Ballyneal - At Long Last!

[Matt_Ward]

Jim F:

I concur completely with what you said about Ballyneal v Sand Hills. The course is truly an incredible experience and one that makes Colorado an even grander golf state.

[Steve Lapper]

JB -

No one has commented, but I can't see Sand Hills being 2 full points better either. Don't get me wrong, Sand Hills is an incredible course/experience, but Ballyneal is right there and that is a compliment to Eric and his staff and our Tom Doak.

I respectfully disagree with both you and Matt. Sand Hills is very deserved of its margin of difference over Ballyneal and while quite supportive of its younger solid effort over in Colorado, not quite ready to yield any of it magnificant brilliance to this modern-day attempt at emulation. Of course, Matt was just in Sand Hills (10+ years ago) so he's especially well equipped to offer such a fresh and timely comparison.

Sand Hills has superior scale and size and a measure of vastness not found yet in Holyoke. All of its holes are unique to each other (without some measure of the repetitiveness found at Ballyneal). It has the finest artist known to the world: Mother Nature, as its primary architect, with just a little help(mostly identification and minor shaping) from C&C. Ballyneal does indeed have the genius of one of today's greatest living architects, but I'll still go with a combo of Mother Nature and Bill Coore (and Ben)! Try to remember that only one course has evolved with only ONE handmade bunker and ONE constructed green. If flattery is the sincerest form of compliment, then yes, Ballyneal is an instant and lovely success.


Don't get me wrong. I think Ballyneal is a marvelous and very worthy effort by Doak & Co. to produce another fantastic example of what can be conceived of by man on a golf-friendly property. However, some of the features at BN don't amaze me or incite passion the way others do at Sand Hills. The constant triplexing and micro-chaotic mounding of the BN greens become  redundant and borderline goofy in spots and they appear in no less than every other hole. That does effectively limit future green speeds to shy of 10-11(admitted by BN's own powers-that-be) without becoming patently unfair.  Pins tucked between micro-mounds felt bothersome and artificial to myself and our playing group. Such a result is certainly not horrible, nor onerous, but it does impose some limit nonetheless. Putting on mid-August greens at Sand Hills requires an Oakmont or Augusta -like deft touch and stirs the senses, at least for me. Great putters (and I'm not even hinting at belonging to that league) savor the experience of finding a subtle break with lightening speed.

The short and yet well built par fours at BN all seem to repeat a pattern of slight dog-legging right-to-left routing and, while balanced versus the wind and the routing of the other holes, don't offer much change in shot strategy. #7 at BN, like its brethren at SH, is simply an all-world golf hole and neither can be ascribed one iota of fault or criticism. However, tell me where is there at BN a back-to-back doppelganger, diametrically strategic pair wind-reversed holes like 7-8 at Sand Hills?

Another GCA'er played with me at BN and we both hit horrible, but vastly different shots into BN's 15th (from the tips) , yet we watched how each ball was funneled (by very different routes) to rest less than 12 ft from the hole. Can someone tell me why that is considered "amazing" architecture or design? Even the punch bowls at NGLA or The Creek don't give it up that easily. Try that at any par 3 (especially a similarly distanced #13 or even the 3rd..coming from different sides) at Sand Hills and tell me that can happen?

Like trying to compare Sebonack to Shinnecock or Doonbeg to Ballybunion, this comparison just doesn't make it in my book. One has earned its accolades and stood the test of at least a decade, while the other has yet to see what its own greens will play like under real prairie-like summer conditions.

I don't say any of this to demean Ballyneal, the O'Neals,Tom Doak, or its members or staff. In fact, my hats off to them all (and especially the O'Neals) for the vision and execution that has produced something so very worthy and special. They get the concept and delivery of open prairie, dunes golf, and that can't be said for all the projects in that range.

I've had this same conversation with several very thoughtful, sensible and wise GCA'ers (inc. one member) and they all agreed  that perhaps BN is not quite ready for the royal "coronation" by this treehouse, especially based on one, albeit limited, season of play.

So I'm all for exampling the wonder of Mr. Doak's work with pictures and praises, but IMHO, this ain't no contest...One is Sand Hills, the other a worthy candidate for runner-up, but thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it!

I am ready for all the GCA arrows & spears...start hurling!!!

[John Kirk]

Steve,

I thought I'd respond, so at least you know I'm paying attention.

I don't think Sand Hills deserves to be two full points better than Ballyneal.  I think it's much closer than that.  Am I going to explain why I feel that way?  No.

I have enjoyed playing both courses immensely.  They are quite different.

I also disagree that the "treehouse" has coronated Ballyneal as equal or superior to Sand Hills.  You've mentioned this at least three times here; I'm not buying it.  I'd guess the majority of players here who have played both prefer Sand Hills.  After all, it is ranked the #1 modern course in Golfweek.

[RJ_Daley]

If I were to have 5 more rounds of golf in my life between SH and BN, I'd like 3 BN and 2 SH.  

[Steve Lapper]

Steve,

I thought I'd respond, so at least you know I'm paying attention.

I don't think Sand Hills deserves to be two full points better than Ballyneal.  I think it's much closer than that.  Am I going to explain why I feel that way?  No.

I have enjoyed playing both courses immensely.  They are quite different.

I also disagree that the "treehouse" has coronated Ballyneal as equal or superior to Sand Hills.  You've mentioned this at least three times here; I'm not buying it.  I'd guess the majority of players here who have played both prefer Sand Hills.  After all, it is ranked the #1 modern course in Golfweek.

John,

  I know you aren't ignoring this and your opinions, while a shade tainted by association , carry real weight with me, yet if you choose not to explain them in detail nor bother tallying the many one-sided expressions of preferences and comparisons made on this site, it is hard to argue that this is anything but an all-out "coronation." So far, most of those willing to post have deemed BN equal to or superior to SH multiple times. Go back and take a poll of what has been written so far. I simply posted that I don't buy into it, nor do I even think they are that close!

Is BN a fun place to play and enjoy and won't it continue to improve over time?? Sure it will, but it isn't near great enough to warrant putting its trophy on the same mantle as Sand Hills. Sand Hills is naturally complete, of immense scale, and absent most of the man-made flaws inherent to earth moving and deliberate choice of determined strategy.

What bothers me is that no one has, to date, bothered to analytically look at the place, instead just ringing out how "amazing, brilliant, awesome, rugged, sinuous," etc.... and how it  is as good or better than its inspiration. I don't mind, that for personal choice, many would prefer to play Ballyneal as or more frequently than Sand Hills. I'm sure most would prefer to play more rounds at Merion over Pine Valley, NGLA over Shinnecock, or even Fenway over Quaker Ridge.....it just fits better for certain skill and appreciation levels, but don't tell me the former are better than the latter.

Hope you are well and coming East this season!

[cary lichtenstein]

JB -

No one has commented, but I can't see Sand Hills being 2 full points better either. Don't get me wrong, Sand Hills is an incredible course/experience, but Ballyneal is right there and that is a compliment to Eric and his staff and our Tom Doak.

I agree and would go so far as to say I liked it better becuase of the topographical variey presented at Ballyneal.

[Jim Franklin]

Steve -

I certainly did not say Ballyneal is better than Sand Hills, but said Sand Hills was not 2 points better in the GW scale. Sand Hills is an incredible master piece by Mother Nature with C&C's help (I thought there were two man made bunkers though). Ballyneal, while in its infancy, is a terrific course with numerous options to play each hole. I look forward to playing each again this summer and will post my comparisons then. I have played Sand Hills about 20 times within the past four years so I am very acquainted with the course as you apparently don't give Matt credit because he has not been there in 10 years. Sand Hills is awesome, but Ballyneal is too.

[Jim Nugent]

A poll would be interesting.  Those of you who have played Sand Hills and Ballyneal, which do you like more?  Which do you think is the better course?  

Another interesting question: could Ballyneal have been made without Sand Hills?  Did the Neal brothers and/or Doak get part of their inspiration from Sand Hills?  

[ed_getka]

One of the things about Sand Hills that I have heard more than once is how the green speeds are too fast at times. I have been there where you think you've made a putt with perfect speed only to see it roll out another 7 feet.
   
The other thing I always point out about SH is that #13 and 17 are basically the same hole at different lengths. I know #17 wasn't originally meant to be played from the current orientation, but apparently the prevailing wind made the tee up on the hill too difficult.

These are two minor quibbles and Sand Hills remains my favorite golf course so far. That may change in a few weeks. I haven't been out to Ballyneal yet, but enjoyed talking with Jim O'Neal about the genesis of the course last fall.

Ultimately I think it will come down to personal preference, but I have heard from enough people whose opinion I respect to feel that the gap isn't that great between the two courses.

[RJ_Daley]

While I said above that I'd play 3/2 in favor of BN at this point; it must be stated that I have already played SH 6X and BN only 1X.  So familiarity and the overwhelming variety that is found at BN can't possibly be embraced in 1X.  I want to play slightly more at BN primarily to catch up with familiarity I have with SH (which even 6X over 11 years isn't all that familiar, really)

I just sense that there is more happening on the holes at BN.  The terrain and greens are more 'busy', adding greater excitement to me.  I think that it would take longer to become truly familiar with BN.  

But as to the last questions:

could Ballyneal have been made without Sand Hills?  Did the Neal brothers and/or Doak get part of their inspiration from Sand Hills?

I think it was inevitable that the golf world would finally turn to the SH area to embrace the kind of golf courses that are possible there.  I doubt that Doak got his inspiration primarily from SH.  He would have come up with the likes of BN, regardless of SH, I think.  I can't answer for the Neal bros.  But, I think that those that are passionate about golf,  'as it was meant to be',  and have the means via already owning such land, would also inevitably turn towards the concept.  Frankly, I believe there are several archies that could produce great courses out there.  

In a sense, niggling about which is better, SH or BN is pointless.  They are different courses, different terrain, different presentations by different archies, and both are masterpieces on their own merits.  I don't intend to sound political.  But, that is the reality to me.

[Jerry Kluger]

I seriously doubt that Friar's Head would have been built without Sand Hills.  

[Tom_Doak]

I don't know if Ballyneal would have been built without the previous success of Sand Hills -- the O'Neals had certainly thought about it before that, so perhaps they would have tried.  It would be easier to make the case that Bandon Dunes and Sutton Bay and Dismal River would not have been built without the precedent of Sand Hills, than for Ballyneal, if you know all of the people involved.  

It would be great if  Ballyneal could be judged on its own merits instead of always being compared to Sand Hills and being downgraded for not being "first," but we knew from the outset that would never be the case.  We did try as diligently as possible to come up with 18 golf holes that were different than the 18 holes at Sand Hills so it would have a story of its own to tell.  We also tried different approaches to bunkering and to tying in the native vegetation to the mowed part of the course, although most people don't notice that kind of stuff.

Jonathan:  Ballyneal does remind me a bit of Barnbougle, although Barnbougle's contours are somewhat different ... some holes on the front are deeper through valleys of dunes than anything at Ballyneal, and some holes on the back are up on top of the contours more.  [Actually, we played Macrhihanish a week ago, and both of my associates said that it reminded them of Ballyneal because of the expanse between holes.]

Jim N:  The routing of Ballyneal was done going back and forth between maps and the field, over a period of about two years.  (I kept stopping through for a day or two on my way somewhere else, instead of spending a couple of weeks there and figuring it all out.)  Distance perception is so tough out there that I don't know if I could have done it without a map.  

A couple of holes (8 & 9) were discovered by Jim Urbina on his first visit, before we had a map; my first routing on paper before I saw the site had several more of the holes we eventually used.  But, the last half of the second hole, the par-3 third, and the fourth tee were not on the map we had to work with at all ... they were found in the field when we had most of the rest of the routing worked out and we were trying to make it work out to 18 holes total.

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: When we were going out to play a few holes in the afternoon, the head professional (his name momentarily escapes me), pointed out how many different choices we would have if we chose not to play 1 through 9 or 10 through 18, since it was easy to cut over from one green to a different tee.  Was this thought about at all when you were routing the course or did it just happen?

[Tom_Doak]

Jerry:

We did think about having some smaller loops of holes when routing the course, once we were part of the way into the routing and realized we would have some of that naturally.

It was obvious early on that we had two good starting and finishing points right next to the clubhouse, and though it didn't have to be two even loops of nine holes each, it worked out well that way.  The 11th and 16th tees just happened to be near to each other, and the 12th green just over the dune from the 9th tee, so that created a couple of four-hole loops (10-16-17-18 or 10-11-12-9).  Later, when I moved the seventh green in the field, that made it easy to skip 5-6-7 and go from 4 to 8 if you're hurrying to get out of a thunderstorm.

[Jon Wiggett]

A couple of holes (8 & 9) were discovered by Jim Urbina on his first visit, before we had a map; my first routing on paper before I saw the site had several more of the holes we eventually used.  But, the last half of the second hole, the par-3 third, and the fourth tee were not on the map we had to work with at all ... they were found in the field when we had most of the rest of the routing worked out and we were trying to make it work out to 18 holes total.

Tom,

do you think it possible to build a course of BN standard and have it accepted even if it is only 17 holes or maybe 20 holes. Would players accept such courses even if they were outstanding or is the 18 hole course to ingrained in the mind of the golfer?

[Paul Jones]

Jon,

I know this question was asked to Tom, but my thoughts would be that most golfers will look at 17 holes as unfinished and 20 holes as 2 bonus holes since 18 has been the standard.

[Scott Szabo]

Sand Hills is awesome, but Ballyneal is too.

Well put.  The O'Neals and all involved should be proud of their club.

Scott

[Tim Pitner]

These pictures always make it look more desertlike to me than it felt like when I was there.

I guess I go the other way--when I was there, I was surprised by how desert-like it was.  Maybe I spent too much time off the fairway.  

I don't get all the attention paid to questions like "which is better--Sand Hills or Ballyneal?"  They're so subjective.  Anyone who claims to have an objective system for rating a golf course is deluded.  Even Doak, who is obviously well-travelled and knowledgeable, admits that it's difficult to distinguish between a 6 or a 7, or a 7 versus an 8.  Ultimately, it really is a waste of time.  

P.S. I'm not saying the Doak scale is a waste of time--it gives you a general idea of the level of the course and that's very helpful.