Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Down South

I went down south for a bit. It's a different kind of Golf than Boston , Lehigh or the CalClub, but I learned to play on Bermuda surface and love it.

Did you know Bagger Vance (on TGC last nite) was filmed at the Colleton River Dye Course?

I will show more soon as I feel it is not really well-known, and despite living on it; feel I ought ought to show it off.

Stay tuned.

This is on the second tee

 This is from the clubhouse to the ocean, We have 11 holes you can see to the ocean.


Kick me in the rear so I get on it ...

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Ron Prichard Comments on Upcoming Aronimink Work

Joe Juliano article link:

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/golf/20160819_Get_to_know_the_new_Aronimink__coming_in_2018.html

The following is presented for all interested parties. The author is Ron Prichard, Golf Course Architect of Record for the Aronimink Golf Club's most recent complete restoration - essentially undoing Robert Trent Jones, Sr.'s work performed prior to the 1962 PGA Championship and re-creating as closely as possible the original design/design intent. Presented with copyrighted permission for redanman.com. The content contained herein is solely Mr. Prichard's as regards re-presenting this material in any other for than reference to this location.

In my opinion, it should be very informative to a great many people.



Some supplemental Comments pertaining to the recent Article “Get to know the New Aronimink coming in April 2018’ by Joe Juliano, staff writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer – updated August 19, 2016.

First of all, I want to mention, I am not particularly eager to spend time clarifying portions of this long Article, (as stated, “Get to know the New Aronimink coming in April 2018), however since I was not contacted and interviewed by Mr. Juliano, I thought it might be helpful to address certain comments, and shed further light on certain conclusions which as a result of the Inquirer Article are now a matter of record and from my point of view are not accurate. It is my purpose as the most recent golf architect to work on the Aronimink Golf Club Golf Course to now and for all time correct the historical record.

In his opening paragraph, Mr. Juliano describes the inscription that is “embossed” on a metal disk that is attached to a large stone located behind the first tee. On it, the words attributed to Donald Ross (Note: this comment was uttered when he came to Aronimink Golf Club on his first visit, following construction of the golf course). It states, “I intended to make this my masterpiece, but not until today did I realize I built better than I knew”. And when I first read that quote in 1994, the year I began to conduct serious research for a Plan of Restoration for the golf course, I initially questioned, why did you say that, at that time, so many years after the golf course was built? Where were you while construction was proceeding? Was it also true, (even though there is a film clip which showed Ross on the ground during early construction), that here also his constant travel prevented him from returning to Aronimink Golf Club as the course was under construction?

As the Article continues, Mr. Juliano goes on to say, “The recent discovery of photographs, an aerial shot and several from ground level, from 1929 has unveiled some never-before-seen features of a Ross design that have disappeared over time”. I must say, I find that a very strange comment, for the 1929 aerials that Juliano refers to as, “a recent discovery”, have hung on the walls of the men’s locker room for over 20 years. These are photographs I first located over 25 years ago, which are all located, as mentioned, in the Dallin Collection housed in the Hagley Museum in Wilmington, Delaware. And every male member of the club has walked past these photographs for decades.

These very same photographs were hanging on the walls at the club in 1994 when I visited to make a Presentation to the Aronimink Golf Club Restoration Committee of my proposed Plan of “Restoration.” This was a special meeting convened so that Jay Sigel, a well respected member, who was often away from the club traveling, could attend and hear the discussion of my intentions for the golf course.

It was at this meeting where I explained to the Committee that it was my suggestion; (if they approved), to reconstruct the golf course, (which was no longer a Ross Course), according to the appearance illustrated on Donald Ross’ original Field Sketches. The original sketches which had been provided for construction.

At that same time, I only briefly touched upon my strong personal belief that the bunkering of the golf course which was clearly indicated on the Dallin Photographs, (which as mentioned above were hanging in the club at that time), illustrated the architectural efforts of a then member of Aronimink named Mr. J.B. McGovern. The same J.B. McGovern, a resident of Wynnwood, Pennsylvania who was a long time employee – and associate – of Donald Ross. (I did not know at the time, but in a recent discussion with a very serious authority of early American golf architecture, I subsequently learned that Mr. McGovern was not “just a member – he was in fact, Green Chairman”).

When I was asked by the Aronimink Golf Club Restoration Committee why I favored reconstructing the golf course according to Ross’ original Field Sketches, I stated, “In my opinion the drawings provided by Ross, are a set of quite probably the finest drawings I have studied” and that “I feel it would be a better result if the superintendent had only 75 or so bunkers to maintain rather than a number approaching 200 bunkers”.

Following the meeting during which it was decided to proceed as I had suggested, Jay Sigel walked over, and said to me, “Ron in the last hour and a half listening to you, I have learned more about golf architecture than in a career of playing. (It was a wonderful compliment, - one I will always cherish). 

As Joe Juliano proceeds with his article, he goes on to say, “those photos showed that Ross liked to improvise with bunker design and location, rather than follow the original plan on paper”. He does not mention who suggested such a thought, but in response I say, “In all the many years I have concentrated on the restoration of Donald Ross golf courses, I have found the actual bunker construction deviated from Ross’ original field sketches on only three other golf courses. Each of these was a golf course where J.B McGovern was the on-site construction associate. And interestingly, what these three golf courses had in common was clear evidence of McGovern’s proclivity to alter Donald Ross’ bunkering sketches and instructions. One of these golf courses was “finished by Mr. McGovern” a year after the death of Donald Ross. The result in each case was a golf course with double, or triple clusters of small bunkers precisely where Ross’ field sketches had specified a single large bunker. 

In a subsequent paragraph, Mr. Steve Zodtner, Club President at Aronimink is quoted saying, “Comparing the Master Plan to the aerial, they, realized that the bunker complexes were much different than they were as they were drawn”. (This might refer to the original Ross Plan of the golf course, or the Restoration Plan I created in 1994). And indeed this is true. Juliano then further quotes Mr. Zodtner saying, “We think, and Gil believes, that Ross, when he went out in the field, made sort of game-time decisions about where to place bunkers. He was trying to do things more innovatively. So we’re going to restore it back to it’s 1929 look”. And although I respect that Gil Hanse has restored seven Donald Ross golf courses, I have restored perhaps seven times seven. (I do not keep count). And in my experience, and all the research I have pursued over 40 years; that was never the way Ross worked – not ever. Because of the difficulty of travel during the late 1920’s, (the choice was either auto, or rail), Ross only rarely visited one of his courses while it was under construction. And these were courses which were extremely close to one of his homes. It is my belief that at Aronimink, where Ross had an associate who was not only a member, but the Green Chairman, he felt little need to monitor the work.

At this point, you may still question what I discovered and therefore I have included a few of the original Donald Ross field sketches for the Brook Lea Country Club Golf Course, (Rochester, New York), where construction commenced in 1926 – a few years prior to the golf course for the new Aronimink Golf Club. The field sketches with field notes in the hand of Donald Ross, are for holes # 10, 11, 12, 17, and 18.

If you chose to make the trip to Rochester, you will find the original field sketches for each of these holes which were drafted by Donald Ross, and they clearly show “in pencil”, where J. B. McGovern modified the sketches to illustrate the separation of many of the individual large bunkers into a pair of smaller hazards. And if you carefully study the bunkers created at Aronimink, you will see that they were separations of the single originally sketched bunker, precisely within the original footprint of the Ross Bunker.


You can see this on the following pages:

Hole #10 – where three fore bunkers, (on the left – each labeled #1), were left unaltered, however the two approach bunkers, (#s 3 and 4), were divided, (in pencil), by McGovern.bunkers, (#s 3 and 4), were divided, (in pencil), by McGovern



Hole #11 – Three left side fairway bunkers were left untouched, and the three beyond the 350 yard mark, (#s 4, 5, and 6), were altered by McGovern. Please note: for the most part, The Ross fairway bunkers are 4’ 6” in depth.



Hole #12 – Each of the leftside fairway bunkers were divided
by McGovern as indicated by the narrow turf bridges – with a
pencil.



Hole #17 – The first two bunkers were not altered from
Ross’ design. The next four, (#s 3, 4, 5, and 6), were each
divided by McGovern. (Again, notice all bunkers, except one
was specified to be 4’ 6” in depth).



Hole #18 – Of the six bunkers illustrated by Ross, four, (#s
1, 2, 5, and 7), were split in half by McGovern, #4 is an
“irregular mound not less than 5’ high”.



When later in the article, Gil Hanse is quoted as saying that, “we’re really focused on the original design character, the style of bunkering, and the configuration.” “He generally kind of put
together in groups of three or four clusters as opposed to a singular bunker”. “He” should be understood to be McGovern – not Ross. Gil goes on to say, “that is different to Ross and I think a really interesting presentation’. I agree. What McGovern produced is different “from” Ross. And the bunkering shown on the Dallin photographs is the original design, character, and configuration created by McGovern.I know for certain, on a few courses, Ross might flash the sand further up the face of a bunker – always carefully stipulated in  the field notes accompanying each of his field sketches, and in one incident, he specified that a hazard rather than being a concave pit of sand, should be a sand covered mound. But he did not call for groups of multiple hazards on his field sketches, nor did he embrace them on his golf courses. If that was his preference, he would have illustrated that on his “construction plans”.

As the Juliano article continues, John Gosselin the golf course superintendent at Aronimink Golf Club explains to readers, and perhaps members, that; “over the years most of the bunker clusters designed by Ross – (They were not designed by Ross), have been gradually merged into one bunker”. The real story of what actually happened, is: over the many years the course has been in existence, first – George Fazio, then, (I believe), David Gordon, and in 1987 Robert Trent Jones Sr. all worked on and altered the architectural character of the golf course. In fact I visited the Club in 1987 during the reconstruction of the golf course by crews under the supervision of associates of Jones. And due to those efforts, the golf course was significantly altered. Tees were added. And the course was completely rebunkered which in several cases required cutting away sizable portions of the green’s fill pads to gather fill materials for construction of bunker surrounds. I still have many photographs of the golf course under construction at this time. 

It was for me a sad experience. And the golf course in play today
was reconstructed, (by erasing most all vestiges of the Trent
Jones redesign with the exception of the pond fronting the 17th
green), and utilizing the original field sketches, to reestablish
the course Donald Ross illustrated on his General, (routing),
Plan. When John Gosselin mentions, and Gil Hanse concurs that
several “Ghost Bunkers” were removed and three will be
restored behind the 11th Green’s fill pad, I feel it is important to
note: There were no back bunkers on that green on Ross’
original field sketches nor on the large routing plan. Any “game
time” decisions were decisions made by McGovern. And
forcing bunkers into that location “hanging up on the back
slope” is far from anything Ross would suggest.

The fundamental point I have focused so much attention on:
is in greater detail what I explained, (as stated above), in 1994;
in several subsequent discussions over twenty years, and
expressed in a long email I sent to Dr. Ned Ryan, the then Green
Chairman, two years ago. - long before Mr. Juliano”s
Philadelphia Inquirer article was printed.

I am sure Gil Hanse will produce a very fine result, and if as
voted, the members of Aronimink Golf Club prefer the golf
course created by J. B. McGovern in behalf of Donald Ross, I
suggest they simply accept, and acknowledge this. Give your
former member, Mr. McGovern due credit rather than
proceeding under a series of convenient suppositions.
Now, one other comment I want to address is the statement
by Gil Hanse where he comments that as a result of his bunker
reconstruction, “some of the high shoulders in front of the
bunkers will be lowered significantly”. (I presume he means the
back shoulders – between the sand base and the green). Gil goes
on to say, “there will still be some depth,” to the bunkers “but it,
(they) will be defined by the slope of the ground as opposed to
(artificially) created slopes”.

What you, Gil, should understand is: Donald Ross never
mentioned he was seeking some particularly “natural
appearance”. That’s your preference. And what you should
further understand is: When Donald Ross specifically called for
rather large singular bunkers on his golf course he was
anticipating that the fill materials gathered by shaping the base
of the hazard would be used to properly create meaningful
“back” shoulders. He did not haul soil away from his bunker
excavations, nor did he import additional soil. And whenever I
have shaped a Ross bunker I have never imported a “tea spoon”
of additional soil to build the hazard. When Donald Ross
repeatedly specified a depth of 4” 6”, he was seeking that the
player be required to elevate a shot from the hazard
approximately 11” or so below “your” eye level. (To clarify:
4’6” as you know, is 54”. And therefore: as I stand in a typical
Ross Bunker – the type he sketched and called for at Aronimink
Golf Club – my eye level is at 64”. That is only ten inches
“above” the green side shoulder. That is the challenge “Ross”
specified. He did not suggest lower, more easily negotiated back
shoulders. And when an architect chooses to follow
McGovern’s cute little clusters of bunkers; that also will be your
preference.

If you reestablish the original Aronimink Golf Club golf
course to the architectural appearance adopted by J.B.
McGovern, you will create less soil at each bunker site because
a fair amount of the potential soil will be utilized to create the
separating shoulders. This without question will result in lower
shoulders, which may perfectly suit your search for “a natural
look,” but it will alter Ross’ intentions.

In closing, I want to wish the Club, and you, Gil all the best.
I have always enjoyed my visits to the club, and deeply
appreciate the respectful way I was treated. The members of the
Restoration Committee, which was headed by Mr. John Trickett
were a treat to work with even when we had to remove the
maple tree which had been planted on the original #1 putting
surface, and reconstruct large portions of the third, sixth, and
14th green’s fill pads. My hope is that this response to Mr.
Juliano, which also contains certain “conversations” with Gil
Hanse, fully clarifies once and for all the proper history of the
bunker construction on the original golf course.


Ron Prichard
Golf Architect


PS: Mr. Juliano; where you mention in your article, that Ron
Prichard “specialize(d) in restoring Ross courses -----“ I am
presently restoring the Donald Ross golf course at: Riverside
Golf and Country Club in Rothsay, New Brunswick, Canada,
and the Ross Courses at Portland Country Club in Portland,
Maine, and Northland Country Club in Duluth, Minnesota. Last
fall we finished “restoration” of the only Donald Ross golf
course in Iowa, at Cedar Rapids Country Club.



- Presented unedited for content or opinion.



Sunday, June 05, 2016

Upcoming Majors

Summer approaches and with  it the majors save Augusta - which doesn't really fit the mold of the rest as I see it because of its odd selection process. There's a bit wrong with ANGC and all the control about the Maters, but it is so well-loved no one ever dares criticise it. So I usually refrain from commenting much partly because it usually is entertaining the last day. It is a wonderful Rite for all golfers, the annual re-awakening and unveiling of a new Fazio-design.

This year 2016 and The Major Championships - let's get the curmudgeonly stuff out of the way.

The 2016 USGA Open

OAKMONT -
Go see it at Geoff Shackelford if you care, you won't find anything about the course here. He's doing two holes at a time.

A rather charmless brute, an homage to the un-fun, penal golf beyond the interest of completing a round, perhaps even bothering to make the turn. "The U.S. Open is supposed to be hard", repeat that mantra over and over and over. It's supposed to make the world's best play as we regular golfers do day-in and day-out.  I must admit that once I did buy into this concept and as an American I defended my country's Ruling Body for Golf and their posterchild of Tournament Golf. Oakmont does everything possible to make golf slow. Ironically the USGA face of "While we're young" program is none other than the Iconic Arnold Palmer - so strongly identified with Oakmont, especially after what was to be his Coronation in 1962 utterly ruined by the Greatest Major Player of all-time Jack William Nicklaus. Tied in regulation 72 holes, Palmer was never ahead in the playoff and was nearly ceremonial, albeit the most loved golfer perhaps of all time, in golf after that. (1966 at Olympic just deepened the misery of Palmer fans to abysmal levels)

Time has taught me otherwise, after such events as the persistent non-control of implements, lengthening golf courses by necessity, the disconnect of "Game Improvement Advances" ironically much more helpful to the more skilled golfer than the regular handicap man and woman intended to be the target of such advances. Average Handicaps (By the awful cheat-ridden methodology that is GHIN) have not risen or dropped significantly over the last 25 or so years, remaining about the proverbial Bogey Golfer among those who play regularly with some enthusiasm and financial commitment. Introduction to regular Links golf, not the faux version available in the USA also has had a profound influence on what I've felt a proper golf tournament should be. I am a proponent of dropping the PGA Championship in favor of an Australian Major played on Couch/Bermuda requiring the special skills required to play on that surface. It would also lend a credence of the US PGA Tour and US PGA not having such a stranglehold on the "Majors". So personally the USGA Open has fallen mightily in my eyes. They do however excel in Amateur golf.

Back to Oakmont. Built in the most mean-spirited way and made worse by narrowing fairways and deepening rough, I hear so mny golfers lately excited for this upcoming Major. The idea that the greens are slowed by the USGA for the US Open is laughable. To paraphrase Mae West "Too hard is never hard enough". Fast, sloping greens, absurd bunkering schemes, landlocked with often sweltering heat and little wind, little resemblance is borne to golf's origins. I'd pay not to play there.

Oakmont is the USGA on steroids, its pin-up course for "Par is Sacred". Johnny Miller despite winning there with a record (tied) 63 final round score in 1973, his sole US Major has oft opined that he'd be happy with the USGA Open played alternately at Pebble Beach and Shinnecock with something else thrown in every so often just to break it up. Can't call him a homer on that one, he won on a wet, soggy, toothless Oakmont. (UGH say the brass).

I have very little to say about Oakmont except that the Women's Open won by Paula Creamer was the most painful excuse for a golf tournament that I have ever attended. That was the last time I was on property, likely my truly not only last but "final visit".

The probability of a  first-time winner of a Major is greater than 50-50 but it will not be Dustin Johnson. THE BIG THREE make up the other 50% as I see it unfolding.

Thursday, May 28, 2015

Monday, December 15, 2014

Streamsong Red in Photos - December, 2014

A recent visit to Florida yielded an eagle two at the tenth hole at Hunter's Run South in Delray Beach, but most of you don't care as much about that as the photos to come.  Given a choice, it might have been nice to have a holed shot at Streamsong, but another one in the books is just fine.

Occasion also smiled to allow me to spend a couple of days with my little brother Martin at the upper central part of the state.  He was at the House of the Mouse as well as the other attractions in Orlando, but it worked out nicely to give him a birthday present of his first Coore & Crenshaw design. I really turned out to be a fine day with just the tow of us and no caddie or other interference, just us and our Rickshahs out on a nice sunny day.

Without too much ado here are the views.

First Hole: One - Par 4

Indicating the hole number and simultaneously leaving no question about which hole or who is seemingly the world's fave living designers these days.


 Landing
 An interloper
 about 150 out
Not your typical starter by most folks design style.  Most architects now want to get you into a round with a gentle start, this can only be described as a long par 4 with a perched green to make it play longer. A very wide fairway, but just getting to the green is the demand so there is no strategic variety to the tee shot.  Three shots for most, not much compelling here. A different loosening up, getting into the round hole …. Meh, long Par 4’s bore me as much as long Par 3 ‘s in the last 3 holes. So, this is probably C&C's most stern opener by a decent margin. Driver rescue, ran up the front edge a little but settled in the front right bunker, a long hole for most a par 5ish.

Second - Par 5
Tom Fazio has made a career out of this hole and a lot of architects use it.  You will hear most people call it a Cape Hole, but it’s not mostly because no one really knows why a true Cape is called a ‘Cape”.  A “cape” (as in capes & bays) is what that “finger” sticking into a bunker is, it’s a geographical terminology if you want to be technical.  What it means to most is “bite off what you can chew” and Macdonald’s Cape (5th at Mid-Ocean) had and still has both features.  Since the fairways here are generous, you should be pretty safe if you know your game – this hole moves left to right as do most of the move play holes at the start.  Two bunkers – one short and one tight right with an enormous green reminiscent of ripples in a stream greets you.Still strikes me layout-wise as I've opined before, but a lot more interest up by the green than I mentioned, sort of a waterfall effect in a way. The classic Cape tee shot, not the Cape hole per se, the fairway is deeper for a pull than it looks (as I found out) and works for most to be very fair
 Over by the big left fairway bunker a very nice approach to the green or to a 30-100 yard lay-up shot.  The greens don't tend to let you run-up much, a problem at most american linksy courses except at Bandon Resort.
 Backwards from the big dune right of green
Three - Par 4
Medium Left to Right dogleg with a shelf above the left side of the green which releases almost none.  Right side of fairway always gives you the best angle into the green, a bunker right protects you from the lateral hazard. I definitely liked this one both times and maybe respect it more the second time.  Although there is strategy, it is not flexible; best effort will leave the drive on the right side of the fairway to allow a most direct approach. This is the elevated most back tee with a nice general view as well as of the hole itself.
Landing and approach
Some emphasis on contours

Four - Par 4
The first really intriguing hole, a nearly drivable Par 4 with a sort of Principal’s Nose – Lion’s Mouth kind of bunker making for some rather segmented portions of the green and making you think about playing the hole right from the start.  A long central bunker (but not creating a true “Bottle”) makes you think about your layup tee shot and also about your two-cheek driver off the tee. The green coupled with the bisected fairway make this a superior short hole and one that would probably be the most interesting hole on the property to play over and over on different days with different pin positions.  This is the duo at their very best. Fourth hole is a short, attractive, probably not drive-able Par 4 that most people get really excited about.  The visuals are quite high and the challenge certainly is in the green.
 Lovely green contours, but based upon cups and sand build-up from the bunkers, the pin is in the very narrow and very sloped middle far too often. If it's there, the play is long.
Five - Par 4

The hole is such that there is much room to play the hole.  In a number of ways the tee shot demands are very similar to three, but the landing area is fully in view and the do or die nature of the lake edge is far more cut and dried than the gunch to the right of number three.
 This green really feeds very much from left to right.  It is apparent and inviting from te fairway, and yes, I did pull off the shot but missed the 10 footer.  Short.

Six - Par 3
6 – A short to medium Par 3 with an enormous green.  A fine dune behind the green makes this hole visually spectacular.  The large green is simple to hit, but the task is to hit the proper portion of the green. I’m a little mixed about this hole for all but a few really cool pins, I’d call it a post card shot.
A nice little hole, near the clubhouse on a returning six hole loop, seemingly added to the original routing (to be shown later) in which one first glimpses again the Blue course with the eighteenth green adjacent and between the gap when one comes back to the seventh tee, A massive green, a short iron for most.
This view is actually up from the middle of the tees and is about 120.

Seven - Par 5

Very classically recognizable as a Coore & Crenshaw par 5 with all the sailing (tack-style) options to get to the green.  A large bunker on the right shoulder directs the tee shot, either play over or left of it to get your position.  No reason ever to go left on this tee shot, even in a hurricane.  For a three-shot Par 5 it will all come down to a precision wedge shot.  As a two-shotter, without a monster drive, you will need a curling shot to get it on in two, but it will need to be only for specific pins. I found this hole rather inviting and birdied it with a very challenging pin position first time out.  As a three shot hole, the second shot winding up in the left quarter of the fairway will almost always give you the preferred approach.  Second play, I missed my birdie putt.  A very friendly likeable hole if you just do what the visuals tell you to do. This looks way harder than it actually is.  Make birdie here.

Left edge of this bunker is just fine
 A nice little green complex with plenty of complexity.  With gravity at work, left sided pins are far more in play for the two-shot approach.

Nice transition from seven green to eight tee.
Eight - Par 3
A Gem of a Par 3 hole, mostly a short shot with a differing angle front (straight on) to angled (from the right). Lots of pins, again like number 4 another hole you’d like to play every pin position. Another birdie with another wedge to 3-4 feet first time out, missed 9 footer second try.  Another birdie hole.  Front third of the green probably most interesting shots with the angle form the back.


Nine- Par 4
Pin position and short grass short par 4, be cautious about the slopes, cute hole, nothing more, no strategy, all defence, left for left pin, right for right.  False left front.  It can be called unfair by some very easily.  Doesn’t mean you are guaranteed a par 4. I generally liked this hole, probably would lay it up to 50 – 120 if I wanted to guarantee a score. Don't go over, it's death. Fun but driving is a fool's errand.






11 – Hitting it in the bunkers unless you are against a forward lip is not a penalty, strange double fairway, to the right adds so many clubs and left doesn’t work for left green, so I guess you can call it a “Backwards Bottle” template.  You have to execute a more difficult tee shot to have a longer iron in.  Rees Jones built a version this hole as #11 at Huntsville National in the suburbs of Scranton, PA.  Doesn’t feel good either place, because it is backwards. Makes little sense.  I felt better playing out of the bunker that I would have up top because it was 3-4 less clubs.
12 – A bit awkward in a good way but another hole that probably will come off as unfair as the fairway slopes and the corner cannot be cut.
13 – A bunker to mess with you off the tee, but it’s irrelevant because you must have the angle on the third.  Not a two-shotter for many.  All these details get lost in the shuffle if everything about the hole dictates that teh hole must play in from a very small area.
15 – Another three shot Par 4, meh.  For most it is humourless and a tedium with no real strategy possible.  It is very long, plays uphill and has a perched green as well.
16 – So the property built a “Biarritz”.  Over the water, just like France.  But, it’s a silly one I’m going to rip apart because it has faults a public golfer should not encounter in his or her first Biarritz. If you hit the green I suppose you’re in the swale a lot.  The front pins, you might wind up there because you don’t want to be short.  The front is massive, OK.  The swale is deep.  OK.  The rear – there is a kicker on the back left that ruins many shots getting up there because they have no spin in most folks hands if it’s run up on the back tier, will come back to the swale. Couple this with only the back tee having a straight go at the green, every other tee comes from the left so if you are weaker, you more likely slice so the back tier is ridiculous for you. This hole was backed up both days and I’ll bet is backed up for the first group.
17 – Tee shot is a lot like the 16th at Pine Valley but not so in the forced carry aspect but in picking your carry line.  As you go right you are rewarded with a nicer angle.  It works, it’s quality architecture, it’s definitely one breather.
18 – Probably the most reachable Par 5 on the property by going with sheer abandon.  A feel good ending.  There is even a shorter way left of the massive left bunker, but hitting it in that bunker doesn’t keep you from making birdie, you can hit a lofted fairway wood like a 5 or a lofted rescue as you are likely to roll away from the face.