Spectacular Sand Hills! (Photo Tour - 18th Hole Now Posted)

[Rob Rigg]

I just scanned through my photos of SH and it looks like 14 holes have uphill or likely uphill approach shots.

I think this may be off by a couple but should be close -

1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18

I thought the fairways at SH played firm and fast while the greens were fast and quite firm - but you could spin the ball off some of them if you were not careful on approaches. SH probably had some of the most pure greens I have ever seen and the course is impeccably maintained.

SH is a very strong test for the low handicapper and would be frightening for the higher handicapper from the diamond tees because of the as mentioned forced carries, long uphill approaches, very quick greens, etc. It should certainly be more playable from the forward tees - one of my favorite shots at SH was playing the square tees and driving the green on the 8th which is the coolest green complex on the course. At SH it is vital to pick the appropriate tees and navigate around bunkers, etc. ie) employ a strategy just don't hit and hope. eg) on the 13th - play it as a short par 4.

SH and BN are not really comparable because the courses are so different, but I think it is tough to argue that what Doak did at BN is not more interesting from a routing and diversity of play perspective.

I was at the table when someone mentioned Sand Hills was a Doak 5 - pretty bold statement - but I was even more shocked to hear that Rich thinks Chambers Bay is a Doak 10 and the 9th at BN is an Alps Hole (wasn't it the 9th Rich? )

Spaulding - Blue Moon called and said they need the keg you consumed during our match back - they checked the 18th fairway at BN and it was not located in the bunker where you told them it would be. Maybe you finished it on the 10th green after closing us out on the extra hole?

[Ben Sims]

The premise of SH being a Doak 5 is ludicrous, in every sense of the word.  I have been a part of the problem before, but never again.  Look, isn't it enough that this one course started an entire movement?  Call it a "second golden age, call it the "new American links", call it "cowboy golf", call it whatever.  I'll argue that almost all of what we love about golf courses built since 1995 wouldn't have been possible without Sand Hills.  

We are talking about the most decorated course of the past 75 years!  A modern course that gets universal love from all publications.  A course that plays with the big boys, Shinnecock, Cypress, Pine Valley, Merion, The National, and Oakmont in terms of prestige.  

Not firm and fast enough?  A facade of links? Severe false fronts?  Please!  

Some of the most well traveled golfers on the planet--who can't agree of what color the sky is--all gush about Sand Hills.  Isn't that enough?

[Ben Sims]

I was at the table when someone mentioned Sand Hills was a Doak 5 - pretty bold statement - but I was even more shocked to hear that Rich thinks Chambers Bay is a Doak 10 and the 9th at BN is an Alps Hole (wasn't it the 9th Rich? )

Any debate as to whether #15 is a Dell?

[David Mihm]

Hey Rich,

First of all, I am more than willing to stand up as the one who said Sand Hills was a Doak 5 the first evening of The Yucca. At the time, a) I couldn't recite the Doak Scale verbatim and b) it was mostly to wind you up!  

But upon closer examination of The Doak Scale per this article: http://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/features/the_doak_scale.aspx I truly do rate it around a 6 or 6.5 as Spaulding mentioned more rationally later on in the thread.  (Btw, I heard Blue Moon added an extra shift over the weekend due to record demand for its product on Saturday afternoon). 

If we are considering 'the region' to include Ballyneal, I think BN stands head-and-shoulders above SH.

I don't mind being called a moron -- everyone on here has his or her own opinions.  I think Rich offered a terrific summary of my overall feelings about the place with a couple of exceptions:

-The course is too soft with too severe false fronts and repellent, rather than inviting, contours to allow a ground game
-It looks like a links course, but it is just a facade.
-Raised tee, drive to a lower fairway, hit approach to a raised green with a false front. Rinse and repeat.
-It is over-rated because it was the first to start the modern renaissance, but it has been surpassed by many since.

The conditioning at Sand Hills was outstanding...the course played plenty fast...I just found the contours far too difficult to encourage me to hit run-up shots when the aerial game worked just as well, or better, thanks to the elevated Bent greens. 

I consider myself extremely fortunate to have played Sand Hills but find its consistent position in the Top 10 in the country/world (especially ahead of Ballyneal?) to be curious.  There are a handful of world-class holes (4, 8, 11, 16) but in general I found the course repetitive--an opinion that was readily confirmed by the variety @ Ballyneal.  I found the course to be an extremely difficult walk, especially in the typical 90+ degree heat, and was downright shocked to see the number of carts in use. 

While I would not say that Tetherow has any world-class holes like those I mentioned above, on balance I found the experience there to be comparable, and Tetherow is much closer to my house.

Courses w/similar topography and playing conditions that I've played where the architecture is either more interesting or more fun to play --

Royal Aberdeen
Ballybunion
Lahinch
Cruden Bay
Carne
Ballyneal
Pacific Dunes
Cypress Point (not a true links course, but some architectural similarities as I discussed with Spaulding)

I would also like to point out that my favorite course on the Bandon property (though I have not yet played OM) is Trails, so this criticism is in no way intended to impugn C&C -- just to say that the hype around Sand Hills seems excessive in my own personal assessment.

And I completely agree with JC Jones that 99% of Florida courses are 0's.

[Richard Choi]

Riggs you LIE!!!! I have never said CB is a Doak 10!!!

I have always said it is a Doak 8 although Matt Schulte got me to agree with him that it is a Doak 7 during a weak moment, that I am not too proud of.

And I said 9th is "Alps inspired" since if you do not hit a correct drive on the left side, your approach shot is blind.

PS. Good to see you on this thread Mihmsy!!!

[Rob Rigg]

Ben,

I enjoy hearing the opinions of people who have a different view than all of the other sheep in the crowd - Especially when they have a perspective to back it up. It led to a pretty fun a(nd) lively discussion.

If someone from a major publication called SH a Doak 5 they would be fired - certain courses are not to be criticized right? But what if it is a 7 or 8 instead of a 9 or a 10?

SH is not a links course (it has bent greens) and several holes have severe false fronts - there is nothing wrong with either of those things. It also has a bunch of uphill approach shots which I think is the biggest weakness of the course - and of course from my perspective walkability is important and everyone I saw playing SH was riding except for me and my playing partner. It is not an easy walk - and much is missed at SH if you ride.

When we got to #15 at BN I had a chuckle in your honor - that was pretty funny.

[David Mihm]

Also, Rich, I do still need to play Chambers with its faster and firmer conditions...but the line on the Doak 6 - "It shouldn’t disappoint you." - concerns me.  Other than that, I do think Chambers is worth a game if you are in Seattle but not worth a special trip (whereas Sand Hills is much closer to 'worth a special trip' and Ballyneal is definitely 'worth a special trip')

[JC Jones]

David Mihm,

Great post.  Although if you really want to have some fun, I've heard more than one extremely well traveled (though they will remain unnamed) member of GCA.com say that Kingsley is the same or better than Ballyneal.

I love Kingsley and will hopefully play Sand Hills and Ballyneal someday to make up my own mind.  

Given your agreement with me on Florida, I can tell you are a certainly a gentleman, a scholar and a man of fine wines.

[Rob Rigg]

Riggs you LIE!!!! I have never said CB is a Doak 10!!!

I have always said it is a Doak 8 although Matt Schulte got me to agree with him that it is a Doak 7 during a weak moment, that I am not too proud of.

And I said 9th is "Alps inspired" since if you do not hit a correct drive on the left side, your approach shot is blind.

PS. Good to see you on this thread Mihmsy!!!

Just winding you up - those were a couple fun evenings beard pulling at Bally.

[Ben Sims]

Ben,

I enjoy hearing the opinions of people who have a different view than all of the other sheep in the crowd - Especially when they have a perspective to back it up. It led to a pretty fun a lively discussion.

If someone from a major publication called SH a Doak 5 they would be fired - certain courses are not to be criticized right?

SH is not a links course (it has bent greens) and several holes have severe false fronts - there is nothing wrong with either of those things. It also has a bunch of uphill approach shots which I think is the biggest weakness of the course - and of course from my perspective walkability is important and everyone I saw playing SH was riding except for me and my playing partner. It is not an easy walk - and much is missed at SH if you ride.

When we got to #15 at BN I had a chuckle in your honor - that was pretty funny.

Fair enough.  I just think at some point it should be agreed upon here at GCA.com that Sand Hills and Ballyneal are both very, very good,  both memberships are lucky to have the staffs they have, and Renaissance and C&C both produced some of their best work on those sites.

The only thing left for me to do is to beard pull it properly.  Not a tug, but a real good yank.  Say something stupid about how the 7th at Sand Hills inspired the 6th at Pac Dunes, so that Huck and Spaulding may yell at me for doing so.      

[Michael Dugger]

The problem with all this throwing around of ratings is no course should be judged based on one or two rds/visits.

Sorry, just not going to give any credence to those viewpoints.  

Catch Jessica Biel on a bad day and she might be a 5 too...

[Jon Spaulding]

Matt, please post the 8th hole which should help trim up a few beards in this peanut gallery.......

Ben, I've promoted the premise that BN and SH are two of the elite courses in the US for some time. I simply find the latter to be superior; consider it a vote for "restraint".

Perhaps uphill approaches are a positive; anyone sum up the quantity at BN over the weekend?

Had a bomb been dropped over the weekend in Holyoke, the anti-SH contingent (sponsored by the zen philosopher "Basho") would have been decimated; facial hair becoming an endangered species.

[Ben Sims]

The problem with all this throwing around of ratings is no course should be judged based on one or two rds/visits.

Sorry, just not going to give any credence to those viewpoints.  

Catch Jessica Biel on a bad day and she might be a 5 too...

Golf courses are always unclothed when you see them.  I doubt Ms. Biel would rate a 5 in this condition. 

[JC Jones]

The problem with all this throwing around of ratings is no course should be judged based on one or two rds/visits.

Sorry, just not going to give any credence to those viewpoints.  

Catch Jessica Biel on a bad day and she might be a 5 too...

I only see this argument brought up when someone DISAGREEs with a person's rating.

[Michael Dugger]

The problem with all this throwing around of ratings is no course should be judged based on one or two rds/visits.

Sorry, just not going to give any credence to those viewpoints.  

Catch Jessica Biel on a bad day and she might be a 5 too...

Golf courses are always unclothed when you see them.  I doubt Ms. Biel would rate a 5 in this condition. 

Perhaps....maybe

But like SH, what if she had taken on a lot of "water weight?"

[David Mihm]

Spaulding, I think the difference in the elevated greens at BN is that nearly all of them accepted a run-up from at least one side and indeed was the preferred play to some pins -- think 8, 14 and 16 from the left, 18 from the right, etc.  Most of the elevated greens at SH (1, 12, 13, 14, 17) either did not allow that or it was an extremely difficult / not the preferred shot.

[Michael Dugger]

The problem with all this throwing around of ratings is no course should be judged based on one or two rds/visits.

Sorry, just not going to give any credence to those viewpoints.  

Catch Jessica Biel on a bad day and she might be a 5 too...

I only see this argument brought up when someone DISAGREEs with a person's rating.

Not really getting your point here...do you think 1 or 2 visits is enough to fully assess a course?

[Keith OHalloran]

JC, isn's that kind of like saying "I found it in the last place I looked"?  I mean why would you hear that argument if you agreed with someone's rating? To date, the only person that agrues with me when I agree with them is my wife.

[Sean Leary]

Is Chip Gaskins going by the name of David Mihm now?
 

[JC Jones]

The problem with all this throwing around of ratings is no course should be judged based on one or two rds/visits.

Sorry, just not going to give any credence to those viewpoints.  

Catch Jessica Biel on a bad day and she might be a 5 too...

I only see this argument brought up when someone DISAGREEs with a person's rating.

Not really getting your point here...do you think 1 or 2 visits is enough to fully assess a course?

Fully assess?  No. But there are some courses where people spend a lifetime playing them and learn something everytime they go out. 

If you're talking about a "rating," yes.  Now, a course might go up or down 1 point on the scale with repeat play but 1 or 2 plays, to someone who has seen a bunch of courses and has a pretty good idea of things, is sufficient.

Otherwise, toss out almost all the ratings in the Confidential Guide.

[JC Jones]

JC, isn's that kind of like saying "I found it in the last place I looked"?  I mean why would you hear that argument if you agreed with someone's rating? To date, the only person that agrues with me when I agree with them is my wife.

Well, I'm not sure what your wife looks like but I can tell you this, I have a great rack.

What I'm trying to say is this: if you honestly believe someone can't rate a course in 1 or 2 visits then you would think someone's 10 rating of Sand Hills was equally as dubious as someone's 5 rating.  I'm just saying he should be on here saying Matt Bosela's rating of SH is completely bogus the same way he is saying David Mihm's is.  Otherwise he is being disingenuous.

[Tim Bert]

Rob - You raised the question of the walkability of Sand Hills. While I don't think it is the most walker friendly course simply because of the Ups and the downs in the terrain, I didn't find it to be materially different in walkability than Chambers Bay, Ballyneal, or Bandon Trails - all of which mandate walking. Would you agree?  I think the large number of carts there is a reflection on the fact that the golfers are given a choice as opposed to a reflection of the course.  I found it to be an enjoyable walk. A good workout to do 36 or 36+ but certainly possible for someone used to walking golf courses.

JC - While I am not very well-travelled, I am happy to go on the record as one that puts Kingsley right up there with both Sand Hills and Ballyneal. I mean that purely as a compliment to Kingsley. No knock on either of these two wonderful Midwestern masterpieces.  I don't see a material decline in course quality or presentation or most importantly fun factor.  These three top my list of modem course where I imagine the national membership would be about as good as it can get.

[David Mihm]

Tim, I personally found BN to be a much easier walk than any of the other 3 courses you mention.  I would say that SH is a comparable walk to Trails and Chambers.

[Keith OHalloran]

JC, I was only kidding, but I agree with you that most ratings should be taken with a grain of salt. If you see the course once, and the wind is blowing, the super had a bad day etc etc etc, but we have had those discussions too.

As far as the ease of walking, I actually think that the course is an easier walk than it is a ride. When you ride, you have to go around so many dunes to get to tees and greens. However when you walk, you can take a far straighter path. That being said, when I went, we played 54 a day, and for a man of my compromised height (especially as compared to my weight) it is easier to ride the last round, or even last two depending on the day! But can't blame that on the course can I?

[Dan Moore]

David's double eagle or consumption of Blue Moon must be affecting his vision.  A 5 can look a lot like a 9 especially late at night after a keg of Blue Moon.    

Having played both I have been struggling with which is better architecturally.  Both possess a unique personality which to me is a significant factor in determing greatness.  SH is more aerial and target oriented and more fair.  BN is whimsical with an abundance of variety in how the course sets up and plays.  Both have several great holes and no clunkers.  Both are fun, but in significantly different ways, at least for me and my game.  At Sand Hills the fun is in the challenge.  At BN the fun is in what happens once the ball is on the ground.  

Can we at least agree they both belong among the gourmet choices?