Art Hills good for golf...

[Jordan Wall]

After playing a game at a local Hill's course with my Dad today I have come to the conclusion that Arthur Hills is not at all a bad architect.  Some things I noticed, after finally getting the guts to step all the waaaaaay back on every hole (i have played backs but most of the time tees are up a bit).

-There were one or two tee shot's where the fairway was slightly blind, which added some 'zest' to the round.

-Awesome green complexes and bunkers!!

-Had a different club in my hand almost every hole, and the par threes were really diverse.  Had a 3-iron, 7-iron, 8-iron, and PW into them.  Pretty good diversity, and btw no middle pins today on the par three's.

-Dad, who played whites, also had different clubs to most holes and was still challenged from a shorter yardage.

Overall, it ceases to amaze me that even though his courses may have cartpath's and sometimes be a little contrived, he continually get's bashed here.  Hey, if you are doing a job for somebody then you are going to do what they say.  Hence the cartpath's to his courses.  He is  good architect, who is talked about too harshly on this site IMO, especially his courses which are not bad.

[David Kelly]

All right, sir.

[cary lichtenstein]

Come to Florida and play his courses, you may sing a different tone

[Glenn Spencer]

Jordan,

I think you have mentioned that you play Harbor Pointe? quite a bit, I have been doing some Hills homework and I have noticed that that is one of his better thought of courses. How many have you played by Hills? I original stated that I have played about five but after checking it is about 8-10 I think. I guess his mission is to create a fun course for the golfer, in my dealings with Hills, 'fun' sometimes means the lack of respect for options on a golf hole. Shaker Run is a good golf course on a whole, but it has one hole that I am simply not good enough to play and few others that are not very well done. For a comparison, I just played Crooked Stick the other week and while it was by FAR one of the hardest tests that I have played, I never once felt that it asked me to hit a shot that I shouldn't have been able to pull off 7 times out of 10 or so and that is from the back, with only 3 tees moved up slightly. #6 at Shaker Run asks me to hit a shot that I am really only capable of pulling off 2 times out of 10 and that is on a 380-yard hole!! There really is no other option!! It is a great piece of property and I mean great, but the golf course has a few holes that just hold it back so tremendously. There are many holes that I feel he gives no option and that is what makes me wonder.Trust me, you will find out later that it sucks to pay $76 and make a 7 because you can't hit a 3-wood 255-270 down the severe left-side of the fairway.

[Bill_McBride]

Glenn, I'm just curious.  What happens if you DON'T hit that "3-wood 255-270 down the severe left-side of the fairway?"

Is there no lay up or bail out?  If the hole is 380 yards, even a 200 yard shot would leave one within iron range.  Look forward to your description of this hole, it must be like one of those calendar holes!

[Glenn Spencer]

Bill,

I don't know what a calendar hole is, you will have to set me straight. It is about 380. There is a massive set of trees to the right- 3-5-year sentence over there. And I am talking 40-footers here. It is a dogleg-right. There are 3 40- foot trees  IN the right side of the fairway, so the right side of the fairway, can leave a shot, but it is a low-punch or must be worked around the trees to a very shallow green that has a slight ridge in the front-middleish. The green sits at the bottom of a hill that has deep rough and a downslope, so long has 5 or 6 written all over it. There is a greenside bunker left and the green is usually very hard, too hard, way too hard for the aforementioned punch-shot. OK, the left. A creek starts at about 130 and wraps around, tightly the left-side of the hole, all the way until about 70 yards from the green. The reason the tee shot must be perfect, it has to be long enough to get past the trees, first of all, it must also be left enough to avoid the trees in the fairway on the second. It must also be kept short of the winding creek that has now wrapped around to looking the golfer right straight away at about 220-280 off the tee. Short? That is no good, because you can't get over the trees. Short and left will work to some degree, but the creek is right there and there are some trees blocking it to some degree off the tee. I can specifically remember in a Nike? or whatever qualifier, 2 of us hit 7-iron off the tee and the tried to go over the trees with a 7-iron. I think we both made 6, I was even going in, but this cat was already 3-under. It was a shame, the number was 73 and it was our 15th, he made another bogey and missed in playoff. I think I bogeyed in. Great hole!! I hope that helps, let me know if not clear enough.

[Jordan Wall]

One bad hole does not make a course bad.

At Harbour, the shortest par 4, which is 347, gave me a huge amount of trouble as the fairway was a distant 250 yards out, behind water, and the tee shot was into a slight wind.  I hit driver, a good one that would have cleared by twenty yards in the air, but it clipped a tree and bounced into mud (just past the water before the fairway).  Very hard hole that is also really short but is made hard by different challenges that are uncommon on other holes of that length (ie, carrying a ball 250)

There are also a couple holes with trees in the fairways, but you have to realize the trees are so skinny and even a bad shot will miss them most of the time.  Simply put, trees are beautiful and if the trees were already there, why not just use them to dictate strategy..?  It sounds to me like that hole at Shaker Run has many options, but to play the hole well you still have to really execute your shots.  In my book at least, that is a good golf hole.

And Harbour Point, maybe one of his best??  I just dont know, I guess I will have to play some more Hill's courses.
 

Oh Glenn, a question.
Have there been any good Hill's courses or specific holes that you have particualrly enjoyed (it is not a sin to like some work of an architect you may not like)??  Just wondering, because I get the feeling his courses feel contrived and people do not like the cartpath's, but sometimes we need to look outside the box (as I had to do with Sandpines) and just enjoy the golf.  Golf is meant to be enjoyed, and as of today I have not found a more enjoyable course to play time and time again: with friends, family, or by myself: than this Hill's little gem.  Glenn, if you are in Seattle I will show you around Harbour and we'll see if ya like it.
 

[Glenn Spencer]

Jordan,

Yes, they are just very few and far between. The second at Shaker is a very good par 4. I really like the 4th there as well. Having a real tough time after that. I am willing to concede that of his 157, I have probably been unfortunate enough to play 7 of his 20 worst holes and 4 of his worst 20 courses. Oh, I did really like the green on 17 at Longaberger, outside of these, I have a tough time. Oh, 13 at Fox Run is a nice hole. I would enjoy a round of golf with you Jordan and I would have to think long and hard about breaking my Hills ban.

Update- Do to scheduling and girlfriend's step-brother's? wedding, I will be forced to play a Hills course for a qualifier. Some Stone Ridge? joint, I expect to play 17 good holes and make a triple or worse somewhere, but maybe I can sneak one past Hills for once, we shall see.

[Jesse Jones]

Glenn,

You know how I feel about Mr. Hills' work..
It's frustrating at best. Great Pieces of land with a few good holes followed my mediocrity and ending with some head scratchers.


Jordan,

Thanks for the IM..I just moved very near to Harbour Pointe..We'll get a game and I'll school one on one about Mr. Hills..I've kept some of the yardage guides from some of his courses..I call them joke books.

[David Wigler]

Jordan,

Living in the land of Hills, I can tell you unequivocally that he is bad.  Never has an architect done so little with so much.  His restoration work is mostly putrid (Search the archives and you can see my long diatribe about the abortion he performed on Alister Mackenzie at UofM or find a member who wants to talk about the $1,000,000 wasted at Orchard Lake that had to be redone in less than five years).  He has been given world class sites and turned them into average courses (See Bay Harbor - Which I am convinced is the biggest missed opportunity of the 20th century or Shepards Hollow).  Realize that this man has produced over 180 golf courses and none are held in high regard (Disproving the blind squirrel/nut theory).

Coming from one of the staunchest defenders of Fazio, Jones and a guy who enjoys going against the perceived GCA group think, even I cannot defend Hills (Save for Half Moon Bay, Ocean - which I like).

PS - I have played over 25 of his courses, so I have a pretty good sample with which to hold that opinion.

[redanman]

Art Hills gets a bad rap on here, Jordan, he is not one of

The Annointed Ones

Admittedly, some of his work is uneven, but to label him bad is disingenuous and not intellectually honest.  

[David Wigler]

Bill,

You know I buck the trend of the anointed ones.  Living where we do, Shooter and myself probably have the most experience with Hills courses (I just counted off his website, I have actually played 33).  IMO he is labeled as bad becuase he is bad.

[Sean Leary]

I have played Harbour Pointe a bunch and I can validate that Hills did good work there.  The course as built before the housing was very good, and though the course has suffered from housing that REALLY encroaches on the course, it is worth playing.

Privately, Jesse has told me he is a Hills butt boy(including an Art Hills 4-eva tattoo) which is actually why he moved back to Seattle and specifically to Harbour Pointe. Any of his comments otherwise should be viewed as a smokescreen for his real feelings of which he is uncomfortable talking about on this forum..

[redanman]

Wigs

Are you as quick to "annoint"?



Labelling anyone as "bad" is tough.  How about underachieving?

[Doug Sobieski]

(I just counted off his website, I have actually played 33).  IMO he is labeled as bad becuase he is bad.

David:

I'm right there with you!! I counted 29 originals and restorations that I've played. There is no prolific architect in my opinion that has such a comparably unremarkable portfolio. And I totally agree about Bay Harbor. But why are so many people unwilling to admit that, just like in a graduating class of Doctors, somebody has to bring up the rear?

Of currently active architects that have more than 50 original designs to their credit, I'd like to hear some opinions on who would be at the bottom of the list for overall quality. C'mon people, who has built the portfolio of courses that you'd least like to spend eternity on? Are people afraid to comment because they may get left off Art's Christmas card list? Every list has to finish somewhere, so there's got to be a person at the bottom. Can somebody provide another candidate? If you are going to defend him, give me someone else to consider.

(Note: We've already established in another thread that he's a nice guy, hard worker, knows his business, pays his bills on time, loves his mom, and doesn't kick his dog. The question I pose is ONLY about the totality of his finished work.)


 

[Jordan Wall]

I really need to see what is SO bad about Hills.

Glenn,

Sometime we'll get a game going.

Jesse,

You too, soon I hope.

 

[noonan]

Longaberger has a hole with a stand of trees in the middle of the fairway.

His work sucks.

[David Kelly]

Labelling anyone as "bad" is tough.  How about underachieving?

When evaluating golf courses I follow GB Shaw's dictum on art, "pure joy at the good, pure rage at the bad."

[Glenn Spencer]

I am trying my damndest to come up with someone and the best way for me to explain my thoughts are just that he seems to fall into a category that is all his own. Every single architect on this site (I would imagine) would love to work on the sites that Hills does. No other architect has that many courses and basically nothing to show for it as far as courses that host anything or that get ranked in anything. It sounds like he has some decent courses, I would how many could be better if he eliminated the stupid holes. I still can't think of anyone, he is all alone in his category.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Art Hills is a very good architect. He is just not the GCA man of the year.

[Jordan Wall]

Well said Tiger.

[Glenn Spencer]

Jordan,

I am under the impression that Harbor Point is the only Hills course that you have played, tell me if I am wrong, please. If this is the case, I am perplexed. To my knowledge, I have only played one Dr. Alister course and it is Pasatiempo. Now, to say the least, I adored every inch of the place, but if some was ragging on his courses, I would not want to defend him as vehemently as you are defending Hills. Let me just say one more thing, I have no problem with you defending him, in fact, I love it, because I could talk about Hills and his antics all month long, but TRUST ME, if you were to play his other courses for the rest of your days, you would pick up tennis.

[Jordan Wall]

Glenn,

I simply just wanted to put some of his good work out there and if he really is a bad architect (as of now I do not believe this) then I would like to understand why.

Harbour is yes, the only Hill's course I have played, but it confuses me because everything aboiut Hills work that people seem to hate is on this course and I do not dislike it at all.  Obviously, the course is really hilly so it needs cartpath's.  Yes, the path's run through the fairway's a couple of times but you cannot really even see that until you get to the cartpath, and the path's themselves do not affect play.  Also, there is artificial mounding which people have addressed as an issue.  Harbour has that too, but the way it is used is not bad at all, and in some spots attractive because it looks natural.

I am not saying Harbour is the best course in the world, btu it one of my personal favorites.  Because I enjoy playing the course time and time again and have fun each time I wonder why other Hills courses are so bad.  I mean, even with a whole lot of housing on Harbour the course is still attractive (Hills built the course with intent of no housing anyways).

Anyways, it just confuses me that all Hills courses can really be 'that bad'.

[Doug Sobieski]

Anyways, it just confuses me that all Hills courses can really be 'that bad'.

Jordan:

I don't think that the argument has ever been that ALL of his courses are horrible. His detractors have focused on his total body of work. Those that have played a large sampling feel that the overall quality is not what it should be, given the quality of canvases that he's had to start with in many places.

[David Wigler]

Jordan,

I will try my best to explain why I believe bad is an accurate word (And please understand this comes from playing 33 of his courses in 9 different states).  He IMO lacks the ability to understand what a golfer will and should do on any given hole.  As such, on every course of his that I have played, he has greens misshaped to the fit of the shots that should be played, his bunker work is typically atrocious, his green complexes run the gamut from unspectacular to illogical and he lacks an in depth understand of routing to the point where he imposes cart-ball on properties that did not need it.  I'll admit that some of his really putrid work, like Oak Pointe, require carts becuase of the wetlands, but many did not and it is just the way he routed the course.

I have told this story many times but I think it sums up Hills best.  UofM brought him in to renovate Alister Mackenzie's work on their course.  #3 was a fantastic short par five with an incredibly severe back to front green that could hold a very well played wood.  The hole had a line of trees up the left side, a severe dogleg left at the 140 yard point around the trees and a very cool old bunker at the 250 yard point off the tee on the right side.  The fairway slopes hard right to left.  An intelligent golfer could see that the hole could safely be played 3-Wood off the tee, 5-iron to the bottom of the hill, Wedge to the green.  For the golfer who wanted to take a risk, he could hit a Driver with a big fade.  If he sliced it, he was dead to the right, if he hit it straight, it was in the trees but a huge fade past the bunker on the right would give a view of the green.  Hills added 40 yards with a new back tee.  An intelligent designer would have put the tee back and to the right, so the required shot could still be hit but new technology factored in.  Hills put the tee back and to the left.  By doing so, a fade cannot be hit as it catches the tree stand.  Now the only shot that can be hit off the tee is a draw and because of the slope of the fairway, the draw kicks even further to the left and the option to go for the green is gone.  Instead of restoring a terrific Mackenzie option hole with a risk/reward component, Hills renovated in a vacuum and his lack of understanding of golf eliminated the charm in the hole.  I can think of at least 20 other examples where Hills has done this.

Bay Harbor is really his Titanic.  I do not say this lightly but I believe that he had a better canvass at Bay Harbor than Dye at Whistling Straights or Doak at Pacific Dunes.  Imagine a property with 9 holes of land like the 3 quarry holes at Black Diamond and 9 holes of windswept dunes that rival anything at Bandon.  The work there is so visually striking (Because of the property) that the course opened in everyones top 100.  After playing it a couple times though, almost all golfers noticed that the course lacked soul, charm, options, and thought.  I do not know Hills and from everything I here he is a charming guy and I certainly do not begrudge him his success.  I do however believe bad is a very fair term to describe his architectural prowess.

[Tags:]

Tags: