IMPORTANT NOTE: Every year, I get literally dozens of complaints from people who don’t read this section. They include people who miss that I’ve named these the best courses I played during the past year…and, worse, people who are way, way too self-righteous and self-serious to be reading a blog titled “Bethpage Black Metal.” Don’t be one of those people. 

I have a unique affliction; on one hand, I don’t like dragging (most) work through the mud, which makes it difficult for me to participate in “theoretical course improvement” exercises. On the other hand, I also struggle to denote anything in existence as “perfect” (except for my wife, and even that is a practical, pragmatic survival instinct). It helps stand out in a world where the bulk of golf course commentary on social media is “that place is special.” 

I don’t use the word “special” because social media has watered it down but I’m happy to admit that many golf courses, including numerous I played this year, are pretty great. 

I’m not going to use this space to describe why they’re pretty great; that’s what other peoples’ course tour blogs are for. I’m going to use this space to describe how the least interesting holes at these pretty great courses could be pretty greater. 

Not in my voice, however! I’m just a lowly blogger. Instead, we’re going to channel the spirit of another course architect, who also has a hole on this year’s list, and how they would improve the hole in question. For example, last year’s exercise included Mike Strantz-on-MacKenzie, Tom Doak at Firestone and other perversions of logic. 

Again, these courses are pretty great. They aren’t perfect. Don’t hurt me for having fun. And yes, I do say that because the headlining swap this year is from a course by the architect in whom I most detect the willingness to hurt me. 

What would happen if MATTHEW DUSENBERRY redesigned NO. 18 at OLD BARNWELL?

I am fortunate if I’m able to play a world-class golf course in any given year and this year I played exactly “a” world-class golf course (at the risk of watering down “world-class,” let’s call it a course that’s worthwhile of consideration for any given publication’s Top 100 Courses in The World List). That’s the good news. The bad news is that Brian Schneider, one of two names on the marquee at Old Barnwell, has not traditionally been a fan of this exercise. And now, here I am, taking aim at the last hole of his thus-far crown jewel (I feel slightly more comfortable putting this in front of Blake Conant, Schneider’s colleague in this exercise. Nick Schreiber, Barnwell’s founder, is in the running for nicest-guy-in-golf, so it would be a surprise twist if he shows up at my house with his “Court of Owls”). 

Barnwell benefits greatly from a number of things; first and foremost are the diversity of questions asked from hole-to-hole. Second is the moving topography, which sets properties up for both good golf and nice views. Third is a range of varied and dynamic putting surfaces.

I don’t think the closer at Barnwell suffers for the first point; it won’t be mistaken for any other hole at Old Barnwell. The green, however, might be mistaken for that at other golf courses, only because its compatriots have set high standards for memorability. Although my match that day ended on No. 17 (we won, thankyouverymuch), I’d love this hole to offer a clenched-teeth viewing experience for those watching from the porch. Although the land movement from tee-to-green isn’t bad – the slant from right to the dramatic slope on the left serving its strategic purpose – it’s not necessarily a stimulating view from the tee. 

Gleaning a bit of insight from Matthew Dusenberry’s signature project, I think there’s an opportunity to add a bit of raw excitement to this thing.

A common calling card at Keney Park, the Hartford municipal that Dusenberry renovated about a decade back, was the creation of holes that either look or share a name with MacRaynor templates but behave differently. For example, No. 13 looks like a Redan on Google Maps but doesn’t play as one. The No. 9 Road hole, however, features a semi-Redan green. I reckon these were intentional miscues, nods to folks who know a bit about templates and winks to others who really know about templates. Here Dusenberry gets a low-risk opportunity to mess around with the Maiden, a less-popular Raynor convention that leaves plenty of wiggle room, whether it’s the big muscular version at Yeamans Hall or the small tricky version at Blue Mound.

One thing that Raynor Maidens share: a green with two altars for sacrifice, at the far left and right corners of the putting surface. Flags don’t need to be on those platforms, especially here, where the ground giving way off of the left of the green is reason enough to approach this shortgrass area carefully. But man…a flag at the danger corner of Dusenberry’s version is loads to think about, especially after a well-executed tee shot…from a tee that’s also gotten more stimulating. 

This edit was inspired by one tee shot I didn’t get to take during my day at Old Barnwell: the back tees at No. 5. That box caught my eye, not only back but also down in the valley left of this hole, forcing the best golfers to trust their yardage guide and choose a line. I love it and I love that Dusenberry’s got historic context for using it here; “Maiden” isn’t named after the green at Royal St. George’s…it’s named after the dune players once hit over to reach the signature green. Therefore Dusenberry will move the No. 18 tees down the hill from their current location so that players are hitting up to the fairway. (This will probably require some drainage channel rerouting but this is a rock ‘n’ roll fantasy.) 

The hole has gotten significantly shorter – down to maybe 370 from the back tees – but the blind landing area adds a layer of intrigue for the would-be bomber. To get past the far edge of the corner bunker is now 275, all carry, uphill. We’re going to expand this bunker generally back toward the tee, eating into more hillside and making players question their ability to control that draw, potentially leaving more balls out to the generous safe area right. That leave makes attacking almost any pin on this green, as it is today, a more challenging proposition. 

As Dusenberry has plenty of experience with Emmet, the cop-bunkers at the right of the fairway can stay. 

<Brian Schneider, singing to self while burying me on the Gilroy> “In the pines, in the pines, where the sun don’t ever shine, I’ll make green mounding out of you.” (Photo Cred: BPBM Graphix Team)

 

What would happen if BRIAN SCHNEIDER AND BLAKE CONANT redesigned NO. 18 at AIKEN GOLF CLUB?

If Schneider or Conant are stinging from my analysis of No. 18 at Old Barnwell, they have plenty of Aiken-area golf to design their frustrations away with (both are involved at the Gilroy, Barnwell’s companion course and Schneider will also be handling the nearby New Holland project). I will give them one more hole to chew on: the finale at Aiken’s finest public course. 

Aiken benefits greatly from having been, at both ends of its lifetime, designed by total amateurs within the world of golf course architecture, those knowledgeable enough about golf to avoid mom-and-pops disaster yet not so knowledgeable so as to present natural charm in unconventional quirks. On one hand, whomever laid out the original 11 holes knew that the current No. 16 would be a stunning drop-shot par three. They were so committed to that idea that golfers would just need to make do with the rather unconventional No. 15 (an equally great hole in its much less tangible manner) to get to the desired tee site. 

There are hiccups that occur in such hands, however. One classic is realizing that one has very little room left for a final hole, resulting in an awkward par three. I’m not at all opposed to short-hole conclusions; Donald Ross included many in my beloved Ohio…but there’s no solid evidence that Ross handled significant design in Aiken. He likely provided some advice to former colleague John Inglish (who added the final seven holes during 1915) but what remains at Aiken’s close is an 183-yard hole to a green less spectacular than most of its mates, with a pair of greenside bunkers that are blind from the tee. 

Schneider and Conant proved at Barnwell that they can work in quirk and, using the same creativity here, will end Aiken on a slightly sweeter, more memorable note. 

It’s worth noting that the land breaks toward the railroad tracks in this area of the course, well below the No. 1 fairway; as such, there’s an obvious opportunity to create a Reverse Redan effect by having the entrance to this green at the its high point on the left and then feed the newly angled green down the slope toward the No. 1 fairway. ,

Granted, a straightforward Reverse Redan seems a disservice to the style demonstrated by messrs. Schneider and Conant at Barnwell so adjustments are required. Although descending away from the player, we’re going to grow this green to allow for multiple putting pockets, allowing for a range of flag positions that require differing shots from day to day. It will be somewhat like MacKenzie’s Gibraltar green in concept, which is to say it has an undercurrent of Redan behavior but knows further tricks. 

In terms of defense, my primary complaint against the current bunkers is their blind nature; instead, I endorse a bigger hazard here, both so players on the tee know it’s there and, furthermore, as a brake pad for folks who really screw up, from both the No. 18 and No. 1 tees. I anticipate the current No. 1 fairway, which already extends wide right, to expand farther to allow the ground option that this green should allow. Continuing the theme of (personal) defense, the existing tree can stay; attacking the tee at the far right of this green is both difficult as is (now about 200 yards of carry) and increasingly hazardous for those on No. 1…hopefully the tree keeps slicers aiming left of it and, accordingly, ending up on No. 1 less. 

And now for something completely different. 

One obvious downside is that this green would usurp the existing putting course for evening putting competitions. (Photo Cred: BPBM Graphix Team)

 

What would happen if TOM FAZIO redesigned NO. 10 at THE COUNTRY CLUB OF FARMINGTON?

I’m not sure anyone has ever sandcapped a course high enough to escape the floodwaters of the Farmington River. And, furthermore, even if Tom Fazio could logistically pull it off, he couldn’t legally; FEMA’s counting on it holding some degree of floodwater to prevent the destruction of humanity downstream. So we figured we’d at least give Tom the opportunity to raise both a green and a tee box at Farmington. 

Very few consider the west side of Farmington’s property, nearer to the river, as the better half at this Hartford club. The holes that sit across Waterville Road, and especially those that interact with the ridge that the road sits upon, are certainly Devereaux Emmet’s high points here (pun somewhat intended).  It’s a wonder that the floodplain holes aren’t more boring than they are. 

The exception is No. 10, a largely bunkerless par five up until its lightly defended green, running alongside the river but lacking quality views because the trees are likely holding up the bank. It’s all as flat as my first name relative to Emmet’s. 

Every green on this side of the course is elevated, to keep them safe from floodwaters. Therefore there’s reason for Fazio to further raise this green, and further than what’s strictly required for flood prevention…and, to spite those floods, he’s also going to move it a bit nearer to the river; not flush, but enough so that players afraid of missing short may roll right off the back and possibly all the way down to the river if they lack requisite touch. 

The tree that currently stands alone, maybe 70 yards out from the green, will remain, now more directly a deterrent to someone trying to approach from the rightmost side of the fairway. As the utilitarian nature of the trees on the riverbank prevent Fazio from removing them and using the water as his favorite variety of hazard, he will instead make this the “safe” side of the fairway. 

That means he needs a hazard on the left, and he certainly provides. Nos. 9 and 10 already share about 40 yards of fairway, so Faz figures they can share a new stretch of waste area running between the rest of those fairways. Lest we be accused of redesigning No. 9 as well (which is out of this exercise’s purview), we’ll have the actual bunkers on No. 9 transition into the waste hazard on No. 10. Although it’s out of character with the rest of the Emmet here, the defined waste area will hopefully make it more reasonable to play out following the next flood (and perhaps hide some additional drainage capabilities, albeit probably too little to really combat the property’s water problems). 

Finally, yes, Fazio moves to, erm, protect the tee boxes (and his brand) by elevating the heck out of the championship tee, and a little bit for the other tees as well. I imagine a bit of a grass walkway directly from the back of the No. 9 green. Giving players a few extra yards off the tee on what is now, by our estimation, a 479-yard hole, seems a little odd for Fazio’s discography. Therefore this becomes a par four; it’s not an insane leap beyond the club’s next two longest par fours (450 and 438 yards, respectively) and it shakes up the existing flow, which was consecutive par fives of similar length. Now golfers play a proper three-shot par five at No. 9 (587 yards), the newly par 4.5 No. 10, the short par four No. 11 and a wee par three at No. 12. 

Not too bad, if you’re willing to give poor Tom a shot. 

If Faz had gotten to redesign this entire lower plain, there would have been gondolas to go with the channel system. (Photo Cred: BPBM Graphix Team)

 

What would happen if DONALD ROSS redesigned NO. 16 at KENEY PARK GOLF COURSE?

I know how Dusenberry got here. As with Emmet at Farmington above, to create an 18-hole golf course, you must sometimes deal with one annoying patch of flat land. There are, generally, three options: One, make the land not flat; two, adjust your routing so that multiple holes bite off a bit of the flat segment and spread the loss around; or three, just take the hit and eat up all the undesirable land in one fell swoop. No. 16 at Keney Park is the lattermost. Rerouting the entire back nine was likely a nonstarter so here we are…a rare hole at Keney with positively no allusion to famous standardized holes and little interest in its fairway. 

The good news, at least in theory, is that you aren’t playing across a horse track. The hole’s namesake, Meadow Brook, plays along the left side of this hole for more than 200 yards. “In theory” because, furthermore, the concrete cart path current separates the fairway from said waterway. This is probably because muni players teeing off at No. 15, coming the opposite direction, are liable to kill someone if the No. 16 cart path is over there. 

Needless to say, Ross – our guest renovator for this hole – will remove the path entirely and extend the fairway to that brook. People have needs but…not in this exercise. The bigger question is what he does with the rest of this hole, knowing that both its fairway corridor and green location are locked in by the neighboring No. 15. 

Two acclaimed Ross holes will serve as inspiration here. The first obvious connection for me, when considering streams that travel vertically along a Ross fairway, is No. 7 at Inverness, the most muscular par four I’ve ever played. That muscle is provided not only by the creek but also by the long, uphill tee shot. We haven’t got the latter but angling the green to be more exclusively open to lies along the creek is an obvious strategic move. 

An item bellyached about more than the flat playing surface is the singular tree to the right of this fairway. On one hand, I get it the social media mumbles…”water on one side, tree on the other…penal golf.” On the other hand, that tree is probably yet another insurance policy to prevent braining from the No. 15 tee, so Ross will leave it. As a slight relief to the duffer, he’ll expand shortgrass around the tree so you’re not too locked down. Furthermore, he’ll flatten the chocolate mounds to the left of this green, offering a bail-out for those who agree not to attack the green in two. 

Here’s where things get a little wild from a Ross perspective; I like that Inverness’s aforementioned No. 7 doesn’t have any bunkers. This one doesn’t need them either but it’s going to pull from a second Ross classic to make sure that players are inclined to come from the creek. In this case, No. 15 at Holston Hills. 

That Tennessee hole is noted for the strip of man-height mounds that intersects the fairway, maybe about 200 yards from where regular people tee off. Here, to somewhat amend for the mounds removed left of the green, a row of turfy teeth will defend the front-right of this green; it will be a more pronounced solution to that offered by its current bunker, making GIR a tricky proposition for those approaching from the right. 

Dusenberry didn’t avoid wonk at Keney Park and I can attest that everyday players embrace his upgrades. This bit of chicanery will fit right in and, believe it or not, it’s not as far gone from Ross’s library as you might think. 

Now if your tee shot goes in the brook, you have legitimate reasoning for having done so. Unlike mine. (Photo Cred: BPBM Graphix Team)

 

What would happen if DEVEREAUX EMMET redesigned NO. 17 at HOLSTON HILLS COUNTRY CLUB?

Holston Hills has, for as long as I remember, based its elevator pitch on claims of being the most untouched Ross design. You could choose to ignore Kris Spence’s recent renovations, openly advertised on the club’s site, and you can choose to ignore just how fast these greens roll. Or, you can embrace what should be the club’s actual selling point, which is the variety of questions asked across this round. Almost every hole has a unique wrinkle that sets it apart from its companions. Subtle differences, like a single blind tee shot or a single aggressive dogleg or a single punchbowl green. Every hole has its one signature trick that sets it apart in the route. 

And I guess the par five at No. 17 stands out too…namely in that it’s reachable par five with no teeth. There’s no sin in having such a gettable “long” lined up next to the more monstrous No. 18 but there is sin in letting it have as little personality as it does, relative to its colleagues. 

The bad news is that I didn’t play any Jim Engh courses this year, otherwise I definitely would have dramatically altered this hole to dogleg toward the abandoned buildings on the other side of Cliffside Lane. The good news is that I did play an Emmet-and-a-half and I have a 101-level understanding about how he might spice up this hole: bunkers, diverse in size and style. 

The first real-life bunker experienced from the tee may have made more sense in Ross’s day but at 165 yards from the back tees (hitting downhill), it doesn’t make much difference at this point. Emmet can build off of it, however, adding more sand and moving back to create a hazard more intimidating to the player. 

Emmet often wavered between two aesthetics when hazarding…more extreme versions of the extremes Macdonald showed at National Golf Links…either intended to look wild and natural or painstakingly geometric. We’ll start with the former here, creating a series of differently sized bunkers, a bit more amorphous, with at least one island of green. 

Let’s pivot immediately to the other variety of Emmet bunkering, which is intentionally geometric and often strung out across the landscape like a zipper. His work at St. George’s Country Club on Long Island comes to mind, where such a zipper often divides two nearby fairways. Here, however, the zipper becomes a Chewbacca-style tool belt, running from this wookie’s shoulder on the upper-left down to the nearer-right. This creates a nice bit of this-or-that for Holston’s notoriously talented membership. On one hand, between needing to get over the first set of bunkers and, most likely, needing to stop short of this second set (perhaps 280 yards along the right), the right side becomes an awfully tight landing area. 

The left is more open and allows more room to bomb…but we want this to be a putt-for-dough hole. Therefore we’re going to set this green up for an approach from the right. Emmet will do so by largely copy/pasting his No. 4 green complex from St. George’s. 

The green will now be longer and skinnier, moved up and to the right to make it fit. I estimate the length required to carry the fronting bunker will be 190 yards of carry…not an easy shot but one that a low handicapper can think about, especially during a match. And those who “bail out” by bombing left from the tee? Another stretch of naturalized bunkers to the front left of this bunker will provide some visual intimidation but the green’s real defense will be the inhospitable angle into a putting surface with sand on all sides. 

Those familiar with No. 4 at St. George’s bunker may recall its peculiar shape. Now that shape finally has purpose…the “h” is for “Holston.” 

I should definitely clarify here that the intention was for the green to be much wider…but my graphics software is very free. (Photo Cred: BPBM Graphix Team)

 

What would happen if John Inglis redesigned NO. 14 at Sand Ridge Golf Club? 

This one was tough in two regards; one, John Inglis only has two golf courses attributed to him as a primary designer – the aforementioned Aiken and Montgomery Country Club of Alabama, making it tough to really nail a signature style. 

My second problem was that my distaste for No. 14 at Sand Ridge began and continued with the bunker. Sand Ridge has plenty of bunkers, as a golf club next to the premiere sand mine in Ohio ought. Few could be considered masterpieces of minimalist design, which is fine; I don’t buy that every greenside bunker should look or feel the same. The statement I just made, however, becomes less and less true the bigger the bunker gets at Sand Ridge. In short, the more a bunker becomes a landscape unto itself, the more it should resemble the actual landscape. There are multiple instances at Sand Ridge where the literal largest offenders are so large and so flat that their well-defined nature gives away their separateness from nature. No. 14’s showcase hazard, which runs for 120 yards at 30 yards wide (as wide as many fairways at the club) is a paper cut in the hand of this otherwise okay hole. Someone like Kyle Franz is brash enough to create such a large hazard from scratch but he’s also wise enough to add some up-and-down movement within, or some vegetation to make this look like a natural waste area. There are a literal handful of grass plants scattered across this plot, which almost make things worse for their city-planner appearance. 

And so here I was, thinking about how I could alter this bunker and use the obvious dropoff down into it as the basis for a hole by Inglis. And that’s when I realized I had gone wrong; like in The Matrix, the trick wasn’t trying to bend the bunker but to merely realize that it shouldn’t be there. Holes nos. 12 through 15 sit at a distance from the rest of the course, separated by a large wetland drainage parcel. The wetland that sits ahead of the No. 14 green is a natural feature…the 120 yards of bunker that comes before it are not. The sand is mostly for show, more attractive than the wet, low-lying grass area that would have appeared there naturally. Based on Aiken, Inglis would not have designed along the left at all…he would have left it be. 

In fact, he may have done something similar to No. 3 at Aiken; rather than bury the stream that’s meant to flow from right to left, he’ll let it be. The hole at Sand Ridge is another short par five…that brief carry won’t be too much bother, even on two shots for someone who has ended up along the native area on the left. 

Creating the needle-strewn sandscape that lines most of the holes at Aiken won’t be practical; although there’s a heck of a lot of sand in the mine just 150 yards off of the No. 14 fairway, it will be about standard grave depth to expose, so Inglis will let it be. No need to overthink, which is exactly the amount of thinking it turns out this hole needed. 

Yes, there are golf holes where water hazards make sense! Namely when the water hazards were there originally! (Photo Cred: BPBM Graphix Team)