The One Dimensional Strategy of Tobacco Road

[JC Jones]

Recognizing that this course is all the rage right now amongst the Instagram and Golfer's Journal set, I approach this topic with full caution.


A recent visit and subsequent reflection have me wondering why a course with a singular strategy (save for a few holes) can be considered great.  Nevermind that the repeated blind shots are a pace of play nightmare on a public course, the strategy is largely the same from hole to hole.


With the exception of the par 3s (obviously) and a handful of other holes, every hole provides a wide fairway/bailout to the right that results in a much longer (and often blind) approach and the line challenging the left side rough provides the shorter and more visible route to the green.


For those who have played the course, the first and last holes are prime examples but this is also the strategy on the following holes:


2
4
5
9
12
13 (not on the tee shot, but the second and third shots play this way)
15
16 (one of the worst holes in golf)
18


Both 10 and 11 provide the same bailout only on the left side.  The difference with those two holes is the green is better approached from the bailout areas with the more aggressive line less rewarded from a second shot perspective.


A lot of the visual at Tobacco Road is outside of the playing area and the course is, as a result, visually stimulating and intimidating.  Once that is set aside, most holes play the same.  So, can a course really be great if its asking the same question over and over again?

[PCCraig]

Every hole at Lawsonia is a dogleg right but it's in the Top 150 in the World, so yes.

[Kyle Harris]

Calling the right side of holes #5, 9, and 15 bail-outs is disingenuous at best.


On #5 if you're not going for the green you're going up the right side. Similarly, the closer you are to the bunker on #5 the easier your shot to that tiny green is by virtue of it being a shorter shot.

You bring up #11 but if you attack the right side off the tee you're going for the green in two shots.

So... take away the 5 Par 3's, 2 Par 5's, and 3 Par 4's and less than half the golf course might be an example.

Your post can be summed up easily:


"I have a great point except for all the examples that don't follow it."

Yawn.

[JC Jones]

I disagree on all of 5,9 and 15.  Especially 5 where half the green or more is blind from the far right.  There is 70 yards of fairway or more short of the green if you take the line to the flag.  So, there is plenty of reason to not go right considering the blindness of the approach and the danger short.


On 11, the tree maintenance is such that you're likely going at the front apron of the green from the inside of that dogleg.


So, basically, even if I concede the 3 holes to you, Im still talking about over half the non-par 3s.  But Im not willing to concede those 3 because I think you're wrong.


So, your post can be summed up easily:


"I dont have a great point but I feel the need to counter so Im going to heavily rely on 1 example where Im wrong and pretend that counters the 11 examples given"


Yawn

[Kyle Harris]

When two conflicting viewpoints that can be explained and defended within the scope of player's preferences and games are present throughout the golf course you have the recipe for greatness.

I'll take your answers to the questions posed at Tobacco Road against my answers to the questions posed any day.

That's the spirit of it all.

[Carl Rogers]

TR, I suggest, should be evaluated in context to the other notable and pastoral Sandhills options.
100 percent contrast.
TR requires the golfer to make an accurate assessment of their abilities and play accordingly on each shot ..... otherwise a very long day is in store.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Just look at The Old Course.
No fears if you draw the ball.


But, for faders, you’re puckering on (almost) every shot.


Is that one dimensional if it “says repeatedly”...: Don’t go right!

[Ronald Montesano]

Glad that middle school recess ended.


JC, when you say that ToeRoad is one-dimensional, is it initially and obviously one-dimensional, or does one have to study it in an exhaustive manner, to stumble onto this revelation?

[Jake Marvin]

For the sake of the conversation, I'll grant your point. I suppose I wonder then if what you describe is the entirety of the questions posed by Tobacco Road. The strategy of the course extends beyond "hit the ball to this hard place, or hit it to a different, easier place," which at TR entails handling the visual intimidation and playing with a keen mental game. Add in that the listed holes are nothing alike other than the favoring of drives down the left, and I'm not concerned about any lack of variety that could arise from the arrangement. Sure, there are golfers out there for whom Tobacco Road simply asks, "Can you hit thirteen drives up the left?" If I could play that well, though, most every course would get boring quickly. Instead, Tobacco asks most mortals, "Can you handle the visual elements and play the course for what it is?" and "Can you pick your spots effectively to maximize opportunities while keeping big numbers off the card?" These are entirely valid questions to ask, and that they are asked through the means of variations on a theme does not disqualify it from greatness (whether or not one thinks Tobacco is "great" or not).

[JC Jones]

Glad that middle school recess ended.


JC, when you say that ToeRoad is one-dimensional, is it initially and obviously one-dimensional, or does one have to study it in an exhaustive manner, to stumble onto this revelation?

Good question.  I played TR about 10 days ago and it was my second time playing the course, the first since 2012.  They have a wonderful yardage book app for your phone, which I think is a MUST for anyone not super familiar with the course.  Standing on the tee looking at the app the repeated strategy revealed itself midway through the front 9. 

[Mark Stewart]

Ironically, Tobacco Road posted a picture of the 9th hole on their Instagram yesterday.

[JC Jones]

For the sake of the conversation, I'll grant your point. I suppose I wonder then if what you describe is the entirety of the questions posed by Tobacco Road. The strategy of the course extends beyond "hit the ball to this hard place, or hit it to a different, easier place," which at TR entails handling the visual intimidation and playing with a keen mental game. Add in that the listed holes are nothing alike other than the favoring of drives down the left, and I'm not concerned about any lack of variety that could arise from the arrangement. Sure, there are golfers out there for whom Tobacco Road simply asks, "Can you hit thirteen drives up the left?" If I could play that well, though, most every course would get boring quickly. Instead, Tobacco asks most mortals, "Can you handle the visual elements and play the course for what it is?" and "Can you pick your spots effectively to maximize opportunities while keeping big numbers off the card?" These are entirely valid questions to ask, and that they are asked through the means of variations on a theme does not disqualify it from greatness (whether or not one thinks Tobacco is "great" or not).

I think that's an interesting point; and to a certain extent you're right that a lot of things get one dimensional the better a player becomes.  I shot a relatively ho-hum 81 at Tobacco Road with 1 lost ball, few putts made of significance and some depressing short game melt downs.  With my ADD mind, the increase in noise actually helps me focus more so I dont find TR to be an overly difficult golf course.


I guess a larger point for me is how many options really exist?  We talk a lot about multiple ways to play holes and a course asking different questions throughout the round and, to me, once you strip away the visual clutter, Im not sure a variety of questions are there.

[A.G._Crockett]

JC Jones,

If your recent visit to The Road was your first and only time playing the course, I'd urge you to take another look; I think you have the course all wrong. 


First of all, I don't agree at all that the "bailouts" at TR are generally on the right side; you reference #9, for instance.  I think a tee shot down the left side is MUCH safer, calling the right side the bailout side ignores the slope of the fairway and the woods on the right.  I'll agree that you can't miss to the right on 10 or 11, but that's hardly the same thing as calling a shot left of that a "bailout".

I think my biggest quarrel with your post, though, is your characterization of 16 as "one of the worst holes in golf".  It's one of the most unusual, for sure, and if you can't hit the ball the intended distance and on the intended line, perhaps one of the most difficult, but I find 16 to be thrilling every time I play TR (which is probably in excess of 25 rounds now, fwiw). 


And 9 and 16 aren't the only places I disagree with you; the second shot is MUCH more about laying up to a distance you can handle for the third shot rather than which side of the fairway you're on.  The right side is only a bailout in the sense that a truly awful shot down the left side is worse, but a good shot down the left side leaves you the same thing as a good shot down the right side.  In some other cases, which side is safer from the tee, and which side leaves the shorter approach depends very much on which tees you are playing; 2 is a prime example of this.

But I suppose where I take the most exception to your post is this phrase: "the strategy is largely the same from hole to hole."; nothing could be farther from my experience and feelings about playing The Road.  If we assume that the basic strategy on EVERY course is to pick a distance and a line and then execute the shot, more strategy goes into playing TR than any other course I've ever played, or expect to play.

Go back.  Play the course again.  And again.

[JC Jones]

A.G.,


Good points.  As I noted above, but you were probably writing your post, this is my second go around there.  Here is where I'd disagree with you:


I think what you said about 9 proves my point that the easier tee shot leaves the harder/more blind/longer second shot.  I'd submit that left is the preferred 9 but with the trees encroaching, its harder to get there vs the open area center right to right.  No doubt, as with everywhere on that course, if you blow it stupid right you're dead as well.


16 to me exemplifies my point that TR is more about the noise than the actual golf.  Firstly, 16 is a 90* dogleg and there is but a single option off the tee.  The tee shot is not hard if you can ignore the noise, just execute something 230ish and you have a 60 yard wide landing area in which to do it.  90* doglegs are almost always bad golf holes because of the lack of tee shot strategy, this one is no different in my opinion.


I would agree with you that TR is point and shoot execution driven; which in and of itself isnt bad, its just that the number of places to point and shoot isnt that great and the variety of shots isnt that high.

[Peter Pallotta]

There must be something very special about this course, but that something seems to defy description.

For years I've read good and experienced posters (whose tastes I generally share) tying themselves up in knots trying to explain why they like the course and why I should like it too -- or at least make an effort to play it, at least once.

But their explanations, their descriptions (and photos) -- of the convoluted routing, the repetitive visual patterns that always reveal 'more room' than what first seems to be the case, the manufactured aesthetic, the great importance of playing the 'correct set of tees', the singular 'strategic' motif of not taking on more than what (it appears) you can handle and the ubiquitous 'room to the right' that invariably leaves a longer/more difficult approach, the essentially 'target golf' quality/experience, and the very slow pace of play -- paint the picture of a god-awful course that I have no interest at all in seeing, let alone ever playing.

And yet, time and again these good and experienced posters (whose tastes I often share) conclude not that TR is a bad course and a failed artistic experiment but instead that it is a unique 'must play' that absolutely needs to be added onto any North Carolina itinerary, along with #2 and Pine Needles/Mid Pines.

I don't understand it at all. Their conclusions (coming after their own descriptions of the place) are so shocking to me that I'm forced to decide between two totally opposite 'truths' -- either TR is the rare case of a course so chock-full of weaknesses that it comes full circle and becomes 'great', or that these posters have some unconscious and misplaced religious sentiment and with Tertullian can proudly say "I believe it precisely *because* it's absurd!"

[Jim Sherma]

I guess a larger point for me is how many options really exist?  We talk a lot about multiple ways to play holes and a course asking different questions throughout the round and, to me, once you strip away the visual clutter, Im not sure a variety of questions are there.

I think that this sentiment has merit for many visually impressive courses. The example that comes to my mind is Enniscrone in particular but any of the big-dunes courses in Ireland could suffice. At Enniscrone, the old Hackett holes on the flat outside of the dunes are much more interesting holes from a strategic perspective. The holes in the dunes are very one dimensional in that missing the fairway is generally in unplayable or at best chop out steep-sided gunch. The only real golfing question that the big dune holes ask is what club can you keep on the short grass given the wind.


I loved Tobacco Road the one time I played it and would happily go back. I was also hitting the ball exceptionally well and could generally execute the shot that the yardage book/phone app asked for. That same day while watching/cringing at a player who brought short and crooked to the course, it was obvious that there was no strategy that would have helped him.


I'm guessing that TR is similar to the NLE Hershey Links (fka Wren Dale) in terms of scoring distribution across multiple plays. hershey links was a Hurdzan/Fry course that had lost ball gunch bordering every fairway. My scores were very bi-modal based on whether it was a day where my bad shots were found or not. On the days where I missed in spots I could find it I always shot 2-3 shots below my handicap. On the days where I didn't find them I was a few shots above. Strategy was in may ways neutered in that the dynamic programming problem came down to minimizing the chance of the lost ball big number. Any marginal benefit based on best angle of approach or shot shape into the green was smothered and almost inconsequential.


A.G. - Across your multiple plays at TR do you find that the strategy for any given hole changes from day to day? Or, have you settled on a best strategy for each hole and it generally comes down to whether or not you execute it on any given day?

[JC Jones]

There must be something special about this course, but that something seems to defy description.

For years I've read good and experienced posters (whose tastes I generally share) tying themselves up in knots trying to explain why they like the course and why I should like it too - or at least make an effort to play it, at least once.

But their explanations, their descriptions (and photos) -- of the convoluted routing, the repetitive visual patterns that always reveal 'more room' than what first seems to be the case, the manufactured aesthetic, the great importance of playing the 'correct set of tees', the singular 'strategic' motif of not taking on more than what (it appears) you can handle and the ubiquitous 'room to the right' that invariably leaves a longer/more difficult approach, the essentially 'target golf' quality/experience, and of the very slow pace of play -- paint the picture of a god-awful course that I have no interest at all in seeing, let alone ever playing.

And yet, time and again these good and experienced posters (whose tastes I often share) conclude not that TR is a bad course and a failed artistic experiment but instead that it is a unique 'must play' that absolutely needs to be added onto any North Carolina itinerary, along with #2 and Pine Needles/Mid Pines.

I don't understand it at all. Their conclusions (coming after their own descriptions of the place) are so shocking to me that I'm forced to decide between two totally opposite 'truths' -- either TR is the rare case of a course so chock-full of weaknesses that it comes full circle and becomes 'great', or that these posters have some unconscious and misplaced religious sentiment and with Tertullian can proudly say "I believe it precisely *because* it's absurd!"

If you go to Pinehurst you should play it.  Everyone should play it once for its artistic and visual value.  If you like it more than #2, #4, Pine Needles, Mid Pines or Southern Pines, you should have your head checked. 

[Sean_A]

Pietro

In terms of a Sandhills trip, The Road offers something very different from #2, Pine Needles, Mid Pines, Dormie etc.  I can't say the course would be one I would play over any of these options on a weekly basis, but for a trip to the area, sure, The Road is one of the major courses to be considered in the area.  Its a bit like the London Heathlands in that many of the courses are quite similar to each other so trying to find a few such as Addington or Huntercombe to round out the trip is welcome, at least imo. The real problem with The Road is it requires a few rounds to get past the oddities...then it becomes a matter of time devotion when there are many good choices. 

Happy Hockey

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - thanks.
You know that you were one of the posters I was thinking of when I wrote that.
But I just went to check, and Golf Digest has it as #52 in their Top 100 Public Courses in America -- some 25 spots ahead of Pine Needles and 40 spots ahead of Mid Pines.
Now maybe that's not saying all that much, but it is saying *something* -- i.e. about the inherent quality of the course, and not merely as a 'change of pace' during a visit to the region. 
And I just can't figure out what that something can be.
I read the descriptions and look at the photos of Mid Pines, and can fully understand why people like it and why it qualifies as a wonderful golf course that provides very fine golf. But if it's #91 on the list, TR must be one hell of a good golf course to rate/rank almost 40 places higher-better.
And I just can't see it -- except in terms of it being 'different'. But 'different' is a relative term. 
P

[JMEvensky]

Sean - thanks.
You know that you were one of the posters I was thinking of when I wrote that.
But I just went to check, and Golf Digest has it as #52 in their Top 100 Public Courses in America -- some 25 spots ahead of Pine Needles and 40 spots ahead of Mid Pines.
Now maybe that's not saying all that much, but it is saying *something* -- i.e. about the inherent quality of the course, not merely about as a 'change of pace' during a visit to the region. 
And I just can't figure out what that something can be.
P

I'm like you--very intrigued by the opinions on TR. It seems to polarize but does so somehow differently--not necessarily good vs. bad player. The only person I know who's played it goes on an annual trip to Pinehurst with college buddies. Half of them want to play it as much as #2 and the other half won't go back.


Let me know when it's convenient and I'll meet you over there and we'll see for ourselves. I'll bring the Marlboros.


And props for the Tertullian citation.

[Sean_A]

Sean - thanks.
You know that you were one of the posters I was thinking of when I wrote that.
But I just went to check, and Golf Digest has it as #52 in their Top 100 Public Courses in America -- some 25 spots ahead of Pine Needles and 40 spots ahead of Mid Pines.
Now maybe that's not saying all that much, but it is saying *something* -- i.e. about the inherent quality of the course, not merely about as a 'change of pace' during a visit to the region. 
And I just can't figure out what that something can be.
P

Pietro

Don't mistake me, I think The Road is very, very good, more or less in the same class as the others with the exception of #2.  But that doesn't mean its the sort of place I would play on a weekly basis because it isn't. I think I would go for Pine Needles or #2 on that basis.

The Road defies categorization and codifying...sometimes for the better and sometimes not. For instance, there are some glaring routing issues which would niggle at me if I played the course often enough. 

Happy Hockey

[A.G._Crockett]

There must be something special about this course, but that something seems to defy description.

For years I've read good and experienced posters (whose tastes I generally share) tying themselves up in knots trying to explain why they like the course and why I should like it too - or at least make an effort to play it, at least once.

But their explanations, their descriptions (and photos) -- of the convoluted routing, the repetitive visual patterns that always reveal 'more room' than what first seems to be the case, the manufactured aesthetic, the great importance of playing the 'correct set of tees', the singular 'strategic' motif of not taking on more than what (it appears) you can handle and the ubiquitous 'room to the right' that invariably leaves a longer/more difficult approach, the essentially 'target golf' quality/experience, and of the very slow pace of play -- paint the picture of a god-awful course that I have no interest at all in seeing, let alone ever playing.

And yet, time and again these good and experienced posters (whose tastes I often share) conclude not that TR is a bad course and a failed artistic experiment but instead that it is a unique 'must play' that absolutely needs to be added onto any North Carolina itinerary, along with #2 and Pine Needles/Mid Pines.

I don't understand it at all. Their conclusions (coming after their own descriptions of the place) are so shocking to me that I'm forced to decide between two totally opposite 'truths' -- either TR is the rare case of a course so chock-full of weaknesses that it comes full circle and becomes 'great', or that these posters have some unconscious and misplaced religious sentiment and with Tertullian can proudly say "I believe it precisely *because* it's absurd!"

If you go to Pinehurst you should play it.  Everyone should play it once for its artistic and visual value.  If you like it more than #2, #4, Pine Needles, Mid Pines or Southern Pines, you should have your head checked. 

JC,

It's good that I have a counseling session scheduled for later today, though golf is not a common topic.  I have played all of those except the new version of #4, and I do indeed "like" The Road better. 


I'll go one step farther, and write again a statement that I've made here before.  If I had ONE round left to play, I'd play it at Tobacco Road.  That course makes me smile, even when I play badly.  It is great art, and while I have no artistic ability myself, I appreciate it when I see it.

I've played other courses like the ones you mention.  I've never played anything like Tobacco Road, and I dearly love it.

[JC Jones]

There must be something special about this course, but that something seems to defy description.

For years I've read good and experienced posters (whose tastes I generally share) tying themselves up in knots trying to explain why they like the course and why I should like it too - or at least make an effort to play it, at least once.

But their explanations, their descriptions (and photos) -- of the convoluted routing, the repetitive visual patterns that always reveal 'more room' than what first seems to be the case, the manufactured aesthetic, the great importance of playing the 'correct set of tees', the singular 'strategic' motif of not taking on more than what (it appears) you can handle and the ubiquitous 'room to the right' that invariably leaves a longer/more difficult approach, the essentially 'target golf' quality/experience, and of the very slow pace of play -- paint the picture of a god-awful course that I have no interest at all in seeing, let alone ever playing.

And yet, time and again these good and experienced posters (whose tastes I often share) conclude not that TR is a bad course and a failed artistic experiment but instead that it is a unique 'must play' that absolutely needs to be added onto any North Carolina itinerary, along with #2 and Pine Needles/Mid Pines.

I don't understand it at all. Their conclusions (coming after their own descriptions of the place) are so shocking to me that I'm forced to decide between two totally opposite 'truths' -- either TR is the rare case of a course so chock-full of weaknesses that it comes full circle and becomes 'great', or that these posters have some unconscious and misplaced religious sentiment and with Tertullian can proudly say "I believe it precisely *because* it's absurd!"

If you go to Pinehurst you should play it.  Everyone should play it once for its artistic and visual value.  If you like it more than #2, #4, Pine Needles, Mid Pines or Southern Pines, you should have your head checked. 

JC,

It's good that I have a counseling session scheduled for later today, though golf is not a common topic.  I have played all of those except the new version of #4, and I do indeed "like" The Road better. 


I'll go one step farther, and write again a statement that I've made here before.  If I had ONE round left to play, I'd play it at Tobacco Road.  That course makes me smile, even when I play badly.  It is great art, and while I have no artistic ability myself, I appreciate it when I see it.

I've played other courses like the ones you mention.  I've never played anything like Tobacco Road, and I dearly love it.

A.G.,


I love your passion even if, in the words of the immortal Pat Mucci, I think you're a moron!


I'll grant you this, the par 3s there have a wide variety and are quite fun, especially the Pete Dye replica 14.  Sadly, they are wrapped in distortion and monotony. 

[A.G._Crockett]

I guess a larger point for me is how many options really exist?  We talk a lot about multiple ways to play holes and a course asking different questions throughout the round and, to me, once you strip away the visual clutter, Im not sure a variety of questions are there.

I loved Tobacco Road the one time I played it and would happily go back. I was also hitting the ball exceptionally well and could generally execute the shot that the yardage book/phone app asked for. That same day while watching/cringing at a player who brought short and crooked to the course, it was obvious that there was no strategy that would have helped him.


A.G. - Across your multiple plays at TR do you find that the strategy for any given hole changes from day to day? Or, have you settled on a best strategy for each hole and it generally comes down to whether or not you execute it on any given day?

Jim,

The first paragraph above is the one criticism of TR that I heard over the years that (sort of) holds water; there are golfers that go there and really struggle; some are new to the game and would struggle anywhere, and some are having a day where they just can't play the intended shot.  But the difference between the course rating and the slope rating at TR is high, and that has kept it from rising higher in a lot of the various course rankings.  TR isn't "forgiving" of terrible ball striking; there is no question about that.


Oddly, since I am a dedicated walker, the routing doesn't bother me at all.  In fact, I played TR a couple of weeks after it opened 20 years ago, before all of the signage was even in place, and I mistakenly played 18 after 14, then realized there was nowhere to go; I laughed at that, too.

My answer to your question in the last paragraph is that I find TR no different than anywhere else in that regard.  Decisions that vary according to weather and turf conditions and that might dictate how you play the second shot on a par 5, etc., are pretty much the same at most courses, aren't they?  I'm a member at a Fazio course; I can reach one of the par 5's in two fairly often, two others when it's hot and dry with a helping wind, and the fourth one never.  I don't know if that qualifies as "strategy" or not; if it is, it isn't much.  But if anything, I'd think TR offers MORE options than most places, at least for good golfers, because of the wide landing areas and VERY large greens.

I'll add one other thing that I've written many times before about Strantz courses in general, and that is that the tees you play make all the difference.  I know that matters everywhere, but it matters more some places than others.  Golfers should approach Strantz courses via the slope rating rather than the yardage, but I know that will never happen.  True Blue and TR are the best examples of this, I think.

[A.G._Crockett]

There must be something special about this course, but that something seems to defy description.

For years I've read good and experienced posters (whose tastes I generally share) tying themselves up in knots trying to explain why they like the course and why I should like it too - or at least make an effort to play it, at least once.

But their explanations, their descriptions (and photos) -- of the convoluted routing, the repetitive visual patterns that always reveal 'more room' than what first seems to be the case, the manufactured aesthetic, the great importance of playing the 'correct set of tees', the singular 'strategic' motif of not taking on more than what (it appears) you can handle and the ubiquitous 'room to the right' that invariably leaves a longer/more difficult approach, the essentially 'target golf' quality/experience, and of the very slow pace of play -- paint the picture of a god-awful course that I have no interest at all in seeing, let alone ever playing.

And yet, time and again these good and experienced posters (whose tastes I often share) conclude not that TR is a bad course and a failed artistic experiment but instead that it is a unique 'must play' that absolutely needs to be added onto any North Carolina itinerary, along with #2 and Pine Needles/Mid Pines.

I don't understand it at all. Their conclusions (coming after their own descriptions of the place) are so shocking to me that I'm forced to decide between two totally opposite 'truths' -- either TR is the rare case of a course so chock-full of weaknesses that it comes full circle and becomes 'great', or that these posters have some unconscious and misplaced religious sentiment and with Tertullian can proudly say "I believe it precisely *because* it's absurd!"

If you go to Pinehurst you should play it.  Everyone should play it once for its artistic and visual value.  If you like it more than #2, #4, Pine Needles, Mid Pines or Southern Pines, you should have your head checked. 

JC,

It's good that I have a counseling session scheduled for later today, though golf is not a common topic.  I have played all of those except the new version of #4, and I do indeed "like" The Road better. 


I'll go one step farther, and write again a statement that I've made here before.  If I had ONE round left to play, I'd play it at Tobacco Road.  That course makes me smile, even when I play badly.  It is great art, and while I have no artistic ability myself, I appreciate it when I see it.

I've played other courses like the ones you mention.  I've never played anything like Tobacco Road, and I dearly love it.

A.G.,


I love your passion even if, in the words of the immortal Pat Mucci, I think you're a moron!


I'll grant you this, the par 3s there have a wide variety and are quite fun, especially the Pete Dye replica 14.  Sadly, they are wrapped in distortion and monotony.

JC,

You are not the first person to call me a moron; Mucci himself may have done it, in fact.  But you are the first person I have EVER heard use the term "replica" for ANYTHING Mike Strantz ever did, including 14 at TR.