[Ronald Montesano]

I've played Ballyhack and Pete Dye one time each. I don't know if Ballyhack has a hole that equals the 2nd at Pete Dye, which I consider one of the most beautiful and evocative holes I've ever played. I do know that I would flip a coin if offered the opportunity to play just one of them for the rest of my life, or even once. They are certainly in that upper echelon of fantastic property and courses.

[Chris DeNigris]

This course pictorally appears even better than Pete Dye Club regarding elevation change and options.The greenside bunkering is wonderfully balanced and masterfully shaped.Course seems Great not just good.
Am I missing its short comings?

there are just a large number of do or die shots on the course, with no possible recovery
....... hitting the 14th green is argueably the most conspicuous example, you can play the hole pretty well and still make a 7.
After the approach shot to 14, the course's scary nature of it's shot making diminishes.

Until you get to 15     and then 16 

[Tommy Williamsen]

The key to Ballyhack is to play within yourself.  The penalty for trying to do things of which you are incapable is less than death but more than menacing.  Fourteen is a prime example. I had a friend there, now a couple of weeks ago, who was terrified of the drive, even from the up tee.  I had him aim way right of the cart path and then lay up in front of the gully.  From there he hit a nine iron and made bogey.  Ballyhack makes you play within your limits.  That is why Ballyhack is not only a test of skill, it is a test of intestinal fortitude and course management.  The combination of those three elements is what makes the course so wonderful.

[Kevin Lynch]

This course pictorally appears even better than Pete Dye Club regarding elevation change and options.The greenside bunkering is wonderfully balanced and masterfully shaped.Course seems Great not just good.
Am I missing its short comings?

Tim -

I think you're right on in your assessment.

Ron said it's a coin flip in his opinion (which is pretty high praise given the stature of PDGC), but I don't think it's even close (and I really enjoyed  PDGC).  PDGC has many spectacular holes, but the lack of a good short par 3 or variety in the par 3 distances is a weakness.  The 15th is a par 5 I've seen dozens of times, and the 11th didn't do much for me.  And while PDGC has plenty of elevation change and topography, it doesn't hold a candle to the land and routing at Ballyhack (IMO).  I still have "fuzzy" memories of certain holes at PDGC, while Ballyhack was emblazoned in my memory from the first play. 

The reason that Ballyhack doesn't get the universal love has been referenced throughout the thread:
- It's possibly walkable, but really intended for carts (a hard issue for some people to get past).
- There is a punitive edge and much more possibility for lost balls, which can disrupt one's perception of the design
- If you have any semblance of a pencil & scorecard mentality, BH can get in your head in a hurry

If you ever get the chance, make the trip to Roanoke.  These pictures are very good, but you can't fully appreciate the aura of Ballyhack until you're there. 

[Jason Thurman]

Tim, it's an interesting comparison and obviously people come out on both sides. I played both on the same trip earlier this year.

Ballyhack is certainly more naturally presented. I vastly prefer the club's vibe to the heavily corporate feel at Pete Dye GC, and the golf course probably has better scenery as well. The aesthetic style is nicely realized with excellent shaping throughout.

Pete Dye GC is a far easier walk despite being a little long and, I think, more playable. While both courses are extremely tough to post a score on, Pete Dye is a bit more accommodating of misses and I think, on balance, that you'd lose fewer balls there. Pete Dye’s visual presentation is quite different from Ballyhack’s, but equally satisfying for me.

I prefer Pete Dye GC of the two by a reasonable margin, but that's no insult to Ballyhack. Pete Dye just blew me away - I thought it was clearly one of the best five modern courses I've played. Most of Ballyhack's shortcomings, for me, are directly related to its property. It gets very severe in spots, is a very difficult walk, and has a few holes that I find are just a bit handcuffed by the fact that they're routed across land that wasn't necessarily an intuitive site for golf. Ballyhack probably gets more out of its property, but it's a tough piece of land. Pete Dye GC is on what I would call a very good property for golf and I think that's the biggest difference between the two.

[Ronald Montesano]

Concerning PDGC, click here and click the proper numbers below: https://www.pacificlinks.com/Default.aspx?p=DynamicModule&pageid=358036&ssid=265830&vnf=1

Really good par five is the either the one we couldn't really play because the guy was trenching the bunker (#5) or the #8.
Exalted short par four is #6, as is #12.
Good short par three is hole #7 from Dye, Middle or Front tee. Since it plays downhill, take 10 yards off each. No need to play that hole from those other distances.

I will say that, the more I think about it, PDGC has holes we've seen before, probably because we've seen so much Pete Dye. The 4th is a throwaway, penal par three, as is the 13th a yawner. 15 doesn't do much for me, as there is no miss right (which is like having trees all the way down that side.) The three creek holes (2, 10 and 18) are marvelous, though.

There isn't a throwaway hole in my mind at BH, other than perhaps the 7th. If I could alter one thing at BH, I'd make 17 a mid-range par three with a deep (not wide) green and #7 a Merion-13th-style, wee pitch par three.

[Scott Weersing]

The 14th hole is a connector hole. It is needed to set up the 15th hole and the double green with 13.

I don't like the hole. The tee shot is awkward in that you need to need to carry the creek to have a short iron into the green.

The green is a duplicate of the ninth green with a tier. There is no way to keep the ball on the green if you go long.

I would have made it a drivable par 4 with the green at the end of the fairway. Yes, it would take a 260 yard drive to reach the green, but it would be a better hole.

I wonder how this hole scored in the VA Open. I bet they did not have any problem with it. But the rest of us do not hit elevated greens very well.

[Kevin Lynch]

Here's the 14th Aerial:



I drew in the drives from the Ballyhack and Ridge tees, taking dead aim at the cart path.  It's 250 to the base of the path from the BH tees, and 230 from the left Ridge tees, so Driver may not be the play for longer hitters.  Anything hit long through the fairway will be a terribly difficult shot, in my experience.

I also sketched in the alternate route used by Scott Weersing's team for the George Cup Shamble (left around 130 in).

I tried to draw in the false front fall line (Red) and the perimeter of the lower green tier (black).  I'll have a separate post regarding the green.

I loved this hole from the first time I saw it.  The angled drive is so much fun to visualize, and can accommodate anything from the high fade to the sweeping hook.  The carry isn't onerous at all.  Even from the tips, if you aim at the cart path, it's 185 to clear the creek and 220 to the fairway.  But, from those tees, that's really an aggressive line and you could find the fairway along a moderately conservative line at only 180 yards.  

As seems to be the theme at Ballyhack, a simple change in tees really alters the characteristics of your drive (beyond simply length).  Your line changes, and the concern of running out of fairway is a bigger concern.  You rarely say "it's the same shot as before, just leaving a longer approach."

Until I looked at Google Earth, I did not fully appreciate the elevation change on the approach.  If I'd had to guess, I would have assumed the approach at #5 was more uphill, but the 14th is actually a greater elevation change.  I love the visual from the fairway, and I can't imagine a greater sense of accomplishment than knocking one close on this green.

[Kevin Lynch]

Concerning PDGC, click here and click the proper numbers below: https://www.pacificlinks.com/Default.aspx?p=DynamicModule&pageid=358036&ssid=265830&vnf=1

Really good par five is the either the one we couldn't really play because the guy was trenching the bunker (#5) or the #8.
Exalted short par four is #6, as is #12.
Good short par three is hole #7 from Dye, Middle or Front tee. Since it plays downhill, take 10 yards off each. No need to play that hole from those other distances.

I will say that, the more I think about it, PDGC has holes we've seen before, probably because we've seen so much Pete Dye. The 4th is a throwaway, penal par three, as is the 13th a yawner. 15 doesn't do much for me, as there is no miss right (which is like having trees all the way down that side.) The three creek holes (2, 10 and 18) are marvelous, though.

There isn't a throwaway hole in my mind at BH, other than perhaps the 7th. If I could alter one thing at BH, I'd make 17 a mid-range par three with a deep (not wide) green and #7 a Merion-13th-style, wee pitch par three.

I think you just illustrated my point - that second paragraph is quite a bit of qualification and "except fors" for a course that rates as highly as PDGC does.  And it's not that I don't think it still deserves its position - I really enjoyed PDGC and appreciate the great holes you mentioned.  But that's why I think Ballyhack should at least be in the same league as PDGC, and BH's greater variety, better routing and greater sense of fun / adventure is where I feel it leaves PDGC behind (or simply puts it into even more elite company). 


As for Ballyhack's 7th, I think everyone tended to agree that it seemed different compared to the dramatic holes surrounding it, but has its subtle features that I'll admit I didn't appreciate upon my first visit.  I'm not sure why you'd make 7 the wee par three since you already have that at 17 (with the cool segmented green - which we'll get to soon).  But I hope you'll add in your thoughts when we get to that hole.

[Kevin Lynch]

Tim, it's an interesting comparison and obviously people come out on both sides. I played both on the same trip earlier this year.

Ballyhack is certainly more naturally presented. I vastly prefer the club's vibe to the heavily corporate feel at Pete Dye GC, and the golf course probably has better scenery as well. The aesthetic style is nicely realized with excellent shaping throughout.

Pete Dye GC is a far easier walk despite being a little long and, I think, more playable. While both courses are extremely tough to post a score on, Pete Dye is a bit more accommodating of misses and I think, on balance, that you'd lose fewer balls there. Pete Dye’s visual presentation is quite different from Ballyhack’s, but equally satisfying for me.

I prefer Pete Dye GC of the two by a reasonable margin, but that's no insult to Ballyhack. Pete Dye just blew me away - I thought it was clearly one of the best five modern courses I've played. Most of Ballyhack's shortcomings, for me, are directly related to its property. It gets very severe in spots, is a very difficult walk, and has a few holes that I find are just a bit handcuffed by the fact that they're routed across land that wasn't necessarily an intuitive site for golf. Ballyhack probably gets more out of its property, but it's a tough piece of land. Pete Dye GC is on what I would call a very good property for golf and I think that's the biggest difference between the two.

Jason -

You just illustrated perfectly why qualitative reviews are so much more valuable than numerical or comparative rankings.  If I know the basis for your judgment, I can assess whether that factor is as important for me as it is for you (without either of us being right or wrong).

The severity of the land is a partial drawback for you.  For me, that means adventure, fun and memorability.  Neither of us is wrong, but I get where you're coming from. 

Same for the difficult walk.  While I enjoy walking as well, I appreciate the sacrifice mandated by the severity of the land and look past it when comparing the two.  I'll also admit I didn't pay much attention to the walkability of PDGC, as it was the last round of a long trip, and was played in a cart. 

Out of curiosity, how did you find the relative conditioning of the two on the same trip?  Ballyhack has always played firm & fast, even when I've played it a day after torrential downpours.  Just given the corporate vibe you mentioned about PDGC (and it's quite a juxtaposition vs BH), I wonder if they'd be more susceptible to the "Augusta Syndrome."

[JBovay]

Catching up a little bit...

Surprised that there wasn't much discussion of the way the back portion of the 11th green falls away. Just another element that keeps one from making an easy par, especially the first time around.

Regarding the 13th, which I've only seen twice, I think my two experiences demonstrate the variety of the hole. From the 178 tees, with wind hurting a little and coming from the left, I was able to hit a 7-iron to 15 feet for a routine par. It felt significantly downhill, but at the same time I think the green being elevated so far above the creek makes it feel less dramatically downhill.

During the Shamble portion of the George Cup, playing from the 205 tees into the wind, my Dad hit a 3-wood into the bailout area short left and we played from there. I thought I thinned my pitch, but it kept rolling back down the slope and toward the hole. It seems to me the slopes long and right can serve as an excellent backstop or safety net for those erring on the side of too much club. So there you have plenty of options for a par 3.

110 yards separate the 228 tee and the 168 tee, according to my Google Earth research. That's a 30-degree difference in the angle of approach. And the double green is 85 yards wide.

By the way, Kevin, you shouldn't rely on the Google Earth elevation measures too much. I was curious how some of the elevation changes at Yale compare with Ballyhack and found out that Google thinks the seventh hole at Yale is downhill [it's not] and barely registers the mountain [40-50 feet?] in the middle of the 18th fairway there. [Kevin, not trying to single you out, I use the software regularly and didn't realize the problem until now. Hope all is well in Buffalo.]

I think the 14th is a fun hole. From the Ridge tees, my hybrid was plenty to reach the fairway on the cartpath line. Interesting story, which several of you witnessed: as Jim alludes, it's kind of a green with two false fronts. On the Saturday of the George Cup, my approach shot landed at the red dot in Tommy's photo, below. I thought it was a good shot, unable to see which level it landed on. After I'd replaced my divot and everything, a full ten seconds later, we all saw the ball rolling back down the hill, 10 yards short of the green. Mr. DeNigris dropped a ball from waist high on that spot, and it did the exact same thing. I ended up getting up and down, but still... you can never let your guard down.

[Ronald Montesano]

it's kind of a green with two false fronts. On the Saturday of the George Cup, my approach shot landed at the red dot in Tommy's photo, below. I thought it was a good shot, unable to see which level it landed on. After I'd replaced my divot and everything, a full ten seconds later, we all saw the ball rolling back down the hill, 10 yards short of the green. Mr. DeNigris dropped a ball from waist high on that spot, and it did the exact same thing. I ended up getting up and down, but still... you can never let your guard down.

Boy, that would disqualify a green as proper in my book right quick!! You get the ball to the 50 yard line and it slides past the goal post? Sheeeeee-ittttttt. Seriously, that's bogus and unless you spin it like an angry tour pro, uncalled for.

[Ronald Montesano]

Lynch: "I think you just illustrated my point - that second paragraph is quite a bit of qualification and "except fors" for a course that rates as highly as PDGC does.  And it's not that I don't think it still deserves its position - I really enjoyed PDGC and appreciate the great holes you mentioned.  But that's why I think Ballyhack should at least be in the same league as PDGC, and BH's greater variety, better routing and greater sense of fun / adventure is where I feel it leaves PDGC behind (or simply puts it into even more elite company)."

The second paragraph is an explanation, not a qualification. There isn't a single "except for" in it, so I don't understand THAT reference.

The 5th and 8th are top-shelf par fives. The 6th and 12th are top-shelf short fours. The 7th should play as a short three and it can by throwing out the over-the-mine-shaft tee decks.

If Lester had as much exposure as Pete Dye has had, we might have a different thread here. I suspect that Lester is still hungry and, in a waning market, saw Ballyhack as his chance to really crash through in a different way from Kinloch. Being able to build an ANGC-type course AND a rustic/natural course indicates he is a man of diversity.

I would also love to transpose all the Ballove to a like group of kindred souls that adore PDGC and read their break-down thread.

[Ronald Montesano]

Ballyhack is certainly more naturally presented. I vastly prefer the club's vibe to the heavily corporate feel at Pete Dye GC, and the golf course probably has better scenery as well. The aesthetic style is nicely realized with excellent shaping throughout.

Pete Dye GC is a far easier walk despite being a little long and, I think, more playable. While both courses are extremely tough to post a score on, Pete Dye is a bit more accommodating of misses and I think, on balance, that you'd lose fewer balls there. Pete Dye’s visual presentation is quite different from Ballyhack’s, but equally satisfying for me.

I prefer Pete Dye GC of the two by a reasonable margin, but that's no insult to Ballyhack. Pete Dye just blew me away - I thought it was clearly one of the best five modern courses I've played. Most of Ballyhack's shortcomings, for me, are directly related to its property. It gets very severe in spots, is a very difficult walk, and has a few holes that I find are just a bit handcuffed by the fact that they're routed across land that wasn't necessarily an intuitive site for golf. Ballyhack probably gets more out of its property, but it's a tough piece of land. Pete Dye GC is on what I would call a very good property for golf and I think that's the biggest difference between the two.

I don't understand the bit about being an intuitive site for golf. It's no Shattuck or Tradition at Wallingford or Royal Ontario, three clubs (New Hampshire, Connecticut and Ontario) whose courses are ill-placed on counter-intuitive land. I never saw an inch of Ballyhack that didn't seem intuitive for golf, and that was over the course of one point five photo tours and one round of golf.

As far as the walking assertions, the only way I read those is PDGC is flat and BH is not. If I were to play BH without a camera and walk, I'd take my push cart and be happy as a clam (as long as it didn't get away from me on the path from 6 tee to 6 fairway.)

[Tim Rooney]

Thanks fellas-----should have realized the BH misses would be more punitive;however,an amazing creation complimenting the terrain.

[Kevin Lynch]

Lynch: "I think you just illustrated my point - that second paragraph is quite a bit of qualification and "except fors" for a course that rates as highly as PDGC does.  And it's not that I don't think it still deserves its position - I really enjoyed PDGC and appreciate the great holes you mentioned.  But that's why I think Ballyhack should at least be in the same league as PDGC, and BH's greater variety, better routing and greater sense of fun / adventure is where I feel it leaves PDGC behind (or simply puts it into even more elite company)."

The second paragraph is an explanation, not a qualification. There isn't a single "except for" in it, so I don't understand THAT reference.

The 5th and 8th are top-shelf par fives. The 6th and 12th are top-shelf short fours. The 7th should play as a short three and it can by throwing out the over-the-mine-shaft tee decks.

I would also love to transpose all the Ballove to a like group of kindred souls that adore PDGC and read their break-down thread.

My "except for" was intended as air quotes or implied quotes rather than a direct quote, with respect to your statements about holes 4,13,15.  As in, "it's a great 18 holes (except for) the following holes..." 

As for the "explanation" part of the 2nd paragraph, I don't think the sameness I referenced was solely due to increased exposure to Pete Dye.  A Par 5 with water all the way down one side isn't just a Pete Dye thing (e.g. Hunters' Pointe 9/18 in our neck of the woods, many courses in Florida).  Same for the penal par 3 with water tight to the green. 


I'm not disputing the bona fides of PDGC - I think it's the best Dye I've played.  But if asked about a comparison of the two, I gave my reasoning and attributes that I believe place Ballyhack at an even higher level (part of which is simply a gut-level resonance with the property).

However, in re-reading my comments, I see that it may be interpreted as being more negative about PDGC than I actually feel about the place.  If anyone would do a hole-by-hole of PDGC, I'd love to take part.  You'd see some very strong admiration for many holes. Perhaps after this thread wraps up, it may be fun to do (Joe Bausch did a great photo tour, sans the hole-by-hole discussion.)

[Carl Rogers]

The key to Ballyhack is to play within yourself.  The penalty for trying to do things of which you are incapable is less than death but more than menacing.  Fourteen is a prime example. I had a friend there, now a couple of weeks ago, who was terrified of the drive, even from the up tee.  I had him aim way right of the cart path and then lay up in front of the gully.  From there he hit a nine iron and made bogey.  Ballyhack makes you play within your limits.  That is why Ballyhack is not only a test of skill, it is a test of intestinal fortitude and course management.  The combination of those three elements is what makes the course so wonderful.

Tommy,  This is the essence of much of what I have said through out this thread and some other related BH threads.  My exception is that on a number of holes, which I have pointed out, the golfer must take on the hole directly in order to finish the hole and that in doing so within their abilities and without great embarrassment is a big problem.

[Ronald Montesano]

When a golfer leaves the practice grounds for the golf course, there is a learning curve and humility is mandatory. When the golfer leaves the golf course for a better course, same. When the golfer leaves the better course for a world-class course, same.

If a guy loses his cool when attempting shots of which he is incapable, all that's left is the entertainment of watching him blow his stack. When he settles down, give him a hug and inform him that we've all been there and we don't wish to drag his still corpse for the remaining holes.

I have a 95 mph driver swing. What that means is, I hit the ball 235 to 240 in the air and take whatever run-out I can get. On #14, there isn't a tee deck I cannot manage; it comes down to aim point. After I find the safe space (rough or fairway) I should have no more than 75 yards to carry the gunga and reach the green area. If I have a tight lie, I putt. If I have something beneath, I might chip.

A big part of the argument that is presented with " the golfer must take on the hole directly in order to finish the hole and that in doing so within their abilities and without great embarrassment is a big problem" is that the golfer has little mental flexibility and spiritual resilience.

When I plan a shot (before I step over the stupid line), I calculate its worth. At times, I'll attempt to pull off the impossible shot, for the same reason that people play the lottery. Those times are usually when score doesn't matter or score must be saved by said miracle. It's the same reason I aimed for the short porch on #15 (is the short porch still there?) at Ballyhack; it was something worth trying.

How many times do you see a golfer warm up with three metals off the tee? If he pures the drive on the range, then loses it on the first two driving holes, will he back off to his three-metal until he regains confidence? Probably not, since he hasn't practiced it.

I understand that few people think the way I do, but no one is forcing those who don't to not practice, to not develop a plan, to not know their strengths and weaknesses.

I have a litmus test for golf courses: Kevin Lynch. This oversized irishman and his oversized smile are only outsized by his candor. You'll get no political jargon from him; he tells it as it is (or at least as he sees/feels it.) Lynch has played in all four Saul Shootouts, during his busy professional season. He makes time to play this event on this golf course each fall. Every playing brings renewed enthusiasm for the course AND a series of gripes about what might make the course unfair to the average/sensitive golfer (usually about high rough.)

If for one second Kevin thought his time would be better spent 10 hours closer to home, he'd spend it there. I've yet to find an argument he makes about Ballyhack that I can refute.

[Tommy Williamsen]

#15 par five--575,544,508,467

Number fifteen, like many of the holes at Ballyhack, gives the player a number of options off the tee.  It has two fairways and three different routes to play the hole.  There is a “short porch” that players can reach with an iron or hybrid.  There is fairway that winds around a deep ravine that can be played to the left or directly over for the big hitter.  The green is reachable in two for most players, depending on the route taken.  The entire hole is visible from the tee of this downhill hole.  Depending on the day and my mood I will change the manner in which I play the hole.

Sometimes I will just stand on the tee and drink in the splendor of this hole.  It is dramatic and stunningly scenic.  It is one of the highest points on the back nine. From this view the three different routes are visible, although the “front porch” is blind from the back tee for short people.  As you see, 15 shares the green with 13.



Look to the right and this pastoral scene unfolds.


Choose the route to the left or over the ravine this is the task at hand.  Depending on the tee the carry over the left bunker is somewhere between 260 & 280.  From there you get a good view of the green.


If, instead, you choose to go right this is the landing area.


From either place it is possible to lay up on the left fairway.  Recently, I have done this more frequently.  You get a good view of the green from this vantage point.






Most of the time guys will hit the tee ball to the “short porch.” It gives you the best chance to get home in two.


There are two dilemmas, however, going this route.  If the ball does not travel far enough the tree on the right impedes the second shot.  Additionally, the fairway rarely gives you a flat lie.  Consequently, the ball is often above your feet or you have a downhill lie with a three wood.  Hit it in the correct spot and the second shot is an easy carry over the waste area.  If, however, you land short of the green the third shot is blind.





The greens complex is large and varied.  When the pin is back, as in this picture, you have to guard against going left, which will end up on the 13th green.


Looking back.


By Ballyhack standards, most of the fifteenth green is relatively flat.


The fourteenth fairway is to the left of the tree.




The first time you play this hole you can’t see all the options.  Often I will take the first time player back to the tee after finishing the hole and give him a second go at it.  It is simply the most fun hole on the course.

[Jason Thurman]

Kevin, you’re dead on about the qualitative assessments. My degrees are in English, and literary criticism is a big part of my academic background. I’m often disappointed when our golf course criticism fails to do much more than call a course “good” or “bad” or “better than” or “worse than.” Critics in pop culture make a living having binary reactions to the things they judge, but the criticism that I find more meaningful is that which centers on drawing meaningful and objective conclusions from the object of discussion, and minimizing the importance of the “good or bad” side of the discussion.

I’ve mentioned lately that I’m tired of pretending like there’s an absolute truth in golf course architecture, or a truer and higher “good” that can be attained by one course compared to another. Yours and my different reactions to Ballyhack are a perfect example. I can appreciate that it’s thrilling to tackle some of the severe terrain and elevation changes, and your explanation of your own attraction to the course helps me better grasp what others see in it. While I really like the course, it obviously doesn’t hold the place in my heart that it does for you. I see a few warts on it, and there are a handful of places where the severity of the land forces holes that I just find to be a bit awkward. We both agree completely on the land and on many of the playing characteristics, and I think we even agree largely on how much the course gets out of its routing and how good a design work it is. I think it’s the best course that could have been built on the property, and I can fully see how that very property might be both its best asset and also its biggest curse, depending on who’s playing it and having their own personal reaction to the course.

Is Ballyhack truly polarizing? Are there people who hate it? I see it more as a like vs. love course. Most who play it seem to really like it, but a fairly large percentage also develop a real fever for it.




Ron, as for the “intuitive” property, I’ve driven through a lot of the country. I see land regularly and think “Wow, that looks like land for a golf course.” I’ve never gotten that feeling driving along the Blue Ridge Parkway. Maybe I’m just too excited about cycling when I’m out there, but I don’t think a rocky, wooded, mountainous property with several severe ravines is an intuitive place to build a golf course. In fact, a huge part of Ballyhack’s appeal is that it’s a great course on the type of property that rarely produces great golf. There aren’t many courses anywhere on properties like the one at Ballyhack, because those properties don’t lend themselves easily to golf. There are even fewer GOOD courses on properties like that.

As for walkability, I’m a pretty fit guy. I (site-unseen) walked Lester George's Kincaid Lake in Kentucky last summer and ran 8.5 miles when I got home. Lester can attest that pulling off an afternoon like that is plenty of proof that I COULD walk Ballyhack. I just don't see the point - I wouldn't enjoy it. It's a course designed with carts in mind.

Pete Dye Golf Club, like most Dye courses, has short green-to-tee transitions for walkers that are longer for riders as he offers shortcuts for players on foot. The bridges are all conveniently located for walkers taking a direct line, and he includes a few flourishes that make the walk enjoyable like the trip through the mine shaft between 6 and 7. I think it’s pretty clear that Pete Dye GC is a far more reasonable walk than Ballyhack for the multitude of golfers. In fact, I think Lester has been fairly open about the fact that they chose to sacrifice walkability at Ballyhack in the name of building the best course the property would produce.

[Kevin Lynch]

I think it’s the best course that could have been built on the property, and I can fully see how that very property might be both its best asset and also its biggest curse, depending on who’s playing it and having their own personal reaction to the course.

Is Ballyhack truly polarizing? Are there people who hate it? I see it more as a like vs. love course. Most who play it seem to really like it, but a fairly large percentage also develop a real fever for it.

Jason - great thoughts overall, and this particular summary was excellent. 

[Kevin Lynch]

Sorry - hit wrong button.

[Kevin Lynch]

Interesting story, which several of you witnessed: as Jim alludes, it's kind of a green with two false fronts. On the Saturday of the George Cup, my approach shot landed at the red dot in Tommy's photo, below. I thought it was a good shot, unable to see which level it landed on. After I'd replaced my divot and everything, a full ten seconds later, we all saw the ball rolling back down the hill, 10 yards short of the green. Mr. DeNigris dropped a ball from waist high on that spot, and it did the exact same thing. I ended up getting up and down, but still... you can never let your guard down.

JB -

The 14th green is one that I strongly believe needs to be modified.  Whether the ground shifted or the greens are maintained faster than expected, I think this one was built to flirt with the line, but has crossed it (in my opinion).

Your shot (and one hit by Scott Weersing) during the last George Cup demonstrated it for me.  

BTW - did you see a ball mark to verify that's where your ball hit?  I was watching from the tee and had a bit of a side angle view of the green.  I thought your shot actually landed short of the pin and ran part way up the slope.  I even made the comment that it looked like the perfect shot to me, only to see you then hit from short of the green.  

Scott's approach (I believe) landed on the lower tier next to the pin, but still released to the upper tier and rolled a foot off the back of the green.  I scoured the green for a counterslope he could use or an alternate path (like I've seen on #5 or #9), but there simply was no way he was keeping the ball from falling off the false front.  It really didn't matter if he was on the green or a foot over, there wasn't a way to stop it.

There is a way to keep a putt from the upper tier in the lower bowl, but that's only if you come from the high left side and use the slight counterslope in the front right corner of the green (yellow lines on below picture).  However, if you try to putt down from the upper portion anywhere on the right half of the green, that front right counterslope isn't effective enough to keep you from getting trapped by the false front (red line).

Also, I noticed that shots from front left (whether a 3rd shot chip or an bank shot approach attempt) can easily wrap around the lower bowl and be fed to the false front (blue line).

The green is a duplicate of the ninth green with a tier. There is no way to keep the ball on the green if you go long.

Scott -

I don't think it's the same as #9, because #9 does allow you to use the area to the left center of the green to keep a ball on the lower tier (from almost anywhere on the upper tier).  Also, the lower tier on #9 is a much bigger target for your initial approach than #14.  As you and JB demonstrated, even well struck shots have trouble staying in that area.

If the result of an on-line shot that's only a few yards past the hole is a virtually guaranteed putt off the green, I think something needs to be questioned.  I think this is especially true when the required shot is so uphill.  

I know Carl felt this was the same situation on #5 and #9, but as I discussed earlier, i don't believe that's the case.  #5's slope isn't as severe and you can putt from upper to lower.  #9 allows this as well (albeit very unconventionally).

I wonder how this hole scored in the VA Open. I bet they did not have any problem with it. But the rest of us do not hit elevated greens very well.

I didn't perform the Mallard-esque beta analysis, but the results are the opposite of your initial impression.  

#14 ended up being the 2nd toughest hole for the week (4.553 average) with only #4 ranking higher (4.564).  It yielded the least number of birdies (17), but didn't have its score inflated by a number of "others" (triple or higher).  What this tells me is that there weren't a ton of penalty strokes accumulated on this hole (only 8 others on #14 vs 16 others on #4).  However, the 14th had the highest number of double bogeys than any other on the course (36).  What this suggests to me is that you had a lot of very good golfers either missing the green with their 3rd shots (likely short chips or pitches), or putting off.  

When you compare the 4th to the 14th, the drive on #14 is much easier to envision and execute (and may often require less than Driver).  Plus, #4 was playing at least 40 yards longer (447).  in fact, the course stats show #14 as 408/361, which tells me they used a shorter set at some point.

Given the disparity of difficulty in terms of length and tee shot demands, how did #14 only play 1/100th of a stroke easier than #4?  The answer has to lie in the difficulty of the green relative to the approach demands, especially when there weren't a rash of triple bogey + numbers.  When the green causes that much disparity, I think you have to assess the green design.

If it were up to me, I would consider the following:

- Reduce the effective size of the false front or build up more counterslope across the entire front of the green.  You could also increase the size of the front right portion of the green so players could use it more creatively (from more angles).

- Increase the target size of the lower right bowl (perhaps by moving the crest deeper into the green).  

- Soften the slope of the tiers, so that a ball could be stopped from the upper right portion of the green

[Carl Rogers]

Hole 14
Kevin,In past years, during Sunday rounds, I have hit great shots to the back pin.  the ball kept going and was in 4" rough.  The chip shot rolled past the hole at 1 mile/per hour and could not hold the upper tier.  We all know what happens after that.
I agree this green is too too over the top.
Hole 15
For me, the front porch and the a hybrid second followed by the half wedge is too simple and straightforward way to play the hole.  I think Scott has tried to play long and left, but my fuzzy memory, informs me that had no real advantage.  The hole might qualify as quirky, but highly attractive and playable.

[Ronald Montesano]

#PunchBowl

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()