[JC Jones]

JC Jones,

I am well aware that Mr. Hills is very big in these parts and for the record, I am not anti-Art Hills courses (I even know where his unique office is).  You may be right on how the contract was constructed.  But I do believe this proves that are not as proud as they may come across about their Park course.

Chris

I think you are right about their pride in their heritage.  Not anti-Art Hills?  You must like fairway bunkers in typical landing zones that spread 75% across the fairway!!

[Chris_Blakely]

JC Jones,

I am well aware that Mr. Hills is very big in these parts and for the record, I am not anti-Art Hills courses (I even know where his unique office is).  You may be right on how the contract was constructed.  But I do believe this proves that are not as proud as they may come across about their Park course.

Chris

I think you are right about their pride in their heritage.  Not anti-Art Hills?  You must like fairway bunkers in typical landing zones that spread 75% across the fairway!!

He has some less than stellar courses (IMO) these are ones that are older and appear to have had less involvement of some of his associates.  I like Shepherd's Hollow, Fieldstone, Red Hawk  (MI heard good things about, but not played), Red Hawk (OH) and the Eagles Ridge GC in Kentucky to name a few.  He has some doozies out there as well and have some different bunkering.

There is a country club in my area that was one of the first courses that he designed that I wonder how they have stayed private???  I get invites to play it occasionally and kindly decline.

Chris

[Ron Farris]

I think this was about Belvedere GC.  I had the luxury of playing this course with my wife in the early 90"s,  I would agree with Tom Doak that this is the type of course that the world needs more of.  I especially like the pro shop and its separation from the clubhouse.  They told us that there were a few balls on the other side of the clubhouse that we could hit to warm up.  There was no cart path to get to the balls.  We were playing in October and I think there may have been only 4 other people on the course.  I still proudly wear my wool sweater which I purchased in the quaint pro shop, although it is a little tight in the belly region.  I will try to post some of the pictures from my trip when I return home.

Again, I continue to reflect on Belvedere as the way golf was meant to be.

[Chris DeNigris]

Playing Belvedere is like stepping back in time. Of course the Hickory tourney being played that day might have contributed some..

Nothing really overwhelms you but the subtelties are really great. The par 3s are terrific. Each very different with great bunkering and challenging green contours.

The greens in general are very good, a lot of false fronts and sides- a lot of fun to putt. Number 16 has to be one of the more amazing green complexes I've run across- a very wicked ending to what looks to be a benign short 4 from the tee box.

Green fee at Belvedere- $66
Room fee for 4 hours of "sleep" at the Charlevoix Motel- $99
Getting to meet and play Belvedere with Bogey on the morning of the Kingsley trip- Priceless.

[RSLivingston_III]

I am a little confused. Tom, I thought you helped Belvedere get their 1938 USGS

and that it had been figured out that Bell had come in to do the bunkering.
That the bunkering that exists was a 1960's (?) redo.
It should also be noted that #!, 11, and 16 are covered (Hole drawings) in Thomas' book "Golf Architecture in America"

[JC Jones]

Ralph,

Where did you learn that Bell had done the bunkering?  I've recently read the two club histories (one written in 1969 and another in 1990) and neither of them mention anyone other than Watson being involved in the design of the course and a chicagoan named Miller to "clear the land under the direction of Watson."

[Tom MacWood]

There was speculation that Bell was involved based on the looks of the bunkers, but I've never seen any evidence Bell came to Michigan. Its not surprising Watson and Bell's bunkers would look similar since Bell was a protege of Watson's.

[JC Jones]

There was speculation that Bell was involved based on the looks of the bunkers, but I've never seen any evidence Bell came to Michigan. Its not surprising Watson and Bell's bunkers would look similar since Bell was a protege of Waton's.

Watson was also involved at Riviera where Bell gets credit for the bunkers, correct?

[RSLivingston_III]

This has all been discussed before, maybe a couple of years ago. Tommy N. dug up some info. If I knew how to do searches here might be able to find it.
But in any case, after seeing that 1938USGS the bunkering that is there from the renovation is a disaster.

[Tom MacWood]

Watson was consulted at Riviera. Bell got his start at Annandale in 1919 working with Watson. I do remember the discussion about Bell working at Belvedere, but I don't recall any direct evidence. There are two Watson drawings of Belvedere in 'Golf Architecture in America' - the 11th and 16th holes - and the bunkering on those plans are identical to the aerial, which leads me to believe it is 100% Watson.

[RSLivingston_III]

The 1st is also in there. Pg.166
The aerial doesn't show the fairway bunker in the drawing. Either removed or never installed.

[JC Jones]

This has all been discussed before, maybe a couple of years ago. Tommy N. dug up some info. If I knew how to do searches here might be able to find it.
But in any case, after seeing that 1938USGS the bunkering that is there from the renovation is a disaster.

I agree.  The bunkering and the number of trees present on the course vs the 1938 aerial are disappointing.

[RSLivingston_III]

I think I find what has happened to the 8th and 16th the most disappointing. Makes you want to sneak out there some night and do some digging.

[ed_getka]

Should we move all of these posts to a Willie Watson thread?

MOST DEFINITELY!!!!!

[JC Jones]

I think I find what has happened to the 8th and 16th the most disappointing. Makes you want to sneak out there some night and do some digging.

I was told that the bunkers short right of the green on 16 are being put back next season.  I'd like to see the bunker on 6 that is between 6 fairway and 2 green restored to its original form and all of those trees removed.

[BCowan]

I had never played this course before today, although I walked it a couple of times when I first came to northern Michigan.

It was a wonderful, pleasant round of golf.  It's exactly the kind of course golf needs more of, but that no one is building.

Goes with the flow of the land.  Very simple bunkering which must cost pennies to maintain.  Great greens, and great greens surrounds for chipping.  Simple to build, simple to maintain.

I'm not trying to be too harsh on modern architects here.  Out of 15 past clients I think maybe only one or two of them would have wanted something this simple.  But seeing Belvedere makes me think everyone is trying too hard.

   I had the pleasure of playing Belvedere for the first time this year (finally) and it exceeded my expectations.  It was rather fun to hit 4iron bumps around the greens.  As Tom said in this old thread that has great info throughout it, Great green surrounds for chipping was the highlight of the course IMO.  Curious to learn about the Hepner long term reno there that has been going on I think.  7-9 is a great stretch of holes.  The simplicity and elegance of the place is perfect and should be a model for more courses. 

[Ben Hollerbach]

Where belvedere really shines is in the movement of land into and around the green complexes. Holes like 3, 6, 7, 11, 16, and 17 utalize the topography and slope beautifully around their greens. Enough so, that between those 6 green only 2 bunkers sit as protection. Looking at the old aerial in the clubhouse, I really would love to see the course go through a bunker restoration to match.

[Tom_Doak]

I saw Bruce Hepner a couple of weeks ago and he mentioned that Belvedere was getting ready to restore some of the old bunkering.  [FYI, though my company consulted at the club for a number of years, Bruce has always done the consulting work there.]

As is mentioned above, the bunkering from Watson's original design was very different.  Some of the positions are downright weird by any modern theory about where bunkers should be placed, with lots of bunkers well short of the greens on some holes.  [For example, see the par-3 4th in the picture above, playing south just to the left of #1.]  It will be interesting to see how it's received if they DO put the bunkers back where they were.


The point of my original post, though, was admiring the simplicity of the bunkers and the focus on the routing and greens detailing.  The membership today is apparently a little more willing to spend money than the previous generation, but a lot of that work will be peripheral to the quality of the golf.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Tom,


At nearly 230 yards today, I wondered if initially the 4th played more like a 3.5 par with most of the members unable to hit the green in 1 stroke. If that was the case I'd imagine the original bunkering on the 4th made for a wonderful short hole. The bunkering on the 3rd is the one that fools me the most. I can't imagine how many of those bunkers short of the green ever came into play.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,


At nearly 230 yards today, I wondered if initially the 4th played more like a 3.5 par with most of the members unable to hit the green in 1 stroke. If that was the case I'd imagine the original bunkering on the 4th made for a wonderful short hole.

Ben:


I'm sure that's the case.  However, not many architects today would dare leave the members a 50-yard bunker shot for their second if they hit a bad tee shot on a 230-yard par-3.  They'd complain enough just having a 230-yard par-3 at all !

[Russ Arbuthnot]

Where belvedere really shines is in the movement of land into and around the green complexes. Holes like 3, 6, 7, 11, 16, and 17 utalize the topography and slope beautifully around their greens. Enough so, that between those 6 green only 2 bunkers sit as protection. Looking at the old aerial in the clubhouse, I really would love to see the course go through a bunker restoration to match.

Yes!


I have that photo in my office. Apparently, the lack of a lot of the bunkers is due to pace of play concerns. Weird or not, I think they would take this course [back] to new heights. Regarding bunkering on #4, I posted this several years ago.


I played there earlier this summer, and could see some of the differences from just two years ago. Bunker on 15 is better now.


Keep up the good work!

[Tom_Doak]

The most interesting bunkers to me are the ones to the right of #16 green.  Apparently, from that aerial, the slope to the right of the green was mowed as fairway down to the bottom, and the bunkers were right there at the bottom.

[JC Jones]

One of the more interesting things I've always found about the course in that 1938 aerial is the few holes that aren't bunkered.  5 and 14 are the 2 holes with the least interesting land on the entire course (along with 2 but it does have the giant dogleg bunker of 6 behind the green) and when looking at the aerial, those holes are without bunkers. 

[Joe Hancock]

One of the more interesting things I've always found about the course in that 1938 aerial is the few holes that aren't bunkered.  5 and 14 are the 2 holes with the least interesting land on the entire course (along with 2 but it does have the giant dogleg bunker of 6 behind the green) and when looking at the aerial, those holes are without bunkers.

Those holes are in the low lands and drainage may have dictated the bunkering decision.

[JC Jones]

One of the more interesting things I've always found about the course in that 1938 aerial is the few holes that aren't bunkered.  5 and 14 are the 2 holes with the least interesting land on the entire course (along with 2 but it does have the giant dogleg bunker of 6 behind the green) and when looking at the aerial, those holes are without bunkers.

Those holes are in the low lands and drainage may have dictated the bunkering decision.

You certainly know more than I.  The only counter I would have to that is 12 green and 10 green having bunkers and they are relatively same level as 13, same the bunkers on 6 relative to 5. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()