[cary lichtenstein]

Wow!!!!!   Wow!!!!!!

Amazing course, with amazing topography. Best holes for me were 1,2,4,5,6,7,and 11.

Felt the front 9 was considerably stronger than the back nine. The topgraphy flattens out on the back pretty much except for the exceptional 11th and the tee shot on 18.

After playing the front 9 I was excited, thrilled, and a bit worn out. My brain can't handle all that. 10 was a good breather, with a neat green. 11 started it up all over again, after 11 I was frankly let down. That is not to say that all in all, this is a great course, but the topography just changed from spectular to something less.

All in all, I would love the opportunity to come back and play 36 a day for 3 days and learn the course better. Not that 3 days could do it, but would make a lot of progress.

Need a lot of experience to really fully appreciate what has been done with all the green complexes.

[Matt_Ward]

John:

If you think the drive off the 10th is "strategic" then you and I see and define things very differently. The qualities of the 9th and 11th holes are light years beyond what you see with the 10th. I was just hoping for a bit more strategic elements in the drive zone -- as DeVries exhibited with the 9th and 11th holes.

The 18th features at its core a "choke point" -- check it out at the 219 yardage marker. It behooves a player to go thru this limited area -- no more than 20 yards across. DeVries excels at Greywalls in giving the player different angles and options. The 18th -- off tee especially -- is fairly limited and reminds me of the RTJ style in having flanking bunkers on both sides of a hole. The greensite is lacking because although there is a nice hump in the middle of the green -- the open space to either side simply allows the player to throw just about anything forward and still have a play at the hole. I am not suggesting a waterfall or some sort of inserted inane concept. Given the level of detail and strategic thought I found the 18th to be a fair closer and not a grand one.

Joe:

What's good forthe goose (me) is also good for you too partner in terms of words offered / analysis, etc, etc.

I never said Greywalls was heartburn -- I simply said the 10th hole was lacking in the tee game strategic areas -- especially when compared to such stellar holes that come before and after it. If I'm in error please knock yourself out and let me know where my thinking is flawed.

Joe -- my litmus test for golf hole / couse quality has nothing to do with heartburn. I simply used the term because heartburn can cause a player to seriously assess and evaluate what the upcoming shot / hole presents. Heartburn can be defined by others -- possibly you -- that I am meaning that the hole must be tied to some sort of penal outcomes. Far from it. In the case of the 10th I applied the word to make a player feel abit uncomfortable with what you encounter off the tee. I don't see the 10th as anything more than just a grip and rip hole from the tee since there is very little at risk -- particularly when compared to other holes of comparable length you face at Greywalls.

Enjoy your pizza -- minus any heartburn!

P.S. Have to say this -- I absolutely loved Greywalls -- the sample points I am raising are very small in the totality of how I assess the course. It is a unique and compelling treat and worthy of a visit by anyone who makes the journey.

[Mike_DeVries]

Interesting comments from everybody.

Cary, how about the undulation and rock on 15 and 16?  There is quite a bit of contour there, and I believe #'s 12-14 have great flowing terrain for golf, built on sand, that is, yes, different in flavor to the wild front side.  Glad you enjoyed the course!

In regards to #10, I don't think of it as a pushover.  The closer to the rock, rough, and trees on the left that one hits it, the better angle to attack the green, even with a run-up shot.  The further to the right, and much safer, one takes the drive, the more defined and specific the second, which can only be a precise pitch over a large rock outcropping tight to the right side of the green.  I think it is a good trade-off of taking your lumps on the drive or the approach.  Plus, the green is quite wild, a large putting surface (about 9500 sq. ft.) with over 6 feet of fall from back to front and divided up into multiple levels, each offering a different set of flagstick locations and strategy.

Matt, what if #18 was a par 4 instead of a par 5?  Would that change your opinion of the hole, as a finisher or concept?

Looking forward to meeting many new friends this weekend!  

Mike

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

I have no issue with #18 being a long par-4 -- it's the tight "choke" point you see at the 219 yardage marker. For the hole to demonstrate some level of fairness that "choke" point (no more than 20 paces) needs to be widened just a tad don't you think?

Keep in mind that when I played the hole the wind direction was off the lake and the air was a tad moist. If I had played the hole with the prevailing wind behind me then it's possible my assessment might not be the same.

The area in and around the putting surface is nicely done because of the rise in the middle of the green -- one needs to be on the proper side in order to have the easier play to the flag. I was just hoping for something more -- even one bunker in a particularly fine location for that "extra" item for the player to consider when hitting their approach or lay-up.

Mike -- the 10th is defined by people as a "breather" hole. When people use that term it often is the more positive way in saying that the hole lacks a certain thing or two. Compared to the 9th and 11th the "lacking" of the tee game element I mentioned previously is as clear to me as bright sunshine with no clouds in the sky. No doubt the green at #10 is nicely done but the linkage of tee shot, approach and putting surface for me is the necessity for such type holes. Just because one has the latter points cannot mean a quick dismissal of the former IMHO.

Nonetheless, Greywalls is a superb addition to the public scene and frankly so much fun to play. Congrats on your latetst triumph.

[Dan_Lucas]

Matt,

I would not discourage comments made after one playing of a course. My point is that a hole that plays easy in one wind with one pin position shouldn't be dissed until you have sampled different combinations.

At Kingsley there are so many different strategies presented just by changing pins that any number of holes can seem simple one day and incredibly difficult the next.

When Michael Wharton-Palmer played in the Peninsula Cup here, he got the full KC experience. At least four different sets of pins and I believe 3 different wind directions. This course changes considerably in different winds.

All I'm saying is don't write off a golf hole with one playing.

[Matt_Ward]

Dan:

Fair point -- but remember this -- certain people have more discerning eyes than others and can visually imagine how a given hole might play with wind and pin placements being different. Although it never hurts to play multiple rounds it's possible that certain people (not many I will say) can "get it" from the play of one round.

I played Greywalls with a southeast wind -- the exact opposite for the prevailing. Frankly, I think the southeast wind makes the course play tougher because the longer holes play into it -- rather than with it.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I haven't seen Greywalls but what is wrong with having one fairway a round with a narrow "choke" point and an "either/or" driving strategy?  I would call that variety.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

Frankly, I find the whole concept of "choke points" a style of 101 golf design. It is fairly basic and really limited when you have holes that come before that point which require so much more than the straight-jacket concept of "either or" type golf.

Trent Jones did this at Oakland Hills / South and I don't find the uniqueness or complexity in bracketing a hole in such a manner -- even if it's done only once.

Keep in mind the choke point is only 20 yards TOPS. For me "choke points" are introductions because it's too easy to do but provides less of the kind of strategic golf that takes place at Greywalls.

For full disclosure I will say this again before anyone starts barking at me -- the hole played into the wind when I was there -- it's possible that with the prevailing northwest or westerly winds my feelings might modify a bit.

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

Sophisticated design doesn't have to fall back on the easy and fairly heavy handed elements. I consider choke points to be a fairly basic and rudimentary style. I never said penal architecture has no place in design. The "choke point" is really the less imaginative way to spruce up the details of a given hole. It's almost as if the architect (no disrespect intended to Mike D) ran out of other options and inserted it to fix what is there.

However, if the penal style floats your boat then knock yourself out and play such courses.

Let me give you an example from your side of the pond -- I loved Dunluce at Royal Portrush but I don't see the need in having fairways that are routinely 25 yards across and then you come IMMEDIATELY to the hayfields just off the short grass. This is the style over and over and over again.

Frankly, that's "gotcha" style golf and a layout of such high distinction like Dunluce doesn't need to be "protected" by such a cheap gimmick.

Sean -- I have played a fair share of courses that don't embrace the penal style because they are not helpful or conducive in the long run for the greatest number of players. No less than Alister Mackenzie eschewed the nonsense in constantly looking for lost balls -- maybe you enjoy such FBI searches when you play the game.

I really liked Greywalls big time -- the green contours, the land, the sophistication of the routing are all well done aspects. The 18th and to a lesser extent the 10th, are holes where other alternatives could have been included but were not.

[Brian_Sleeman]

A quick point on 18 as it's all I have time for:

The "choke point" is part of a natural valley - any other option it seems to me would've required some extensive earth removal or a complete redesign.  It's also not really as penal as you might think - the choke point is about 310 off the tee and is at the end of a downhill, moguled valley.  All solid tee shots land well short of that point and if hit either slightly right or left end up in the same spot due to the funnel effect, and only roll to the choke point.

Anything more than moderately right or left ends up in a severely uneven lie which significantly lowers the chances of a successful second shot to the green.

[George Pazin]

It's also not really as penal as you might think - the choke point is about 310 off the tee and is at the end of a downhill, moguled valley.  All solid tee shots land well short of that point and if hit either slightly right or left end up in the same spot due to the funnel effect, and only roll to the choke point.

There's your problem. Most of us are rolling it there, using the natural contours, but Matt's flying it there.

 

[cary lichtenstein]

Mike:

I agree with all your comments, my point was that with the wild front, I was expecting or hoping the back would have an equal terrain, and I would have rated the course an absolute 10.

18 would have been better as a par 4. I hit it to the 218 marker and sort of bunted a 4 wood onto the green. I think the green is fine, but if I can be bold enough to suggest something, go back and add some dramatic bunkering.

I looked around and thought you could have placed the green up to the left as an alternative spot or behind the 2 mounds that are behind the green, and kinda made it a semi Lahinch green.

Cary

[Brian Cenci]

Not sure on 18.....throw in a bunker or two at the green and that "choke" point is odd.  I hit a driver one time and then a 4 iron th enext and because of the topography you roll into the same spot.  anything between 200 and 275 I think all ends up within 20 yds of each other about 200 to 220 out.

[Mike_DeVries]

I appreciate everyone's thoughts on the course and want to share with you some of my vision of the process and how I am viewing it.

Matt,
 
The "choke point" you talk about is 310 yards off the tee and is bordered by rock and severe terrain on the left and right.  The tee shot is downhill and any well-struck ball will funnel towards the "choke point."  To hit your drive past that is possible for many big hitters, but if they are carrying the ball 300+, they may land on the hillside in some native -- a risk players may take if they like.  Conservative drives will still run down the landing area and leave a decent chance to get home in 2 shots.  To widen the "choke point" would have required extensive blasting (big $) and earth-moving and I don't think that was or is necessary, even if I had the budget to do so -- in the context of the course, I think it is a wise and appropriate example of the rugged nature of the site and golf course, providing a great contrast with the wild landing area and flat valley of the second half of the hole.  It is the afterword or postlude to a fine round and offers the golfer a chance at birdie and to leave ready to go after the course the next time around.  Maybe if it is labeled a par 4, there would be a different inclination by players that it looks easy and plays hard, making it more acceptable.  I am not a big fan of the prototypical long par 4 finisher with water along one side to complete a nine (any TPC) -- that is not fun for most players.  

Cary,

Interesting thought on the green behind the mounds, but then I would have 2 "choke points" on the same hole and that wouldn't be good, would it?  

As to the different aspects of the nines and the wild front, I think more of the same severe terrain would be too much of sensory overload.  That was one of my biggest worries on the whole project -- trying to "one up" the last hole and ending up with crescendo after crescendo -- that doesn't work as a theory and is a major fault with many modern and manufactured courses.  There are the views of Lake Superior at 1T, 7T, 8T (turn around to look), 9APP, 9G, 10T, 10G, 11T, 17T, 17G, and 18T, so they are scatterred at the beginning, middle, and recurring at the end of the round before the big plunge down on the drive at 18.  It is important that we are not looking at the lake the whole time and detracting from the golf.  The holes themselves stand out on their own merits and have unique features inherent in the land and there is a wonderful rhythm and flow to how the routing follows the land.  The best ground for pure golf is found in the sandy valley of holes 11-16, with some rock bordering 11T, 15, and 16.  That section of property is not flat -- there is plenty of elevation and movement to it that any designer would like to have; it just seems mundane compared to the 60' rock walls and tumbling rock outcroppings of the front side.  The 11th and 13th holes have multiple bunkers and work nicely into the terrain; the 12th is a long 4 with a generous landing area but a small target for a green with two choicely placed bunkers and fall-offs on the front and left sides; the 14th is another long 4 with wetland encroaching the long hitters drive zone and a wonderful, Redanish green that sits perched above the surrounding wetland and play area, falling 2' from the right front to the back left; the 15th is a long par 3 over a deep, rocky ravine with a creek running through it to a multiple level green, backed by 2 of the "Knobs" of rock that are also behind 18G; and the 16th is a short par 4 that is plays safely down to a flat landing area (iron off the tee and leaving an uphill approach) or allows the player to drive dangerously close to the 35' rock walls on the right to get up on the big humps closer to the green, where the surface is visible.  This is followed by the short 17th with a large, wild green, bordered by a 6' swale at the back left and 2 deep bunkers at the front right and the much discussed 18th.  I think the terrain of the back is at least the equal and probably better for pure golf through the valley than the front and the combination provides for an exciting and memorable course that is fun to play again and again.  In fact, much of the feedback from members is that at first they thought it was going to be HARD, but it is very playable and they are having FUN -- it is just plain FUN to play.  I couldn't ask for a better compliment than that.

All the best and looking forward to seeing many of you this weekend!

Mike

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, I've been thinking about this for a few days and finally made up my mind tonight.  I am going to have to put off coming to see your fine accomplishment at Greywalls this coming weekend.  I have been thinking about it in context with my other fall yearly trip to my favorite place, Wild Horse, and have come to the conclusion that both trips are excessive money to spend at this time, and is far better spent in some further disaster relief donations.  I have also made a resolve to try to use ~10 gallons of gas a week for the forseeable future as I think we must get real at this time in our country.  I'm not trying to play martyr or anything.  I just feel very uneasy right now, planning my self gratification with golf excesses when there are far too many people in great need.

I certainly don't want to be pretentious to suggest anyone else take these measures, but it is what I need to do right now.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

Regardless of cost factors, I don't think it is a sin to have a hole or two on any course with a "choke point" forcing the longer hitter to make a tough "either/or" decision on the tee.  Sure, he would rather always have a side he can miss on, which is precisely why it's a relevant strategy to use.

Jack Nicklaus agrees with you, by the way ... at Sebonack we had one hole with fairway bunkers about opposite each other on the fairway, and Jack just kept harping on moving the right-hand bunker to give the hole more "strategy", even though it meant putting it in a hole in the ground to which a good portion of the fairway drained.  We finally agreed to move the other bunker to make his point, but I still can't figure out why you can't make someone think about laying up every once in a while, instead of always giving them room on one side or the other to "go for it".

Even if you don't agree with this as a general comment, you HAVE TO be open to it if the situation dictates, as it may at Greywalls.  If you're not, then you are just evaluating the course according to your own preconceptions.  

[Mike_DeVries]

Dick,

Sorry to hear you will not make it this weekend.  I was so looking forward to your first question, "What the !^$#@ were you thinking when you did that on hole (insert #)?"  

Best of luck in your efforts to help those in need.

Tom,

Well stated.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom / Mike:

Let me just say this regarding "choke point" holes. If such an option were used for the high handicap player you would likely hear more complaints because of the "either or" mentality such holes provide -- or should I say limit. Why should such a concept be only used for the better player when possibly other strategic considerations can be used?

Tom -- I have no "preconceptions" but I do believe that shots need to be rewarded according to the level of skill / execution provided. The "choke point" concept tries to assert itself in a heavy handed manner. I mean the hole at Greywalls features a 20 yard fairway (maximum!) and you are then forced to keep a tee shot in the range of 300+ yards to go through this bottleneck.

Let me also point out Tom that "choke point" elements can be seen at the South layout at Oakland Hills in which RTJ continually places bunkers on both sides of the fairways and "chokes" the fairway down to a very limited amount of area. I understand that in the Oakland Hills scenario the use of such "choke point" was done over and over again -- that's not the case with Greywalls.

My objection to its use at the 18th at Greywalls is that given the range of superior strategic alternatives I was hoping for a bit more flair and creativity then your garden variety "choke point" use.

Tom -- when an architect decides to keep players from -- in your words -- "go for it" -- that's what makes golf the grand game that it is. When you take clubs out of my hands it simply limits the range / options a hole can provide. Why should my talents, or any other golfer for that matter, be forced to limit oneself. Maybe it's the architect who limits himself in his design work when such a feature is employed through their efforts. I'm not saying that any ordinary shot should suffice but shutting down the player because the option is completely taken away doesn't make for a great hole IMHO -- it still may be a good hole but the greatest holes provide for the fullest range of options so that the player will ultimately have to decide.

I can see certain situations where it might work, but frankly I didn't see that at the 18th at Greywalls. One other note -- I am also dead set against the forced lay-up which a number of architects use and it can be seen with great frequency at many desert layouts in our Southwest.

Mike:

I never suggested that the final hole be some sort of carbon copy TPC final hole. I did say that providing a bit more strategic elements in the drive zone would have worked far better than the "choke point" of 20 yards across. Length should not be treated in such a harsh manner in which you get nothing more than "either or" outcomes.

Might it have been possible to shape one side of the hill to force the player to "work the ball" using the hillside feeding the ball into the proper position? No doubt -- cash / budget is a big time consideration. I don't loathe the hole but I don't see how it fulfills the time and enjoyment you get at the previous holes you face.

Mike -- remember -- I do love Greywalls -- the detailing of tee game, approach play and putting surfaces is well done. Keep in mind that my comment come from playing the hole into a wind of 10 mph right off the lake and getting a ball through the "choke point" was indeed a problematic proposition on that day. I'm sure playing downwind as is the norm might make me see the hole differently.

[Mike_DeVries]

Mike:

I never suggested that the final hole be some sort of carbon copy TPC final hole. I did say that providing a bit more strategic elements in the drive zone would have worked far better than the "choke point" of 20 yards across. Length should not be treated in such a harsh manner in which you get nothing more than "either or" outcomes.

Might it have been possible to shape one side of the hill to force the player to "work the ball" using the hillside feeding the ball into the proper position? No doubt -- cash / budget is a big time consideration. I don't loathe the hole but I don't see how it fulfills the time and enjoyment you get at the previous holes you face.

Matt,

My fault for not being clear enough -- I didn't mean to suggest that you were implying that a TPC like finisher would be better, merely stating that I am not a huge fan of that type of hole to consistently finish a nine.  

The landing area prior to the "choke point" is at least 65 yards wide, with an undulating fairway valley (at least 55 yards wide of gathering landing area) between the hillsides -- and tapering and gathering down to the 20 yard wide "choke point," which then begins widening out to 80+ yards in the valley floor to the green site.  Being quite a downhill tee shot, the visibility of the "choke point" is blind from the back and regular tees, but defined by the hillsides, valley, and view-slot to the green.  Adding other elements to the area would compromise the drainage and funnel effect that the early landing area provides and be blind also (unless much blasting and earth-moving are done -- $$$$).  

In this instance, only a really big hitter will encounter a problem if he carries the ball all the way to the "choke point" and is off line.  His option is to hit a shorter club that will have a wider landing area, but that will funnel to the "choke point."  I see no problem with that as a strategy and recognize that a big hitter will have no problem hitting it 220 to the green on his approach.  The arrangement of the landing area also has the benefit of enabling the shorter hitter to gain more length on their drive, which I like.  This is not the same concept and theory as an undulating fairway where the long hitter hits into an upslope and the shorter hitter hits into a downslope, thus negating some of the length advantage but it may give some hope to those golfers who are unable to take full advantage of today's technology.

I wish I could have been there with you to discuss the (de)merits of this in the field -- hopefully the next time.  I enjoy the differing opinions about the 18th and we'll see what evolves in the coming years.

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

When you play the hole please let me know your thoughts. This is one instance where the actual playing of the hole trumps the analysis from the comfort of your living room / computer.

Mike:

You mentioned something that needs to be considered. The player on the back tee has also to deal with a BLIND TEE SHOT to an area that slopes dramatically downhill and then in addition to that also funnels through an area no more than 20 yards wide before you hit the hayfields.

Mike -- I can live with the occasional "choke point" but when you add all the other elements into the mixture the nature of what the player has to deal with can be a bit much.

I don't doubt for a NY minute the significant costs but shaping one side or the other for the player to work his ball from would have alleviated the "either or" situation one sees today.

I will say this again -- I played the hole in the reverse wind pattern. My mind and thoughts could very well change with the prevailing wind in tow.

Mike -- I have to say this -- I am not a fan of the forced club down imposed by the architect -- that's something only the player should determine and that determination comes from having several viable options. Thing of it this way -- if one has a 90 degree dog-leg and there is no chance in cutting the corner the player must hit to a designated area and go from there. There are no other options -- it is as you said a "funnel" area and all must pass through this point.

Mike -- I can also appreciate your equalitarian impulse to help the shorter hitter but I don't see how onre penalizes the longer hitter in such a draconian fashion with the "choke point" method of "either or" type golf.

I fully understand the challenges you were under but I just think a better closer -- in total regard to the magnificient qualities of the holes that came before it -- could have been included.

I hope to share a brew with you the next time I'm in Marquette to play the hole. Like I said -- notwithstanding my comments on #10 and #18 -- I thoroughly loved the course and can't wait for a second visit in the near future.

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

There is a major difference in discussing hole in theory and the actual kind where you play the hole.

I respect your opinions in theory but would place even greater weight on them from your actually playing the hole in question.

Think of it this way -- would you not want the same thing from me if I opined about golf from across the pond if I had not played the course(s) and simply tossed a generic thought instead of one gleaned from actually playing?

Appreciate the cracker label.  

[Doug Sobieski]

Tom -- when an architect decides to keep players from -- in your words -- "go for it" -- that's what makes golf the grand game that it is. When you take clubs out of my hands it simply limits the range / options a hole can provide. Why should my talents, or any other golfer for that matter, be forced to limit oneself. Maybe it's the architect who limits himself in his design work when such a feature is employed through their efforts. I'm not saying that any ordinary shot should suffice but shutting down the player because the option is completely taken away doesn't make for a great hole IMHO -- it still may be a good hole but the greatest holes provide for the fullest range of options so that the player will ultimately have to decide.

I can see certain situations where it might work, but frankly I didn't see that at the 18th at Greywalls. One other note -- I am also dead set against the forced lay-up which a number of architects use and it can be seen with great frequency at many desert layouts in our Southwest.

Matt:

Are you able to hit driver on #7 at Pine Valley? As long as you hit it, I'd think not. As a result, do you not like the hole?

Regards,

Doug

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

No doubt -- at PV's 7th I do clubdown. I am not enamored with such holes because too often when I see high handicap types whine on and on about forced carries -- a legitimate point I can certainly understand in numerous situations -- I don't see the same amount of concern / angst when you have forced lay-ups that take the option away from the longer / better player.

Great holes facilitate / encourage variety and present the widest range of options for the player to ultimately decide.

When a hole or holes says this is the only option and you must go only that route and only for such and such
distance -- I see such holes as limited. They may in fact still be good ones -- but they are not great IMHO.

[Doug Sobieski]

Matt:

Thanks for the feedback. I don't like to have my hand forced by one-dimensional tee shots either, but my view is probably different in such a situation as #18 at Greywalls. I'm certainly not a big hitter by professional standards, so a hole where my long hitting counterparts end up in the same place I do creates an advantage for me  

Regards,

Doug

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

How did your long hitting friends find the 18th at Greywalls?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()