[Pete Buczkowski]

With apologies to Joe and Forrest, I can't help but ask if the course is too easy for the really low marker.  I watched Big Ed put on a ball strking display and tear the course apart on his first go-around; had he made a few 10-footers and not been distracted by me on a tee shot he would have had the easiest 68 I've ever seen.  Mr. Benham could have had the same score but for 2 bad shots.

The course is very wide, has green contours that the good player can use to get the ball close, is quite short from the back tees, and isn't held really firm & fast condition most of the time.

Am I way off-base here?  I believe this course ideal for the 5-15 handicapper, but not too impressive for players outside of this index.  Its sure a lot of fun for me; the risk/reward features are just right for my game.  But for the low marker, the par 5's don't offer much risk, since the carries that are heroic for me are just a middle iron for the good player.  Also, the good player is rarely on the wrong side of the large sweeping contours, so the greens become relatively easy, and especially so after a few plays.  Interested in the treehouse's perspective here...

(BTW I've played the course well over 10 times now but this weekend was the first time with good players.)

[A.G._Crockett]

Pete,
I'm envious of you guys that got to go.  I was in the Triangle the week before for a HS class reunion, and it was impossible to go back so soon.

I thought of TR on the other thread about holes that "look hard, play easy".  It is an oversimplification of Mike Strantz' beautiful work, but that is what his courses are about, in large part.  However, I would think that you could set TR up for tournament play in ways that would make it as difficult as you needed it to be!   That might be as good a yardstick for greatness as there is in GCA.

I'll also bet that the people that played well found TR exhilirating rather than easy, and the people who played poorly considered TR to be plenty difficult.  Again, that is a pretty good measure of greatness.

(BTW, I purchased a great anti-Dook T-shirt on Franklin St. on my trip up there; it has a Top 10 list that will make you laugh, guaranteed!)

[Andy Hughes]

Pete, good question.
 
Going by what you said, I gather Big Ed shot in the low 70s, and that Mr Benham would have scored in the high 60s if only his good shots were counted.  But don't all rounds have those "if this or that hadn't happened", then the score would have been better?
I would think any time a very good player plays well, he should score well, and that sounds like what happened.

Also, you said elsewhere that Ed tried to drive number 5, and was left with a simple little chip--how the heck did his ball stay up by the green and not roll well back?

[Brent Hutto]

I would like clarification on one point concerning our round at Tobacco Road. It was my impression that a more than expected number of Sunday's hole locations were in places that benefit most from the gathering contours that Pete alluded to.

For instance on the eleventh anything to the middle or back of the green and left of center was gathered quite efficiently to the hole. Placing the hole even a little way up the slope would add to the difficulty as would putting the hole all the way on the front left of the green. I didn't look closely enough to see what was available on the right half of the green which was pretty much out of play for my threesome.

The 140-yard Par 3 on the back side (fourteen?) was in a pretty favorable location relative to anywhere else on the back half of the green. No knock on myself, Craig or Steve but once you get the ball back there (either on the tee shot or on a putt or chip) the hole was located more or less where the ball wanted to end up.

Even my favorite hole, the sixth   had backstops and sideboards to a certain extent which isn't absolutely necessary on a 100-120 yard hole.

There were certainly some subtlely tricky holes on Sunday (like the seventh, sixteenth and eighteenth) with hard to discern slight breaks at the hole. Overall, though, I'm not sure we saw Tobacco Road set up at its most challenging. Perhaps they knew Sunday morning about that 36-man group which would be clogging the course for six hours in the afternoon and didn't want to make it seven. Or maybe I'm all wet and the holes in punchbowl areas were offset by holes on ridges.

[George Pazin]

But don't all rounds have those "if this or that hadn't happened", then the score would have been better?

This reminds me of a saying a local Burgh sportscaster/radio personality has:

What should have happened did.

It is pretty perceptive statement if you really think about it.

[Bob_Huntley]

I have not played any of Mike Strantz's courses other than MPCC. I think that the latter would be a fairly easy course for the good player, by good, I mean a scratch amateur or professional. With two par fives eminently reachable with long irons and another with a wood it just is not long enough to seriously challenge the elite.

Bob

[Robert Kimball]

(BTW, I purchased a great anti-Dook T-shirt on Franklin St. on my trip up there; it has a Top 10 list that will make you laugh, guaranteed!)

A.G. -- You mean the University of New Jersey @ Durham, right?    But, hey, they probably will win the National Title this year, so I can't rag them too hard.

[cary lichtenstein]

Tobacco road is only 6500 yards long and was not designed for the guy who hits it 320 yards. It is a public course, and if you are of normal length, it a great course.

If they had a set of tees at 7500, it would still be too easy for the 320 yard hitter because of the width of the fairways.

[Jason Mandel]

Those who complain about it being "too easy" will be happy to know that Forest and Joe were scoping out some new tees that while I played with them on Sunday.  They definitly can add 2-3 hundred yards without a problem.  My question is, why.  Like Cary said its a public course and it will never host a Tour Event.

I honestly don't believe it is too easy either, after playing with Joe and Forest, both of whom hit the ball a long way.

Jason

[Brent Hutto]

Let us not conflate "good player" with "long hitter", at least not totally. There's plenty of width on most shots at the Road but there are certainly places you can't hit it without running a big chance of a lost-ball penalty. Length is always a virtue although some courses are so narrow and penal as to take away a big hitter's strength by making him throttle back and play a point-to-point control game. Tobacco Road is not that kind of course.

To my thinking, Tobacco Road is a course where a strong player can take advantage of his power by utilizing the width of most fairways. However, the reason it's easier for a "good player" than a poor one is that a "good player" can usually eliminate one side of the hole by sound strategic thinking and consistent execution. That's the skill most rewarded at a course like Tobacco Road. You may be able to hit a tee shot 40 or 50 yards left of the ideal line on a certain hole with little penalty but on that same tee shot you might lose a ball by going 20 yards right or even by hitting the ball through the fairway into the shit.

A hacker like me doesn't have a big problem playing there because neither my good shot or mishits are going to travel terribly far into trouble. Some of the guys I play with every week at home have handicaps 6-8 strokes better than mine but their form of hacking is not knowing whether a given shot is going 40 yards left or 40 yards right or dead straight. Maybe we should call it a Type 1 versus a Type 2 hacker...

So a big hitter who plays to a 6 handicap due to wildness will not have a very comfortable feeling at the Road. I'd class it as a course that rewards long hitting without requiring it and that requires a certain degree of control and strategy without being narrow and confining. That's not what makes it a great course in my opinion. It's a great course because the curves and angles designed into each hole are gorgeous and the scale of those features are so bold that anyone can appreciate their beauty and utilize their contours without having an eye for subtlety.

At his best, Mike Strantz makes Alistair MacKenzie seem almost timid. Anyone who can one-up the good Doctor in boldness while creating courses enjoyable by a wide range of players and also having success in convincing people to actually build his creations is a genius. I never even knew the man but I feel his loss acutely. Not many of us will have that effect on the world during our time here.

[Brad Tufts]

All-

I had the fortune of playing TR in March, and I wished that I could have done it again with all of you, but anyways.

In response to the question at hand, I am a scratch player, and my only time playing the course, I shot a 73 from the tips.  The fairways are wide and the greens large, and I was fortunate to get some good bounces, especially with the back and sideboards of some of the greens.  I am not a super-long hitter, as I generally average about 250-260.  The course is admittedly short for the scratch player, as I had something like 12 of 18 holes at an 8-iron approach or less.  With these clubs in hand, the side/backboards can be used at will by the scratch player.  Par 5 wise, the 4th hole is pretty much a long par four if the drive is positioned correctly (i hit a poor drive, but down the left side, leaving only a 5-iron), and 11 is easily reachable (despite some fun pin positions, like the back right one I had, causing me to 3-putt from the front third).  The longest par four on the front, #9, has gathering effects at the green.  The longest par four on the back, #10, is downhill as well (as is the 18th at 432), and distance can be bitten off by driving down the right side.

Despite the lack of distance, harsh penalties abound, and wayward shots are seriously penalized.  One bad play could add two strokes easily.  As it has been said above, good design rewards thoughtful play, and Tobacco Road certainly falls into this category.  Many shots make you think:

Layup on #1, Go for it/layup on #4, tee shot on #5, choose the right shelf #7, carry the front bunker #9, go for it/layup on #11, layup on #13, left or right #14, where's the fairway? #16, where's the hole? #18

I am a big fan of TR, but that's not to say it can't be taken advantage of.

-Brad

[Mike Benham]

No, it's the hardest course I have ever played

Although length is always an advantage, accuracy on the drive and more importantly, the approach shot is what will lead to good scores at TR.  Couple accuracy with distance control and this golfer is able to use the features of the greens to their advantage.  The greens at TR reward a variety of shot types and you can use the contours to your advantage.

For the less accomplished players, the stategic thought process of each shot, coupled with numerous blind shots might be a negative to the scorecard.

TR features an (over)-abundance of surface drainage basins.  It would be interesting to find out why Stranz and Co. built so many of these in fairways basins and with relatively steep slopes to the grates.  I would assume that the native soil conditions were much more suited to good drainage and percolation.  These basins would poise more of a challenge to less accomplished golfers, inflicting side-hill, down-hill, up-hill stances.

As an additional note, we played TR in rather soft conditions, both the fairways and greens.  Firmer conditions would have resulted in different and I believe, higher scoring.

Mike

Ps:  The apples on #16 tee were welcome surprise !!!

[Bill Shotzbarger]

Ps:  The apples on #16 tee were welcome surprise !!!

A la #13 at Rolling Green GC?

[Tim Gavrich]

Here's my take on Strantz (may he rest in peace):

I've played Caledonia, True Blue, Tot Hill Farm, and the first 12 holes of Tobacco Road (drove the last 6; it was rainy and cold).  Caledonia does not seem to have a lot of sideboards/backboards on the greens.  There may be some, if memory serves, but they are not too dramatic.  True Blue has a couple, most noticeable the grteen on #10.  When True Blue opened, it was deemed "too difficult" my the crybabies who couldn't keep the ball in play for more than 2 shots.  So, they widened the fairways, softened other features, etc. (I never played it before it was changed, keep in mind).  At both Tobacco and Tot Hill, sideboards/backboards are abundant and pronounced, even to the point at which they reward mediocre shots.

Perhaps the chronology of Strantz's work doesn't hold with this theory, but is it possible that, seeing the watering-down of True Blue, he decided to do his own "benevolent alterations" to THF and TR?  Could it be that the sideboards would not exist so much (or even at all) without the True Blue affair in the past?  All I know is that while both TR and THF are difficult golf courses, they are not quite as difficult as they look.  Sometimes, I don't like it when I hit a bad shot and get rewarded.  That takes some of the skill out of the game.

All this said, I look forward to enjoying Mr. Strantz's art for the rest of my days.  I anxiously await the day I can say that I've played all his courses (I've yet to play MPCC Shore, Bulls' Bay, Silver Creek Valley, Royal New Kent, and Stonehouse).  They are all unique, like 'em or not.

[Michael Dugger]

I skipped right past every post on this thread so excuse me if I state what has already been stated....

but.....

who cares?

I have said it before and I will say it again, what is wrong with posting a good score?

It ain't like a 68 is a 59.  May a player strike the ball well, think their way around the course and navigate the greens, they deserve a good score.

Threads like this seem so USGA to me.  I mean, I can get down with a war of attrition from time to time, but is every course that can be had a bad course.  

I think not.  

[Tom_Doak]

Tobacco Road is short, and it's not in a windy climate.  A good player (not even necessarily a long hitter) will have a lot of short iron approach shots and if he's on his game, he will have a chance to make a lot of birdies.

For a public / resort course, that's not a bad thing at all.  In fact the reason I like Tobacco Road and hate Royal New Kent is that Royal New Kent has about 1000 yards more in its back tees, which drags every player a bit further back to where they can't get around.

However, I don't think that Tobacco Road is comparable to many of my courses at all.  On most of ours (except for two or three) the greens are much more severe around the hole than Tobacco Road.  Even if you have a short iron and can hit it close a bunch, you're not going to make that many birdies, and if you miss one to the wrong side you'll make a bogey.  They're relatively easy for players trying to break 80 or 90, but I haven't built many where it's easy to break 70.

[Mike Benham]

On most of ours (except for two or three) the greens are much more severe around the hole than Tobacco Road.  

A very true statement with many of the greens at TR having a saddle or bowl effect where a ball that lands on or near the edge of the green will move towards the hole ...

So does Tobacco Road fall into the "Looks hard, plays easy" category?

[Brent Hutto]

So does Tobacco Road fall into the "Looks hard, plays easy" category?

On balance, I believe it does.

[BigEdSC]

Geez, I try not to recap a rounds.

On a whole, TR is a sporty course.  The 73 that I shot was from a combination of the back tees on the par-3's and the par-5's.  The par-4's were from the next set of tees.  I started the round -3 through the first 6 holes with birdies on both par 5's and a 3 on 5.  I pitched on at 1 and made the putt for birdie and hit a 185 5iron to 4 and two putted for another one.

The greens at TR were very receptive to irons.  They were a little wet and with well struck shots, you made a pretty good ball mark.  I can imagine if I played the coursed when it dried out and the pins can be in some precarious spots.

I've played Bulls Bay and True Blue, so I had some idea what I was in for.  The difference between TB and TR was at TB, everything is in front of you, while TR forced you to commit to the shot at hand.  At TR, you really had to pay attention to the yardage book and the sprinkler caps.  With the approaches at 9 and 16 at TR, you could tell short was no good and you had to trust yourself that long was the place to miss.

The tee shot at 5 was well struck, but since it was wet, it stopped halfway up the hill.  The pin was back, so I tried to play it a little long and, luckily, made the putt for birdie.  If the pin was closer to the front of the green, it would of been interesting because if you were short, the ball would of rolled back to you and you could try your pitch again.

The tee shot that Pete probably remembers is the one on 7.  There I didn't really feel comfortable over the ball and pushed it right into the trees.  Looking back, the fairway was about 100 yards wide and even Ray Charles probably could of hit it.  There, I made a double because of a bad drive and a bad lob wedge.

But as far as an easy course, I would have to disagree.  You still have to hit all of your shots and place the ball in good spots on the green.  My best advice to people to play it is to know your yardages with your clubs.  Especially Brent, he definitely knows what to hit from 115 yards.

[Martin Mulholland]

For a mid-handicapper I think that there are 3 aspects which can make TR difficult.

1. A lot of holes look intimidating with longish carries and/or large waste areas and this can lead to bad shots. If you can wipe this from your head and just see the fairways and greens its actually very open.

2. There are some holes such as 4, 5 an 11 where it is easy to be suckered into trying heroic shots and for which the odds of success are not good. For example play 4 and 11 as par 5's and they are quite straight forward.

3. There are a few blind shots which require acuracy or its easy to lose a ball, for the approach on 9 you need to be straight and on others such as 13, 15 and the drive on 16 you need good distance control.

If you can overcome these I think even a mid handicapper would find the course relatively easy. Personally I seem to have a problem with accuracy on 9 :-(
 

[Tim Gavrich]

I agree that it's not terribly hard.  Why, then, is the rating 73.2 and the slope 150?  I don't know enough about those ratings to be able to commentate myself.  Would someone mind shedding a bit of light on the possible sources of error, if the course is as tame as is the general consensus here?

[Martin Mulholland]

Slope is mostly based on how so called bogey golfer would perform compared to a scratch golfer. To quote a web-site:

"A bogey golfer, in this use, is defined by the USGA as a male golfer with a handicap index of 17.5 to 22.4, who hits his drives 200 yards and can reach a 370-yard hole in two; and a female golfer with a handicap index of 21.5 to 26.4, who hits her drives 150 yards and can reach a 280-yard hole in two."

I think TR would be very difficult for a player who can only hit the ball 200 yds. It certainly would make 1,2 and 18 tricky.

[Bill_McBride]

Remy, you have outed me as a short hitter!  Not sure how my backswing got so short or what the problem was, but I pushed/sliced and lost my tee ball on #1 on the knob right (nasty rough there), failed to carry up onto the fairway at #2, and lost my tee shot right into the trees on #18.

Tobacco Road is a true challenge for a short hitter.

[Pete Buczkowski]

Interesting that most people disagree with my premise.  First, to address Brent's point, the course was set up similarly to other times I've played it, but a little soft.  For every easy hole location there was a hard one, as Joe stated on Saturday.  There were some really challenging ones like 1, 7, & 9 to offset the easy ones.

My point is that the course is much harder for the middle-high handicapper than the scratch, relative to their respective handicaps.  Surely that is reflected in the relatively low course rating and high slope (Huck help me out here ).  Compare that with say, Pinehurst #2, with a high CR and relatively low slope.  

I'm really curious about the extra tees that Forrest is considering.  I don't think extra length is important here...just change some of the tee angles for the back tees.  Here are some possibilities I was thinking of...

• #2 - add a tee right of the current back tee, by clearing out some trees, to create a similar angle as the front tee.  Then, the long player really has to think about his drive.
• #4 - add a tee right by #3 green.  There is already a tee in the vicinity (to the right as you cross the bridge), just would need to clear the tees back about 50 yards.  Adds an interesting angle so the good player has to get the line and distance correct off the tee to go for the green in 2, rather than have a middle iron.
• #11 - add a tee between the 10th green and current 11th tee boxes.  Then, the player will need to work the ball to reach the green.

Also, nobody (except Tom Doak and Brian through email) has mentioned that the greens have long, sweeping contours, but not a lot of intricate contours to make short putts difficult.  So, if you can hit it to the right levels, birdies can be had.  However, this doesn't help the bogey golfer much because he won't make many putts outside 8 feet anyways, while a good putter can make a lot of putts out there.

Tim - No one is suggesting the course is tame, but I think it plays tame for the scratch player.  Some agree and some don't.  Personally I love the course, but I think it is a better course for players in the 6-15 handicap range than outside of it.

[Mike_Trenham]

So are we saying that TR is harder for the lesser player and easier for the better player than say Pine Needles or #2?

I would say yes.  To me this is the opposite of what we need generally in golf as the good players are getting better and the bad players are getting worse.  

This is not to say I did not like the course but I would need a few more rounds to get comfortable enough with the blind shots to score well.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()