News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #50 on: July 05, 2006, 11:27:25 PM »
John Conley,

If you want to question the authorship, come on up. I would love for you to see the holes Jerry was nice enough to post in person. The guy has designed 160 some odd courses, he is bound to have a few that are not too hateful.

I don't question that he's messed up some sites in your area.  I've never played them so I can't refute.

How many Arthur Hills courses have you played in Florida?  And which holes on them are that bad?  I can't say I've played any that really stick out.

Glenn Spencer

Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #51 on: July 06, 2006, 09:20:10 AM »
John Conley,

If you want to question the authorship, come on up. I would love for you to see the holes Jerry was nice enough to post in person. The guy has designed 160 some odd courses, he is bound to have a few that are not too hateful.

I don't question that he's messed up some sites in your area.  I've never played them so I can't refute.

How many Arthur Hills courses have you played in Florida?  And which holes on them are that bad?  I can't say I've played any that really stick out.


I went and looked at the site, to my eyes' serious dismay. I ahve not had the pleasure of playing anything in Florida by Hills. I looked at Ohio and the years that the courses were done and I would definitely say that there is a time link, he seemed less hateful back in the 70's. As time has worn on, I feel that in Ohio he has gotten a little more daring and to say the least, that is scary. Do you think it is odd that you are suggesting that I see his Florida courses? What is the difference? I find it peculiar that he has these 'areas' that he specializes in. Michigan, Ohio and Florida. Bowling Green, KY is in for a real treat as they are getting two new privates this year. Hills is from Michigan and Toledo or whatever, why are his Florida courses supposed to be any different?

Glenn Spencer

Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #52 on: July 06, 2006, 09:25:11 AM »
Jerry,

Please don't leave out the absurdities of holes 3, 6, and especially 9 at Pipestone.  I haven't played enough Hills to get on him the way some do around here, and I actually like several of the holes at Pipestone (5,8,10,16).  However, there are some ridiculous holes out there, two of which you pictured nicely.  The rest are just dull.

JAL,

Nice call, that trifecta is certainly not to be forgotten, with 6 just edging out 9 by a nose. C'mon now though, are you saying you like 5,8,10 and 16 or that they are not horrible. I think you could find those holes on just about any golf course. 5 is not exactly demanding of anything off the tee. 8 is a ho-hum par 3. 10? Same as 5. 16? I don't know, I find that hole iffy at best, the green area is fine though.

Jeff Peterson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #53 on: July 06, 2006, 11:32:22 AM »
As another Michigander, I've probably had the "pleasure" of playing more courses designed by Art Hills than any other architect (Bruce Matthews may be a close second).  My experience would confirm the perception that the quality of his courses runs the gamut from awful to very good (though not great).  A quick overview of the courses I've played:

* Arthur Hills Course at Boyne Highlands:  If one can disregard the ego implied in the course name, this is actually one of the best Hills courses I've played.  An interesting variety of holes, good use of varied terrain without getting absurd.

* Fieldstone Golf Club: This is, I believe, a redesign of an existing 9-hole course, an an addition of a new nine.  I don't remember much of this course because I was so bored.

* Fox Hills (Golden Fox):  Middle of the pack.  Some interesting holes; others will put you to sleep.

* Lyon Oaks Golf Course:  Another decent course.  Pro:  Tees that are angled to the fairway line.  Con:  Far too many of them.

* Pheasant Run:  Another middle-of-the-packer.  A few noteworthy holes, but most you'd have trouble remembering while standing on the next tee.

* Red Hawk:  The rumors are true.  This is a very good course -- maybe the second best I've played (next to Shepherd's Hollow).  Interesting green complexes, good use of terrain, a variety of holes and strategies.

* Shepherd's Hollow:  Arthur Hills on steroids.  As indicated above, these three nines are my favorite Hills courses.  But frankly, given this property I think any architect could have done a fine job.  I give Hills credit for trying some unusual design features -- the two-green 22nd hole among them.  The left green is small, with a high bank along the right side, and a closely-mown fall-off on the left.  The hole plays around 300, and can be driven, but even the shortest shots have to be played creatively, or one risks ending far below the green on the left.

* Taylor Meadows:  I know I played here, but I seemed to have repressed the memory due to the trauma caused by its awfulness.  Between the traffic screaming by on I-94, the jet fuel dumped on your head by 747s on final approach to Detroit Metro, and the 90 degree shooting gallery holes, I would not play this course again if Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, and Tiger Woods were looking for a fourth.

(By the way, this is my first GCA post.  I've been a long-time reader and admirer of the site.  I don't have quite as much experience as most of you, but I look forward to contributing somthing to Ran's great site.)

Glenn Spencer

Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #54 on: July 06, 2006, 11:42:39 AM »
Jeff,

Welcome and that was an awesome post!! Your Shepard's Hollow comments say it all. I am sure that SH and Bay Harbor have wonderful properties, just like Longaberger. My question is why do people rush to defend someone that puts a good golf course on an awesome site,  what working architect couldn't? His bad sites are awful, his good sites are below-average and his great sites are reasonable with bad holes and his all-world Bandon, Cypress-type sites end up being fun, good golf courses with still a few questionables. Why and how is praise lauded upon him by anyone and how does he continue to get these sites. I don't even know your work and I am dying to know what you could have done at Longaberger.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2006, 11:44:18 AM by Glenn Spencer »

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #55 on: July 06, 2006, 02:34:59 PM »
Glenn, I thought I mentioned this earlier in the thread.  One of the guys responsible in the field for Hills' work in the Southeast was Mike Dasher and he did not work (to my knowledge) on Hills courses in the Midwest.

I like Arthur Hills courses, but I have not played any of the ones you have and you haven't played any of the ones I have.

JLahrman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #56 on: July 06, 2006, 03:36:20 PM »

JAL,

Nice call, that trifecta is certainly not to be forgotten, with 6 just edging out 9 by a nose. C'mon now though, are you saying you like 5,8,10 and 16 or that they are not horrible. I think you could find those holes on just about any golf course. 5 is not exactly demanding of anything off the tee. 8 is a ho-hum par 3. 10? Same as 5. 16? I don't know, I find that hole iffy at best, the green area is fine though.

Glenn,

5 isn't necessarily demanding but it does require two good shots, and I like the green.  Same as 10.  8 you might have convinced me about, maybe it's just the fact that it's relatively better than 6,7, and 9.

To me, 16 is the best hole on the course.  The tee shot is wide open, but when it's dry you find that you can't get anywhere near the pin from the right hand side.  So even though the driving area is open, you have to approach the trees and creek on the left to make the pin accessible.  There is plenty of room but the hole has a safe route and an aggressive route.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2006, 03:39:32 PM by JAL »

Glenn Spencer

Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #57 on: July 06, 2006, 04:09:28 PM »
JAL,

Yes, you are correct the greens on 5 and 10 are pretty good. I might not be remembering very well, I have only played it 20 times-LOL. Is 16 the gate hole? with the creek on either side of the fairway. By that point in the round at Pipestone, I can't recognize quality unless it has Heineken on it or tan legs. It probably is really good, is just don't have the mind at that time.

noonan

Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #58 on: July 06, 2006, 04:22:53 PM »
I think 10 is a great hole. The green is much more acessable from the left and you must flirt with the OB to have the desirable 2nd shot. The green is long and distance control is paramount.

However, 10 is the true Hills signature hole.....a cart path bisecting the fairway in play off the tee if you hit the ball long.

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #59 on: July 06, 2006, 04:39:07 PM »
I am playing an Arthur Hills course this Sunday. Walking Stick, in Pueblo, Colorado.

I've played it before. Any opinions on it? I can post some pics next week if anyone would care to see them.
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Mitch Hantman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #60 on: July 06, 2006, 04:59:22 PM »
What is everyone's opinion of Eagle Trace in Florida, where the Honda Classic used to play for 9 years.  Greg Norman ripped it big time about 15 years ago, mostly because the last two years it was held there, the wind blew 40mph!  Who's played it?

Matt_Ward

Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #61 on: July 06, 2006, 05:02:02 PM »
Kirk:

You are catching the layout at a good time given the fact that a USGA Championship was just played there.

I played it a few years back and the course was struggling then because of turf / water issues. The layout is a good one but there's plenty others in the public sector that have caught and passed the layout by.

Kirk, since you are in the area you should drive to Falcon -- just outside of Colorado Springs and play Rick Phelps layout called Antler Creek. A good ways beyond Walking Stick IMHO.

Doug Ralston

Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #62 on: July 06, 2006, 05:02:54 PM »
Only good courses if he has great property? ROFL!!!!!

Glenn, please, go to Eagle Ridge. It is the most outre property ANYONE has ever been asked to build a Championship Course on.................and he DID IT!

I state categorically, there is no other course like it. You will either love it [as I do] or despise it. It is all about verticality, chasms, deep woods, and brilliant [IMHO] placement of essentials. There was almost no dirt moved; the landscape is quite intact. It is a blast to play, but it is also very unlike any course you likely ever tried before. Approach it with an open mind [and perhaps you cannot?] and see what you think.

Doug

Doug Ralston

Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #63 on: July 06, 2006, 05:05:04 PM »
BTW, ER was not rated #3 Best New Affordable by Golf Digest for naught. If anyone else here has seen this, let us know. If not, do your self a favor. If you hate the design you will still be enchanted by #13..........everyone is.

Doug

Glenn Spencer

Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #64 on: July 07, 2006, 01:10:22 AM »
I will take it under advisement, but the tea leaves read that it does not look good. Love it or hate it. I would put a lot of cash that I would hate it. It already sounds like. I am not even going to Olde Stone. ;D

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #65 on: July 10, 2006, 11:09:46 AM »
I played Hills' Walking Stick course in Pueblo this weekend, and enjoyed it. It was most certainly NOT built on prime land for golf. While the hillside it is on certainly has some rolling qualities, it can be considered a desert course built on baked clay. The only real outstanding feature of the land itself is a large arroyo that bisects the course and is a pleasure to look at, like a miniature canyon with jutting columns of earth. Hills used it to great effect on the par-five 4th, where the canyon looms along the entire left side of the hole, and on the par-three twelfth where it lies in wait on three sided of the green.

On the "con" side, I found that the holes were not often too interesting off the tee. Most tee boxes aligned directly with the fairway, and there weren't a lot of angles to deal with. There was only one par four where I had do decide whether or not to hit driver (that said, I'm not a long hitter, and was playing from the whites). I didn't find the fairways to be especially wide, though, and the rough was truly nasty after almost a solid week of rain. If you managed to hit it past the rough, you're in for serious trouble. Finding the ball would be difficult, much less hitting it, and if you're anywhere near the "walking stick" cactus which gives the course its name, just give up. The recent rains must also have prevented the staff from mowing the fairways, as they were pretty scruffy. Also, bunker drainage was being sorely tested by the rains, as there were bunkers that had up to 10 inches of standing water in them. On one hand, it's hard to fault them TOO much, as it's been monsoon season in the desert for the past week, and the course was soaked, but still, the course could at least have provided small boats or something so that folks could retrieve their balls. I did not hit into any of these temporary water hazards, but the one bunker I did hit into was hard, like  hitting off of hard-pan. Also, the course is not necessarily built for walking. There are some LONG hikes between holes, although that did not deter the 59-year-old gentleman who joined my uncle and I as a single. I rode in deference to my 72-year-old uncle (no, really).

On the "pro" side, I really enjoyed the "bounce of the ball" on the course. There's a lot of movement in the fairways (particularly on the aforementioned par-five 4th), and the hills and dales often had strategic effect. For instance, the 13th is a long par 4 (464 from the whites). I knew my second had no shot of reaching the green (a situation I think many lesser lights like myself might find themselves in on this hole), but the placement and angles of ridges near the hole kept me from just winging away at my longest club - and I liked it. I thought about whether or not I could fly the ridges, and went for it, unsuccessfully. I had to think, I had to make a decision, and I had to execute. The fact that I thought incorrectly, made the wrong decision, and failed to execute the shot didn't mitigate the enjoyment of the moment !

I really liked the greens. Not only did they roll true, not only were they a challenge to read, but from the fairway they gave me options on how to play my shot. A sucker pin tucked behind a brutal bunker on the 15th could be reached by a heroic target shot, or by a draw off the bank to the right. I was told that the greens are grassed with a mix of bluegrass and rye, and they were not overly soft (which makes me wonder how they play when the course HASN'T been soaked with rain.

Anyway, I'm not gushing, but for a municipal course in the city of Pueblo, Colorado that costs $40 on a weekend to play, I think it's a good deal, and a fun course. Maybe this is the niche where Arthur Hills can apparently make a positive mark. I'd play the place again.

As Frankenstein might say, "Art Hills.....good."
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #66 on: July 10, 2006, 03:52:22 PM »
Every time I leave the site Art Hills comes up to drag me back.  Here is a thread from 4 years ago on Art.  It is pretty funny in retrospect:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=2971;start=0

I actually gave Hills to much credit as Bay Harbor fell even further than I predicted it would and is not in the top 100 anymore.

Here is another Hill's thread from 2 months ago:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=23684

As the resident leader in Hills courses played (33 to date) I believe I can state with confidence that given a spectacular piece of land, Hills can build a good golf course (HMB Ocean, Bay Harbor, Shepards Hollow) that will be a huge missed opportunity.  Given a good piece of land, Hills can build an average golf course (TPC Eagle Trace, Chaska Towne, Winding Hollow, Persimmon Ridge) that almost anyone could have made better.  Given a mediocre piece of land or a piece of land that would require ingenuity or creativity, Hills will build an abortion (Southern Trace, Oak Pointe, Legacy, Stonebridge, Pheasant Run).  Finally given a restoration with very specific restrictions (Inverness) Hills can do good work, without those restrictions, Hills will impose his own work upon the masters and destroy any greatness left (UofM - Mackenzie, Orchard Lake - Alison).

Just my opinion
« Last Edit: July 10, 2006, 04:15:12 PM by David Wigler »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

Tiger_Bernhardt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #67 on: July 10, 2006, 04:06:50 PM »
David, You are being way to tough. Please just mellow the comments up one bracket and I would buy in. Art improved Inverness and George Fazio is who put his ego and stamp on the good work of others. Art is a good solid architect, who is well respected at the top of his profession. Although I must confess that to admit liking Art Hills on here is close to what is must be like telling your Dad you are a bun man.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2006, 04:08:22 PM by Tiger_Bernhardt »

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #68 on: July 10, 2006, 04:16:07 PM »
Tiger,

I'd argue that David's opinion is perfectly suited to his preferences, as your opinion would reflect your preferences. Same architect, different level of appreciation of his work. And that should be nothing to be ashamed of, even in the eyes of the treehouse. ;D

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #69 on: July 10, 2006, 04:20:55 PM »
David, You are being way to tough. Please just mellow the comments up one bracket and I would buy in. Art improved Inverness and George Fazio is who put his ego and stamp on the good work of others. Art is a good solid architect, who is well respected at the top of his profession. Although I must confess that to admit liking Art Hills on here is close to what is must be like telling your Dad you are a bun man.

John - I know he is a friend of yours so I apologize on a personal note but from a business standpoint, I am not being too tough at all.  I gave Hills credit for Inverness and agree with your assessment.  He destroyed UofM and his work at Orchard Lake was so atrocious that he apologized but refused to refund the fee and they had to do it all over again three years later (So I have been told).

As for the 33 I have played, 20+ fall into the putrid category.  That written, Bay Harbor will be his Opus for me.  The site blows away Whistling Straits, Arcadia Bluffs, Bandon Dunes, etc., and Hills manged to suck the life out of it to the tune of a second 100 golf course.  I would guess that Doug Sobieski, Shooter and I lead the league in Hills courses played with over 100 between us.  As well, we have an incredibly diverse liking to golf and and what makes courses bad, good or great.  The fact that Hills is bad is really the only opinion the three of us universally share.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2006, 04:30:21 PM by David Wigler »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

Doug Sobieski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #70 on: July 10, 2006, 04:28:07 PM »

As the resident leader in Hills courses played (33 to date) I believe I can state with confidence that given a spectacular piece of land, Hills can build a good golf course (HMB Ocean, Bay Harbor, Shepards Hollow) that will be a huge missed opportunity.  Given a good piece of land, Hills can build an average golf course (TPC Eagle Trace, Chaska Towne, Winding Hollow, Persimmon Ridge) that almost anyone could have made better.  Given a mediocre piece of land or a piece of land that would require ingenuity or creativity, Hills will build an abortion (Southern Trace, Oak Pointe, Legacy, Stonebridge, Pheasant Run).  Finally given a restoration with very specific restrictions (Inverness) Hills can do good work, without those restrictions, Hills will impose his own work upon the masters and destroy any greatness left (UofM - Mackenzie, Orchard Lake - Alison).

Just my opinion

David:

Well said. I wish I had more time to jump into this today. Maybe we should get Shooter, Glenn Spencer, Jesse Jones, and a couple others to start a Society so we could have regular meetings at Oak Pointe :)

Regards,

Doug

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #71 on: July 10, 2006, 04:46:40 PM »
Yes, I've admitted that I like an Art Hills course.

But my dad died before any kind of bun-related relevations.

Not that I'd need to have made any !

No, really !

 :-\
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Glenn Spencer

Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #72 on: July 10, 2006, 05:10:51 PM »

As the resident leader in Hills courses played (33 to date) I believe I can state with confidence that given a spectacular piece of land, Hills can build a good golf course (HMB Ocean, Bay Harbor, Shepards Hollow) that will be a huge missed opportunity.  Given a good piece of land, Hills can build an average golf course (TPC Eagle Trace, Chaska Towne, Winding Hollow, Persimmon Ridge) that almost anyone could have made better.  Given a mediocre piece of land or a piece of land that would require ingenuity or creativity, Hills will build an abortion (Southern Trace, Oak Pointe, Legacy, Stonebridge, Pheasant Run).  Finally given a restoration with very specific restrictions (Inverness) Hills can do good work, without those restrictions, Hills will impose his own work upon the masters and destroy any greatness left (UofM - Mackenzie, Orchard Lake - Alison).

Just my opinion

David:

Well said. I wish I had more time to jump into this today. Maybe we should get Shooter, Glenn Spencer, Jesse Jones, and a couple others to start a Society so we could have regular meetings at Oak Pointe :)

Regards,

Doug

It is funny that you bring up Oak Pointe. Without a word of a lie, my friend's parents moved to Brighton a couple of years ago, his dad belongs to the little course, because he did not like the big one. Did Hills do both? I went over to meet my buddy before I knew who did the place and I was left wondering how a few of those holes were supposed to be played. I really wish you would add a few comments on Pipestone since you have seen it firsthand. Is Oak Pointe were the Hills society should have its first meeting? Is it there or Pipestone. I think the Pipestone, Fox Run, Shaker Run and Legendary Run quartet is simply unforgettable.

David,

Can you lay out some of the work that Hills did at Inverness? I have wanted this information since I had dinner at the club and found out that Hills had been there. I felt like I could tell some of it on the golf course, but I am no expert, so I would like to know for sure.

David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #73 on: July 10, 2006, 05:39:12 PM »
Glenn,

The "Little one" was a public course next door that Oak Pointe bought on the assumption that 36 holes would make them more viable and since the "Honors Course" was going to be the best in the state, they would need overflow.  The Honors course may be the only course I know of that no one I have ever spoken with says they like.

As for Hills work at Inverness, to be fair, I would be very surprised if you could pick it out.  He supervised a very good tree removal program and moved several of the bunkers back into the line of play from positions where technology had made them obsolete.  The bunkers are the exact shapes and sizes as the old ones and Hills did not impose his will on them.  My only complaint (And again, to be fair, I was told that this was required by the PGA for the Senior Open) was that his new tee box on #9 destroyed the hole.  #9 is one of the finest little Ross greens on the planet with huge, terrifying bunkers.  By moving the tee box back 60 yards, it now requires a mid iron, which cannot hold the green.  I will not play it.
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

Tiger_Bernhardt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arthur Hills - Good or Bad??
« Reply #74 on: July 10, 2006, 05:57:13 PM »
Ok guys I will come clean. Yes I do like Art personally and respect him as an professional architect. However, I am not wild about his courses either. I do love to see the kind of from the heart disgust for him as we move closer to football season. My passionate dislike for all things Auburn, arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee and especially Ole Miss gives me high respect for anyone with a blackspot in their heart big enough to stay on task the way Wigs, Glenn and others have done on Art Hills the last few months. By the by arkansas does not deserve a capital letter.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back