[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Well, we can debate whether the bunkers are part of the MacKenzie shcool of architecture, but there is NO question  you have learned from the Pat Mucci school of posting......

May I ask how you insert the colored responses between the quotes? I have never figured that out.

Indeed I learned it from Mucci and the help button above; but don't tell him.  But, I certainly wasn't using it argumentatively.  It's easy, just insert your text that you want to be in color[/b]

Your first post implied a 230 yard carry. If its 270 from the middle tees, I would agree that its not a viable option, and thus, a waste or real estate. 270 from the backs is about right these days.  If it really has no options, and burns up all that real estate, it will get redesigned someday, IMHO.  

To clarify, I played the Gold tees at 6547 yds.  There are Black tees at 7085 yds.  From the Gold tees, the carry to the fairwayon the right where the closest single bunker is, was 230 yds carry.  The upper left fairway over the three bunkers on the left was perhaps 30 to 40 yards further; and you're not going to run it up there.  The Black tees add 30 yds to these.  The Blue tees subtract 30.  The elevation from low sot in faiway to the green is around 50 feet.  The elevation on the second pictured hole is closer to 90 feet.  

To me the left upper fairway is the preferable option, but is achievable for most of us only if you play up on the blues.  The starter suggested that I might want to mix and match tee blocks on each hole and mentioned this hole specifically. And that is in the first week the course was open.

Perhaps in time they'll move all the tee blocks up to make the left option viable.

As to round position, you have to take what the land gives, and some courses just hit you in the face at different spots, including a few that have the No. 1 handicap hole as No. 1.  For that matter, at Devils Pulpit HF had a very difficult tee shot on No. 1, so maybe they like "getting you into the round early".  

As you know, there are restrictions on wetland alterations, so if the site has a wetland, it was probably a wise choice to at least let the golfer negotiate it with the ball on a tee, rather than use it as a green hazard.

Where is the course? It looks like a Wisconsin dairy farm, in which case it has no natural sand blow outs, so the bunkers are unnatural as they were for the good doctor at Augusta, Pasa, and most other courses he designed (Melbourne and CP excepted)

It's farm country a hours drive north of Toronto.  Not too too far from the Devil's Pulpit. (BTW, the bunker you remembered at the Pulpit is actually probably on the Paintbrush, a huge sod walled job). Not unlike Wisconsin countryside. No, there are no natural blowouts in the neighbourhood.

You may not like them, but they are part of the largest contingent of bunkers around - man made bunkers that are artistic abstracts of old sheep hollows in Scotland - but "improved" visually to fit the eye.  Just how good they are, or which gca has the most artistic bunkers is an interesting subject, perhaps one for a separate thread.

I've seen a lot of "sheep hollow" bunkers in Scotland and they don't look like this.  They are certainly artistic abstracts.  I guess they fit TEP's big world theory.  When there are this many I think they will be just a little too much in your face over time.  But, each to their own.

[Bryan Izatt]

I have also played the course.

The left is not out of play, but it is a long carry. I thought it was 240 not 270. If you play a tee up like the rest of us mortals it is even more manageable! The 2nd hole is full of options with the carry lengthening as you go left, but the view and angle improves too. I can't see where this hole can be criticised on it's options nor it's strategies. It plays well and will with multiple playings.

The 7th is far more severe than the 2nd, I don't recall another hole that I can compare it to.

Which tees did you play Ian.  The Blues (6126 yds) or the Golds (6547 yds)?  The 2nd is a lot more viable from the Blues.  I lasered it, and I think it's more in the 270 range from the Golds to the left fairway.  I'll cerainly have to remeasure it when I go back.

Agreed the 6th (the 7th is the drop shot par 3 with the deadly 15 foot deep grass bunkers on the sides and back) is much more severe.  It's twice as much uphill.  I forgot how many extra clubs are required to get up that much hill on the second shot.  And of course the ball hits the wall real early with that much elevation.  There were certainly fewer obvious options on that hole.

Lest I'm being too critical of the course, I thought two of the par 5's were spectacular - the 8th and the 17th.  Here are pictures of the two.  The 17th presents another wall of bunkers on the second shot.




 

[John Foley]

Bryan- Thanks for the pics. I waas up there last fall to play the South course and could see some of the North course. The property looked much more severe. I enjoyed the South course very much (except for a few holes that looked force #2 for one).

If you've got more pics I'd love to see more.

How are they doing ? I know at one time there was a question about the green fee's being so high and the distance form Toronto. Is that still the case?

Hope to see it this fall.

[Bryan Izatt]

John,

I've got more pictures, but no time to post.  We're off to Scotland tomorrow for 2 weeks.

The South is probably a nicer course than the North will be.  They've cut down the tall fescue surrounding the bunkers on the South, which will enhance the playability.  It was the source of a lot of criticism on the South.

The North is indeed much more severe.  If you remember the short downhill par 4 6th littered with bunkers on the South, the 6th on the North is the same hole in reverse - going up a somewhat larger hill.  I liked the 6th South much better - a fun hole.  The one you saw on the North from the road was #2 - the first one pictured above.

I understand they are doing better financially.  They brought in a new management team.  Robert Thompson has more on that in his blog at ontgolf.ca.  Wasn't too busy the day I was there, but they claimed to have lots of tournaments.   I'm not sure how that can be - the GTA has so many high end courses catering to the corporate tournament market now.  The day I was there, there was a wedding going on in the fancy clubhouse.  Maybe that will help the books balance. We'll see how it all works out.

Bottom line is that these are two architecturally interesting courses.  I'd imagine most average golfers would get beaten up on either so their appeal may wane.

[Dan Joseph]

Frankly, I think it's very presumptuous for anyone to make any definitive statements about the quality of any serious course's architecture on the basis of a few photos and without playing several rounds on it over time and in different conditions.  I think a good course only reveals its nature through playing it - and playing it again and again.  If you don't tire of it; if you continue to feel challenged and have fun; if your round has a variegated nature, like music, with changing tempos and rhythms to keep your interest and test your game at different levels - then it's a good, solid course.  But none of this will come through from a few photos.  All these folks are just exercising their fingers and flexing their egos.

 

It's nice to have something pretty to look at, too, when you're playing golf.  A fine point of BH's aesthetics is what Mr. Doak criticized.  But I looked at the same picture of the hole he criticized, and I didn't see what he saw.  To me, the jagged lines didn't look "silly" -- they added interest to the otherwise too-soft melding of sky and hills.  Like music -- there has to be little discordant note (a "contra"-something, it's called in music -- I can't remember the term) to add a little color, maybe to make the golfer feel just a bit uncomfortable (without even knowing why).  Of course, Mr. Doak, aesthetics is a little easier when you're blessed to have the best sites, like at Bandon Dunes on the craggy terrain abutting the Pacific Ocean.  Who, outside of tight golfing circles, new of Mr. D before he was engaged to build on that premium site?  (Not me, anyway.)

 

But aesthetics is not the be-all.  The holy Mecca of all golf -- St. Andrews -- didn't someone famous at one time famously state that he hated the place, before he finally decided he loved it as the best of all golf courses?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()