J2theG

The Wolverine and The Bear are worth playing. Spruce Run is not. The layout is not player friendly with many tight tee shots and forced layups, as well as instances where a player is blocked out to a green from the fairway. Some of the greens are too severely sloped for the modern game, making many pin positions unusable. This course is soft/soggy and plays very, very long. The entire course needs attention to be firmer and take care of the sand traps, which are inconsistent, and the greens, which have a serious ant problem with ant hills budding up even in the late mornings. This course could stand to lose at least 200 trees, too. Just not a fun experience.

It’s a maddening contradiction - a golf course in such a picturesque setting but so poorly designed and maintained. This course is rock hard almost the entire year, with small strips of patchy rough being the only buffer before the raw desert dirt and rocks. Worthwhile golf courses ditch these rocks extend the rough, but not Papago. If your ball happens to roll through the rock hard, inadequately watered, and unfairly contoured grass into the desert rocks, forget it. The Par 5s here are too easy and the Par 3s embarrassingly too difficult (3 of them over 195 yards from the blue tees, with one over 230 - not even from the tips!). And the finish - two Par 4s over 420 with virtually no landing area sandwiching a 230 yard Par 3? You can’t help but laugh. This is just a bad golf course - it really, really is unfortunate, though, because the views are superb.

I played Kelly Plantation during last year’s visit to Destin and was very impressed, so I had high hopes for Regatta Bay as well. Unfortunately, it fell far short in every regard, from the layout, to the clubhouse, to the driving range (mats?!), to the staff. The course is simply in unacceptable shape for the price point - patchy/weedy grass, bare spots on the green (including #18, where a good portion of the green is unplayable), overly soft fairways with inconsistent lies - the list goes on. The course has some fun, well thought out holes, but too many times it forces your hand to less than driver and doesn’t provide multiple options. The back tees are right up against the road on numerous instances, too. When I stopped to grab a drink and snack at the turn, the bartender completely ignored me and appeared to struggle making basic drinks - I left after waiting several minutes. The bag staff, too, were nowhere to be found at the end of the round. I really expected more here. Very disappointing.

Legend Trail has elements of a worthwhile destination course - built out of the rocky desert of North Scottsdale, it’s scenic and winds its way creatively through the terrain. It has a nice practice facility and clubhouse. Houses surround the course but they’re not too close. However, the condition and design leave a lot to be desired, especially at the price point. Rees Jones made a lot of mistakes here - puzzlingly unforgiving in spots, unnecessary blind shots, overdone green pitches/tiering in places. The 11th hole is one of the worst in the Phoenix area, with a lack of visual cues and no reasonable layup area - the opportunity existed to build rough and a second fairway to the left, but none exists. Perhaps most disappointing was the course conditions. The greens were grainy and inconsistent - I’ve played this type of Bermuda before, but it’s usually a lot better maintained. And really - this course was designed with Bentgrass originally, but it was replaced. The grain makes the slopes incompatible with Bermuda, leaving some laughably down grain, downhill putts, even when the greens are running too slow in the first place. For as long of a hike as it is to get to Legend Trail, you’re better off skipping it.

This is a nearly 100 year old golf course (at least the front 9 is) and shows its age in terms of design choices. Excessively small, crowned greens; blind shots galore; and several very short Par 4s on the front 9. Most holes have an elevated tee hitting downhill to the fairway, with the second shot back uphill - and in several cases severely uphill. This is a maddening course even if you’re hitting it well. You have very little idea where a shot will end up until you go up to the fairway/green. There are also places where hitting into the group ahead of you is very likely given the blind tee shot.

Course conditions were fair at best. It has been dry, and in places the rough is hard pan. The fairways are soft and shaggy, while the greens are cut far too high, running at an 8 or slower. The cart paths are also in desperate need of repair/renovation. I suppose this course has a captive audience with the Walker / Leech Lake cabin crowd, but it could certainly do so much better, especially since there are a few legitimately cool holes on the course (2, 3, 5 among them).

Also, I started about 12:30 on a Saturday on a holiday weekend. The pace of play was fine, but on the front 9 I saw the beverage cart 4 times, before I even needed it. They had carts going on both sides. This is great, but then on the back 9 no beverage cart was anywhere to be seen, and there were no water coolers (there was at least one on the front).

The experience at Tianna overall just isn’t great and definitely isn’t worth the price tag.

Longbow is a visually interesting yet punishing layout, especially from the tips. More attention could have been given in this design to fairway landing areas and occasional forgiveness in green complexes. From the tips it’s a rating of 72.9 (on a Par 71) that can play much harder, especially with any east wind (5 of the 9 holes on the Back 9 go east). The views of Red Mountain are spectacular. The front 9 is much more enjoyable (and reasonable) than the back. One frustrating feature is that you go 14 holes between Par 5s - I’m not sure I’ve ever seen that kind of gap.

The greens are excellent and roll true. The surfaces are the best feature of this course.

I found the pro shop staff to be incredibly disinterested and unhelpful. After taking my money, they gave me no direction as to where to head with my clubs or how to get range balls. They were also unhelpful in resolving an issue with my assigned cart, which had been taken by someone else in my group.

We saw the beverage cart twice on the front 9 but only once on the back 9, and not after hole 11. When the pace of play reached a standstill twice on the back, we really could have used a beer, but the cart was nowhere to be seen. Pace of play ended up being almost 4:30. Unacceptable and the rangers we saw did nothing to move play along. This course is simply too difficult off the tee for most of the people who play it.

Emerald Greens is situated on rolling terrain among the farm fields of Hastings. It's a shame the owner and architect couldn't take advantage of this opportune piece of land for the Silver course. About 12 of the holes are identical - straight or with slight doglegs, framed with boring, smallish trees, with a fairway bunker or two (and some thrown in the middle of fairways completely illogically, such as Hole #2). Don't let the island green (which is so massive on such a short hole it almost can't be missed) and square green (on an otherwise unremarkable hole) fool you - this is not a creative, well thought out golf course. The greens are laughable - either they are flat with one ridge, or illogically domed with no flat place to put the pin on the entire green. The course was in awful shape, with many bare spots in the fairways, little distinction between rough and fairway, shaggy fringes and approach areas, and inconsistent, hard greens that held virtually no shots, no matter how much spin. Other public courses charging similar rates are in far, far better shape right now. I was incredibly disappointed by Emerald Greens and will not be back. Charging $35 after 4PM is stealing for a course this poorly designed and in such bad condition.

The Keller renovation in 2013, and other choices (including the privatization of golf course operations), is a blueprint for other municipal courses here and elsewhere. Keller presents a quirky, unique challenge on a fun property perched on a hill, bordered by a residential neighborhood, popular regional bike trail, and local park. It has a gorgeous view of Keller Lake from the 18th and 12th holes. Keller tends to be in playable or better shape all year around, which is quite the achievement in MN. They do usually punch the greens in both the early and late season, so call ahead during those times. The contrast in pricing is also staggering. Before 4PM, the rate is $47 walking, which is-frankly-not a good value for a public course in the TC metro, even one as fun and in as good of condition as Keller. But the post-4PM rate of $27 in the May-August window can't be beat. Some pin placements can be unreasonable (such as front left on 1, on the ridge on 11, front side of 17), and the cart path running behind 4 green was a very unfortunate oversight made during the renovation (there should be mounds and/or bunkers there), and for whatever reason, the greenskepeer sometimes likes to put pins closer than 3 paces from the edges of greens (he must be short). That said, once you understand where to miss on this course, you can mitigate some of the frustrations, and you'll love that the course feels like an escape while being very centrally located.

Holes 1-9 at The Jewel are excellent, with a variety of open holes, longer and shorter Par 4s. An awesome long Par 5 to start and fun short Par 5 with a challenging green on #9. I thought I was in for a similarly fun back 9, but the opposite was in store.

The tee for hole 10 sits high a top a ridge, exposing you to any ounce of wind coming out of the south or east. The trees near the tee box come out too far to the left, preventing you from hitting a right to left shot that the hole calls for. Visually the hole looks cool, but the design mistakes detract from playability and make it unnecessarily frustrating. That’s a theme on the Back 9.

While #11 is a really cool, well designed long Par 3 over water, it’s difficult, and with #12 (long Par 4 with the tight tee shot through the chute and absurd small green that slopes off back and front) makes a stretch of 3 holes you just don’t string together one after another - unless you’re trying too hard. Then #13. Where do you even drive it on this hole? It’s a short Par 4, there’s a tiny flat spot in the fairway about 215 from the tee, but you’d need pinpoint distance control to land it there. Otherwise you’re on a side hill approaching a green that slopes off to the back and is nearly impossible to hold. The next hole has a misdesigned landing area and misleading visual signals as to where the tee shot should be aimed. #16 is a legitimately awesome Par 5, and #17 a fun short Par 4 into the woods.

There was a great opportunity here to end this course with a fun, challenging Par 5. There’s room for it (either with the tees or green further back) and ample opportunity to add challenges (bunkering, trees). Instead, they went the 475 yard uphill Par 4 route, guarding the green with trees on the right and bunkers short and left. If this hole is into the wind, forget it. It’s critical design mistakes like #18 that ruin the golf experience, which is a shame because it’s a fantastic piece of land with a lot of potential.

Forest Hills has some of the best greens I’ve played all year. They roll true and are the perfect speed. I’m just not a fan of this course’s layout. It’s evident that this is an older golf course, with the abundance of mature trees, reliance on doglegs, and several tiny greens. It really is packed into a Forest Lake neighborhood, with OB legitimately in play on at least six holes. There are a lot of holes where you’ll hit less than driver, which is fine, but it gets somewhat repetitive. You have only a couple of opportunities to let the driver really rip. The Par 3s are a weakness of this course - Hole 3 is bizarre (210 with an elevated tiny green) and so is Hole 10 (downhill 135 yard Par 3 that feels like it should be on an executive course). The fairways and tee boxes were not what I’d expect from a semi-private course; especially hole 15 where you hit over the water, where the fairway damage is significant. I’d play this again just for the greens and for an accuracy challenge. I just don’t think $62 is justified based on the conditions and if you’re spraying it at all, this course will really punish you.

Wow. I really wanted to love Chaska Town Course. I really did. Unfortunately, though, this is easily the most overhyped course in the TC metro. It has an amateurish design that suffers from serious flaws, including excessively small greens (especially #4, #9 and #18) and Hole #11, a 450 yard Par 4 on which you can pound a drive down the right side of the fairway and be blocked out to the green. This is golf course design 101 - don’t punish good shots. This course does that in spades. Hole 18 is already 550, but there’s nowhere to land your second shot. The fairway is about 15 yards wide. For $73 for a non-Chaska resident, it should be in MUCH better shape. Tons of unhealed divots, ball marks, and trampled down areas around the greens. A lot of the ponds also have a gross neon green film on them (solution: put in fountains). I can rattle off a long list of better public course values including StoneRidge and Logger’s Trail. So disappointing.

Logger’s Trail is one of my favorites in the TC metro and several years ago would have gotten 4-5 stars; however, its flaws have become increasingly apparent in recent years and in the start to this season. It was built on a gorgeous piece of land with rolling terrain and sandy soil well suited for a golf course. Mounds were created to give holes visual definition and provide challenges to golfers veering off the fairways. There is a great mix of truly challenging holes (e.g., #4, #6, #17), risk-reward holes (#9, #11, #16), and legitimate birdie holes (#10, #14). Better players with their ‘A’ game can truly go low here, but if you’re not sharp or make mistakes in the wrong places and with certain pin locations, you can make some big numbers.

The bentgrass fairways and greens are typically excellent, though the greens have not been as smooth and true in the last couple of years as they were several years ago. The tee boxes could use improvement, especially re-grading, and have been beat up early this season (with the harsh winter and early spring, they lost large portions of their tee boxes). The course made some updates to the bunker complexes, including re-sodding and new sand. The new sand, however, is downright awful. It doesn’t seem properly suited for golf course bunkers. It is so soft and lacks any kind of firm base to the point where it is unplayable. When digging into a bunker yesterday, my feet went a couple of inches down to a black plastic matting. Perhaps it will improve with time, but if you’re playing in any kind of serious round at Logger’s this year, I’d spend some time beforehand getting used to the sand and the lack of a firm base. The club does not react as it should in a properly cared for or maintained bunker with normal golf course sand.

The big disappointment in the architecture of Logger’s Trail is in the green designs. About half of the greens are too small and/or too narrow – their design strikes me as amateurish given the space/terrain that exists to work with. This includes the greens on #1, #4, #5, #7 (especially), #12, #16, and #17 (especially). There was ample space to make these greens larger and still keep them challenging. As they stand, these greens are visually deceptive in an unfair way and demand excessive precision.

I will give Logger’s Trail credit in that they have actively marketed the course, meaning that the tee sheet tends to fill up on nice days. This will also ensure it isn’t at risk of closing. However, any time it’s multiple groups of foursomes back to back, pace of play tends to struggle (4:15 or longer) and I can’t recall ever seeing a ranger on the course.

Logger’s had planned on building an expanded permanent clubhouse (I believe with an event space) but opted to keep the smaller, temporary-looking structure. This is fine, but don’t expect anything fancy or anything beyond basic food and drink (beer and mixed drinks).

What a joke. The architect tried way too hard on this one. Excessively bunkered green complexes, poorly conceived tee shot landing areas, and poor sight lines. From the back tees this is 7200+ yards and a rating of over 75, yet this isn’t hosting any significant events because it’s not a fair test of golf. The tricky greens don’t roll true or hold shots, even those with sufficient spin. Pace of play is ~4:30+ because anyone who isn’t a single digit handicap has to grind beyond belief to make bogey or better. The 10th hole is nowhere near the clubhouse, leaving a ~200 yard or so walk to the grill (where there are no quick food or drink items for the turn) to refill your water, which you’d better do since there are no coolers on the course. At $45/person, they are simply stealing. One of the worst values in the Twin Cities. Don’t bother!

I hadn’t played Phalen in many years, and my round on a recent Friday afternoon confirmed why. Phalen measures 6100 yards from the tips yet occupies an area of land of comparable size to nearby Keller, which measures nearly 6700 yards and is vastly superior in every way. That is to say, Phalen’s design makes very inefficient use of the land. This is surprising given that Phalen was designed by Don Herfort, one of the giants of Minnesota golf course architecture whose resume includes Dellwood Hills, Indian Hills, Brackett’s Crossing, River Oaks, Superior National, and New Richmond. One would be hard pressed to find a more poorly designed full-18 hole course in his portfolio. Not only does the layout make inefficient use of the land, but it includes at least 7 doglegs, most of which are unnecessary, subtract from course difficulty, and decrease pace of play. I’m an average length hitter for my ability and I reached both Par 5s in two with ease since they’re both dogleg lefts that allow for cutting the corner. This should not be the case on a Par 70 that only features those two Par 5s.

Compounding the poor design, Phalen was in at best fair condition when we played it, which is highly questionable in early August when Minnesota courses are approaching their prime condition for the season. The tee boxes were not mowed nearly short enough, making tee shots with fairway woods (which there are many) and irons particularly challenging. The fairways were also far too long in length, limiting roll and actually causing some mini-flyer lies. The rough was inconsistent at length and 5+ inches deep in some areas, which is obviously not intentional given that Phalen isn’t exactly aiming to host a US Open. The rough was also littered with dead leaves and leaf fragments, which made finding one’s ball incredibly difficult, even if it strayed off the fairway by mere yards. This is understandable in the fall; not the summer. Then we get to the greens. Wow. Were they even running at a 6? They were so slow that I feared I’d require a prolonged adjustment period before playing a different course whose greens are of normal or fast speed. The cups were also not cut sharply at all, leading to a number of undeserved lipouts among our group. The Phalen grounds crew is seriously lacking in its diligence. This includes running mowers during a prime time period (Friday afternoon), which proved highly distracting in several instances.

As for food and drink, I had a couple of domestic beers on the course and one when I returned to the clubhouse. A 16 oz. Coors Light will run you $6 on the course. $6?! At Phalen? You can get two 12oz beers for that price at Gross. I’ve never seen pints go for more than $5 at city courses, much less one as modest as Phalen. The hot dog I had in the clubhouse was tiny and overpriced. The only consolation? I got a tap Surly Furious after the round for $4 ($2 off during happy hour).

Go ahead, St. Paul. Turn Phalen into a food forest. We won’t miss it.

For $250+ at peak times and $140 Twilight, Aviara leaves a lot to be desired, at least the way I found it in late June this year. The fairways and greens were both inconsistent, and a few were even plugged. I realize courses sometimes have to do this, but by June things should be in peak shape. The 3 or 4 greens that were plugged had so much sand on them that putting was quite difficult, and significantly slower than the other greens, which themselves rolled much slower than I expected.

I did enjoy the layout with the exception of the 10th hole, which is quite honestly one of the dumbest holes I've encountered in my life. Zero aiming point and a dogleg at about 220 yards - on a Par 5? The layup yardages on that hole on the cart were also inaccurate.

A course charging this much should be in nearly immaculate shape at all times, not simply when a professional tour event rolls through.

In two words: Not impressed. The layout itself is worthwhile, with some holes that are ridiculously tough (e.g., #2, #10) and some holes that provide good birdie opportunities (e.g., #4, #12). I recall back to 2000 or so when this course first open and how everyone couldn't stop talking about it. I'm starting to think that's more a product of Lehman's involvement than the actual course itself. When we played it, on a July Saturday on a year when nearly every course I've played in the Twin Cities metro is in fantastic shape, Troy Burne was not in condition consistent with the hefty price tag ($90 rack rate, though it's in the MN golf card, so you can split the $120 or so total rate with cart between two people).

Let's start with the bunkers. There are a number of bunkers that the course has simply let erode away from the rainfall. They look like a sandbox would look after a heavy rain, as if the grounds crew just decided to ignore them because they couldn't do normal work on them. They still had rakes in them, as if people were expected to still play out of them (which would have been impossible). The rest of the bunkers looked really sloppy around the edges, like they would at a cheap municipal course, and the sand was not of the quality one would expect at a high-end course like this.

The greens rolled fairly well but were on the slow side for a high end course. Some of the holes, especially #15 (a short Par 3), had greens that were very beat up. Looking at the mowing marks, there's attention to detail lacking in the greenskeeping (it looked like they had been in a hurry cutting the greens).

The teeboxes are not flat. I know this is something you find at a lot of courses, and I expect it at municipal courses, but at high end courses, the teeboxes should be graded to be as flat as possible. On some tee shots I had significant downhill lies. Not something that you should experience at Troy Burne (they need to regrade and resod some of their teeing areas to flatten them out).

There's also a fair amount of brown spotches in the fairway and rough, and the rough was inconsistent in length and thickness. With as much rain as they've had, the course should be lush, and with as much as they charged, it should be near perfect.

The pace of play was maddeningly slow. We played in 4:50 and were told by a course staff member at the turn that they'd do something to speed up play on the back nine, but we never once saw a ranger on the course. The scorecard indicates 4:14 as the minimum pace of play. Why have a pace of play policy if you don't enforce it?

I get the feeling that Troy Burne is struggling a bit, and it shows in how they've let the course go. I'm not saying it's unplayable (except for the bunkers), and the fairways and greens are still a lot better than a municipal course, but it fails to deliver anything close to $90/round in value.

A few other observations, while I'm at it:
-No drinking water on the course, and no signs or indication at the clubhouse that there is none on the course (because they want to sell bottled water)
-No GPS on the carts. Thankfully I have a rangefinder, but if I didn't, you'd have to walk around looking for sprinkler heads.
-The driving range is so open and bare that it is very difficult to determine if your ball is heading at your target and on the intended trajectory. The range balls were also far more beat up than they should be at a course this high end.

This course is generally well maintained and has a layout that is interesting and challenging, save for three holes (one of which ,#16, almost ruins it for me). Holes #2-5 are excellent, well-designed holes, especially #3, a Par 3 shooting to an island green. Wind direction has a big impact on the north side of this course (i.e., the holes away from the river). A wind out of the West makes three of the four par 5s reachable, especially #4 and #11, but only on #11 is it truly a green light if you hit a big drive (i.e., there is enough room around the green and bail out areas).

#16 is one of the dumbest holes I've ever encountered in my 20 + years of golf, no joke. I was warned of this before playing but didn't realize how stupid this hole actually is. It's a short ~350-370 yard Par 4 with a green that is extremely shallow but wide, and guarded on the right side by huge mature trees. Essentially, you have to hit your drive into a specific 10 yard horizontal strip of fairway or you have no realistic chance to get it on the green, much less get it close. The green is so small that this hole would be tough enough if they cut down the huge trees near the green (which they definitely should do). Miss a little bit long, and you're in the river. Miss short, and you have a near impossible pitch up to the green.

The next hole, #17, was meant to have two sets of fairways and two greens, but they're only using the right set, and it played a mere 270 yards from the back tees when I played it. Both my friend and I had easy up and downs for birdie, as there is really nothing to guard the green.

Hole #7 is good in concept (a forced dogleg layup), but I absolutely hate holes that make you lay up to 150+ yards on a second shot. I hit a near perfect drive and still had 180 yards into the wind on the second shot.