Wade Hampton GC (1987)

[David_Madison]

Matt Ward:

My favorite Fazio courses include Wade Hampton, World Woods, Shadow Creek, Lake Nona, and Jupiter Hills. I also think very highly of Mountain Top. I know that Jupiter Hills is credited to George Fazio, but from what I've heard, Tom had a good deal of involvement in that course.

Not sure that I'd place WH in the top tier right now because I don't believe it's held up in terms of shotmaking and challenge - - it just can't compete against Butler, Hudson National and the others in those areas, and the other rating factors that make WH a great place to play can't easily overcome these gaps. I do believe that it belongs in the top tier of Fazio courses, and can't help but believe that Fazio spent a whole lot more of his time personally working this course versus what he's been doing elsewhere over the past 10-15 years. I'd like to withhold judgment on the bigger picture until after the course has been lengthened, as coming into some of those greens with mid-irons as was originally intended is a much different animal from the 8 and 9-irons that I used last time I played. I'll likely never see it tuned fast and firm with tighter fairways, meaningful rough, and fun cups, but I suspect that under peak conditions it would deserve a high standing.

I've played World Woods twice, the first time maybe 15 years ago and the second time two years ago. It was a much stronger course the first time, and one that I'd regard more highly than I would now. For example, the short par-4 on the back (#15?) was just out of range with a driver the first time, but an easy 3-wood recently. #4, which I regarded as a great par-5 the first time (bombed a drive and then 3-wood to the green) became pretty routine (driver, hybrid) even though it played into the wind. The doglegs were more easily cut-able; #18 was driver and PW the second time, versus driver to the corner and then mid-iron.

I played Lake Nona right after it opened, when there was only a trailer there for the golf shop. It was as beautiful and natural a course as you'd ever want to see, especially for a Florida course. It sat wonderfully on the land, had a solid variety of interesting holes, was plenty challenging while still being fair, and had some features I'd never seen before but thought very pleasing (like a transition bunker that flowed seamlessly into a water hazard, something I'd never seen before. I suspect that distance changes have reduced much of the challenge and hence pushed down Nona's ranking.

Shadow Creek is just a wonder to me. Had it been located in the Carolinas or someplace else appropriate to its look, I'd think it was a good course but certainly not great. But when you have to keep reminding yourself that not one blade of grass naturally belongs there, that the flowering weed in the stream was placed there, or that the tree on the little hill tilting with the wind was actually planted at that angle, you can't help but appreciate the place. A great golf course it might not be, but an incredible playing experience it certainly is.

On general terms, I prefer playing Fazio's older work, and believe it much less automatically identifiable as a TF course than I do his newer stuff. I believe that his greens complexes were more subtle and sophisticated, the courses more varied in their playing demands, and there was more creativity and thought built into the mix. While his newer stuff continues to push the envelope in looks, and when asked he builds in plenty of challenge, it just doesn't entice me to want to go back to the first tee after finishing my round.
 

[John Kirk]

Bart,

On the 16th at The Virginian, how far to carry the right fairway bunker from the blue tees (405 yards)?

[hhuffines]

John,

Thanks, I missed Victoria National on the Golf Digest list.  I wonder if the fishing there is as good as the golf looks to be?

Thanks for the info fellas!

Hart

[Bart Bradley]

Bart,

On the 16th at The Virginian, how far to carry the right fairway bunker from the blue tees (405 yards)?

Hey John:

If I hit a good one I can carry the bunker...but you have to be really careful...If it is at all to the right of the bunker the slope kicks the ball into the hay or forward under the far tree.  It is an uphill tee shot...probably about 240-250 carry to go over the bunker.  In the bunker is nearly always a wedge out to the fairway in the front of the green...I have once been able to reach the green from that bunker.  Even with the front of the bunker probably leaves 160 -165 to to the middle.  The best line off the tee is just left of the right hand bunker or just over the left edge.

Hope this helps.

Bart

[Andy Troeger]

Personally I wouldn't put World Woods Pine Barrens in the top 100 course list overall, but I do think it would be toward the bottom of the top 100 modern from what I've seen. Rolling Oaks is probably the best "second course" I've played at a public facility, ahead of Irish at Whistling Straits and Meadow Valley at Blackwolf Run. I think Ocean Hammock is closer in quality to Rolling Oaks than Pine Barrens but would likely return to either course at World Woods first.

Matt,
Butler #5 to me is one of the weaker on the course because its a 225 peninsula green. It also was my only birdie on the day lest you think I found the water. Its just a test of a shot, there's really no thought to it because there's no option to lay up, the last 150 yards is all over the water. I would have a very hard time calling it unique, just difficult.

[John Kirk]

So that makes this a really tough hole for me.  A 240 yard carry, slightly uphill, is a big poke for me, perhaps a 80th percentile drive.  So it isn't worth trying to carry the bunker.  Now I'm a middle aged low handicapper, and 25-40 year old guys have a better chance than me.

I do not like the unplayable hay right of the bunker.  I would much rather be able to find the ball, and try to play at the green from an awkward stance with some reasonable lie, anywhere from 2-4 inches of grass.
 
So I try to hit 3 wood or hybrid to the center of the fairway.  Or if I'm really swinging well, I can cut driver around it, but that's risky.  I tend to pull or hook the ball, so I run the risk of having to deal with the left rough and the tree.

Your description of the hole makes the trouble around the green sound quite severe.  You can't miss right, and you can't miss pin high to a front pin.  It sounds to me like a tough par if I have a 6 iron in my hands, even from the fairway.

Overall, this sounds like a very difficult hole, and if I played there every day, I might be inclined to say the hell with it and try the driver over the bunker, to try and get a wedge or 9-iron in my hands.

[Bart Bradley]

So that makes this a really tough hole for me.  A 240 yard carry, slightly uphill, is a big poke for me, perhaps a 80th percentile drive.  So it isn't worth trying to carry the bunker.  Now I'm a middle aged low handicapper, and 25-40 year old guys have a better chance than me.

I do not like the unplayable hay right of the bunker.  I would much rather be able to find the ball, and try to play at the green from an awkward stance with some reasonable lie, anywhere from 2-4 inches of grass.
 
So I try to hit 3 wood or hybrid to the center of the fairway.  Or if I'm really swinging well, I can cut driver around it, but that's risky.  I tend to pull or hook the ball, so I run the risk of having to deal with the left rough and the tree.

Your description of the hole makes the trouble around the green sound quite severe.  You can't miss right, and you can't miss pin high to a front pin.  It sounds to me like a tough par if I have a 6 iron in my hands, even from the fairway.

Overall, this sounds like a very difficult hole, and if I played there every day, I might be inclined to say the hell with it and try the driver over the bunker, to try and get a wedge or 9-iron in my hands.

John:

It is a tough hole...but I have seen it played many different ways successfully.  Any drive in the right half of the fairway is in good position to hit the green....only if the hole position is extreme back left will the tree prevent a direct approach (even if you are in the left center of the fairway).  The large tree on the left is far enough back from the green to allow a draw around it and the green will help feed the ball to the left --as long as you are left of the center ridge.  I have seen most people hit driver and if you are a fairly short hitter the right hand bunker is not reachable...which will leave you long iron to the green.  I have seen longer hitters hit hybrid or 3 wood off the tee...again eliminating the bunker and then playing to the green with another long iron/hybrid.

The hay is probably 10 yds right of the right bunker but the slope tends to kick it that way.  I agree that I would rather not play from the hay .

When the US Senior Am was played here, many of the constestants tried to play to the very front edge of the green on the approach, allowing a high likelihood of an up and down and taking nearly all the greenside trouble out of play.  I thought that was very interesting.

My point in discussing this hole was simply to see if this was somehow a hole that is duplicated elsewhere and with redundant strategy or if it demonstrated something unusual with interesting strategic options.  

Bart

[Matt_Ward]

David Madison:

Thanks for your comments.

Regarding Wade Hampton. The issue for me when people start a discussion with the "what if" approach is that one needs to take a course "as is" and go from there. I have no idea -- neither does anyone else for that matter -- in terms of what "might" happen with any future "improvements" (not all proposed work can be dubbed with that word).

When you and anyone else starts down the road of "what if" they do this and "what if" they do this then the discussion is likely to be nothing more than conjecture at best.

Wade Hampton made great news when it first opened -- a unique location and the sheer amount of $$ to create such a layout. But, frankly there's no real beef there in terms of compelling architecture -- plus throw in the fact that the place generally plays much slower because of the frequent T-storms that hit the layout during the summer months.

In regards to Shadow Creek -- people get lost in their analysis in regards to the story of how the course was built rather than the totality of what actually came about from all the efforts applied. In short, Shadow Creek is about it's creation. You said it well yourself -- if the starting point for its creation were anywhere else little would be said. Shadow Creek is about man's ability to throw tons of cash to create a novelty course in the make believe world of Vegas. It's great PR and great theater but analyze the actual architecture itself and the course is more glow than show.

In regards to Lake Nona -- you said it well in an opening
line -- for Florida the course is really quite good. Does that translate into a compelling golfcourse for national consideration? I don't see it.

Point of reference -- minus Shadow Creek it appears the bulk of your TF courses are in the Southeast. Fair point or not?

David, many thanks for the thoughtful and detailed analysis on the number of courses you referenced. Clearly, your desire to play TF courses has been influenced by what he is doing now. You made my point because I see plenty of TF's work as being re-processed thisa or thata. I also believe, as I said previously, that other architects tend to do the same things but few are called on the carpet for such a repetitive action.


Andy:

Re-read what I posted. The aspect of Butler National that is really "unique" is that it didn't fall prey to being a politically correct easy-on-the-eyes post George Fazio layout by Tom.

You would not see such a hole from a later TF because he would make such a carry only 50 yards or thereabouts. When I said the word "unique" it's not because I see it as being a great hole -- it's focused on challenging people without regard to their handicap ability. Keep in mind there are times when people on this site (not you specifically) bitch and moan about certain holes / courses but likely have played the incorrect tees for them.

BN is clearly diffciult in spots -- and no doubt it can do that because of the nature of the membership that's there.

However, you don't see the overkill in terms of playability to the detriment in pushing the envelope for extreme shot values and you certainly don't see this incessant penchant for eye-candy elements.

Butler National still holds up well over all these years. It has been tournament tested against the best players in the world and while all the holes there are far from being bulletproof -- it's a solid routing on otherwise ordinary land.

John Kirk:

FYI -- Wade Hampton is rougly 20 years old. Shadow Creek is closer to 20 than it is to 15. Victoria National, if memory serves, is the youngest of the aforementioned bunch.

John, help me understand something -- you're drawing conclusions about the work of Tom Fazio but you personally have only played a tiny, tiny number of his courses.

No disrespect personally intended, but opinions without much personal connection (actually playing the courses) doesn't really advance the discussion much.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
Fair enough, it certainly is unique of the Fazio courses I've played, but I've only played a handful of others so I'm no expert on his style. The course as a whole is pretty playable despite its difficulty and ability to test very strong players. #5, 8, and 10 would be the biggest exceptions to that from my view, and #10 isn't that long unless you play the tip tee so that carry isn't nearly so intimidating from a shorter distance.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

If you don't mind can you list your best TF courses you have played -- no more than a top five / ten?

Be curious as to how you would place those courses among the best you have played in the USA.

Thanks ...

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
I've only played four...both at World Woods, Estancia Club, and Butler National, so its not much of a list and all four of them to me are fairly comparable in quality. None of them are elite to me (top 100 USA) but all are still very much worth playing. World Woods Pine Barrens would probably be a top 100 modern course for me near the bottom and the other three would miss but not by a ton. If I had to order them...probably WW-Pine Barrens, Butler, Estancia, WW-Rolling Oaks. They all fall between #30-50 give or take of the courses I've played.

[John Kirk]

John Kirk:

John, help me understand something -- you're drawing conclusions about the work of Tom Fazio but you personally have only played a tiny, tiny number of his courses.

No disrespect personally intended, but opinions without much personal connection (actually playing the courses) doesn't really advance the discussion much.

I disagree, and will make my general objection to your "I've played more courses than you have so I know better" philosophy here:

There are other ways of learning about golf courses than playing them.  GCA members share their experiences and their observations.  GCA members provide pictures of golf holes, and though pictures are imperfect, they give a pretty good idea of the architecture and the challenges the golfer faces.  There's plenty to learn here, on my computer screen, without setting foot on every course.

On our website there is the full spectrum of architectural analysis, from the most arcane philosophical discussions, to the most mundane qualitative assessment, such as "I like one course better than the other".  Doak recently commented on the Gene Hamm thread that no real analysis had yet taken place.  Some guys are better at synthesizing the available data and making insightful remarks about golf courses.  Beyond the simple "how does it look?" and "is it fun to play?" are the secondary and more interesting topics:

Does the course provide a comprehensive test of skills?
Does the course have a good variety of hole lengths?
Does it offer driving options?
Does the set of greens offer great variety in approaches and putts?
Is it challenging for the expert, but playable for the novice?

...and so on.  I don't see, at this point, where this thread has gone beneath the surface to ferret out which Fazio course is the best one in North Carolina.  I can advance the discussion further by asking the right questions, because I really want to know which Fazio courses are best, and I'm not finding it yet.  For whatever reason, we can't seem to get a good conversation going about Fazio here.

Please don't try to exclude me from this topic.  I've played 3 Fazio courses and toured one other.  Many others participating here have played 3-4 like I have.  Together we've played quite a few.  You will always win the argument of who's played the most, but that does not mean you necessarily analyze the data best.

[David_Madison]

Matt,

You raise a good point about evaluating a course based on "what ifs?". This is probably a topic for another thread, but since you raised the thought... Here are two examples of the type of situation that I find most vexing as a ratings panelist:

I played Hudson National this past fall. Thought highly of the course, but I can't help but think how much better it would have been had there not been 4"-6" rough everywhere, even just off the fringes. What could have been a great variety of interesting short game shots became blasts and hope. The same applied to missed fairways, and even the thought processes on approach shots from the fairways because of the deep rough surrounding the greens. There clearly was a lot more golf course under all that grass if only someone would have given it a haircut. So what do I rate here - - the result of this penal grooming, or what my eye and brain tell me is really there, that which was designed and created, and should have been in play? Having played a bunch of Fazio courses and not seeing rough like that anywhere else , I can't imagine his designing it as he did for club playing thinking that the rough would be established as it was.

The 2nd hole on Pinehurst #2 is, at least in my opinion, a wonderful hole when the fairways are wide, wide enough to bring the left-hand fairway bunkers either into the fairway or to its very edge. With certain cups, I try to be as far left as I can be without being in the bunkers. The hole loses a lot when the fairway is tightened and the bunkers are 10 yards into the rough and really out of play. So when I play the narrow version, I rate that, but it doesn't seem right when there is a great hole sitting underneath that extra grass.

When the grooming overshadows the architectural features,where do you go either in rating a course or even just discussing it?

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

Good points -- I'll respond when I can provide some additional details.

John Kirk:

Let's rewind the tape shall we.

You made generalized comments on TF courses and you have only played a very small number. You then took that tiny personal sample size and then parlayed that into some sort of overall finding.

Forgive me but such a lack of heavy lifting (playing the various courses in his portfolio) demonstrates some serious intellectual holes in anyone's thinking / findings.

John, I don't doubt my analysis can be in serious error. But remember this -- at least I have a listing of courses (sample size) to draw conclusions based on actual play. You, with all due respect, have no real sample size and can only opine from photos, second hand accounts -- anything other than actual experiences.

To me -- those differences do add up considerably and frankly the issue of credibility becomes front and center a major stumbling block for you.

John, please enough of the photo argument. I'm not buying that -- that's the lazy man's way out of the "I can't beat the personal approach hurdle" that others have done.

You can no doubt have an opinion -- but the sheer credibility of it rests with personal experiences. They trump photos and second hand accounts.

The reason why a "good conversation going with Tom Fazio" can't get started (save for David Madison's insightful analysis) is that too few people have a personal database to really provide the kind of on target comments that would move things along.

You asked the following questions ...

"Does the course provide a comprehensive test of skills?
Does the course have a good variety of hole lengths?
Does it offer driving options?
Does the set of greens offer great variety in approaches and putts?
Is it challenging for the expert, but playable for the novice?"

Candidly, I don't how you can answer those questions from simply photos and second hand accounts. I don't doubt that many different people have played a large array of courses but having people who can comment coherently about the cross comparisons / contrasts through actual visits is limited.

John, you've played Ballyneal and Stone Eagle, to name just two courses where you have great personal knowlegde. Do you think people who simply look at photos or react to second / third hand accounts can really add anything of meaningful substance compared to someone like yourself who has actually played the course on a number of occasions. If you're really honest you know what the only answer can be.

[John Foley]

How aout some pics??

Wad Hampton along w/ Double Eagle, The Golf Club & Seminole is one of the very well regarded courses that I never seen any images of.

[Andy Troeger]

John,
Kind of off topic but I remember threads on Double Eagle and The Golf Club that had quite a few photos I believe they were this past year late summer give or take.

[John Foley]

Andy - Thanks - I will go in search of them.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

You didn't answer my last question to you. When you compare the top Fazio layouts you have personall yplayed how would they stack up to your overall assessment of the top USA courses you have played.

David M:

Now that time is available a few comments from your last post to me.

There are numerous courses I have played in the USA in which the tag "what if" can be applied. The only real major stumbling block is that in most instances the "what if" scenario(s) likely never happen. For that main reason -- one needs to look at courses as they are. If and when Wade Hampton does do some major upgrade / modernization, call it what one will, then the time will certainly come for a revisit on my part.

I understand Wade Hampton and salute TF for what he was seeking to do. The course is located in a beautiful area of the country -- it tries to keep the housing issues to a far area away from view when playing. But when you search deeper for real compelling architecture I don't see it. No doubt TF and his talented crew have excelled at pushing to the forefront the "beauty" card -- both from the existing land sites that often get and from their considerable wherewithal to enhance the existing characteristics they encounter.

David, you mentioned Hudson National and while I like the course I have to say it's really nothing more than the difficulty meter turned upwards given the present emphasis that you articulated. To borrow what is said by others here on GCA -- where is the real architecture because reliance on difficulty elements should not be the only consideration.

But, let's just say the course did the things you mentioned. Is there really that great of a course present? I can name a number of interesting Westchester County courses that get little real fanfare but truly have plenty of interesting aspects tied to them.

David, the botton line is in assessing WHAT IS THERE. If the folks running a course prepare it one way and it so happens to rob the course of the true manner by which it should
play -- then the issue rests with the folks there. This has happened to Bethpage Black and likely any number of courses that seek to maintain the "sheer difficult dimension" by a manipulation through man's hand to the exclusion of allowing the course to flourish with the architectural elements that are indeed there -- if only allowed to surface.

I have played a number of TF courses where there are bonafide architectural elements of a high order. However, when weighed against the broad array of his courses I have personally played I often see far too often the desire to rely upon the formula that's been used countless times over and over again. In sum, I have to question whether the raters who are out there really see beyond the surface level issues and can ferret out quality that can resonate for the long term?



 

[Andy Troeger]

Andy:

You didn't answer my last question to you. When you compare the top Fazio layouts you have personall yplayed how would they stack up to your overall assessment of the top USA courses you have played.

Matt,
I said they were between #30 and #50 of what I've played and where I thought they fell on the lists based on what I've seen...not sure there's much else to say unless you elaborate on the question. Other courses in that range for me include Stone Canyon (AZ), Sycamore Hills (IN), Chapparal Pines (AZ), Pradera (CO), and Canyata (IL). All very good and deserving of being considered a premier course in their respective areas.

[John Kirk]

John Kirk:


1.  You made generalized comments on TF courses and you have only played a very small number. You then took that tiny personal sample size and then parlayed that into some sort of overall finding.

2.  To me -- those differences do add up considerably and frankly the issue of credibility becomes front and center a major stumbling block for you.

3.  The reason why a "good conversation going with Tom Fazio" can't get started (save for David Madison's insightful analysis) is that too few people have a personal database to really provide the kind of on target comments that would move things along.

4.  John, you've played Ballyneal and Stone Eagle, to name just two courses where you have great personal knowlegde. Do you think people who simply look at photos or react to second / third hand accounts can really add anything of meaningful substance compared to someone like yourself who has actually played the course on a number of occasions. If you're really honest you know what the only answer can be.

Sorry I did not respond immediately.

1.  Here is the general comment I made:

"I'm not saying the new courses are better or worse.  It does appear the consensus is that Wade Hampton, Shadow Creek, and Victoria National, courses he designed about 10 years ago, are his best work.

One thing that Mr. Fazio should be complimented on is his willingness to change what he's doing.  The newer course look quite different.  I'm very intrigued by the Pronghorn course, and was surprised it didn't score a bit higher in the recent rankings.

Really, I don't know jack about Fazio's courses.  I've played three or four of them (original Pelican Hill, Aldarra, both World Woods)."

I still see nothing inaccurate here.

2.  I object to this form of oneupmanship.  "You're not credible, so you shouldn't say anything."  I don't care how much experience I have with Fazio's courses.  I haven't said anything that was definitely incorrect here, and my opinion counts exactly as much as yours and anyone else's here.

3.  I'm not sure that is true.  The answer might be that Mr. Fazio has created so many quality courses that it is hard to define any pattern.  I remember redanman talking about style over substance, and reverse strategy, where the bold line off the tee yields a less attractive approach angle.  I forgot that I have also played The Quarry at La Quinta, and a couple of the short par 4s there were quite strange.  At The Madison Club and The Quarry, none of the par 4s were remotely driveable for me.

4.  The difference here is that I've played both Ballyneal and Stone Eagle about 40 times.  Which of the courses discussed in this thread have you played over 20 times?  I suppose I could argue that you are unqualified to give your opinion here because you simply don't know any of these courses well enough to comment.  Furthermore, I do not stifle commentary on Ballyneal or Stone Eagle by starting with the comment "You haven't played this course enough to really understand it."  If I feel strongly about it, I will argue my point, without explicitly using my experience to make a point.

I have a very good reason for encouraging discussion on this topic.  I don't want to discuss why, but I want to participate.  Matt, I think your opinions are greatly appreciated here, and people respect the breadth of your experience and knowledge.  You don't need to use that fact to make your opinions carry weight.  It only stifles less experienced analysts from offering their opinion.

[David_Madison]

Matt,

We agree. I never said that Hudson National was a great course; I believe it to be a good course compromised by its grooming.

You are also correct in that most of the TF courses I've played are in the southeast; makes sense since I live in NC and before that Florida. I've seen a limited number of TF courses elsewhere, such as Hudson and Shadow Creek. Frankly I can't imagine how different anything of his would be set outside the range of areas I've seen his work, everything from ocean-side (I forgot one of my favorites of his, Wild Dunes, but again that's another course done when he was spending a whole lot more time on each one) to low country to mountains to parkland. Maybe something in Arizona?  

[Matt_Ward]

John K:

A few polite rebuttals are in order.

John, sample size is important for any real analysis to take shape. People who don't have a credible sample size -- let's say no less than ten (10) courses are simply pontificating from lesser sources of information fronts -- to wit, photos and second / third hand accounts. It is also helpful for people to specify what courses they have played because the time frame of when they opened can be most illuminating when discussing the nature of what the courses are about versus those courses that have opened at a later time frame.

You made generalized comments on the work of TF. You then acknowledged, to your great credit, that you had only personally played a very small (less than five ) number of his courses.

John, c'mon, there's little point in advancing discussions in which personal details are central to the overall discusison. I don't doubt for a NY minute that anyone can have an opinion -- the real issue is if that opinion is an informed / credible one.

I also don't doubt that simply playing upteeeen number of courses does little if meaningful analysis isn't tied to the commentary. However, without the sample size to start with the idea that people can then make broad comments on the nature of what an architect has done becomes extremely difficult to value from the standpoint of overall credibility.

Let me review point-by-point your comments from your most recent post. You keep alluding to the fact that Shadow Creek and Wade Hampton are examples of TF "courses he designed about 10 years ago ..."

John, stop right there. Shadow Creek came on board in the very early 90's -- Wade Hampton has been open roughly 20 years plus. Victoria National is less than that than the other two so let's be a bit more accurate shall we. When you say there "appear(s) consensus is that Wade Hampton, Shadow Creek and Victoria National" are his best work -- help me out with something -- who is the "consensus" you are referring to? I respectfully ask you to name the people who truly believe Wade Hampton and Shadow Creek are among the top 3 of TF's overall work. I don't see it that way and have spent a considerable amount of time on this thread outlining the fact on how other TF courses have gotten lost in the sauce.

Try to keep this in mind -- the body of TF's work has certainly evolved. I also think that in a number of instances from the ones I have played spanning a good amount of time -- that certain designs are clearly unique and worthy of national acclaim -- however, I do see other courses that show little more than a paint by the numbers approach irresepctive of the amount of $$ involved and the quality of the overall site used.

Again, opinions are wonderful. Informed ones work better to reach a deeper understanding of what is being discussed. This isn't about one-ups-man-ship -- so please enough of the snit fit on that front.

It is about people having done their homework before commenting. When people simply overdose with the photo argument or glean their info solely or disproportionally from second / third hand accounts it adds little, if anything, of real value.

John, do yourself a real favor and read your intial comments on TF courses on this thread. You reached certain conclusions. I then asked you a number of specific questions and you tap danced around them and have decided to turn this back on me.

Database size is critical in order for people to place in some sort of CONTEXT what the architect has done. I have been labeled by one particular poster on this thread as being anti-TF -- which I find really amusing because I have highlighted the fact that a number of other TF courses -- beyond the ones you raised and others -- are worthy of even more attention and placement among the nation's elite courses. I also have said that far too many of the other TF courses I have played have failed to advance the ball from a "compelling architecture" framework. No doubt it's my opinion -- but it's coming from having personally played and charted what I have experienced.

If others can't hack the fact that others may have more personal experiences with a given topic the issue rests not with the person who has done the heavy lifting but the person or persons who have not.

Allow me to point out John -- just to be clear -- I never said that one round at a course is the be-all / end-all -- especially when held up against a person who has played the same courses a number of times beyond what I or others have played them.

However, and I'll say this again and again for the hard of hearing -- those who have NEVER played a course(s) have no real standing beyond seat-of-the-pants opinions.

Of the 70+ TF courses I have played -- I have played multiple rounds on roughly 25% of them. I frankly admit that if someone has played multiple rounds on a course that they will likely have a deeper understanding of a number of elements -- especially the subtle ones -- compared to a person who has only played once.

My point on Stone Eagle and Ballyneal is that someone like yourself who has played both courses multiple times is likely better versed to comment because you have played those courses more than a few times -- in different wind and weather patterns -- and been able to grasp a number of subtle elements that a casual first time visitor may not really see or understand.

I have placed my comments on Stone Eagle and Ballyneal in some form of context. Please enough of the erroneous nonsense about my "stifl(ing) commentary." That's rubbish. I will hold people accountable whenever statements are made with little regard for real personal homework. If you can't hack the fact that you can be held accountable (as well as I) then I suggest you develop a thicker skin before posting.

John, with all due respect, people can make points "strongly" about anything in life. To then move ahead by arguing a position from so little a base of credible evidence is inane. Experience is the best teacher. Strongly held points, in absence of that experience, really account for little of long standing value.

Finally, in regards to others who may wish to weigh in -- I say fine -- by all means. But, it pays for the advancement of this or any other topic for people to bring to the table some form of real insight and a good bit more than the "I think" platform that often adds very little.

 



 

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Thanks.

Of the top courses in your personal elite 30 that you have played -- how many of them are 1960+ designs?

By the way -- I enjoyed Estancia and see it half-way between the all-cosmetic mailed in courses TF has done and those that are a bit beyond in terms of real details and variety (e.g. Glenwild, Galloway National, Dallas National, etc, etc).

David M:

Too many of TF's work in the southeast are often your garden variety designs. No doubt there are exceptions -- I too like Wild Dunes -- unfortunately, my like for the course fell considerably with the profusion of all the homes that clutter around the property. In its early day Wild Dunes was quite fun and refreshing.

The number of TF courses I have played -- especially in Florida -- are all beautiful from the eye-perspective (flowers and Mach-3 razor cuts for the fairways and other grass combinations) but often lacking in any real distinction or even controversy. It seems the TF brand has simply been rubber-stamped with a comparable version time after time. Black Diamond in Lecanto is quite different -- and I mean that from the perspective beyond simply the quarry holes.

David, there are a few TF courses in the western half that are quite interesting -- John Kirk mentioned The Quarry at LaQuinta and it has a few holes of note -- especially the ending 5. I am a fan of Glenwild in Park City, UT and TF's work at Karsten Creek is often ignored or simply downplayed when other OK courses are mentioned.

One of the more interesting aspects is what John Kirk did mention. The work at Pronghorn did not seem to engender much critical acclaim although the layout there is clearly not in the categort of the "been there done that" often associated with TF.  

[Andy Troeger]

Andy:

Thanks.

Of the top courses in your personal elite 30 that you have played -- how many of them are 1960+ designs?

By the way -- I enjoyed Estancia and see it half-way between the all-cosmetic mailed in courses TF has done and those that are a bit beyond in terms of real details and variety (e.g. Glenwild, Galloway National, Dallas National, etc, etc).

Of my top 30, 22 have been built since 1960. That percentage is comparable to the number of courses I've played from the GolfWeek Modern and Classic lists, but there are not a lot of classics in Indiana or New Mexico.

[David_Madison]

Matt,

I was fortunate to have had the opportunity to play a number of my favorite TF courses when they were new, before the housing changed them. Lake Nona, Wild Dunes, Long Pointe at Amelia and others had little more than trailers for golf shops when I first played them.

Curious about your opinion on this point - - with Fazio being NC based and I'm guessing having a heavier concentration of his courses located in this region, more of his courses here can be "paint by the numbers", an easier and more reliable thing for his staff to complete. When he has an assignment outside this zone, with the terrain and conditions being seriously different, he brings a different perspective to the work since the same solutions used in the southeast might not apply. And then the quality of his work goes up because he's having to pay more attention and he's using more new thinking. Not that he doesn't do his best for each job and client, but there's more of the original thought that he brought to his earlier work that we agree is far more compelling.