[JC Jones]

I played Sugarloaf Mountain yesterday in the Orlando area, a course that is good for Florida golf but otherwise mediocre, especially by C&C standards.  I played with my brother who doesn't think about architectural things often but generally has a pretty good idea of what he likes and dislikes and the reasons for that.  Despite the fact that the course was in horrendous condition (worse than I generally like and I am certainly on the minimal side of things), we tried to look at the holes for their various architectural merits and all in all had a good time.  On or about the 13th hole my brother had this comment, which I think was quite good and worth of discussion here:

"While most of these holes have individual architectural merit, they are all independent of one another.  There is no continuity or flow to the course."  I asked what he meant by that and he said "well, for starters you cant see any other hole on the course from the hole you are playing.  This usually leads to a lost ball if you dont hit the architect's designated playing area.  Really, there is no difference between this course and desert golf."

We then discussed our preference for the more traditional course where there is a proximity to the routing and although a course doesnt have to be a series of holes going back and forth, you can see other holes from the hole you are playing and the course flows together over a piece of land.  We discussed the amount of acreage used to make many of the great courses today and wondered if even though they are walkable, they lose some of their flow due to the isolation in which each hole is played.

I don't quite know yet which side I fall on but I do tend to prefer places such as Seminole, the front nine at Crystal Downs or Belvedere for example, over places like Calusa Pines or Sugarloaf Mountain or many of the modern courses where each hole is played independent from the last.  Does the search for the ideal land for every hole create a course with 18 great holes but not an overall golf course?

[Bill_McBride]

I played Sugarloaf Mountain yesterday in the Orlando area, a course that is good for Florida golf but otherwise mediocre, especially by C&C standards.  I played with my brother who doesn't think about architectural things often but generally has a pretty good idea of what he likes and dislikes and the reasons for that.  Despite the fact that the course was in horrendous condition (worse than I generally like and I am certainly on the minimal side of things), we tried to look at the holes for their various architectural merits and all in all had a good time.  On or about the 13th hole my brother had this comment, which I think was quite good and worth of discussion here:

"While most of these holes have individual architectural merit, they are all independent of one another.  There is no continuity or flow to the course."  I asked what he meant by that and he said "well, for starters you cant see any other hole on the course from the hole you are playing.  This usually leads to a lost ball if you dont hit the architect's designated playing area.  Really, there is no difference between this course and desert golf."

We then discussed our preference for the more traditional course where there is a proximity to the routing and although a course doesnt have to be a series of holes going back and forth, you can see other holes from the hole you are playing and the course flows together over a piece of land.  We discussed the amount of acreage used to make many of the great courses today and wondered if even though they are walkable, they lose some of their flow due to the isolation in which each hole is played.

I don't quite know yet which side I fall on but I do tend to prefer places such as Seminole, the front nine at Crystal Downs or Belvedere for example, over places like Calusa Pines or Sugarloaf Mountain or many of the modern courses where each hole is played independent from the last.  Does the search for the ideal land for every hole create a course with 18 great holes but not an overall golf course?

Is it walkable?

[JC Jones]

Is what walkable?  Sugaloaf Mountain?  Yes.  Every course is walkable, its just with what relative ease one can walk it.

[Adam Clayman]

JC, Re; Your last question, I think it is possible to find the best 18 holes of a given site, yet,, leave a soul less design.  Intimacy, may have been what you noticed was missing at Sugarloaf. Trying to recall my one round there, I don't remember if there wasn't any intimacy, but that could be because there was no one else out there. I do recall one teeing ground directly behind one of the greens, but that giant tank, that looms large, was such a distraction, one might not even notice golfers on the next tee.  

[JC Jones]

Adam,

There are many teeing grounds that are right next to the previous green at Sugarloaf Mountain, which makes the lack of intimacy and flow even more perplexing. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

JC,

Interesting point... I believe that some architects seek that seperation, that idea of the course travelling over new ground which is only visible to the golfer when he steps on the tee... As long as the walk from the previous green is small, this can still equal very good flow...

But I tend to like a bit of intimacy as well... A glimpse of things to come and of other golfers... It's site dependent as well of course...

[Adam Clayman]

Until some expert opines, I wonder if C&C didn't utilize any areas of intimacy was because the property didn't allow it, or, the principle didn't want it.

My sense is that Sugarloaf underwhelms many because they expect more drama. C&C don't force drama, because their motus is to let the land dictate the features versus forcing features onto the site.

[Tim Nugent]

I feel that it depend on the site you have to work with.  Take your example of the front 9 at CD.  you basically play from a high corner to a the low kadi-corner and back up to the high.  The great vistas afforded are part of this environment.  It works good because there is enough room between holes to protray that spacious feeling of the overall scale of the site. Now, if those holes were routed over a smaller area, the scale and feel would be different and you may feel too intimate with the neighboring holes.

Personally, I favor a course that has a flow that borrows from Frank Lyold Wright's principle of being brought into a confined space only to be then exposed to a vast space.

However, there are times an owner will dictate that "I don't want to see another golfer/hole" and you're stuck giving the man what he wants.

[JC Jones]

Until some expert opines, I wonder if C&C didn't utilize any areas of intimacy was because the property didn't allow it, or, the principle didn't want it.

My sense is that Sugarloaf underwhelms many because they expect more drama. C&C don't force drama, because their motus is to let the land dictate the features versus forcing features onto the site.

Perhaps you are correct.  I am not underwhelmed by Sugarloaf though.  I think there are some great holes out there and I recognize that not every course will be Sand Hills or Friars Head. 

I think there is an argument to be made though that it is a little target-esque to have a lost ball be the penalty for missing the fairway by 10 yards on many if not all of the holes.

[Eric Smith]

Just from reading the marketing materials over the years, I gather that the developer(s), who at the same time were developing nearby Southern Hills with a much more pronounced Pete Dye designed golf course, were purposely looking to counter that property's style with C&C's lay of the land style, believing that the unique 'mountainous' topography of Sugarloaf would allow them to market the two properties to capture a wide spectrum of potential (homesite) buyers.

Curious, if anyone here has played Southern Hills?  I wonder if one would define it's routing as more 'intimate'?

[Patrick Hodgdon]

Until some expert opines, I wonder if C&C didn't utilize any areas of intimacy was because the property didn't allow it, or, the principle didn't want it.

My sense is that Sugarloaf underwhelms many because they expect more drama. C&C don't force drama, because their motus is to let the land dictate the features versus forcing features onto the site.

Perhaps you are correct.  I am not underwhelmed by Sugarloaf though.  I think there are some great holes out there and I recognize that not every course will be Sand Hills or Friars Head. 

I think there is an argument to be made though that it is a little target-esque to have a lost ball be the penalty for missing the fairway by 10 yards on many if not all of the holes.

You just like being able to recover from opposite fairways like you did at Seminole multiple times. 

I think there is both a playability (being able to recover from an errant shot) and experience (of the land, views, vistas, etc) factor in being turned off by, or just not enjoying as much, these type of designs.

I agree with the feeling/sentitment and as I've mentioned previously I think one of the biggest things I liked about Seminole was the intimacy in the routing. More recently Holston Hills had the same feel with very few trees and many great vistas across the property. They feel like one big open space more than little corridors at Sugarloaf, CP, and other modern courses where isolation seems to be part of the design it almost feels like you've just played through a maze to some extent.

[Bill_McBride]

Adam,

There are many teeing grounds that are right next to the previous green at Sugarloaf Mountain, which makes the lake of intimacy and flow even more perplexing. 

I asked about "walkability" because typically holes that are completely isolated from the other holes have lengthy green to tee walks.

Interesting that C&C could pull off what you describe.

Yes, courses that have lengthy green to tee walks are "walkable," but not a fun walk.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()