Ok. I shouldn't say this but I think the course is an almost perfect example of a Doak 0. Let me explain because I know everyone will say "it's not that bad, it has some good holes, it's in great shape....." BUT if I remember correctly (and that's a big IF) a Doak zero can be characterized as a course that spend ridiculous sums of money, has some absolutely horrific architecture, was built by someone who should have known better and overall, things would have been better if the course had never been built.
That is Echelon.
First, the club--bad, very bad idea--The Georgia Tech Club that would appeal to a very small alumni base and locate the course so out of the way that its a solid hour from most anywhere! If you went to any other school, would you really want portions of your money going to support a different school? That was the basic idea at first. That collapsed almost at once and the course took the name Echelon.
Right now the blessing is that almost no amenities have been built (unlike the 60,000 sq ft Manor 10 minutes down the road). I was talking to the operator (Affiniti Golf) and one very good idea would be to literally build a shack similar to the shack in the old USGA commercials featuring the guys waiting out the rain delay.
Have an absolute no frills place where a one man starter checks you in and sells a hot dog or coke kind of thing. This idea came after a discussion predicated on this question: "If you could buy this course for $1, could you make the numbers work"!
Now to the course:
It has been in very good shape. Of course when it opened with a $1M + budget it was phenomenal. The greens were firm and fast, the drought meant the fairways were also nice, tight and fast. The staff that was there did a great job and then while waiting to sell all thouse $50k memberships, the bottom fell out of the market.
The Rees Jones design is on some of the steepest, least golf friendly land that as an amateur I could imagine trying to build on. The first eight holes are decent though similar with a hillside, large cut for a level fairway and then another slide down to a lake or gully.
BTW, the range reminded me of the back bowls of Vail. Huge round expanse that is like hitting off a cliff--can you even see a ball land unless you hit it 150? If you want to practice your wedges, you would never see them land!
#9 begins the incredible uphill trudge. Blind, uphill followed by straight down a ski slope. Lather, rinse, repeat.
The entire back nine was so hilly and so similar that I can't recall that much and I usually remember holes I play. Many if not all the holes play 3-4 shots longer or shorter depending on if you are ascending or descending K3!
I played with a 15-18 handicap golfer from tees I'm guessing at around 6500 or so. The golf course was absolutely unplayable for him. #11 the par three was long even from the up tees--around 540 (which for the up tees is long).
This 15 who can carry the ball 210 had zero chance of getting over the 100% carry wetlands in front and to his left. The next shot after he dropped was to either try and hit it 275 in the air to the fairway by the green or lay up by hitting a 9 iron or wedge short of the wetlands crossing in front. The ravine is sooo wide you really have to lay up to the 160-175 yard area to be safe. Then his thrid (he dropped a ball as he had long since given up) shot was a 5 iron over a ravine to a green going away from him toward that same ravine along the left side of the green
Bad, bad golf hole. I think its 600 yards from the tips. (The previous hole was 400 or so that was almost driveable as it was so downhill.
The other par 5 is straight up hill. It was of course preceded by the parallel hole going down hill. The downhill 440 par 4 was a driver or three wood and a wedge. The 490 yard par 5 was unreachable! I watched the same 15 handicapper in what would fairly be described as drought conditions have his ball approach one of the tiers of the fairway, not make it and roll backwards down the hill at least 80 yards!!
The two par threes on the back were very nice.
18 was another killer uphill slog for most everyone. I know there was a wetland all down the right and next to the green. Was it left off the tee as well? Course finished with a blind, uphill approach to a tightly guarded green--deep bunkers left, hill and wetlands on the right.
For the millions and millions spent here whoever bought in got a raw deal.
A.G.--if you lived in Roswell in the northern burbs, and had I'm guessing a 40 minute drive there, what would you go and pay for that experience?
I will say I'm surprised to hear conditioning may have been an issue--the place was pristine when I was there. I think a lot of people would pay $50-$70 for a course in great shape because I think most people care more about the GPS on the carts than they do the actual architecture.
I will say I'm shocked you enjoyed it so much. I'm also surprised you thought the land was beautiful. Actually I think it is a pretty piece of land but for a golf course?? You lost me on that one.