Pinehurst #10 v Sedge Valley

[Tom_Doak]

The other half of my post to get people discussing the architecture of the Best New courses, instead of arguing about their rankings.


Since I worked on both of these, I don't need to say too much, and will just solicit others' opinions.


I will say that I'm not surprised the GOLF DIGEST system favored Pinehurst #10 [7000 yards par 70] over Sedge Valley [6100 yards par 68].  GOLF DIGEST has supposedly eliminated such categories as "Resistance to Scoring," but they still have a lot of the same panelists who have been rating things the same way for decades, and old habits die hard.  Plus, in America, most people think more = better.


If I had a rooting interest, it would have been the other way around, because I've been dying to see how a really good par-68 course would be accepted in America since I started in this business.  It's like comparing your younger sister with her big brother . . . I guess it was a bad year to build a 7000 yard course in the same category 


The funny thing is that while our clients in Pinehurst left us to do our thing during the construction of the course, their reaction once it was finished was that it was harder than they expected . . . I think they expected "shorter and fun" out of me, and they certainly didn't ever talk about wanting to host tournaments there, although now their USGA friends are thinking about it.  In truth, it just wasn't that kind of property.  It's a big piece of ground with some real elevation to it, and the routing stretches out considerably to get up the hill at 9 and back down to 10 green and all the way back around from there, so it was either going to be long, or have long walks from green to tee.  I've left the door open for the designers of #11 to go the "shorter and fun" route and make me look dumb, but that's the piece of property for that approach.


For Sedge Valley, the real comparison in my mind is not Pinehurst but High Pointe, which feels very similar in its surroundings, but is very different in terms of green sites and recovery play.  Sedge Valley is tighter off the tee [like The Tree Farm] and has more bunkers in play around the green; High Pointe is wider open but has much bolder green contours, some of them a leftover from my original design.


Both Sedge Valley and Pinehurst #10 are examples of trying to narrow things back up off the tee for the long and wild hitters . . . at Sedge we left more existing plant materials, where at Pinehurst we had to go back with centipede and Bahia sod.  I'm really pleased with how they played and also with how mature they looked after year 1.

[Ben Sims]

I’m guessing there’s more here that have played both TF and OB than there is SV and PH10. 


Tom there’s a question I’ve wanted ask about Sedge Valley for awhile now. One of the complaints I hear about Old Macdonald has almost always involved how much putting you do there. On a 18 hole par 68, players have essentially lost four full strokes from the average course. But you’re still putting 18 greens. Did you think about the higher percentage of a players’ strokes being putts at SV as a negative? I always thought that complaint about OM was weird.

[Tom_Doak]

I’m guessing there’s more here that have played both TF and OB than there is SV and PH10. 

Tom there’s a question I’ve wanted ask about Sedge Valley for awhile now. One of the complaints I hear about Old Macdonald has almost always involved how much putting you do there. On a 18 hole par 68, players have essentially lost four full strokes from the average course. But you’re still putting 18 greens. Did you think about the higher percentage of a players’ strokes being putts at SV as a negative? I always thought that complaint about OM was weird.

Ben:


I didn't think about that directly, but now that you've asked, it doesn't make much difference to me.  But I'm also not sure that it's true.


At Old Mac, a lot of the complaints were about 3-putting and 4-putting, because you missed the hole by 100 feet but you're still on the green, and two-putting is hard from that distance.  That is certainly not the case at Sedge Valley . . . everything is much more scaled down.  And there is more variety of recovery shots there, because there are more bunkers around the greens [and even if you're not in them you might have to pitch over them or play around them].


I do expect good players to complain about the lack of par-5 holes, because par-5s are birdie holes for really good players.  We try to make up for that at Sedge with the three drivable par-4 holes, but that's not the same as hitting a 5-iron second shot into a par-5.

[Kyle Harris]

Haven’t seen #10 yet but absolutely nothing about Sedge Valley *feels* anything other than “full” or whatever.


I think a blind test would show most golfers think it’s a Par 70 or 71 if you asked them as they walked off 18.

[Paul Jones]

I haven't played Pinehurst 10 yet, but Sedge Valley was my favorite course at Sand Valley. After a few days onsite, this was my 3rd visit to Sand Valley, I waited to get home to figure out how I would place the courses as my personal favorites. 


I cannot compare Pinehurst 10 to Sedge Valley, but did put Sedge Valley ahead of Lido.

[Alex_Hunter]

I've not seen either, but making a trip to Sand Valley in early May - particularly excited to see Sedge Valley. Lido is closed until after I am gone, but I thought Sedge Valley was intriguing enough to still go.


I loved Cape Arundel and Kilspindie last year and I really like the concept of these shorter less than par 70 courses.
I felt that while I could try to over power the golf courses it made a lot more sense and fun to play more strategically. Hoping Sedge will be similar

[Dan_Callahan]

I do expect good players to complain about the lack of par-5 holes, because par-5s are birdie holes for really good players.  We try to make up for that at Sedge with the three drivable par-4 holes, but that's not the same as hitting a 5-iron second shot into a par-5.

Tom, on your Tree Farm/Old Barnwell thread, you observe about Old Barnwell: "There are three "drivable" [for somebody] par-4 holes, starting with the 2nd, and for my tastes that's at least one too many."

Curious about whether you think you have one too many drivable par 4s at Sedge?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, on your Tree Farm/Old Barnwell thread, you observe about Old Barnwell: "There are three "drivable" [for somebody] par-4 holes, starting with the 2nd, and for my tastes that's at least one too many."

Curious about whether you think you have one too many drivable par 4s at Sedge?

I knew when I typed here about Sedge [after I typed about Old Barnwell] that someone would call me on it!


Honestly, I don't like having three drivable par-4's, and I wish #6 was 330 yards instead, but there really wasn't room there to go back further.  #12 and #18 are better off as they are, because if you were landing 50 yards shorter you'd be way below those greens.


But the drivable par-4's at Sedge make up for the fact that there is only the one par-5, and that we've got 13 par-4 holes to differentiate.  Interestingly, Old Barnwell has 11 par-4s of its own, because they only had three par-3 holes, and maybe they decided to have another drivable par-4 for that reason.

[Charlie Goerges]

Tom, on your Tree Farm/Old Barnwell thread, you observe about Old Barnwell: "There are three "drivable" [for somebody] par-4 holes, starting with the 2nd, and for my tastes that's at least one too many."

Curious about whether you think you have one too many drivable par 4s at Sedge?

I knew when I typed here about Sedge [after I typed about Old Barnwell] that someone would call me on it!


Honestly, I don't like having three drivable par-4's, and I wish #6 was 330 yards instead, but there really wasn't room there to go back further.  #12 and #18 are better off as they are, because if you were landing 50 yards shorter you'd be way below those greens.


But the drivable par-4's at Sedge make up for the fact that there is only the one par-5, and that we've got 13 par-4 holes to differentiate.  Interestingly, Old Barnwell has 11 par-4s of its own, because they only had three par-3 holes, and maybe they decided to have another drivable par-4 for that reason.

I don't think three is too many. I look forward to hopefully playing there this year, I'll bet it will be just what I'm looking for. A lot of the very average courses that I play seem to artificially stretch things to meet some arbitrary number and the holes are worse for it. I still have a good time of course, but they could be better.

[Dan_Callahan]

Honestly, I don't like having three drivable par-4's, and I wish #6 was 330 yards instead, but there really wasn't room there to go back further.  #12 and #18 are better off as they are, because if you were landing 50 yards shorter you'd be way below those greens.

If I played a course with three drivable par 4s, I don't think it would occur to me that three was too many, especially if they were spaced out through the round and there were other longer holes to provide balance. Especially now that I don't hit the ball as far as I once did, a 300-yard hole isn't really drivable for me. Instead, it presents a choice to make on the tee: do I hit driver and get something down by the green and test my 20-30 yard short game, or do I lay back and have a full wedge in. Those are the choices I enjoy ... certainly better than a course with a ton of 450 yard par 4s where no matter how the hole is designed, I'm pulling driver without even thinking about it (unless there is a forced layup, obviously).

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think three is too many. I look forward to hopefully playing there this year, I'll bet it will be just what I'm looking for. A lot of the very average courses that I play seem to artificially stretch things to meet some arbitrary number and the holes are worse for it. I still have a good time of course, but they could be better.

I just like to have more variety than that.  Ideally if you're going to have four short par-4's, they would be at 270-300-330-360 or something like that, so that the guy who drives it 300 isn't given three holes right in his wheelhouse. 


But at Sedge the 18th was pegged at 300 yards, the 6th couldn't go back further so it's also 300, and I took the 12th down to 275 because we couldn't go back to 330.

[Tom_Doak]

I’m pretty shocked that so far NO ONE has volunteered having played both of these courses, calling into question the whole idea of the Best New competition.


(Also calling out DG participants like John Mayhugh, Michael Wolf, Peter Flory, Jonathan Cummings, Blake Conant, and Angela Moser, (and others!) who have definitely had the opportunity to play both in the last two Renaissance Cups, albeit that Sedge Valley wasn’t quite ready for assessment in October 2023.)

[Joe Wandro]

I rate Sedge higher than PH10.


To me there are more interesting landing zones and greensites at Sedge. (More diversity at Sedge too)

[Tom_Doak]

To me there are more interesting landing zones and greensites at Sedge. (More diversity at Sedge too)

Diversity how?

[Joe Wandro]

The diversity of landforms at Sedge is notable, and the golf mirrors it. You have big broad stuff, 2-4, 16-17. Abrupt land: 5-8, 15. Subtle or flat: 9-13.


Apart from 8 at PH its quiet ground on the front, then the big rolling forests from hole 9 on.

[Tom_Doak]

The diversity of landforms at Sedge is notable, and the golf mirrors it. You have big broad stuff, 2-4, 16-17. Abrupt land: 5-8, 15. Subtle or flat: 9-13.

Apart from 8 at PH its quiet ground on the front, then the big rolling forests from hole 9 on.

Agreed but some of that is clubhouse positioning.  At Pinehurst I had to put the clubhouse in between #10 and #11, and all of the rolling land was at the far end, so you traverse gentle land going out to it, hit all the big rolls at once, and then sneak back in on 18.  At Sedge Valley you play across those different sections and then back across them, so the music goes up and down more.

[Steve Abt]

I played 36 at #10 today, and if Sedge really compares favorably to it, I have to get back to Wisconsin. Seemed to me like a tremendous mix of holes, with none of the sameness I feel at many newer courses, even ones I think highly of.


I had high expectations a few years ago and was disappointed by #4. I think that irrationally caused me to temper my expectations about #10, but they were still high and still exceeded. So I hope to be able to compare it to Sedge soon.

[Tim Martin]

I played 36 at #10 today, and if Sedge really compares favorably to it, I have to get back to Wisconsin. Seemed to me like a tremendous mix of holes, with none of the sameness I feel at many newer courses, even ones I think highly of.


I had high expectations a few years ago and was disappointed by #4. I think that irrationally caused me to temper my expectations about #10, but they were still high and still exceeded. So I hope to be able to compare it to Sedge soon.

Steve-I thought the walk was terrific. How did you fare by the end of 36 holes? I would think you hoofed between eleven and thirteen miles all in.