Doak and Strantz in Myrtle Beach (MattW is wrong!)

« **Reply #50 on:** August 29, 2005, 09:35:37 AM »

A.G.

The points you made were covered by me.

I don't doubt the bar for quality golf in the Grand Strand has risen -- it had to given the sheer number of pedestrian layouts that dot the landscape there.

However, and this is where you went astray -- reaching the level of top 100 in the USA is an entirely different subject matter. To the credit of Myrtle Beach Golf Holiday and othert ad / mktg means the area has been able to drive eyeballs to the sheer number of courses that inhabit the location. They have to do that because frankly without the continuos ads you would find few people going to the area because it generally lacks anything else of quality -- I mean does anyone really trade a visit to Charleston to Myrtle Beach?

The Love Course at Barefoot is truly a major step up in comparison to the junk food / fast food layouts that are the norm for so much of the Grand Strand.

You need to remember this -- GCA celebrate compelling architecture -- stuff that really is beyond the norm -- I don't doubt there are "good" courses in plenty of locales but there are only the truly elite that merit getting in your car or flying hundreds of miles.

I'll be sure to play the other two you mentioned and weigh in when that happens.

One last thing -- A.G., if you check my previous posts I have been a very tough critic on many of the courses that inhabit my neck of the woods in Tony Soprano land and in the New York greater metro area. Just realize that I don't just pick on the southeast area in terms of golf quality. I'm a free spirit in terms of my preferences and critiques.

Someday, I hope to share a brew with you and we can chat direct about this. Adios partner ...

« **Reply #51 on:** August 29, 2005, 10:19:49 AM »

Matt,
In a thread that now has taken a week and has 50 posts, you have "critiqued" exactly TWO courses in the Golfweek and/or Golf Digest lists and additional 20 or so that I listed, despite repeated requests to be more forthcoming and specific. One of those critiques was the work of Tom Doak (which you correctly cited). Everything else that you have written has been generalities based on, of all things, a very tired fast-food/Walmart analogy, as is this most recent post.

I'll say this for you; you aren't afraid to beat a dead horse!

When you can get around to it, refer back to the first page, pick another actual golf course and let's talk about it. Who knows? It could be fun, and I might learn something!

So far, all I know is that you seem to have had an unfortunate experience with a Whopper as a child, possibly while shopping at Walmart...

« **Reply #52 on:** August 29, 2005, 07:57:07 PM »

A.G.

To paraphrase the late Ronald Reagan there you go again ...

You were the guy who initiated the following ...

1). You mentioned the nature of what Digets rated with eight (

Grand Strand courses among their top 100. You stated that such an inclusion speaks volumes for the quality of golf in the area.

I mentioned to you that the Digest ratings don't mean squat to me based on a whole host of issues of courses that are not rated while others are either rated or rated very high (see the Love Course as one example).

I can back that up through my considerable play through various courses throughout the USA. You, on the other hand, make light of these experiences because of your blind loyalty to the region and the courses you have experienced. What's amusing is that I need to treat your experiences as being noteworthy while mine, which include many more visits to other courses throughout the USA, should be disgarded as inconsequential.

2). You were the guy who stated that the Grand Strand has 30 or courses that are especially good for a condensed area of the USA. I countered that there are other concentrated areas of courses in the USA that are either as good or even better (e.g. Palm Springs, Scottsdale, Upper Michigan, Cape Cod, to name just a few.).

I also mentioned that the nature of what is "good" is wonderful for courses in the Grand Strand area given the fact that the bar for top shelf courses in the area is generally quite low. I also mentioned -- which you seem to forget -- that the nature of what is "good" is not the stuff of compelling architecture that would make such a trip a necessity. I can tell you that Pete from Pittsburgh isn't going to the Grand Strand because of the compelling architecture. Likely, it's having some road time with a number of golfing buddies after a long hard winter.

All of these were arguments that you advanced. I said clearly that quality courses in the Grand Strand had improved -- but improved from a much lower level simply because of the incredible hyping and marketing that the forces locally do through today's media. You can hype anything in the world today -- see Hollywood as a prime example but little attendance at the movie theaters.

The focus of GCA is a bit more involved than simply talking about "good" courses -- I get a rush when people talk about courses with "compelling" or innovative design that take them to the highest of levels. What is indeed superlative for the Grand Strand likely doesn't reach the highest of positions when you consider the whole nation IMHO.

A.G. -- I have been quite specific on all the essential points that you raised. You see A.G. -- once I have answered your points you do the artful two-step tap dance around what I have provided and continue to repeat the same tired babble about the so-called qualities of the courses you mentioned.

I'll say this in a very nice way -- go rent-a-car and get a Rand McNally. The courses I listed -- Black Mesa, Norman's Red Sky Ranch, Paa-Ko Ridge, to name just three -- are clearly beyond the reach of what is called golf in the Grand Strand. I have provided detailed comments on these courses on past threads -- you can access them if you like. I have also mentioned a few courses in the southeast like Ocean Hammock and the Watson Course at Reunion that are also well done and worthy of consideration for a top 100 position --Ocean Hammock already is there and is well earned.

I don't doubt that the Love Course is a good addition -- ditto the others mentioned. But the bar for public golf in the USA in 2006 is a good bit higher than you think. Of course -- whatever I say on that topic is irrelevant to you. Perfect. Nothing like determined ignorance in the face of facts. Please return fire with another re-wording of the same items that have been answered upteeeeeeeen times already.

« **Reply #53 on:** August 29, 2005, 09:04:14 PM »

What GOLF COURSE would you like to talk about next, Matt?

I'd suggest the Avocet course at Wild Wing Plantation, to go to another part of my list of good courses, but if you want to stay with the magazine stuff, we can go hole by hole at either Caledonia or True Blue (or both).

What'll it be?

« **Reply #54 on:** August 30, 2005, 08:28:37 AM »

It would be nice if you guys would tear apart True Blue, as I at least am familiar with that one, and it is sorta the reason for this thread.
Matt, how would you say True Blue itself, not MB golf in general, compares to the good public courses in areas like Scottsdale or Cape Cod that you mentioned?

« **Reply #55 on:** August 30, 2005, 09:23:49 AM »

Andy,
That would be great.

I have a hard time not thinking about True Blue in connection with either Caledonia or Tobacco Rd. Caledonia because it is across the street and I've only played them as a pair on the same day (three times). Tobacco Rd. not only because it is also a Strantz design, but in a lot of ways, TB seems to me to be a beach version of TR.

First off, I think that it is more important that the correct set of tees be selected at TB than at any other course I can think of. The back tees at 7000+ leave you hitting into very firm bermuda greens with very long clubs. Most players understand that, but many go directly to the second set, which are still 6800, with course rating of something like 72.3 or so, and a slope of 141 or so. Pretty tough for a second set of tees! The third set is 6300 yds., and to those greens that is plenty of golf course for 99% of the golf world.

The first time I played TB, I liked it a lot, but not nearly so much as Caledonia. However, when I went back for a second round, I realized that I could remember virtually every hole there, and, in many cases, the shots that I had a year earlier. Suffice it to say that for me, that is relatively unusual after a first play. Now, after three rounds, I couldn't really pick between the two courses themselves; I've give the nod to Caledonia only because of the scenery.

Favorite holes:
#1- great way to start a course, even though it is a par 5. Very wide driving area, but classic Strantz tempting you to cut the corner, to no real advantage. Shot into the green is a scary little half wedge to a rather shallow green, another Strantz favorite feature.

#2-like you, I love this green. You're only hitting a very short iron, but the green is so narrow and sloped that it is visually difficult. A great short par 4.

#4- a cape hole that can tempt you on the second shot; just beautiful.

#8- great strategic short par four, with a corner to cut, the possibility of driving through the fairway into real trouble, and a very large, difficult green that slopes to the back.

#11- a wonderful little par 3, again vintage Strantz. Very intimidating visually, but not really difficult. The waste areas are not impossible to recover from, but sure do look huge from the tee.

#15- not really sure why I like this hole so much, but I do. The string of bunkers off the tee are cool-looking, but it isn't a particularly pretty hole otherwise. It is a clear 3 shot hole, so it's target golf with BIG targets, so it isn't the strategy. I just like it a lot, for some reason.

#18- A really challenging final shot, usually with a mid-iron, probably off a hanging lie with water on the left right by the green. The green runs for miles past the pin, and par is a really, really fortunate way to end here. This hole suffers by comparison with #18 at Caledonia, which is one of the really lovely shots into a final green that you will ever see, but it is a strong, strong hole.

I'm not a big fan of #3, but only because I seem to always hook my tee shot into the pond. I also like the front distinctly more than the back, for some reason.

I think it is a terrific track, well worthy of all of the press and rankings that it gets. The 36-hole day of TB and Caledonia is a great value, and a great day of golf by most estimations, I would think.

By the way, if you are ever able, try Tiger's Eye by Tim Cate up at Sunset Beach on the other end of the Strand. It reminds me a lot of TB, though a little less visually intimidating and a little more manicured around the edges. Same kind of terrain and overall look, though.

« **Reply #56 on:** August 30, 2005, 01:01:32 PM »

Andy / A.G.

I have less of an issue with True Blue than with any other courses on the Grand Strand. Frankly, I find the handiwork of the late Mike Strantz to be something clearly "outside the box" and always invigorating. While I am not the huge fan of Tobacco Road as others on this site are -- I found the work at True Blue & Caledonia clearly high on the fun meter.

The interplay of the bunkering and the demands placed on the tee game are quite thorough and in a number of ways clearly edgy -- the stuff that Strantz excelled at creating.

I do agree the 1st hole provides such a neat introduction to the course.

The 2nd is also quite well done. I am not usually a fan of the forced lay-back but the hole is a good indicator of how a talented architect can make the most of their opportunities for a short par of this type. No doubt the green complex is really exciting -- especially when the pin is cut in the far right.

The key to the course is handling the final four holes on each side. All of them are quite well done and for my money True Blue delivers a very fun and memorable challenge.

The key to playing True Blue is to follow the adage of Clint Eastwood -- "A man's got to know his limitatiuons." Play the wrong tees at True Blue and you can be sure your face will turn "blue" very quickly.

A.G. -- you see -- that wasn't soooooo tough -- we actually agree on this paticular course.

« **Reply #57 on:** August 30, 2005, 01:09:56 PM »

AG - Matt is correct about Black Mesa. It is an outstanding course on a dramatic piece of property. There is nothing on the Grand Strand that can compare. The closest I have seen is Tobacco Road... which, ironically, Baxter Spann told me he had played just before designing Black Mesa! The first hole at Black Mesa, according to Baxter, is a kind of tribute to Tobbaco Road.

Paa-Ko Ridge on the other hand, while a very fine course, is not "beyond the reach" of the Grand Strand. True Blue is one course that is every bit the match of Paa-Ko Ridge... and True Blue, unlike Paa-Ko, is NOT on a great piece of land. It has been proposed elsewhere that True Blue might be Mike Strantz' most creative effort, considering the bland site he was given to work with. I think I might agree.

I would love to discuss with you the changes that were made to True Blue. Today's course is not what visitors found when it first opened. I'm not saying it was better, just different.

It is a shame that Matt is so fixed on being right all the time and trying to show off his "knowledge." He obviously has a passion for GCA and could be an interesting participant in these discussions, if he just wasn't such a dork. Reminds me of the little kid who runs around telling everyone how smart he is... until no one really cares anymore.

« **Reply #58 on:** August 30, 2005, 01:23:18 PM »

Michael:

I would enjoy having a conversation with you but you have to once again head towards the gutter with the personal putdowns.

You are the same ass who makes it a point to push the verbal darts and then want people to embrace you as some sort of interesting chap.

Michael -- I make it a point to travel a good bit -- frankly more than a number of people who post here on GCA -- that doesn't make me any smarter but just able to have a deeper database of courses to compare and contrast. If you or others are that insecure about what I say then follow a very simply course -- rent-a-car, get a Hagstrom or Rand McNally map and go venture to the courses in question. It's not my fault that people don't play that much golf and others, because of favorable circumstances can.

Back to the matter at hand ...

Let's just say that I believe Paa-Ko and True Blue would be a fine match-up of two distinct and entirely unique courses. Strantz "created" True Blue out of the ground -- Paa-Ko's terrain is produced by an even higher authority. Let me also add that the new nine -- minus the plethora of bunkers that inhabit a few of the new holes -- is nicely done and would make for a complimentary 18 in conjunction with the back nine of the original 18.

Paa-Ko clearly benefits from its ponderosa pin location. The course also overdoses on the long par-3 type hole although I am a big fan of the 8th and 13th holes. They are both well done. The inane three tier par-3 4th is just silly and could have been shaped into a much better short par-3 to provide for a better balancing act.

True Blue clearly demonstrates the creativity of Mike Strantz. It is a course that anyone going to the Grand Strand must play after a round at The Dunes.

P.S. One other thing -- Black Mesa belongs in the rarified public course air with Pacific Dunes IMHO -- frankly too many people give way too many brownie points because of the ocean being present. Pac Dunes is a fairly one dimensional routing -- north/south & south/north. The routing by Baxter Spann is truly amazing for the manner in providing a wealth of holes that few public courses can match. How Digest omitted Black Mesa from its top 100 public is proof to me that advertising & marketing hype (e.g. Grand Strand) can play a very powerful role on the minds of those who can be easily swayed with such an effort.

« **Reply #59 on:** August 30, 2005, 01:43:45 PM »

Quote from: Matt_Ward on August 30, 2005, 01:01:32 PM

Andy / A.G.

A.G. -- you see -- that wasn't soooooo tough -- we actually agree on this paticular course.

Matt,
I've been trying to get you to do this for over a week, and you're telling ME it wasn't tough? Jeez...

"I have less of an issue with True Blue than any other courses on the Grand Strand..." Holy cow.

« **Reply #60 on:** August 30, 2005, 01:53:54 PM »

A.G.

When you finally play the likes of Black Mesa, Norman's Red Sky Ranch, Paa-Ko Ridge, Red Rock or some of the other public layouts out west I have mentioned you will see how the impact of advertising and marketing can pay huge dividends.

P.S. Don't know if you have played Strantz's other work in SC called Bull's Bay -- just north of Charleston. Well done layout that defies the non-descript LowCountry golf that frankly brings me more to yawn than excited. Bull's Bay is another testament to the talent of the late Mike Strantz.

« **Reply #61 on:** August 30, 2005, 02:34:55 PM »

Matt,
There is every probability that I will never play at Black Mesa, or any of the other courses that you have listed in the SW. I teach and coach high school for a living, and that money is neither available now, nor is it my future, in all likelihood. That's not meant to be the blues; it's just the way it is.

(By the way, I have NEVER gone on a golf trip to MB. I DO go there for a week with my in-laws every summer for years now, and I play golf every day. I go on a few golf trips, and have been to Scottsdale and Scotland and a few other places, but my experience will never match yours, and I've said that about 10 times now.)

The point of this thread has never been about single-course excellence, or the quality of magazine rankings, or my travel history, except to you. What the thread was about was the simple fact that a lot of OTHER people (that is, other than Matt Ward or A.G. Crockett) have valued an remarkably LARGE NUMBER of Strand courses, compressed into a very, very small geographic area, very, very highly. That is STILL true, no matter how much you write about the flaws in the rankings, and so forth.

All I have tried to get you to do is write about specific MB area courses. You have spent lots of time and space talking about lots of other stuff, but to date have spoken about only three courses in any detail at all (quoting Doak about Tidewater, then writing a bit about the Love Course, and now True Blue) and then only after repeated requests. I think that's what Michael Whitaker is telling you; you could contribute a lot to this, but most of your stuff remains on the level of "put-downs" rather than information.

So whaddya think of Caledonia? We'll work north, since we're already at True Blue.

« **Reply #62 on:** August 30, 2005, 03:31:05 PM »

Michael Whitaker,
A guy I was playing with the first time I was at True Blue mentioned some of this to me, especially in connection the #3, I think, but I don't know the details. Everything that I have read and heard leads me to think that the course was significantly harder then. What did they do?

« **Reply #63 on:** August 30, 2005, 03:36:11 PM »

Quote

I have a hard time not thinking about True Blue in connection with either Caledonia or Tobacco Rd. Caledonia because it is across the street and I've only played them as a pair on the same day (three times). Tobacco Rd. not only because it is also a Strantz design, but in a lot of ways, TB seems to me to be a beach version of TR.

A.G., I never could quite put True Blue and Caledonia together somehow. But I know I bored the hell out of poor Rob (the guy I was paired with who also happens to post here on gca) with my ceaseless comparisons/contrasts to Tobacco Road. Somehow though, TR seemed to have more variety and a greater range of thrilling shots. Some of that may be the difference between 4 rounds at TR and only one at TB, as well as the firmer conditions I experienced at TR. Just means I need to play True Blue again

Quote

The first time I played TB, I liked it a lot, but not nearly so much as Caledonia. However, when I went back for a second round, I realized that I could remember virtually every hole there, and, in many cases, the shots that I had a year earlier. Suffice it to say that for me, that is relatively unusual after a first play. Now, after three rounds, I couldn't really pick between the two courses themselves; I've give the nod to Caledonia only because of the scenery.

and I'd pick TB because it is starker, leaner, more scary looking.

Quote

Favorite holes:
#1- great way to start a course, even though it is a par 5. Very wide driving area, but classic Strantz tempting you to cut the corner, to no real advantage. Shot into the green is a scary little half wedge to a rather shallow green, another Strantz favorite feature.

Yeah, nothing to be gained by cutting any corners here.
That green deserves a good picture to be posted--I wish I had taken one. One of my playing companions pulled his wedge a little and ended up in a tiny, low, gnarly shrub at the edge of a trap. Short and right are no picnic either with that little stream wrapping around, and the edges of the green running down towards the trouble.

Quote

#2-like you, I love this green. You're only hitting a very short iron, but the green is so narrow and sloped that it is visually difficult. A great short par 4.

The pin was in the back right when we played, so the target was wider (though it was tough to pull the trigger as that pin is tucked behind the righthand bunker-there's always something!).
I would have found a pin in the skinny neck to have been both thrilling and scary!

Quote

#4- a cape hole that can tempt you on the second shot; just beautiful.

It was TOO tempting dammit!

Quote

#8- great strategic short par four, with a corner to cut, the possibility of driving through the fairway into real trouble, and a very large, difficult green that slopes to the back.

While I agree re the play of the hole, what I found neatest was the green, and the way the slopes could throw a slightly short or weak or pulled approach way down the hill. Our pin was back left, and it would have been very easy to leave the approach spinning back off the almost-false front.
Also of note here---some heaves in the left, safe, chicken-out part of the fairway

Quote

#11- a wonderful little par 3, again vintage Strantz. Very intimidating visually, but not really difficult. The waste areas are not impossible to recover from, but sure do look huge from the tee.

And that seems like the recurring theme here--it looks scary/tough, and a lot of it isn't as gruesome as you think. Though come to think of it, a lot of it is pretty damn tough

Quote

#15- not really sure why I like this hole so much, but I do. The string of bunkers off the tee are cool-looking, but it isn't a particularly pretty hole otherwise. It is a clear 3 shot hole, so it's target golf with BIG targets, so it isn't the strategy. I just like it a lot, for some reason.

This one reminded me of #1 after I was done--no good reason to be over-bold, other than the desire to have as short an iron in as possible.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the green here gives the hole much of its bite. The drop-off over the green is severe, at least 6 feet. It would take a fairly bold approach to go after a back pin, knowing that just a few feet long means an incredibly difficult shot back up the slope to a tight pin.

Quote

#18- A really challenging final shot, usually with a mid-iron, probably off a hanging lie with water on the left right by the green. The green runs for miles past the pin, and par is a really, really fortunate way to end here. This hole suffers by comparison with #18 at Caledonia, which is one of the really lovely shots into a final green that you will ever see, but it is a strong, strong hole.

Well said, very tough hole, both the tee shot and the approach. I didn't get a good look, but it appeared that a drive near the lake left a nice level lie, while the bailout area right left the ball above your feet for the approach. Which is just dandy when there is water lapping against the left edge of the green

Quote

I'm not a big fan of #3, but only because I seem to always hook my tee shot into the pond. I also like the front distinctly more than the back, for some reason.

We had the pin middle of the back half. But the front half looked to be where the action was. I would have liked to see what the front slope would do with the ball.

Another hole I liked--#13. The tee shot tempts you away from the center, and the green just sits in its dell so nicely, with the deceptive bunkers short and the big slopes all around it. Would be a fantastic green when things firm up

« **Reply #64 on:** August 30, 2005, 03:40:03 PM »

Quote from: Matt_Ward on August 30, 2005, 01:23:18 PM

I make it a point to travel a good bit -- frankly more than a number of people who post here on GCA -- that doesn't make me any smarter but just able to have a deeper database of courses to compare and contrast. If you or others are that insecure about what I say then follow a very simply course -- rent-a-car, get a Hagstrom or Rand McNally map and go venture to the courses in question.

Talk about someone who doesn't "get it." The poor guy just can't help himself. God, what an ego.

« **Reply #65 on:** August 30, 2005, 03:53:10 PM »

Quote from: A.G._Crockett on August 30, 2005, 03:31:05 PM

Michael Whitaker,
A guy I was playing with the first time I was at True Blue mentioned some of this to me, especially in connection the #3, I think, but I don't know the details. Everything that I have read and heard leads me to think that the course was significantly harder then. What did they do?

AG - True Blue used to have a listing on their website of all the changes. I called the head pro and he is trying to find it for me. If he finds it he is going to email it to me and we can start a thread to discuss the changes.

In the meantime, check out the hole-by-hole graphics on the True Blue website (http://www.truebluegolf.com). They are from the original design before the changes were made. Take a good look at #1 & #2 and see if you can spot what's different from the holes you played.

« **Reply #66 on:** August 30, 2005, 08:29:19 PM »

Michael,
For #1, I'll guess (and it is only that) that the fairway bunker on the outside corner of the dogleg isn't there anymore. If it is there, it is much smaller than it appears in the drawing.
As for #2, unless they cut back some trees on the right front between the end of the fairway and the green in the waste area, I don't have a clue. I would guess that all the trees on the right side of the green are still there.

« **Reply #67 on:** August 31, 2005, 01:00:48 AM »

TRUE BLUE CHANGES - First Installment

True Blue #1 - The changes to #1 were to the left of and behind the green. Part of the bunker/waste area to the left of the green was grassed in to allow more margin of error and an area behind the green was cleared out and grassed, for the same reason. There originally was very little space behind the green before you hit the "scruffy" stuff.

True Blue #2 - The changes to number #2 were to the bunker/waste area short of and left of the green. The fronting waste area was pulled back from the green to create the grass area that is there now, and the waste/bunker to the left of the lower level of the green was completely eliminated and grassed, creating a collection area. If you notice, in the picture the waste bunker wraps all around the left side of the green. Now, there is only a relatively small bunker to the left of the upper level of the green... there is no sand to the left of the green on the lower level

True Blue #3 - This is the first hole with dramatic changes. The pinched "waist" in the middle of the green (where it says "33" in the picture) was expanded to widen the green. Today the green is sort of an hourglass shape with a thick middle and a thin bunker to the left (actually, I'm not sure there is any bunker to the left remaining). Originally, it was more like two greens with a narrow connector and a bigger bunker area on the left. The back section of the green was recontoured by raising the perimeter along the back edge to create a subtle backstop so balls would not run off the back. Also, if you remember, the bunker no longer wraps completely behind the green... the back area is now grass with the left side used as a drop area for teeshot waterballs. But, the biggest change on #3 was to the sand-faced mound fronting the green... it is fully 1/3 lower today than when the course first opened! Originally, you could not see any putting surface from the tee... it was completely hidden behind the massive sand-faced wall. The only thing you could see was the flag (on an extra tall stick) sticking up above the ridgeline. Also, the front green had much more slope from front to back. Needless to say, it was an EXTREMELY intimidating shot with a difficult green to hit and stay on.

« **Reply #68 on:** August 31, 2005, 08:07:54 AM »

Not only were my guesses 0-2, but I am imagining how much harder those three holes were! #3 is an intimidating shot anyway; with a blind green, it actually might have seemed so hopeless that it was easier!

« **Reply #69 on:** August 31, 2005, 01:05:55 PM »

Mike, very good stuff.
My guess on 1 was actually going to be that the green was tighter to the water. It kinda looks like it in the diagram, but its hard to tell what's green and what's fringe/hill/rough between the green and the stream. It did look to me that the green would have been scarier that way.

Here's what left of 2 looks like now:

Whew! That would have been that much scarier to hit into the front section with the waste area as it was!

Here's 3 now:

Still some limited visibility to the front right, but what it must have been like originally....Mike, was it just the right half that was blind? Also, I don't believe there is a bunker on the left any longer.
I was briefly confused by the newly-created drop area to the left--they use tee markers there, and I actually thought walking up that it was the next tee (yeah, I am not known as the brightest of golfers)
Can you hit the front right portion and stay on this green? The downslope looks too severe to hit and stay on.

« **Reply #70 on:** August 31, 2005, 01:12:57 PM »

Thought I'd share a recent experience of mine that has to do with this thread:

We received a rush order on the Friday of this year's Open Championship. Someone came to my shop with a t shirt order that needed to be printed that day. So they stuck around, picking out t's, while I did the artwork. Because it was Open Friday, we had the TNT broadcast on. One of the guys commented on how tough it was to play out of those pot bunkers, so I naturally asked him when he had played at TOC. He said, I haven't, but I played this course down in Myrtle Beach called The Heathlands....

Can't wait to share this story with Tom D someday.

« **Reply #71 on:** August 31, 2005, 02:28:54 PM »

George - I bet TD will get a kick out of that!

AG - It was UNBELIEVEABLY imtimidating!!!

Andy - Boy, I'm glad you have the pictures! This really helps.

#2 - You're correct... the green was virtually an island surrounded by sand. As you see in your photo, there is now an area to miss to the left. The photo does not show it, but there is also an area to miss short, just past the visible sand.

#3 - The right half of the green was completely blind from both the left and right teebox. You had no idea where your shot finished until you rode around the pond and got a clear view of the green. The left half was partially blind from the right teebox, but totally visible from the left teebox, as it is now. With the higher ridge, the right half had considerably more slope from front to back and it was difficult to keep a ball on the green. I thought I remembered the bunker on the left side of the "waist" being removed, but I wasn't sure... glad your photo clears this up for me. This hole is difficult enough now... it was a MONSTER back then!

Let me add that nearly every green on the course had contour removed during the redo. You know that the current greens are still challenging... imagine them with even more severe humps and swales!

I'll try to post a few more holes tonight.

« **Reply #72 on:** August 31, 2005, 03:54:10 PM »

Michael,
Do you know if Strantz oversaw all of the changes? From what I have read about him, I would assume so. Also, do you think that "softening" True Blue might have shaped his later designs?

One of his common themes seems to be shots that appear difficult, but in reality are not. A line of play is shown to the golfer, and proves to be a very generous option, but there is a lot of visual uncertainty as well. He asks the golfer to trust, commit, and execute. The first three holes at TB, on the other hand, just seem HARD in their original configuration. Do you think that he considered them too difficult?

« **Reply #73 on:** August 31, 2005, 05:19:55 PM »

Given the comments made on True Blue I wonder if the folks who have played there have played Bull's Bay outside Charleston and how they see the two courses stack up against one another.

I have played both and will weigh in after a few comments have been posted.

No doubt the design genius of Mike Strantz will be missed.

« **Reply #74 on:** August 31, 2005, 05:55:58 PM »

Here is a representation of how #3 used to look. You can imagine the view from the right teebox... just a big sand wall staring you in the face! You can also imagine the amount of slope that there was on the front half of the green.

News:

Matt_Ward

A.G._Crockett

Matt_Ward

A.G._Crockett

Andy Hughes

A.G._Crockett

Matt_Ward

Michael Whitaker

Matt_Ward

A.G._Crockett

Matt_Ward

A.G._Crockett

A.G._Crockett

Andy Hughes

Michael Whitaker

Michael Whitaker

A.G._Crockett

Michael Whitaker

A.G._Crockett

Andy Hughes

George Pazin

Michael Whitaker

A.G._Crockett

Matt_Ward

Michael Whitaker