Let's talk Gil Hanse

[Niall C]

I've played the two, Craighead and Castle Stuart.

While I marginally prefer Craighead to Balcomie, it is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Mark describes Craighead pretty well although I would say that there was a fair bit of repetition in some of the holes eg internal bunkering on the dog-legs, and some of the interest/quirkiness was a given eg the wall which as I understand it is listed. While some of the holes are really good, overall I would call the course solid rather than earth shatteringly good. Yes, all he did was move earth for the tees, greens and bunkers (or so I believe) but MacKenzie did something similar at Duff House Royal and came up with something altogether better and more interesting IMO.

Basically, it wouldn't be my first choice in Fife.

Castle Stuart - first question to ask was how much was Hanse and how much was Parsinen ? The second question is, is it any good ? Not so long ago someone who knows the course well described it to me as a good resort course. I wouldn't disagree. I like somethng to do with the drives, and after you've played it a couple of times you realise and far too many holes it matters not a jot whether you go left, right or up the middle which is why its good to hear they are putting in some fairway bunkering.

Overall, I haven't seen anything from Gil that suggests he's the coming Messiah of GCA. But thats only based on two courses.

Niall

[David Kelly]

Niall,

I think Craighead is a perfectly fine golf course and plays a lot tougher than it looks but it is far from being one of Hanse's best courses.  I would put it towards the bottom of his originals.  As for Castle Stuart, I like it a lot more than you do and think the greens are very good.  Putting more fairway bunkers on the course will make the drives a little more difficult but I hope they are prudent about what they do because with the daily potential for a 3-4 club wind you don't want to tighten the landing areas too much.

[JNC Lyon]

I don't want to sound repetitive, but you really need to see Boston Golf Club.  (as does any architecture fan who hasn't seen it)  It will blow you away. 

Inniscrone and French Creek are also great examples of his work if Philly is more convenient as well.

Mark

You seem to be a big fan of Boston Golf Club. Maybe you should become a member there?

[Joe Bausch]

I don't want to sound repetitive, but you really need to see Boston Golf Club.  (as does any architecture fan who hasn't seen it)  It will blow you away. 

Inniscrone and French Creek are also great examples of his work if Philly is more convenient as well.

Mark

You seem to be a big fan of Boston Golf Club. Maybe you should become a member there?

+1

[Greg Chambers]

Mac,

The one thing that I constantly marvel at while playing either Rustic or Soule Park is the visual deception.  He uses hazards and other course features to constantly make you think you are seeing something that you're not, or vice-versa.  He uses cross bunkers, centerline bunkers, burms, barrancas, arroyos, etc to confuse you as the the prefered line and distance off the tee.  He also uses these features with great effect to throw off your distance judgement on approach shots.  I personally find his greens to be mostly subtle, with the occasional dramatic internal contour thrown in, but very difficult to read...even after multiple plays.

[mike_malone]

I have described Gil as having a sense of humor. I smile at his short par fours at Applebrook, Inniscrone, and French Creek

BTW Hanse did an awesome Master Plan for Rolling Green in the late 90's. We could not afford him now.

[Dan Herrmann]

BTW - IM me if you'd want to play French Creek...

[Bill McKinley]

I played French Creek last fall.  It was enjoyable for sure.  #2 is a tremendous hole.  There were a couple holes on the back that I wasn't a big fan of but overall it was a fun test with a very good variety of holes.

Played LACC - North a couple weeks ago and was blown away.  Talk about varied terrain and a good variety of interesting holes! They have to mow 20 greens a day on the North course due to lil 17 and the alternate green on #2.  The course definitely ranks firmly in my Top 5.

[DMoriarty]

I don't know about this thread, what with these comments about visual deception, the quality of the tie-ins, restoration work, some possible disagreement about the merits of the widths of the fairways at Castle Stuart (and I assume elsewhere,) bunker construction and style, etc. . . . Pretty basic stuff and not yet a lot of depth, but still we are veering dangerously close to a substantive discussion of . . . dare I say it . . . golf course architecture.

Shouldn't we all just be declaring how fun Gil's courses are, and how we just like them, and perhaps even take offense at any attempt to dig deeper? Perhaps we can turn the discussion to club atmosphere, shower heads, fire pits, cargo pants, bankruptcies, and other matters more appropriate to this forum? (I hope this post helps in this regard.)  Maybe throw in some gratuitous back slapping for good measure?  

As for those who dare ask questions about Gil's courses, what is up with that?  If they really cared or were legitimately interested they'd have already sought out a large enough sampling of his courses and figured it out for themselves.  They cannot possibly think they can learn anything from the reasoned opinions of others, can they?

[Mac Plumart]

Mac,

The one thing that I constantly marvel at while playing either Rustic or Soule Park is the visual deception.  He uses hazards and other course features to constantly make you think you are seeing something that you're not, or vice-versa.  He uses cross bunkers, centerline bunkers, burms, barrancas, arroyos, etc to confuse you as the the prefered line and distance off the tee.  He also uses these features with great effect to throw off your distance judgement on approach shots.  I personally find his greens to be mostly subtle, with the occasional dramatic internal contour thrown in, but very difficult to read...even after multiple plays.

Greg...great post!

Group...it would appear to me, from this thread, that Boston GC is his consensus best work to-date.  Any disagreements?

[Mike Hogan]

I don't know about this thread, what with these comments about visual deception, the quality of the tie-ins, restoration work, some possible disagreement about the merits of the widths of the fairways at Castle Stuart (and I assume elsewhere,) bunker construction and style, etc. . . . Pretty basic stuff and not yet a lot of depth, but still we are veering dangerously close to a substantive discussion of . . . dare I say it . . . golf course architecture.

Shouldn't we all just be declaring how fun Gil's courses are, and how we just like them, and perhaps even take offense at any attempt to dig deeper? Perhaps we can turn the discussion to club atmosphere, shower heads, fire pits, cargo pants, bankruptcies, and other matters more appropriate to this forum? (I hope this post helps in this regard.)  Maybe throw in some gratuitous back slapping for good measure?  

As for those who dare ask questions about Gil's courses, what is up with that?  If they really cared or were legitimately interested they'd have already sought out a large enough sampling of his courses and figured it out for themselves.  They cannot possibly think they can learn anything from the reasoned opinions of others, can they?

Please show me where you are contributing anything relevent to the discussion of architecture in what you posted.
You are wrecking a nice discussion. Why?

[DMoriarty]

Please show me where you are contributing anything relevent to the discussion of architecture in what you posted.
You are wrecking a nice discussion. Why?

Great post! Thanks.  I'm glad you noticed.  My post was an very clear example of what I dislike here and was done as a point of illustration.  I'm glad you found it unsavory, and hope you do the same when others do the same.  That, my friend, was the purpose and the point.  I'm sorry of they hit too close to home for you.  

But now let's get back to Mac's latest questions and finish trivializing the work of one of our most promising architects by reducing what could be an actual discussion of golf course architecture to a superficial popularity contest among his courses.

How many votes for Boston Golf Club?

[Mac Plumart]

Thanks for ruining the thread David.

You are pure class.

[DMoriarty]

Seriously Mike, I do apologize if I ruined the thread, but it seemed to be winding down and threads these days seem increasingly fungible. 

If you or anyone else wants to actually read further about the work of "the man of the hour" before he became such, I suggest you try the search function.  Most have been discussed in great detail and depth, and the discussions are full of critical opinions, disagreements, humor, some friendly hostility, and even perhaps some insight.  I hate to sound like an old timer, but back in the day between all the fireworks and fun we used to occasionally engage in semi-reasoned discussions about golf courses, rather than simply opining and high fiveing each other.
______________________________________________________

Mac,

Please, don't let me stop you. I'll bow out and you can finish your high school popularity contest.   Something tells me I've blown it for Miss Congeniality. 

[Mac Plumart]

I'm not looking for a popularity contest David.  I'm making travel plans. 

I've seen Tallgrass.  I live near Birmingham and I'll be in Philly and L.A. later this year.  I should get good exposure to Mr. Hanse's work, which I feel is necessary to get a good understanding of quality contemporary GCA. 

I also want to see his truly world class work, maybe I need to make a trip to Boston.  I saw genius on Long Island, but the maintenance meld was FUBAR.  I am thinking his "best" course will be quality GCA with the correct maintenance meld.

[DMoriarty]

Well that explains it. We are here for different purposes, Mac.  I am here to engage in reasoned and detailed discussion about golf course architecture, the good, the bad, and the dismal.  You know, like it says on the first page of the site: "frank commentary on golf course architecture."  You are "making travel plans." I hear they have websites that can assist you with that.  

Best of luck on your travels.  

[DMoriarty]

By the way, the first page of the website also says this is a commercial free site. I wonder if Mr. Johnston knows that? 

[David Kelly]

Group...it would appear to me, from this thread, that Boston GC is his consensus best work to-date.  Any disagreements?

I disagree. If Rustic Canyon had Applebrook's maintenance budget and was private it would be a Top 20 Modern course.  As good as Boston Golf Club is there are other very good and great golf courses built on similar terrain, however, there really is nothing like Rustic Canyon.

[Mark Pearce]

I'm not looking for a popularity contest David.  I'm making travel plans. 

I think that's the problem.  We were discussing architecture, now we're discussing rankings and access.  It wasn't David that brought this thread down to the level of the rest of the board.

[Dan Herrmann]

How in the world did this thread degrade into this?  David, you're just a mean person - please stop and let us enjoy discussing GCA.

[Mike Hogan]

...

[Mike Hogan]

Please show me where you are contributing anything relevent to the discussion of architecture in what you posted.
You are wrecking a nice discussion. Why?

Great post! Thanks.  I'm glad you noticed.  My post was an very clear example of what I dislike here and was done as a point of illustration.  I'm glad you found it unsavory, and hope you do the same when others do the same.  That, my friend, was the purpose and the point.  I'm sorry of they hit too close to home for you.  

David Nothing you say hits close to home with me. I feel like you are just here to stir up the pot. Someone calls you out and you back track and say it was an "example of what I dislike"
Why post it then?
 

[Dan Herrmann]

Back on topic...
Gil and his team have done some GREAT restoration work.  I know folks up in Rochester love his work at Monroe and I've also heard great things about Country Club of Rochester.

[Tim Nugent]

...As for those who dare ask questions about Gil's courses, what is up with that?  If they really cared or were legitimately interested they'd have already sought out a large enough sampling of his courses and figured it out for themselves.  They cannot possibly think they can learn anything from the reasoned opinions of others, can they?

Acyually David, I do think they can learn something from the reasoned opinions of others.  The main question is why did it take the selection by an IOC to cause a sudden interest in Gil's work? Until I came upon your post, I almost switched off because the thread had turned into a "I played..." thread with only a smattering of actual GCA substance.

[Garland Bayley]

Group...it would appear to me, from this thread, that Boston GC is his consensus best work to-date.  Any disagreements?

I disagree. If Rustic Canyon had Applebrook's maintenance budget and was private it would be a Top 20 Modern course.  As good as Boston Golf Club is there are other very good and great golf courses built on similar terrain, however, there really is nothing like Rustic Canyon.

If you are saying the GCA in Rustic is better, because it was build on land not entirely "suited to the purpose", then you have a point. But, that is just judging the work of the architect, not the course. Since there are courses built on land "suited to the purpose" that have excellent work by the architects, they do (and should) simply blow Rustic Canyon away. For example, the four courses at Bandon Resort. I predict that Gil's upcoming work at Bandon will also blow Rustic away.