Pete,
Thanks for posting the pix and aerial and the mostly favorable comments! I agree that the stretch from 6-14 is the heart of the course.
Good to hear a few of you made it over from Sutton Bay. I wondered if some would, but its not exactly that easy an add on trip. I'm glad you think the short 4's are strong - as so many think designing them is a lost art. In fact, 6 and 9 were the last two holes in the routing, as I was nervous about 6 as a ridge runner fw, and the narrow valley approach on 9. A trip to Sand Hills took away the first worry (after playing the second) and a trip to Ireland convinced me to do 9, as many holes have narrow openings. Even 13 was a field change - our topos showed nothing like that topo on the ground. Only 10 was built to plan - the old pond was a clean out dump for rail cars. (You see the old tracks cross near 1 fw, 9 green and 10 tee - also the cart path on 17 was rr track when we got there as was the grass bunker behind 18 green)
As to some of the questions you left for me to answer, here goes.....
I have been on the left of No. 1 fw and never been blinded to the degree your photo shows! It is a simple five yard walk to the right to see the target. That ridge was there, after sand mining ops near the first green. Tee shot strategy is to lay up there for a mid iron, or try to catch the speed slot on the right for another 50 yards.
To you and others, and I quote CB MacDonald here, "I am not yet confident that the course is perfect and beyond criticism".
On the other hand, to answer RJ, I am tremendously confident that I did get everything possible out of the site with the routing I prepared. Just look at the spacing of the aerial, and you can see things are well spaced, but using all of the property. Believe me, I did several routings! Also, RJ, the site was a sand and gravel quarry (both existing in the same deposits, and they were sifted out as part of the same process in mining) The lake to the right of 18 is an old iron ore pit, supposedly with water now 700 feet deep.
Most holes didn't need any screening, as there were mature pines, although there was an opening on 1 where I felt I needed to hide the road and another left of 15 green, which might see balls from 14 tee, although unlikely.
Most of the mounding and earth forms provides fill support for bunkers or kick in banks for greens, which is a theme, and makes the course very fun to play (IHMO) Approach shots on holes 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 18 can all be played with a "misdirection shot" which to me, is the modern equivalent of the ground game you guys all wish for! Once, I nearly made a hole in one on 17 as the ball went by the hole, and then darn near made it again, as the ball came back off the back slope of the green!
So, there is some containment function, but not as much as providing for alternate shots and providing some of the "Damnit, Damnit, Damnit......Damnit its perfect!" kind of fun a resort should have. Thats what I was shooting for, anyway.
I undestand your arguments against framing, but don't agree. As far as I am concerned, the bunker placements and styling reflect the best traditions of golf design, as established in the Golden Age by MacKenzie and others. What is wrong with that, exactly?
This is a resort that gets 90% of its play from over 100 miles away, and trust me, its not on the way to anywhere, so they have to want to come here! It needs to be visually attractive. Even barring that, most golfers prefer the green be the ultimate play and visual focus of the hole and I arrange bunkers and earthforms to provide both strategy and aesthetics., including leading the eye to the green, as I think it should.
You may not like backing mounds and I do agree that they aren't always necessary. Its a style. I could cut down some backing mounds on some of these greens, with no ill effect. See green no. 3, which has none, for example, with no ill effects.
I was somewhat dissapointed in the fw shaping on the first course, and some of the fairway contouring including side grading, was a result of the shaper (same company) wanting me to know that they had improved since 1997 in shaping fw contours. There are some I didn't need to see, but gave them some freedom there. I think had they been simpler, it would have improved the grassing lines.
As to 14 kicking balls back in the fairway, as it happens, the landing pole required a 20 foot cut - the fw area was flat, and dropped sharply into the wetlands in front of the tee.
As to 4 being a Redan, it was in the original plan, and I suspect they really don't update all their marketing material, just use some of my original hole descriptions. On my first site visit after 9/11, (which also occurred not long after seeing Tom Paul's Gulph Mills Club, where some Ross greens had been restored to their square fronts) I chanbed it into a liberty bell shaped green as a tribute to both.
The par 5's such as 2 and 16 would never have been built that way had I not seen Tobacco Road. It showed me how bold you could be on a resort course, and both those sites had natural (well, unnatural) waste areas that could serve as dramatic alternate carries, similar to TR. Other than that, I consciously tried to stay away from the percieved excesses of TR, although the exaggerated width of 13 green is also a tribute to that. I just think that one ultra long or wide green per course is plenty, and Mike S used them plenty more on that course.
The noggin behind 8 green was a planned item, although the superintendent took some liberties to redo the grassing lines to downsize it to save sod for another areas, so it does look out of place. Frankly, it was just an aesthetic feature, since I didn't figure too many folks would overshoot the green on a 480 yard par 4.....
The 15th hole was a dilema - At one time, I was going to grade the left of the fw into the mother of all speed slots! It would have been one of those holes where you (yes, even you!) might catch it and be able to go home telling your buddies you reached a 475 yard par 4 with a driver and a wedge! Big shot! I decided against grading in that slot, since the bank was stable whereas grading it and seeding it wouldn't be, and the wetland at the bottom kept me from turning the slope back to the middle. So, I was left with a hole where you have to get it right to the point (which is about 275 from the back tee) to see the green. I have pointed out two areas where they could add a back tee for the longest hitter to use driver there, as most resort to 3 metals. Some report a visual tendency to think they can cut the corner, which I don't see. As John Kendall points out, the 269 yard 4th and this hole aim to put a long iron in your hands for an approach. Nonetheless, probably the weakest concept hole there.
Of course, I have many more thoughts about the course, but am tired of typing. Will be glad to answer them at some other point,though!