Wade Hampton GC (1987)

[John Moore II]

Matt--I was simply trying to say that nearly every golf course architect has a specific feature or two that show up in most of their courses. Fazio is just the same as any architect who's work I have seen. I agree with Bart, hosting majors is not what sets apart good from great from exceptional. If Fazio's clients wanted a course that could host a US Open with the narrow fairways, sloped greens and extreme difficulty, I am certain he could do it. That is not what Fazio's clients want, and he admits that. Do I have a limited portfolio? Yes, I do. Does that limit my ability to say the courses I have played all rate among the best I have played? No. Major Championships are not the end all of a course being great. If that was the case, Augusta would be #1 by far while Pine Valley, Cypress Point and Seminole would not even be listed.

[hhuffines]

Jim,

Thanks for your input on this and Pinehurst #4 on the other thread!  I was comparing "rankings" (some very puzzling) from the major magazines and just used that term.

All of this new and improved golf in NC is very exciting!!!

Thanks again and as Ran says, "cheers!"

Hart

[jim_lewis]

Hart:

My comments regarding the distinction between "ranking" and "rating"  were not a specific reaction to your use of the term rank. It just gave me an occasion to make repeat a point that I have made a few times in the past. It was aimed primarily at John Kavanaugh who insists on calling us "rankers". I don't think he uses it as a complimentary term, and he knows better.

Jim

[John Kirk]

Good thread. Bump.

[Art Roselle]

I have played WH many times over the past 10 or 15 years and it is one of my favorite places to play golf.  That is not entirely a commentary on the design, because the views make up a lot of the experience and there are few better places to have lunch, than the back porch overlooking the 9th green.  Still, the views and overall experience matter.

I am not sure how I would rank it and I think a lot of those rankings are pointless anyway.  It may be higher than I would have expected, but I do think it is a very good design and I am not sure I understand the complaints that it is a formulaic Fazio course.  I have played many TF courses and while I enjoy most of them, I do agree that many of them "feel" similar.  WH, however, does not fall into that category in my opinion.  It is pretty and playable, which I suppose is typical of TF, but I think the course fits naturally into its setting much better than some of Tom's other work.  I think WH has some of the best natural greensites I have played.  I am not sure how much earth was moved in construction, but they certainly feel natural.  The course also has a very good routing which makes it walkable despite the terrain.  The hike up to the first tee and the transition from the 5th green to the 6th tee are the only awkward spots.

Favorite holes: 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17
Least favorite: 1, 5, 8, 18

In general, there are quite a lot of good newer golf courses in the mountains of NC, in addition, to the older classics like Linville, Grandfather, Highlands CC and Roaring Gap.

In addition to the courses mentioned previously, I think Cullasaja is an underappreciated course in the Highlands/Cashiers area (Palmer).  There are some bad holes and they made a mess of the housing near the lake, but it is also fairly walkable and very fun.  I have never gotten bored with it.

If you want to see an engineering marvel (if not a great course) check out the front nine at Highland Cove.  It looks like it may fall off the side of the mountain.

[Bart Bradley]

Ed,
What do you think makes the course not feel so mountainous? How is it solidly routed?

JMorgan:

It is clearly in a mountain setting and has elevation changes, but not to the same extent as a number of other courses in the NC mountains.  To my eye that is a good thing since some mountain courses appear to be forced onto a piece of property that really isn't suited golf.  The holes seem to me to fit the land well and contain a nice mix of length, variety and shot-making requirements.  

I will also chime in on the question you asked Greg.  Champion Hills, Moutaintop, Brights Creek and Diamond Creek are all Fazio designs in the NC mountains.  I have not played Champion Hills or Mountaintop so I can't offer any insight to those courses.  Brights Creek has the potential to be as good as Wade Hampton once it matures but is part of a very large planned development that is oriented toward selling property.  In my opinion Diamond Creek is the equal of or better than Wade Hampton, but the club intentionally flies under the radar.  Strictly golf with only a handful of lots to accomodate out of town members.  In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member at Diamond Creek.  I don't think that colors my perspective since I joined after playing these course, but who knows for sure.

Ed
 

I will agree with Ed about Diamond Creek...excellent setting, wonderful course and beautiful clubhouse.  The ninth hole at Diamond Creek is fabulous.  Yes, a Fazio course with an all-star hole.  I am not a member at Diamond Creek so my opinion must be valid  .

I have played Champion Hills and did not find the course nearly as enjoyable as the others mentioned here.  Unwalkable and severely elevated tees ...gorgeous views, marginal golf.


Bart

[Matt_Ward]

Jim Lewis:

Good post on your take on WH and golf in NC. I do agree with you take that repeat items from architects can be worthwile but they need to be a bit more creative than simply redoing the same outcomes time after time after time.

If C&C were to do another course next to Sand Hills it would be beneficial not to design the same exact thing which the original layout represents.

In regards to WH -- yes, the routing is nicely done but if I had to name any particular hole there that would jump off the charts I'd be hard pressed to name one. North Carolina golf has risen a great deal since my collegiate times at South Carolina and no doubt the western portion of the state fares well with plenty of newcomers and a few old time charmers like Grandfather, et al.

I agree with you 1000% that each course needs to be individually assessed. I don't consider myself a member of the bash Tom Fazio club - there are others here on GCA who can lay claim to that club -- but I see little from his collective grouping of courses that I have played that really break ground from the standpoint of compelling architecture. No doubt he covers all the bases but far too often the green contours, bunker positioning and shaping and the sheer array of different types of holes is usually limited.

Compare TF to what you see with Team Nicklaus over the last 10 years or so and the differences in terms of what is being produced at the very top tier is startling.

I don't doubt that designers have a tough situation -- they want work and the work that excites people is the last few jobs they did. Often times being cast in one particular role can be tough to break -- see Andy Griffith as Sheriff Taylor or Carrol O'Connor as Archie Bunker can attest.

Architecture in the past could get away with repeat efforts because few people would likely be able to play personally all the courses someone did from many years ago. A guy having a Raynor course in Chicago would likely not be able to sample all of his other work from other locations because of sheer logistics to play them. That's not the case today.

JohnnyM:

Thanks for being a bit more candid with your last post.

I don't doubt that from the limited number of TF courses you have personally played you may in fact truly believe they are all "excellent courses."

The issue I have many people here on GCA is that people will take their limited playing experiences and then extrapolate that into a broad brush conclusion.

TF does fine work -- I've said that many times over. No doubt he helps developers sell their properties with the courses he designs. However, if you analyze a broader range of TF courses -- of which I've personally played 70+ -- I can truthfully say that the range of courses that would merit the tag "compelling architecture" is very small.

I define "compelling architecture" as the type that would make me want to play there again. TF does have a few layouts that merit such distinction -- they are, alas, a small percentage -- no more than 20% of the total ones I have played to date.

TF cranks out golf courses the way Toll Brothers used to crank out high end housing. It's done well but it's not going to be on any short list of architectural marvels.

One last thing -- try to avoid throwing adjectives like "great" and "excellent" courses with wild abandon. Sportscasters and news people do it to a fault with today's sports stars. TF does have a few stellar courses that I have played but that list is far smaller than his greater proponents would imagine.

Bart:

The hosting of majors is just one element that I mentioned -- I am not suggesting it is the be-all / end-all and you are quite right there are a host of issues that result in the awarding of such sites. Nonetheless, for all his successes a Fazio layout has never hosted one.

Let's get back to the point you avoided -- check out the layouts that Tom Fazio did with his late Uncle George. They represent an interesting mixture of layouts from Jupiter Hills to Butler National, to name just two.

If you compare some of these earlier efforts and see the manner by which the Tom Fazio "brand" style has now become and more and more routinzed.

Bill, I don't know how many TF courses you have played and which ones you would rate as the best of the bunch you have played. TF gets a tough shake from many on this site but I consider myself a pragmatic person when it comes to pushing aside all the propaganda that simply tears down everything the guy has designed. Nonetheless, from the total number of TF courses I have played (70+) I would say no more than 20% are worth a return visit. That's not the best of batting averages.

One final item -- if the test for greatness is whether or not the average golfer likes what he does -- then so be it. The same can be said for McDonald's and the people who buy hamburgers from them.

[Bart Bradley]

Matt:

I did not respond to your point about Tom Fazio working with his uncle, because I don't believe I have played one of their collaborations.  I left that comment for someone who might have some insight.

I don't really understand how that impacts my view on what Tom Fazio has produced on his own anyway.  I am only judging the courses that I have played.  Dallas National has several great/unusual holes...have you been there?  The ninth at Diamond Creek is fantastic....have you been there?   Obviously you should be commended/envied for your depth of experience on Fazio courses...One question comes to mind...If they aren't great or worth replaying, why do you keep going?  

Bart

[Lawrence Largent]

As good as the 9th is at Diamond Creek the 18th is spent.  Thats about as bad a finishing hole as you can get.

[Ed Oden]

Ed:

Just a quick question -- since you are a member at Diamond Creek and one has to take your thoughts with that in mind what is the key strength at your club -- land, routing, shot values, hole diversity, versus that of Wade Hampton?

Matt:

You have skillfully boxed me into a corner where any response I give will reveal the undeniable shallowness of my knowledge with respect to architectural matters.  But as my wife will surely attest, whatever I lack in substance I make up for with poor judgment.  So I will take the bait and wade ankle deep (which is as far as I go without a lifeguard) and respond to your question.  

First, remember that Diamond Creek is a golf only club with no other amenities and no meaningful development component.  So it isn’t saddled with some of the baggage which can lead to the issues you described with other Fazio designs.  The focus is solely on the golf course.  There really isn’t any reason to become a member or go there to play the course if it isn’t up to snuff.  So I think it is different from most other Fazio projects in its core concept.  

Second, the land on which Diamond Creek is located is partially up a ridge at the end of a canyon.  So it has extraordinary long range views that you do not get at most mountain courses other than those at the top, such as Linville Ridge or Mountain Air.  But “top of the mountain” courses usually seem to me to be on property illsuited for golf and with limited potential.  

You mentioned the drainage issues at Wade Hampton.  That seems to be a common problem at many mountain courses I have played.  Diamond Creek drains better than any mountain course I have seen.  Perhaps that is because it is not in a valley where water collects, as is the case with Wade Hampton as well as Grandfather and Linville.  I really don’t know.  But I can tell you there have been several instances where Linville has been washed out but DC is largely unaffected even though they are only a few miles apart.

In terms of routing, I’d say WH and DC are of equal merit.  Both are not forced and fit the land well.  Both have a wide variety of holes that I find interesting.  The biggest difference is that WH is pretty much in a consistent setting throughout while DC has 2 distinct parts.  Holes 1-10 are mostly open with sweeping views of the course.  Definition is created by tiers to the fairways and tall fescue between fairways.  It is a striking look for a mountain course which I haven’t seen before.  Don’t laugh, but it reminds me of Shinnecock in spots.  On the other hand holes 11-18 weave through the woods and are more typical of what you would expect from a mountain course.  At the end of the day, I think both courses have strong routings.

As for shot values, I’d say the courses are equivalent.  WD is more demanding from the tee.  But what sets DC apart are the greens.  I generally have not been impressed with the greens at most Fazio designs.   They may be beautiful, but I normally don’t find them that challenging.  Rarely do you need local knowledge to putt well on them.  WH’s greens are clearly better than most.  But I think DC’s greens are exceptional.   Extremely fast and firm and very subtle.  When I play a course where a caddie can make a huge difference in reading the greens that is a tell tale sign for me of their quality.

I just re-read what I wrote above and realize I sound like a total homer.  So feel free to dismiss my analysis as biased.  I often find that disregarding my own advise is the best advise I can give.

Ed

[Ed Oden]

As good as the 9th is at Diamond Creek the 18th is spent.  Thats about as bad a finishing hole as you can get.

Lawrence, the 18th is not my favorite hole on the course, but it has grown on me substantially through repeated play.

Ed

[David_Madison]

I've played WH a couple of times, most recently this past summer. Also played Mountaintop and Brights Creek on the same trip. Wade is an absolute joy to play, about as soft and natural as anything I've seen of the roughly 30-40 TF courses I've played. It seems to me that there was more time and care taken with this course, more subtleties in the shaping of the greens complexes, etc. than most of what I've seen out of the TF factory. You can definitely tell that Mike Stranz was there, for example the slash bunkering that you see to the left of the fairway on #1. My sense is that when not wet, the course can be fairly easily overpowered. Even the long par-4's played driver/short iron. It's my understanding that seven or so holes will be lengthened so as to restore some of shot values that were originally intended. The course is not groomed to play especially hard for member play, but I suspect that there's plenty of potential to tighten things up, and with the cups in some interesting places and with the added length it could be a handful.

Brights Creek was okay, and I thought the first and last holes were the best on the course. I enjoyed Mountaintop a great deal and think that in time it could become fairly highly regarded. It was the most challenging and the most scenic of the three, and I'm sure the most expensive to build. It's completely in the modern TF mold, visually striking and well composed, but there's a lot more good golf in the design than many here give him credit for.

[Ed Oden]

David, I have heard that Mountaintop is very difficult.  True?  

Ed

[Jim Nugent]

Those of you who know Wade Hampton and Stone Eagle (Doak): how would you divide ten rounds between them?  

[jim_lewis]

Ed Oden:

I think you are mistaken when you rate the routing of Diamond Creek and Wade Hampton as about equal. I think Diamond Creek's routing is far superior, perhaps the best Fazio routing I have seen. Also, it plays faster and firmer than any "mountain course" I've seen.  

BTW, why don't you fill out your profile?

Jim Lewis

[David_Madison]

Ed Oden: Mountaintop is very difficult, especially from the back tees. It's a 7127-yard par-70, with five par-3's. The five par-3's and three short par-4's leave a lot of length left over for the other holes, a number of which seem to play longer than the card indicates. The course is otherwise challenging and I think it would be interesting to play at shorter yardages as well.

Jim Lewis: I don't remember DC's routing as being all that special, certainly not outstanding compared to WH. I was able to spray the ball all over the place without any consequence. Maybe some trees have grown in or I was lucky. It was in wonderful condition, and I agree that it plays drier and firmer than any course I can remember up in the NC mountains. But if I had ten rounds to split between the two, I'd play WH six or seven times.  

[JMorgan]

GD says its raters gives "extra consideration" to shot values because the magazine feels they are the heart of a golf course.  As Top 5 in NC, did you gentlemen find the shot values at WH and DC outweighing other aspects of the course -- design variety, memorability, etc.?

And how would you compare the qualities of these courses -- shot values, etc. -- to a non-mountain Fazio course like Eagle Point?

[jim_lewis]

David:

As I am sure you know, most "mountain courses" in NC are either built in a valley, which results in drainage problems, or they are built on the mountain, which usually results in very severe elevation changes. Diamond Creek is routed across a ridge. I was impressed by how Fazio routed the course in a "terraced" fashion (I can't think of a better word.), which allowed him to avoid severe elevation changes and achieve firm fairways. I don't want to seem to be negative on Wade Hampton. I love the course and the club and feel fortunate to play it several times each year. But, I place a lot of emphasis on drainage, which often detracts from WH and another of my favorites, Linville. The site and the routing at Diamond Creek turned a potential negative into a positive, it seems to me. As I mentioned earlier, Wade Hampton has improved the drainage significantly over the last few years. If you catch it when it hasn't rained lately, it can be pretty special. They have also improved the green complexes on #5 ,#8, and #11 a lot in the past few years. I think the green on #10 is unique and very cool. Some members don't like it, and there has been talk of redesigning it. I hope that talk has blown over.

JMorgan:  I have started a one-man campaign to ask posters on this site to fill out their profile. I prefer to know a little about folks I am having a conversation with. Besides, I really don't remember enough from my one round at Eagle Point to compare it to WH or DC. They are very different because of the very different sites.

Jim

[Ed Oden]

Jim, I just filled out my profile.  And I totally agree with your drainage and fast/firm assessment of Diamond Creek.

David, as noted in my earlier post, I agree that DC is more forgiving off the tee than WH.  But I would rate the approaches at DC better than WH.  This is partially because I think they are more appealing and partially because the consequences for missing the green or not putting your ball in the correct spot on the green are, in my opinion, more penal at DC than WH.  I certainly couldn't argue, however, with someone who feels differently.  Bottom line is they are both really nice places.

Ed

[Matt_Ward]

Jim Nugent:

In ten rounds the following breakdown ...

Wade Hampton = 3

Stone Eagle = 7

I can provide a breakdown of why later if requested.

Bart:

You need to see the evolution of Tom Fazio through the eyes of people who have watched and played his work over the years. You gain one thing that often is missing on GCA discussion of this type. The word is called ...

Perspective.

To isolate the discussion simply on the narrow band of courses you and others have played only limits the overall assessment of what he's done and what he's doing now.

In regards to why I keep going -- the answer's quite elementary -- you never know what the next corner will bring with the newest layout. I don't hold things against designers from past designs as the anti-TF club is wont to do here. In sum -- that means past work is truly in the past. You can't approach the next course with a built-in bias that says nothing good can come with the newest creations.

The same holds true in reverse -- I don't automatically give extra points to a designer because he hit a few home run designs prior to the one I'm playing or about to play now. Sometimes you see that with the groupies who favor the same designers on this site.  

The slate needs to be kept free of mental debris in order to be fair.

In regards to Diamond Creek I have not played the course thus far but from the comments of a number of people it looks to be something to keep in mind.


Ed Oden:

Thanks for jumping into the pond -- you rightly should be proud of your club and I appreciate the candor with which you've outlined your opinions. I'll respond further in a later post as my work day is calling.

Just a quick item for discussion -- you highlighted the dimensions / contours of the greens at your home course. Try to compare them to another layout I have respect for -- Grandfather in Linville. Thanks ...

Gents:

To the rest of the respondees - be curious as to how people view Mountain Air in Burnsville and how Grandfather still stacks up against any of the courses that are open now throughout western NC. Thanks ...

[Bart Bradley]

Matt:

I don't think your comment about perspective is fair.  I have played more than 25-30 Fazio courses and that certainly is enough of a sampling to formulate an opinion.  Everyone could know more and have seen more...even you  

Now its my turn to be a homer:

Grandfather Golf and CC remains at or near the pinnacle of the courses being discussed here.  The routing is excellent...many people walk the course.  The greens are incredibly interesting and full of contour and undulation.  The views and natural beauty of the place, including numerous mountain streams, are breathtaking.  You can score if you are playing...but get out of position and you will be punished.  The par 3s are varied, interesting and a real challenge.

Grandfather can get wet and generally does not play firm but the greens do play fast.

Mountain Air in Burnsville just does not enter into the discussion with any of the other courses discussed on this thread.  The views are beautiful but the course is lacking.  Poor routing....severe elevation changes....even some tee boxes where they can't grow grass and have put down artificial turf (2 tee boxes the last time I was there).  That is enough negative for now.

In full disclosure, I am a member at Grandfather...proud to be...and open to calls of impartiality.

Bart

[hhuffines]

Bart,

I agree with you on Grandfather - a wonderful place!  The only problem I have with it is MY game.  I cant seem to stay out of the rhodo bushes...

Have any of you guys been over to Elk River since they worked on it after the flood?  My group has always enjoyed playing there too, especially the holes in the valley.

[Ed Oden]

Bart:

Agreed on Grandfather.  It is an outstanding course with lots of character and variety.  I've only played a few Ellis Maples courses, but they all seem to have a very classic feel about them as if they were designed during the golden age.  Is that because of his work for Ross?  Its impossible not to like Grandfather.  In my opinion, of the mountain courses discussed on this thread that I have played, it is clearly the most challenging test.  

Ed

[Bart Bradley]

Bart,

I agree with you on Grandfather - a wonderful place!  The only problem I have with it is MY game.  I cant seem to stay out of the rhodo bushes...

Have any of you guys been over to Elk River since they worked on it after the flood?  My group has always enjoyed playing there too, especially the holes in the valley.

You got to love those rhodo bushes

I have played Elk River on 6-7 occassions and twice last summer after the renovation.  The course was in terrific shape.   The course certainly has 2 distinct groups of holes...those in the valley and those on the mountain.   I have always found several of the holes to be disappointing (especially those on the mountain) and the greens lack the intensity/contouring of Grandfather and Diamond Creek.  The ambiance of the place is great and it is beautiful, but IMO one step below the best in the area because of the architecture of the course.

Bart

[Bart Bradley]

Bart:

Agreed on Grandfather.  It is an outstanding course with lots of character and variety.  I've only played a few Ellis Maples courses, but they all seem to have a very classic feel about them as if they were designed during the golden age.  Is that because of his work for Ross?  Its impossible not to like Grandfather.  In my opinion, of the mountain courses discussed on this thread that I have played, it is clearly the most challenging test.  

Ed

Ed,

I agree that Grandfather clearly has some obvious elements of a "Ross" design.  The 15th green, in particular, reminds me of Ross every time my ball rolls off the "turtleback" shaped green into the closely mowed swales along the sides...would fit right in with my play at Pinehurst #2

Bart