Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Tim Gavrich on September 05, 2018, 08:44:47 AM
-
Oh, and Tom Doak will design it ;D
Mike [Keiser], with sons Michael and Chris, will be building a third 18-hole course at Sand Valley and as of last night, confirmed [Tom] Doak has been hired to build it.
"I keep trying to slow them down," says Keiser, in reference to his sons and the pace of new courses they are setting in Wisconsin. "But I’m not winning this battle."
The Keisers opened the first course at Sand Valley, built by Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw, in 2017. This summer, they opened Mammoth Dunes by David McLay Kidd, and the Sand Box, a par-3 course by Coore and Crenshaw (with significant input from Jim Craig and the Keiser boys). They had routings for a third 18-hole course from Doak, Gil Hanse and Mike DeVries, and there were votes for all of the above within the extended Keiser camp—Josh Lesnik of Kemper Sports included.
Doak came out as the leader of this smaller pack with the proposal of a shorter course. Which is to say, it will be just over 6,000 yards and par will be 67 or 68. The complete opposite to what is aptly named Mammoth Dunes.
"We are excited to build what Tom has wanted to build his entire career, which is a course that throws par and distance out the window," says Michael Keiser, 37, and who has lived in the Nekoosa area now for three years. "My dad has always focused on fun and playability, and this routing expands upon that theme."
https://www.golfadvisor.com/articles/tom-doak-sand-valley (https://www.golfadvisor.com/articles/tom-doak-sand-valley)
-
I hope it is also 15% less expensive.
-
I hope it is also 15% less expensive.
I have to give credit where credit is due — this is brilliant. Well done.
-
I hope it is also 15% less expensive.
I think 15% less wide would be better.
Money is just money, after all.
-
I think this could be a paradigm-shifting course. A noteworthy, brand-new layout with a par under 70 should help mold people's perspectives because while a lot of us architecture nerds visit the Sand Valleys of the world, a lot of traveling golfers aren't as curious as we are.
People will initially scoff at the notion of playing a "short" course until they realize how much fun they're having, and look down at their scorecard and see a 7 on the front of their score, rather than an 8. They'll also appreciate that a shorter course means an easier 36-hole walking day.
-
It won't mean diddly if it has an inordinate number of par 3's or if you have to wait on greens to clear on short par 4's.
-
Hybrid golf for hybrid lives.
-
Although I was holding out hope for Mike DeVries (#4?), this is a brilliant decision. Tom will undoubtedly do a great job and this makes a ton of sense as part of a 36 hole day, not to mention that 6000 yards is what most golfers should be playing.
-
It won't mean diddly if it has an inordinate number of par 3's or if you have to wait on greens to clear on short par 4's.
I have never noticed that to be a problem at any of the courses in the UK we have talked about as models - Swinley Forest, Rye, West Sussex, Cavendish, St. Enodoc. They all have four or five par-3's and only one par-5. [St. Enodoc has two par-5's, so it's par-69.]
My current routing has five par-3's and NO par-5's, although there are a few 450+ yard holes we could turn into a par-5 if we want to, and either of two short holes could turn into a drivable par-4.
Overall, though, even if there are one or two short par-4's where guys are thinking about going for the green, you'll be waiting a lot less on greens to clear for this course than you would at Pacific Dunes, or Cabot Cliffs ... or Augusta National, for that matter.
-
Sad then isn't it that the headline is yardage and par.
-
It won't mean diddly if it has an inordinate number of par 3's or if you have to wait on greens to clear on short par 4's.
But that's not very likely at all, is it? Our Tommy has many a trick up his sleeve, no?
My total guess: while Tim is right, this course will be more appreciated by golfers than by those who merely play golf.
And as with West Sussex (as per John M's profile), it may be a ton of fun, but it won't be 'easy'.
P
Just saw Tom's post - oh sweet Mary and Jesus, no Par 5s: thank you. I may never play it, but just knowing that it's there, without a Par 5, is gratifying enough!
-
Congratulations Tom Doak!
Can't wait to see this new course come together.
Sand Valley is golf's version of Silicon Valley. There's so much creativity coming out of that place right now.
-
Sad then isn't it that the headline is yardage and par.
I got you to comment five times - how bad could I have done?
-
Sad then isn't it that the headline is yardage and par.
Actually, it is sad, now that you mention it. There is so much urgency today to "sell" one's ideas, instead of just putting them out there so people can judge for themselves. Hell, your brother in law will probably be making judgments about whether this is the best course at Sand Valley or the worst, before we have even broken ground ;)
Swinley Forest and Rye and those places do not "sell themselves" as par-68 courses in any way, shape or form. Nor do they make any apologies for what they are, because that's a superficial analysis, and their members only care that they are full of good golf. I'd guess more than a few guests come and play them and don't even notice what the par was, until they are adding up their score at the end.
It would be nice to take the same approach here. Heck, I tried to convince Lew Thompson at Forest Dunes not to say anything about the course being reversible until opening day [or day two], but as you can see from Matt Ginella's story today, Lew is not so great at keeping things in confidence!
-
Well, this will certainly be one thread where GCA educated guesses, conjecture and opinion may prove to be less sustainable. lol ;) Congrats Tom!
-
Ha!
Here's one: if I'm reading the topo map right (ha ha, fat chance) my conjecture is that there won't be too many bunkers on the new course. The routing will use the dips & hollows and elevation changes to create/enhance the strategic interest and ideal lines of play.
Yes, maybe not so much other conjecture, V -- as T notes above, all the developers have suddenly become such open books that Matt can tell us exactly what's going happen this year and next and the year after that, and why, and with whom....
-
I hope it is also 15% less expensive.
Barney
By your math it should be 25% less. Area is 2 dimensional. (with a little added back for greens unless they are smaller too)
Congratulations Tom & Sand Valley
-
I have never noticed that to be a problem at any of the courses in the UK we have talked about as models - Swinley Forest, Rye, West Sussex, Cavendish, St. Enodoc. They all have four or five par-3's and only one par-5. [St. Enodoc has two par-5's, so it's par-69.]
The only problem with that example is that in my experience, golfers over there (and in Australia) just simply play faster than they do here. Perhaps part of their overall culture, so I would worry a bit that fast play won't occur in Wisconsin with all those par 3 holes, unless you import all golfers, or at least make them play match rather than stroke play. (Another cool idea I wish a course would try somewhere, at least one day a week)
Kudos on abandoning the traditional 7K course on a resort though. I doubt back tees on those courses get played 0.5% of the time. And, as one of a daily double round, as previously noted, the shorter course should work well. I imagine the best scenario is for that to be played second, and it might be a course where the afternoon tee times will be more sought after than the morning times (maybe first day as a warm up, who knows)
-
Ha!
Here's one: if I'm reading the topo map right (ha ha, fat chance) my conjecture is that there won't be too many bunkers on the new course. The routing will use the dips & hollows and elevation changes to create/enhance the strategic interest and ideal lines of play.
Yes, maybe not so much other conjecture, V -- as T notes above, all the developers have suddenly become such open books that Matt can tell us exactly what's going happen this year and next and the year after that, and why, and with whom....
I saw that Peter! LOL. It reads like a National Security Council of Golf briefing.
Hmmm The NSCoG... I like that
- Vaughn
-
Nice to read some good news this morning. Congratulations, Tom. I’m excited for all involved. Sand Valley really is extraordinary and will only get better with this addition.
-
You don't play Par 3's slower, you just wait more proportionally to the amount of play on the hole.
Or have I been missing all those 7 hour rounds on Par 3 courses?
-
I hope it is also 15% less expensive.
Barney
By your math it should be 25% less. Area is 2 dimensional. (with a little added back for greens unless they are smaller too)
Congratulations Tom & Sand Valley
In all honesty if I follow the same logic used earlier in the week the course should be 8% less expensive. I stretched hypocrisy, as I often do, because I was not wearing pants at the time of my post. My apologies.
On another note, for those who believe just based on the information provided that a 36 hole walking day will be made easier by this design...Let me say that just this Sunday I walked 36 holes at Trinity Forest. A course built without question intended for Tour play.
One other note: I could get fully onboard of this concept if there were only one set of tees that play at a true yardage as advertised. I have yet to play a resort course in my adult life that does not deceive the consumer about the length of the tees played. I take little liberty saying that every course is 5% shorter than advertised. I call it the motion of the ocean conundrum.
-
Congrats Tom. Great news. Even better news is that you are designing a kind of course you have wanted to design for a long time.
I'd guess that the future of golf architecture lies somewhere near the intersection of reversible courses and interesting short courses. So exciting times.
Bob
-
I hope it is also 15% less expensive.
Barney
By your math it should be 25% less. Area is 2 dimensional. (with a little added back for greens unless they are smaller too)
Congratulations Tom & Sand Valley
In all honesty if I follow the same logic used earlier in the week the course should be 8% less expensive. I stretched hypocrisy, as I often do, because I was not wearing pants at the time of my post. My apologies.
On another note, for those who believe just based on the information provided that a 36 hole walking day will be made easier by this design...Let me say that just this Sunday I walked 36 holes at Trinity Forest. A course built without question intended for Tour play.
One other note: I could get fully onboard of this concept if there were only one set of tees that play at a true yardage as advertised. I have yet to play a resort course in my adult life that does not deceive the consumer about the length of the tees played. I take little liberty saying that every course is 5% shorter than advertised. I call it the motion of the ocean conundrum.
Come on John, just because I play from the Whites or blues doesn't disqualify me from saying I played a 7500 yard course!! ;)
-
6000 yards Par 67 is the same as 7250 yards par 72 in terms of length difficulty.
The real fun courses at 67 par are close to 5000 yards.
I expect the length is derived from half the holes being over 400 yards.
I am pretty sure it will be good though with Tom at the wheel.
-
As someone who is in their 50th anniversary year of golf I have played courses all my golfing life where par 72 for men are listed on the bottom of the card as par 75 for women. As is common in our modern world we have simply flipped the card. I say...about time!!!
-
Congrats Tom and team!
I knew there was a reason I hadn't broke down and visited already. Made that mistake at Bandon and Streamsong the first visit. I can wait until you guys finish before going to the only other place (besides The Netherlands) I know of where the residents are referred to as Cheese Heads. There will actually be enough interesting golf there to justify a dedicated "1 state" trip which is rare. So I'll just have to fly into Chicago to disrupt this theory.
Tom, sounds like your bucket list of designs is being fulfilled. Any thing else you are dying to do?
-
Nice news to hear of something different to the norm going ahead. Congratulations Tom and colleagues.
Short on the card doesn’t necessarily mean easy to play though.
Atb
-
I have a question for golfers who are more familiar with how women enjoy the game than I ever will. Do you think women would rather play a 6000 yd course as a par 72 from the same tees as the male golfers or play par 68 from up tees? Does anyone not believe that somewhere on this card the course will be at least par 70?
-
Tom,
I know you've wanted to do some out-of-the box, quirky stuff for quite a while. Will this be the opportunity?
-
Fantastic news. Can't wait to see the course come together. You had me at Swinley Forest...
Tom Doak, here's to hoping you build the 5th course at Kohler as well. Having two of your designs so close to home would be terrific.
What is the land for the third course at Sand Valley like? From the picture posted is appears to be a large field/prairie? Has is already been cleared of trees?
-
I have a question for golfers who are more familiar with how women enjoy the game than I ever will. Do you think women would rather play a 6000 yd course as a par 72 from the same tees as the male golfers or play par 68 from up tees? Does anyone not believe that somewhere on this card the course will be at least par 70?
Why can't a person play either, or all three?
-
Just saw Tom's post - oh sweet Mary and Jesus, no Par 5s: thank you. I may never play it, but just knowing that it's there, without a Par 5, is gratifying enough!
I'm not sure what this comment means Peter.
With a "few" holes over 450 it would seem most of the golf world would embrace that as a par 5, with the better players having opportunities for occasional eagle putts and less need for the inevitable extra tees needed to make it playable as a par 4 for most golfers.
What makes those courses work in the UK is that they have one block of tees and the shorter hitters see it as a chance to reach a par 5 in three and it can be labeled a par 4 for the experts in a competition -WITHOUT building tees 100 yards apart
-
Love this. As a Wentworth member years' back, I far preferred the 6,000 yard par 68 East course to either the West or the Edinburgh. One short par 5, a great mix of par 4s and 5 par 3s. Played in 3 hours and was a lot of fun. I haven't been to Sand Valley yet but my guess is I'd do 36 a day with 18 at the shorter course each day!
-
Jeff, fair & valid point for sure. My comment was mostly self-referential: I think great Par 5s are the hardest holes to design, and I find the (much more common) average Par 5 my least favourite holes to play. When Tom mentioned that his current routing has NO Par 5s, I was very happy: ie I think it will make for an even better golf course (and I know Tom wouldn't/won't stick to that idea if it doesn't). But also: when we talk lovingly here of half-par holes it is almost always in reference to short Par 5s; I think it good sometimes to experience the same 'Par 4.5' as a long Par 4 instead.
P
-
TD (some of the coolest initials to have btw) congrats to you and wonderful news for us! Also curious about where exactly the location is as I was up there this summer. Also curious about what the average green size will be, which probably won't be known for a while perhaps. I assume walking only as well?
Really like how this resort is coming together as they were building more lodging when I was there and it will only expand from here I'm sure exponentially more.
-
Really like how this resort is coming together as they were building more lodging when I was there and it will only expand from here I'm sure exponentially more.
I doubt we'll see 9 courses under construction at one time.
-
Really like how this resort is coming together as they were building more lodging when I was there and it will only expand from here I'm sure exponentially more.
I doubt we'll see 9 courses under construction at one time.
I'm talking about lodging, not courses.
-
Great news for golf. With no par 5s, average golfers will do better and have more fun.
At the same time, scratch golfers and pro's won't have par 5s to beat up on. So even though the course will be shorter, it will play longer for them.
Bottom line: we should get a course many here have dreamed of: lower slope but higher course rating. I am real pleased Tom is the one designing it.
This general principle -- more par 3s and less par 5s -- is how to solve the high tech/distance issue that plagues golf. We can build courses well under 7000 yards, that challenge the top pros in major tournaments, and that average golfers can have a blast on.
-
This general principle -- more par 3s and less par 5s -- is how to solve the high tech/distance issue that plagues golf. We can build courses well under 7000 yards, that challenge the top pros in major tournaments, and that average golfers can have a blast on.
Very true, you can't build the courses long enough to tame today's length so like the idea of making everyone play a shorter track and see who can dial in their short game and putting.
-
Ahhh, I don't want to dampen the high spirits, but I will bet $100 that very few people will find this design concept an easy course to score on. I know that Doak has seen all the prime sub par 70-sub 6200ish courses worth seeing and, among other things, he will want to retain the challenge these courses present. The far more pressing issue for me is will the walk be as satisfying as his major "role" model courses? If that aspect is off in search of trying to create the "best possible holes" (or other reasons) there is a chance the overall product could suffer.
Ciao
-
Congratulations on this new project! When did you know this was the place for a shorter course?
I realize that its early and things could change, but based on the routing posted in the article, I love how 3 looks completely "found". The way the green tucks into the hills there seems special. 13 looks to maybe have a Himalayan feel? Or is there a slight dip in the center of the ridge crossing the fairway? I hope the way 14 and 15 cross remains intact!
Sorry to comment on the details so quickly, but a routing on topo from a top GCA is worth me taking notice, educate myself and get better.
-
Ahhh, I don't want to dampen the high spirits, but I will bet $100 that very few people will find this design concept an easy course to score on. I know that Doak has seen all the prime sub par 70-sub 6200ish courses worth seeing and, among other things, he will want to retain the challenge these courses present. The far more pressing issue for me is will the walk be as satisfying as his major "role" model courses? If that aspect is off in search of trying to create the "best possible holes" (or other reasons) there is a chance the overall product could suffer.
Ciao
I think Sean is absolutely right but I also think that Tom isn’t the kind of designer to overlook this aspect.
If he produces a nicely compact, 6,100 yard Par-68, then I think it will be a great thing for golf.
-
Can we stop the misogynistic mantra of no par 5's and accept that this course is breaking new ground in the growing demographic of couples travel? I'm reminded of the old 80's adage...Strong enough for a man but made for a woman. It's no secret that sells.
-
One other note: I could get fully onboard of this concept if there were only one set of tees that play at a true yardage as advertised. I have yet to play a resort course in my adult life that does not deceive the consumer about the length of the tees played. I take little liberty saying that every course is 5% shorter than advertised. I call it the motion of the ocean conundrum.
That is another idea that I hope someone will let me build one day, but I am guessing it won't go over here. The client has always been very focused on shorter options for seniors and I am sure they won't stop caring about that on this course.
It is weird how multi-course resorts insist on wanting every course to appeal to every player instead of giving each player a course more tailored to their likes, but maybe this will change that a bit.
There are many other speculations on this thread but that's all they are, since few of the design details have been worked out or agreed upon yet. A couple of the holes are so thick with trees that I still haven't walked on the green sites yet! The one thing I did hear loud and clear is that the client would like to see a lot of open sand, so there will probably be more bunkers than I would otherwise have done. (Or maybe, like Tara Iti, they just won't be called bunkers at all.)
-
This will be the only time the two properties are mentioned together, but...
...it seems like the Mission Hills Hainan Island project is the only resort to get to the number of courses where they felt they could start using more inventive ideas once they had 4 or 5 full-length courses in the ground...like two pins per hole, like a 6000y course, etc. I don't know enough about the individual courses to know if these things were well-executed or not.
Maybe you add them all together....MH had 12-15 regulation courses (b/t the two locations) total before they tried some different things...the Keisers have 9 (Bandon/SV/Cabot/Dunes) before going in a different direction. Although one might say the Keisers have already done so with the Preserve/Sandbox...
After being at SV just 10 days ago, anything they add will be a great addition!
-
My current routing has five par-3's and NO par-5's, although there are a few 450+ yard holes we could turn into a par-5 if we want to, and either of two short holes could turn into a drivable par-4.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to not have any pars? Isn’t one man’s par 3 another’s short par 4 anyway? Or perhaps that would be a stretch too far!
-
Congratulations Tom and team!
I've not yet visited the resort, but it seems to me the presentation of SV and MD is very raw in general, perhaps it'd be cool to have No. 3 be a bit more defined, something like a UK heathland look for the sake of variety. But it already sounds like the owners want the super raw look continued. No matter! It'll be a great course either way and I love the sub 70 move.
-
This will be the only time the two properties are mentioned together, but...
...it seems like the Mission Hills Hainan Island project is the only resort to get to the number of courses where they felt they could start using more inventive ideas once they had 4 or 5 full-length courses in the ground...like two pins per hole, like a 6000y course, etc. I don't know enough about the individual courses to know if these things were well-executed or not.
Mission Hills Hainan did start down that road, though it was primarily a function of having the same architect doing all of the courses, and having to figure out some way to distinguish one from another. They even built a shorter, par-70 course - very much going out on a limb for Asian retail golfers - but a lot of the secondary courses were under-funded, and didn't get the same level of detail and execution in the rush to finish them all.
Indeed, there are plenty of shorter courses in the U.S. today, but nearly all of them are in markets where nobody cared much about "design" and no one tried to make them very good. And so a lot of people just extrapolate from that and assume that it can't be done well. If the new course at SV proves to be unpopular, it won't be because we didn't try hard enough ;)
-
Perhaps in the spirit of sociability and sustainability I could tee off with my playing partners on the 400+ yard par 4s and play the course as a par 72+. (Maybe I should just set par as my age). Playing from different tee boxes I often find that being last to hit I am left pulling up the rear as my partners are on there way down the fairway as I grab my bag and scurry after them.
-
Barney, I usually enjoy your attempts to make people stretch but why don't you wait to see what gets built. Since when do we pay by the yard? Would you pay more to play the International in Bolton Mass (could be stretched to 8,000 yds) than Cypress point? I am sure we can give other examples. Short and interesting sure beats long and boring. So let's see what happens. I have a fair amount of confidence in Tom.
-
Tom, is there any thought to the idea of leaving some land available if you needed to stretch a few holes out to make the par 72 number if it is not well received?
-
Perhaps in the spirit of sociability and sustainability I could tee off with my playing partners on the 400+ yard par 4s and play the course as a par 72+. (Maybe I should just set par as my age).
I've gotta drill down on this comment a little bit, Jay.
First off, yes, I hope this will be a course you could play from the same tees as stronger golfers.
Second, you shouldn't expect to shoot 68. I don't know your handicap, but unless you're scratch, you probably aren't looking to shoot 72 either. So ... how does it matter what par is for you? You should be trying to break 75, or 80, or 90, or whatever a good score would be for you personally, as I would see it.
-
Well the nice thing about a par 68 is you can have a crap day, shoot 21 over and still brag about breaking 90!
Genius!!
-
Tom, is there any thought to the idea of leaving some land available if you needed to stretch a few holes out to make the par 72 number if it is not well received?
No. They have hundreds of acres more land, so I suppose that's always an option. But I wouldn't have signed up for the gig if I thought they were going to give up on the concept easily. Making a design "more conventional" is not an assignment I'd want.
Who was that old Musselburgh pro, who said the customer is always right?*
* I looked this up, and it is credited to Marshall Field, a Chicagoan, among others. Also, in Japan the phrase is "The customer is a god." American suck-up pales by comparison.
-
Wouldn’t it be interesting to not have any pars? Isn’t one man’s par 3 another’s short par 4 anyway? Or perhaps that would be a stretch too far!
Plus one-and allows just enough tees for turf wear without littering the property with tees
-
Barney, I usually enjoy your attempts to make people stretch but why don't you wait to see what gets built. Since when do we pay by the yard? Would you pay more to play the International in Bolton Mass (could be stretched to 8,000 yds) than Cypress point? I am sure we can give other examples. Short and interesting sure beats long and boring. So let's see what happens. I have a fair amount of confidence in Tom.
Damn, it hurts me when I disappoint you. If I have learned anything in the twilight of adulthood it's that when you feel the first prick of injustice you speak up before it's a scab. I'm not a hybrid golfer and feel the need to speak out against hybrid golf.
-
Great news for golf. With no par 5s, average golfers will do better and have more fun.
At the same time, scratch golfers and pro's won't have par 5s to beat up on. So even though the course will be shorter, it will play longer for them.
Bottom line: we should get a course many here have dreamed of: lower slope but higher course rating. I am real pleased Tom is the one designing it.
This general principle -- more par 3s and less par 5s -- is how to solve the high tech/distance issue that plagues golf. We can build courses well under 7000 yards, that challenge the top pros in major tournaments, and that average golfers can have a blast on.
Agreed and well said Jim.
-
Sad then isn't it that the headline is yardage and par.
Actually, it is sad, now that you mention it. There is so much urgency today to "sell" one's ideas, instead of just putting them out there so people can judge for themselves. Hell, your brother in law will probably be making judgments about whether this is the best course at Sand Valley or the worst, before we have even broken ground ;)
Swinley Forest and Rye and those places do not "sell themselves" as par-68 courses in any way, shape or form. Nor do they make any apologies for what they are, because that's a superficial analysis, and their members only care that they are full of good golf. I'd guess more than a few guests come and play them and don't even notice what the par was, until they are adding up their score at the end.
It would be nice to take the same approach here. Heck, I tried to convince Lew Thompson at Forest Dunes not to say anything about the course being reversible until opening day [or day two], but as you can see from Matt Ginella's story today, Lew is not so great at keeping things in confidence!
Hopefully after more of these are built it will not have to be part of the marketing. Congrats on getting the job, I'm looking forward to seeing what you guys create. Brian Curley built a 6,000 yard par 70 course in Haikou, China with 6 par 3's and I never once thought it was any less of a course. I doubt many people will notice except for the scratch player looking for an easy score on a par 5.
-
No one ever notices.
-
And, as one of a daily double round, as previously noted, the shorter course should work well. I imagine the best scenario is for that to be played second, and it might be a course where the afternoon tee times will be more sought after than the morning times (maybe first day as a warm up, who knows)
I don’t doubt that will be the case, but if it is I would question the success of the project.
In this scenario, any player will be as tired on the last 9 holes either way, and if I was offered a 36 hole day at Swinley Forest and the Berkshire I wouldn’t say I needed to play Swinley last because it’s the short course.
-
Perhaps in the spirit of sociability and sustainability I could tee off with my playing partners on the 400+ yard par 4s and play the course as a par 72+. (Maybe I should just set par as my age).
I've gotta drill down on this comment a little bit, Jay.
First off, yes, I hope this will be a course you could play from the same tees as stronger golfers.
Second, you shouldn't expect to shoot 68. I don't know your handicap, but unless you're scratch, you probably aren't looking to shoot 72 either. So ... how does it matter what par is for you? You should be trying to break 75, or 80, or 90, or whatever a good score would be for you personally, as I would see it.
I play for fun, don't often keep score, prefer to play the ground where possible and play varying shots. I do, however, greatly enjoy match play and look for a level field based on handicaps ie. par. I have really not given this new paradigm any deep thought but find the possibility interesting.
-
a great thought on multiple fronts
especially as mentioned at a resort where walking 36 hole days.
While I'm not a fan of 27 hole complexes with interchangeable nines....I do think a 9 hole course/loop or 2 that return to the clubhouse and planned/tee timed for 9 holes plus a morning or afternoon 18 has a place at a resort for those not being up for 36 or a par 3 course
i.e.
Pac Dunes 18
Lil Pac Dunes 9
Old MacDonald 18
Young Dr. Young 9
Bandon Trails 18
Lil Pac Dunes 9
Bandon Dunes 18
Young Dr. Young 9
I generally try to plan several 27 hole days on many of my UK golf trips
-
And, as one of a daily double round, as previously noted, the shorter course should work well. I imagine the best scenario is for that to be played second, and it might be a course where the afternoon tee times will be more sought after than the morning times (maybe first day as a warm up, who knows)
I don’t doubt that will be the case, but if it is I would question the success of the project.
In this scenario, any player will be as tired on the last 9 holes either way, and if I was offered a 36 hole day at Swinley Forest and the Berkshire I wouldn’t say I needed to play Swinley last because it’s the short course.
I’m not so sure, Andrew: In your example, Berkshire has 6 threes and 6 fives that could be called fours - they feel similar, regardless of par.
To reiterate Sean and my point before, I actually think it will be a bigger success if people play it second, not as the short course but as the easier walk. Making the course a compact, easy walk will be a huge win. It needs to feel like it’s 5/7ths the walk of a big resort course, not 6/7ths like the length might suggest.
-
Ally
I agree, the walk will be critical in trying to recreate the charm of the best versions of this type of course. We may even find out how much love for Swinley is down to its "setting" rather than its design ;)
Either way, the concept is sound and worth a go. In a way, it would be grand if this course was on the flatest part of the property to really accentuate the walk. If the Keiser wants to get really out there...he could re-introduce bogey score (which is really just a fancy way of highlighting the half par holes).
Ciao
-
Great news.
Most of my golf has been played on 6000 yard or less courses with sub 70 pars. They are certainly no 'easier' than the 6500-7000 yard courses I play on my travels.
Par 5s tend to be the easiest holes to score well on. Eliminate most of those and the course immediately loses a few hundred yards in length, a couple of shots to par, AND potentially becomes more difficult!
Jack up the number of tricky par 3s to five or six and the course also becomes a lot more fun to play.
I know that this is a resort course but the idea is even more applicable to members' club courses. Who the hell wants to play a 7000 yard course three times a week?
I wish Tom well with his revolutionary new concept.
Dr MacKenzie would approve...
;)
-
Isn’t one man’s par 3 another’s short par 4 anyway?
Literally no.
One man's "expert" may be different, but alas, par remains the same.
-
In a way, it would be grand if this course was on the flatest part of the property to really accentuate the walk. If the Keiser wants to get really out there...he could re-introduce bogey score (which is really just a fancy way of highlighting the half par holes).
I still have the scorecard from my first round at Swinley in 1982, and it showed only the Bogey score, not par. Bogey was 74; the left negative of the short holes was a 4, and holes like 5 and 15 were 5's.
It was the only club in the U.K. by then that still showed Bogey on the card, but I had some from my dad's visits there in the 1970's that show Bogey alongside Par for Hadley Wood, so I guess it didn't really fall out of use in club golf until about 50 years ago.
If we stick with the layout I've got now, the Bogey score from the back tees would probably be six or seven shots above par.
-
In a way, it would be grand if this course was on the flatest part of the property to really accentuate the walk. If the Keiser wants to get really out there...he could re-introduce bogey score (which is really just a fancy way of highlighting the half par holes).
I still have the scorecard from my first round at Swinley in 1982, and it showed only the Bogey score, not par. Bogey was 74; the left negative of the short holes was a 4, and holes like 5 and 15 were 5's.
It was the only club in the U.K. by then that still showed Bogey on the card, but I had some from my dad's visits there in the 1970's that show Bogey alongside Par for Hadley Wood, so I guess it didn't really fall out of use in club golf until about 50 years ago.
If we stick with the layout I've got now, the Bogey score from the back tees would probably be six or seven shots above par.
There are still some clubs which have Bogey Score on the card..at least they did the last time I visited: Sacred 9, Sandwich, Elie and New Zealand (maybe even Prestwick) are some examples...all of which I would be happy to join ;) .
Ciao
-
Really?
-
Can’t speak to the others, but I have a card from Royal Worlington and Newmarket and it has the bogey ratings as well as par.
-
Elie Scorecard
(http://earlsferrythistle.org.uk/____impro/1/onewebmedia/scoarecard2.jpg?etag=%22W%2F%22%20%2244bd8-54511a4a%22&sourceContentType=image%2Fjpeg&ignoreAspectRatio&resize=1491%2B888&extract=0%2B0%2B402%2B514&quality=85)
Elie even lists the Bogie score on their website: http://www.golfhouseclub.co.uk/the-course/
Aldeburgh scorecard
(https://photos.bluegolf.com/c6/c6/66/70/28a144e4a9a426cb4a73e371_m.jpg)
Royal Worlington and Newmarket Scorecard
(https://photos.bluegolf.com/4b/ee/9e/0a/ff59422e9256a37d906cf714_m.jpg)
-
Can someone please explain to me what the “bogey” score means?
-
Can someone please explain to me what the “bogey” score means?
In my opinion it is the equivalent of American "Par."
Par on a UK course is (again IMO) the equivalent of the American "Course Rating," the score which a scratch golfer is expected to shoot. That's why American handicaps are calculated against "Course Rating," not Par.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, I guess the Standard Scratch Score (SSS) would be the same as an American "Course Rating" score.
-
Can someone please explain to me what the “bogey” score means?
Not real descriptive
https://www.golf-monthly.co.uk/features/the-game/what-are-bogey-competitions-in-golf-78821
-
I think most of you have completely missed the point about 6000 yards and Par 67.
I see fun more leaned to easy scoring. Par 5 holes are easy to score and the most birdied holes, take these away and it is less fun surely.
6000 yards with 5 short holes of 140 - 155 - 170 - 180 - 200
13 par 4 holes averaging 400 so - 320 - 340- 360- 380- 400- 400 - 410 -410 420-430 -440- 450 -470
flip a couple of short 4s in and - 280 - 310 -360 - 380 - 400 - 410-420-430-440-440-440-450 -470
Quite a beefy course. Par 68 softens it a fair bit. Most UK courses are around 6000 yards but usually Par 70
-
Sorry all for missing this thread having just started a new one! Apologies for repetition!
Congrats to Tom Doak for being hired to build the fourth course at SV and for this really neat idea of a "smaller, shorter" course. Having played Rye, St. Enodoc, Swinley, The Addington, and West Hill (a ton!), I have to say this seems like a great idea and for great reasons. I will say Tom's comments about the trend of width, which he rightly takes initial credit for promoting and even mastering, seem to semi-bash DMK's new SV course, especially considering the recent questioning of that courses' strategic requirements on GCA. But, I can't argue that this is perhaps a great opportunity to work that idea backwards a bit. I have yet to visit SV and am now more excited than ever to head up there in the next 3-4 years. Cheers
-
6,000 yds, par 67-68 doesn’t necessarily mean an easy course. A whole bunch of cunning can be incorporated without tricking things up.
There is also ‘personal par’.
My own version is -
1) average length tee shot with a driver....... anything less is a par-3.
2) average length shot tee with a driver, add average length fairway shot with longest fairway club......anything over is a par-5.....anything less but greater than 1) above is a par-4
3) average tee shot with a driver, add 2 x average length fairway shot with longest fairway club.....anything greater is a par-6
Atb
-
Can someone please explain to me what the “bogey” score means?
"Bogey" was par, before par was common usage.
It was the expected score on a hole for an imaginary canny old player, Colonel Bogey, who could only hit the ball maybe 200 yards off the tee but had a reasonable short game. Generally, holes over 175 or 180 yards were Bogey 4's, and holes over 380 or 390 were Bogey 5's, though there was a bit more consideration than what we do today for topography, prevailing wind, and cross hazards.
But "bogey" got confused with "one over par" after par became the standard, so it fell out of favor. It's really kind of too bad. If most golfers just targeted the old Bogey score they would stop hitting stupid 4-woods toward greens guarded by water, and probably score 2-3 shots better per round from the same tees they play today. Lots of senior players in the UK still score really well because they have understood that approach since they were kids.
-
My current routing has five par-3's and NO par-5's, although there are a few 450+ yard holes we could turn into a par-5 if we want to, and either of two short holes could turn into a drivable par-4.
I would suggest that a round of golf without at least one 5-par seems to be lacking - in variety if nothing less. Having played at least five of the great 68/69 courses, I would urge Tom D./Mike K. to have one 500-yard hole in the layout. Just MHO.
Cheers
-
My current routing has five par-3's and NO par-5's, although there are a few 450+ yard holes we could turn into a par-5 if we want to, and either of two short holes could turn into a drivable par-4.
I would suggest that a round of golf without at least one 5-par seems to be lacking - in variety if nothing less.
I would guess you have never played Elie... 16 "4s" and 2 "3s." Hard to have more fun anywhere... and, nothing seems "lacking."
-
Perhaps we could start a list for those that feel that the described course will be a pushover. Then they can check back in after having played it and share their results. I'll happily go play the equivalent of members' tees - 5700ish?
I like the concept a lot. There are now quite a few links-inspired options for people in the US. This approach provides a different sort of experience, and maybe will lead to players visiting the UK branching out from the usual choices. The variety in what a proper golf experience can be is much larger than what most of us are used to.
Hopefully there will be some Huntercombe influence, assuming Tom is willing to build a few wild greens along with hollows instead of bunkers.
Michael is spot-on about Elie. I can't imagine anyone playing there and feeling disappointed by the lack of par 5s.
-
Hopefully there will be some Huntercombe influence, assuming Tom is willing to build a few wild greens along with hollows instead of bunkers.
I should just post Michael Keiser's phone number here and let him field your ideas.
It's his dad who worries that severe greens will be dismissed by "retail golfers" as tricked up or unfair. Plus it's his own personal preference. So I suspect the greens on this course will be on the tame side by my standards. But you never know . . . we don't really design the greens until we are out there building them, so we will have to wait and see how they unfold.
I was surprised how severe the greens at Old Macdonald turned out; as it developed, Mike was okay with them because they were big enough he could just tell the staff never to use the difficult hole locations.
-
I was just at Ballyneal for two days. I think one day we played it at 6400yds, maybe a couple hundred yards longer the other day. I’m trying to imagine the golf course with 4, 8, and 16 playing a hundred yards less each, 7 playing as a really long par three, and maybe 2 being a bit shorter. That’d take it under 6000yds and I think it would still be a tough day. Especially if the wind blew.
My guess is this course will be plenty tough and interesting. Nothing hybrid about it.
-
Ever play all the par-4’s and par-5’s on your home course from a combination of the 200, 150 and 100 yd fairway markers? I have.
Quite an interesting exercise. How low can you score gross? You might be surprised....and not necessarily in a happy way!
Ever play all the par-5’s on your home from circa 450 yds (or even less)? I have. How many gross 3’s (ha, ha) and 4’s do you reckon you’ll make? Not as many as you might think I’d suggest.
Atb
-
Tom,
Probably better to just text me Keiser's number rather than posting on here.
Seriously, I wasn't expecting you to consider my "ideas." I was just commenting on what I thought would be an interesting import. As for your willingness to build wild greens, that was an attempt at humor.
-
Also curious about where exactly the location is as I was up there this summer.
Here is the image of the routing with imagery of the Sand Valley course around it. It is old imagery before the other courses or the driving range or even the parking lot and main clubhouse were finished yet but hopefully you get a better idea of where it is from this.
(http://www.zagerdesign.com/attachments/golfclubatlas/pics/sv_tom_doak_routing_with_sv_imagery.jpg)
-
I actually did a 3D model of this land just recently because I used the LiDAR of it to enter a course design completion for TrackMan’s simulators. I had to do a par 3 course for the completion but oddly while routing it I was thinking I really wanted to do a shorter full length course. Something like Pinehurst No. 1 or No. 3 was the model I was thinking about because I don’t know the shorter UK courses mentioned in this thread (my loss, someday, hopefully sooner rather than later, I’ll rectify that gap in knowledge). I was also thinking about the option of renting a set of hickory shafts out in the clubhouse and playing it like it’s 1910 as a great/fun/unique experience. If you think about it, they need something different and this space on the property is a great spot for it. Congrats to Tom, the real golf course architect (as opposed to a sim golf course architect like myself) to recognize it.
It’s super easy for me to revert back to the land before I did my course for the completion and load the image of this routing up on it and look around. I can save out a few quick/basic renderings of what I find if anyone is interested.
-
Short on the card doesn’t necessarily mean easy to play though.
Atb
Look at Gils course at LACC. As short as it is its difficult to score on. I don't think the Keisers would allow SV3 to be tricked up.
-
Perhaps apropos, or perhaps not at all (or only seeming so to me) - a selection from "Echos from British Links"- American Golfer (1920)"
"It is a question" says Mr. A. C. Croome in the Morning Post, "whether magnificence is a virtue or a fault in golf courses. Among the many services which Mr. Harry Colt rendered to the Sunningdale Club must be reckoned the modification of several holes by reduction of their more gigantic features. For example, the putting greens of the first, sixth, eleventh, twelfth, and fifteenth holes are about half the size of those originally constructed, and the play of them has consequently gained much in interest. At Woodcote Park the few and trifling alterations made have also been in the nature of reduction.
And if we turn to the places obviously intended by a beneficent providence for the playing of golf we shall observe that they are mean rather than magnificent.
There is nothing spectacular about the Road Hole at St. Andrews, and its governing bunker is commonly described as "that dirty little sink at the foot of the green." The best shot hole in the world I believe to be the sixteenth at Westward Ho! But a stranger might walk over Northam Burrows without even discovering its existence. At Hoylake the Dowie beats the Alps to a frazzle. The architect of Coombe Hill will tell you that the really good bit of work which he did there was the shaping of the puny bank leading to the seventh green. The casual visitor may possibly carry no recollection of it away with him, because subtlety is elusive.
Returning to Westward Ho!, as we must if it is desired to illustrate a discussion by citation of the best examples, we shall find that of all the longer boles the second is that which causes the greatest uplifting of spirit in the player who has taken it in a faultless four; the fourth, with its spectacular carry from the tee, makes him most inclined to kick himself when he takes five to it.
-
To me, the difference is that the courses referenced as inspiration came to be organically, rather than contrived.
I’d be more interested in a course where Tom went out and found the 18 best holes on the allocated land rather than applying these “inspired” constraints. IF the end result of the former is a par 67 (68 is mathematically impossible with 5 par 3s and 0 par 5s) then so be it. PAC Dunes is phenomenal and is non traditional in that regard.
But, to start with the idea of building a par 67 as some nod to a set of courses a significant majority of which the retail golfers likely haven’t heard, to me comes across as being a bit too clever by half.
-
I don't think the Keisers would allow SV3 to be tricked up.
Surely not. But, please, let's not dumb down the definitions of golf architecture where making a course challenging is equated with "tricked up".
-
To me, the difference is that the courses referenced as inspiration came to be organically, rather than contrived.
I’d be more interested in a course where Tom went out and found the 18 best holes on the allocated land rather than applying these “inspired” constraints. IF the end result of the former is a par 67 (68 is mathematically impossible with 5 par 3s and 0 par 5s) then so be it. PAC Dunes is phenomenal and is non traditional in that regard.
But, to start with the idea of building a par 67 as some nod to a set of courses a significant majority of which the retail golfers likely haven’t heard, to me comes across as being a bit too clever by half.
I understand your point but it seldom happens that way. When I worked for Perry Dye, every site he had in America was too small and was just begging for a 6200 yard course. [The same goes for the discussion of the Old Head of Kinsale, discussed here a couple of days ago.] But those are the clients who INSIST on a 7000 yard course, because they are the most worried about the perception that their land is too small and the course will be too easy.
Meanwhile Mike Keiser buys land 2000 acres at a time. He could build a 9000-yard championship course if that's what he hoped would "unfold organically". But thank God that's not what floats his boat.
-
Great turf.
Just thought of that - ie how key that is here, and what a gift.
I recently started playing a course with 3 9s, the longest combination is about 5900 yards Par 62.
A modest family owned course. Good fun, well cared for - but poor soil, it must have, because the turf is always vaguely soggy and soft underfoot.
No roll. No bounce. No run ups. Big difference.
P
-
the longest combination is about 5900 yards Par 62.
Is that a typo? It sounds impossible.
A par 62 would have eight par-4's and ten par-3's. If the par-3's were all 200 yards [ick], then the par-4's would have to average 3900/8 = 488 yards each.
P.S. I played a course in India this spring that had five par-3's, four of them between 210 and 225 yards. And they were all terrific holes. It was a stunning lack of variety, partially compensated by the fact that the two-shot and three-shot holes played very short, due to lack of irrigation.
-
Duh, excuse me, brain cramp that I can't even explain as a 'typo', other than the fact I conflated two different courses.
Yes, the total is 4,100 yards. 10 Par 3s, 8 Par 4s. Within that, nice range though - the Par 3s from 118 yards to 186; the Par 4s from 270 yards to 380 yards.
No roll whatsoever....which is what made me think of the soil/turf you'll have there, and how different those Par 4s might play with firm running fairways.
P
-
Par 5s tend to be the easiest holes to score well on. Eliminate most of those and the course immediately loses a few hundred yards in length, a couple of shots to par, AND potentially becomes more difficult!
;)
Par 5s play easiest for good golfers. They play hardest for average or poor golfers: more full shots required, which they are more likely to bungle.
Par 3s are the exact opposite: average golfers usually only need one good or decent shot to get on or around the green. That's why the lowest handicap holes on most US courses tend to be par 5s, and the highest handicap holes are usually par 3s.
-
Jim,
I've heard this alot and it just don't match my personal experience. If anything par 5s "allow" for a poor shot whereas par 4s, especially longer ones have zero tolerance for it.
Consider a 400 yard par 4 vs a 520 yard par 5. Both typical lengths you'll find on courses from the whites. On the par 4, if I hit a mediocre tee ball, and am left with 210 in from the rough, that's a pretty big ask for a GIR, especially considering most greens are guarded by a bunker or other trouble on one side or the other. So I miss the green and am now left with a 20-30 yard chip or bunker shot. Getting that up and down to save par will occur pretty infrequently, and perhaps even bring double into play with a poor 3rd shot.
But a 520 yard par 5. After same 190 yard drive, I can now hit same club to a much wider fairway, and assuming another 190 yard strike, 190+190=380...this now leaves me with a 140 yard approach from the short grass. A position and distance from where I can "save" par far more frequently. And my miss on that shot will usually be far less worse than a 210 yard shot from the rough, taking anything more than single bogey out of the equation most of the time.
-
I agree with Kalen.
As an "average" player (12 hcp) I can say catagorically that a par 5 is easier to score on than a long par 4. It is far more forgiving of a poor to indifferent shot.
520 yards is far easier to reach in three shots than 420 yards is in two.
The low handicap (Stroke Index) holes on UK courses tend to be the long par 4s. Par 5s generally come in around 6-10. Par 3s are normally the high indexes.
-
I agree with Kalen.
As an "average" player (12 hcp) I can say catagorically that a par 5 is easier to score on than a long par 4. It is far more forgiving of a poor to indifferent shot.
A par 67 can go one of several ways-it will be interesting to see
One , it can have 4-5 long "par 4's"and a couple of 230 plus par 3' that few can reach in regulation without a large disparity in tee distance-and suffer cries of "unfair"
or it can result in many more rounds below a benchmark score of say 70 or 80, rendering it more "fun"
I agree with another poster though who referenced it's a curious project to seek to do on purpose on a large property, rather than being the result of the best use/routing of 18 holes on a given tightish or compact property
-
If the men’s yardage is to be a little over 6,000 I wonder on the yardage of the very forward front tees.
I’m thinking here of those players who struggle to hit the ball much over 100 yds, hate forced carries and play longer holes driver-fairway metal - fairway metal - fairway - metal - etc - etc. And there are more of them about than many younger males and lower hcp players realise, and they surely deserve to be able to play as well. And their money is very useful income within the game.
Atb
-
Is this golf's version of pickle ball?
-
Is this golf's version of pickle ball?
Not deliberately, since I don't know what pickleball is!
-
Pickleball is tennis on a smaller scale. It is very popular with people who don't have the time or physical ability to learn tennis. To me it appears to be where many people want golf to go.
-
Pickleball is exploding at CC's sure, but moreso in retirement communities. My parents live in 2 Dell Webb communities (1 in Chicago area, 1 in Sun City West, AZ) and they have replaced some tennis courts with pickleball and put lights and even heaters in some of them. I played it growing up in gym class and it was always very popular as you use the badminton tennis courts and nets and was a bunch of fun.
Less movement, more action, less skill than tennis needed, quicker total game time. Good game and this IMO will only continue to grow.
-
No one graduates from pickleball to tennis. Let's hope PickleDoak doesn't have the same effect.
-
So golf at Swinley Forest is to golf what pickleball is to tennis?
Bob
-
Swinley Forest is 6400+yds par 69 with two par 5's. I don't see the compariso.
I will be shocked if PickleDoak doesn't have a few secret back tees hidden from the unwashed. This seems to be a theme for his resort courses.
-
I will be shocked if PickleDoak doesn't have a few secret back tees hidden from the unwashed. This seems to be a theme for his resort courses.
That's true, but none of those courses were built on this theme. I hope they don't ask for that.
As for Swinley Forest, they have actually lengthened two of those holes since I played it [the 5th and 15th] to make them par-5's. In the 1980's, par wasn't on the card at all, but the 12th [which they measured as a double dogleg to add yardage] was the hole that was nominally the par-5, so that it was par-68.
I haven't insisted that our course have no par-5 holes. At Rye, the first hole is 481 par 5; the first hole at West Sussex is also a short 5. Cavendish has one, too - the 14th. So they are all five par-3's and one par-5. I would not be surprised if that's where we wind up, but I'm sure there will be much discussion about it with the client, when the time comes.
-
I think you can now have one or even two Par 5s and it would be very good -- because you'd already envisioned them as *Par 4s*.
I think that might be the key to building a very good Par 5, i.e. don't start off trying to build one.
The run-of-the-mill Par 5s, the thousands of average ones scattered across the land, were all planned as Par 5s right off the bat, with all that this functionally entails (e.g. using up some ground, upping the total yardage, fitting the usual pattern/model of Pars, giving the hacks a chance at a birdie putt etc) and that it usually results in, i.e. not a very good golf hole, and a boring 2nd shot, and a very large green with one shelf.
Peter
-
There’s another course in Fife that I make a point of playing on every visit: Golf Club House at Elie. No par 5s! 6200 yards! And an elegantly wonderful walk. Here’s hoping, and with good reason, that TD’s effort is equally as much fun. I’ll bet it will be.
-
No one graduates from pickleball to tennis. Let's hope PickleDoak doesn't have the same effect.
a good late night chuckle
-
Routing and angles in relation to the prevailing wind and slopes? Short par-5's into the wind and playing into upslopes? Short downhill par-3's where the ball goes high and the wind blows it all over the place?
atb
-
Tennis courts are 2.4 to 3.2 times bigger than pickleball courts. Tom's course would have to come in around 2000 to 2500 yards to be comparable.
-
Every year I get older society tries squeezing me into a smaller and smaller box. I am simply protesting the attempted and ongoing shrinking of our playing fields. I fell for the move up a set of tees con. I won't fall for an artificial equipment rollback based on par.
-
Tom, is there any thought to the idea of leaving some land available if you needed to stretch a few holes out to make the par 72 number if it is not well received?
No. They have hundreds of acres more land, so I suppose that's always an option. But I wouldn't have signed up for the gig if I thought they were going to give up on the concept easily. Making a design "more conventional" is not an assignment I'd want.
Who was that old Musselburgh pro, who said the customer is always right?*
* I looked this up, and it is credited to Marshall Field, a Chicagoan, among others. Also, in Japan the phrase is "The customer is a god." American suck-up pales by comparison.
Tom,
Congratulations! Very happy to hear about this project.
FYI, I was actually hoping to work at Sand Valley this year, but at the last minute a couple things came up for me that forced me to cancel my plans.
Maybe next year.
Good luck on this project. Having grown up playing Pelham Country Club, I don’t quite see the need for 7,000 yard courses.
-
Every year I get older society tries squeezing me into a smaller and smaller box. I am simply protesting the attempted and ongoing shrinking of our playing fields.
Haven't golf courses headed in the opposite direction as shrinking, for at least 120 years?
-
Every year I get older society tries squeezing me into a smaller and smaller box. I am simply protesting the attempted and ongoing shrinking of our playing fields.
Haven't golf courses headed in the opposite direction as shrinking, for at least 120 years?
Jim,
You're right on the money here, they have gotten bigger and bigger with projects swallowing more land, money, and resources in general . I for one am not buying Barney's argument in pointing out the one super rare exception in a sea of tens of thousands.
-
Every year I get older society tries squeezing me into a smaller and smaller box. I am simply protesting the attempted and ongoing shrinking of our playing fields. I fell for the move up a set of tees con. I won't fall for an artificial equipment rollback based on par.
John just doesn't like reminders that he is getting old. I sort of understand this, and have a feeling I'll understand even more in 5-10 years.
The last sentence, I don't get. Artificial equipment rollback based on par? From what I saw of the scoring at Aronimink, they could just roll back par to 68 for most / all Tour courses, and maybe stave off the inevitable equipment rollback for another decade.
-
Tom,
Speaking of being downsized into smaller boxes, be very careful about downsizing your house just because you are an empty nester. We moved into a smaller house and it took about a week for my wife and I not to be able to stand the sound of each other breathing. And I don't travel as much as you. We moved back into an even larger house than we sold.
It's my observation that many people who have given up on equipment being rolled back are looking at other ways to get us to dial back the game. An artificial equipment rollback so to speak. One way of doing this is to eliminate the requirement of the long ball. Shorter holes and courses with a corresponding lower par would be one method. If you can't take the distance out of the driver take the driver out of the game.
-
You're splitting hairs, John - but, from your particular perspective and hierarchy of values (so it's all good).
From my particular perspective and hierarchy of values, if we never get another golf course with the word "mammoth" in its name, this will all have been worth it.
The 'stop sign' everyone saw pretty much all at once had an impact/effect because everyone knew (deep down) that we simply can't keep building & maintaining courses with so much turf -- and that it doesn't matter even one little bit if that amount of turf comes from too much length or too much width.
The task here, the important one, is to make sure that this 6200 yard Par 68 course is a really really good one, so that it serves as a model not for similar/duplicate courses but for the *idea* that a more compact course is a better one -- ie so that it proves commercially viable and thus provides a sound economic underpinning (for those who finance golf course construction) to keep building on a more modest (and sustainable) scale.
No matter how you think (at the moment) that this might negatively impact you....
Peter
-
Speaking of being downsized into smaller boxes, be very careful about downsizing your house just because you are an empty nester. We moved into a smaller house and it took about a week for my wife and I not to be able to stand the sound of each other breathing. And I don't travel as much as you. We moved back into an even larger house than we sold.
It's my observation that many people who have given up on equipment being rolled back are looking at other ways to get us to dial back the game. An artificial equipment rollback so to speak. One way of doing this is to eliminate the requirement of the long ball. Shorter holes and courses with a corresponding lower par would be one method. If you can't take the distance out of the driver take the driver out of the game.
John:
I appreciate the advice in the first paragraph, although my wife said just last week she plans to stay in this house forever - which surprised me, but she's the boss of that.
As to the second paragraph, my thought is, what's wrong with pulling things back in a bit, and asking good players to be a little more accurate if they want to bomb and gouge? Is it really "taking driver out of their hands" to ask them to hit a 30-yard fairway instead of a 100-yard-wide one? Yes, they could probably hit 5-iron off the tee instead and still have a short-iron approach into a lot of holes, but I'm not going to make them do that ... I just hope to make them think about the risk and reward of always hitting driver, instead of always giving them license to bomb away.
-
Tom,
I'm very excited that you have taken the baton in the race against unrequited width.
-
Tom,
I'm very excited that you have taken the baton in the race against unrequited width.
Come up with me to impress that on the client. I will need all the help I can get!
-
PM me the details. I'll be there.
-
How about telling him: Peter P says you're dangerously close to drinking your own Kool-aid, so please listen to your architect on this one, will you? I mean, there's no shame in not *always* being a genius, eh? Look, even the 'Rocky' films pretty much died with #s 4 and 5, until Stallone finally had the good sense to get out of the way and let someone else make 'Creed'. And plus, this canary in the coalmine is here to say: the world is changing. I don't think even Joe Passov let alone Matty G are gonna wax poetic about one more set of 100 yard wide fairways, huge greens, and lots of sand, are they? And if they don't, it'll be because you'd undercut/diminished an important new 'design' by insisting on your
tired tried and true 'concept'.
Do you think that might help? Me, to be honest, am not so sure...
-
Distance wise, this course will be no push over for the golfer whose drives carries ......... let's say 210. [/size]Is the assumption that the through the green will permit a lot of roll out? So it might play shorter? But then, if the lies are tight and there are forced carries over deep bunkers, then the short hitter will have it rough.
-
Recent TD interview about the new course:
https://golfweek.com/2018/10/21/golf-19th-hole-tom-doak-taking-on-old-rival-your-notions-with-new-course/
-
I'm pretty tired of the Kidd vs. Doak angle.
-
P - I know what you mean, but fortunately both are doing well enough, so 'no harm, no foul' I suppose. For me it's always about the writing: Eamon Lynch is a good writer and I like his work; but I don't like when folks stretch too far for the sake of a narrative, in this case 'Tom as iconoclast'. It may well be true, but I don't think (as Eamon suggests in support) that "purists blanche" at either the 4 Par 3s on PD's back nine or at the reversibility of The Loop. Heck, if that's what qualifies as being a purist, Mike Davis and the USGA set-up men must be the only purists left!
P
-
I'm pretty tired of the Kidd vs. Doak angle.
#Me too
But there's nothing else to write about until we actually start building something.
-
8) TD,
Are you going to have less than or more than 6 sets of tees? Are you going to tickle a slope of 140?
-
8) TD,
Are you going to have less than or more than 6 sets of tees? Are you going to tickle a slope of 140?
They'd fire me before I got it to 140! 😉
If I could build two sets of tees I would. But I'd guess we will wind up with four (ugh) or three.
-
As I note above, I am not a Tom Doak acolyte, but I do give him credit for having the Kahonas to state explicitly he is trying to build a Swinley Forest which I thought a truly marvelous course on all levels (or Rye which I have not played). It always has been clear that Tom does not lack for confidence, but to be willing to offer up a comparison to great Colt Classics that have stood the test of time does--to repeat--take big Kahonas.
Ira
-
sorry, but I must clarify.
The word is "cojones"
To add some relevant comment: New Zealand would be another course which fulfills the "par below 70 and distance roundabout 6000 yds, correct?
-
George, I stand corrected. I did use the bastardized English version.
Ira
-
George, I stand corrected. I did use the bastardized English version.
Ira
I assumed it was the laid-back Southern California version - and I thought: 'Hmm, that's strange: Ira always struck me as a quintessentially northeastern type, Boston or New York'. Next thing I know you'll be telling me that Torrey Pines and the Arizona desert courses are your favourites!
P
-
George, I stand corrected. I did use the bastardized English version.
Ira
I assumed it was the laid-back Southern California version - and I thought: 'Hmm, that's strange: Ira always struck me as a quintessentially northeastern type, Boston or New York'. Next thing I know you'll be telling me that Torrey Pines and the Arizona desert courses are your favourites!
P
I thought it was some Hawaiian Yiddish variant.
-
George, I stand corrected. I did use the bastardized English version.
Ira
I assumed it was the laid-back Southern California version - and I thought: 'Hmm, that's strange: Ira always struck me as a quintessentially northeastern type, Boston or New York'. Next thing I know you'll be telling me that Torrey Pines and the Arizona desert courses are your favourites!
P
I thought it was some Hawaiian Yiddish variant.
LOL...twice.
Ira
-
:)
But he loves courses like Deal, and there's hardly an Hawaiian to be found there...
P
-
I'm just surprised anyone thinks Tom is still in the proving himself business...
If you don't think he knows what's he doing by now, then i'm not sure what would convince....
-
sorry, but I must clarify.
The word is "cojones"
To add some relevant comment: New Zealand would be another course which fulfills the "par below 70 and distance roundabout 6000 yds, correct?
Yes, New Zealand would be another comparable course. I never think to mention it because I've never actually played it, I saw it just once, in 1982!
Arrowtown, in New Zealand, would be another, but I doubt we will go bunkerless like that one.
-
As I note above, I am not a Tom Doak acolyte, but I do give him credit for having the Kahonas to state explicitly he is trying to build a Swinley Forest which I thought a truly marvelous course on all levels (or Rye which I have not played). It always has been clear that Tom does not lack for confidence, but to be willing to offer up a comparison to great Colt Classics that have stood the test of time does--to repeat--take big Kahonas.
Ira:
I don't agree here. It takes some guts to say you're going to build a 6100-yard course and put up with all the naysayers, but honestly very few Americans have any idea of Swinley Forest or Rye, so they can't really call me on it. Had I compared it to Cypress Point, yes, that would be asking for trouble.
However, after having built one course between Muirfield and North Berwick, and another next to National and Shinnecock, all other comparisons seem relatively tame to me. ;)
-
sorry, but I must clarify.
The word is "cojones"
To add some relevant comment: New Zealand would be another course which fulfills the "par below 70 and distance roundabout 6000 yds, correct?
Yes, New Zealand would be another comparable course. I never think to mention it because I've never actually played it, I saw it just once, in 1982!
Arrowtown, in New Zealand, would be another, but I doubt we will go bunkerless like that one.
I can’t wait for this project. Anything that is the likes of New Zealand, Rye, Swinley and Arrowtown could have me relocating to Wisconsin...at least for summers.
-
As I note above, I am not a Tom Doak acolyte, but I do give him credit for having the Kahonas to state explicitly he is trying to build a Swinley Forest which I thought a truly marvelous course on all levels (or Rye which I have not played). It always has been clear that Tom does not lack for confidence, but to be willing to offer up a comparison to great Colt Classics that have stood the test of time does--to repeat--take big Kahonas.
Ira:
I don't agree here. It takes some guts to say you're going to build a 6100-yard course and put up with all the naysayers, but honestly very few Americans have any idea of Swinley Forest or Rye, so they can't really call me on it. Had I compared it to Cypress Point, yes, that would be asking for trouble.
However, after having built one course between Muirfield and North Berwick, and another next to National and Shinnecock, all other comparisons seem relatively tame to me. ;)
Tom, more than a fair point. With one caveat. Getting access to Swinley Forest, Rye, and Sand Valley is straightforward so doing comparisons possible. The odds for most of us to play any of NGLA, Shinnecock, or Sebonack, let alone all three, are pretty low.
I have been fortunate enough to play both Cypress Point and Swinley Forest. I would play either any day of the week and twice on every day of the week. My cajones comment stands.
Ira
-
Comment may still stand, but you still can't spell 'cojones' :D
-
Comment may still stand, but you still can't spell 'cojones' :D
I had a feeling I had it wrong when I hit Post. Just do not tell my kids--I am on their cases all of the time about grammar and spelling.
Ira
-
All good, Ira.
Thanks for the chuckle.
The spanish speaker in me can't help to point out the irony that cajones is the word for canyons.
-
All good, Ira.
Thanks for the chuckle.
The spanish speaker in me can't help to point out the irony that cajones is the word for canyons.
George, thanks and cannot wait to share this one with my sister who is fluent in Spanish. I barely scrape by with English.
Ira
-
sorry, but I must clarify.
The word is "cojones"
To add some relevant comment: New Zealand would be another course which fulfills the "par below 70 and distance roundabout 6000 yds, correct?
Yes, New Zealand would be another comparable course. I never think to mention it because I've never actually played it, I saw it just once, in 1982!
Arrowtown, in New Zealand, would be another, but I doubt we will go bunkerless like that one.
To be honest, I haven't seen it myself, but have read about it here (and in Confidential Guide Vol 1), and thought to mention it. So thanks are in order to the group!
I hope to go play the heathland courses at some point in the future.
Hoping that that a work trip might take me there (we have an office in Surrey).
-
Now that we have more ball references/comments to titillate a group of high school freshman...
Any updates on the new course? When will the first shovel be thrust in-and-out into the sandbox...
-
Now that we have more ball references/comments to titillate a group of high school freshman...
Any updates on the new course? When will the first shovel be thrust in-and-out into the sandbox...
I will be there in two weeks to walk around with the client(s). They will probably do a bit of clearing this winter, but there is no plan to start shaping anything in 2019 ... which is just as well as I have 2-4 other new projects to break ground on. If it's only two instead of four, I might lobby to do a bit of shaping this time next year.
-
@ Tom Doak
Have you visited LuLu yet? If not, it's great place to study a short course:
https://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/lulucc/actual.htm
http://myphillygolf.com/uploads/bausch/LuLu/index.html
-
If John Kavanaugh thinks the likes of Swinley Forest, Rye or West Sussex are hybrid golf he clearly hasn’t played much decent golf.
-
@ Tom Doak
Have you visited LuLu yet? If not, it's great place to study a short course:
http://myphillygolf.com/uploads/bausch/LuLu/index.html (http://myphillygolf.com/uploads/bausch/LuLu/index.html)
I have not, but I do have to get to Stonewall next year, so maybe I will have time.
-
Bump .... TD, has the health crisis affected the project?
SV is on my bucket list, but want to wait until your course is open.
-
Bump .... TD, has the health crisis affected the project?
SV is on my bucket list, but want to wait until your course is open.
Unfortunately, it is on hiatus. No construction this year, apart from the clearing they've been doing.
Maybe not next year, either.
-
Judging by how busy the resort was this weekend they may rethink that but you can't blame anyone for a wait and see approach -- I went up by the cabin and took a peak.
-
Judging by how busy the resort was this weekend they may rethink that but you can't blame anyone for a wait and see approach -- I went up by the cabin and took a peak.
Just golf, or rooms/food as well?
-
Judging by how busy the resort was this weekend they may rethink that but you can't blame anyone for a wait and see approach -- I went up by the cabin and took a peak.
Just golf, or rooms/food as well?
Saturday was busy on all the courses from what I could see, we couldn't get on the sandbox after our round at SV and there were people playing until well after dark-- the restaurant was grab and go or room service only so it was hard to tell how busy it was. The lodge we were in the parking was full --lot's of Illinois and Minnesota plates. Sunday was horrible weather so only a few crazies were out-- Brad Hill, my son and I didn't see anyone until we were on the back 9.
-
I am waking up at 2am to drive to Nekoosa to play 45 holes and it was extremely tough to get a tee time for a twosome so hopefully this trend continues. This will be my first trip and I am pumped :)
-
I'm disappointed that construction has been halted. I went to SV twice last month and hoped to see an active construction site.
I walked over to Sedge Valley and took a few pictures. At this point there are 5 holes - 1,2,16,17,18 - that have been cleared, groomed, and ready for shaping.
Hole 1 has a neat ridge that runs along the right side of the hole and will accelerate balls to the side. This picture is taken close to the green location and looking back toward the tee, so the ridge is on the left. I am interested in seeing how the green will interact with this ridge.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49967218261_4f91e8c285_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j8r4a8)
Hole 2 is very visually appealing and climbs up the hill. The 16th hole can be seen through the pines. I like that this stand of pines is a nod to Sand Valley's former life as a commercial tree farm.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49967217571_f08e55e768_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j8r3Xe)
Hole 16 comes down the same hill that was used for hole 2. These were taken from near the the green site and look back up the hole.
Hole 16 works down the same hill that was used for #2. These pictures are taken from near the green looking back up the hole.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49967487772_2b1d3e2e13_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j8srgS)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49967218466_b329f9e795_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j8r4dE)
Hole 17 has a significant right to left slope. Taken near the tee.
Hole 17's fairway has a significant right to left slope. Taken from near the tee.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49966707713_c20de0b482_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j8oroz)
Hole 18 climbs gently uphill.
Hole 18 works gently uphill.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49967487392_090f7ff48a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j8sraj)
-
any update on sedge valley, still on hiatus?
only curious
-
any update on sedge valley, still on hiatus?
only curious
I believe the reports say it's still on hiatus, with Lido taking priority
-
any update on sedge valley, still on hiatus?
only curious
I believe the reports say it's still on hiatus, with Lido taking priority
Correct.
-
any update on sedge valley, still on hiatus?
only curious
I believe the reports say it's still on hiatus, with Lido taking priority
Correct.
Is it confirmed that Sedge Valley will be built as designed in the future as the next project at SV after the Lido?
Personally, the Sedge Valley course and a true homage to the English heathland courses sounded far more interesting than a reproduction of the Lido in Wisconsin. But maybe I'm in the super minority.
-
Pat -
Today's story from wisconsin.golf indicates that the Keisers are still committed to Sedge Valley. Here are a couple of paragraphs from the story:
- - -
The Keisers already had hired Doak and his Renaissance Golf Design team to build Sedge Valley, which would have been the third 18-hole course at Sand Valley. The coronavirus pandemic and economic uncertainty put Sedge Valley on hold, however, and with The Lido fully funded by founding members, the projects were flipped.
“Sedge Valley is certainly in the future,” Michael said. “We still need the money to pay for it, so we’re still trying to figure out how to finance it. Right now, we’re focused on this. The Lido is our third course and resort guests will be able to play it, so we’re not going to rush to Sedge Valley. We’ll build it when it’s appropriate to build it.”
- - -
With Lido and Sedge Valley completed, Sand Valley will have a very eclectic portfolio of courses to choose from. I can't think of another resort with such high-quality variety.
Here's a link to the full story that has a lot of good info and quotes:
https://www.wisconsin.golf/courses/the-lido-reborn-keiser-brothers-tom-doak-teaming-to-re-create-a-long-lost-gem/article_f5d1dc1c-5b6a-11eb-8ad0-4f23417c26db.html (https://www.wisconsin.golf/courses/the-lido-reborn-keiser-brothers-tom-doak-teaming-to-re-create-a-long-lost-gem/article_f5d1dc1c-5b6a-11eb-8ad0-4f23417c26db.html)
-
I actually spoke to Michael about the project yesterday. It's probably 2-4 years away now, and who knows what will happen in the meantime? But they are still committed to it, and we discussed a few things we might do on it over the next year or two so the areas where we might do earthwork will have time to revegetate naturally.
I actually haven't seen it since the first three holes were cleared, it will be nice to go back and have a walk around. They had cleared seven or eight holes before they shut down that work last March.
-
Glad to hear its still moving forward. Suppose it makes sense that they are building the "private" course first, considering they need the member fees to actually pay for it.
Not sure what that says about the golf resort model if Sand Valley, which is absolutely packed with players paying $250+ round, can't get financing for Sedge Valley post Covid. :o
-
Based on what I spent last summer for two nights/two rounds, cart with caddy they should be well on their way to getting enough money for Sedge Valley.