Let's Discuss INNISCRONE!

[George Pazin]

    When I say Hanse (a quality architect) was hire to build a quality course, I mean he was hired to build a $50,000 initiation course, not a muni, which is what he built.  Among the other architecturally deficient holes is the 7th - a par five where the best line to shoot the lowest score is to hit the tee shot right at the people playing three - a great architectural concept if you're in the hardhat business.   I suppose this could be fixed by adding an internal out of bounds - a truly awful architectural feature.  I won't take the bait and go over all my issues again.  Let's just say I think the course stinks, and apparently the consuming public agrees.

Can't say I agree with any of this.

I don't have the breadth of playing experience of many on here, but I'm hard pressed to think of a single course that doesn't have a hole in play from another, save the obvious exceptions with PV-like isolation or Kapalua-like scale. If you can't make the carry to the 7th fairway, or at least right rough, you shouldn't be taking that line.

As for the capitalism comments, there are top 100 courses that have gone under and top 1000 courses that are flourishing - architecture/design plays only one role among many in determining a course's future.

[mike_malone]

 So why is it unpopular ?

[Kyle Harris]

So why is it unpopular ?

Can we establish the premise that it is unpopular?

[mike_malone]

 Kyle,

   I knew you were going to jump on that statement. But let's be real. Malcolm's experience seems to jibe with my feed back. When Rolling Green was regrassing in 2000 Inniscrone was one of our reciprocals. (It did charge a modest green fee which ,I guess, was a turnoff for our cheap members). But, I can't recall anyone who played there thinking it was worth a second visit. I imagine this is when Jim Coleman went there.

    Could it be that several of the par fours are rather penal ? Could it be that most golfers just won't forgive a hole like #10 when the other holes don't overcome it enough?

  I don't really know the answer.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

   I knew you were going to jump on that statement. But let's be real. Malcolm's experience seems to jibe with my feed back. When Rolling Green was regrassing in 2000 Inniscrone was one of our reciprocals. (It did charge a modest green fee which ,I guess, was a turnoff for our cheap members). But, I can't recall anyone who played there thinking it was worth a second visit. I imagine this is when Jim Coleman went there.

    Could it be that several of the par fours are rather penal ? Could it be that most golfers just won't forgive a hole like #10 when the other holes don't overcome it enough?

  I don't really know the answer.

What were your expectations going in?

As with most things, I think golfers especially establish an opinion and expectation of a golf course before they actually play it. It's taken me sometime to train myself to manage this tendency but I'm still not completely over it. I've only experienced Inniscrone in it's latest management structure so I can't really relate to any experience I would have had when it was private.

Golf courses where a high single-digit handicap will have to go outside their comfort zone to shoot their handicap tend to elicit strong emotions.

Do you think the experience of some golfers with Inniscrone is akin to yours with Hidden Creek?

[mike_malone]

 I can't really speak for many others but I think most, like me, had no real impression of the course. Intuitively, I think golfers like the terrain of courses out that way so they would expect a positive experience. Since I wasn't a gca guy in 2000 I wasn't affected by the reviews here. However, the word soon circulated that there were a few horrible holes there. I think this poisoned the water for most. Because there is some fine golf there I think most came away lukewarm and not to the level of Jim Coleman's feelings.

   My sense now is that the public golfers I know won't go past Glen Mills if they want an upscale experience. And if they were to go that far they prefer Wyncote. So even Hartefeld rarely comes up in the conversation.

[George Pazin]

...Could it be that most golfers just won't forgive a hole like #10 when the other holes don't overcome it enough?

I'm amazed that anyone would feel that 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,11,12,13,14,15 are not really good, really fun holes. I can see someone having a problem with 5 & 10 - I don't think they're bad, but I also wouldn't say they're good. I can also see someone not liking 16, and someone finding 17 & 18 too hard (though I personally would disagree with all of those opinions). I can see someone not loving Inniscrone. I can't see someone hating it, or saying it stinks. If it stinks, then all but maybe 5 courses I've played in my life stink. Perhaps some should take a moment to thank the golfing gods for their own personal good fortune.

I played Lehigh the next day and absolutely loved it. In fact, I prefer it by a good margin. But some of the same problems cited on this thread exist there as well - holes in play from other holes, difficulty dealing with abrupt terrain. I'd say Lehigh surmounts those problems in a better manner, but after hearing Gil speak, I'm inclined to believe that if he had had the freedom that Flynn had, Inniscrone would be a better course than it is currently (Inniscrone, that is, not Lehigh, sorry if that's awkward).

EDIT: fixed my typo in the first sentence, thanks, Mike!

[Kyle Harris]

I can't really speak for many others but I think most, like me, had no real impression of the course. Intuitively, I think golfers like the terrain of courses out that way so they would expect a positive experience. Since I wasn't a gca guy in 2000 I wasn't affected by the reviews here. However, the word soon circulated that there were a few horrible holes there. I think this poisoned the water for most. Because there is some fine golf there I think most came away lukewarm and not to the level of Jim Coleman's feelings.

   My sense now is that the public golfers I know won't go past Glen Mills if they want an upscale experience. And if they were to go that far they prefer Wyncote. So even Hartefeld rarely comes up in the conversation.

Mike:

Paying $45 for an 8AM Tee Time on a Saturday, I can see Inniscrone competing just fine with any of the above.

[mike_malone]

 That will improve their first time play but the test will be whether golfers return. I would be interested in that data.

[Kyle Harris]

That will improve their first time play but the test will be whether golfers return. I would be interested in that data.

Likewise.

As I mentioned in my first post on this thread, there is a steady set of regulars (that play quickly!) established.

When can I expect you to join me for a round? I still need to see Glen Mills.

[mike_malone]

 I understand Glen Mills is 55 until the 15th.

[astavrides]

  My sense now is that the public golfers I know won't go past Glen Mills if they want an upscale experience. And if they were to go that far they prefer Wyncote. So even Hartefeld rarely comes up in the conversation.

Hartefeld is private as far as I know.

[Jim_Coleman]

    Maybe I'm getting a little carried away.  I've been there three times, none in the last 5 years.  I just didn't enjoy it.  Maybe I was infuenced by my knowledge that it was built as an upscale, $50,000 initiation private club.  (I think the first time I played it they were looking for members at that price.)  I thought that was a joke - which it turned out to be.  As a $50 daily fee course, I suppose there are a lot worse.  Is it wrong to evaluate a course this way?  I think it's legit.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

IMO, Inniscrone is a very good 16 hole course. 10 & 5 are weak holes. As such, it's a very good muni.

It's still more than an hour trip for me so I may make the trip only once or twice per year.

[mike_malone]

  Here's the take from the lead dog of a group of 8 that play all the public courses in the area.

    " Great piece of land, fun layout but tricky/cutesy difficult with a number of holes that should be blown up. The best barometer is we go there once a year versus Glen Mills and Wyncote 4-6 times. "


      My buddies use the cost/fun equation .

[Doug Braunsdorf]

I understand Glen Mills is 55 until the 15th.

Let me know if you need a fifth

[Doug Braunsdorf]

IMO, Inniscrone is a very good 16 hole course. 10 & 5 are weak holes. As such, it's a very good muni.

It's still more than an hour trip for me so I may make trip once or twice per year.

Steve, I am with you on the distance factor.  Now, you said 5 and 10 are weak holes.  I don't see a lot wrong with #5, given environmental or other constraints, and #10 is a means to get from a high point on the course to a low point. 

What would you like to see, as far as ideal architecture for these two holes, and these two alone?  What would be better designs for holes 5 and 10?

All are welcome to weigh in here, let's keep it constructive from here on out. 

[JNC Lyon]

Doug, et al:

The 10th could be improved with a more interesting greensite.  13 at Lederach would be a model for par fours compromised by wetlands crossings.  Lederach's 13th would be very uninspiring, but KBM built a phenomenal, pushed-up green here to make the second shot compelling.  Hanse could have done the same thing at 10 at Inniscrone.  Build a pushed-up green, relatively large in size, surrounded by fairway.  The hole would go from boring to quirky and interesting.  To me, the failure on 10 was the green, not the wetlands crossing that seems necessary.

As for 5, I am a huge fan of that drop shot par three.  The hole is 110 yards, straight downhill, ending in a green with no surrounding water or bunkers.  The hole makes use of interesting ground features and a front-to-back green.  The player is free to fly it in or bounce it on.  It takes feel, creativity, and mental commitment rather than rote ballstriking ability.  I think the 5th is great as is.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

JNC;

  Good to hear from you.  I am with you on the 5th hole.  I don't think it's a bad hole.  It's not a postcard hole, but I do recall some internal contouring to the green, dividing it into quadrants, or thirds, I don't recall (it was about 3 1/2 yrs ago I played w/JB).  I think it's effective, in the way the player going after birdie will hit the proper part of the green.

(4th at Lulu is a par 3 of about the same distance, but it plays uphill across a quarry, nobody screams...)

Alternatively, could a different hole be built, on a different part of the property?  This way, it eliminates the backtrack. 

On to 10. 

How would this work with the tees up, specifically, in the driveable range for longer players, and specific to have a sign of the front of hazard/back of hazard distance on the tee? 
(This way, people know exactly what the reach and carry distances are, and it serves to hopefully discourage people from having a crack at the green who have no business doing so).

Expand the green pad out considerably--2 or 3 times the current size--rather than a small green ringed by rough to encourage creative second or third shots. 

Opinions and intelligent ideas?

[Sean_A]

This is a good thread which I much appreciate.  Its these public courses I miss the most about golf in the US.  There are so many wonderful courses to be played for less than $75 and a phone call.  The US is the ultimate in "why not give it a go?" attitude when prices are kept down and teh variety of courses on offer its kept up.  That isn't to say that paying a premium at UK clubs for millionaire golf isn't without its advantages,  but it would be great to have a choice.  Unfortunately, public golf in the UK sucks. 

It occurs to me looking at Joe's pix again that the course reminds me a ton of Calderone Farms in Michigan.  That course has many good holes, but somehow fails in how they are tied together.  Mind you, I reckon a big part of that is that the course is walkable, but not designed for walkers if you know what I mean.  Lederach suffers this same disconnect, but at least there are houses at Lederach.   

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46386.0/

How is the walk at Inniscrone?  I notice a heck of a lot of open space within its boundaries and that sets off alarm bells.

Ciao

[John Shimony]

Sean,
I have walked the course but I would think that endeavor is only for the true believer.  I do not think it is a problem with distances between green and tee, though there are a few, so much as hills to climb.  

As to the aforementioned holes 5 and 10 I would submit that five is not a horrible hole.  Forced, obviously, but not comical.  As to hole 10, I, like the young Lyon, wonder what the hole would be like with a tee farther down the hill.  Also, what is the situation concerning the open space beyond the green?  Would it be feasible to move the green up that hill and make is a short par four with a drive across the wetlands and up to a green benched somewhere on the face of that slope?

[Joe Bausch]

Sean, I've walked Inniscrone many times.  Easy walk?  Not really.  But it is manageable.  There are a few tough hills, but no 1/4 mile walks between any green and next tee.  Although a couple (the hike back up the hill on the drop shot par 3 5th, across the road to the par 3 8th, and around the bend to the 17th tee) would be nice if shorter, but I don't think the property really allowed it.

Perhaps this could be a topic for a thread on its own, but I think Inniscrone is polarizing for many reasons, clearly a primary one being a couple of controversial holes (in the eyes of the detractors), 5 and 10.  And, heck, throw 17 in the mix too.  The detractors dislike those holes so much, IMO, that the course is not worth a return play.  Those that love the course, like me, accept those holes, AND really love what I think are so many fantastic holes.

If a course has a couple of dud holes, is that enough to put it on your "do not play list", or as Jim Coleman might put it, "should never have been built" list?

[JNC Lyon]

Walking at Inniscrone?  I found it very easy.  Kyle and I walked in just over three hours, and I did not feel the least bit tired at the end of the round.  There are a couple of hikes and backtracks, but these are very manageable.  I thought the road crossing would be a pain, but, as usual, this feature did not have as much of an effect on the routing as I would have figured.

Of the Philly area courses I've played in the last few weeks, Inniscrone was easier to walk.  It was an easier walk than Morgan Hill (now THIS is a tough walk), Lederach, Paxon Hollow, Cobb's Creek, or Galloway, no doubt.  I think the "it's tough to walk" complaint at Inniscrone does not hold up.

[mike_malone]

 I find it interesting that those not from the area uniformly like the course but several from the area aren't enamored.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

I find it interesting that those not from the area uniformly like the course but several from the area aren't enamored.

Mike,

  You said you had members at RG who didn't care for it.  As you said, this may have to do with the guest fee assessed.  This could also be colored due to, as you said, folks who were members at (for example) RG not liking it (many different variables at work here; distance, architecture, course layout, environmental areas vs. not many at RG).  Look, if I could play RG after driving 10 minutes or play Inniscrone after driving 45 minutes, it's obvious which one I'd choose. 

Frankly, I liked Inniscrone more than French Creek.  Maybe because I played better at Inniscrone than both times at FC (I am working in my mind to not let this distort my analysis of architecture).  I feel Inniscrone is less penal than FC, even taking into account #s 4,10, 16, and 17 (I parred 5,16, so I don't think those holes are that hard, and I know a lot of you don't know me for lighting up golf courses.  I seem to recall maybe getting out of #4 and 17 with a 5 or 6)

I think a more valid comparison is to look at the other courses of similar stripe, similar age in the immediate area, and look at their architecture, their routing, the ground the courses are built upon. 

When this was designed, I imagine it would have competed for members with Hartefeld, Fieldstone, as other newly designed courses.  What other courses/clubs would this course have competed with?