Are the par threes as one-dimensional as they appear in photos and on TV?
I think they are pretty darn one dimensional. Water carry par 3---rinse and repeat.
I've probably played Highlands and Riverside 10 times in total. Pretty evenly split between the two.
Highlands, to me, feels like two seperate courses. The front nine starts out wide open and feels like a high quality parkland style course. Angles of attack present themselves and some interesting risk/reward options. But then on hole 6 water becomes the dominant theme for the rest of the front nine. I'm not a huge fan of water hazards, so this gets tiring for me, especially if water is an over-used hazard...and I think it is in this case.
The back nine has a compeletly different vibe to it than the front nine and upon discovering the front and back were originally designed by two different people made compelete sense to me. I find the back to be too narrow and cramped...kind of like they ran out of room back there. It is one very demanding short to mid length par 4 after another...or so it always seems to me. And, again, lots of water comes into play.
I think the course is a pretty significant test of golfing skill...to be quite frank. The water, heavy bunkering, and tightness of the fairways on the back make for a very demanding test of accuracy. Every time I've played it the greens are pretty firm and fast...I'd say they average about 12 on the stimp meter day in and day out. But the last time I played it (like I mentioned maybe a month ago) the rough was THICK...combine that with very firm greens and wowzers...accuracy off the tee and on approach shots become even more crucial.
I am currently an 8.3 index and my best round at Highlands is high 80's. It is not an easy day out there for a person of my skill level. I prefer the Riverside course, given my game, personal taste, and architectural interest.
Mac,
I always enjoy reading your description/opinion of golf courses. Nothing here I would disagree with.
When I played AAC, I have to admit I had fairly low expectations based on what I read on GCA.com. I actually enjoyed the golf course, though it clearly has some weak spots.
The first 5 holes are very good. 1 and 2 in particular are among my favorite starts I have ever played (and I think 2 is a phenomenal hole). Not knowing too much about the golf course, when I got to the par 3 4th, I was impressed. Nothing architecturally significant there, but it is just a good, hard golf hole with water. Problem is, as you say, every par 3 is like that. Individually each is fine, but as a group they are a real bore (a hard and intimidating bore, but a bore nonetheless). And as for variety of yardages? I don't remember the lengths, but I remember hitting: 4 iron, 5 iron, 5 iron, hybrid. That's not huge variety in my mind.
One big criticism I had was the lack of fringe/rough around the water hazards. And even worse was the severely sloping areas on 6 and 12 into the water. Is this really necessary for everyday, member play? You want to make it tough for the pros, fine; but I don't think this feature makes sense for normal play. Even on the par 3s with water there is no tall grass to stop good shots from running off the green. I was playing on my own and was stuck behind a foursome so I hung out on the 8th green and watched 2 foursomes play number 4 to a back-left pin. 6 hit shots that landed on the green. 0 ended up on the green, with 3 running through the green into the water back-left. These were good shots, but with no rough, the ball just goes in the water.
And I wouldn't mind seeing 18 played as a par 5 from all the way back.