Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Jonathan Cummings on December 28, 2008, 07:48:46 AM
-
I played CGL yesterday on a cool misty day. My expectations were somewhat in check based on a fair amount of luke-warm responses from gca posters and others.
I was very pleasantly surprised.
I found a gem of a course both very playable (69.5/116 from the whites) and quite fun. CGL reminded me a lot of Doak's Heathlands course in Myrtle. Generous fairways, unpredictable bunkering - much of it in a Dye-like pot bunker style and inspired green complexes, with elevated greens and broad closely mowed surrounds promoting ground-game missed-green recoveries.
The are half a dozen excellent holes at CGL with the par threes leading the charge. With (likely) a very low maintenance budget the course was in surprisingly good shape with the bent greens running fast and the dormant Bermuda quite adequate.
Take-aways: too generous off the tee; tremendous motion in the land; varied and exciting approaches; stern bunkering; easy walking; lots of fun.
The four of us played on a Saturday, carrying our bags, in under 4 hours. I'm sure summertime paces would be slower but even then 5 hour rounds are likely rarer than hen's teeth.
The likes of a Matt Ward would probably be unchallenged by CGL but the vast majority would find it a good little test.
TD - bring your bombshells on but I would play CGL before Heathlands, High Point, Riverfront and even (soon-to-be NLT) Beechtree.
JC
-
JC: Just so you know, "too generous off the tee" + short = under 4 hours.
You just need to go back to Heathlands, High Pointe and Riverfront.
P.S. Did you think that one par-4 through the trees was weird? The clients had asked us to build something like Heathlands, so we had planned to cut down that section of woods ... but then in the middle of clearing they suddenly told us they wanted to leave those trees, so there is one "woods" hole in the middle of the round.
-
My recollection of CGL, admittedly spotty at best, is that its a pretty average course all things considered. Jonathan, most of your specific comments ring a bell in that its a course with above average playability and below-average challenge. The greens and the par threes had some interest, but the rest of the course was somewhat devoid of interesting hazards. Perhaps I've just forgotten them. The land itself wasn't particularly interesting, but the design made sense for the price range and the property itself. I wouldn't guess the intent from the client was to have a spectacular golf course, just a solid playable design. I can think of worse things.
I enjoyed the round there though and shot a good score. The short 18th (490 par five?) was playing downwind and I hit wedge into the green and my Dad had 8-iron. He made his eagle putt and I missed.
-
Andy:
The 18th was supposed to be a par 4, but they begged us to make it a 5 so that par wouldn't be 70.
Maybe it was the right call ... turned out you remember it more than any other hole because your dad had a chance to make eagle. If it was a par 4 I doubt you'd remember that story.
-
Andy:
The 18th was supposed to be a par 4, but they begged us to make it a 5 so that par wouldn't be 70.
Maybe it was the right call ... turned out you remember it more than any other hole because your dad had a chance to make eagle. If it was a par 4 I doubt you'd remember that story.
Tom,
That makes sense regarding the 18th. Without a tailwind I would imagine it wouldn't have been quite so much of a pushover that day, but I'm sure the people that play it enjoy the chance to make a birdie to finish the day.
Ironically I also played Rock Hill CC, credited to Tillinghast, on that trip. Until I played Lost Dunes about ten years later it was the only one of your courses I had seen and Rock Hill CC is still the only Tillinghast design that I've seen. Points to needing to see many courses from an architect's work before being able to come to any reasonable conclusion about their tendencies and their overall portfolio of courses. There are many other factors at work.
RHCC isn't half bad either for what that's worth--but I do recall it coming up on a thread about Tillinghast's weakest courses. Obviously I'm not much help there.
-
We played CGL on the last day of a Pinehurst trip, and while I really did enjoy the course, I left thinking Tom was really mad when he built it....I think every par 3 from the back tees is 200 plus and some of them are just down right nasty......(the fact I had no business playing from the back tees is not part of this discussion, thank you very much)
It was a very good value, I think we paid 30 to walk, and the greens were a lot of fun, but the grass was dormant and it was very wet for some reason (we didnt get any rain in Pinehurst) ....would like to go back and play it when it was firm and fast, i think it would be a lot more fun.
-
Mark:
One of the par-3's (#11) was based on the Postage Stamp so I hope they have not put in a tee at 200+ yards!
You would have to have a long dry summer to see that course firm and fast ... it's built on heavy clay and it holds the rain well.
-
Jonathan
I recently returned to Charlotte to take a quick tour of the course this past November. I had forgot how varied the greens were.
Mark
The back tee for the postage stamp measures in at at 135. The green complex is flipped over making the high ridge play on the right side instead of the left.
Working on Old Macdonald this past year and then peeking at the size of the greens in Charlotte was a real eye opener for me.
-
I like the short 11th, if you miss the green par isn't easy. Overall I think the par 3s are the strength of the course - varied length, #9 uphill semi-blind landing area, #16 (?) difficult green to hit / hold.
Tom -- the woods hole (#12?) never bothered me, in fact it breaks things up a little.
There remains numerous rumors surrounding CGL future - the current one is that the land is on a 20-year lease, and when it expires in a few more years someone (the City?) will take it back and turn it into houses. That rumor has been around for a few years and given the current economy I doubt the area needs new houses anytime soon.
-
Matt:
The land for Charlotte Golf Links was indeed leased, for 25 years. I think it is owned by an individual. Anyway, if they don't negotiate to extend the lease, I suspect it will be turned to housing after that. My son was a baby when we started that job and he'll turn 18 in March, so the lease has 5-7 more years to run.
It's been a long time but I am pretty sure the woods hole is #13 ... 11 is the Postage Stamp, and 12 the long par five.
-
I guess it must have been just my sorry game that made everything seem like 200 yards.....I would like to go back and play it again, it was the last day of the trip and sort of a hit and run before catching our flight out, but I did enjoy it. Having only played some of your higher end courses (PD, Lost Dunes, Stone Eagle), it was very interesting to see one of your (i am assuming because I dont know the timelines) earlier works on a somewhat lesser piece of property.
-
Tom - the place was sold to a management company some time back. Have no idea the particulars but I do get the feeling the place exists on a small budget.
You remember right about the holes. Ten is a good dogleg four to an absolutely superb terraced greensite. 11 is the short 3, 12 the long 5 and 12 the "trees" hole. Also on the inward half are 16 and 17, a pair of tremendous golf holes.
I think you need to see the place again.
Jimmy - was it just you and Tom doing CGL? I agree with Matt that the par 3s stand out, but damn near all the approaches were wonderful - into highly interesting and varied targets.
As a founding DRS member and member of a DR course I'm sometimes accused of being bias. I liked CGL better then nearby Charlotte GC (restored Ross).
JC
-
I've played Tom's CGL probably two dozen times and only the newly restored Carolina CG (CGC) and Charlotte CC (CCC) once apiece. (Jonathan - not sure which of these you're talking about). The former is near the airport, the latter is...not.
CGL has the least interesting piece of land of the three, with precious little elevation change to work with. As I understand it for previous threads, Tom's group was given six months to construct the course and get out of dodge so the owners could start charging green fees. The course is now owned by a course mgt company that owns 5-6 local daily fee courses.
The new greens at CCC are as undulating as it gets (at least here in NC) - just being on the putting surface does not guaranty a two-putt, in fact there are several holes where it's better to miss green in the right place than just be somewhere on.
The newly restored CGC is a blast, also with substantial elevation change and exciting greens. Overall I would have to say that both of the newly restored private's greens add an additional interest level that CLT Golf Link's just doesn't have, most likely because Tom et al weren't given the time (budget?) to build them.
-
Matt:
We just weren't trying to build greens as difficult as Charlotte Country Club ... we had somewhat restrictive clients, and were aiming for a playable, low-cost course.
Jonathan:
Yes, it was just me and Jim building Charlotte Golf Links ... it was under construction at the same time as Stonewall, so Gil and I were living in PA and I was making occasional trips to visit Jim in NC. We tried to get the clients to hire an extra guy to assist with shaping, but by the time they called us back to take up the suggestion, about 50% of the course was already grassed!
Interesting to hear the holes you mentioned ... after the 17th, I would have picked the short par-4 15th as the other standout hole.
-
I liked CGL better then nearby Charlotte GC (restored Ross).
Jonathan, that is a bold statement. Were you that taken by Charlotte Golf Links or just underwhelmed by CCC?
For me, the most interesting thing about CGL is that it doesn't even register on the Charlotte golf scene. Forget the privates, CGL never enters the discussion when locals are considering public options. Rightly or wrongly, it is way down the list of preferred public courses in the area. I don't doubt that CGL's lack of local stature is more the result of external factors than a reflection on its architectural merits. Regardless, at least in terms of local perception, the design hasn't been able to overcome those external shortcomings.
Ed
-
Matt - right you are - CCC not CGC. The new CCC's (I played the old greens also) are so undulating that it's more survival test. I simply found CGL's green complexes more fun to play with better variety.
Ed - why CGL is so under the radar is simply unexplainable. Maybe it was just me but I would bet if I were to gather up a clan of GCA-ers from this site and had them play CGL without any pre-knowledge of the course the overwhelming response would be "geez, this is one of the more architecturally interesting and fun places I have played."
Tom - I will see Heathlands, Riverfront and High Point again. Unfortunately, there are 100s of additional courses I need to see a second and third time....
JC
-
Jonathan:
Your response to Ed just illustrates the enormous difference between "a clan of GCAers" and the average public golf customer in Charlotte, North Carolina.
-
I liked CGL better then nearby Charlotte GC (restored Ross).
...at least in terms of local perception, the design hasn't been able to overcome those external shortcomings.
Ed - What are the external shortcomings to which you refer... the location, neighborhood, bad reputation? I've never visited CGL so I don't have any idea this means. Thanks!
-
Jonathan:
I'm biased but surprising to hear you say that CGL's greens are more fun and have more variety than CCC's newly redone greens. I agree that 2-putts can be tough at CCC, but they are in my view a really fun and varied set of greens without a "theme" (e.g. front to back slope, all big or small, etc) in terms of green design. I would think that most GCA folks would get a charge out of putting and pitching onto them.
Glad you brought up CGL though. I do like it as well. Unfortunately its a hard place to even notice anymore as it has a strip mall infront of it basically...
-
John - Are you a member at CCC? If so, you have a fine club. Tough course and fabulous old clubhouse.
My brother lives 10 minutes for CGL. Let's hook up next time I'm down and play there. While I'd like most to play CGL with Jimmy and/or Tom, playing it with a group of gca-ers would be great too. I'd love to get a little "calibration" and hear what others think of the place.
JC
-
Maybe it was just me but I would bet if I were to gather up a clan of GCA-ers from this site and had them play CGL without any pre-knowledge of the course the overwhelming response would be "geez, this is one of the more architecturally interesting and fun places I have played."
JC
JC,
No pre-knowledge I assume means not knowing the architect correct? I have a hard time believing even this group would find CGL much better than average. I'm not trying to knock the design team, as I said before I think given what they had to work with and the goals for the project I think they did a fine job, but the course itself is average at best.
I remember thinking #17 was the most unique hole on the course.
-
It's my understanding that the frequent public golfer chooses not to play CLT Golf Links for one primary reason - the five hour rounds. The course has a reputation of slow play stemming from what I believe two things: 1) there is ALWAYS a back-up on the 2nd tee as groups negotiate the 90-degree dogleg; and, 2) given the wide open nature it's difficult to lose balls and thus perfect for beginners.
I like the course more for certain individual holes rather than the whole, I'm thinking of the stretchs between 4-11 and 15-17...that's quite a lot of them come to think of it!
I've often wondered if they flipped the front and back whether they could eliminate that 2nd hole back-up....
-
Matt:
They would never flip the nines there because the 9th hole is a par-3. And even if they did, the 11th hole (Postage Stamp) would cause some back-ups as #2.
I don't even remember the second hole very well, but from what I remember of it, I'm really surprised that it is severe enough to cause back-ups.
-
Tom - good thoughts on both counts, your probably right.
#2 is a sharp dog-leg left with a inside carry bunker, cartpath and woods. Trying to carry it causes problems. There is plenty of room wide right but leaves 200 yards in, and the green is pretty small for that distance and normal clientele.
#1 you recall is fairly straightforward -- straight, short-ish par 4 with the only protection on the slightly elevated/turtle-back green. Maybe folks are playing #1 too quickly?
The back-ups typically last until the 2nd shot on the #4, when enough people lose balls right in the creek, to space things back out. As you can see I've THOUGHOULY explored the course.... >:( :'( 8)
-
I liked CGL better then nearby Charlotte GC (restored Ross).
...at least in terms of local perception, the design hasn't been able to overcome those external shortcomings.
Ed - What are the external shortcomings to which you refer... the location, neighborhood, bad reputation? I've never visited CGL so I don't have any idea this means. Thanks!
Michael, I was thinking mostly of a reputation for poor playing conditions and long rounds which detract from the quality of the experience. My impression is that these factors carry far more weight than architectural merit when folks are considering the local public golf options.
Andy, I agree with your comments. Would Charlotte Golf Links have ever been mentioned on this site if it didn't have Tom Doak's name attached to it?
Ed
-
#2 is a sharp dog-leg left with a inside carry bunker, cartpath and woods. Trying to carry it causes problems. There is plenty of room wide right but leaves 200 yards in, and the green is pretty small for that distance and normal clientele.
It's actually a pair of pot bunkers at the left corner. Not many folks can carry the bunkers and only the better players would even try. The play off the tee is to hit straight leaving you (as you say) a couple of hundred yards in. The green surrounds are quite generous left and right but protected in front by another pair of stern pot bunkers.
Our group waited for 30 seconds for the group in front of us to putt out on 1. We never saw them on 2 at all. Don't understand why #2 two is such a back-up.
JC
-
Andy, I agree with your comments. Would Charlotte Golf Links have ever been mentioned on this site if it didn't have Tom Doak's name attached to it?
Ed
Ed - I agree. I went there because I knew it was an early Doak and I wanted to see it. Likely would have played elsewhere otherwise.
JC
-
While I'm flattered that someone thinks my name is so valuable, I would like to point out that the vast majority of the people who play Charlotte Golf Links don't know my name at all, and don't care ... but it does have a customer base who like the course.
-
Tom, while your name may not be "valuable" to the general public, it trades at a premium on this board. I suspect that more often than not your name is the ONLY reason why members of gca.com would venture to play the course.
I will admit that my prior visits to CGL did not inspire me to return. But I will make it a point to take another look in the hopes of finding what I missed.
Ed
-
I played it once, probably around 1998, and honestly, wasn't half the aficionado that I am today, of golf course architecture. I have the Walter Travis society, Warren Gelman, Mike Keiser, Bob Labbance, Scott Witter and a host of other good people to thank for guiding me in my journey toward the light.
Concerning the comment on awareness without Tom Doak's name attached, of course it wouldn't get the attention if it didn't merit it. Uncle Tom is an important figure in golf architecture and every contribution he makes will receive scrutiny. If we make it out to be MORE than it is due to his name, THAT'S where we run into trouble. I, for one, would love to get back and play it with clear eyes.
-
I liked CGL better then nearby Charlotte GC (restored Ross).
...at least in terms of local perception, the design hasn't been able to overcome those external shortcomings.
Ed - What are the external shortcomings to which you refer... the location, neighborhood, bad reputation? I've never visited CGL so I don't have any idea this means. Thanks!
Michael, I was thinking mostly of a reputation for poor playing conditions and long rounds which detract from the quality of the experience. My impression is that these factors carry far more weight than architectural merit when folks are considering the local public golf options.
I understand. Thanks. What would be considered the #1 and #2 public options in the Charlotte area?
-
During my tour of the course this past November. I noticed a couple playing what looked liked the first round ever on a golf course. A couple of ladies pushing 60 not dressed like golfers, driving the cart around playing golf and enjoying the day. I watched a few groups of hot rod kids (early twenties) having a good match hitting some really great shots. A father and son( 6 or 7) playing golf, his son hitting extra balls and practicing his putting but moving along rather quickly. A family of four talking and having fun.
Public Golf at it's finest
The guy who intrigued me the most was a guy walking and carrying his own bag. He stopped me and asked what I was doing looking at the course but not playing. He asked if I was going to buy the course. I replied I was just looking around, he said he belonged to a championship course just down the street but really enjoyed playing at CGL when possible. I asked why he didn't play more often? His reply was that on the weekends it was very busy but liked coming out during the week. My visit was on a Tuesday and it was packed. The guy was wearing a Pinehurst shirt so I asked what he thought of the greens? He said that they reminded him of Donald Ross greens and that he really liked the short par 3 11th hole.
The reason for the long story is that most people that day could care less who it was designed by. They are each playing golf for different reasons. Some to enjoy the day, others to enjoy the game with a friend or young son and others for a challenge and the competition.
The guy carrying his own bag was a lot like most of you on this site. Interested in the design and compared it to other places he had been. Didn't know why he liked the 11th hole but loved the way it played not knowing it was a flip flopped postage stamp hole. He may have been the only guy that day that cared who had designed the course.
# 2 is not a 90 degree dog leg. The two pot bunkers in front of the second green are deeper then the day I built them. Mostly because of bunker splash.
Some of my favorite holes #2,4,14,15
-
Here is a pic of #2 at CGL. Jim is correct in pointing out that its nowhere near a 90 degree dogleg.
14 and 17 look closer to being such but appear to have room on the inside corner of the dogleg.
-
#2 at CGL seems a bit like #10 at Heathland... but, with less intimidating fairway bunkers. It that a fair comparison?
-
Ed (and others): I'm not especially encouraging you to return, and I'm not trying to make the course out to be more than it is. (Jonathan started that part of the conversation.)
I was just pointing out that, just because it might not be of particular interest to GCA.com, nor a candidate for a list of the great courses of the world, does not mean it is an "unworthy" course. It's a good golf course, and it seems to have been reasonably successful in attracting a customer base, which is all the client really wanted from it.
It bothers me that many people on this site are only interested in list-making, and some seem to believe that EVERY course should strive to make those lists or the architect and developer are both at fault.
In the real world, it's more the opposite. While we all try our best to make every project cool, there are only a few which have the property that building one of the best courses in the world is a legitimate possibility. I've been lucky to work on a few such properties, but that doesn't mean everything else we've done is a waste of time and effort.
Of course, there is always the occasional Miracle from God, where everything comes together on a more ordinary piece of property to produce Oakmont or Pinehurst No. 2. But those are 1-in-1,000 shots, and the odds of doing the same thing at Charlotte Golf Links -- without a client who had that goal -- would have been considerably higher. The guys who think we should have moved heaven and earth to try, are just off in their own reality.
-
Well written, case closed, time for a new thread.
-
Ed (and others): I'm not especially encouraging you to return, and I'm not trying to make the course out to be more than it is. (Jonathan started that part of the conversation.)
I was just pointing out that, just because it might not be of particular interest to GCA.com, nor a candidate for a list of the great courses of the world, does not mean it is an "unworthy" course. It's a good golf course, and it seems to have been reasonably successful in attracting a customer base, which is all the client really wanted from it.
It bothers me that many people on this site are only interested in list-making, and some seem to believe that EVERY course should strive to make those lists or the architect and developer are both at fault.
In the real world, it's more the opposite. While we all try our best to make every project cool, there are only a few which have the property that building one of the best courses in the world is a legitimate possibility. I've been lucky to work on a few such properties, but that doesn't mean everything else we've done is a waste of time and effort.
Of course, there is always the occasional Miracle from God, where everything comes together on a more ordinary piece of property to produce Oakmont or Pinehurst No. 2. But those are 1-in-1,000 shots, and the odds of doing the same thing at Charlotte Golf Links -- without a client who had that goal -- would have been considerably higher. The guys who think we should have moved heaven and earth to try, are just off in their own reality.
Tom,
I think this post is well stated as was Mr. Urbina's a few posts previously--my posts were reactions to Jonathan's comments about the course being a gem and better than some of your other designs. I intended for my last post to indicate that the course fills its role just fine given the goals of the project and the land available. Better yet that its been successful at attracting a customer base. Heck, if I lived in Charlotte I'd probably play it a few times a year myself--its a perfectly fine place to enjoy a round of golf without getting my brains beat in as at some other layouts.
-
Jim Urbina,
I remember the 2002 Canadian Senior Open at my home club, Essex. The media that week was making a big deal about the course being designed by Donald Ross. Then, someone asked Bruce Lietkze what he thought of this "Donald Ross gem", or something like that. I'll never forget his answer. Lietzke said something like: "I don't care if it was designed by Donald Ross or Donald Duck. Essex is just a good golf course."
Again, this answer's stuck with me. Lietzke makes a really good point.
-
Ed (and others): I'm not especially encouraging you to return, and I'm not trying to make the course out to be more than it is. (Jonathan started that part of the conversation.)
Making the course out more than it is?? Now that's a rather telling summary coming from the designer!
I stand by my assessment and opinion. I was pleasantly surprised. I do think CGL is better than some of the RGD courses I've seen (Tom doesn't get a free pass from me. I've disliked other RGD courses much more highly touted than CGL). I'm guessing many here on this site would find CGL (as I did) to be a local little gem. I found CGL more fun to play than CCC. Again, that's my assessment and opinion.
JC
-
What would be considered the #1 and #2 public options in the Charlotte area?
I really like the ~2 year old Carolina Lakes, built within the new Del Webb retirement community. Rolling fairways, contoured greens, varying lengths and angles, limited lost-ball opportunities.
Others in south CLT: Springfield is a good public and Regent Park remains fine. Ballantyne Resort gets lots of play but is not a favorite of mine. North of the city I like Birkdale and Skybrook.
CGL easily falls within my top 5 CLT publics.
As for #2 CGL, while the picture indeed does not portray a 90-degree dogleg the hole plays like one: 3-wood/driver off the tee, straight, then a 200 yard iron, straight again.
This thread illustrates the obvious...Tom and Jim need to swing through Charlotte so we can all play a round and talk more about this stuff! 2009 could just be the time to do it...
-
Tom Doak, agreed on all accounts. For what its worth, like Andy, I was just responding to the characterization of the course as a "gem". In my visits, I haven't seen that quality. But its been awhile since I was there so I am interested in taking a fresh look. Regardless, I don't believe CGL has to be a gem to be "worthy". Places that aren't great are often the greatest places to play.
Happy New Year!
Ed
-
Bump a rooski...
I played Charlotte Golf Links today for the second time in 12 years (the first was twelve years ago.) The wind was howling, the rains were threatening and the sky was gloomy like Scotland. In other words, how the course should play. The course did play fast and was a lot of fun to rediscover. What I found can be summarized as below:
...I have an appreciation for the bunkering. The architect and shapers did a fine job with the fairway and the greenside sand pits. They add aesthetically and strategically to the play.
...I have a great appreciation for the greens. The contours were most imaginative and the speed of the greens (probably about a 9 or 10) allowed one (one being me) to bang away and embrace the rolls as they are meant to be traversed, without need to putt defensively. The seven missed five-feeters were my own doing.
...There were a fair number of holes with fairway contours that, when played correctly, brought drives from oblivion to the perfect approach position. In summary, you can develop a terrific traditional game at CGL without ever growing bored. I suspect that The Doak grows tired of defending certain designs, but this one is worth seeing. Below and in the next post are some nice shots of bunkers and greens.
-
Here are some more shots of sand tears, green contours and the like.
-
I liked CGL better then nearby Charlotte [Country Club] (restored Ross).
JC
Might be the first time I've ever heard that!
-
For those that have seen both CGL and Heathlands, which did you prefer and why?
One thing I really liked about Heathlands were the smaller bunkers.
-
I liked CGL better then nearby Charlotte [Country Club] (restored Ross).
JC
Might be the first time I've ever heard that!
Especially from a long time member of the DRS and member of a DR club!!
JC
-
Jonathan
I recently returned to Charlotte to take a quick tour of the course this past November. I had forgot how varied the greens were.
Mark
The back tee for the postage stamp measures in at at 135. The green complex is flipped over making the high ridge play on the right side instead of the left.
Working on Old Macdonald this past year and then peeking at the size of the greens in Charlotte was a real eye opener for me.
Just out of pure curiousity; what made you go back to CGL at this time? Just coincidence?
-
Is that question for Jonathan/JC or for me?
Ron M.
-
Sorry,
It's for JC, as I find it interesting he is revisiting a course built so long ago...
Perhaps it has to do with a prospective or recent project?
-
Oh...are you sure? I'm the one who revisited it after a 12-year absence, just yesterday.
-
Oh...are you sure? I'm the one who revisited it after a 12-year absence, just yesterday.
OK, now you are making me curious also, why?
-
1. Having played it once as a random course, knowing it had a pedigree of sorts, I went back to judge with a finer eye. I wanted to see how early Doak compared with middle Doak (Pacific Dunes).
2. When I first played it, I had a cursory knowledge of some of the great Dead Old Guys and what they tried to do in their day with golf courses. Knowing that Doak is a keeper of that flame, to a certain extent, I needed to see what he did that most resembled their work. I would say, without doubt, it was his contouring of fairways, allowing the ground ball to work its way to prime position on many holes, eliminating the need to play a long, high ball to carry trouble.
3. I wanted to see if the current owners had done ridiculous things to the course, restructuring the playing characteristics. Fortunately, they have let the course play as it is supposed to play.
-
From The Charlotte Observer
GOLF COURSE REVIEW
Charlotte Golf Links makes game accessible
By Ron Green Jr.
rgreenjr@charlotteobserver.com
Posted: Wednesday, Jul. 06, 2011
Charlotte Golf Links.
http://media.charlotteobserver.com/smedia/2011/07/06/12/51/6I3oW.Em.138.jpg|204Charlotte Golf Links.
Charlotte Golf Links.
For 18 years, Charlotte Golf Links has been a distinctive part of the local golf landscape, offering players a layout that gives a gentle nod toward the true links of the world.
It was designed by Tom Doak before he became a star in the design world and while no one will confuse Charlotte Golf Links with his work at Bandon Dunes, among other places, it's a pleasant place to play golf. That, after all, is the objective.
Charlotte Golf Links isn't overpowering -- it's only 6,700 yards from all the way back -- but it has a fun collection of holes, including five par-3s. More than trees, the design uses native grasses and mounding to challenge players.
Under the direction of general manager Rich Richeson, Charlotte Golf Links is striving to become a full-service destination with a learning center and initiatives designed to cultivate new players while enhancing the experience for its many regulars.
Charlotte Golf Links is one of five Carolina Trail courses with learning centers -- The Divide, The Tradition, Birkdale and Highland Creek are the others -- with a focus on bringing new players into the game and keeping them.
"It's not about structures but about programming. The objective is to create new adult golfers who become loyal to the game and the course," said Richeson, who wrote the curriculum for the PGA of America's Get Golf Ready initiative in 2009.
The course offers a five-week program that not only teaches new players the basics of hitting shots, chipping and putting, but also takes them on the course to get them more comfortable with playing the game and its etiquette. Teaching people to make a proper swing but not giving them on-course experience keeps only two in 10 in the game. Teach them the swing and then help them on the course brings eight of 10 back, Richeson said.
In addition to the five-week lessons, new golfers also get five free rounds. The goal was to have 800 students through the various learning centers this year and, Richeson said, it's likely more than 1,000 will participate based on the early numbers.
"At some point you have to grow golfers," Richeson said. "You want to make them feel welcome in a non-intimidating way. It's critical to what we do."
THE DETAILS
Charlotte Golf Links
11500 Providence Road
Charlotte, NC 28277
704-846-7990
www.charlottegolf.com
Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/07/06/2432983/charlotte-golf-links-makes-game.html#ixzz1RWasUD2i
-
I am committed to playing there when I return in August. Perhaps even Roger will join me for a round (though its a little low brow for him).
-
JC,
I was shocked when you told my you hadn't played there yet..Must be all that Access Whoring you've been doing.. 8)
-
I am committed to playing there when I return in August. Perhaps even Roger will join me for a round (though its a little low brow for him).
Do it on a weekend. I'll join. I went to the one day Dave Pelz school there.
-
JC,
I was shocked when you told my you hadn't played there yet..Must be all that Access Whoring you've been doing.. 8)
Jud - which whore are you talking about? ;)
-
I am committed to playing there when I return in August. Perhaps even Roger will join me for a round (though its a little low brow for him).
Do it on a weekend. I'll join. I went to the one day Dave Pelz school there.
How was that? My short game and putting are in desperate need of help.
-
JC,
It's excellent but very pricey.