Connect with fellow members and join the conversation

Jason Bruno (aka "Links Nation") caused a bit of a stir on X earlier this week when he posted some fresh shots of Harbour Town Golf Links, which recently reopened after a historical renovation by Love Golf Design. The controversy revolved around a pair of revetted green-side bunkers in one photo.

Some commenters complained that Harbour Town architect Pete Dye never built revetted bunkers. (He did — at Harbour Town. They just didn't last very long because the sod stacks collapsed. Ultimately Dye replaced the revetted walls with the turfed-over walls that became a mainstay of his later designs.)

Others objected to the use of artificial materials in the sod stacks.

For the most part, though, the critics just didn't seem to like the look of the bunkers. Which is fair, but we should probably wait until the bunkers have had a chance to mature before rendering a final judgment.

In an April 2025 edition of Design Notebook, Scot Sherman, lead designer at Love Golf Design, gave me some insight into the thinking and technical process behind bringing back these bunkers:

Scot: We’re working on some details that really speak to what Pete did originally that didn’t last real long. He did some sod-stacking to several bunkers out there, and from the pictures and from recollections of others, some of that stacking was with Bahia and or St. Augustine grass, and it didn’t last long. And natural sod-stacking usually has to be replaced every three or four or five years, and [Harbour Town] just didn’t do it and [eventually] just grassed the faces. So again, in a tip of the cap to [Dye], we’re going to go ahead and do some of these that were originally stacked, but we’re going to do it in a little bit of a modern context. We think we could do something that’ll last a little longer. We have an artificial product, and we’re going to alternate artificial stacking with natural sod. We really don’t want it to look artificial, but we also want there to be hints of the sod-stacking. So we’re going to do a row of the artificial, a row of Celebration [Bermudagrass] sod, a row of the artificial, a row of the Celebration, and it’ll fuzz a little bit, and you’ll be able to discern the stacking.

Garrett: So the outcome of this sod-stacking process — will it look like a revetted bunker, like you would see in Scotland?

Scot: It’ll have a little bit different appearance. It won’t be that clean revetment like you’re used to seeing, and nor was Pete’s original sod-stacking. It’s going to be a little fuzzier, a little more ragged.Between ourselves and the owner and the old pictures that we have from the late 60s — the original tournament there that Mr. Palmer won — we’re going to put some of them back. I don’t know that we’re putting all of the ones we know about back, but some of that’s going to be a field decision. For example, there were a couple [sod-stacked bunkers] behind No. 9 green. Those are going to go back for sure. We’re putting back the dreaded deep pot bunker left of 14 green.

"Restoring" a golf course always involves tricky decisions like this one. If you want to honor Dye's vision, do you try to recapture the course that existed on opening day, including the parts that didn't end up being sustainable because of some technical deficit? Or you do pay tribute to the architectural refinements of the ensuing years — which, in Harbour Town's case, were overseen by the original architect and a long-tenured, well-respected construction company?

Or do you simply trust your own taste and go with what you think is the better option?

I'm personally a skeptic of the new revetted bunkers at Harbour Town. But not because I think they dishonor Pete Dye. They just don't look all that great to me. But I'm not too worked up about it because ultimately it's a fairly minor aesthetic issue.

These past several days have been rich with cross-discussion between FEGC and Golf Club Atlas! There's now a thread discussing the subject I raised in this week's edition of Design Notebook.

By far the best reply, in my opinion, comes from Mike Young, who has turned into something of a pen pal of mine over the years. Mike designed and continues to own and operate The Fields Golf Club in LaGrange, Georgia. He has influenced my thinking about golf architecture and maintenance deeply. The last time I interviewed him was in March 2024, when we discussed the ins and outs of building and running a mom-n-pop golf course. I find him to be a unique and important voice in the industry.

So it's no surprise that I found myself nodding along vigorously with his contribution to the GCA thread:

"I'm not sure original or unoriginal should be the question. The question should be are [the courses] sustainable and can the game continue to be played on them. If not then why does it matter. Subtlety seems to be gone no matter the 'style' and the abundance of money has ideas being tried that may have been thought of earlier but could not or would not be implemented int he past due to agronomic issues or playability issues.... There is a lot of good young talent out there and the overabundance of money available today may be more of an issue when it comes to originality than we think."

Mike also says that "a good routing with subtle, strategic greens and bunkering can always stand the test of time if it can be maintained."

Right on. I think this is a logical extension of my own statement that an important, under-discussed task of a golf architect is to "prepare a ground for the game." Part of preparing a ground for the game is ensuring that the game can be played on it affordably and sustainably into the future.

If I could write my essay again, I'd probably add a section about the importance of "innovating" in the arenas of economical construction and maintenance. The industry has learned an incredible amount about golf course maintenance over the past several decades. Because of these knowledge gains, architects now have the ability to build the most affordable, sustainable golf courses the game has ever seen. But the problem is we're lacking owners and developers for whom that is a primary objective.

To be clear, I don't think Mike is saying golf architecture shouldn't be bold or innovative. He's just pointing out, accurately, that if it can't be maintained without great expense and effort, there's no real point to the initial boldness or innovation.

Anyway, always listen to Mike Young.

40, no kids, no interest in fighting.

I haven't been able to play much the last couple years due to a family health issue, but am going to try to hit the links a bunch more in 2026 on.

My favorite courses in the area in the affordable/public tier are St John's (Elkton), Stillwater, Jax Beach, or Eagle Landing. Hyde Park too when it is in good shape.

Apologies for the logrolling, but this video by our team on Gil Hanse's work at Seminole Golf Club rocks. I had nothing to do with it, so I like to think my opinion is not wholly worthless here.

I'm presenting it for discussion because I think this project at Seminole is notable in a couple of ways:

1. According to Seminole, a major purpose of the renovation is to combat incursions from the club's moody neighbor, the Atlantic Ocean. Many seaside golf courses will confront this reality in the coming years, and unfortunately most of them won't have the financial wherewithal to simply raise playing surfaces by multiple feet. Whenever we discuss the future of golf architecture, we need to talk about how golf course owners, superintendents, and designers will confront the effects of global warming.
2. Seminole is now acknowledging that it didn't have — perhaps never had — Donald Ross-designed greens. As golf architecture nerds have long known, the course's famously exacting green complexes were chiefly the work of Dick Wilson, a talented mid-20th-century architect best known as Robert Trent Jones's main rival. The club has now chosen to restore the greens that Ross planned in great detail but perhaps never built to spec. This raises a fascinating question: should a golf course restoration (or "historical renovation," to use Hanse's preferred, ass-covering term) bring back what was built or what was designed/planned?

Over on Golf Club Atlas, an occasionally contentious discussion of Seminole's decision-making has unfolded over the past several months. A key contributor has been Hal Hicks, a former Seminole superintendent who opposes the recent work. Hicks knows his stuff and makes a lot of strong points, but he's obviously — understandably — advocating for the version of the course he knows best and spent much of his career nurturing. His work is now literally being buried. That can't be easy.

For me, the critical question is whether Ross's greens are better, more artful, more interesting, and more playable than Wilson's. To my eye, they appear to be, yes.

Anyway, the Golf Club Atlas thread seems to have reached maturity, because a few members are now implying that we're doing PR for Seminole, and that's the only possible reason that the club deigned to let our crew on the grounds. Couldn't possibly be that Andy, Cameron, and Matt earned the opportunity by helping us establish a reputation for doing good, fair work.

Calumet Country Club — a Donald Ross design in Homewood, Illinois (just south of Chicago) — has closed permanently, according to W&E Ventures, the depressingly named company that owns the property. Read a Patch article on this development here.

W&E, which purchased Calumet in 2020, cited an effort "to prevent vagrancy and security issues" as its rationale for shutting down "all golf course operations" and removing "all infrastructure throughout the property."

You know what else might have helped make the golf course safer? Reopening and restaffing it.

Anyway, Calumet has been struggling for a while, but it was an important fixture in the Chicago golf scene (the former home club of Fried Egg founder Andy Johnson, in fact), and I'm sad to see it go.

Howdy folks! In case I haven't introduced myself, I'm Beau and manage product here at Fried Egg. What does that mean and why is it relevant to you? Who knows!

But in all seriousness, I just wanted to drop a note that we're working on a couple enhancements to our community forum that should make your experience using it better. In short order, we'll add the ability to follow a topic and/or post.

If you follow a topic, you will receive an email alert anytime someone creates a new post in the topic. This will be great if you're particularly interested in a single topic (architecture) and want to know anytime something new happens.

If you follow a post (e.g. your local carton), you'll get notified every time someone comments on the post. This should be helpful to follow along and stay up to date if folks are setting up rounds in your local area, etc.

I'll let you know here once the update is completed but it shouldn't take that long (famous last words!).

There's also already a great post (https://www.thefriedegg.com/members/forum/forum-technicals) started on forum enhancement requests but if you have other things you'd like to see please let me know.

Cheers!

Reposting to bring a little more visibility.

We have 3 open slots at Golden Gate Park GC next week on Wed 11/19. We have 2:48 and 3:00 booked and there's currently 5 of us lined up to play. Would love to fill those 3 extra slots with anyone that is interested.

If on the off chance you're unfamiliar with GGPGC, Jay Blasi re-did the course a few years ago and it is awesome now. A super fun 9 hole par 3.

Cheers!

35, married, 2 (soon to be 3) kids, little (but not zero) interest in fighting

I live in Southwest Houston. Primarily play around there (River Pointe, Meadowbrook Farms), but will go all across the Houston metro.

Favorite courses in the Houston area are Eagle Pointe, High Meadow Ranch, and Bearkat Course in Huntsville. Gus Wortham and Memorial Park are also great.

On the shelf currently (rehabbing after knee surgery), but should be good to go come spring time and would love to play with fellow FEGC members!

My state has 4 sand green courses. I've been able to see 2 of them so far and really enjoy the uniqueness. Putting is a bit irrelevant but the shotmaking is a blast. Ground runners, bounch and splashers, or stock high and soft shots are always an option. Although greens are usually tiny so distance control is at a premium with stock shots. Big fan of using my hickories playing them. Has anyone else played a sand greens course? How do you "rate" them? Fun and routing are my 2 categories.

When talking about my favorite golf courses I often describe them as being quirky. Two of my very favorite courses on earth are National Golf Links and Merion East, both of which I feel feature some real quirk. Both of these courses are from the teens and have a bit of a vernacular design quality to them. In other words, there really wasn't an established template (for lack of a better word) for what constituted acceptable or "normal" design features at that time. The Old Course has informed golf course architecture more than any other golf course, and I would be hard pressed to think of a more quirky collection of golf holes. There are many other examples of great golf courses that are also quirky, North Berwick for example. I'm sure that you, if you think about golf course architecture could cite your own examples.

I value quirk so much that I've often tried to think about it as a fourth principle of design. Strategic, Heroic, Penal, and Quirky. But can quirky really be designed, and if it is, does it come across as inauthentic? I don't necessarily think so, I think the 7th at Ballyneal is a tremendously fun golf hole that is quirky as hell, but doesn't feel like a party trick. But I can see that a modern golf course design trying to get too cute, or lean into quirk too much could elicit scorn from a lot of players. So I ask you, could quirkiness be a design principle or is it merely a byproduct of unique landforms or features that the routing is required to play over or around? It certainly feels more prevalent in older golf courses, but I'd welcome further examples of modern quirky designs; Ones that you feel pursue the goal successfully or even ones that you feel were less successful in it.

https://www.thefriedegg.com/articles/in-praise-of-the-golf-buddy

I wrote this because it feels like we don't talk enough about the therapeutic benefits of golf, and how you really don't need a great course or a great score as long as you have a good person with you.

It also felt like a good discussion post: When was a time a Golf Buddy lifted you up?

You can share here or shoot me a note at kvv@thefriedegg.com

I think the way we discuss and approach the idea of penal and strategic as a binary needs improvement. As it creates a reductive discussion seeking a binary answer to a non-binary problem.

As it’s clearly evident in every great both strategic or penal hole, all have a clear penal hazard or strongly directive contours that direct a lead one or multiple lines of play.

If we believe this last statement to be true, then we must accept a non-binary application of the terminology. This scale is a work in progress and is presented with an interest in discussion of not only the concept but the definitions and how best to apply it to features, holes, and golf courses.

The 0 is reserved for golf essentially as impossible or inconsequential.

The 1 is the golden goose. We haven’t been able to define or find a purely strategic hole without a clear penalty. They either are a bit too penal to be a 1 or they are so ineffective that it creates a 0. So 1 and the definition of strategy are open for debate.

(?)

7 is much clearer as that’s the point of penal golf. The most recent perfect example was 18 at Bethpage with the flanking bunkers on the drive and the uphill cross-bunkered approach.

Excited to hear and see the discussion. Remember this is a tool for discussing and cataloging golf not a value judgement on the hole or its quality. (Please find a way to add photos to comments; this thread needs it).

OCM has my attention. Their original US work is only beginning to come on line at Fall Line and Luling, though not too many will have played them yet. But early images suggest a possible new flavor for where architecture and design can be heading. I sense a middle ground between, say, the camps of Doak and Coore & Crenshaw compared to perhaps King and Collins, Franz, or Jackson Khan. Something maybe closer to Scott Hoffman, though I haven't seen his work yet.

My initial reaction to OCM is that their work is rooted in a naturalism that doesn't err too far into universal playability. A naturalism with teeth. There's width and angles, but moments of constriction, then approaches and green complexes that visually appear more exacting than perhaps what's been produced at many Dream Golf types of examples in recent years.

As an example, Tepetonka provided a flyover of their entire routing on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DQxDCcckYaz/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

It looks quite good to me. Big, broad land with significant slope. Like it could almost be a midwestern skiing area, but with likely less elevation. Par 4s and 5s are often routed over grand scaled corridors, and the par 3s are nestled into amphitheaters of trees. The land has some deeper ravines from glacier retreat, and a good-sized creek comes close to a few greens.

Initial comparison might be something like High Pointe meets CapRock Ranch? No doubt good courses to be in conversation with.

Some notes I made from the flyover:

The routing seems very compelling. There may be a couple moments of directional back and forth, and the creek system seems to have a pattern of guarding the front and left side of greens/holes. But the par 3s appear in beautiful spots and both the opening and closing holes appear very strong.

1 is a big bold par 5 with a elevated forced carry tee shot--a theme that appears on a handful of holes.

3 is a lovely par 3 downhill over the creek.

4, a par 4, looks to have severe slope right to left with bunkers lining the left side to ostensibly save balls from tumbling into the woods. Then it also has an imposing looking green complex with massive bunkers.

6 has a beautiful natural green site.

8 again strikes a balance of beauty and perceived challenge. Long par 5 with what looks like a perimeter running along entire right hand side.

11! Hogs back potentially drivable par 4 with deflecting slopes falling on both sides the closer you get to the green. Great risk and reward, but with real teeth!

12 another intimate par 3 situated in cedars.

14! Shorter par 5 but with the creek heavily guarding the green.

15! Stunning par 3 guarded by creek left and bunkers right.

16 bunkerless maybe for the entire hole. Expansive forced carry over wetlands or bog (?) with a walking/cart bridge. Elevated green.

Wasn't sure whether to title the thread Tepetonka or OCM more generally. Happy to hear thoughts on both course and the architects.

We're kicking around this idea internally and are interested to see who would be inclined to participate? To be determined how often the club meets but we would love to see how many people would like to jump in. Consider it a club that discusses golf books and golf-adjacent books

Must-watch stuff from Pablo Torre this morning on golf's "hyest flyer."

A lot of receipts presented, showing Phil Mickelson's links with a troubled energy company begging to be bailed out by the White House.

You know the content is good because Phil is already threatening to sue random Twitter accounts that engage with it.