CaptWillard

Judging Fallen Oak highlights the unavoidable subjectivity of evaluating golf courses. On the one hand, Fallen Oak is not fun. It’s difficult, and it punishes bad shots with even more difficult shots (for example, its beautiful but deep bunkering). The space between green and tee (doubtlessly intended to support tournament crowds) makes the course a difficult walk. But I’m sure Tom Fazio would tell you that Fallen Oak wasn’t designed to be fun and, instead, was designed to test the world’s best (which it does annually with one of the Champions Tour’s most popular events). Regardless of whether you like penal golf, you cannot avoid the fact that Fallen Oak is a perfect representation of what its architect intended it to be: it is Fazio at the height of his powers, for better or worse (again, depending on your personal preferences). And its maintenance crew does an incredible job of keeping it in shape. When I visited, the course had gotten nearly two inches of rain less than 24 hours before. But the course was completely playable. The greens were fast, and if not for a small handful of low-lying areas where water had collected, you never would’ve guessed that the course had seen a full day of storms. Fallen Oak reminded me a lot of Bethpage Black: big and brawny, and hard (but with greens that are much more difficult than Bethpage). It lacks Bethpage’s character, but the isolated setting does lend a lot of intimacy. Whether that connects with you on an emotional level will (again) depend on your preferences. It wasn’t my cup of tea; it might be yours. But even I would never deny that it is a magnificent representation of its architect’s vision.

I wish I could play this course every day. It reminded me a lot of Pinehurst No. 2, but more fun.

Lost Key is pretty, and its practice facility is nice, and the staff are friendly. But the course itself could not be more unenjoyable. The fairways are preposterously narrow. The hazards are EVERYWHERE (for example, the red stakes bordering the 10th green). It’s just not pleasant. I shot my handicap and couldn’t believe it, because based on the amount of fun I’d had, I figured I’d shot 110. I doubt that I’ll return.

I’m usually wary of residential courses, but I don’t think a house/yard came into play all day. It’s a really sprawling, contoured track. Very enjoyable.

Too bad this course has been taken so far from what it was during the Austin Country Club days. A lot of holes have been really monkeyed with, but several holes show glimpses of what the course used to be. The back nine is particularly undisturbed. If you’re a Perry Maxwell fan, it’s definitely worth the small greens fee (I paid $22 to walk 18 on a Thursday afternoon) to see what used to be.

The course and it’s setting are beautiful, and the layout is thoughtful. But the greens are pretty rough right now. They were *heavily* top-dressed, and the speeds were really inconsistent. I’m sure they’ll be better in a couple of weeks, but I’d hold off until then.

On the surface, there are a lot of reasons to be optimistic about TPC Louisiana: it carries the TPC label, it’s a PGA Tour stop, it’s a Pete Dye Design, and until a few years ago it was considered a Top 100 track.

But the course simply doesn’t live up that billing. Aside from three or four interesting holes, the course is forgettable. You see the same bunkers running up the sides of fairways over and over again. You see tiny, oddly shaped greenside bunkers that serve no obvious purpose. The condition of the course was fine, but nowhere close to conditions befitting a $200+ green fee. Nearly every bunker on the course was running low on sand, which made it nearly impossible to slide a wedge underneath a ball.

If the course were billed as a muni (and priced like one), then people would rave about it. But that’s not the standard that it’s priced at. And that standard goes unmet. I don’t expect to return.

This course is a little like going to Disney World: it’s beautiful, but it’s expensive, and the ambiance is totally manufactured, and you probably ought to be somewhere else.

An enjoyable round. It’s still south Florida, so the terrain is mostly flat and sort of uninteresting, but this course does the most with it that could be hoped for. A handful of holes have really interesting green complexes, and the whole course is in very good shape. Word of warning: the greens had just been top-dressed (if that’s something that bothers you).

This track is so Fazio'd out that it's unbearable. The conditioning is great, but outside that, I'm not sure it has a single redeeming quality.

The entire course is lined by trees. The fairways, for the most part, are too narrow. Even where they're not, trees often come into play off the tee (No. 1 comes to mind, as does No. 5). The greens are absurdly tricked out (see, e.g., the back-left pin position on No. 18). And the depth of the deep rough is inexplicable -- what possible value does that rough serve on a course where 99.9% of the golfers are amateurs? Is it supposed to be cool and fun when you lose your ball?

The land on which the course is built is beautiful. Unfortunately, it's laid out in a way that almost always demands a certain shot rather than giving a player options for how to attack the hole.

From here on out, I'm sticking with the Oaks course, whose green complexes are less tricked-out and whose corridors provide a little more room for strategic decisions.

At the end of a physically and mentally draining round, I turned to my playing partners and reached out for a handshake. "Guys, this was fun," I said. They laughed. One asked, "Was it?"

But it was! Yes, it's a kick in the pants. But the Black course is the most architecturally sound course I've ever played. The layout is spectacular, the bunkering is breathtaking, and the greens are fair. The fairways aren't the biggest in the world, but they're big enough to get around on.

Everyone is familiar with the fact that this isn't the easiest course in the world to get on, but it's worth the headache. You will be talking about Bethpage Black for a long time. Make it happen.

My experience with resort courses near the beach is that they're usually well maintained but rarely thoughtful (think your average Arnold Palmer Course). Kiva Dunes is the exception: it's always in tremendous shape, and it requires a lot more strategy to get around. The par 5's are especially well designed: they're not long, but anyone going for a green in two will face very tight windows on their approach shots. The course is in particularly good shape right now. I don't think I noticed a single fungal outbreak, which is tough to avoid this time of year in the Deep South. Kiva Dunes is head-and-shoulders above its Gulf Shores neighbors.

The Presideo is a little rough around the edges. The fairways and greens have splotches of invasive grass, and some fairways have some worn spots along the edges. Usually, the bugs me when at a course where the greens fee is north of $100. But somehow, it works. It fits the character of the course, which is lined by wild old trees, tall thick grasses, and is full of the sort of ragged bunkers you'd normally find on a Coore and Crenshaw track. The course makes the most of its remarkable elevation changes; driver is almost always the play off the tee (No. 1 is a noteable exception), but the topography usually neutralizes the long hitter's advantage (see No. 17, for example). There are also plenty of blind approach shots. A very fun, thoughtful course.

There aren't enough nice things to say about Harding Park. The routing is terrific. The vibe is a great mix of municipal-style quirkiness with TPC-level charm. It's walkable without being boring and flat. It's a little long, but it's as fair as it can be: it shows you where your shot should go, and it exacts varying levels of punishment on you for missing. This one has absolutely stood the test of time.

When done right, municipal golf is America's best homage to the Scottish links tradition: low-cost, open to all, publicly owned, walker-friendly, and just a little quirky. Coronado checks those boxes and then some. The staff is friendly, and the vibe is unassuming. And the course itself is a blast: quirky without being absurd.

The best hole on the course is the par-5 15th, which it would be unfair to call a dogleg. It's more like a boomerang, winding rightward in a crescent for more than 500 yards. The ideal shot selection would be three slices, honestly.

No. 15 is a cute par 3 framed by the harbor, and the last three holes all play against the water. The 16th reminded me of the first hole at Nairn in Scotland.

Like a great links course, Coronado is a little rough around the edges, but by and large it is in terrific shape. I've been to San Diego a couple times now and have played more famous courses, but Coronado is the only one I'd be excited to play again.

The entire course was punched recently, so the greens are a little bumpy right now. It's still playable, but it'll be back together in a couple weeks. The course got some rain for a couple days after I played, and that probably helped close up the holes.

Gary Player designs have a reputation for being like an old ex-girlfriend of mine: pretty to look at, but not much fun to spend a few hours with. Sadly, Steele Canyon lives up to this reputation. It is extremely well maintained, but ultimately, it's design fails to take full advantage of the remarkable setting.

The Vineyards course was a real disappointment: it's essentially just like every other early-1990s residential track you've ever played, with the layout given no more apparent thought than what it had to be to work through the neighborhood. Its fairways are preposterously narrow (with landing areas no wider than 20 yards in places), and it is unnecessarily penal.

The Ranch course was much better. It got away from the houses and opened up a lot more, which obviously invited greater creativity in design. Some of the elevated tee shots are genuinely breathtaking. But it still can't get away from lazy design elements: No. 8 is a par 3 at 200+ yards for no apparent reason, and the green at No. 5 (already the toughest hole on the nine, and maybe the property) is almost fully surrounded by bunkers -- again, for no apparent reason (other than that Player couldn't think of other ways to challenge his golfers).

The course also doesn't allow walking. That's the right policy, given how spread out the course is; but when you design a course that isn't walkable, you've thrown away an important part of the game. To be clear, this is a design flaw and not a staff issue.

All that said, you could do much worse. The staff could not be nicer, and again, the course is beautiful. But all things being equal, I think I'd rather play Maderas.

The balance that Gil Hanse struck at Mossy Oak is truly remarkable. It's got rolling topography without feeling Fazio-ish; it's got sneakily positioned hazards without feeling unfair; it's got a huge diversity of hole designs without feeling like the design was forced; it's got tricky recovery shots with almost no trees on the course. It's just a remarkable track. Once the native grasses finish coming in (you've gotta figure that all the sun and rain that comes in an average July will finish that off), it's going to have a legitimate claim to the title of most authentic links-style experience in the Southeast.

At first glance, this course looks like a pushover: short with very few trees. But the course has so many long par-3s (not to mention small greens) that the big numbers can pile up quickly. It's not for everybody, but that's not the course's fault.

The Ridge course seems to have a more devoted following, but I've always thought the Valley course is superior. The opening tee shot is perhaps the most spectacular on the entire RTJ Trail; if not, it's second only to the beautiful first hole on the Judge at Capitol Hill. Valley also has more memorable holes and a better variety of holes. The fairways are wide but with strategically placed hazards, so you have to think your way around the course, but it's gettable if you'll play to the landing zones.

Course was in absolutely terrific shape when I went. The greens were flawless. Bunkers were extremely well maintained. Pin locations were borderline sadistic, but nobody's perfect. I am pretty stingy about handing out five-star ratings, but the Valley course undoubtedly earned it.

There are plenty of things to appreciate about 1757: well maintained, friendly staff, and a terrific practice facility. But the layout is only so-so. Aside from the beautiful No. 18, the holes don't really stick with you.

If I were a local, I'd probably play here a couple times a year and would be fine with it. But if you're coming in from out of town and are looking for something special, this is probably not the first place you should try.