Brian,
and no Wake Forest Golf Club???.....ouch Scott
I'm not offended, I know my club us not where the traveler will want to play, unless they've played in the area before and have some sick interest to meet me.
Cabell,
And I don't mention WFGC simply because it's Scott's track and it would be better if Scott suggests someone play there.
I've only played WFGC once, and while it had about 6-7 holes that I REALLY enjoyed (forget which numbers...Scott doesn't start on #1 or #10), a number of the holes just don't fit. So if you're not getting the heads-up from Scott that those holes are coming, you might get into the wrong frame of mind for stretches of the course.
Can't disagree with Brian, really. The completely new holes, 3 and 4, don't mesh with the rest of the course. They are pure housing track holes with long distances between them (and #2) on a course with otherwise short walks. #5 was also changed a bit, but that change isn't that bad, despite the dogleg right messing with me, one with a draw. #6 and #7 aren't too interesting, other than the fact that #7 is a driveable par 4.
The rest of the course is better. "Standouts" (IMBiasedO) include: #1 from anywhere but back tees, although the relocation of the creek worsened it, #2 from back tees discounting the OB lining both sides, #9, #11 approach, #13 (except flatness of green), #14, #15 (rare time that tightness of hole due to trees adds dimension to it), #16. The par 5's are the highlight.
And Brian, I start on #1 or #10 about 98% of the time.
#16 the rest. I know we finished on #18 when we played. The order of the holes played varies greatly, though. Luckily, one can just from hole to hole in many different combinations, and I've done them all, just about.