[Tim_Cronin]

Tim,

I don't get the lack of blue water combs and wish the other guy had not mentioned it...I guess it must be a public course thing.  I didn't care if you payed or not I was wondering if you had played.  I'm sure you earned your keep with the glowing review.

One thing I might disagree with is that lately I have seen many courses open up in prime condition...

John,
You must be in a balmy part of the country if new courses open up el perfecto. Not so in the Chicago area, where rough is almost always slow to grow in, even on the rare new private layout. Even Hawthorn Woods had a couple of bare and/or newly-sodded spots when Arnold Palmer played the back nine to dedicate the course last year.
I don't get the concept of blue water combs. I've been to enough private country clubs to see them and wonder, "So these rich guys can't afford their own combs?" I wouldn't think of using someone else's or a community comb, no matter who guaranteed its sanitary perfection. I was brought up different. Besides, it looks weird.
Good to know, though, that the locker room was finished. Last year, it was under construction, as was the grill room and some of the facing on the clubhouse.
On the first hole: I didn't have nearly enough room in the newspaper to explain some of the intricacies of the layout, nor go into detail on the first. It's this: From the tee (green in my case), you have no idea where the hole goes, even with yardage book and diagram in hand. It's not a blind shot, but a baffling one, with the bluff obscuring the fairway atop it, plus the marsh to the left, and the tree (on a links-style course!) at the apex of the corner.
It's an easy third (for me) shot to the green, which slopes away and looks as if it's been there for a thousand years, but Agatha Christie wouldn't be able to figure out where to place the tee shot standing on the tee. I told Bob Lang and he seemed to understand.

[Phil McDade]

More dumb questions:

If this is a par 72, would there be merit in knocking this hole down to a par 4 (making the course a par 71), thus eliminating what seems to be the sore spot -- an awkward tee shot -- and maintaining what seems to be its best features -- a funky, blind approach shot to a pretty cool green site? Would there be a risk-reward element where playing a safe tee shot leaves a long blind second, or a risky, aggressive tee shot is rewarded with a straightforward approach shot? I'm thinking of a tee somewhere between or just to the right of the two trees there in the lower portion of the hole diagram.

[Brad Klein]

JK,

as usual, you exaggerate and conjure things up just to make a spectacle of yourself. There's no bad blood between me and Whitten. I have tremendous respect for him because he does his homework and is knowledeable, and if we disagree on some things that's fine because I can have an intelligent conversation with him and disagree and still learn from him. I sometimes question his taste, but not his base of experience, and not his commitment to the profession.

[Geoffrey Childs]

More dumb questions:

If this is a par 72, would there be merit in knocking this hole down to a par 4 (making the course a par 71), thus eliminating what seems to be the sore spot -- an awkward tee shot -- and maintaining what seems to be its best features -- a funky, blind approach shot to a pretty cool green site? Would there be a risk-reward element where playing a safe tee shot leaves a long blind second, or a risky, aggressive tee shot is rewarded with a straightforward approach shot? I'm thinking of a tee somewhere between or just to the right of the two trees there in the lower portion of the hole diagram.

Phil

I think I like your idea. With a tee in the right spot for every handicap player it might just be a great risk reward tee shot over the ridge and you still have an option to stay short left or thread it through the opening.

[Garland Bayley]

JK,

as usual, you exaggerate and conjure things up just to make a spectacle of yourself. ...

Spectacle! Nice euphemism Brad!  

[Mike McGuire]

 Do you think he really set out to build an Open-worthy course as his primary goal?  

I do.

[C. Squier]

More dumb questions:

If this is a par 72, would there be merit in knocking this hole down to a par 4 (making the course a par 71), thus eliminating what seems to be the sore spot -- an awkward tee shot -- and maintaining what seems to be its best features -- a funky, blind approach shot to a pretty cool green site? Would there be a risk-reward element where playing a safe tee shot leaves a long blind second, or a risky, aggressive tee shot is rewarded with a straightforward approach shot? I'm thinking of a tee somewhere between or just to the right of the two trees there in the lower portion of the hole diagram.

That was my thought too when I played it.  The tee shot was a little schizophrenic, but the green site was the definite strength of the hole.  Perhaps taking out the gunch between the 2 fairways and replacing it w/ a waste bunker (not making it completely unplayable), giving a little risk/reward to the opening tee shot.  Give the option to dump it short and possibly have the oak tree and 200 yards for your second, or take it over to the 2nd fairway and have a better angle in and no tree.  

But after all that, you can still play it that way as a par 5.  The hole is probably a lot more playable once a player gets the idea of cutting off as much as they can off their tee shot to the left.  Its not a terribly difficult (blind however) to knock your 2nd shot over to the other side.  

CPS

[John Kavanaugh]

How many times would you have to play number one to understand the tee shot?  I don't even see this being an issue if it was a private course.  Fighting quirk and or blindness like this because it makes you uncomfortable on your one play is bad for the hope of anymore interesting architecture being built for the public golfer.  It feels to me that we are pushing away what needs to be imbraced.  

I have only played that crazy first hole at Tobacco Road once and can't wait to get back and give it another shot.  Can this hole be any worse/better.

[Tim_Cronin]

More dumb questions:

If this is a par 72, would there be merit in knocking this hole down to a par 4 (making the course a par 71), thus eliminating what seems to be the sore spot -- an awkward tee shot -- and maintaining what seems to be its best features -- a funky, blind approach shot to a pretty cool green site? Would there be a risk-reward element where playing a safe tee shot leaves a long blind second, or a risky, aggressive tee shot is rewarded with a straightforward approach shot? I'm thinking of a tee somewhere between or just to the right of the two trees there in the lower portion of the hole diagram.

That was my thought too when I played it.  The tee shot was a little schizophrenic, but the green site was the definite strength of the hole.  Perhaps taking out the gunch between the 2 fairways and replacing it w/ a waste bunker (not making it completely unplayable), giving a little risk/reward to the opening tee shot.  Give the option to dump it short and possibly have the oak tree and 200 yards for your second, or take it over to the 2nd fairway and have a better angle in and no tree.  

But after all that, you can still play it that way as a par 5.  The hole is probably a lot more playable once a player gets the idea of cutting off as much as they can off their tee shot to the left.  Its not a terribly difficult (blind however) to knock your 2nd shot over to the other side.  

CPS

The more to the right you go, the farther from the clubhouse the round begins. As it is, the first tee complex is about 50 yards, maybe more, from the clubhouse. Eliminate the angle and you lengthen the distance a player has to walk (encouraged, happily) before the round begins.
The "gunch" between the two fairways is about 20 feet high for much of the length, with the upper fairway distant from the tee and the connection of the two at a severe angle. I fancy a ball wouldn't stay there, instead heading toward the tree.
Of course, it's only a baffling tee shot once, but still, a bit of an odd way to start a round. The last 18 holes are sublime.

[Matt_Cohn]

How much time was spent routing Erin Hills vs. the time spent at Sand Hills?

The article mentions that the routing was done in "a few days."

[Paul Richards]

Since I brought this topic up again, I thought I'd share the musings from an earlier post for those just reading this for the first time.

It was a post entitled "Re:So what's the deal with Erin Hills?"

------------------

Having just played Erin, and having spoken with at least a dozen who have played – from Gold Digest and Golfweek Raters, to club professionals to high-handicappers, the following is an analysis of Erin Hills.



First off, Erin Hills is a BIG golf course with lots of land (600 acres or so) and lots of room to manuever.  The new clubhouse is due to be completed soon and it will have about 8 rooms for rental.  Some 32 other rooms are to be built nearby, so this will be a destination resort, albeit with just one golf course.



For the record, I have been as low as a 6 handicap in the past ten years, but am currently a 13.  I played from the blue tees with my ‘regular’ ball (7112 yards) and generally played a second ball with hickory shafts from the green tees( 6544 yards) with my playing partners. On average, I hit at least 1.5 drives per hole.  I lost 12 balls – 9 of my Pro V1’s and 3 that I found along the way. My very generous USGA handicap score was a 95 – probably a bit too low, but based on my ‘better’ of a modern club and a hickory, this is what I turned in.



To note – if you hit it in the fescue, you can kiss your ball goodbye.  There is almost no chance of finding a ball hit off of the fairway/ first cut.  The biggest issue facing Erin Hills is that they have to widen the corridors – the length and green sites will make it hard for the better player, the weaker player who cannot hit it straight will get killed.  Simply put, the playing corridors are much too narrow for a public course, hence the suggestion above by Ralph that:



>> The thick mix of natural with fescue for the deep rough is going to allow them to perfect the six hour round.



Unfortunately, this may, indeed, be the truth.



So the first thing that needs to occur here is that the fescue be cut further back - real far back in some places.  If they ever land a tournament, it’s easier to make the corridors smaller for that event.



A great example of the tightness occurs at the par 4 fourth – we measured the fairway at 24 yards in the driving area, with 10 yards of rough on either side until you reach fescue.  This is a 417-yarder, from an elevated tee, to a fairway that is about US Open width down below.  Also, with any kind of wind, this hole demands an absolutely perfectly struck shot.  Most players don’t find this type of golf stimulating.  For instance, today I played my home course, Beverly, with about the same type of skill and only lost one ball to O.B. and none throughout the rest of play.  Usually it is hard for me NOT to finish with the ball I started with. That, to me, is fun.



----------





My biggest fear is that because the course was opened before it should have been – i.e. there are lots of ‘rough’ spots  - that Erin is already gaining a bad reputation and people won’t come back for a second visit.  This is a destination course, so a bad ‘first-impression’ is gonna really hurt.



The better way to handle this would have been to open play only to ‘invitation’ – sorta like they do at the Sheep Ranch in Bandon.  That way they could have gotten feedback from a variety of players, and built up a mystique before play to the general public began.  Of course, hindsight is 20/20.



Having spoken to many who have played here, many find this course ‘quirky’ – to those used to Augusta-style greenery and parkland-style courses, this won’t suffice.  But those who have been schooled in the great course of the British Isles and Ireland will realize what a gem this is.  Think of North Berwick, Lahinch and Prestwick – all with a collection of quirky holes – yet, overall, are wonderful, interesting and fun courses to play.  Most Americans who haven’t played overseas won’t ‘get it’ and that’s sad.



There are shots that reminded me of Crystal Downs, of Shinnecock, of Kingsley Club, and of the great links courses of Europe.  Each had a place here.  However, I’m afraid, at this point, that the conditioning and the narrow corridors are what will stick in people’s minds instead of the great holes and fantastic greens.



This will be one of the country’s great courses – mark my words – perhaps rising into the top 25 on Golfweeks Modern list.



A final caveat – perhaps the staff should spend a little time educating the first-time players as to just what they are trying to accomplish at Erin Hills.  Give everyone a yardage book and explain the intention of this golf course.  This will go a long ways toward helping people ‘get it.’

[Paul Richards]

 Here's my take on the course, hole-by-hole:





#1 –(574 FROM THE BLUES)

Standing on the first tee, the tee seems to point you to the right, even though this is a 90-degree dogleg, right to left. These tees need to be oriented better so that the first shot of the day is better defined.  As you can imagine, I hit my first shot right.  It musta missed the first cut by 2 feet, but it was not findable.  I then hit a hickory shot that found fairway, so I played that ball.  The starter said that there was ’30 yards of fairway’ to the right of the fairway trap on the upper fairway.  I hit towards that area with a 5-wood.  Another lost ball.  This area needs to cleaned out and widened considerably since it is so blind.  Based on where I thought I would be, I dropped and hit a rescue club to the right of the first green. Luckily, it found rough, just missing more fescue.  This green will accept run-up shots, although it does slope away from right to left, making it unlikely that anything BUT a run-up shot will suffice.  The green has some interest, mostly in the right to left movement, but wouldn’t be considered ‘large’ for a 655-yard hole.



I merely am pointing out my shots here to emphasize that the corridors need to be widened.  If there is ever a tournament here, of course, the fairways can be narrowed. But for day-in and day-out public play, the width of the course, as it is today, will make this a 6-hour death march.





#2  - (333)

A very interesting short four par.  You need to hit your tee shot over a hill blindly as far left as possible to see the green on your approach.  A ‘safe’ shot right leaves you with a blind second to an amazingly small green.  The green is just under 2000 s.f. and is relatively flat, although it is atop a ‘glacial dome’, so the chances of hitting it over the green, back-and-forth, are a realistic probability.



I found this hole both interesting and charming.  Others are apt to disagree.





#3 – (451)

First of the really spectacular holes.  This is longish, but because the tee-shot is downhill, not brutal hole, despite the advertised length.  It sets up beautifully and appealingly to the eye from the tee.  The approach is uphill, over a bunker, but doesn’t seem as long as the yardage would allow.  Then you get to the green – what a green!  Two levels, with the left side (the trouble side) higher than the right.  So bail out to the right, but face a putt that is gonna move a couple feet to the left side pin placement.



Great hole.



#4 – (372)          

Mentioned above, this is a tight driving hole to a ‘kettle green’.  Because it is a shortish hole, an iron or fairway wood can be used from the elevated tee.  However, because when you are up above the fairway so high, shots tend to disperse to a greater degree, especially if there is any wind, which, apparently, can quite often be the case here.  IF you reach the fairway with your drive, the second shot is pretty easy, as the green tends to be forgiving although it does have some break to it.



#5  - (443)



A pretty strong four par.  Again, you can’t miss the fairway or first cut, or your ball is lost.  The second shot played a bit uphill but the green was very interesting.  This would be a good hole to watch a tournament at as the green is surrounded by a hill that makes a natural ampitheater.



#6  - (188) –

This, to me, was the least memorable of the three par holes, which, overall, I found to be above-average.  The hole plays uphill to a green that is saddle-shaped and falls away from the golfer, so it’s hard to get a perspective from the tee. A bunker short right will catch a weak shot.  Many will claim this to be a ‘blind tee shot’. Sort of a let-down after the first five holes.



#7 – (184)

Modeled after ‘The Dell’ at Lahinch, the interesting part is NOT that you are hitting over a big hill, but that you are hitting over a rock at ground level DOWN to a green hidden below.  The first time you see it, it is actually pretty strange as you are hitting at a spot level to you.  The green is angled  - left is closer to the tee than right.



Overall, an excellent hole and really fun to pass the ‘Whitten Rock’ – a painted white rock – to see where your shot landed.  This hole will be skipped in competitions, apparently, as American golfers don’t appreciate holes like this.





#8 – (472)

With the prevailing wind into your face, and the length of this four par, the fairway should be WAY more generous than it is currently.  There is a bail-out area that should be made way more generous.  Another lost ball and the air pops out of your personal scoring balloon.  This hole was the first one that our group thought just wasn’t memorable in any way – other than the too-narrow landing area.





#9 – (450)  

A semi-blind tee shot, to an area that bends to the left.  The green set on the plateau looks impressive, but when you think of the length of this hole, even though it is usually down-wind, a run-up shot should be allowed or even called for.  But here it’s not possible.  This hole is another negative hole.



Additionally, in the original routing, this would have been #18.  I am SOOO glad they changed the nines as this would not have been a memorable way to finish your round here at Erin.



#9A – bye hole – (157)



During tournaments, this will replace the blind ‘Dell’ hole, so will play as #9.



This is, perhaps, the single most spectacular ‘looking’ hole. It wasn’t open yet, but we looked it over from the tee and all around the green.  The green is set amidst a handful of nasty-looking bunkers and the smallish green angles from close on the left to farther away on the right.  The only thing we questioned was the yardage book showed the green closer to the rear bunkers.  With the green at its present size, we questioned how many pin positions exist on this smallish green.  If it expands to where the picture shows, then it makes a really interesting green.



A really memorable hole.  I only wish it replaced #6 instead of #7 ….

[Paul Richards]

 #10 – (624)

This is a really difficult hole to get a handle on.  On the one hand you have to respect it for its length and the thought of a Biarritz par-five hole. On the other hand, it is too reminiscent of the crummy par 5 on the back nine at Tralee.  It seems to go on forever and each shot is blind and uphill.  There is a view on your tee shot, but it is still uphill and unless you hit your second shot to inside of about 150 (difficult to do at this length!), each of your three (or more!) shots is blind or semi-blind.  By the third blind shot, you’ve had enough for one hole!  Then you get to the green.



The Biarritz is a great theory, but this version needs a bit of work.  The front portion looks as if it will have maybe one pin position as it falls away on all sides a bit.  Others I spoke with doubted even my ‘one-pin’ theory.  The middle, or low section, will probably be the pin position for most days.  That’s ok, and it even holds some interest, but it’s not likely the intention of the architects.



Meanwhile, that back position is unpinnable.  All sides fall away at the back, especially at the very back edge of it, as it falls into an abyss.  The concensus is that a pin on the back portion is a joke, even at the slower green speeds that are in current use. Under tournament conditions – forget about it.



Some earth should be moved to make the front and, especially, the back positions hold some pinnable slots (as Jeff mentioned above).



#11 – (315)

Now things get REALLY interesting at Erin.



This is a really excellent short four par.  It sets up really well from the tee and you see the green set amidst a sea of bunkers a little above you.  The tee shot is down a bit and the green – spectacular!  This green has a bunch of movement to it and really makes for some interest.  The right greenside bunker came under some scrutiny by a member of my group and he approve of it overwhelmingly.  This is a really good hole.



#12 – (432)

While the tee shot is semi-blind (and the opposite of #2), when you find the fairway, your approach shot will be to a saddle-green, cut in between two hills, with a bunker making you think twice before you play off of the right side.  The fairway is like the back-nine five par at Bandon Dunes in that the fairway has lots of natural rolls to it.  The green is a semi-punchbowl and holds a lot of interest.  Strong hole.





#13 – (193)

A pretty good three par that plays pretty level, it has a lot of appeal to the eye.  The bunkers left are nasty and there’s a swale on the left of the green that will funnel shots mis-hit just a bit left.  The green is much longer than wide.



#14 – (588)

A really eclectic and interesting five-par.  People either love it or hate it.  Hit your drive to the right of the fairway pot bunker and have a go at it.  Play safe to the left and it’s a three-shotter.  If you are right, your second must carry over the steep-faced false-front of this really interesting green.  It also must carry a ‘sea of fescue’ to reach the green.  Risk and reward shot definitely. This is also one of the most flowing greens on the course.



#15 – (345)

This is reminiscent of #14 at Bandon Trails or #17 at Crystal Downs or a handful of other holes that Bradley Klein once described as “drive-able par fours that are un-hittable in two shots.”



This hole just looks spectacular from the tee.  It sets up from right to left, with a big old oak sort of blocking your view of the green from the tee.  Since it’s in the middle of fescue, the oak shouldn’t be in play, but it is visually stimulating.  The hole plays a bit down and then up to an ‘extremely undulating green’.  This is one of the most fun greens as there’s a big spine in the middle, so you have to hit your approach to the correct side of the spine.  This hole is a blast!



#16 – (172)



This green is in a natural kettle, so it plays much like a punch bowl.  What fun!  But everything doesn’t necessarily funnel to the middle as the green pitches pretty much from back to front.  Also, there is a hidden pot hole in front of the green that screws with your depth perception.  A very good three par.



#17 – (445)

This tee shot is very demanding, but is still one of the least memorable tee shots. It’s pretty blind and everything moves from right to left, so you want to hit your tee shot as close as possible to the right edge of the fairway.  The second shot is interesting as a drumlin (?) or spine must be played over.  If you are way right, your shot is open, but anywhere left of that you have a blind approach over this hill.  It is a very interesting use of the land and I applaud it.  Once on the green, this is one of the flatter versions and you can actually roll the ball onto this green.



#18 – (614)

In a way, this finisher reminded me of Royal County Down’s, before the recent addition of 25 bunkers.  Perhaps I’m just remembering the spire in the background of the ninth there, but with Holy Hill in the background of this version, something struck a chord with one of my favorite courses on earth, and that’s a real positive.



This is a long, taut closing hole with the tee shot not being especially memorable, but it gets more interesting on the second as a big bunker left awaits, the fairway cants from right to left and there’s a pot-bunker right where I wanted to hit my 5-wood.  I suppose that this green is reachable in two by some players since it plays downwind of the prevailing wind.  The third shot plays uphill to a green defended in front by some pretty deep bunkers.  The green is also very undulating as it sits sentinel, sort of like the 18th at Medinah, but this one cants from right to left more.  Back left is dead and short is also.  A really good closing hole that will leave you wanting to get to the bar as soon as you can.

[Paul Richards]

>A really good closing hole that will leave you wanting to get to the bar as soon as you can.



A caveat - this is a really good closing hole and my suggestion is have a pop or two, and head right back out to the course for another go-around!

[Brendan Dolan]

Paul,
I am suprised you did not like the 9th hole.  I think it is one of the better par fours on the course.  One of the reasons for the bunkers in front of the green is to give the golfer a different look.  The 9th and 11th are really the only two holes on the course that require an aireal approach.  Now yes a long iron will most likely be in ones hand for the approach shot, but the back of the green acts as a huge backstop.  A number of my approachs have worked back off the hill and got closer to the hole.  Also I feel like the front bunkers act to save balls from rolling some 75 yards back down the hill, which could certianly happen if they were not there.  Just my 2 cents.

Brendan

[Will E]

My favorite course in the world has more than it's share of blind shots. When I heard that Erin Hills was a joke; that it was Hurdzan and Fry trying to be Crenshaw and Coore, that dirt needed to be moved that wasn't, I didn't believe it. I really thought I would love this place. Well I didn't.
I played Erin Hills yesterday.
I thought that when I went in for a pee after the bye hole that I would have to shoot over a wall to find the pot.
I've never encountered a course that appeared to be set up for so many blind shots. I really question a lot of this design.
A quick count-
second shot on #1
drive and second on #2 (my fault for hitting it at the bunker)
#4 second shot to green(not totally blind)
#5 second shot totally
#7 tee shot on a par three totally blind
#8 second shot uphill
#10 tee shot, and third shot to par 5
#11 tee shot
#12 second shot totally blind
#14 third shot to par 5
#16 could see top of the flag on par 3
#17 couldn't see the flag on the left only the right side of the green after a good tee shot down the right side
#18 almost hit tee shot into pot bunker hidden off the tee
I played the black tees and played well.
I'll guess that most tour players will not go for this course.
My favorite holes were 3,4,8,9, the bye hole, 15 and 18. These holes are worth the price of admission.
It's worth seeing (no pun intended).

[Will E]

Okay-
I'll use #8 at Pebble as the benchmark.
#2 is a blind wedge unless you hit a perfect drive, I'm fine with that.
#5 is totally blind unless you can drive it 375 yards
#7 is totally blind unless you're 20ft tall
#10 was blind for me off of the tee, and after a good drive and a solid 4 iron off a severe downhill lie leaving me 158 yards, my approach shot to the green was completely blind.
#12 is a blind unless you can drive it into the wind 300 yards
#14 is a blind shot into the green unless you can hit two well positioned shots, uphill, into the wind 520 yards
#16 is blind if the pin is back left
#17 I hit what I thought was a perfect driver down the right side of the fairway (downwind) I had 169 in and couldn't see the flag.

After one round here I'm going out on a limb and will say that I think this was a poorly designed (routed) course. Maybe I'll change my mind after a couple of loops.
There are; as I stated before, some very neat features here and I wouldn't discourage anyone from visiting the course. I'm planning on going back.

[Paul Richards]

Shooter and Shivas


How would you each compare your experience at Erin with mine (listed above)

[Will E]

Paul,
I did not find it too narrow at all, for the most part I enjoyed the tee shots. The shots into the greens are where I have questions.
As I mentioned above I don't think it's a good design. I'm really surprized that the USGA is so in love with the course, perhaps it's because they've let the ball get so out of control and from the back tees Erin Hills is around 8300 yards.
There are some very good holes on this property, and some I just don't get. Keep in mind I've only had one trip around the course.
As well thought out as Calusa Pines is I have a hard time figuring out what the plan was here. Calusa and Erin Hills are as different as two courses could possibly be (so are the sites).
I'm told Rod Whitman was involved in the construction, from what I've seen I don't think he was involved enough.
What comments are you hearing regarding the course?

[Paul Richards]

Shivas and Shooter

Thanks for your input.


To answer your question, Shooter, the comments I have heard from others straddle some of the thoughts posted above:

- too narrow
- opened WAYYYYYY too soon
- too many 'blind' shots
- some excellent holes, and, yet, some awful holes as well
- for a course that wants to be a 'links-style' course, there aren't many opportunities to run the ball up - i.e. too many 'perched' greensites
- perhaps moving some dirt would have been a good idea


For the record, I have a buddy who played in a very recent USGA Mid-Am who decided to play the 'tips' when he teed off there last fall.

No one has seen him since - he must still be out there!


LOL


As I said before, I loved the concept of Erin Hills - I just hope they can correct the few deficiencies before too many people get a 'bad' first impression and decide not to return ....


 

[Jason Blasberg]

Jeff
#1 is an awkward tee shot to start the round with a 220 yard carry over gunch.  There is adequate width and I don't know the prevailing winds but it was in our face when Noel and I played.  We both ended up OK but then you face a second shot again right at the start of the round that is as Shivas said somewhat like the second at Bethpage Black #4.  You hit uphill over a severe ridge on a diagonal where you can also run out of fairway choosing the wrong line. It was in my opinion a bit over the top FOR AN OPENING HOLE.  Its actually a pretty cool pitch third into the green and a nice greensite. Perhaps it might have worked better if it were later in the round but it has the potential to really get you off to a bad and slow start to a round.

I think the hole is more than fair and the second shot requires immediate faith in either the yardage book or your caddie or both.  

I actually blocked the tee shot right into the primary rough, chunked out a rescue for the second and hooked a 5 wood around the tree to just short and right of the green.  Much like the 14th at Cuscowilla the second shot over the ridge is uncomfortable and hard to commit to a club and line.  I figure something was done right when I'm thinking too much so I have to say I like the tree and blind ridge second shot. I don't mind it being a tough opener . . . gets the blood pumping early.

I absolutely loved the course and will post a bunch of photos with some detailed analysis later this week.  

One criticism was the conditions were still rough in spots but for a young course that's totally understood.  It's also not nearly as firm as it needs to be but we had a ton of rain there the last few days.  I do think drainage will be an issue in some areas, especially in and around the first tee.  It seemed like a mud field so I think they've got some work to do there.

I can't wait til they open the lodge rooms and for the course to grow in and firm up, next Fall or so seems like an ideal time to go back.  

I look forward to seeing how the course matures and how its viewed over time.  For me it's a no brainer . . . it will become considered on a short list of the top modern designs . .

it smacked of Prairie Dunes on steroids.  it's a huge course with heavy duty undulations.  I found it a lot more playable than PD because of its width.  

I'd go back in a minute!

[Will E]

 For me it's a no brainer . . . it will become considered on a short list of the top modern designs .  

Jason,

I'm really surprized you liked the course so much.

I'm wondering if many here just like the "look" of the course so much that they are failing to miss many (IMHO) terrible design mistakes.

With Dana's involvment I really expected a well thought out, playable test. On some holes I found that.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Shooter,

Whitman wasn't involved with the DESIGN of the course. He simply shaped greens (and some other features) with direction from Whitten, Hurdzan and Fry.

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff, Did they stay with those shapes?

[RSLivingston_III]

My opinion on the course is I wish I had waited until 2008 to play it. I do hope Brad's comments will get some of the needed fixes done.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()