportunity to play away from the hazard. I should note that these are not my ideas. I am just following The Spirit of St. Andrews by Alister Mackenzie. A most enjoyable read.

« **Reply #45 on:** March 09, 2007, 12:39:20 AM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on March 08, 2007, 06:20:00 PM

Bill,

I think I offer a better alternative playability wise and routing wise with no degredation in quality with the following.
Quote from: Garland Bayley on March 07, 2007, 03:02:52 PM
What would have been wrong with a 7th hole playing to what is now the 17th green from the area of the 8th tee (water 3 sides, but safe layup area short), and building the 17th green on the other side of the river with it's tee in the area of the current 7th green?
...

Kalen responded that there would still be a walk back from my proposed 7th green. To that I would point out that the old 7th tees could be used for the 8th and there would not be much of a walk. Placing the 17th all on the same side of the river allows high handicappers the opportunity to play away from the hazard. I should note that these are not my ideas. I am just following The Spirit of St. Andrews by Alister Mackenzie. A most enjoyable read.

How could you safely use the current 7th tee to play to the 8th green? You would be ripping drives right over the 18th tee boxes and the current 8th tee boxes which you would want to use as the boxes heading into the current 17th green. That could be fatal couldn't it? Plus with play going from the 8th tee box to the 17th green you could have crossfire coming back to those playing on the current 7th tee box.

Beyond that, in my opinion it would severely decrease the shot making of those two par 3s. Granted, you could play to the current 17th green and bring water into play while offering a layup short, but I would think a very small percentage of golfers consider laying up on a Par 3 when playing the correct tee boxes. Par 3s are called one-shotters for a reason. If the 17th at TP had only one tee box at 245 yards for EVERYONE to play then I admit you would have to soften the hole. But I just can't relate to needing a layup zone if you are teeing off on a more forward box that requires only a 150 yard shot or so. Would you ever really consider laying up short on the 12th at Augusta? Do you feel it would somehow be a better hole if Rae's Creek went around the sides and back of the green rathing than across the whole front?

As far as putting a new green in for the 17th hole and teeing off from the 7th tee box, I think it makes that hole very ho-hum. Water would be lurking on the right, but the current 7th green run parallel to the river away from the golfer which requires both a forced carry and concern to the left. It just requires better shotmaking. Golf requires its players to have to make shots.

Just like TP caters to a stronger player and requires forced carries, St. Andrews caters to a player that can control trajectory and dial in precise distance control. They are both great for what they are and every course doesn't have to be everything to every player. In the end, I love the variety different types of courses offer and don't think they have to meet some mystical mold or standard that doesn't really exist.

« **Reply #46 on:** March 09, 2007, 11:40:34 AM »

Quote from: Bill Satterfield on March 09, 2007, 12:39:20 AM

How could you safely use the current 7th tee to play to the 8th green?

Beyond that, in my opinion it would severely decrease the shot making of those two par 3s.

I was suggesting that the general areas could be used. That there was room to fit it all in. The 7 tee would actually move to the other side of the 6 green. For those wanting a penal hole, a foot bridge could have crossed the river for a set of way back tees there.

Clearly they moved a lot of dirt to build the course. How interesting the holes are is completely up to them, not nature.

Quote

Granted, you could play to the current 17th green and bring water into play while offering a layup short, but I would think a very small percentage of golfers consider laying up on a Par 3 when playing the correct tee boxes. Par 3s are called one-shotters for a reason.

Since Billy Casper chose to lay up short on a par 3 all four rounds of the US Open, made par all four rounds, and outperformed most all others by doing it, I am not sure your argument is that strong.

Quote

If the 17th at TP had only one tee box at 245 yards for EVERYONE to play then I admit you would have to soften the hole. But I just can't relate to needing a layup zone if you are teeing off on a more forward box that requires only a 150 yard shot or so.

What is your handicap? I lay up short of a 130 yard par 3 on my home course that has no water hazard in front.

Quote

Would you ever really consider laying up short on the 12th at Augusta? Do you feel it would somehow be a better hole if Rae's Creek went around the sides and back of the green rathing than across the whole front?

Not an appropriate example since I am taking the water in front away. Besides, let the general public play there, and you may see lots of people laying up.

Quote

Just like TP caters to a stronger player and requires forced carries, St. Andrews caters to a player that can control trajectory and dial in precise distance control. They are both great for what they are and every course doesn't have to be everything to every player. In the end, I love the variety different types of courses offer and don't think they have to meet some mystical mold or standard that doesn't really exist.

I am sorry, but I believe St. Andrews is celebrated for allow all players come play their game not matter how weak it may be.

« **Reply #47 on:** March 09, 2007, 12:28:13 PM »

Garland,
Are you trying to copy someone else's style with that last post?

« **Reply #48 on:** March 09, 2007, 12:42:35 PM »

Quote from: Andy Troeger on March 09, 2007, 12:28:13 PM

Garland,
Are you trying to copy someone else's style with that last post?

Andy,

I thought I originated that style.

I certainly didn't use green.

« **Reply #49 on:** March 10, 2007, 02:22:38 AM »

Well Garland, I think this is one of those "different strokes for different folks" type of deals. I simply cannot relate to laying up short on a 130 yard hole, especially one lacking a water hazard. In fact, 130 yards is a great distance to lay UP to, not lay up from.

As far as your Billy Casper example from 1959, it made my point exactly. I said a SMALL percentage would ever consider laying up short. How many golf tournaments have been won since then using that same strategy? None? One? I have no idea, but if there has been it represents an extremely small percentage.

In regards to your quote of, "I am sorry, but I believe St. Andrews is celebrated for allowing all players to come play their game not matter how weak it may be" is exactly my point. St. Andrews is playable by a broader spectrum of golfers and that is fantastic. In fact, you could probably make the arguement that the more playable a course is the more popular (especially in terms of total number of rounds played) a course is. That doesn't mean a course like Thanksgiving Point shouldn't be built since it is so difficult for the average golfer and features different challenges and requires a different batch of shots.

My Augusta National 12th hole example wasn't intended to be related directly to a hole at Thanksgiving Point but was simply an example where I would find it hard to believe someone would consider laying up even with Rae's Creek where it is. I can't imagine that hole being nearly as famous if that hazard went around the back of the green rather than fronting it. Obviously you would choose to layup on that hole based on your admission of laying up on your home course 130 yard par 3 with no hazard. That's fine, I'm just indicating in the experiences I've had golfing with other people that it would be a small percentage that would layup on a 155 yard hole like #12 at Augusta.

I don't think every golf course has to be everything to every type of player. That is why it is so critical for an architect to know who they are designing a course for. Is it for a PGA event? Is it for Junior Golf or a retirement community? Is it for a low handicap membership? That along with general terrain dictates a ton of what an architect elects to do when determining forced carries, green contours, green speeds, fairway widths, hazards, etc.

At Thanksgiving Point Johnny Miller utilized an excellent natural feature, the Jordan River, to add some strength to the shots required on various holes there while targeting a different golf demographic than the demographic a fantastic traditional course like the San Francisco Golf Club attracts. Both great, both very different.

News:

Tom Dunne

Garland Bayley

Kalen Braley

Kalen Braley

Garland Bayley

Kalen Braley

Dan Smoot

Don Dinkmeyer

Adam Clayman

Scott_Burroughs

Garland Bayley

Kalen Braley

Garland Bayley

Kalen Braley

Bill Satterfield

Matt_Ward

Garland Bayley

Kalen Braley

Bill Satterfield

Garland Bayley

Bill Satterfield

Garland Bayley

Andy Troeger

Garland Bayley

Bill Satterfield