News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


redanman

Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« on: April 12, 2002, 06:51:54 AM »
This post will probably be ignored during the Masters week, but here goes.

I played my first Bobby Weed original yesterday and am surprized that if that course is representative of his body of work that he is not given more props here.  He certainly can do the "look" so loved here.  

I played the Golf Course at Glen Mills School, a reform school dating from 1826 when horse stealing was the biggest offense.  Maxing out at 6600 yards and par 71 (71.0/132) the course is a mixture of holes and kind of holes.  Part of the property is difficult to be kind, but some of the holes are magnificent.  The first 5 or 6 holes are such a tremendous start that one has to try to not be too critical of the back (excuse me, second, in keeping with the theme of the week) nine which is wedged in between rocks, boulders. wetlands and sidehills.  The back nine  is  300 yards shorter with par 35 and 3 par 3's,  two reachable par 5's and a couple of short almost for shortness sake par 4's.  (The par 4 330 yard 8th however is way cool with an apparent pencil thin fairway that opens up over a blind tee shot with a plateau green maybe out of Seth Raynor's book of tricks).  10th hole is up to 220 dropshot (120 ft)with trouble and a big flare at the front of the large square green bordered right by "ESA".  11 is the director of golf's favorite hole dogleg left of 390, rock strewn and hemmed in by creek, wetlands and hillside by necessity, but a slightly turtle-backed green (Smallest, least contoured) which really sets up well as a fairly conventional hole.  I could personally lose all the rocks (A la Tot Hill Farm-from pix) but thought it was a good hole.  Followed by another pencil thin fairway that you can see, much more where blind) short par 4 that didn't quite seem right the green comlpex (The incredible overall strength of the course, coupled with bunkers Signore Naccarato would love to roll around in) was absolutely an absolutely first rate fallaway.

A funny little aside I have to put in here, the front tee for the short par 5 17th tees off directly into and over a rock field with suitcase to double steamer sized boulders starting a mere 10 yards from the tee and lasting about 70 yards.  Pity the poor lady who is tired and worries regularly about getting the ball airborne!  It left me with a comical mental image.  Moving a few rocks would help a lot.

Lots of semi blindness on the course, the first six holes super strong architecturally, the 7th, nothing a chainsaw couldn't fix, greens up to 65 yards deep with roller coaster contours in places, this place was pretty cool.  I can't type well enough to do a full report just now sitting here, but I'd like to hear from some who have been to his other courses.  Based in FL and using that crummy land he has probably been hampered a bit, but I'll have to get back to my alma mater U of Florida to see what he did to Donald Ross.  But given the chance, in addition to very artful looking bunkers, use of angles, options and contours, I am surprized we haven't heard more here about Weed.

Is it a top 100 course, no, but it is right down the road from Inniscrone to make a good 36er day.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

Ken_Cotner

Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2002, 11:46:09 AM »
Bill,

I've mentioned a couple times here how much I like the restoration/renovation/re-whatever of Ross' Myers Park CC here in Charlotte.  I may be wrong, but I THINK someone said that Weed did the work.

Whoever it was really brought a lot of nice features back (drop-off greens, cool fairway bunkers).

KC
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Derek Duncan

Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2002, 11:51:28 AM »
redanman,

I've been writing and speaking highly of Weed's Florida work for some time, but I suspect that the majority in this forum don't get to North Florida very often to see what I've seen. The anit-Florida bias doesn't help matters, plus his Tour design days might hamper his reputation in this group.

His work at UF is amazing.  He's literally turned a very mundane course into one of the most intelligent and demanding short courses you're likely to find.  I imagine much of the same on-green/off-green contouring you found at Glen Mills you'll recognize on the old "Ross" course.  Jeff Mingay has recently spoken highly of his work at Timuquana in Jacksonville.  I just returned from Ponte Vedra Inn to see his enhancement of the Ocean Course (1998) and was very impressed considering the limitations.  It was sort of a precursor of the type of green work he's doing now.  There is a cool course called Fleming Island just west of Jacksonville that probably no one has seen, but same story there--great work around the greens, big fairways and lots of contour.  His work on the old Pete Dye nines at Amelia Island Plantation and the new holes he added there are stunning, and I'll even defend The Slammer and The Squire to anyone who wants a fight!

I think you're on to something if you believe that most in this forum will be attracted to what Weed is doing.  My feeling is you'll be hearing his name plenty in the next year or two.  New courses in Austin and Minnesota should get plenty of attention, as should several other start-over projects on which he's currently working.

Derek
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2002, 12:41:17 PM »
I'll take an educated guess that Weed's best design is The Olde Farm in SW Virginia, outside of Bristol.  It won GD's Best New Private a couple years ago and has received a prop or two on this site.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2002, 05:38:03 PM »
Based on feedback from my Dad and from Jim Lewis and based on a bunch of photos that Jeff Mingay showed me of Weed's portfolio,  his work does look of exception. Olde Farm may well be the best but one of the photos from a course in Minnesota (?) also looked like a must see.

Does anyone have any contact details for him (like an email address) for a Feature Interview?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RB Main

Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2002, 05:58:18 PM »
Ran -

Weed Golf Course Design Inc.   Jacksonville Beach, FL
(904) 249-3005     Several people I know say he is usually in or our for several weeks at a time.  Best try to call his office.


I have played Fleming Island SW of Jacksonville.  Really a treat and well designed.  Well placed and designed bunkers around greens make it very enjoyable as well as demanding.  The course is pretty hard and fast, except the greens.  They could stimp 2-3 feet faster and be more fitting to the overall design of the course.  PV Ocean Course is a challenging and typical ocean-side restoration and again can be very difficult or reasonable challenge.  
  

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

wsmorrison

Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2002, 06:05:46 PM »
Redanman

I too, was very pleased with Weed's results at the Glen Mills School.  The terrain is certainly challenging in spots, yet is fun to play and esthetically pleasing for the most part.  Those 15 minutes between tee times are an awfully nice change of pace for a public facility.  The $80 in season fee includes a cart (tough course to walk with elevation changes and distances from green to tee at times impeded by some of the drastic terrain features) which is reasonable in the Philly area for top daily fee courses.

Ran

Jeff Mingay was kind enough to give Scott Sherman of Bobby Weed Golf Course Design my telephone number when he was asked by Scott if anyone was working on a William Flynn book.  I spoke with Scott today (904.249.3005) at their Ponte Vedra office.  As a group they have submitted numerous articles and book exerpts on golf course design.  Scott has been kind enough to offer his assistance on my book project and I'm sure his colleagues at BWGCD will contribute as well.  I get the feeling they are appreciative of the history of golf architecture and utilize classic design theory in conjunction with modern strategic demands taken into consideration.

Bobby Weed was a one-time superintendent (at TPC Sawgrass) and went on to the design field.  Scott was a trained civil engineer.  Somewhat reminiscent of the Toomey/Flynn partnership.

I'm sure their story and ideas would make an interesting piece for the Feature Interview.

Regards,
Wayne Morrison
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

Craig Rokke

Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2002, 06:20:15 PM »
Bill V.-

I've asked myself this same question every time I play this course. The front nine, in my opinion, is as good as any
public nine in Eastern, PA.

The first third of the course is very strong. #1 is a perfect opener, and there are two good, double dogleg par 5's, and some excellent two shotters, such as number 3. I think my favorite par 4 would have to be # 8, though. That's as tough a 90 yard approach shot as you'll ever see.

The back nine terrain must have left Weed exasperated at times. #10 is indeed a cool par three, and there are a couple other decent holes. Many tough tee shots for the high marker, though. I'd agree with your comments on 17, and I'm not real crazy about the closer, which calls for a long carry,
and has a huge bank down the entire right side that must be hiding a thousand lost tee shots.

I'm really looking forward to seeing more of Weed's work. I really like the look of his courses. Hopefully, the school reconsiders and gives him a shot at the gentler land across the street which will soon become home to another 18.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Cody Nelson

Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2002, 07:31:01 PM »
I work for MacCurrach Golf and we have constructed a lot of Bobby's work.  Our most recent Weed courses include the University of Florida and are just starting a new design in Fredericksburg, VA.

I've only been on the site in Fredericksburg a couple of days now but already feel the land has a lot of character with great possiblities.  Currently we are just getting settled into the site with early stages of construction taking place.  I will update the group when I have more information.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Glenn Muckley

Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2002, 11:35:18 AM »
Cody-

I was glad to hear your thoughts on the site in Fredericksburg.  It really does have quite a bit of potential.  If you have any spare time, I recommend venturing beyond the golf corridors.  There are some really fantastic natural areas leading down to the Rappahannock River.  My firm is doing the permitting and engineering work for the project.  I'd be anxious to hear your thoughts as construction commences.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #10 on: April 17, 2002, 11:56:03 AM »
E-mail: bweed@bobbyweed.com
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

TEPaul

Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #11 on: April 17, 2002, 02:27:03 PM »
From everything I've ever heard about Bobby Weed and his work and the question of should golfclubatlas be in love with him, I'm not quite sure but it sounds like we should get seriously infatuated with him immediately, and who knows maybe we will fall in love very quickly!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2002, 07:17:16 PM »
Bobby Weed does very god work. I'm glad that people can appreciate Olde Frm knowing (if they remember) that it was done by the same guy who did TPC at River Highlands, TPC at Summerlin and TPC at the Canyons.

My point is to judge the work. The entire question of this thread is absurd - as if folks here have to devote themselves wholeheartedly for or against some one person. I find it rather embarrassing the cult of personality that goes on here at GCA - everything one person does is great and everything someone else does is dismissed out of hand.

I like some of Tom Doak's work and find some of his work awful. I think that there's too much kid-gloves treatment of Coore and Crenshawe here as well. And I've seen some very impressive Fazio work that is merits close attention. So no, we shoudn't love anyone, but we should take them seriously.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Craig Rokke

Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2002, 07:44:10 PM »
Good points, Brad. I agree to an extent with some of your conclusions. I think Redanman's question was posed simply as an inquiry into whether this guy's work should receive more attention on GCA. Weed's name seldom comes up as it is.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #14 on: April 18, 2002, 05:57:56 AM »
Brad;

I know what you mean when you say the "cult of personalities" that goes on with this site.

Persoanally, I think there is much less of it from those that some suspect of it. I think that perception of this site that way comes less from those that do like a lot of Coore and Crenshaw's work, for instance, and far more from those on here who are always criticizing those same people for "glorifying" everything that they do and also being completely "biased" of other architects!

I don't believe that is really so but it appears that way from a few who keep harping on it!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

redanman

Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2002, 07:38:11 AM »

Quote

The entire question of this thread is absurd - as if folks here have to devote themselves wholeheartedly for or against some one person. I find it rather embarrassing the cult of personality that goes on here at GCA - everything one person does is great and everything someone else does is dismissed out of hand.


Brad

The point of my heading for the thread is just that-sarcasm.  The one thing that really limits this thread on a day-to-day basis is the sacred cow/ throw out the baby with the bathwater mentality.  

As for Glen Mills specifically, the "look" in places is phenomenal.  The work in places is really excewllent.  In places, wetlands/ rock fields/ hillsides aside, is quite lacking leaving a very uneven relatively unfulfilled felling given the start.

BV
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

redanman

Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2002, 07:40:44 AM »
Oh yeah, on another point, does anyone have some pictures from the new course built over the existing Ross course at the University of Florida?  I have played 600+ rounds of golf at the old course that was there in my 4 1/2 years attending UF!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Derek Duncan

Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2002, 09:02:36 AM »
redanman--

I have quite a few photos of UF but I don't know how to upload them onto this site.  I'll post them if someone wants to walk me through it, or if you give me your email address I can send them to you that way.

Derek
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

redanman

Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #18 on: April 18, 2002, 09:08:52 AM »
Derek

Thanks.  Please send them to me at redandoc@hotmail.com and i'll get them posted somehow.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #19 on: April 18, 2002, 10:22:52 AM »
Brad Klein --

You write: "I like some of Tom Doak's work and find some of his work awful. I think that there's too much kid-gloves treatment of Coore and Crenshawe here as well. And I've seen some very impressive Fazio work that is merits close attention."

Care to put some meat on them bones?

God is in the details -- not just of architecture, but of criticism, too, eh?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2002, 11:53:20 AM »
I totally agree with Brad Klein. Too many architects get free passes here. Let's examine each project one at a time, before we profess a love for an architect. let's love some (or all) of his work, but review it on a frequent basis. At least that's what i try to do.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2002, 12:46:41 PM »
So lets have it Dan and Brad. Let's start with Coore and Crenshaw, the perennial Golfclubatlas poster boys. Tell us what you don't like about their work generally, specifically or anyway you want to tell it.

For me, though, I hope I'm not one of those that are perceived to handle them with kid gloves--although I'm sure I am on here.

I'm certainly not raving about every single thing or hole they've ever done but actually all I've ever seen of their courses is Easthampton, and Friar's Head and Hidden Creek under construction.

I've only played Easthampton and to be analytical or critical of that course or whatever you want to call not handling them with kid gloves I thought #1 was relatively uninteresting--just not in the greatest locatin for a golf hole. And I really just didn't like #18 and I really don't know why exactly. It probably is a real hard finishing hole somehow but it sure didn't look right or feel right to me for some reason. Maybe it was just its position on the property too.

But take #17--that's one of the reasons I really think they are sort of geniuses! When I first saw that hole I thought it was a par 4 for some reason and I thought they were nuts to build a hole like that but when I was told it was a short "go/no go" par 5 with a super narrow dangerous green I thought, my God these guys pulled off something phenomenally clever here.

But the routing and it's oddities and inconvenieces at Easthampton are very apparent--but how can you blame Coore and Crenshaw for that? They inherited a home-grown amateur routing and made the choice to take on the project anyway, despite that. I admire that kind of thing on their part too--shows to me they aren't big visible project seekers that are out for glory on every project.


Plus I love everything about the way they perceive architecture and the way they go about building it--the detail and some of the concepts are just phenomenal.

But I don't know anything about their other courses but clearly Sand Hills has to be really great.

So I hope I'm not accused of handling them with kid gloves. Everybody has their favorites and Coore & Crenshaw happen to be mine--nothing wrong with that. And I'm ready to be critical of their courses when I see it and to defend what I think they've done so well too! From what I've seen of Friar's and Hidden Creek they're going to be wonderful golf courses and very different too. Friar's will really impress most everyone right out of the box and Hidden will probably be harder to understand, get to know and impress but I just love it--very different!

And with Fazio I've been real honest and supportive of what I know of his work that's to like--Galloway, for instance! There are some really good golf holes on that course on a really poor disconnected routing, in my opinion.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2002, 02:38:08 PM »
I very much like the one Bobby Weed course I've played -- the alluded-to Minnesota course, called StoneRidge, located just east of St. Paul near Stillwater. Here's a link to some decent photos of the place (wish I could post one or two the best, but I haven't figured out how to do that yet. Tommy N?)

http://www.stoneridgegc.com/golfcourse.htm

StoneRidge is billed as a "heathland" course, featuring lots of natural-looking bunkers and wild native grasses. It was built on a combination of two sites: the front nine was a horse farm, and the back nine was a gravel pit. Not surprisingly, the front nine is, in my mind, the better nine, but there are several challenging and entertaining holes on the back, as well.

Standout holes include:

#3, a short par 4 (370 yards) with a cross bunker guarding the right two-thirds of the fairway at about 210 yards. You don't want to lay back and leave yourself a five-iron into the narrow, two-tiered green that falls away on three sides, but it takes a real blast into a non-helping wind to clear the bunker, or a very precise shot to hit the fairway left of it. The left side of the hole is almost all waste area.

#4, a 565-yard dogleg right on which the proper line off the tee is over waste bunkers all down the right side. The green is extremely and abruptly elevated, even moreso that #9 at Augusta National, so your second shot is almost always going to be a mid-iron layup to a narrowing fairway. It would take a phenomenal second shot to reach and hold the green, but there is a bank behind it, thick with prairie grass. (The photo from behind this green on the above link does not adequately reflect its elevation.)

#5, a pure power 460-yard, humpbacked par 4, played into the prevailing wind. There's a waste area on the left side, but plenty of room right; the second half of the fairway is slightly downhill, the green is open in front and the fairway is generally firm enough to run a low shot onto the huge, four-club green.

#8 (the last hole on this side before the clubhouse, interestingly), a 359-yard uphill teaser that curls to the left around a series of bunkers. The bunkers can be carried, leaving a very short pitch, but if you go right of these bunkers with a driver, you run the risk of hitting it through the fairway and into a bunker or deep grass on the right side, leaving a sidehill stance to a green you can't see.

#10, a downhill, 410-yard dogleg left that plays much shorter than its yardage, unless the prevailing wind is really howling. Your drive will either end up at the top of a drop-off, leaving a very steep downhill 7-iron or so to a green guarded by a pond on the left side, or your drive will roll to the bottom of this hill, leaving a lob wedge.

#11, the signature "Barn" hole -- a slightly uphill 495-yard par 5. The game here is to fit your drive between the old white horse barn on the left side of the hole, about 160 yards off the tee, and a couple of oak trees in the right rough, about the same distance off the tee as the barn. (I played a round here with Dan Kelly -- he bounced his tee shot directly off the barn, and it bounced backwards into the rough about 40 yards. He made par from there.) The green is definitely reachable if your first drive finds the fairway -- and probably a better option than laying up, because the fairway is lined and interrupted by waste bunkers that limit your layup area; but the green is on an elevated shelf and difficult to hold. Most second shots run through the green and up the hill behind it, leaving a very scary chip back to the hole.

#13, a short, uphill, dogleg right par 4 (310 yards) around the former gravel pit, kind of the mirror image of #8; if the wind is with you, you might consider going for this green, but finishing short will leave you in a pot bunker, a blind,  grassy uphill lie, or in the pit. An iron off the tee to the small fairway and a wedge into the green is the easier way to play the hole.

#14, a great par 3 (come to think of it, the other par 3's are not among the best holes at StoneRidge -- target golf without much charm); this one requires a 180-yard carry over the corner of the former gravel pit. If the hole is cut on the right side of this green, and you fire at it, you risk all kinds of grief on your second shot, from a hillside bunker to some kind of funky recovery shot from the bottom of the pit.

#17 is a decent straightaway par 5 that requires some study of the yardage book to avoid the bunkers and waste areas, and #18 is a 456-yard dogleg right par 4 into the prevailing wind that kind of beats up a tired player -- it's got a long waste area down the right side, which will surely grab a weak fade. If you bail out left, however, you run the risk of hitting it through the fairway and into the tall grass. Even your best drive is going to leave a long iron into the green -- which is guarded about 30 yards out by a trench of thick rough across the fairway to discourage a running approach.

The first 12 holes are easy to walk; once you get to the gravel pit holes, however, the remaining hikes between green and tee are difficult and confusing. That's about all I found not to like about StoneRidge, however (that and the background hum of traffic along I-94, which you don't see because of the man-made earth barriers along the south edge of the course.) It's a very eye-pleasing course, with a number of different strategic approaches available on most holes.

StoneRidge is charging $72 per round, which is a great price compared to many of the nation's newer CCFAD's (and cheaper than the other CCFAD's in the Twin cities Tom Lehman's Troy Burne, Weiskopf-Moorish's The Wilds and Cupp and Fought's Rush Creek), but it's meeting consumer resistence here because local golfers aren't used to paying that kind of money to play. It's an extremely well-maintained course, and I hope the officially-declared golf course glut in Minnesota won't affect that.

Put me down as a fan of Mr. Weed.

Rick











« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #23 on: April 18, 2002, 03:06:15 PM »
Doyen Paul --

I'm confused (or: more confused than usual). Are you talking to me when you write: "So lets have it Dan and Brad. Let's start with Coore and Crenshaw, the perennial Golfclubatlas poster boys. Tell us what you don't like about their work generally, specifically or anyway you want to tell it."

I couldn't find another Dan. Why do you think I don't like ANYTHING about Coore & Crenshaw's work? I've played one (1) course of theirs, Sand Hills, and I would rate it No. 1 (1) among the courses I've played, ever.

I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with Brad Klein -- but was merely asking him to back up his statements.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

TEPaul

Re: Bobby Weed-Should GCA love him?
« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2002, 03:37:48 PM »
Thanks Dan Kelly(tm):

A most reasonable statement of yours about Coore and Crenshaw! I'm a bit like you, I guess, I just really like what I've seen of their golf courses, although I am able to find a few things that are not A-1 in all aspects of every single hole.

Are you sure there is nothing you can find about even Sand Hillls that is even remotely wrong or worthy of some kind of criticism or even mention.

We wouldn't want to see you appear to treat them with kid gloves, ya know?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »