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.


Ed Oden

  • Karma: +0/-0
Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« on: July 23, 2009, 10:49:11 PM »
I recently returned to Wade Hampton for the first time in about 3 years.  On my previous visits, I don’t think I was ever quite able to get past the course’s extremely high ranking by Golf Digest.  My initial impression was that the course just didn’t pass the sniff test for what I’d expect of a place occupying such a lofty perch in the food chain.  This time around, I wasn’t thinking so much about the course or my expectations, but rather just having fun playing a few rounds with friends.  And what I found out is that I was letting my initial impression of unfulfilled expectations obscure the fact that Wade is one fine course.  Is it the 17th best course in America?  Perhaps not.  But who cares?  Wade is a top notch design by any measure, especially tee to green.  Here is a quick tour with commentary that will hopefully show some of the meat on the bone.

#1  544 yard par 5 – As par 5 openers go, this may be the best one I have seen.  Strategic in every sense of the word.  The safe play from the tee is to the fat of the fairway, often with less than driver to stay short of the tall fescue beyond.  But that line makes it a 3 shot hole with a tough partially blind layup over the crest of the hill on the left side.  The aggressive line brings into play the right side fairway bunkers and thick rough.

Finding the fairway on the aggressive line affords an opportunity to go for the green in two.  But its no easy shot since it requires hitting a fairway wood or long iron from a downhill lie.  And if the decision is to layup, you must decide whether to carry the berm on the left side…

…in order to get the best angle of approach into the green…

…or to play it safe on the right side layup, which brings the bunkers into play for the approach.


#2  456 yard par 4 – This is a very demanding tee shot.  A big drive between the left fairway bunker and the left side of the fairway will catch a turbo boost that substantially shortens the hole.  But the fairway bunkers are death and a stream guards the left side.  Playing safe short of the bunkers leaves a very long approach.

Finding the speed slot leaves a relatively simple approach to a green guarded by bunkers right, a grass depression left and thick fescue long.


#3  219 yard par 3 – The other one shotters seem to get more attention.  But this one is, in my opinion, clearly the best of the bunch.  Tucked back into a corner of the property where winds swirl, this hole’s beauty is matched by its difficulty.


#4  581 yard par 5 – Another very solid par 5, although lacking the strategic options of the 1st.  It is more difficult though, with a creek running the length of the hole on the left.  From the tee…

…the second…

..and the third…


#5  419 yard par 4 – I really like this hole.  The fairway bunkers on the right must be avoided at all cost.  Not much chance for par from there or the rough.  But there is plenty of room on the left side beyond the trees.  So there is no need to challenge bunkers. 

Finding the fairway means a real shot at birdie with a short iron approach to a significantly elevated green.


#6  158 yard par 3 – This short hole plays even shorter since it is downhill.  Another birdie opportunity.   But, again, the winds can be tricky.  I’ve seen a lot of shots that look good in the air end up short or long.  Although they don’t impact play, I think cutting back the trees and vegetation a bit would make the hole stunning.


#7  420 yard par 4 – Wade Hampton is full of terrific tee shots.  Unfortunately, #7 isn’t one of them.  Hands down, my least favorite tee shot on the course. 

But any lack of interest from the tee is made up for by this great approach shot.


#8  401 yard par 4 – From the tee, it is tempting to challenge the left side where a big ball can carry the bunkers and leave just a lob wedge in to the green.  But it’s a sucker’s bet.  The better play is to the safe right side.

Either way, it’s a fantastic uphill approach to a partially blind green…




#9  442 yard par 4 – Another very solid tee shot where it is imperative to find the fairway.

Failure to do so likely means laying up short of the creek fronting the green.


#10  564 yard par 5 – This is the least compelling of the par 5s in my mind.  The aggressive line is over the hill on the right side.  Pulling it off means a chance to reach in two.  And I don’t see much risk since, absent a complete block into the trees, the worst that happens is your ball hangs in the rough.  But that just makes the hole into the same three shotter you’d get if you play the safe route short and center off the tee. 

The calm flow of the approach …

…fits well with an unpretentious green site…


#11  172 yard par 3 – Now things start to really heat up.  A beautiful downhill par 3 that plays shorter than the yardage.  Missing the green in any direction means a tough par.

And the green is one of the best on the course…


#12  317 yard par 4 – A terrific hole that plays equally well as a drivable par 4 from the front tee or a layup and wedge from the back tee.

If the latter, the approach is partially blind…


#13  446 yard par 4 – One of the most demanding tee shots on the course.  But anything in the left half of the fairway will roll down the hill substantially shortening the hole.

The approach just fits my eye.  It reminds me of #15 at Baltimore Five Farms.  The green is severely sloped from back to front.


#14  410 yard par 4 – From the tee, you need to decide whether to challenge or play short of the bunkers.

In either case, the approach is a beauty …

…and the bunker fronting the green must be avoided.


#15  429 yard par 4 – Possibly the best hole on the course and one of the few that plays longer than the yardage…a lot longer.  Again, virtually no chance to reach the green except from the fairway.  While it may appear from the tee that the left side offers a better angle of attack to the green…

…the left side actually leads to a partially blind shot over the short left bunker …

…whereas right side opens up the view and allows you to play to the left side of the green away from the hollow guarding the right side of the green (which is dead) and use the bank in the left side of the green to feed the ball to right pin positions.


#16  489 yard par 4 – Given the length, I suppose it is understandable there is a bit less to deal with mentally from the tee.  Still, this is one of the least interesting drives on the course.

But like the 7th hole, a lackluster tee shot is followed by a really nice approach.  I particularly like the fact that plenty of width is given to allow an easy layup for those who chose to play the hole as a three shotter.


#17  196 yard par 3 – I believe this hole is generally considered to be the top par 3 at Wade.  Not in my book, at least as long as the front left (and perhaps the front right) tree is there.  On the other hand, I love the green, which may be the best on the course.  It is very large, provides numerous pin positions (even with the blocking trees) and deceivingly difficult contours.  Being on the green is no guarantee of a two putt.  Question:  Why is it so hard to get the ball close to the hole on large greens?


#18  555 yard par 5 – A nice finisher just a notch below the fantastic 1st hole.  In order to reach the green in two, you need to challenge the creek on the left side.  Otherwise, play it safe to the right side as a three shot hole.

But playing it as a three shotter doesn’t necessarily leave the easiest layup with bunkers right and the hazard left.

Although it pays to skirt close to the hazard as the angle of approach is much better from the left…

…than from the right.


Tee to green, Wade Hampton is an outstanding course.  Where it falls short (at least with regard to its ranking) is on the greens.  You may have noticed that I hardly mentioned them.  That is because, in my opinion, while they are in perfect condition and a joy to putt, for the most part, they are also shy on character.  But at the end of the day, any lack of boldness in the greens can’t conceal the quality of the course as a whole. 

Ed

Greg Holland

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2009, 10:59:04 PM »
Thanks Ed.  As usual, you have great pictures.

Am I remembering correctly that Mike Strantz worked on this course with Fazio?


Jon Heise

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2009, 11:09:21 PM »
Ed, thanks!  I've been wanting to see this course for quite a while.  Probably some of the first pics Ive seen.  Very nice!
I still like Greywalls better.

David Mulle

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2009, 11:16:12 PM »
Great job.  I really enjoyed the pics and the very thoughtful write-up.

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2009, 11:19:22 PM »
Thanks, Ed.  I've always been curious about Wade Hampton.  It looks terrific.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2009, 05:03:57 AM »
Ed

Thanks for the pix. 

Did you think the bunkering and shaping were a bit out of control?  I can understand the shaping being necessary to some degree because the course looks hilly, but to my eye this course is very, very busy and unnecessarily so.  In a way, it reminds me of going to hockey game these days.  There can be no quiet moments.  The NHL must feel like they have to entertain every minute people are in the arena.   

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Ed Oden

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2009, 07:30:51 AM »
Am I remembering correctly that Mike Strantz worked on this course with Fazio?



Greg, I believe that is the case.  But I wouldn't know for sure.  Perhaps someone else will.

Ed

Ed Oden

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2009, 08:17:56 AM »
Sean, I had a feeling you would chime in given your well known bunker anathema.  Overall, I don't think the course is necessarily overbunkered.  In my opinion, most of the holes do not have any more bunkers than I would expect to see on most other courses, whether modern or golden age.  Rather, there are certain individual holes (8, 11 and 18, in particular) which are clearly very heavily bunkered.  While I can't say that style is my favorite, I also don't mind it if the holes themselves work and the bunkers are a contributing factor to that success.  At least with respect to the 3 holes I specifically mentioned, that is the case in my opinion.  

Ed
« Last Edit: July 24, 2009, 10:13:50 AM by Ed Oden »

Mark Bourgeois

Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2009, 08:23:12 AM »
Ed

Thanks for the pix. 

Did you think the bunkering and shaping were a bit out of control?  I can understand the shaping being necessary to some degree because the course looks hilly, but to my eye this course is very, very busy and unnecessarily so.  In a way, it reminds me of going to hockey game these days.  There can be no quiet moments.  The NHL must feel like they have to entertain every minute people are in the arena.   

Ciao

Completely agree -- why does a mountain course need all the extra crap?  Looks like Pinehurst #8.

Isn't this course supposed to suffer from too much water / drainage issues?  Judging by the surrounds it looks like it suffers from too much maintenance.

Ed, thanks for posting the pics --have hoped for a while someone would post some!

Mark

tlavin

Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2009, 08:50:37 AM »
Great Carolina mountain eye candy with some faint vestiges of a Cypress Point or Augusta look.  A little bunker busy?  Sure thing, but I can remember a hole or three at Cypress that were guilty of that.  I've never played Wade Hampton, but it sure looks like it would be an enjoyable day.

Robert Emmons

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2009, 09:17:05 AM »
Thx for the pictures. Enjoy Diamond Creek...RHE

John Moore II

Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2009, 09:46:08 AM »
Yes, Strantz worked for Fazio on this project, or at least that is what the bio on Strantz's old website says.

As far as the course goes, it looks great to me. I certainly wouldn't turn down a chance to play it. I won't harp on about the bunkering; its in the mountains, any bunkers are going to be unnatural, there just isn't sand in the mountains. So, scruffy edged bunkers might actually look worse in this case given they would be even more obviously manufactured.  The only holes that look 'busy' with bunkers to me are 8, 11 and 18. 11 especially. 8 I can understand because looking at the tee shot, with it being said its possible to fly those bunkers, all of them look to serve a strategic purpose. The bunkers on 18 I am not sure about.

Seems to be a very good course; #15 or whatever in the US, not so sure, but its difficult to learn anything from pictures.

Matt_Ward

Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #12 on: July 24, 2009, 10:39:52 AM »
Ed:

Great pics -- but they only confirm my impressions first arrived at when I played Wade Hampton years ago.

It does look good for its setting but it's overkill with the bunkers. More of what made TF appealing to his legion of fans on the Digest ratings side of things. Plenty of eye-candy to the max -- but too often it's the inclusion of such items that takes away from all the natural elements of the land itself. Why not allow the land itself determine more of the strategic elements ?

Frankly, does nearly every hole have to be dressed up in a rather similar manner?

Wade Hampton benefits likely from a membership that clearly has a pull in a nmber of places. I salute the promotional reach of those involved - but the course is not among the top 25 in the nation for me. Frankly, it would be a good bit further down the list. TF has done plenty of successful layouts but more of that work has come closer to the time frame of 2009 than so many of his earlier designs like Wade Hampton in my mind.

Good pics for those who have never seen the place.


Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #13 on: July 24, 2009, 10:50:05 AM »
Terry,

Interesting you mention ANGC, because that is sort of what came to mind in terms of the feel and character of the holes.  I didn't see much Cypress coming out out in those pics though.....maybe somehwat comparable to holes 4 and 5.

Overall the course looks to be fantastic and in a very neat secluded, valley type setting.  I also really loved that backdrop on the 3rd hole.

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #14 on: July 24, 2009, 11:43:25 AM »
My understanding is that WH was built for the ANGC members to play in the summer when ANGC is closed and perhaps that is the reason for the stark white bunkers.  It certainly looks great and there is really good variety in the green complexes with recovery shots that go well beyond the bunkers.  The fairways have some width and there are obvious points on the holes which challenge the player but not so severe as some of Fazio's other courses.  I wouldn't get so hung up on rankings but I would say that it would like one of the best mountain courses I've seen and certainly looks walkable which is quite an accomplishment. 

Wade Whitehead

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #15 on: July 24, 2009, 12:10:04 PM »
I've heard similar things about the ANGC-Wade Hampton connection/influence.  It certainly comes through in a couple of the photos (like the one from 9 tee).

I notice many similarities between WH and The Virginian, another Fazio design.  Several holes could be interchanged.  Anyone else have this sense?

WW

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #16 on: July 24, 2009, 01:34:24 PM »
Sean, I had a feeling you would chime in given your well known bunker anathema.  Overall, I don't think the course is necessarily overbunkered.  In my opinion, most of the holes do not have any more bunkers than I would expect to see on most other courses, whether modern or golden age.  Rather, there are certain individual holes (8, 11 and 18, in particular) which are clearly very heavily bunkered.  While I can't say that style is my favorite, I also don't mind it if the holes themselves work and the bunkers are a contributing factor to that success.  At least with respect to the 3 holes I specifically mentioned, that is the case in my opinion.  

Ed


Ed, as I'm sure you already know, Sean thinks most courses are overbunkered. ;D
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #17 on: July 24, 2009, 01:36:55 PM »
BTW, great pics , Ed. 3,5,9 and 12 look very solid.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Sean Leary

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #18 on: July 24, 2009, 04:54:18 PM »
A couple of holes look a bit overbunkered, but overall I wouldn't say the course is over bunkered.

Which holes are the Fabio template holes? I am guessing since this was the first of his highley acclaimed courses, that a number of these have been copied elsewhere.


jim_lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #19 on: July 24, 2009, 05:50:57 PM »
I would like to add a few comments to Ed’s excellent hole-by-hole description of Wade Hampton and  respond to some of the comments made by others. I have had the opportunity to play Wade Hampton several times each year for the past decade during just about every month the course is open. Like many so-called “mountain courses”, Wade Hampton is located in a valley near mountains, but it really does not have as much elevation change as many lake-side courses I have seen. It is, indeed, walkable, but I don’t see a lot of players walking. The average member is no youngster. There is a considerable walk from the 5th green to the 6th tee, but most of the other walks are quite short.
The course is constantly being modified, so one of the first things I enjoy doing each year is trying to spot changes that were made over the winter. The area gets a tremendous amount of rain, and much of the course is built on rock. Therefore drainage has always been a challenge. Drainage is added most years, so the course now has by far the most drainage grates that I have ever seen. It is much improved, but sometimes you can get some pretty soggy lies and not much roll.
I have never played with Ed, but I assume he must be a very long hitter, since his hole-by-hole analysis seems to be from the perspective of a long knocker. I would like to offer the perspective of a shorter hitter who is happy with a 225yd drive and never thinks in terms of reaching any of the par 5’s in two. I suspect that represents a majority of the members. That leads me to react to comments about the course being over-bunkered. I have never had that impression, since many of the fairway bunkers are only a factor for guys who hit it further than I do. I think I have a higher opinion of the greens than Ed. None of them are over the top severe, but most have plenty personality to suit me.

If the reader is willing to refer to Ed’s excellent photos (and if you care), here are my hole-by-hole comments.
#1 The fairway bunker on the right can barely be seen, but it is definitely in play for me. Since I have no plans to go for the green in two, I don’t flirt with it because balls hit just left of it kick right, and a bad shot hit right can wind up in jail.

#2 I like to set up toward the right fairway bunker and let the ground bring the ball back left. I prefer to hit my second shot from up top than risk a hanging lie just over the ridge.

#3 The green slopes right to left so I try to favor the right side. I have seen many tee shots bounce off the steep slope on the right down onto the green. Never seen one bounce out of the water.

#4. The slope on the right of the tee is death and potential lost ball, so if you play over it, you had better pull it off.  The green is difficult to hit regardless of the club you use. Left and long is water. The Green slopes severely right to left so missing right leaves a very difficult chip. Unless I have a wedge in my hand, I try to error short right and take my chances on getting up and down. Tough hole .

#5. This green was lowered and softened a few years ago. Still, it is very difficult to hit a middle iron high enough to hold the elevated green. Long onto the back bank used to death. Now it is only a minor disaster.

#6  Not much to add. Bunkers behind the green are rarely in play. Birdie hole.

#7 Fairway is often wet. Putts from the back of the green can be quick. Naturally that’s were I usually find myself to guard against hitting in the water. All about club selection.

#8 I’ve played this hole with some very long hitters, and I’ve never seen anyone try to carry the left bunkers. Not enough reward. The green is two-tiered. The back tier was lowered a few years ago. Before, it was extremely difficult to get near a back pin. Still tough, but it is possible to land on the front and run it up.

#9 As Ed said, you must hit the fairway.  A well struck shot to the green is essential. Short you are in the creek. Long leaves a very difficult downhill chip. The fairway has been extended almost to the creek and drainage improved. Before, a layup left you in soggy rough.

#10 Notice, this is the third par 5 that plays over and around the base of a ridge. This hole has one of the most unusual greens I have seen. Many members don’t like it, but I do. It has three tiers running diagonally from back right to front left. It can produce a very exciting and challenging  run-up shot.

#11 The right side of this green used to flood a lot until they raised and greatly improved it. My beef is with the bunker well short of the green. I see no useful purpose. The poor guy who hits it into that bunker has plenty problems already.

#12 A sucker drivable par 4. I’ve seen several very good players try it. Most regret the decision. The green is very shallow. You can hang it in the face of a front bunker or over the cart part behind the green. Play it as far left as you dare and you have a simple wedge up the length of the green and a real birdie chance. Fairway used to be chronically soggy, but has had much drainage added.

#13 My favorite hole. Tee shot down the right side will work left .

#14 The fairway bunker on the right is new this year. There used to be a tree there that blocked a shot to the green from the right side. Big improvement. Tough to pull enough club to clear the front bunker on a very uphill second shot.

#15 Toughest hole on the course for me. Absolutely no good place to miss the green which slopes severely left to right. A miss left may be tougher than a miss right because of the tough downhill chip. One year after hitting poor tee shots (two days in a row), I deliberately layed back to 100 yards and made par. My opponents missed the green and made doubles.

#16 A good tee shot down the left side will run far enough for me to reach the green. Nothing else. By far the flattest green on the course.

#17 Nothing wrong with this hole that I couldn’t fix in half an hour with a chain saw. Most famous, but worst hole on the course.

#18 Lots of guys can reach this green in two, but it is a very dangerous shot. Try it only if you must have a birdie. Otherwise, played as a three-shot hole, you have a pretty good chance of getting it close with a short iron.  Back bunkers and front water get a lot of action. I play right off the tee and leave it short of the bunkers to be safe from the creek. I used to lay back to about 140yds to find a firm lie. Improved drainage now allows me to hit a wedge to the green. I never learned to pick a wedge off a soggy lie.

I have played the Virginian only once. Similarities to Wade Hampton never crossed my mind.
I have played a lot of Fazio courses, and I can’t think of a hole at Wade Hampton that I have seen copied, certainly none of the par 5’s. The course is quite a bit different from Diamond Creek, which has different and firmer terrain and a completely different routing style.

Sorry for the length of this report. I have been tempted to post on WH often in the past, but did not have photos. Ed’s photos are excellent.
"Crusty"  Jim
Freelance Curmudgeon

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #20 on: July 24, 2009, 07:58:56 PM »
Sean, I had a feeling you would chime in given your well known bunker anathema.  Overall, I don't think the course is necessarily overbunkered.  In my opinion, most of the holes do not have any more bunkers than I would expect to see on most other courses, whether modern or golden age.  Rather, there are certain individual holes (8, 11 and 18, in particular) which are clearly very heavily bunkered.  While I can't say that style is my favorite, I also don't mind it if the holes themselves work and the bunkers are a contributing factor to that success.  At least with respect to the 3 holes I specifically mentioned, that is the case in my opinion.  

Ed


Ed

Of course you are right.  It all comes down to personal preferences.  I have a rep for not liking bunkers, but that isn't accurate.  I don't like bunkers to over define a course, provide a road map, whatever folks want to call it.  To my eye, WH looks to be that sort of course.  I know a lot folks like this sort of thing and thats fine - I do sometimes as well (Woodhall Spa being an example, if perhaps an exceptional one) - but perhaps not nearly as much as most.  Its nothing personal and I am sure you don't take it that way, but I am not very interested in this sort of thing other than to try and understand why its so attractive to so many.  I have been guilty of this sort of thing before that even if I can get past the aesthetics, the shot making,  while seemingly difficult, doesn't look to be terribly varied.  Obviously I don't have anything but pix to go on, but they don't look to be encouraging for a fella such as myself.  I spose I find it intriguing that courses can really be that different from each other.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Matt_Ward

Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #21 on: July 24, 2009, 08:29:04 PM »
Jim L:

Appreciate your lengthy and well analyzed hole-by-hole at WH.

Two quick questions ...

1). Do you believe WH is one of the top 25 courses in the USA ?

2). Of all the TF courses you have played where would you place WH -- if other courses are above it which ones would you place there and if possible a short reason why?

Thanks ...

p.s. One other thing given your frequent plays of the course -- has it ever been able to overcome the frequent wetness caused because of the location in the mountains when famed NC summer t-storms are more the rule than the exception. When I played the course the fairways were as soft as melted ice-cream on a 90+ degree day.

jim_lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #22 on: July 24, 2009, 10:07:28 PM »
Matt:

As you know, I rate courses for one of the major golf publications. Call me weird, but I consider my ratings to be private. Also, I only rate courses. I don't rank them.

I think Wade Hampton is a very fine course, and in my view, it is much better than it was 10 years ago. I especially like the changes they made to the greens on numbers 5, 8, and 11. I also applaud the decision to replace the tree on #14 with a bunker. However, the major improvement has been with the drainage. I'm not sure how much rain they get in Cashiers, but I do know that the neighboring county gets the most rainfall of any county east of the Mississippi. When I played the course last September, it actually played pretty firm and fast. Unfortunately, in order to accomplish that, they have I don't know how many, maybe 300 drainage grates on the course. I can tell you that I have upped my rating of the course over the years. Now if they would just cut down the tree blocking the left of the 17th green. I doubt if my current rating of the course would place it in the top 25 in the USA, probably not the top 25 modern either.

Believe it of not, I have never tried to rank the 60+ Fazio courses I have played or even my personal top 10.
"Crusty"  Jim
Freelance Curmudgeon

Ed Oden

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2009, 10:17:31 PM »
Matt, I know your questions were posed to Jim Lewis, but I will respond if you don't mind since your post kind of proves my point.  You seem to be hung up on Wade's high ranking just as I used to be.  What difference does it make whether it is one of the 25 best courses in America?  If I say "no" does that mean the course isn't any good?  Since when does the question of whether a course is overrated bear on whether it is any good?  Would you have the same criticism of Wade if it were ranked nearer the bottom of the top 100?  This is the type of criticism I was thinking of when I posed the following question:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40161.0/

As Jim noted, the drainage is much improved.  Although I am short on details, I know they capped those fairways which were giving them the most trouble.  While I suspect there will always be some drainage issues given the course's valley location, there is nothing unusual about that for a mountain course.  We played our first round in the rain and it rained again that night before our next round the following morning.  The course was wet, but not sopping and always very playable.  Honestly, I didn't notice any difference from what I would expect at Linville or Grandfather under similar conditions.

Sean, you don't need to worry about offending me.  For what its worth, I don't think I ever mentioned whether I liked Wade's look.  I wasn't really paying any attention to how it looked when I was there just as I wasn't concerned about Wade's ranking.  Rather, I was competing in an ongoing match played on multiple days over two courses.  So I was focused on playing more than anything else.  And what I learned was that Wade PLAYS great.  Plenty of strategy, plenty of variance, plenty of fun.  I've played a lot of courses that didn't fit my eye that I still think are outstanding.  Similarly, I've played many courses that fit my eye which I wouldn't call great.

A few more things, I don't believe Wade is brutally difficult.  It is an easy walk (we did so with caddies both days).  Carts are provided to get you from the 5th green to the 6th tee.  I do not see the ANGC comparisons.  Very different courses in my opinion.

Ed
« Last Edit: July 25, 2009, 07:57:44 PM by Ed Oden »

Matt_Ward

Re: Wade Hampton (with Pictures)
« Reply #24 on: July 25, 2009, 01:31:16 PM »
Ed:

The rating from Digest matters because many people in the States and beyond hold Digest in high esteem. WH has consistently been placed as the #2 TF course he has designed -- only behind the likes of Shadow Creek.

Ed, I'm "hung up" because WH is a great example of a layout that is really a postcard layout of wonderfully beautiful holes but no where near the stragetic calculations that would be required for a layout that is rated so highly.

If you say "no" that doesn't mean the course isn't good -- it just means it doesn't belong among such high and lofty company. Big difference and one that should be noted accordingly. I don't see WH being that good of a layout when held against the likes of not only top courses in the USA but the other top tier designs that TF has done. That doesn't mean to say the course is not worth a visit for those who get the opportunity.

Ed, c'mon lets be honest OK -- it helps to have the clientele that frequent the place.

Glad to hear the drainage has improved because anything close to firm and fast would be a distinct improvement to the ball plugging into the fairway show I experienced.

Ed, I don't know how many other TF courses you have played. No doubt WH is a fine layout -- so please don't misunderstand my comments. I simply opined that of the 70+ TF courses I have played I don't see any of TF's courses being in that high a company of courses. Is it a top 100 layout? For me the answer would be a borderline call. The bottom line for you is that you loved it so what I think and likely others is really not so important if at all.



Jim:

Are you saying WH is a top 50 course in the USA ?

C'mon -- you've played 60 TF courses and you have no idea on what your personal top 10 are from the handiwork of TF. I'm not saying that to be pushy -- but given your experience I'd like to see your thoughts be a bit more flushed out from the perspective of comparisons and contrasts.

t h a n k s  . . .