Ohio State Scarlet (c.2006)

[mark chalfant]

Has anyone played or seen this  challenging course since it  was thorouhgly renovated. im not sure if the Nicklaus group or the  Hurzdan  team   did the  work. Do the newer green contours have   hints of  the Maxwell or Mackenzie style

thanks !

[Glenn Spencer]

I played it in July. I still can't believe what I saw. The old Scarlet was an incredible golf course that I very much enjoyed. The new 4th is one of the strangest holes that I have ever seen, replacing a par 5 that I would put right there with #4 at Bethpage.

[Tim Rooney]

This previously very good course is (250+)yds longer and more challenging.The bunkers are larger and more greenside pinched with greens providing more contour character.The course is member viewed as more demanding with quandry focussed toward the #4 redesign.Most view the JN restoration positive,however, there are dissenters.

[David Whitmer]

I played it in late August, after having not played it in ten years. I found it to be very difficult; I'm a 3-handicapper, and I've never hit so many 3 and 4 irons into par fours. Tim is correct...the bunkers are very large and deep, and every green is elevated with contours. Even the fairway bunkers are deep; I was in a fairway bunker on the first two holes, and was unable to reach the green each time. The pro told us that Jack did the bunkers to be like MacKenzie's at Augusta and Royal Melbourne. I liked it, but I left the course wondering if I'd want to play it every day.

[Brian Laurent]

I played Scarlet for the first time since the renovation in May.  Overall, I loved the new look.  I did not notice too much change in the contour of the greens.  They still seemed to have more of a Maxwell feel in my opinion.  

Here are a few websites with pictures of the project.  The first site contains a bunch of construction photos and the second site is the club's site with before and after shots.

http://www.osumga.com/Pages/news.html

http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/fls/17300/golfcourse/entrance.html

[Doug Sobieski]

I played it in July. I still can't believe what I saw. The old Scarlet was an incredible golf course that I very much enjoyed. The new 4th is one of the strangest holes that I have ever seen, replacing a par 5 that I would put right there with #4 at Bethpage.

I look forward to playing the new #4 much more than the old version. Same with #7. I find them a lot more fun. Overall, I'd apply that sentiment to the entire golf course.

As I've said on here before, the old version was nowhere near the level of the Big 4 in town (it was in a 2nd tier all by itself, and barely mentioned anymore). I now feel that it is back in the conversation of the best courses in Columbus.

[Tom Roewer]

This was discussed some earlier this year.  The course is good enough to withstand a JN renovation.  IMO I do not think that JN could or would do a restoration.  The #4 @ Scarlet is an abortion that doesn't fit the rest of the course.  #13 was butchered beyond belief.  He took a great looking par 3 and made it look like any other pap. The fairway bunkers (new) are much deeper and more penal than before, and they retrieved or created several new hole placement on some greens with extreme movement.#16 and #17 as examples.

[Brian Laurent]

This was discussed some earlier this year.  The course is good enough to withstand a JN renovation.  IMO I do not think that JN could or would do a restoration.  The #4 @ Scarlet is an abortion that doesn't fit the rest of the course.  #13 was butchered beyond belief.  He took a great looking par 3 and made it look like any other pap. The fairway bunkers (new) are much deeper and more penal than before, and they retrieved or created several new hole placement on some greens with extreme movement.#16 and #17 as examples.

Tom-

Care to expand on what you don't like about #13?  Personally, I like the new look and think the hole plays the same as before the renovation.

Agreed on #4, it doesn't fit with the rest of the course.  I would have liked to see the old hole turned into a par 4.  Rumor is that the plan for this hole almost stopped the project completely.

Thanks,

Brian

[Glenn Spencer]

Brian,

#4 as a par 4. Thank you. 518 it used to be, right? It would have a made a great ballbuster par 4 or just scoot back a little and leave it as a gambling par 5 at 535-550. I made 6 all the time there by going for it and missing right and I just thought it was a magical hole. Mess with any other hole on that course and I wouldn't care too much, but it is hard to like the work when your favorite hole is just hacked to death and replaced with something that is too horrible to speak of.

13? The left side of that green is pretty high and with the greens as hard as they are, I didn't like how the hole played, I am with Tom on that one. It was all-world before, now it is just a good hole.

15? Are those bunkers a little much for that small of a green or is it just me? If there is never wind in Columbus, I guess that is a fair ask.

7 and 9 are just akward now and so is the drive on 2. Aren't those bunkers left a little bit of overkill?

The only holes that have improved in my opinion are 14 slightly and 16 green, but it doesn't matter because they got rid of #4.

Also, I really used to like #1, didn't think much of that hole now, either. That rumor would have done well to come to fruition. I always had trouble coming up with a reason not to go and play it, now I can't think of one that would make me go back.

[Kirk Gill]

Looking at the photos on the site provided above, I'm wondering a thing or two.

On the first hole, if the preferred side of the fairway is the left side, why are all the fairway bunkers on the right? There's no reason other than just a mistake of execution to go over there. Not much in the way of risk/reward.

#4 does look tough - and it does also appear to be a more modern design than much of the rest of the course. For those who've played it, does it stick out? Also, JN says "Definition-wise, it's the best new hole out there." That kind of statement tends to worry me. Definition-wise, I'm not a huge fan of the design defining everything for me.

#8 looked pretty intimidating before. Very different from the rest of the course, perhaps. What's it feel like now that the sand has been scaled back?

JN's comments seem to indicate that a lot of greens had contour removed. Is this the case? Is this just a result of wanting more pin placements, or is it because of the desire for faster green speeds? The bunker shaping looks good to my eye, though. Sorry.

[Glenn Spencer]

Isn't the approach to the 3rd green inspiring? Nothing better than having a good clean look at the loading dock of a warehouse!!! This used to be a great green, still pretty damn good. 3-putts and join the fellas at the warehouse for a smoke break before playing the incomparable fourth.

[Glenn Spencer]

It is not hard to tell that I didn't like the re-do, but all kidding aside, are 4 and 5 one of the few times in the history of golf courses that you are looking at back to back greens on the approach shot? I have never seen this before. Standing in the fairway on 4, you are looking at 4 AND 5 green!!! Does that fall into the definition category or what?

[Brian Laurent]

Kirk-
A drive up the right could be the difference between a 4 iron and a wedge.  Big hitters used to bomb it up the right side with little chance of getting in trouble.  Now you have to be able to fly it 300+ to get it in that same spot.  

Agreed, Glenn...I can't believe they took down those trees and fence.  Granted, the green fence was a little tacky, but at least it blocked out the school!  

[Glenn Spencer]

Oh, it is a school. Never mind on the smoke break then.


Kirk,

8 is still pretty damn good. Apparently, I am wrong about a few things. Nicklaus said that they scaled down 8 and 13. They just seemed a lot more wild to me. It seemed impossible left of 13 and I didn't remember it like that, but apparently so. It could have been the timing, we played it something like 4 days after the Nationwide event and I think there was 2 people under par or something like that. The greens were like bricks. #1 green really scared me, but that was nothing until I got into the fairway on 4, now that is scary. My friend made 4-5 birdies from the back tees and still shot a thousand.

[Brian Laurent]

I was wondering where you were coming from on #13...I played at OSU from 98-01 and didn't notice much difference on that hole.  

They had that golf course at it's toughest for the Nationwide event.  It was next to impossible to hold the greens.  It'll be scary for those guys when the rough grows in...they'll have no chance against par.

[Andy Troeger]

I played the OSU Scarlet course last weekend for the first time so I've been reading some of the comments previously to see whether folks liked the work done. I have to admit I expected quite a bit more from the course than I saw. The current version seemed like the epitome of a fairly dull championship style layout with many long repetitive par fours. I liked the style of the bunkering (although my father as a weaker player hated them because he had trouble getting out) as it did remind me of other MacKenzie bunkering I've seen, but it sure seemed like they were deep and front left and front right on just about every green.

#4 is awful, you have to play right toward the trees to try to layup left on the second shot because of a tree on the left side past the landing area. Without the tree there might be some risk/reward for many levels of players with trying to find a prime layup spot. As it is the risk from the left side of the fairway is whether you can aim at the water and hook it back.

I didn't like #7 either from my one play. It has what seems like a good carry bunker, but its so far out that only major bombers have any chance. For the rest of us its a boring layup without any other real decent option. At least its only a mid-iron after the layup, but different placement of the bunker could have made that a fun hole.

I did like many of the holes on the back nine, although I wonder if I'd have liked them better before. #12 is still a nice par five although the driving zone is so narrow that it would be rare for me to do anything but lay up to the top or bottom of the hill. I also liked #13. It was nice to have one shorter par four with #16 as well.

Did anyone else notice that the bunkers seemed to the same distance out on just about every hole; ironically this appeared to be right where one would expect to hit a well struck tee shot    Would be a good course to test your game currently, but it would also beat most golfers to a pulp. Its nowhere near the top level Columbus clubs, and I'd take a second tier place like Wedgewood over it too.

[Tom_Doak]

Was this a restoration, or did Nicklaus just put MacKenzie-looking bunkers in positions he preferred?  Was there any serious look back to the original plans?

[Thomas MacWood]

Was this a restoration, or did Nicklaus just put MacKenzie-looking bunkers in positions he preferred?  Was there any serious look back to the original plans?

Not a restoration and no attempt to look back to the original plans.