[JNC Lyon]

I made the trek up to World Woods once again this past weekend. We played the charming short course (7 par threes and 2 short fours), and we then enjoyed an afternoon 18 on the bucolic Rolling Oaks layout. While Rolling Oaks has a couple of clunkers (a so-so start, a Fazio cliche water par three at 8--with a drop shot no less), the course is mostly a steady stream of solid golf punctuated with minor flashes of brilliance. One can't help compare the layout to its neighbor at Pine Barrens, mainly because the differences in composition between the two are so great.

I'm not talking about the differing character of the two courses here. Everybody knows Pine Barrens has more sand, while Rolling Oaks has more, well rolling terrain and live oaks. I mean that Rolling Oaks is a good routing of good holes, while Pine Barrens is a mediocre routing of several great, some so-so holes. WHICH IS BETTER? Do you want the shock and awe of a course like Pine Barrens, which, despite what contrarian, authority-loathing critics may say, has two dynamite alt-route holes and a blistering set of long par fours at the expense of a disjointed layout? Or do you want the steady Eddie subtlety of Rolling Oaks, which only reveals itself after multiple plays but has an undeniable flow that a course like PB lacks? What do you prefer on a personal level? And which is the more commendable effort from an artistic standpoint?

After this most recent run to WW, Rolling Oaks is sliding ever closer to being my favorite regulation course in the greater Brooksville area. It might take one additional play at Pine Barrens to put the nail in the coffin.

[Daniel Jones]

I tend to lean more to the "Steady Eddie" category. Big and bold has its place, and sure I enjoy it from time to time. But if given the choice, I choose subtle substance and flow every time.

Probably why I spend so much time at Ocala Golf Club rather than venturing out to other courses, like World Woods, that are within a decent drive. That said, it's been 10 years since I made the drive over to Brooksville. Might be time to change that, just for the fun of it.

[GLawson]

I played Pine Barrens in 2006 and again last year.  It's a distinctive course and I love the par-3's and the 4th, the short par-5 with the multiple sandy areas.  Never played Pine Valley but it's fun to dream when you're out there.  Never played Rolling Oaks but will give it a shot next time I'm in the area.

[Kyle Harris]

Glad you started this after I told you about my disaster with a similar post.

Disclaimer: I greatly prefer Rolling Oaks to Pine Barrens. A 10 round test would be 7-3 or even 8-2 in favor of Rolling Oaks.

Worlds Woods is an interesting case study in routing. For me, the Pine Barrens has a disjointed routing that suffers from a target fixation with the quarry holes at 4 and 12-15. The evaluation I make is based on the property the course now occupies since there is some separation between both courses and the clubhouse, but I do not know the particulars with which that Fazio group had to work and it seems that some phases of construction or expansion were never realized.

I don't quite understand the null area of golf between #1/2, 6/7, 11/12, and 17/18. It isn't the fact that the golf course crosses over itself four times in the round, it's that it does so through a handful of acres of space not used for golf in the middle of the course. Each of those walks is 100-200 yards crossing the same wooded area.

Holes 12-15 are individually good to great holes, but they run east/west through the quarry area with little to break up the direction. I never quite get a sense that the routing is leading me to something. 15 works well as a short, reachable, two-shotter but also carries a bit of a let down element because yet another discord happens in the routing to get us to 16, followed by yet another to get us to 17. The entire routing seems compromised solely to get the golfer to this stretch, which then leaves me wanting for something a bit more.

Contrast this feeling with that of Rolling Oaks, which gets off to a more pedestrian start, but builds quickly and without the null crosses. The routing takes you to parts of the property that isolate and surround the golfer, which is a feeling notably lacking on Pine Barrens. Ironic because Pine Valley is often toted up as the course where one feels "splendid isolation."

Similarly, the equivalent 12-15 stretch at Rolling Oaks actually does crescendo as the routing takes one down to the lowest part of the property and back up to the highest part with each other increasing in difficulty. This stretch, furthermore, is not isolated from the rest of the golf course and the segue from 15-16 is much more seamless. This gives me a much more coherent feeling and there is no sense of let down because the routing maximizes the golf on the terrain.

[Mac Plumart]

WHICH IS BETTER? Do you want the shock and awe of a course like Pine Barrens, which, despite what contrarian, authority-loathing critics may say, has two dynamite alt-route holes and a blistering set of long par fours at the expense of a disjointed layout? Or do you want the steady Eddie subtlety of Rolling Oaks, which only reveals itself after multiple plays but has an undeniable flow that a course like PB lacks? What do you prefer on a personal level? And which is the more commendable effort from an artistic standpoint?

Such great questions!

I think it comes down to personal preference and circumstances.

For example, if my circumstances are that I am playing my home course...I want Steady Eddie.  I want a course I can learn about over time.  I want a nice walk.  I want an enjoyable course that I can play over and over.

If I'm traveling, I want the shock and awe.  I want to see something I haven't seen before.  I want something thrilling.  I want something exciting and new.  I'll accept a few clunker holes and.or routing issues for the magnificent moment.

[jeffwarne]

I always preferred Rolling Oaks
I thought I was alone, at least around here.
Both courses suffer from their lack of intimacy

[John_Conley]

My feeling is that Rolling Oaks is best played from the middle of every fairway and that Pine Barrens invokes strategy by favoring one side of their wide fairways or the other depending upon hole location.

FWIW, I love #8 at Rolling Oaks and consider it one of the neatest Par 3s in Florida.  Also, I prefer PB to RO by quite a bit.  No matter what, I love the place.

[Kyle Harris]

My feeling is that Rolling Oaks is best played from the middle of every fairway and that Pine Barrens invokes strategy by favoring one side of their wide fairways or the other depending upon hole location.

FWIW, I love #8 at Rolling Oaks and consider it one of the neatest Par 3s in Florida.  Also, I prefer PB to RO by quite a bit.  No matter what, I love the place.

I almost feel the opposite here it true, but that could be because of tree limb encroachment on the Pine Barrens.

I see no alternate path options on the fourth hole. The widest part of the fairway is 250 yards out from the back tee, and 110 yards out from the forward tee, with commensurate intervals in between. The green accepts the same high lofted shot from wherever you play it in the fairway (off a somewhat downhill lie if you're deep enough) and there it very little bail out room on the left hand side that is remotely punitive. In fact, with today's presentation, the extreme edges of the fourth hole offer less shot options than right down the middle.

The vaunted stretch of 12-14 is best played from, you guessed it, right down the middle. Anywhere too far right or too far left and the shot options are severely reduced by the tree lines.

Compare that to a hole such as Rolling Oaks 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15 or 18, where the combination of length, bunker/hazard placement and well placed trees push play out to one edge or the other....

[Rees Milikin]

My feeling is that Rolling Oaks is best played from the middle of every fairway and that Pine Barrens invokes strategy by favoring one side of their wide fairways or the other depending upon hole location.

FWIW, I love #8 at Rolling Oaks and consider it one of the neatest Par 3s in Florida.  Also, I prefer PB to RO by quite a bit.  No matter what, I love the place.

I almost feel the opposite here it true, but that could be because of tree limb encroachment on the Pine Barrens.

Kyle,

This is one of the reasons that I prefer RO to PB, especially when you throw PB waste areas into the mix.  I also think the par 3's at RO are superior along with the routing, which has been mentioned.

[Bryan Izatt]

I've had the good fortune of having played 50 to 60 rounds at World Woods over the last few years on my winter sojourns to Florida.  As a matter of experience I can say that I have preferred PB by 7-3 over RO.  This is not to say that RO is a bad or even mediocre course.  It is better than most I've played in Florida.  But, I enjoy the aesthetic, routing and challenge of PB more - apparently a lot more based on how I've spent my dollars.

Apart from the pine tree vs oak and Spanish moss aesthetic of the two courses, the major difference I see is the rough and tumble look of PB vs the more formal and conventional look of RO.  At speed, PB greens are a great challenge although the conditioning has deteriorated in recent years.  RO greens are challenging in a different way with more abrupt changes in elevation.  Since being re-grassed a couple of years ago they are in significantly better condition than PB.  Overall, perhaps it's where I come from - PB suits my eye better as it's different from home.  RO looks more like the conventional parkland courses back home.

Regarding the routing, I don't see anything in PB's that detracts from the playing experience for me.  The holes on the west side of the property are primarily north/south while the east side holes are predominately east/west.  And, they change direction frequently meaning you will end up playing upwind, downwind or crosswind from either side multiple times spaced out during a round - seems like good routing to me.  For a long time I was completely lost about where I was on the property relative to other holes.  Over time I now have a sense of where I am and this has been eased by the fact that they've thinned out the forest some over the last couple of years.  A side benefit of that is that it's virtually impossible to lose a ball on PB and most often you even have a recovery shot out of the trees.  Since I presume they wanted to market the Pine Valleyness of PB I'd guess that Fazio wanted to route the course in the pine tree part of the property.  Perhaps the grand central station in the center of the course was necessary to fit the holes  into the pine forest part of the property. I, for one, don't think twice about the distances between holes #1/2, 6/7, 11/12, and 17/18.  I've hardly ever seen anybody walking, but if you do then it would be a distraction.  RO certainly has less distance from green to tee.  Not a big issue to me.

I can't think of a hole on PB that I don't look forward to playing.  They all have something of interest and challenge for me.  RO on the other hand has some blech holes - #1 is a hole that could be anywhere with bunker left and right in the driving area and left and right front of the green, although the ledge in the green is interesting; #2 just bland; #3 has 10 bunkers (Arble would be aghast) guiding the play through the landing area, second shot and approach to the green; #4 is an uninteresting short par 4;  #5, #6, #7, #8 and #9 are all good holes in different ways;  #10 is an OK straightforward par 5; and #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, and #18 are all good holes.  The start detracts much more for me than the shorter green to tee distances add.  RO's routing is also more predictably SW to NE for most holes so the wind is more of a constant factor.

Kyle,

(PB) Holes 12-15 are individually good to great holes, but they run east/west through the quarry area with little to break up the direction. I never quite get a sense that the routing is leading me to something. 15 works well as a short, reachable, two-shotter but also carries a bit of a let down element because yet another discord happens in the routing to get us to 16, followed by yet another to get us to 17. The entire routing seems compromised solely to get the golfer to this stretch, which then leaves me wanting for something a bit more.

Similarly, the equivalent 12-15 stretch at Rolling Oaks actually does crescendo as the routing takes one down to the lowest part of the property and back up to the highest part with each other increasing in difficulty. This stretch, furthermore, is not isolated from the rest of the golf course and the segue from 15-16 is much more seamless. This gives me a much more coherent feeling and there is no sense of let down because the routing maximizes the golf on the terrain.

Not sure I understand your point about the direction of PB 12-15.  The twelfth goes east, the 13th goes west, the 14th goes east, and the 15th goes west.  How could you have more direction change than that unless they went in a circle?  The 12th, to the right green up the hill is a fun and challenging ride for me, especially since they moved the tees up one block.  The 13th can be a challenging long par 4 with a very difficult green.  The 14th is a brilliant par 5 for me.  There are so many ways to play the second shot and they are affected greatly by where you place your drive.  The green has some really interesting pin placements.  And, the 15th is a good reachable par 4 where the right side requires a lot of thought if it's into the wind.  The left side second shot is a difficult angle for me. This is a crescendo, certainly on a par at least with 12-15 on RO, and to me better.

On PB it is less than 100 yards to the 16th tee and I love the 16th hole although it usually is a difficult par for me.  The 100 yards doesn't seem disjointed to me.  The 17th is a subtlety difficult hole with a green that drives me berzerk with a back middle pin.  I have yet to find someone who can read the putt from the front to the back correctly.  The 18th is a killer hole and in truth I like the 18th on RO better mostly because it is more playable and scoreable.

Altogether, the routing of PB through grand central station is different but I've played there enough times that it doesn't even cross my mind anymore.  And when I set foot on the 2nd, 7th, 12, and 18th tees I feel good about arriving at that hole and the challenges and enjoyment that follows in playing those holes.  If that routing detracts from your experience, I can understand.  Each to their own - it's a big world.

I'm curious if you think you could have routed a course on the property that PB now occupies and that would evoke Pine Valley and that you feel would provide a "more coherent feeling and there is no sense of let down because the routing maximizes the golf on the terrain".  I'm not even sure I understand what that means - perhaps you could explain.

[Kyle Harris]

Bryan,

I can explain, and will.

With the disclaimer that any opinion on any routing is developed without knowing the limitations set out by any number of factors (owner, environment, aesthetic, logistics), I feel what is presently in the ground did not get the best out of the property. So I make my evaluation here assuming that the boundaries of the golf course are what is available to work with (so a suggestion like moving the first tee backwards wouldn't be fair because I do not know if the area behind the first tee was available).

I feel as though a routing should maximize the topography by approaching features from different angles, distances, elevations, and contexts. The "sand quarry" area on Pine Barrens comprises of Holes 4 and 6 on the North and South boundary and Holes 12-15 in between. All of these holes play from tees on the western or eastern boundary of the area to greens on the opposing margin. They are boxed in by the 5th hole to the east of the ridge running perpendicular (North/South) and through the 14th and 12th greens and by the well-named "Grand Central Station" area/2nd hole to the west.

There are two times in the routing we are introduced to this area. Holes 4 - 5 - 6 all play in different directions. Hole 4 has been discussed. It's good to great in my view but not the strategic option gem that it made out to be. Very heroic, however. Hole 5 is good, but bland. The alternate tees do nothing to change the character of the hole. Hole 6 is one of my favorites out there (Hogs back fairway plus a very demanding second shot setting up a short third into a neat green).

It's a good tease.

Now is where the aforementioned discord starts to mess with me. Seven feels isolated and inefficiently gets us to a part of the property where Hole 8 lay (which is my favorite hole on the property, either course). 9-10-11 start great but fall off, though 11 is understated and I like it. But I'd be hard-pressed to call this stretch special compared to the rest of the course. It's solid golf. Re-enter the discord in the routing.

12 is a long two-shotter with a heroic second shot. I love the hole, and I even love the alternate green set up. But then we do an about-face for 13.

In a routing, doing an about face is to me the most jarring thing one can do. Often times it is done with reason (end of the property, getting too far from the clubhouse and need to return) that makes sense, taking away some of the jarring elements. It also makes sense when emphasizing a noteworthy feature. The about face here reverses what we've already done in the routing in the sand quarry area and takes us back to the other side. The hole also doglegs the same way as 12. The double-green set up at 12 makes for a longer transition from the right hand green.

We repeat the about face twice more for the purpose of getting to 15, which is a great hole. But for me, the build up is usually lost. I feel this "lingering/loitering" feeling would go away if a hole either ran North/South in the sand quarry (was the extra area for the double-green on 12 really necessary?) or if the progression of holes were broken up better by a really short one-shotter. I feel like the terrain in the sand quarry is varied enough to have multiple options and it's not like we had to traverse a great distance to get from 12-15. In fact, as the crow flies, the 12th tee is only 450 yards from the 15th green, but we've played golf across over 1700 yards, a full 25% of the total course distance, and all we get are two holes running east and two holes running west.

That's an attempt to quantify a feeling and it is cumbersome, I agree. However, by your own admission, you've said that it's taken you more than a few plays to distinguish where you even were on the property. I can't help but see that as being caused by the routing's back and forth nature. For the longest time I had trouble remembering the 13th hole and when I would it was difficult to distinguish from the sixth.

I also wonder about the trade-offs: The fifth hole closes off the complete eastern side of the quarry area. Is that trade-off worth forcing the consecutive back and forth of 12-15? Are the one-shotters, three of which play in close-to-the-same direction and the other of which plays the opposite of that, worth the disconnect in the routing? (It is strange to me that the longest walks are either going to, or coming from a one-shot hole).

It never feels quite right.

Compared to the stretches at Rolling Oaks (especially 11-15, which loop up and down through the isolated back part of the property and less so 3-7 which don't get quite as far down or back as the second nine equivalent) which get us out on to and wandering around the property without giving the feeling of hanging around the same place for too long, Pine Barrens just falls flat.

TL;DR?

Pine Barrens goes back and forth and makes some compromises in the routing that don't feel right to me. I can't help but wonder if breaking up the east/west nature of the routing at 12-15 wouldn't give me a better feeling of completeness and utilizing the best terrain for golf. The longest walks are also associated with one-shot holes, coming or going, which also contributes to the disjointed feeling.

[Martin Lehmann]

I played Pine Barrens during my last visit to Florida. It was the tenth time or so I played the course and to be honest I was a bit disappointed. Somehow the balance and flow of the course didn't feel right.

The day after, I played Southern Hills Plantation, a Pete Dye design also in the Brooksville area. Not as spectacular as Pine Barrens, but in my view a much better and more balanced golf course.

[John_Conley]

I almost feel the opposite here it true, but that could be because of tree limb encroachment on the Pine Barrens.

I see no alternate path options on the fourth hole. The widest part of the fairway is 250 yards out from the back tee, and 110 yards out from the forward tee, with commensurate intervals in between. The green accepts the same high lofted shot from wherever you play it in the fairway (off a somewhat downhill lie if you're deep enough) and there it very little bail out room on the left hand side that is remotely punitive. In fact, with today's presentation, the extreme edges of the fourth hole offer less shot options than right down the middle.

The vaunted stretch of 12-14 is best played from, you guessed it, right down the middle. Anywhere too far right or too far left and the shot options are severely reduced by the tree lines.

Kyle, examples for me are #1 and #5.  Let's say the pin is front right on the first hole, you probably are best off laying up straight at the bunker.  For a back right hole location you could drive further and go right, where the fairway narrows.  (This is exactly what happened in the Shell match between Toms & Mickelson.)

For #5, a middle pin might be best approached from the left side where a front or back pin, because of its diagonal slant, handles a straight on approach from the far right of the fairway.

#4 is incredibly wide in that it has the risk-reward carry off the tee for the straightaway shot that makes the Par 5 reachable in two.  A slow boat to China route to the left involves a much shorter carry, but that player still has no problem setting up a birdie with a deft wedge.  It doesn't seem to dictate a need to play down the middle.  Same option on #15, the drivable Par 4.

You are correct about #12, #13, #14.  I was thinking about some of these others. 

[Kyle Harris]

John Conley,

Agreed regarding #1.

Disagree on #5, it's simply too short and the green is not severe or expansive enough.

As for #4, it is a good, even great heroic hole. The question posed isn't which route to take, though, it's how/when does the player wish to make the carries. The width is inconsequential for me, as it represents the ease of hitting the target. The player faces the same carry on the right side as the player on the left side, and the same carry at all points in between. You take the heroic route into the widest part of the fairway and the question becomes one of carrying a 200-250 yard shot to the green.

So, the strategy is: hit the ball as far as possible to set up a shot closer to the green. Obvious.

But you're right, there is no need to play down the middle. There is no need to play left or right, either. The need to setup reaching the green in two is deep.

The slow road to China route? I've taken it many times when confidence with the driver was lacking. 180 yards down the left, another 180 to the point in the fairway in front of the stuff at the green and a short approach up the hill.

That's two options from the tee, and play converging on either one lay up point or the green from there. All the makings of a good heroic hole. Alternate-route strategy? I don't see it.

[Patrick Hodgdon]

I just want another one of their burgers between rounds...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()