Help me understand Pete Dye's The Golf Club

[Michael Moore]

This course and its ranking was mentioned again tonight.

I have studied the aerial and several photo tours, and I just don't get it. Yes, I believe that the course is that good, but I can't think of another great course that photographs so poorly.

I see length, I see a flat site, I see some water in front of the green. What is not shown? What makes this course so good?

[Mac Plumart]

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/the-golf-club-oh-usa/

[Ronald Montesano]

I suspect that Ran has little time to update that review of TGC, but it appears to be as understated as the golf course itself. Perhaps that's not coincidence. Seems like a fun joint.

[Brad Klein]

Michael, unless you've been on the ground there and seen it three-dimensionally in its full scale, boldness and genius of how railroad ties, ha-has and other landscape architecture devices are used to exaggerate small vertical transitions, you cannot possibly judge the place.

[Matt Kardash]

Michael, unless you've been on the ground there and seen it three-dimensionally in its full scale, boldness and setting in that coal country, you cannot possibly judge the place.

Brad, I think you are mistaking The Golf Club with Pete Dye Golf Club

[Michael Moore]

Can we try this again in the spirit of edification with which this question was obviously asked?

The course is great. I said that and I feel like rankings and ratings are not worth much if I can't quickly arrive at that conclusion.

Why is it great? I've seen all the links and I can get lectured at elsewhere. As the title says, lend me some help.

[Matt Kardash]

Michael,

I doubt you will get many answers since The Golf Club is one of the more exclusive clubs In America. I doubt many people on this board have actually played the course.

[Phil McDade]

Mike:

A pretty decent photo thread here:

http://theitinerantgolfer.com/the-golf-club/

Looks like Dye tries to incorporate some subtle land movements and angles to create doubt and challenge for the golfer. I find most interesting the look of the bunkers -- quite shallow, and decidely different than some of his post-GC designs. Can't say I like the look of the 18th, although the concept is one Dye would later invoke at courses like Blackwolf Run-River.

[David Kelly]

Can we try this again in the spirit of edification with which this question was obviously asked?
The course is great. I said that and I feel like rankings and ratings are not worth much if I can't quickly arrive at that conclusion.

I don't get it. You are saying that rankings are not worth much if you can't quickly arrive at the same conclusion based solely on looking at some photos online?

[Michael Moore]

I mean that if a course is ranked in the top ten year after year then I take its greatness at face value. If a layman asks me about Pebble Beach at a cocktail party, I don't just say that I have never been there.

P.S. Thanks for asking for clarification, that was completely unclear.

[Ronald Montesano]

Tons of coal in Columbus...

[Joe Leenheer]

Tons of coal in Columbus...

I almost spit out my scotch....

+1

[Matt MacIver]

His first course?  His best course?  Without being burdened thinking about the back tees?  Or tricking/tripping up the par player?  Fresh from his trip over to Scotland?  Still a part-time architect?  Still learning / not learned?  Not yet The Pete Dye?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mr Mainer,

So we get to ask you about golf in Maine but in return we have to answer your questions about golf in...Ohio? Okay, I can live with that.

TGC does very little pandering to the golfer. As a result, the course has far less definition and outright framing than the typical modern course, not to mention than many later Dyes. The holes just rest on the land; even the bunkers can have a weird two-dimensional appearance in places. With ground-level tees sometimes there's not much apparent fairway to comfort the golfer; in places there's blindness as a result.

So is it great? I think that takes many more plays than I have under my belt to really answer. At least for me: I'm surprised raters can blow through once or even twice and voila, pronounce it the 38th-greatest or whatever. Maybe they're just looking at conditioning and exclusivity, not the golf course.

How's that? Can I ask when golf "season" starts in Maine? Will there be one this year?

[BHoover]

I have not played TGC enough to form an opinion that is in any way authoritative. Nevertheless, I think some of the love for TGC comes from it's mystique, atmosphere, attitude and exclusivity. Certainly there are some great architectural features (the early use of railroad ties and the raised shelf on the approach to 10 green (I think it's on 10 anyway). But the property is not the greatest, in my opinion. Central Ohio generally lacks the terrain that you find in Cleveland and in Cincinnati. Central Ohio is relatively flat, so I don't think that TGC has the use of elevation that you'll find at Canton Brookside or Kirtland, for example.

But what you will find at TGC is a pure golf club. The members don't tolerate slow play. The clubhouse is absolutely no frills, almost Spartan, yet it still offers all you would want in a clubhouse and locker room. Nothing is flashy or overstated. TGC is just "there.". And when you combine the atmosphere with the early Dye design, it just works.

Just my take, for what it's worth.

I'm curious how folks would compare TGC to another place that seems to be very low key--Camargo.

[Tommy Williamsen]

This is a good example of why you shouldn't judge a course from either the air of photos. The terrain certainly is  not hilly but it gently rolls and never have I felt I was playing on a flat piece of ground.  I'm not sure it is his best but it may be one of his more fun courses.  It is a great place to spend a few days and never tire of the the course.

[Brad Klein]

Matt Kardash, I've amended my comments above only slightly since the genius of the landscape design at TGC in Ohio cannot possibly be judged w/o walking the site.
-Brad

[Scott_Park]

Let me start by saying that I love TGC- great club, great course and great feel.  It has that quality that few courses have where you feel like you are being led on an adventure of sorts.

Having said that, there are two small design choices that I am not crazy about:
-the third hole is a par 3 with angled railroad ties around the back bunkers.  The idea that a course had been designed where that could happen is peculiar. Could a person airmail the green and get a ricochet back onto the green from these?
-TGC doesnt have the hard geometric lines that other Dye courses have, but the wall that fronts the 18th green has this odd zig zag to it.

Columbus is a stunningly strong city when it comes to golf courses and if I lived there, TGC would be at the top of my list of clubs to join.

Scott

[Michael Moore]

Brad, I value your opinion highly and would prefer your always-nuanced analysis to a lecture. Is it really so bad for me to assign greatness to a course that has rarely been out of the Golfweek top ten? This is becoming an interesting discussion of a course whose glory, like that of The Old Course at St. Andrews, does not yield to the Polaroid of the visitor. Who better to educate us than you?

Mark, as I type, we are due for more than a foot of snow. This has been a very cold and snowy winter. We may not see golf until the first of May. Last year the course was open at this time. Such is El Nino.

[Tags:]

Tags: