[Matthew Petersen]

I liked watching ACC, and I think it would be fun to play ... occasionally. I feel that way about a lot of Pete Dye's work. I love it, but not a lot of it would be my first choice for a course to play everyday. So be it.


I think it was a wonderful place to have the match play. Nothing against Harding Park, which I have never seen in person, but there was really nothing about that course that made it intriguing for match play. If we're going to have so few match play tournaments, I fully support seeing them on courses where a stroke play event wouldn't be feasible. I liked that about Dove Valley and I like it with ACC.

[Kalen Braley]

Just to play devils advocate...

But how is ACC fundamentally different than say a Pine Valley?  They were both built to be a mother of a test right?

I've never seen either in person but Pine Valley looks to be an even bigger beast than ACC.  It too has plenty of forced carries, do-or-die shots, just as many places to lose your ball in the Philly jungle, and otherwise a course that beats the hell out of even the most avowed Satanist.

So why no love for ACC?   Because if the MP event ever went to PV, the GCA boyz would be over-the-moon titillated to the max to see the pros go there and the forum would light up like a Christmas tree gushing its praises.

Just wonderin'

[Dave McCollum]

You’re right Kalen.  I didn’t say they were bad courses, just from an era when building really difficult courses was fashionable.  Nothing wrong with very challenging courses if that’s what twirls your beanie.  I just don’t think that appeals to the vast majority of golfers.  Speaking of high end courses that I’ve played, I personally like a course, say RCD, that can be quite challenging—especially with weather—and yet very playable for a diverse membership.  Never played Pine Valley, but it looks pretty intimidating from photos for the average golfer.  And I think from its very conception, that was part of Crump's mission. 

[Bill_McBride]

Bill - I'm biased, and there are several factors that influence whether I play one over the other, but from the golf course standpoint I prefer AGC.  ACC has some real beauty and some jaw-dropping looks, but it is hard and taxing.  I also think the greens are too undulating for the speeds they keep them (fast) so being out of position around the greens can be tormenting.  I understand there should be a price to pay for missing in the wrong spot (and there certainly is at AGC) but the slopes and contours can be quite severe in spots.


AGC is completley different than ACC, and for that matter any other course in the area.  As I noted previously there are no hazards, unless you count the native which can be very penal during the spring and summer.  Additionally, there is more variety in the shots you can play at AGC, esp around the greens.  I've always described AGC as easy to play but hard to score.  ACC is hard to play and hard to score.  Out of ten times, I would probably lean AGC 8-2.


Matt, in terms of the penal nature, I think it has more to do with the nature of the land vs. the design.  Most of these TX hill country courses are situated through canyons and creeks so there will just be forced carries and water to gobble up errant shots.  In my opinion it is unfortunate to have that contour.  It makes for a "wow" factor for visiting players but for the guys that live and play here everyday it can be frustrating.

Thanks Ed, I agree completely about AGC. Missing in the wrong places can really lead to some very difficult recoveries.  Always better to be short and straight than hole high but sideways!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()