News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #25 on: September 04, 2013, 02:46:28 PM »
Quote from the other thread:

Arthur Hills is the prototypical modern architect: lots of style, very little substance.  On the surface, his courses might like good for the undiscerning eye. However, when you look closer you realize that the courses are very manufactured, with tons of containment mounds, contrived bunkers, and un-natural greens. He also relies on water for defense on a lot of courses.

I've played two of his courses: Olde Atlanta and Fiddler's Creek (in Naples, FL).  Both courses share a few characteristics.  The first is the heavy use of containment mounding, which he uses to line both sides of every fairway.  This gives the course a very artificial feel.  It's as if you're experiencing a postmodern sculpture rather than a golf course. 

The second characteristic is that both courses are filled with vapid, unmemorable golf holes.  I can't recall more than five holes at Fiddler's Creek.  I can vaguely remember most of the holes at Olde Atlanta, but only because I've played it three times.  However, I could not describe specific features of any one of the 36 greensites on the two courses.  I can only remember that were generally very artificial. 

Third, each course features two or three holes that pretty much unplayable for most golfers.  These holes usually involve unreasonable carries over water.  These holes include the 11th and 18th at Olde Atlanta, and the 1st and 17th at Fiddler's Creek.

I'm guessing that Hills has done better courses than these two (or at least I would hope so).  However, which of his courses even match up to the work of architects like Doak, C & C, Lester George, George, Strantz, Mike Young, Mike Strantz, Brian Silva, or countless others? Hell, Fazio and RTJ II build much more interesting courses than Hills.

Those are some pretty strong generalizations to draw from just two courses.  Even if they may be correct. 

Yes.  That is what caused the other discussion to go off the rails.  I am asking for impressions of courses played rather than his work as a whole in an effort to avoid that problem.

Bill Seitz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #26 on: September 04, 2013, 02:47:21 PM »
I really enjoyed Chicago Highlands, though I played in an outing/scramble. Can't wait to get back there and play my own ball. I thought the volcano hole was a lot of fun. Hard to imagine getting it close there on a windy day.

Bill, you need to get back to Stonewall. They have lowered the mound on the right of 18, to the point where you can actually miss right and not go into the pond by bouncing off the stupid mound.

I wouldn't mind getting back up there.  I just haven't played much golf in Chicago this year.  

As for Highlands, I thought (#9 aside) there were some interesting holes, and some pretty dumb holes (15 and 2 come to mind).  #4 was interesting, a long par three with a tee box that basically runs 230 yards all the way to the green between large mounds.  I've never seen another hole like it.  Aesthetically, I didn't care much for the course.  I found it weird that you would have a free-from Ballynealesque teeing area on the first hole, then perfectly square tee boxes much like Dubs on the second hole, followed shortly by the aforementioned landing strip tee area on the fourth hole.  
« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 06:34:46 PM by Bill Seitz »

Craig Van Egmond

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #27 on: September 04, 2013, 02:50:12 PM »
On the one hand Arthur Hills has built over 100 courses so he clearly must have done some things right. Supposedly from 1990 to 2000 nobody opened more golf courses that Arthur Hills (64). Fazio was second with 58.

On the other hand I haven't played any of the courses he did right..

The 2 courses that carry his name here in Oklahoma are Rose Creek and Gaillardia.  Neither course was built on interesting property, both sites were relatively flat. Lots of mounding and non-descript greens. They actually hired Tom Kite to spruce up Gaillardia of all people.

The one course in Washington that I played numerous times was Harbour Pointe. Once again not a great property, some wetlands involved, awkward routing and housing everywhere. Lots of mounding and some interesting holes.

I also played the Half Moon Bay course and was underwhelmed.

I played Palm Valley.

The biggest disappoint however was saved for Bay Harbor in MI.  This course had such hype, maybe it was my expectations but I didn't think it was all that especially for the money they charged.  I should have played another round at Belvedere.

I am not sure if Arthur Hills ever had any truly great sites like Doak and C&C to work with, but he seemed to make a good living doing it and people seemed to like him.  
« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 02:51:55 PM by Craig Van Egmond »

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #28 on: September 04, 2013, 02:59:24 PM »
I used to have part of a regular time at Stonewall.  Not a huge fan.  My buddies liked it 'cause they were good players, the greens were always in very good shape by public standards and the course was convenient to their far-flung abodes.  To me I'd give it a 4 and say it ain't worth the price of admission.  Too many forced carries and several awkward holes.  Also played Bay Harbor back in the day.  The quarry holes were kind of cool, but I found the rest to be a bit of a slog.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 11:41:22 AM by Jud T »
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Howard Riefs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #29 on: September 04, 2013, 03:03:05 PM »
I really enjoyed Chicago Highlands, though I played in an outing/scramble. Can't wait to get back there and play my own ball. I thought the volcano hole was a lot of fun. Hard to imagine getting it close there on a windy day.

Bill, you need to get back to Stonewall. They have lowered the mound on the right of 18, to the point where you can actually miss right and not go into the pond by bouncing off the stupid mound.

I wouldn't mind getting back up there.  I just haven't played much golf in Chicago this year.  

As for Highlands, I thought (#9 aside) there were some interesting holes, and some pretty dumb holes (15 and 2 come to mind).  #4 was interesting, a long par three with a tee box that basically runs 230 yards all the way to the green between large mounds.  I've never seen another hole like it.  Aesthetically, I didn't care much for the course.  I found it weird that you would have a free-from Ballynealesque teeing area on the first hole, then perfectly square tee bogs much like Dubs on the second hole, followed shortly by the aforementioned landing strip tee area on the fourth hole.  

As an aside.... Any idea what other GCAs were considered for the Chicago Highlands job? As one of the very few Chicago-area private golf clubs built in the last 15 years (Black Sheep another) and to command a ~$150K initiation, Hills is not an architect that would come to mind.

"Golf combines two favorite American pastimes: Taking long walks and hitting things with a stick."  ~P.J. O'Rourke

Greg Gilson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #30 on: September 04, 2013, 05:16:15 PM »
I have only played his Oitavos Dunes course outside Lisbon. Pleasant enough but largely forgettable IMHO. 2 or 3 good holes and a couple of clunkers. The main point for me that it was so over-ranked and over-rated (at mid 60's in the World or thereabouts) that its laughable. Spectacular job by the resort marketing team.  Alongside my other personal lists, I have a "most overrated" list...OD & Medinah #3 are equal top (or bottom?) on that one.

Joel Zuckerman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #31 on: September 04, 2013, 06:23:48 PM »
Two of the six courses at The Landings Club outside of Savannah are Hills designs.  Palmetto is considered the best championship test on this island, and served as  the site of a recent national USGA competition. It has some great marsh side holes, and a stellar finishing trio of very strong par 4s.
Oakridge is the most popular GC on the island, more user friendly, fewer carries off the tee, and is greatly favored by women and higher handicappers.  Hills is "MVP" of the quartet of designers who made their mark at this club.

John McCarthy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #32 on: September 04, 2013, 06:27:47 PM »
Chicago Highlands:  I like the course very much.  The ninth has been tamed somewhat since opening - green flattened a bit.  My buddy who is a member always aims at the bunker and went in it for the first time this year.  The 3d is the punchbowl, real fun.  

I think they only contemplated local architects for the job.  If a board member  looked at the job they can identify themselves if they wish.

It was a real blank slate sand capped garbage dump site.  Only one tree and two water hazards.  

It looks hilly but it is a very easy walk.
The only way of really finding out a man's true character is to play golf with him. In no other walk of life does the cloven hoof so quickly display itself.
 PG Wodehouse

Brian Finn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #33 on: September 04, 2013, 07:12:56 PM »
I have played 5 courses designed by Arthur Hills. In order of preference:

Longaberger GC (Nashport, OH) - solid, fun course IMO. Nice property blessed with rolling, interesting terrain.  Definitely among the top publics in Ohio.  Good variety among the par 4s and enjoyable risk/reward par 5s. I have never liked the par 3s there.  

Palmetto Dunes - Hills (HHI, SC) - fun course, above average for HHI (I have played all but 2 or 3 courses on island and many on the mainland side).

Kinsale GC (Powell, OH) - some fairly interesting individual holes, which is commendable considering the dead flat piece of farmland upon which the course is built. Routing through housing development (presumably beyond Mr. Hills' control) with lengthy stretches between holes make it almost unwalkable. Again, uninspired par 3s.

TPC Eagle Trace (Coral Springs, FL) - built for tour players and top amateurs, with many challenging but mundane holes. Average FL golf. Not great, but not horrible either.

Shaker Run GC (Middletown, OH) - the one course of these 5 that I genuinely disliked. Excessive OB, some really awkward and confusing holes.

Overall, I would say Mr. Hills builds some pretty good golf courses (in my limited experience).  The one common element that all of these courses share is that they have one or two holes (usually a par 3) each that seem really out of place and different from the rest of the course. It is tough to describe why I feel this way, but it seems almost as though someone different designed these 'oddball' holes.

New for '24: Monifieth x2, Montrose x2, Panmure, Carnoustie x3, Scotscraig, Kingsbarns, Elie, Dumbarnie, Lundin, Belvedere, The Loop x2, Forest Dunes, Arcadia Bluffs x2, Kapalua Plantation, Windsong Farm, Minikahda...

Brian Colbert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #34 on: September 04, 2013, 09:26:25 PM »
I nearly ruined my friendship with Brian Colbert early on by saying that i didnt think that some of his stuff was all that bad.  He wrote me a legitimate and moving essay that probably isnt safe for public sharing.

That said, maybe he will chime in...

Mark

I think the some of my comments are in line with what has already been posted, but I'll break it down course by course (from most played to least played).

Stonewall Orchard - Stonewall has a beautiful natural setting, but the only holes that I would say are memorable are such for the wrong reasons. There are holes that are so mundane that it feels like an intern designed them - 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, and some in the middle of the back 9 that I can't even picture. Then there are a few holes which are horrendous. 4 is built on the side of a hill with pretty much a mandatory 220-240 yard tee shot on a 320 yard hole, leaving an awkward 60 yard pitch off a side hill lie to a green which is built up on all sides. 5 is a forced carry par 3 with water maybe 2 yards off the front of the green. I'm okay with this except the hole can be stretched to as long as 240 yards and the green is effectively half its actual size because of a 6 deep swale which makes pretty much the entire left unpinnable. There's 10, an S shaped par 5 with trees about 50 yards off the tee blocking any kind of aggressive play, turning the hole into a layup off the tee, a layup off the fairway, and a wedge. If they cut down the trees on the right I think it would be a cool hole. Then there's the famous 18th. Apparently the mound has been lowered so you don't bounce in the water if you miss the green right, but I don't really think that makes the hole too much better. I have played this course about 8 times, mostly in competition, and I would probably hesitate to shell out more than $50 to play it again.

Newport National - Played it about 6 times in college. In my mind a decent attempt at American style links golf, but again there are a few holes which were extremely poorly done. 2 is a par 4 which has a landing area with absolutely no option but to hit the fairway. This would be fine if it didn't also present the player with a 200+ yard approach shot to a green designed to hold a wedge if the player opts to hit a straighter club to avoid the essentially island fairway. 4 is a driveable par 4 which in my mind presents a safer shot if you actually go at the green off the tee than if you try and hit the layup. 8 is a par 5 which my teammates and I were intentionally hitting it down the wrong fairway to cut off the corner of a par 5 because a straight tee shot could only go ~230 before reaching bunkers and OB. 11 is a par 5 which you have to basically hit iron, iron, wedge because the tee shot is so narrow from 240 yards to 290 that barely missing your line would lead to a lost ball or a ball in a really deep bunker. 15 is a par 4 which I again found myself intentionally playing down the wrong fairway for a better angle into the green and because playing down the incorrect hole is to a 70 yard wide fairway with no trouble and playing down the correct hole is to a narrow fairway pinched by bunkers and gorse. Finally, 16 is a par 3 which is about 260 from the back tees, typically playing into a prevailing northerly wind, with a green flanked by a 30 feet deep swale on the right and with a green that is so severe, balls were stopping about 6' from the hole one tournament round and then they were rolling about 40' to the right, all the way off the green.

Persimmon Ridge - I think this is the best of the Hills courses I've played. Only hole 3, a split fairway with a crazy green across a ravine, needs work in my mind. 13 is another hole which makes little sense. A forced carry for all players with the bailout containing severe mounding which basically render the green unhittable on the second shot. I would go so far as to say I think there are some really good holes on this course. 17, a par 5 which is similar to 13 at Augusta, comes to mind. Lots of artificial shaping and containment mounds though.

Finally, Blackthorn Club/The Ridges/Blackthorn Club at the Ridges - Some funky stuff on this one. A couple holes which I found to be completely unplayable for every level. 17 is a par 4 with a severe hill to the right of the fairway then a green which is one of the more severe greens to penalize a miss that I have ever seen. Hole 1 which was designed to play due east into the rising sun which comes directly over the mountains in a way which is so severe that the tournament I played chose to start all play off the 10th tee. Then 2, a par 4 which was about 360 yards from the back tees, only there is no good club to hit off the tee other than about a 4 iron, leaving a 170 yard shot into a green which was designed for a 100 yard shot. 6, a par 4 of about 500 yards with a severe falloff to the left of the green and penal bunkers to the right, and only about a 5-10 yard wide front edge to play a running shot into it. Finally, 8 is a hole which has a prototypical Arthur Hills split fairway. A creek runs down the middle and a lake runs down the entire left of the left fairway. The right fairway is so severe that it feels like you are playing on a nascar track. In 4 rounds I never once saw a player take the right fairway. What's amazing about this hole is that there is literally no layup area from between 150 yards and 60 yards away from the green. The fairway in this range is surrounded by a creek which effectively makes the layup area smaller than the green. I found myself playing this hole 2 iron, 3 wood, 50 yard pitch. To be fair, Arthur Hills was given an incredibly severe property and forced to build around homesites. I think he did a good job with what he was given, but there were a lot of head scratchers out there.

I believe a few things about Arthur Hills. 1, He is bold and daring in the holes he designs, for better or worse. 2, He is an incredibly smart guy who has been monumentally successful in his design business. 3, He can design courses which meet the needs of his clients. 4, If it was my own personal choice, I can think of numerous firms I would rather choose to design my course.

JLahrman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #35 on: September 04, 2013, 09:54:09 PM »
Shaker Run GC (Middletown, OH) - the one course of these 5 that I genuinely disliked. Excessive OB, some really awkward and confusing holes.

I forgot that he did Shaker Run. I have played there as well and did not care for it either.

Jim Colton

Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #36 on: September 04, 2013, 10:10:20 PM »
The perfect gift for all you closet Art Hills fans: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1578642337/ref=ox_ya_os_product

ward peyronnin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #37 on: September 04, 2013, 10:58:01 PM »
only one was good. a course in the tampa area we played in a dixie cup. the Palmetto hillls course may be , no is , in the bottom five courses I have ever played. someone almost would have to pay me top play another  hills and i don't feel like wasting my time justifying those opinions . just trust me
"Golf is happiness. It's intoxication w/o the hangover; stimulation w/o the pills. It's price is high yet its rewards are richer. Some say its a boys pastime but it builds men. It cleanses the mind/rejuvenates the body. It is these things and many more for those of us who truly love it." M.Norman

Dan Grossman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #38 on: September 04, 2013, 11:26:33 PM »
The perfect gift for all you closet Art Hills fans: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1578642337/ref=ox_ya_os_product

And it only costs $2.45!!!  Perfect.

Andy Shulman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #39 on: September 05, 2013, 03:16:11 AM »
No one has mentioned Heritage Hunt in Gainesville, VA.  The site is filled with environmental areas and houses infringe significantly on some of the playing corridors.  The result is a course with out of bounds, water hazards or both on virtually every hole.  While it may be more the fault of the site than the GCA, it's one of the the most difficult - and least enjoyable - courses I've ever played.  That said, the other original Hills courses I've tried - Longaberger, Blue Mash and Waverly Woods - have been solid, and I'd have to agree with many others that for every really good hole there's usually one or two clunkers.

The one exception is Hills's redesign of Congressional (Gold).  I agree with Carl (Reply #8) that there are several great holes on that course, which is one that I really enjoyed.

Craig Disher

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2013, 08:22:10 AM »
I agree with many of the previous comments on Hills' DC-area courses. Blue Mash, Waverly Woods provide the golf you'd expect for the price but don't stand out from the other public courses in the area. WW had some memorable holes but I can't remember a single one at Blue Mash.  I found the Blue Mash site depressing with the nearby trash mountain and power lines. Both are unnecessarily difficult to walk - and could easily have been designed with closer green-tee distances - which is a negative for me although other publics in DC (Hampshire Greens is the best example) can only be walked by lunatics. Heritage Hunt is an awful course and doesn't deserve further comment. My disappointment with Hills comes from the high-end renovation work he did at Chevy Chase, Belle Haven, and Manor, three classic-era courses that are on good to great sites. At Manor, the site required a scalpel and he hit it with a hammer - regrading areas that had wonderful natural contours, adding length on holes where the natural features (and space available) argued against it. It's a modern course, designed for length and difficulty, built over a site that was more suitable for a simpler, classic design. I'm less familiar with Chevy Chase and Belle Haven. I've played both a few times and found many of Manor's features (bunker shapes, green sites) to have been derived from his work there.

J_ Crisham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #41 on: September 05, 2013, 08:45:35 AM »
Chicago Highlands is pretty solid- nice set of greens. Elevation changes are good for Chicago. Palmetto Dunes course is very average.

Carl Nichols

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #42 on: September 05, 2013, 09:20:36 AM »
Craig wrote: "My disappointment with Hills comes from the high-end renovation work he did at Chevy Chase, Belle Haven, and Manor, three classic-era courses that are on good to great sites. At Manor, the site required a scalpel and he hit it with a hammer - regrading areas that had wonderful natural contours, adding length on holes where the natural features (and space available) argued against it. It's a modern course, designed for length and difficulty, built over a site that was more suitable for a simpler, classic design."

I haven't played Manor, so I don't have any view one way or the other (and thus didn't mention it above).  But most people whom I've talked to think that the renovation was a great success.  

Also, do you really think Belle Haven is a good-to-great site?  

Richard Hetzel

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #43 on: September 05, 2013, 10:39:21 AM »
I never realized how many of Art's courses I have played. That being said, most of them strike me as just pretty decent golf courses (many near houses unfortunately) that are of pretty fair design. There are a few that didn't do much for me and a few I actually really enjoyed. Art is based in Toledo so he gets a lot of work in my area so it's safe to assume I will play a few more.

Arthur Hills Course at Boyne Highlands (MI)
Coosaw Creek (SC)
Eagle Ridge (KY)
Fieldstone (MI)
Fox Hills (MI)
Fox Run (KY)
Hawkshead Links (MI)
Weatherwax GC (36 holes) (OH)
Kinsale CC (OH)
Lakes of Taylor (MI)
Legnedary Run (OH)
Longaberger (OH)
Leslie Park (MI) redesign
Bay Harbor (MI)
Pheasant Run (MI)
Pipestone (OH)
Red Hawk (MI)
Red Hawk Run (OH)
Shepherd's Hollow (MI)
Glenview (OH)
Taylor Meadows (MI)
Forest Akers West (MI)
Turnberry (OH)
Wetherington CC (OH)
Winding Hollow (OH)
Shaker Run (OH)

I really liked Forest Akers West, Red Hawk, The Hills Course at Boyne, the front 9 at Legendary Run (a great 9 to walk, the back 9 is strictly cart golf), and Leslie Park as well. I felt Bay Harbor was way overhyped as was Shaker Run.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 10:50:00 AM by Richard Hetzel »
Best Played So Far This Season:
Crystal Downs CC (MI), The Bridge (NY), Canterbury GC (OH), Lakota Links (CO), Montauk Downs (NY), Sedge Valley (WI)

Ken Fry

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #44 on: September 05, 2013, 10:42:05 AM »
I've played numerous Hills original works (Golf Club of Georgia-Lakeside and Creekside, Hawkshead, Egypt Valley, Bonita Bay-Bay Island and Creekside, The Standard Club, Stonewall Orchard, Hawthornes Golf & CC and Fieldstone) and renovated courses.

I find most times on his courses there are a few holes I like, a good portion that are OK and a few I dislike.  I've found I like many of his short par 4 holes (#2 at GC of Georiga Lakeside, #11 at Hawkshead, #14 at Hawthornes).  They tend to have many options off the tee and an interesting mix or risk and reward.  He takes chances that sometimes work and sometimes doesn't.

The 18th hole at Hawthornes in Fishers, Indiana is an example of a hole I greatly dislike and don't get.  The hole plays 458 yards and doglegs left around a marsh.  The fairway is blind with bunkers pinching the landing area right at the dogleg.  Through the fairway at the dogleg is out of bouonds.  The carry over the marsh on the tee shot dictates a shot just short of the bunkers leaving about 220 yards in but is blind and quite awkward.  The holes is an unfortunate ending to a round.

Like others have mentioned, the renovations to greens and greensites is questionable.  I've played too many courses that have had Hill's group do work on their greens which look nothing like the rest of the golf course.  Building modern looking greens on a classic course stands out too much for my taste.

Ken

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #45 on: September 05, 2013, 10:57:48 AM »
I have only played a handful of Arthur Hills' golf courses; I've seen a few more than that, but not a lot.

The course I remember most vividly is the first course (Lakeside?) at the Golf Club of Georgia.  What I remember about it is that many, many greens were defended by a single bunker either front right-center or front left-center ... but always on the high side of the middle, exactly where I would want the approach fairway to be, in order to bounce a ball onto the green.  It was so against my instinct that it gave me hives.

The other thing I remember about it was that they had a very simple yardage book with the most inane commentary about the course I've ever seen in booklet form.  [i.e., It is important to hit a long drive to the center of the fairway here, for the best view to green.]  Since my first experience with golf architecture was the similar book Charles Price had written for Harbour Town, which explained simply why the golf holes were well thought out, the GC of GA yardage book seemed to drive home the point that the holes did not have any strategy, other than to hit a high shot onto the greens.

Craig Disher

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #46 on: September 05, 2013, 11:02:15 AM »

I haven't played Manor, so I don't have any view one way or the other (and thus didn't mention it above).  But most people whom I've talked to think that the renovation was a great success.  

Also, do you really think Belle Haven is a good-to-great site?  

I think most members are pleased with the new course but those who aren't either grin and bear it or have moved on. But the course is just another well-maintained mid-level country club course that most on this site have seen countless times. It could have been something special. 15 years ago, if given the choice between playing Chevy Chase and Columbia, the decision would take some thought. Now it doesn't.

Belle Haven is a decent property, not one that is great for golf but a site overlooking the Potomac has its own rewards. Pre-beltway, it was spectacular.

Ken Fry

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #47 on: September 05, 2013, 11:16:10 AM »
I have only played a handful of Arthur Hills' golf courses; I've seen a few more than that, but not a lot.

The course I remember most vividly is the first course (Lakeside?) at the Golf Club of Georgia.  What I remember about it is that many, many greens were defended by a single bunker either front right-center or front left-center ... but always on the high side of the middle, exactly where I would want the approach fairway to be, in order to bounce a ball onto the green.  It was so against my instinct that it gave me hives.

The other thing I remember about it was that they had a very simple yardage book with the most inane commentary about the course I've ever seen in booklet form.  [i.e., It is important to hit a long drive to the center of the fairway here, for the best view to green.]  Since my first experience with golf architecture was the similar book Charles Price had written for Harbour Town, which explained simply why the golf holes were well thought out, the GC of GA yardage book seemed to drive home the point that the holes did not have any strategy, other than to hit a high shot onto the greens.

Tom,

I caddied there not long after the course opened (Lakeside was the frst 18 followed by Creekside a couple years later).  The Lakeside Course had some pretty wild greens which didn't go over well with many players because the speed was so fast.  I've also found on many Hill's courses the best path in playing a hole will have some hazard blocking it.

Another hole of his I don't understand is the 5th hole on the Creekside course at GC of Georgia.  It's a par 5 mostly over marshland.  You panned it pretty hard in your Confidential Guide.  It deserves whatever criticism it gets.

Ken

Carl Nichols

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #48 on: September 05, 2013, 11:38:08 AM »
For some reason, the site isn't letting me quote prior posts.  Craig, in your last post, are you talking about Manor (which I haven't seen) or Chevy (which I have)?  

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where do you stand on the Arthur Hills courses you have played and why?
« Reply #49 on: September 05, 2013, 11:56:00 AM »
"What I remember about it is that many, many greens were defended by a single bunker either front right-center or front left-center ... but always on the high side of the middle, exactly where I would want the approach fairway to be, in order to bounce a ball onto the green.  It was so against my instinct that it gave me hives."  [Quote from T Doak above]

His greens do seem to have a specific look - angled with a front bunker guarding the shot from the bad angle.  Chaska Town Course, has some holes bunkered at the high point, but many others are not.  Is has several holes with very interesting ground game options and a few other interesting hazards such as:

1. A short par four with a blind approach if you take the wide portion of the fairway or a visible approach if you hit it to the very left side (#16).
2.  A funnel feeding an accurate tee shot to the green on another short par 4 (#3)
3.  A slope that can be used from the high side if out of position on 10
4.  A downslope to a big green with trouble behind on 17

The course also has interesting second shots on every par five, despite each hole having a wide fairway off the tee.