- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Greystone CC
Posted on 3/24/19 at 2:41 pm to tigerwith3
Posted on 3/24/19 at 2:41 pm to tigerwith3
quote:Name a narrow hole on the front that’s forced that way because space issues. Name one on the back other than 10. I’ll wait. If a hole has a small landing area, it’s either because of water (numbers 2 and 18) or because of trees left between holes (11 and 12). So you don’t really have a point.
My point is the holes are too narrow because they didn't have enough real estate.
2
Posted on 3/24/19 at 5:07 pm to tigercraig
quote:
Too narrow?
How wide does your swing need them to be?
How many drivers do you hit out there??
I'm guessing about 5. If you hit more, your swing speed is around 90.
Most normal, well thought out courses let you hit your driver 10 or 11 times.
Posted on 3/24/19 at 5:08 pm to ell_13
You defend this course way too hard. Who gives a shite if they don’t like it.
Posted on 3/24/19 at 5:18 pm to ell_13
quote:
Name a narrow hole on the front that’s forced that way because space issues. Name one on the back other than 10. I’ll wait. If a hole has a small landing area, it’s either because of water (numbers 2 and 18) or because of trees left between holes (11 and 12). So you don’t really have a point.
Let's see, you can't or don't need to hit driver on 2,4,6,8,10,11,16,17 and 18. That's 9 holes that are either too short or too tight. Which means you have 5 holes where driver is needed.
Unless your swing speed is around 90 it's a pretty bad layout. It's a beautiful course, but I enjoy hitting the driver more than 5 holes.
Posted on 3/24/19 at 6:41 pm to GWfool
It was a baseless comment. If he thinks it’s too narrow, fine. I don’t care. But it’s not because of the space available.
Posted on 3/24/19 at 6:42 pm to tigerwith3
quote:Play the tips then. And those are forced layups mostly and they aren’t all like that from tips. . Has nothing to do with being narrow. At least not for most golfers.
Let's see, you can't or don't need to hit driver on 2,4,6,8,10,11,16,17 and 18
Driver from tips:
1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17. And depending on the wind and roll out: 2, 10, 18.
It’s a whole different course.
This post was edited on 3/24/19 at 6:50 pm
Posted on 3/24/19 at 7:07 pm to ell_13
Only true baws hit driver every hole there.
Posted on 3/24/19 at 7:34 pm to ell_13
Just admit, whoever setup that course screwed up. 10 was supposed to be #1 and they changed it multiple times because those first 3 holes are too narrow.
It's too narrow because they didn't have the real estate to widen half of the course.
I'm playing there tomorrow. I'll give you an update of your poorly designed course.
It's too narrow because they didn't have the real estate to widen half of the course.
I'm playing there tomorrow. I'll give you an update of your poorly designed course.
Posted on 3/24/19 at 7:59 pm to tigerwith3
quote:No. They changed it because too many people would skip the clubhouse at the turn. That was money lost. 11 is not narrow.
they changed it multiple times because those first 3 holes are too narrow.
Posted on 3/24/19 at 9:13 pm to tigerwith3
I thought It was closed in Mondays?
This post was edited on 3/24/19 at 9:13 pm
Posted on 3/24/19 at 9:19 pm to tigercraig
quote:
thought It was closed in Mondays?
Tournament
Posted on 3/24/19 at 9:22 pm to ell_13
quote:
They changed it because too many people would skip the clubhouse at the turn.
Nope, your wrong. I spoke to the pro not too long after they opened and he confirmed that people were bitching about how tough the opening holes were so they flipped sides.
Posted on 3/24/19 at 9:24 pm to tigerwith3
You’re*
Posted on 3/24/19 at 9:55 pm to ell_13
quote:
You’re*
You know YOU’RE really grasping for shite to comeback with when you have to bust out a grammar call out lol
I think you both have some valid points fwiw
This post was edited on 3/24/19 at 9:56 pm
Posted on 3/24/19 at 10:53 pm to Random LSU Hero
I could have simply told him that the owner told me differently, but I didn’t think it was worth it at this point. He’s got his opinions and I have mine.
Posted on 3/25/19 at 7:21 am to tigerwith3
quote:
Nope, your wrong. I spoke to the pro not too long after they opened and he confirmed that people were bitching about how tough the opening holes were so they flipped sides.
i might be mistaken, but I think when it first opened in 2006, the current #1 was #1, but it changed at some point and then has since changed back
i could be misremembering though as I did not play it very often in those early years
Posted on 3/25/19 at 4:27 pm to Croacka
Was there ever a pro there? I thought Scurria ran all ops.
Posted on 3/26/19 at 6:14 am to tigerwith3
**CAVEAT**
I'm making a lot of assumptions about the real estate out there with this post. The assumptions, I think, are reasonable. But I'm obviously going to be quick to change my comments if Ell tells me they own land I assumed they don't
I think there are a few arguments that support the assertion that they ran out of real estate, but only a couple support the argument that the course is too narrow because they ran out of real estate. I think your best arguments are 2, 4, 10, and the 18/17/16/14 corridor, with the last two supporting the narrow/real estate issue.
2 would be a much better hole if that lake wasn't there, and I could hit driver near the backyard of those houses. It seems like the lake was put there to sell houses and ensure they weren't hit by golf balls. I'd also be cool with adding another tee box going back, but that is also someone's back yard, which is why this is a real estate issue, not a narrow/real estate issue. There just isn't enough room between the tee box and landing zone to hit driver.
4 is obvious. Double dog legs exist. This isn't the only one in the country. But it may be the only dog leg where my first shot is forced to be shorter than my second shot. There just isn't enough space to make the first shot longer, so another real estate issue, but not a narrow/real estate issue.
10 looks like a hole that would be fun to hit driver and then have a wedge on. You could make that number one if you cut down a ton of trees on the right, but I'm guessing they don't own a ton of land on the right side of the cart path. There is room lengthwise to land driver, but the fairway is too narrow to make it worth it. This is really exhibit A for narrow/real estate issue.
Start on the left side of 14 and go to the left side of 18. That patch of land doesn't seem like enough land to lay 4 holes out park style the way they have. It's like 250 yards, which only gives you 60 yards or so per hole. Once you add trees and rough, that doesn't leave you a ton of fairway. That's essentially the same amount of room Santa Maria has the 6/7/12 corridor. Same yardage wide, one less hole. While I'm sure you could find 4 holes in BR or somewhere else that are squeezed into the same or similar area, the fact that it doesn't appear that you can expand that corridor any makes it a narrow/real estate issue in my book. For a couple of those holes I'd appreciate a few extra yards to land my driver.
The real issue to me isn't about real estate. It's just not a design that I enjoy. Some people do enjoy the design, or just don't hate it. I like a little larger fairway and I like to be able to hit driver everywhere. It's all preference. I'm sure some people don't like the style golf courses I like. It is by far one of the more polarizing golf courses I've ever played or discussed.
I'm making a lot of assumptions about the real estate out there with this post. The assumptions, I think, are reasonable. But I'm obviously going to be quick to change my comments if Ell tells me they own land I assumed they don't
I think there are a few arguments that support the assertion that they ran out of real estate, but only a couple support the argument that the course is too narrow because they ran out of real estate. I think your best arguments are 2, 4, 10, and the 18/17/16/14 corridor, with the last two supporting the narrow/real estate issue.
2 would be a much better hole if that lake wasn't there, and I could hit driver near the backyard of those houses. It seems like the lake was put there to sell houses and ensure they weren't hit by golf balls. I'd also be cool with adding another tee box going back, but that is also someone's back yard, which is why this is a real estate issue, not a narrow/real estate issue. There just isn't enough room between the tee box and landing zone to hit driver.
4 is obvious. Double dog legs exist. This isn't the only one in the country. But it may be the only dog leg where my first shot is forced to be shorter than my second shot. There just isn't enough space to make the first shot longer, so another real estate issue, but not a narrow/real estate issue.
10 looks like a hole that would be fun to hit driver and then have a wedge on. You could make that number one if you cut down a ton of trees on the right, but I'm guessing they don't own a ton of land on the right side of the cart path. There is room lengthwise to land driver, but the fairway is too narrow to make it worth it. This is really exhibit A for narrow/real estate issue.
Start on the left side of 14 and go to the left side of 18. That patch of land doesn't seem like enough land to lay 4 holes out park style the way they have. It's like 250 yards, which only gives you 60 yards or so per hole. Once you add trees and rough, that doesn't leave you a ton of fairway. That's essentially the same amount of room Santa Maria has the 6/7/12 corridor. Same yardage wide, one less hole. While I'm sure you could find 4 holes in BR or somewhere else that are squeezed into the same or similar area, the fact that it doesn't appear that you can expand that corridor any makes it a narrow/real estate issue in my book. For a couple of those holes I'd appreciate a few extra yards to land my driver.
The real issue to me isn't about real estate. It's just not a design that I enjoy. Some people do enjoy the design, or just don't hate it. I like a little larger fairway and I like to be able to hit driver everywhere. It's all preference. I'm sure some people don't like the style golf courses I like. It is by far one of the more polarizing golf courses I've ever played or discussed.
Posted on 4/3/19 at 6:46 pm to LSUTiger23
Played Greystone this afternoon for the first time in years. For those who play it regularly, I haven't been since they flipped the nines.
Course was in great shape, as it appeared they were getting ready for an upcoming AJGA tournament. Greens were punched and sanded, but holy shite they were still fast as hell. Only a couple greens had bad spots on them.
Course was in great shape, as it appeared they were getting ready for an upcoming AJGA tournament. Greens were punched and sanded, but holy shite they were still fast as hell. Only a couple greens had bad spots on them.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 1:58 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
quote:
The real issue to me isn't about real estate. It's just not a design that I enjoy.
The great defender of BREC is negative about Greystone!
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News