Eagleglen Golf Club, Elmendorf AFB, AK

This was a really solid golf course. It was better than I was expecting it to be. Course was #1 in Alaska this year in Golf Digest, #4 in Golf Mag and Golfweek. As of this writing, I have only played Moose Run (River) in Alaska, but I do think this course is better than Moose Run. I hope to play 3 or 4 more courses before I leave Alaska in ten days. This course does have a lot of straight holes and it's routed over some really flat land, but it's rather gently shaped and has a lot of forced perspective. Several times I saw a bunker that looked many yards shorter or longer than it was and at least once it directly affected the club that I played. 

There seems to be some confusion as to who designed the course. Worldgolf says RTJ, Jr. as does the course website. But the Robert Trent Jones Society lists Eagleglen on their master list of courses designed by Mr. Jones. Both list the year built at 1972. So, pretty much the only way I can wrap this around my head within saying the Trent Jones Society got it wrong is to say that Jr. designed this course while he was still working with his father's company. Either that or Jr. supervised a major redesign of his father's original and they have just omitted him from the papers. Either way, it's a solid design with some pretty small scale features and *gasp* ground game features, something not seen on some of Trent's work.


But overall, this course is really solid. It was better than I had expected and, while perhaps not as scenic as Moose Run up the street, it certainly made up for that in strategic features on the ground. 


Holes of Note:
Hole 2: Par 4, 361 yards
This hole plays blind off the tee, a quality strategic feature missing from too many modern designs. The tee is located in a low spot near the creek with a narrow stream fronting the tee. The rise is probably less than 20 feet high but it works perfectly to obscure the fairway from the tee. The hole is a dogleg right with a fairly dense set of trees down the right side (most all the treed areas here are dense, but the corridors are wide enough so that the dense trees are not a real worry). With the fairway obscured from the tee, the player is left to make his best judgement as to where to hit the tee shot. 

Once over the hill, the fairway opens up to the player. The best line is to play close to the tree line but hitting it far enough to clear past the trees. A ball down the left side might run off the side of the fairway into a small depression and playing towards the center will just leave a longer shot to the green. In the picture above, the best line would be towards the tallest trees in the center of the image, though they are on the right-center of the fairway. Anything left of those will roll into the depression. From the fairway, the green is quite open, but there is a single bunker guarding the left side of the green. A low running draw could be played into the hole if the player was comfortable with that shot.

Looking back down the fairway, the depression can be seen to start at the white tree in the center of the picture and work to the right of the image. As with all greens here, they are of limited interest due to growing and weather conditions.

Hole 5: Par 5, 520 yards
This hole plays straight off the tee but has a large knob in the fairway on the right side that certainly adds to the interest. A ball clearing the knob and hitting on the downslope will take a major bounce forward while a ball hitting short on the face of the knob will be stopped. The knob also keeps the player from simply bailing to the right side of the fairway away from the bunker on the left. And though it does not show well in the image below, there also seems to be a bunker in the distance, just a few yards beyond the knob on the centerline of the fairway.

However, once getting farther down the fairway, the bunker that looked mere yards beyond the knob is seen to be a greenside bunker. By designing the hole to look like this, Mr. Jones (whichever one of them) let the player's eyes trick him into possibly playing a shot off the tee that might not have been most ideal. From the fairway, the player is left to decide whether to lay-up or go to the green in two shots.

If the player hit his tee shot far enough such that he might be able to fly his ball all the way to the green, then ground features do not mean very much. However, given the typically cool temperatures up here (your writer lost 1 1/2 clubs in yardage having traveled from Alabama where the temps are 90 degrees opposed to 55 degrees) a 520 yard hole is rather substantial. So, the player is given the option to run the ball onto the green if he so chooses. However, this will require that he start his ball up the right side of the fairway, a hit a draw that lands short of the green, but beyond a bunker that covers from 45 to 60 yards short of the green.

For the player who can pull off that shot, an open green awaits. As can be seen from this image, the player choosing to lay-up should favor the right hand side, short of the bunker, in order to open the green up as best possible given the bunker short left and long right.

Hole 9: Par 4, 366 yards
Top quality short par 4. This hole has a significant dogleg off the tee and tempts the player to hit down the right hand side near the trees. Given the view of the hole, the player can tell that the fairway stops at a distance off the tee and may be forced to decide if the driver is the proper play from the tee.

But for the player who may have hit less than driver off the tee and played down the right side, the designer put a little surprise in for them, blind from the tee. A set of three bunkers guard the inside of the dogleg, standing ready to catch any balls that were hit short of the required yardage, but, given the yardage of the hole, probably the precise yardage a player not familiar with the course would have thought to be perfect.

From the fairway short of the green, but over the bunkers, the heavily defended green can be seen. There is the option to run a ball onto this green, but the opening is rather narrow. Given the length of approach shot for a person playing the correct tees, this writer has no problem with a hole requiring the player to fly the ball onto the putting surface. (Note: even though there is water standing in the fairway, this is a well draining course. It had been raining for 8-10 hours prior to my teeing off)

Hole 12: Par 4, 341 yards

This hole, the shortest par 4 on the course, also makes use of forced perspective, making the player think a bunker is much closer than it really is. From the tee, the player is given a generous fairway to look upon. But he is also given a bunker, that while obviously not on the preferred line of approach to the green, that being on the left side of the fairway, certainly does appear to be in play off the tee for any shot played right of center.

But, as before, once the player gets a ways off the tee, the bunker clearly shows itself to be a greenside bunker. Very good use of bunkering and deception to make the hole appear to be something that it is not and making it better because of that.

Hole 18: Par 5, 521 yards

This solid par 5 has likely not suffered from technology advances as some have. The hole plays as a hard dogleg right. The creek must be carried from the back tees (about a 40 yard carry), but not from the forward tees, which is always a plus. The creek also runs the entire length of the hole down the right side. The hole was built so to reward the player who takes a risky play off the tee and flirts with the creek. From the right side, the player will be left with a flat lie from which to play his second shot.

From the fairway, the contouring can be seen. The fairway is rather flat for the player who took no risk and played far left, however, from there the green is likely not within reach; at least it shouldn't be, any player who either hit a shot that poorly or that safe off the tee has no business trying to reach the green from 260+ yards with a carry over a creek.

If a player hits up the right side without enough distance, he will be looking at this.

But with proper distance and angle, this shot from a nice flat lie awaits. Note the large tree on the right side of the fairway. The player will be forced to decide if he wants to risk going directly over the tree or if he wants to work the ball one way or the other around the tree.

The player who chooses to lay-up must contend with the tree and steer clear of it, otherwise his approach might be blocked out.

The par 3's on the course, while rather varied are much better as a set than they are individually, only lacking a very short hole. While they may not be as scenic as some, the set is certainly solid. As with any course in Alaska, the turf conditions suffer when compared to courses in the Continental US due to the extremely short growing season up here. But architecturally, this course is solid. Not much boredom to be found here as players are expected to think on every shot. On more normal days, dryer days, the course should play much firmer, allowing for ground play, if desired (according to local weather, the first half of July was the coldest on record and had 20% above average rainfall, not the best combination for firm and fast golf courses). But overall, this course is very good, perhaps the best in the state, perhaps not, that remains to be seen. 6 out of 10.

Pacific Dunes vs. Links at Bodega Harbour: A study in the good and bad of ocean front design

In the past week I have had the pleasure (and displeasure) of playing two oceanfront golf courses in back to back rounds. Last Sunday I played Pacific Dunes in Bandon, OR. Today I played the Links at Bodega Harbour.  I should note from the start that Links at Bodega Harbour doesn't try to market themselves as being better than Pacific Dunes, however, given their website marketing saying they are "one of Northern California's most impressive golf courses" and "a true Scottish style links course" I feel that the comparisons are fair. I suppose the best way to start is a general comparison of the two courses:

Similarities
Both courses have three holes that play very close to the ocean

Both courses occupy exceptional sites with varied terrain, wind, and incredible views of the Pacific Ocean


Differences
At Pacific Dunes, Tom Doak uses the ocean and the views of it the same way a great chef uses a fine wine to accentuate the taste of an exceptional Filet. At Bodega Harbour the ocean is used much the same way as the backyard griller uses beer to mask out an otherwise tasteless and burnt hamburger.

Pacific is built on land that drains very well, allowing for the course to be playable almost all the time. Bodega, even though it is built on a mountain directly above the ocean, somehow retains massive amounts of water in the fairways, making walking difficult.

Pacific Dunes has no houses on the property, while Bodega has houses on several holes that are so close to the playing areas, and running side-by-side down the entire length of the hole on both sides, as to make the course nearly unplayable in high winds (which are certain to occur given the location)


At Pacific Dunes, you have three holes that play directly by the ocean, 4, 11 and 13; there are also a few greens that overlook the ocean, but those are the three holes that in my mind play directly on the ocean/cliffs. Links at Bodega Harbour plays on the ocean for holes 16, 17 and 18. That is where the similarity ends however. At Pacific Dunes, these ocean front holes merely amplify the interior holes before and after them. Indeed, in my opinion, the 4th at Pacific Dunes may be the weakest hole on the course, and I say that in a most praiseworthy way. At Bodega Harbour, it is as if some form of drama is built through out the round towards a "big finish" by having teaser views of the ocean on the first 15 holes, yet after walking off the 16th tee and into the fairway, the ocean is not at all visible in spite of being only 50 yards away due to a row of dunes (and given how 'perfect' the dune line is, I suspect these were man-made). The same is the case with the other ocean front holes, if 17 can really be considered an ocean front hole given that it plays away from the 16th green back inland a ways, but I am being slightly generous today, so I'll give them the benefit and say the course has three holes on the ocean. 18 is much the same given that the ocean is in view from the tee and on the second shot, but again, at the green the ocean is 50 yards away and yet nowhere to be seen. At Pacific Dunes, not only is the sound of the surf below you somewhat distracting, the view of the cliffs and the ocean below really give the player a lot to think about standing over the three tee shots. What it really comes down to is that when the ocean is used at Pacific Dunes as a hazard, it adds to the natural beauty and strategy of the course; at Bodega Harbour, when given the chance to excel and use the ocean as part of a dramatic finish, falls woefully short and winds up with no real views of the ocean and the ocean never coming into play.

In dealing with the site similarities, I am quite frankly inclined to say that Bodega Harbour has a better site than does Pacific Dunes. The site has more movement and elevation change, yet is not so extreme as to prevent a course from being built on it. However, it is in the execution where the similarities end.

As I stated before, Pacific Dunes uses the ocean somewhat sparingly in order to keep your attention on the other, more substantial and important features of the course. At Bodega, it is as if the ocean is intentionally placed within your view on every hole in order to take your mind and eyes off the actual hole and the golf course. Otherwise, people might understand how poor this course really is. In spite of my listing houses and the ocean as two separate differences, it is impossible to address the weaknesses of the course and the ocean views without addressing the housing problem. It is rare that I am distracted by houses on a golf course. However, at Bodega, the homes are so close to the fairways in some cases that I actually feel the golf course is unsafe, not for the golfers, but for the home owners. Played in high winds like today, it is nearly impossible not to, in fact, aim FOR houses on some holes, 1, 2, and 9 come to mind as the worst offenders. With a strong cross-wind it is basically impossible to keep your ball out of the houses to the right of the 9th fairway without aiming over the houses on the left. 1 and 2 are not quite as bad, but they are very tight and generally not appealing in any way. After arriving on the 5th tee, golfers are treated to what would be one of the most spectacular views in all of golf, however, it is quite encumbered by views of a few hundred roof's and then the hole that proceeds from there is quite frankly one of the worst holes I have ever seen.

I think in the end what I am trying to say here is that Pacific Dunes was blessed with a spectacular site and had an exceptional designer and owner come in with enough skill to not let it be destroyed. At Bodega Harbour, they were blessed with certainly the best site I have ever seen, and frankly the best I have ever heard of, better than what I have seen of Pebble Beach, Turnberry and the rest. Yet for whatever reason, the potential course was so devastated by a housing development and a likely substandard original designer (Robert Trent Jones, II is listed as the designer, I have to believe is the Renovation designer and not the original designer given other work I have seen from him, therefore I do not hold him responsible for the original routing and without changing the routing, there is only so much polish one can place on a pile of manure) that I can honestly say that Bodega is the biggest letdown of a golf course I have ever played. Given what could have/should have been here, I am actually incline to say it is the worst golf course I have ever played and is the first course I have ever said is a Zero on a scale of 1-10; I doubt there has ever been a golf course fall so far below its potential. (Pacific Dunes is a 10, by the way)