Down the rabbit hole we go, into the wonderland of serious criticism.
Cherry Hill Club, in Ontario, is a Walter J. Travis golf course. First, the set-up:
The majority of the golf course lies below a mild escarpment. The 9th hole climbs the escarpment (par three uphill, like the 9th at Crystal Downs) and the 10th hole runs gently down it. 16 holes lie on a flat expanse.
There are three long holes: six, twelve, and eighteen. There are four short holes: five, nine, eleven, and sixteen. The rest are intermediate. Only one of the intermediate holes (the first) can be considered drivable.
There is something about Cherry Hill's greens, that makes every single putt a thought-provoking adventure. They break/run fast toward Buffalo, which is to say, to the east, is the easiest way to reveal them. If Buffalo is uphill, the putt will still be fast. Some say it is the influence of the escarpment, which lies at the western margin of the course. Others say they have no idea, and they don't wish to overthink it.
After Travis, the course was Robbie-Robinsoned and then Ian Andrewed, which brought it back to what Travis had envisioned. Here's a bit more on the golf course.
The first three holes are slight doglegs left. I do mean slight. If you recall them, you might be forgiven for saying that each of them played straight. There is a straight and fairway line from tee to green, but it is protected by some hazard (sand on one and two, trees on three.) One runs north; two to the east, three to the south. You get the idea. Play the first three in twelve and you are able to flex quickly. Greens one and two have high backs but, since two runs to the east, the greens runs FAST to the back.
The fourth is a stern dogleg left. You can't play down the left, but you cannot go too far right, either. The green almost demands a run-up shot, to avoid sand right and fall-off left. Also runs to the south.
Five is the most challenging improvement made by Andrew. Pond front and right eliminates that side of the green. Andrew shaved the left side, so if you bail that way to avoid the agua, you will find yourself with a recovery putt/bump/chip/pitch that runs ... you guessed it-eastward toward the water and FAST.
Six is as stern a dogleg left as was four. Problem with it is, you need to cut the corner if you are a long hitter, or play three-metal at the bunkers right if you are not. The second shot tempts you into playing three-metal, which you should not, unless you are one of the best. Get the ball inside of 150 for your third and play for par. Why? Seven is the same par hole, but nearly 100 yards shorter. It plays to the south, opposite the sixth, which played northward.
Eight is a stern intermediate hole, with a green that is much thinner than your mid-iron approach wants it to be. Water left, bunkers right, and that's the drive zone! Sand left and right at the green. It's a bear. Nine is even tougher. The only saving grace is, the big tree left in the valley died twelve years ago, so you can recover is you miss left of the left guarding bunker. Right is another bunker, and long is long grass or trees. Front is false, so your ball comes back down the slope. Yikes!
Front Nine Summary: There isn't a weak hole on the side, but there are weak shots. The tee shots on four and six do not provide options for all golfers. Nine usually feels like an all-or-nothing tee/approach shot. The greens are all puttable, if not always approachable.
What I would like to see on the front nine at Cherry Hill: I would like to see long (as at St. Andrews) be an option. The fifth and eight holes have soooo much difficulty short and adjacent to the greens, that it would be quite brazen of the course to say Hit it long and pitch it back to front, and we shall reward you. Honestly, other than the Old Course, who else does this? A man can dream.
Ten drapes down a gentler slope than the one that nine ascends. The green has three bunkers but, believe this! The long approach shot is actually beneficial. The hole runs south. Eleven is a death trap, a suicide rap, as The Boss might call it. The green is shoved so high toward the sky, that if you hit it, you're not certain that you meant to. A pair of deep bunkers angle away from front-center, but a runner is not an option. The ball must be tossed high in the sky, and descend like a pregnant robin. It's a tough, tough hole, and the one that birdie-makers brag about at hole the nineteenth.
Twelve is a great driving hole if you can move the ball from left to right. There is a water on the right, and you want to play back toward, it, not hit a slider away from it. Why? There is thick rough on the left. Just aim at the bunkers left and slide gently rightward. Repeat for your second shot, and you might find yourself aboard the putting surface with your second. This is the first hole since number two to run purely east. Watch how fast a front-to-back putt is. Thirteen is neither long nor short, although it tends toward the later. Play more left than right, and you'll have a perfect look at the green. The green is elevated, although not as much as eleven. You must get past those front bunkers in the air; there is no room for a run-up. This is the second consecutive hole to run purely east. Watch that first putt.
Fourteen is the most demanding, intermediate hole. The creek some forty yard shy of the green was tubed a decade ago, so less-than-perfect approach shots live to fight another day. If you're a par thinker, play this one a shot above what the card says, and you'll be happy with your execution. The fairway is the widest on the course in the drive zone, and you'll need it.
I'm not certain how old the pond is on fifteen. I wish it weren't there. It shrinks the drive zone, and takes away any ingenuity from the hole. It dominates play, and exhibits zero subtlety. The green is very good but, unless you've played your tee ball to the edge of the right-side fairway bunker (but not in) and then played your short iron over the pond's finger in front of the green, you're clotting the wound.
Sixteen is brilliant. A flat volcano. The green is essentially at tee level, but the bunkering convinces you to hit your pitch shot farther than necessary. You need to barely clear the front bunker, not conquer it. If you do the later, you have a heck of a downhill putt, although it is slower than expected because you're rolling it westward. Simply briliant.
The closing pair are daunting. Seventeen was strengthened by Andrew, with a deeper, back tee, and six well-place bunkers. It used to be a birdie opportunity before the closer, but now is not nearly so manageable. It does have a spectacular green, nearly the best on the back nine. It's not, because ...
The eighteenth is indomitable. It climbs gently and unceasingly to the foot of the escarpment. You must challenge the inside bunkers to have a shot at reaching home in two ... and that's only if you combine all-world driving with all-world fairway metal play. If not, do like you did on number six and target inside of 150 in two. You HAVE to be on this green in no more than three, because it is something like what MacKenzie did at Sitwell Park. It is the type of green that members and guests return to often, especially when there is no one coming up the fairway. They do it for bragging rights, for fun, for bemusement.
Back Nine Summary: The back nine is more erratic than the front side. This is not a criticism. You play Intermediate-short-long, then long-intermediate-long-intermediate-short-intermediate-long on the inward half; contrast this with four consecutive intermediates to start the front, followed by short-long-intermediate-intermediate-short, and you understand. It's harder to develop a rhythm on the second side, than it is on the first. If you close strong at Cherry Hill, you probably win the day.
What I would like to see on the back nine at Cherry Hill: To begin, the removal of the pond on fifteen. It makes the hole a throwaway. You want to survive it and move on. Hmmm...that's it. The rest of the nine is incredibly good for a nearly-flat circuit.
Worst holes: On the front nine, the sixth. The drive is too restricted, but that is due to modern technology. On the back nine, the fifteenth-same problem, but due to the pond, not the technology.
Best Holes: On the front nine, the third. Why? That green. It falls from front to back. If you go long to a front pin, you have a fifty-feet putt coming back. If you get too cute, you get stuck in a bunker, with a difficult recovery. On the back nine, number ten. It's so sublime, but the green is incredibly receptive.
Would expanded, drive-zone width make Cherry Hill weaker or stronger? It would make it stronger. The bunkers at the greens would still threaten shots from the margins, but many greens would offer more landing room (if you clear the sand) from the wings.
Do the greens suffer from shrinkage? No. They were returned to their full size by Andrew and, with the exception of the eleventh, and perhaps the fifth, offer all golfers a chance at holding the surface in regulation figures.
Run-Up limitations? The 13th (inexplicable rough between the front bunkers), 15th (finger of water) and 16th (moat bunker) are the three blockages. The other 15 holes allow traditional, bounce-it-in approach shots.
What ruins the course? Precisely what many of the members love: shaved greens. There is a masochism (not unique to this club) among some members that suggests that uber-fast greens are the truest test. Certainly they are a test, but they come at a cost to the recovery of the course, and they elevate the putting game to at least the level of the tee-and-approach game.
[What makes the course? Mowing width, tree removal, bunker restovation, brilliant and wicked Travis greens.]
If you have thoughts on how this critique of the golf course might have been expanded/improved, feel invited to DM/PM me with your thoughts.