[Peter Pallotta]

Ryan, all -

I thought I had the acerage numbers right, and after they were questioned was surprised that my memory might've failed so badly, so I went to look up the Brad K article/review I had in mind when I wrote my posts. Here's a quote:

"The Bill Coore-Ben Crenshaw design occupies 550 acres – three times the land normally needed for golf. A second course set to open in 2018, by David McLay Kidd, is appropriately called Mammoth Dunes and occupies even more ground – 620 acres." 

Since I don't believe Brad would've made up those numbers out of thin air, I have to assume that someone involved in the development provided them to him.

Nonetheless, I take you (and Tom) at your words that those numbers are in fact not accurate.

I'd like to leave your other questions for another time. I think it's best. 

Peter

[Ryan Farrow]

No problem Peter! I look forward to what you have to say. I'm sorry for jumping your shit but I was a bit shocked to hear those numbers. Lots of misinformation gets out there on early stages of new projects and I have no doubt you read it somewhere. I am kind of bummed out that information like that is not verified, especially when so high. It could have easily been a loose number on both courses or a variety of inaccuracies / outdated information.


I was privy to the turf acreages as they were surveyed and used frequently by the agronomy dept. I keep checking the google earth imagery for an update of the area as I would love to see how both Mammoth and Sand Valley courses compare from the sky.

[Jason Way]

To return for a moment to the original question posed:

So, for the average club guy, what golf course would they like more? Not looking for arguments about the value proposition - just the golf course. Is one clearly above the other?

I have played both courses on more than one occasion, and I am an above-average player.

The first time I played Erin Hills, I was not that impressed.  The scale and look of the course were cool, and the setting is beautiful, but the rest did not make me feel like I needed to go back again.  In retrospect, I caught a bad weather day and I had a two-way miss going off the tee, both of which made for a high degree of difficulty and not much fun.

Last year, when Howard put together the outing there, I decided to give it another shot, and I liked it much much more.  Played better and got to experience more of the holes as intended, which matters.  Tweaks they made between my two plays were all neutral or positive for me.  The bunkering struck me more strongly on the second play than the first.  It has a unique look to it, which I dig, and there are some random spots of death which I enjoy in a perverse way.  The back nine has a group of very neat holes and I love the closing stretch.  Zack Reineking and his crew do a wonderful job on the conditioning.  I will make a point of getting out to Erin Hills every year or two.

I have had the privilege of witnessing the development of Sand Valley over numerous visits, thanks to my buddy and GCAer Charlie J, and Michael Keiser.  I have walked to course during its development, and played it several times as well. 

My first impression of the course was over the moon.  It hit all of the C&C high notes for me - strategy, bunkering, greens - but also had a handful of unique holes like the 7th and 17th.  After repeat plays, I still love the course, but I am not quite so far over the month.  Part of that has to do with what I believe to be a little bit of a lull in the middle (holes 10-13) and part of that is what I would call the Sand Hills effect.  I have now played 13 C&C courses, and I enjoy them all immensely.  They are so consistently solid that, with the exception of Sand Hills, I must admit to a blending together within the group.  Given the level of excellence, I realize that this is completely unfair, but that feeling is there for me, and Sand Valley falls prey to it a bit. 

That being said, I intend to go back to Sand Valley at least once a year for the foreseeable future, and if I had to choose, I would choose it over Erin Hills.  To put it another way, if I knew I was going to have my best game on a given day, I would rather be at Erin Hills because it packs more challenge and the idea of taking on and conquering a U.S. Open venue is appealing to me.  If I knew that I didn't have my best game, I would much rather be at Sand Valley.  There is more opportunity for recovery, and birdies still have to be earned.  There are not easy holes on either course, but as a whole, Sand Valley is gentler.  As a Kingsley guy, it is also a big plus for me that Superintendent Rob Duhm and his crew keep the course in a condition that feels very much like home to me.

With regard to setting and the whole acreage thing, I think I understand Peter's premise about excess, but I don't feel like SV is a good example of what he is decrying.  It's important to note that the original stated intention was to create a course that had the grandeur of a seaside links by taking advantage of the "sea of sand" that existed on site.  To say that that spirit is off-base is tantamount to claiming that courses shouldn't have been built on the Oregon coast.  Choosing to build in the sea of sand is evidence that the Keisers realize that setting and natural beauty matter.

Further, as was the case at Bandon Preserve, the Keisers have made a commitment to environmental sensitivity that many other developers do not.  They are making a massive investment in the ecological restoration of the Sand Valley property, and opening it up to multi-use recreation.  Michael, in particular, is an outdoorsman, and cares deeply about the environment and giving people an opportunity to get out and experience nature.

Again, the above is not meant as to diminish the excess question that Peter raises.  It's a fair question from both land use and GCA perspectives.  My direct experience with the people involved and the land tells me that Sand Valley is an inappropriate example.

[John Connolly]

Thanks, Jason. Very thoughtful response. From what I've heard personally, your take on these two courses is very much in sync with others.

[Andrew Buck]

I will say, based on one play of each Sand Valley course, I think both sides have merit.

I thought SV was great, as it played very firm the day I played and there were a couple slight misses that ended up with the potential to turn into a double due to the ability to of a ball to go from near rest on the green to unmanicured waste area 50 yards from the green.  I think "wasted land" is a reasonable argument although it didn't fee egregious, but I do think there is plenty of challenge on SV for almost all golfers when firm with some wind.

Then we move to MD.  I certainly enjoyed playing it, but as the round concluded and I reflected back, my perception began to evolve.  I was under par and I didn't really do anything well.  I got away with a few very errant shots with no penalty, missed some putts, and still scored well, something that should draw reflection.  Obviously the turf didn't play nearly as F&F as it's older sibling, and maybe that plays a role here that will change over time, but at this point I'd get up at 3:00 AM for a 3+ hour drive to play SV again anytime, but I don't think I can say the same for MD.

[Bill Seitz]

For anyone who has played both recently, how does the turf at Sand Valley (either or both courses) currently compare to the turf at the Loop?  I really enjoyed both directions at the Loop*, but as a Kingsley regular, I felt like the turf clearly needed a few years to really get good (though I would grade it better than simply playable).  I didn't see Kingsley in its infancy, so I don't know how long it takes for a fescue course to really hit its stride, but just wondering how Sand Valley compares at this point. 


*My only complaint at the Loop was the set up on the days we played it.  A lot of front pins.  For a course that currently requires you to bounce a lot of balls in, and has what feels like a lot of push up greens, it makes getting to a front pin nearly impossible.  You either fly it to the green and end up on the back, or land it short where it dies into the slope and stops.  It's an issue that I imagine will go away in time.

[Morgan Clawson]

I have played both.  I prefer Sand Valley for the following reasons:

1) The Sand Valley property is better suited for golf.  The hills at Erin feel choppy.  The hills at SV are larger in places, but the slopes are more gentle.

2) The routing at Sand Valley is tighter.  The green to tee walks are much shorter than at Erin.  As I like to say, Erin Hills is a cart course that doesn't allow carts.  Sand Valley is a shorter and easier walk.

3) The Sand Valley property has more variety, and accordingly, the holes have more variety.  While both are open, there are a few spots on Sand Valley that feel more intimate because you play into a few greens that are tucked into woodsy areas.  Erin feels wide open from start to finish.

4) Sand Valley is more forgiving.  Mishit shots often stay in the fairway.  Shots missing the fairway can usually be found and played out of the sand.

5) Sand Valley's fescue is more fun to hit off. Bill, I have not played The Loop.  The Sand Valley turf that is fully grown-in reminds me of Kingsley's.


Erin Hills best holes might be better than Sand Valley's best holes.  But the sum of the parts favors Sand Valley.

[Tim Gavrich]

Couldn't find the discussion I wanted in other EH and SV threads so ........


I've played EH three times now and Sand Valley zero. Loved EH - they didn't get everything right but they got a lot right. A friend says he's played both this year and thought EH was superior.


So, for the average club guy, what golf course would they like more? Not looking for arguments about the value proposition - just the golf course. Is one clearly above the other?

John--


I've played SV three times now, and EH once. I did have occasion to play them on consecutive days this past July (EH one day, then Sand Valley the next two). Broadly speaking, I think both courses are quite complimentary of one another, actually.


I find EH to be one of the sterner tests, tee to green, that I've played. The fairways are fairly wide, but the Kettle Moraine terrain is a bit more heaving and choppy. Plus, as many have noted, the long stuff off the fairway is pretty extremely punishing and ball-concealing. The green complexes have their challenges, but after playing the course, I could totally understand the comments by the pros that the greens were a lot less complicated than U.S. Open greens normally are. While there are plenty of runoff spots on the greens at EH, I thought there were a lot more places to miss and a good number of friendly gathering slopes there. This is not a new observation, but the multileveled floors of the bunkers were unique to my experience, though overall I thought the bunkers were a little less fearsome to hit out of than I expected.


In a contrast to EH, the bulk of the challenge at SV comes within 100 yards of the hole. The greens tend toward convexity, which coupled with the significant firmness of the ground (more so than EH), can trap some golfers in a bit of ping-pong around some greens. The bunkers are very challenging as well. Off the tee, SV is not a pushover, but there is a lot of room in the short stuff, and the aforementioned firmness rewards good driver swings with shorter approaches than the golfer is used to. Off the fairway, the scrubby areas are both challenging to hit out of and very easy to find a ball in.


Both courses are challenging walks, but EH is a good order of magnitude tougher a walk. This results in rounds pretty unavoidably crossing the five-hour mark. I played with none-too-slow players at SV in July and our rounds were both a shade over 4 1/2.


It's in this that I find the most merit in concerns over the large acreages of these and other golf courses. While I would say the properties are done more justice with big, spread-out courses, it is true that this makes them take a little longer to play, especially on foot and especially with caddies, which is the norm at both courses. Wide corridors make for wide-eyed swings with the driver, which makes for more wayward tee shots, which means lots of zigzagging for two-bag-carrying caddies, and this does slow down play at times.


All of this is to say that I'm not sure there's a good answer as to which course the "average club guy" would prefer. I think it would depend on the guy's home course, and whether he wants a course that's like what he's used to, or different from what he's used to. Given 10 rounds to split between Erin Hills and Sand Valley, I think I'd go 6-4 in favor of Sand Valley, but reasonable minds can disagree.

[George Freeman]

Bill -

I played the Loop in early June and played Sand Valley in early August.  The condition of Sand Valley in early August was very impressive - the course was pretty immaculate.  The greens were in great shape and firm (although not nearly as firm as the Loop's greens) and the fairways were so tight and firm that putting from well off the green was no issue (i.e. 30-50+ yards).  I'm not sure I have experienced such tight and firm fairways other than on a seaside links course - maybe ever.  Dare I say they were almost too firm?!  There was definitely a learning curve hitting off them coming from your normal Midwest course.

The condition of the Loop felt much earlier in the process.  That's not to say it wasn't in great shape and a ton of fun to play, but the fairways looked like they were kept a little longer to protect the new grass.  I also noticed some finishing work that looked like it needed...finishing.  There were a few places throughout the round where I thought I was looking at bunker that maybe never got fully cut out or finalized.  Most of these were fairway/waste bunkers on the peripheral of holes.  It was also rock hard.  Both greens and fairways.  I played in a pretty big wind and couldn't even think of landing a ball on the green when playing down wind.  Again, not the norm for 99% of courses in the Midwest, but a hell of a lot of fun once you realized you weren't in Kansas anymore.  I chalked the conditions at the Loop up to it being early in the summer of the course's first full year.  But they were totally playable and acceptable.

I'd be interested to hear how the Loop has progressed throughout the late summer and fall.

And as a side note, the last couple times I have played Erin Hills, the conditions have been very good.  Firm and fast.

Disclaimer:  I know nothing about growing grass, or "finishing work" for that matter.  Take the above with a grain of salt.   

[Ryan Farrow]

George, I think you nailed it.  Sand Valley did get off to a better start but I would expect things to even out over time. The fescue will only get better and completely fill in over time. I just hope the poa stays away.

[Tim Martin]

If I know going in that it is going to take north of 5 hour’s with caddies at Erin Hills I am inclined to pass. What’s fun about that in the middle of Wisconsin?

[Joe Hancock]

If I know going in that it is going to take north of 5 hour’s with caddies at Erin Hills I am inclined to pass. What’s fun about that in the middle of Wisconsin?

Answer: Being in the middle of Wisconsin.

[PCCraig]

What’s fun about that in the middle of Wisconsin?

The dive bars.

[PCCraig]

I've played both and enjoy Sand Valley much more than Erin Hills.


I like Erin Hills, but the course ultimately becomes very redundant. Lots of long par-4's that have downhill tee shots and uphill approaches (followed by a long, seemingly uphill, walk to the next tee). There are some very good holes...I think #15 is terrific, and #9 is very good as well, but it's mostly just a hard golf course in it's current state and is not a lot of fun to play.


I really enjoyed Sand Valley. There are a few quasi-dud holes (like #9 and #1), but I think the back nine is outstanding overall.


Mammoth Dunes is certainly bold in its attempt to be so overly playable. There are some really fun holes (of the preview 9 I played), but you can't help but wonder if it would get old fast because with no real element of danger it kind of feels like you're at the driving range. We played the 3,700 yard tips. I'm hardly a long hitter and I was -1.

[Tim Martin]

What’s fun about that in the middle of Wisconsin?

The dive bars.

It was not intended as a knock on Wisconsin. That said if u r going to make me stand around for 5 and 1/2 hours while occasionally hitting a golf shot at least give me an ocean or a skyline to gaze at.

[Kalen Braley]

Since opinions of those who have never played it are being considered in this thread.


Based on TV coverage and oodles of pictures, my hypothetical 10 round playing vote would be:


Sand Valley - 8
Erin Hills - 2


 


P.S.  If this tract of 1000+ acres was just going to sit empty otherwise, I don't see why it matters how well the land is used.  I don't see anyone complaining about Sand Hills with this same argument.

[Bill Seitz]

If I know going in that it is going to take north of 5 hour’s with caddies at Erin Hills I am inclined to pass. What’s fun about that in the middle of Wisconsin?

One of the problems at EH is that they tell people it's perfectly acceptable to play in five hours.  It can be played faster.  But if you're in a group playing at a 4 hour pace, and behind a group that has 2-3 open holes ahead of them playing in a 4:45 pace, the marshalls won't do anything to speed them up, because hey, they're ahead of schedule!  I understand building five hour rounds into your expectations, but good lord, don't tell your customers that five hours is acceptable or expected.

[Tim Martin]

If I know going in that it is going to take north of 5 hour’s with caddies at Erin Hills I am inclined to pass. What’s fun about that in the middle of Wisconsin?

One of the problems at EH is that they tell people it's perfectly acceptable to play in five hours.  It can be played faster.  But if you're in a group playing at a 4 hour pace, and behind a group that has 2-3 open holes ahead of them playing in a 4:45 pace, the marshalls won't do anything to speed them up, because hey, they're ahead of schedule!  I understand building five hour rounds into your expectations, but good lord, don't tell your customers that five hours is acceptable or expected.

Bill-Thanks for the reply. It is now a required stop for belt notchers as a U.S. Open venue but I wonder how much business they lose due to the fact that it’s a one-off for many as a direct result of pace of play?

[Tim Gavrich]

Having played Erin Hills with a fellow approx. scratch golfer plus two very brisk-playing bogey golfers, I don't see how 4:45 or five hours is beatable by much without rushing and taking away from the experience. The golf course is much more spread-out and difficult than practically every course where such a length of round would be unacceptable - it's just a different sort of place.


Erin Hills is not a classic private club course laid out on an intimate piece of property. It is a huge, long course laid out on an expansive property with a lot of hills and valleys. The minimal amount of earth moved contributes to the fact of some longish (and uphill) green-to-tee walks. Also, the fact that caddies carry doubles means that there are some logistical obstacles to getting finished in much under five hours.


If you're looking for a destination golf course where you can play 36 holes in six hours, then you're not looking for Erin Hills. Which is totally fine, but its differences make it a course that looks better in context than against some universal standard.

[Eric_Terhorst]

I've played Sand Valley once and Erin Hills several times.  Erin Hills is a sad case of missed opportunities and a terrible routing, and with the most recent changes they dumbed down one of the best holes, #17.  To hear the starter say at the beginning of the round, "you should plan on a 4:45 pace" is just depressing.  Then right out of the gate at #2 you're offended by a 75 yard walk back to the tee to play a 316 yard hole...aargh.

Sand Valley has Bill Coore's imprint on the routing, enough said.   I recall enjoying the scale, the variety in the holes and terrain, the fit for wind, and the challenging familiarity of well-designed and built Coore-Crenshaw greens. Still, it's a challenging walk in my opinion, not least the strong uphill 18th.  I think it would be tough to play regularly and to get around in less than 4 hours, but maybe Dan Moore can weigh in on that topic.  Sand Valley would be 10-0 for me vs. Erin Hills in a 10-round bout.


The conditioning at Sand Valley as superb when I played it during the preview time in 2016.  I understand that a difference between SV and the Loop is that hydroseeding was used wall-wall in grassing at SV, and only the greens and surrounds were hydroseeded at the Loop.  This may be why it will take longer to fill in the fairways, but the greens at the Loop were terrific from the first day.  This summer the greens were regularly top-dressed by Superintendent Rob Falconer about once every four weeks.  They are immaculate, and watching the ball roll on them (which you have many opportunities to do) is just pure pleasure. 


I played the Loop all summer, from June through September, and played dozens of rounds.  I was able to pick and choose tee times, so I never had a round that was more than 3:45, and once played the Red in a 2-ball in three hours.  I saw some 4-balls that required 2:30 to play 9, though, so a 5-hour round can be had at the Loop as well....if that's what you want.


George Freeman, your comment on the Loop is spot-on:

It was also rock hard.  Both greens and fairways.  I played in a pretty big wind and couldn't even think of landing a ball on the green when playing down wind.  Again, not the norm for 99% of courses in the Midwest, but a hell of a lot of fun once you realized you weren't in Kansas anymore.  I chalked the conditions at the Loop up to it being early in the summer of the course's first full year.  But they were totally playable and acceptable.

The ground-game orientation required at the Loop is totally different from its sibling, Forest Dunes.  The Loop's requirements may come as a shock to regulars who've enjoyed FD for many years in repeat trips, but *should* appeal to those who profess to love "firm and fast".  Nevertheless, a lot of guys expect to go out at the Loop and attack pins--caddies have told me they won't listen to advice to do otherwise...  One reviewer I came across hilariously suggested that too firm = "dangerous" (see https://shutfacegolf.com/) Not sure how that adjective applies to golf turf conditions...but to those who say "the Loop will be great when it softens up" I say "what's wrong with the conditions now?"   

[Matthew Petersen]

The ground-game orientation required at the Loop is totally different from its sibling, Forest Dunes.  The Loop's requirements may come as a shock to regulars who've enjoyed FD for many years in repeat trips, but *should* appeal to those who profess to love "firm and fast".  Nevertheless, a lot of guys expect to go out at the Loop and attack pins--caddies have told me they won't listen to advice to do otherwise...  One reviewer I came across hilariously suggested that too firm = "dangerous" (see https://shutfacegolf.com/) Not sure how that adjective applies to golf turf conditions...but to those who say "the Loop will be great when it softens up" I say "what's wrong with the conditions now?"

"too firm is dangerous" lol


I guess he's suggesting he thinks they're going to kill the greens, but wow. Then again, the gent had lost me in the first paragraph when he wrote, "Doak waived his magic wand ..." Maybe I'll pick up TD's magic wand as a free agent and start a new career.

[CJames]

I have played both.  10-0 in favor of Sand Valley.  Lawsonia versus Sand Valley?  I would find that a much more interesting deliberation. 

[PCCraig]

Lawsonia versus Sand Valley?  I would find that a much more interesting deliberation.

EASY


8-2 Lawsonia

[Andrew Buck]

Lawsonia versus Sand Valley?  I would find that a much more interesting deliberation.

EASY


8-2 Lawsonia

Hmm, sounds like next time I find myself with a day and the willingness to get up before the sun rises I'll need to veer NE at Madison. 

[John Connolly]

While I'd concede the length of round at EH is longer than most would tolerate for daily play, isn't it be ok if it's once a year? Using the 4-hour yardstick misses the mark when you play a golf course on the scale of EH. I find it a dazzling construct - and if it bumps my length of round in any year to 4.0001 hours, I'm OK with it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()