News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


pacgd

On previous threads discussing Lowcountry golf, there seems to be alot of respect for Long Cove.  I haven't played there in at least 15 years, when there seemed to be lots of vacant lots (and I recall they seemed to be rather small and looked to be pretty close to the fairways on at least a couple of holes) that allowed the golf course not to feel like a regular housing development project.  I presume the real estate has been built up here - has it compromised the golf, or does Long Cove remain the best golf in coastal South Carolina as I thought it was circa 1990?

Evan_Green

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Just how good is Long Cove? (Or, Have The Houses Ruined It?)
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2005, 02:19:39 AM »
They have done a wonderful job at Long Cove of keeping the houses away from the golf course. I very much noticed this fact when I played there last year. The lots are not only an ample distance from the playing ground but they are further separated by trees- not only making the houses safer and more private, leaving the course alone.

Indeed it is among the premier Coastal Carolina coures without a doubt.

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Just how good is Long Cove? (Or, Have The Houses Ruined It?)
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2005, 08:44:10 AM »
I worked at Long Cove 1988-1991 and return every spring for 3-4 days.
There definitely are are a significant #of homes lining the course and the lots are not real big compared to some of the more recent area developments-Most are set back behind lagoons and trees,but a recent tree disease has exposed more than you used to see before(this is also true of the  perimeters of the property).In my opinion these do not affect the playing of the course and it remains great,it's just that there have also been some pretty good low country courses built  recently.
So I would say the housing has slightly affected the visual experience but definitely not ruined it.

The one thing I've noticed is that the course has less contrast than it used to(at least in the dormant period-they no longer overseed due to consistent year round play)For practical reasons,the centipede roughs(which provided great visual contrast) were removed(they did not stand up to traffic and made for very dicey chipping and pitching)

On my recent visit,I was surprised to see the centipede used at Dye's Colleton River Course after the Long Cove experience.(they obviously are experiencing the same problem as cart traffic is carefully(awkwardly) routed to avoid the centipede)

So Long Cove isn't as visually striking as it once was,but it still remains a great course.

"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Mark Brown

Re:Just how good is Long Cove? (Or, Have The Houses Ruined It?)
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2005, 12:42:31 PM »
Long Cove is still an excellent course. I've lived at HHI for 24 years and watched it, and about 25 other courses, mature. Generally speaking the homes are well-tucked in among the forests.

I think what makes Long Cove so good is the contours from tee to green, but particularly in the greensites. It all blends in very naturally and doesn't have any extreme, unnatural features that Dye has used in some of his courses. It's a very strategic course and it's all you want when it's fast and firm, which is most of the time.

Many of the greens are at or near grade allowing for running shots and green contours are bold but not over the top. The key for me is keeping the ball in play off the tee, not missing the green in the wrong place and navigating the contours on the putting surfaces.

I rank it No. 1 in the state and it's always close in the ratings with Harbour Town, which has improved greatly over the past 5 years, The Ocean Course, Yeaman's Hall and recently Sage Valley by Fazio.

Long Cove was built right after the TPC at Sawgrass which was so controversial that I think Dye intentionally used a much more natural design style at Long Cove, and of course there were a number of budding architects that worked on it, including Doak, P.B., Tim Liddy (I believe) and a couple others.

tlavin

Re:Just how good is Long Cove? (Or, Have The Houses Ruined It?)
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2005, 12:49:41 PM »
I've only played Long Cove once, so I'm no expert, but I was very impressed with the character of the golf course.  It is a little "house-heavy" on a number of holes, but that's life on Hilton Head.  I would agree that it is not overrun with millionaire mansions and that most of the homes are surrounded by trees.

There are a lot of newish courses in the Hilton Head area, but Long Cove still stands above the rest in terms of golf course design, IMHO.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:Just how good is Long Cove? (Or, Have The Houses Ruined It?)
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2005, 02:43:27 PM »
redanman:  I mentioned the Mountain Course at LaQuinta just the other day, as an example of courses which have used astro-turf for a hard-to-maintain tee ... sorry you missed it!

Mark:  I'd agree with pretty much everything you say about the course, but Tim Liddy didn't work there ... we had a crew of about 15 which included 5 superintendents-to-be and 8 architects-to-be:  Pete, Alice, P.B., Bobby Weed, myself, Ron Farris, Scott Pool and David Savic.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back