Arthur Hills courses

[Eric Smith]

John Conley,

Any chance you've played the 27 hole River Strand GC between Tampa and Sarasota? I was down there for a wedding and the groom booked us there for the day. We had a ball and I recall it had a variety of enjoyable par 3's (one with a beautiful Biarritz green), the greens were firm and lightning quick and the fairways plenty wide. The groom sprays it everywhere off the tee, yet he won the big cash that day!
I thought a lot of the bunker work was good as well. Some of them were just ok. I have some pics at home somewhere.

[Gary Slatter]

I have played 9 original AH courses (I thought El Conquistador was his, if it is 10 course) and 2 renos.   Unlike some I thought they were fine for their locations and the one I disliked is the LPGA at Daytona Beach while the ones I enjoyed the most were Golf Club of Georgia (played them twice, two Septembers in a row).

I have only played one Doak course, the Renaissance Club in Scotland.  It rained hard both days, I played with some really nice people (including Rich Goodale), met some other great people, I liked the Pro and his staff, but the course wouldn't make my top 30 in Scotland.  So it's hard to make an opinion based on only 1 or 3 courses, and I've loved everything I've read about TD and his courses.

[John_Conley]

John Conley,

Any chance you've played the 27 hole River Strand GC between Tampa and Sarasota? I was down there for a wedding and the groom booked us there for the day. We had a ball and I recall it had a variety of enjoyable par 3's (one with a beautiful Biarritz green), the greens were firm and lightning quick and the fairways plenty wide. The groom sprays it everywhere off the tee, yet he won the big cash that day!
I thought a lot of the bunker work was good as well. Some of them were just ok. I have some pics at home somewhere.

I have not.  I've lived in Florida for 18 years and have not spent much time in Sarasota/Bradenton.  Sounds like many of the Hills courses I've seen and liked.

[Jud_T]

Gary,

What 30 Courses in Scotland are better? According to Golfweek (interpolating Modern and Classic) there's only 14, a few of which are somewhat overrated in my opinion.  I'm genuinely interested as RCAA is one of Doak's I haven't played...

[Gary Slatter]

Gary,

What 30 Courses in Scotland are better? According to Golfweek (interpolating Modern and Classic) there's only 14, a few of which are somewhat overrated in my opinion.  I'm genuinely interested as RCAA is one of Doak's I haven't played...

JUd, I think you should play RC and make your own opinion.  My 30 Scottish courses would be my opinion, and mine only.    GOLFWEEK's opinion is also their opinion, should I move RC to 15 on my list? 

[Matthew Sander]

Eric,

Thanks for jogging my memory. We lived in Tampa when River Strand was brand new. I've only played the original 18 holes, and I did enjoy it. I remember the biarritz green you mentioned. It was a good set of par 3s, and the course had a feel and look that was atypical of FL...

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

Let me just say this ...

If you concur with JNC then you are saying that non-existent sample size doesn't matter and one can then brand a person by such a limited portofolio because of what that person has already played.

If you are truly "open to playing another Hills course" -- which JNC was not -- then that's a different matter.

Tim, when someone just plays 2-3 courses from an architect with a large portfolio it becomes very difficult to really glean anything that you can say with total certainty or even near certainity. What happens if one simply played the turkeys of that total ? What of someone simply played the elite best ? A small sample size in your case and in JNC's -- limits one's perspective. I never said you can't draw conclusions from the ones played -- but no person has the wherewithal to then extrapolate that tiny sample size and say that playing all others would be a waste of time.

Tim -- remember this -- I don't doubt people may not have the opportunity or desire to play a representative sample. That's fine. That's your call and JNC's. What I object to is the desire to brand that small -- very small sample size -- into larger conclusions.
To use baseball terms -- think of it like a batting average -- if a guy hits home runs in two straight at-bats do we then proclaim he is in the same league with Babe Ruth? Doubt it very much. Ditto if he should just strike out in two at-bats. If I recall correctly Willie Mays didn't get a hit for the first 40 or so at bats. Under your reasoning Durocher should have thrown him back into the minors.

[Doug Wright]

Tim:

Let me just say this ...

If you concur with JNC then you are saying that non-existent sample size doesn't matter and one can then brand a person by such a limited portofolio because of what that person has already played.

If you are truly "open to playing another Hills course" -- which JNC was not -- then that's a different matter.

Tim, when someone just plays 2-3 courses from an architect with a large portfolio it becomes very difficult to really glean anything that you can say with total certainty or even near certainity. What happens if one simply played the turkeys of that total ? What of someone simply played the elite best ? A small sample size in your case and in JNC's -- limits one's perspective. I never said you can't draw conclusions from the ones played -- but no person has the wherewithal to then extrapolate that tiny sample size and say that playing all others would be a waste of time.

Tim -- remember this -- I don't doubt people may not have the opportunity or desire to play a representative sample. That's fine. That's your call and JNC's. What I object to is the desire to brand that small -- very small sample size -- into larger conclusions.
To use baseball terms -- think of it like a batting average -- if a guy hits home runs in two straight at-bats do we then proclaim he is in the same league with Babe Ruth? Doubt it very much. Ditto if he should just strike out in two at-bats. If I recall correctly Willie Mays didn't get a hit for the first 40 or so at bats. Under your reasoning Durocher should have thrown him back into the minors.

Matt, I don't think you answered my question (other than saying "more than 2").

Matt, what would you view as a workable sample size?

[Jud_T]

That's just what I was going to ask.  Statistics would say 20-30, but that seems excessive in a field where the results are far from random....

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

There's no perfect answer partner.

I would say this -- if someone is assessing the quality of people like TF, JN or AH then you need to have a sample size of no less than ten (10) courses because of the sheer number of courses completed. And they should be a diverse lot -- by that, I mean from different areas of the country. Playing all of someone's work just in Florida is a limited situation at best. I would also say that within the sample size it would help if the courses were from different categories -- private, resort, ccfad, muni or low level budget/fees, etc, etc.

Doing that allows for some semblance of reasonable discussion. No doubt the specific courses played will determine plenty. It's possible that someone could play 10 JN courses and each of them really was no that good. It can happen.

I will say this again so no one thinks otherwise.

I never said people can't have opinions on what they have played. It's the notion one can then extrapolate that into something broader and more definitive about the overall skillset of a given architect.

[PCCraig]

I kind of see both sides of this argument.  For the past few years, I've taken 1/4 of a regular time at Stonewall Orchard with some buddies.  They like it primarily since we have an early time on Sunday and the greens are some of the best conditioned of the area's publics.  I'm considering dropping out next season simply because the course is underwhelming, the 18th hole is one of the silliest closing par 5's you'll ever see, tough and pricey.  I've also played Bay Harbor and seen his renovation work at Ivanhoe and U of M, both of which, while not horrible,  could have been better.  It's a bit of a conundrum.  Given that I don't get to play as much as some here, why not seek out the best possible courses or return to those that I know and love?  Yet this leads to a sort of insularity.  I've liked or loved all the courses of X GCA so I seek out more of his designs, which I'm predisposed to like, and I'm happy in my ignorance...Yet there's that uncovered gem or new designer that I may overlook, or even that really special Art Hills track, that I miss due to my cocoon of a portfolio of courses.......

Jud:

I don't think the 18th hole is half as bad as the 10th...now THAT is a goofy hole!

The 18th to me is really just driver, 6 iron to the left side of fairway, bunt PW to the front of the green...try to 2 putt. I actually like the 4th (?) hole: the short par-4 with water on the right, the 2nd, and the short par-3 on the back....all pretty good and pretty interesting golf holes.

I will say that it is a nice place to play golf as there are no homes, generally quick pace of play, and it's usually in good condition.

[Derek_Duncan]

Doug:

It sure as hell can't be just two (2) courses.

JNC:

The issue is making sweeping judgements across the board. You have played two - count-em two AH courses. How would you like it if someone evaluated your work with only two examples?

Re-read what I sent to you in my last response. I have no issue with people providing their opinions on what they have played -- I do have issue with anyone extrapolating comments from such a tiny sample of courses and then saying look see at how poor that architect is across the board. Credibility is something that people on blog sites should be interested in maintaining -- despite your knowledge of courses (which is considerable) you badly undercut yourself with such broad and ignorant statements. You're better than that. I value your comments on what you have played -- does it hurt to just simply stick to that rather than throwing forward such broad generalizations?

From the 20 or so AH courses I have played I would be hard pressed to say if any would make my personal top 100. But keep in mind, that doesn't mean to say that all of the places of his that I have played are dogfood or not worthy of a round of golf.

Just a thought for you to think about -- nothing more. Thanks ...

I kind of agree with Matt to a point.

You could play 30 or 40 courses designed by Donald Ross, but if they were all the ones he never saw with his own eyes or the ones that have evolved one way or another over the years, you wouldn't have much good to say about him. At least compared to those who know Pinehurst, Seminole, etc.

I think you just have to keep an open mind and try to be smart. Two or three courses from a person or firm that has designed hundreds around the world is simply not enough of a sampling upon which to make sweeping declarations as JNC Lyon did. On the other hand, the quality of work on almost all of Doak's or C&C's work is so high, if you've played 2 or 3 you can probably speak intelligently.

Then again, I think even Tom Doak said on this board that once you've seen about 3 courses from an architect you can kind of figure out what they're all about. But again, just try to be smart and honest about what you say.

[Andy Troeger]

Derek,
Even for Doak, if you went to Charlotte Golf Links (the first of his I played) and perhaps 1-2 others of his lesser known work, would you really expect Pac Dunes and some of the other greats that he's built?  Charlotte Golf Links is very average--nothing bad but just not that memorable. I certainly was surprised to find out when I became more interested in the topic that the designer of that course had built some of the finest in the world, and it took playing more of his work to get over that skepticism. Lost Dunes did the trick pretty well, and Ballyneal and Rock Creek confirmed things! Had I played Riverfront and Quail Crossing instead, however, perhaps the questions would have remained. (I haven't played either, so I'm totally guessing).

[Derek_Duncan]

Derek,
Even for Doak, if you went to Charlotte Golf Links (the first of his I played) and perhaps 1-2 others of his lesser known work, would you really expect Pac Dunes and some of the other greats that he's built?  Charlotte Golf Links is very average--nothing bad but just not that memorable. I certainly was surprised to find out when I became more interested in the topic that the designer of that course had built some of the finest in the world, and it took playing more of his work to get over that skepticism. Lost Dunes did the trick pretty well, and Ballyneal and Rock Creek confirmed things! Had I played Riverfront and Quail Crossing instead, however, perhaps the questions would have remained. (I haven't played either, so I'm totally guessing).

Andy,

This is where we have to be practical when we try to evaluate someone's work. Arthur Hills has been running a design business for the greater part of 30 years. Otherwise he'd never be able to usher into existence the several hundred courses that bear his name. Tom Doak on the other hand, despite his success, is an artisan. There's a vast discrepancy between the number of courses they've built and the way they operate as architects.

They're just different and we have to acknowledge that. Because he's more an artisan and is also more of a public figure, Doak's career can be viewed contemporaneously, in an evolving arc: we're all witnessing and evaluating it as it happens. Because the product is limited (compared to Hills' work) and happening in this hyper-informative age, those of us willing to follow architecture are month-by-month the creators and creations of his repuation.

That's why we can look at any of Doak's early courses and not hold them against him. He's in the process of telling us a story--there's a narrative being built. Hills isn't doing that anymore. We're looking backwards at him and making out own stories that align with out perceptions.

[BCrosby]

This discussion has gone badly off the rails. 

Anyone can have opinions about an architect based on whatever evidence he thinks relevant.

If you think those opinions are wrong, then give reasons why you think they are wrong. You might note, among other things, that there are courses X, Y and Z he hasn't played that contradict his opinions. 

But the Matt Ward response that you are not entitled to an opinion unless you have played a Matt Ward approved number of courses is nuts

If Matt doesn't like JNC's opinions, then do JNC the courtesy of telling him why he is wrong. But do not tell him that he has no right to his opinions.

Bob   

[Jud_T]

Matt,

I agree that sweeping generalities based on a small sample size are not appropriate.  The real question is, after you've played 3 courses of a given GCA and been completely underwhelmed, why would you bother playing the fourth if there are likely better options available, barring glowing reviews from informed sources?

[Ken Fry]

Art Hills has been given the opportunity to renovate a large number of classic and "well known" courses:  Inverness, Milwaukee CC, Oakmont, U of M, Ivanhoe, Oakland Hills, Point 'O Woods, etc.

One listed on his website really stood out to me:  Crystal Downs.  Can someone with knowledge of his involvement explain what he did there??  The renovation is listed in 1991.

Ken

[Matt_Ward]

Jud:

The issue is keeping an open mind -- think of it this way -- if an architect has struck out from two or three other courses you have played -- it's possible with a better site and some additional elements (like a budget to work with) that they can deliver a much better effort -- even one for state or national acclaim.

Like I said before -- I have no issue with opinions on what someone has played -- it's extrapolating that into some sort of broad assetive statements that based on such a limited sample that the architect in question is totally unable to deliver a top shelf effort.

Bob C:

Get real.

I never said people can't have opinions on what they have played. Read what I wrote -- not what you think I wrote. I simply said that when you take a limited sample of just 2-3 courses from someone who has 150 or more courses to their credit it would help if you had a broader sample size before making definitive comments about whether such a person has the goods to be a golf architect.

[Bill_McBride]

Tim:

Let me just say this ...

If you concur with JNC then you are saying that non-existent sample size doesn't matter and one can then brand a person by such a limited portofolio because of what that person has already played.

If you are truly "open to playing another Hills course" -- which JNC was not -- then that's a different matter.

Tim, when someone just plays 2-3 courses from an architect with a large portfolio it becomes very difficult to really glean anything that you can say with total certainty or even near certainity. What happens if one simply played the turkeys of that total ? What of someone simply played the elite best ? A small sample size in your case and in JNC's -- limits one's perspective. I never said you can't draw conclusions from the ones played -- but no person has the wherewithal to then extrapolate that tiny sample size and say that playing all others would be a waste of time.

Tim -- remember this -- I don't doubt people may not have the opportunity or desire to play a representative sample. That's fine. That's your call and JNC's. What I object to is the desire to brand that small -- very small sample size -- into larger conclusions.
To use baseball terms -- think of it like a batting average -- if a guy hits home runs in two straight at-bats do we then proclaim he is in the same league with Babe Ruth? Doubt it very much. Ditto if he should just strike out in two at-bats. If I recall correctly Willie Mays didn't get a hit for the first 40 or so at bats. Under your reasoning Durocher should have thrown him back into the minors.

Matt, I don't think you answered my question (other than saying "more than 2").

Matt, what would you view as a workable sample size?

 

[BCrosby]

Matt, I'm reading what you wrote. It goes:

"I simply said that when you take a limited sample of just 2-3 courses from someone who has 150 or more courses to their credit it would help if you had a broader sample size before making definitive comments about whether such a person has the goods to be a golf architect."

Of course a broader sampling helps. That's always true. But you are saying something else, something that is both more interesting and less true. You are saying that it's not possible to be right about an architect after having played only a small sampling of his courses. That is the gist of your objections to JNC.

Specifically, what you don't address is whether JNC - even with his small sampling - is actually right.

Why not take another approach to views you don't agree with? Tell us what it is that is wrong with them rather than dismissing them because of the sample size used.

Bob  

[Matt_Ward]

Bob:

Try to remember this -- JNC made a broad generalization from such a limited sample size. That kind of statement is bound to undermine anyone's credibility.

I'll say this again in case you or anyone else missed what I wrote several times -- I have no issue with people having specific opinions on courses they have played. That's fine. But if someone is going to throw an architect under the design bus of greatness then they need to demonstrate some serious homework. Playing 2-3 courses from someone's portfolio which is considerably more than that doesn't show that at all.

Bob, how would you like to be judged for the totalty of your work from someone who has only seen 2-3 samples of it ? How thorough is that kind of due diligence?

I can't speak to what JNC spoke about because the Hills courses he listed I have not played. I have played roughly 20 or so others and I have said based upon that sample size that it's rather disappointing that AH has not had any of his courses receive star billing -- I've played Bay Harbor in MI which is one of his "best" and it's just as not as good as the site he had to work with in my mind.

Bob, like I said before -- i have no issue with a person saying what they wish about specific courses they have played -- but one cannot then presume -- and it's a stretch for sure -- to go beyond that limited grouping of courses and then say that overall the architect is incapable of having a design worthy of a visit either from existign stock or future ones that come forward.

[JNC Lyon]

Matt,

You still have not answered my big question: Do agree or disagree with my view on Arthur Hills' architecture?

So far, you have made your point about large sample sizes repeatedly.  That's fine, I probably should see more Hills courses.  However, the question here is not who has seen more Hills courses.  The question is how good is his architecture.

[Matt_Ward]

JNC:

I can't comment on the specifics you mentioned concerning the AH courses you played.

I have not played them.

It would be helpful if you came to the table and simply admitted that making definitive comments on what an architect has either done or in all future cases is not worth playing is really shortsighted on your part -- especially when gleaned only from playing just 2-3 courses. You generally provide interesting course comments and that comes from having played courses. Your crystal ball skills, respectfully, are just not there.

At the same time I have played a few Hills courses that are worthy of being sought out. Are they at the level of a Old Macdonald or Ballyneal or others in the top .001 percent of courses? No, but that doesn't mean they would not provide their share of worthy golf entertainment.

I did say that from the ones I have played he has not been able to hit a home run of the magnitude worthy of top 100 status in my own portfolio of courses played. That doesn't mean to to say the guy is worthless and that nothing he has done is either worth playing from existing stock or future ones. That's what you said.

If I had to apply a design grade to his work -- the interesting answer is that the more recent work is a good bit better. Likely the contributions of some of his associates has helped in that regard.

Hope my answer has helped ...

[JNC Lyon]

JNC:

I can't comment on the specifics you mentioned concerning the AH courses you played.

I have not played them.

Matt,

I made those general conclusions about Hills the architect to contribute something to the bigger discussion on Hills.  If I had simply described the Hills courses I have played, it would have been useless to most people, who have not played the three courses in question.  Instead, I choose to establish some themes that were common to these courses and use those themes to draw some bigger conclusions about Hills as an architect.  These comments got people, including you, thinking about Hills architecture and discussing it with some vigor.

This is one reason why I often post such strong statements about golf courses. I think there is too much of a consensus on here of "to each his own" when it comes to golf course architecture.  That mindset does not accomplish anything, and it gets boring after awhile.

Matt, I agree that I would be credible about Hills if I had plenty 20 courses rather than 3.  However, I believe I am perceptive enough about GCA to play three of his golf courses and make some definitive conclusions about his architecture.  Besides, it is not like these are three Hills courses I know anything about.  I have seen and read plenty of information about his golf courses, including posts on here about courses like Bay Harbor, Longaberger, and Half Moon Bay.  By corroborating this information from what I have seen of his architecture in person, I am able to make some educated judgments about his golf courses.

[JNC Lyon]

John Conley's post reminded me of something: I HAVE played another Hills course--one of the courses at the original Bonita Bay.  I thought it had a couple neat holes, and it was less artificial than the others as I recall. 

After that Bonita Bay mention, I realized I was right suspect I had played another one of his layouts.  The fact that it was so unmemorable that I could not recall playing it says something bad about the course and his architecture in general.

Bonita Bay opened with 18 holes.  Then across the street they added Creekside.  Then 18 more were added, with nine holes tacked on to nine existing to form the Bay Island and Marsh 18s.

This might be part of the reason Bonita Bay was unimpressive to me.  I played one of the layouts that consisted of half of the original layout.  The course had two sets of back-to-back par threes, and it featured a long par four closer with a long carry over water off the tee.  If a layout is spliced up from its original layout, it will almost always end up worse off than before.

About 25 years ago the original 18 was ranked about #70 on the Golf Digest list.  A very strong amateur I know called it the greatest test of driving he'd ever seen.  Like Derek says, Hills' resume is the result of his era.

I remember reading right before playing Bonita Bay that it had been highly ranked in the past.  Despite the fact that the course had been chopped up, I still expected some good architecture.  What I saw was a layout that was very high difficulty and style and very low on fun.  When someone (especially a strong amateur player) calls a course a great test of driving, it throws up a red flag for me.  This statement usually means that the course is very narrow, with very little strategy off the tee.  I remember that this was the case at Bonita, where any wayward drive was relegated to the swamps.

I can see how this ranking was a product of the era, where difficulty was heralded over variety and options.  I think I would puke if I read some of the courses that were ranked behind Bonita Bay on the list.  However, I am not sure that I buy the statement that Hills' course is a "product of his era."  Pete Dye was building great courses in that era, even if others were not.  If Hills was unable to build great courses in that era, it was due to a lack of vision and creativity on his part.

Your tagline says LOVES CLASSIC COURSES.  Art Hills did not usher in the new-classic era.  Neither did Robert Von Hagge, Robert Trent Jones, or Dick Wilson. Compared to his contemporaries, I've always considered the Hills name an endorsement in Florida.

I think RTJ and Wilson built many more great courses if I am not mistaken.  Two of my favorite layouts are RTJ courses, in fact.  Wilson worked under Flynn, and RTJ worked under Stanley Thompson.  This shows up in RTJ's early work, which involves plenty of strategy and flair, much more than Hills.  From my understanding, the same can be said of Wilson, though I have not played any of his courses so I cannot really comment.  However, if Hills' name is an endorsement in FLA, Florida golf is worse off than I thought...
   
For an unusual body of work, I'd love your thoughts on the late Dave Harman.  If you played the wrong two from his portfolio, which certainly includes Magnolia Plantation, and wrote him off it would be a pity.

I know nothing about Dave Harman's work.  What are some of his best layouts?