Jordan,
   A golf course doesn't go from being "fun" and "very beautiful" to "way contrived" unless houses were built right on the course and you have to go THROUGH them.  

Doug,
   You forgot to mention the greens. There were actually some very good ones out there, 2-3 that completely fooled my eye and I generally read greens pretty well (if only I could say that about my putting).

Glenn,
    What part of Ohio are you in? My cousin lives near Columbus and when I went out last year and asked for advice I was pointed toward 4-5 public tracks that were within 1-2 hours. We ended up playing Longaberger since I had heard of it over the years and had never seen any Art Hills work. The recommendations here at the time were a mixed bag on Longaberger. I think at $50 Longaberger would be a decent value, and one will see a mixed bag of good stuff and some not so good. It isn't a bad course, it just misses the mark when it comes to getting the most out of a nice piece of property. I am not trying to change your mind about it BTW. I can see why people would hate it or love it. It just happens to not be my cup of tea. I certainly didn't feel like I got ripped off at the twilight rate, and I have no desire to see it again.
   I do however REALLY want to see Granville now (which I believe was on the recommendations last year).

Ed,

I am in Cincinnati now, lived in Dayton all my life before that. I played the golf course for $89 and I didn't feel ripped off. I should have known better.I like his Fox Run course so much for 17 holes and then he just takes a whiz over the entire property on the 18th. Ruins the entire experience. I really don't understand how someone can create a good hole and then not know what a bad one is. I would understand if  something is too tough or someone tried to hard and it had to be fixed, but par 5 holes without layups and par 4's that don't give you any option off the tee but to hit a perfect 3 wood that would land in a backyard swimming pool. $89 in Ohio for a well conditioned golf course and starters that treat you like a human being and a nice club house on a weekend- not going to say I was ripped off, it is more about being a citizen of the state and being ripped off of our Pecan Valley or Pasatiempo or something like those quality public tracks. I still can't believe the land that I was looking at. DR or Tillie would have killed for something like that. I thought that land blew away Bethpage. But everyone is Ok with it because it is not a horrible golf course, just a horrible job of building a good one. People don't realize how hard it is to build a truly horrible golf course- the game is just too much fun. One horrible golf course would be an Arthur Hills eclectic 18. Wow, that would really be bad, no other architect has nearly as many eyesores as this guy. I challenge anyone on this board to come up with someone that has as many. Any architect.

John,

I would say that when you have an unlimited amount of property that rolls up and down and has lakes and streams and woods and elevation and sits on top of the area with views ranging all around, that is pretty good land. No?

John,

No kidding there are lots not any better, Hills is the one designing most of them!!!!!!!!!!

If you boil down the basic initial premise of this thread, a few years ago Matt Ward (I believe) started a similar thread. His assertion was that given the number of courses that Rees Jones had designed, why weren't more of them highly acclaimed (aside from his Open doctoring). I'm fairly certain that it was Rees Jones that he was discussing. Does anyone know how to use the search feature well enough to dig it up? I'm curious to see if there was a lot of backlash because of people being perceived as too critical.

To use a baseball analogy, aren't we really needing to discuss his Slugging Percentage? Sure, his on-base percentage may be decent (or nice, or enjoyable, or adequate ), but given his number of plate appearance in hitter's ballparks (good to great sites), shouldn't he have more extra base hits? By my count from his website, Art Hills has designed 157 courses in the US. Aren't most of them singles or fielder's choices. By my reckoning Longaberger and Bay Harbor should have been triples AT WORST, but I think they fell short. Should the Manager (course owner) keep sending him to the plate in game changing situations (great site), or should he replace him in the order with someone that strikes out once in a while, but puts a few over the fence?

Ed:

Will you be getting to Columbus any time this summer?

I liked Shepard's Hollow (just north of Detroit near Pontiac) a load (it is not far off the quality of Tobacco Road IMO) and was very surprised to learn Art Hills designed the course.  I can't think of any other courses of his that I was keen to get back and play.  

He did do an extensive remodelling of my Ann Arbor muni several years ago.  Some of it was excellent and some was poor.  His work at U of M had mixed results as well.  Overall, I think the money should have been banked or somebody else should have done the jobs.  Though it is hard to know what Hill's brief was for these redos.  Maybe he gave the customers exactly what they wanted and I just don't care for the work.  

Ciao

Sean

This is unbelievable.

Glenn, if you have a biased going into the round then isn't anything you say about the course is gonna be pretty much a bad review.

For one, asking if he does work for free is insane and very rude.

For two, try playing the course again, as I said, without any biased.

Would your opinion of the course changed if say, C&C designed the course?
I certainly hope not.

I think that your opinion will be more accurate if you play the course again without biased.


Ryan,

Harbour Point was originally designed without houses. It used to be running through beautiful forest's with great views throughout the back nine.

Quote from: Glenn Spencer on April 24, 2006, 03:06:04 PM

Doug,

To use Doug's baseball anology, restoration work is like being asked to pinch-run, I would hardly say anything about working on some of America's classics, it is not in the same league as designing your own course apparenty. Still, this is what I don't understand about the man, he works on or looks at all these great courses and then builds such bs, how does it happen? Oakmont, Oakland, Inverness and then you give me Longaberger? How? How is it possible to screw up that badly?

Glenn,

I'm not sure that Art Hills is the poster child for having experience working on and playing wonderful classic courses and then designing original courses that bear as much relation to them as Anna Nicole Smith does to Grace Kelly.

I've seen much worse so let's just leave it at that.

Mike,

Are you saying that you like the work of Hills more than Fazio or Rees Jones....In all honesty...I doubt if you can come up with a name to verify your above statement..As cute as it may be..

Mike,

Are you saying that you like the work of Hills more than Fazio or Rees Jones....In all honesty...I doubt if you can come up with a name to verify your above statement..As cute as it may be..

John,

No, can't think of a single example.
Yes, in most cases of original work I've seen from both.
Glad you enjoyed.  

Mike,

Come to Southwest Ohio and see what I am seeing. We can have you play 6 at Shaker, 18 at Fox Run, 1-18 at Pipestone. Making sure that you spend plenty of time on 2 and 18 of course.

Wow Glenn, I think you took this thread a little bit far.  Can you do better?  It is easier to be a critique than to be the Golf Course Architect.  I think every architect has good and bad layouts.  Most Golf Course Architects are producing golf courses that the client invisions, not what the architect invisions.  The land also plays an important part in the course layout.  

I think you should be talking about the actual golf course, than talking about Arthur Hills himself. He is a well respected Golf Course Architect that has tremendous talent.  One can't please everybody.  That's life.....

Mike,

I am out on a limb here, but I am talking about Shaker Run which was built a while ago and Longaberger which I am guessing Hills put some of his own quality time into. I understand and normally your advice would apply, I am  just not sure that it does so here.

John,

I don't know what a critique is, at least not by that spelling. I assume it would be easier to be one though, than a golf course architect. You are correct the land does play an important part and all the more reason he doubled Longaberger, if not tripled it. Do I think I could do better? No, of course not, my 8-year old niece on the other hand, maybe. If Arthur Hills has such tremendous talent, why is he waiting till his 70's to use it, I see no evidence so far, unless you mean talented as in able to bs owners into giving him the keys to a ferrari and allowing him to bring back a minivan.

Glenn, here's a vacation suggestion for you--the Arthur Hills Golf Trail.  Enjoy.

http://www.arthurhillstrail.com/