Yesterday, as FEGC member Pearce Barringer noted in his own forum post, TGL announced that architect Gil Hanse had joined the screen-golf league's roster of hole designers. Accompanying the announcement was an awkward, faintly surreal video of a bemused Hanse making a WWE-like entrance into an empty SoFi Center. I'd love to hear the instructions the director of this piece of content gave him before hitting record.

TGL also unveiled one of Hanse's designs, a 590-yard par 5 called "Stone & Steeple." The hole features a few recognizable Hanse motifs: a threatening boundary wall, a lone bunker guarding the second-shot layup zone, and a rambling "Sahara" bunker, strewn with turf islands, cutting across the fairway. The neighboring graveyard even has precedent in Hanse's body of work: in his renovation of Waverley Country Club in Portland, Oregon, he moved the second green about 50 yards back so that it abutted a 19th-century cemetery.

The most striking aspect of Hanse's design is the double diagonal formed by the two sections of fairway on either side of the Sahara bunker. The basic idea, I gather, is that the farther players hit their drives without carrying the bunker, the more to the right they will end up, and the worse their angle into the green will be. On the other hand, if they want to make the long carry over the bunker on the left side and earn a shorter second shot from a better angle, they will need to bring the wall into play.

Classic strategic-school stuff, in other words. I think I'd enjoy playing this hole, if it were real. And you know what? It basically looks real. And that might be a problem.

So far, the reception of "Stone & Steeple" on social media has been chilly. There seems to be an emerging consensus among TGL viewers that the virtual-hole designs, unconstrained as they are by physical and economic realities, should be crazier, more video game-like, more purely inventive. As my colleague Joseph LaMagna put it on X, "TGL's biggest whiff is designing realistic holes. It makes zero sense to play holes like [Hanse's] in the one arena that's free from practical constraints."

That's probably right. The realism of Hanse's hole registers as a bit unimaginative.

But I have a hard time getting worked up about it because — confession time — I don't really care about TGL. I could barely make it through a single match in the first season. And this is not to say that the product is bad or that the people who enjoy it are rubes. It's just not for me. A huge part of what I love about golf is the relationship between the player, the course, and nature. When you strip away nature — the outdoors, the elements, the land — I lose most of my interest.

But what I'd like to hear Hanse address at some point is why he was interested in TGL. In a press release from the league, he said, "Starting with a relatively blank slate for TGL has been liberating. Designing holes for TGL has given us an opportunity to step out of our comfort zone and step into other aspects of golf course design in the virtual world."

As an architect who typically likes to derive inspiration from physical terrain, why was he compelled by the prospect of a "blank slate"? And in what sense did he stretch beyond his "comfort zone" here?

These are not passive-aggressive questions. I'd genuinely like to hear his answers.

Interested to see what Gil brings to the screen golf. I've only played two of Gil's courses, Sewanee and Mossy Oak, but like everyone, I've seen my fair share on TV and social media. Gil usually brings restraint and simplicity to his courses, with an emphasis on green complexes and their surroundings. Not exactly something you can implement in TGL.

Side note, is this a sign of things to come for a working partnership with the PGA Tour? I'd love to see Gil get his hands on a course or two. I know TGL and the Tour are separate, but in partnership with one another. One can dream.

https://www.pgatour.com/article/news/tgl/2025/12/2/tgl-announces-gil-hanse-course-designer-season-two-new-holes-architechture

I love sand based turf as much as everyone and understand the agronomy benefits. Who doesn't love blowouts and open/isolated spaces. That being said I kind of wish there would be a few new parkland style courses. Ones not suffocated by trees and housing, not restorations doing a bunch of removal, and not perimeter tree lined places where the trees don't really come into play. Would be interesting to see one of todays top teams have to route the land and trees without bulldozing the lot.

Maybe there are such places that have been built and I'm just not aware of them. (I know Sedge was kind of done this way but is still sand with no trees in play)

I'm jazzed that I'm getting to play Landmand in Homer, NE in July. Have any of you folks played this season? What are your impressions?

I found the Egg article from 2023 and I THINK I recall it coming up on the pod, but I would love to hear anyone's thoughts...especially after it's had a season to grow in a bit.

Candyroot Lodge, a new public golf facility in the sand hills outside of Charlotte, North Carolina, marked the end of its first week of construction with an Instagram post. Mike Koprowski, who collaborated with Kyle Franz at Broomsedge Golf Club and joined Andy Johnson on the Fried Egg Golf Podcast last year, is designing Candyroot's first course.

Initially, Koprowski was engaged by Candyroot's owners to build a single course, tentatively named Downbonnie. Since announcing that venture in May, however, the owners have brought on additional investors and developed bigger ambitions. Koprowski now tells me that Candyroot will feature multiple regulation layouts (three or four), plus a short course. An architect has not yet been selected for the second course, but interviews are ongoing.

If Candyroot Lodge follows through on its plans, it would be one of the largest and most exciting public-golf projects of the 2020s undertaken by developers not named Keiser.

Here are three recently announced renovation projects that caught my eye:

Todd Eckenrode is restoring William P. Bell's mid-1920s design at Annandale Golf Club in Pasadena, California. Annandale has good potential (the historical aerials are tantalizing, but sadly not much can be done to bring back the property's former vistas and openness), and Eckenrode knows Bell and California Golden Age architecture as well as anyone in the industry. This is a project to track.

Trey Kemp, a very capable Dallas-based golf architect, has started the first phase of his master plan for Hogan Park Golf Course, a 36-hole municipal facility in Midland, Texas. Hogan Park is an important hub of the game in the growing but somewhat golf-poor Midland-Odessa region. Over the past decade, Kemp has developed a specialty in reviving municipal courses in Texas. His work at Stevens Park and Rockwood Park in the Dallas-Fort Worth area has been especially well received.

Architect Nick Campanelli and influential golf writer Bradley Klein have been engaged to renovate Willie Park Jr.'s design at Shuttle Meadow Country Club outside of Hartford, Connecticut. Campanelli and Klein plan to adapt some ideas from Huntercombe Golf Club, Park's strange masterwork in the English heathlands. Golf Course Architecture has a thorough writeup on the project.

I recently noticed on a local course that they're maintaining rough around the bunkers (both fairway and green side) at a higher height than their regular rough. I left my rough ruler at home, but my guess is rough is maintained at 2.5" throughout the course and 3.5" around the bunkers at width of 1 to 2 feet. I'm not sure I've noticed this at other clubs and I am struggling to figure out why they're doing this (course in question has no shortage of financial resources)

Garrett and others,

I've enjoyed listening to your reflections on your trip to Surrey/Berkshire and Kent. I was wondering if you could say a bit more about what fascinated you so much about RSG and Deal and why you had them seemingly higher than Sunningdale or St George's Hill. I play most of my golf on the west links of North Berwick, so maybe I'm spoiled by links and heathland feels like a change of pace, but I'm much more enamoured by the heathland than the links of southern England. That isn't to say that Kent courses aren't fantastic, but the routing, greens, and turf around Surrey only compete with the Sandbelt in my opinion. Is it a case of preferring links? Or is it something about the greens at RSG that put it over the top for you?

Josh

Kansas City Country Club posted some drone footage of its A.W. Tillinghast-designed course, which recently underwent a historical renovation by Andrew Green. Lots of cool-looking holes out there. I'm not a fan of the all-green-everywhere turf presentation, but just about every club does it these days, so I can't fault KCCC specifically.

Videos:

Front Nine

Back Nine

Hear ye, hear ye! Golf.com has published its latest ranking of the top 100 golf courses in the world! And it's... remarkably similar to the 2023 edition!

Seriously, what's the point of going through this exercise every two years? The list has barely changed.

Oh, right. Golf media outlets need to sell magazines and drive website traffic in November.

Also: I need something to talk about, and here I am. I'm part of the problem.

Anyway, I spent about 10 minutes comparing the 2023 and 2025 lists, and here are the main differences I spotted (I may have missed a few):

New-course debuts:

• Childress Hall (Upper) at 73
• CapRock Ranch at 84
• Te Arai (North) at 98

Some of my colleagues have been to Tom Doak's Upper Course at Childress Hall, which opened last December, and they tell me that the hype is real. Amazing golf course. But I remain opposed to the idea of ranking a course ahead of Old Town Club and Machrihanish before it's even a year old. At least give the place time to grow in fully.

Double-digit risers:

• New South Wales from 64 to 26
• Royal Troon from 66 to 53
• The Lido from 68 to 48
• St. George's Hill from 71 to 57
• Lofoten Links from 88 to 66
• Bandon Trails from 90 to 76
• Royal Melbourne (East) from 92 to 82
• Shanqin Bay from 95 to 64

The Lido appears to be holding strong after a big debut on the 2023 list. It now out-ranks every Dream Golf course except for Pacific Dunes.

New South Wales recently underwent a renovation by Mackenzie & Ebert and seems to be reaping the benefits.

Double-digit droppers:

• Ballyneal from 51 to 63
• Cabot Cliffs from 52 to 78
• Cape Kidnappers from 55 to 65
• Woodhall Spa from 58 to 74
• Rye from 72 to 90
• Rock Creek Cattle Co. from 73 to 88
• Cabot Links from 79 to 96
• Winged Foot (East) from 80 to 91
• Ohoopee Match Club from 81 to 99
• Les Bordes (New) from 83 to off the list

I wouldn't read much into any of these declines (or into the rises I mentioned earlier, for that matter). A lot of the reshuffling from year to year is basically random. But I do think the new-car smell is starting to wear off of some of the modern courses listed above. The really good ones will bounce back in the panel's esteem.

Since I find this ranking somewhat boring, I'll try to spice things up: what do you think is the most overrated course on the list?

I'll stake my flag on No. 60, the East Course at Oak Hill Country Club.

Hello everyone,

With the holiday next week, I will be doing a general mailbag with PJ, I will pull some questions from last week's architecture focused ones into the podcast but just wanted to put a call out for any questions. Thanks!

The National Links Trust announced yesterday that Rock Creek Park Golf Course, a municipal facility in Washington, D.C., is now closed for the first phase of a "full-scale rehabilitation project." I detailed the plans for this project back in 2023. The National Links Trust holds the lease to operate D.C.'s three National Park Service-owned golf courses: Rock Creek Park, Langston Golf Course, and East Potomac Golf Links.

From the press release:

"Currently, we are continuing our adaptive management approach to invasive vine, shrub, and tree removal and finishing site work before we begin vertical construction on the new, modern maintenance facility and clubhouse, driving range, and putting course. Vertical construction will begin in the coming weeks.

"Next spring, our intention is to reopen at least nine holes of golf with a modified routing to accommodate for clubhouse and maintenance facility construction. The holes that reopen will continue to improve in playability and conditions, like we saw this year, as the turf receives more sunlight and better airflow and the corridors expand to their historic widths."

Whereas phase one of the Rock Creek overhaul will focus on the property's buildings and practice facilities, phase two will include Gil Hanse's redesign of the golf course. Hanse plans to split the current 18-hole course into a nine-hole regulation course and a nine-hole par-3 layout.

The news that work has begun at Rock Creek comes amid concerning chatter out of NLT-managed East Potomac Golf Links, where the Trump administration is creating an enormous mound out of rubble from the ongoing East Wing renovation project.

This week I will be recording a new architecture mailbag pod with Garrett.

Fire away any questions you have.

Thanks

Andy

Pinehurst No. 2 is considered by many to be the magnum opus of Donald Ross. People like the Fried Egg's very own Garrett Morrison have written about the wonderful routing that takes full advantage of the subtle natural topography. Walter Travis, Pinehurst member and 5x North and South Amateur Champion described Pinehurst as having "scientific" bunkering. But we all know that the greens are the star of the show when you go and play it. With that being said, it seems to be pretty much accepted at this point that the greens on No. 2 are not original to Ross (or at least drastically more severe). Pete Dye, who was stationed at nearby Fort Bragg during his Army years had a CO that was an avid golfer, and Pete had the opportunity to go and play No. 2 with him many times. He claims that the greens were much flatter in the 1940s and that the domed greens that we know today are due to decades of top dressing. This should track, as the original "greens" at Pinehurst were all flat, and sand covered squares. Ross and Frank Maples were not able to convert all 18 greens to grass until the 1930s. Bradford Becken, President of the Donald Ross society wrote in his book The Golf Architecture of Donald Ross: "As with the rest of Ross' work, there is considerable variety to his green designs. Many Ross fans associate the turtleback greens found on Pinehurst 2 as emblematic of his work, but this is not the case. in fact, looking at the body of his available drawings, such greens appear to be more of an exception, leading some to attribute the shape to years of top dressing and other maintenance practices rather than what was originally envisioned by Ross."

The Question that this is leading me to is this: Why Pinehurst No. 2 specifically? Why did top dressing not effect the greens on No. 1, No. 3 (which does have some crowned greens, but nothing like No. 2), Pine Needles, Mid Pines, SPGC, etc...? Same playing surfaces, same soil composition, conceivably same general maintenance practices. So why would the greens on No. 2 specifically be top dressed in a way that creates greens so extreme that it has mistakenly became a characteristic of Donald Ross?

So my club is undergoing a massive practice area renovation. I definitely did not think that the old practice area/driving range was bad, but I was excited about having some more short game area options, as I really enjoy going out and chipping. However, when I saw the video of what was going to be opening, I got really excited. I’ll link the video below, if you feel like devoting a few minutes to it.

My questions/topics of discussion here are twofold. First off, Keith Foster designed this practice area (he also did the restoration of one of our courses). Is it commonplace for a golf course architect to also design the practice facilities? I’ve never really thought about it, but when say Doak or C&C do a design/build are they also designing the practice area; Or is it usually just a case of parceling off a 300 yard x 300 yard area and the club does what they want with it? I suppose it could vary club to club, but I can't think of a high number of examples where the practice area seemed intentionally designed instead of just plopped down. Keith Foster has a relationship with the club, which would help to get him involved in this, but he also had a bit of legal trouble a few years back, and this might be him trying to tiptoe back in the game. I wonder how many established architects would take the job of designing a practice area?

Secondly, how important is a practice area to your overall enjoyment of a golf course? I don't know if we have any raters here, but if you visited a club and you began your visit with a trip to a practice facility that really wowed you, would it be difficult to not carry those feelings into your round and potentially inform your rating? I have visited some incredible, highly rated clubs that had terrible practice facilities, so maybe it doesn't matter? I do think that we are sort of at the beginning of clubs really paying attention to their practice facilities, many golden age designs are on tighter parcels of land and don't really have the space to devote to a massive improvement. However, at clubs that do have the space, and might have a little money to spend I wonder if we'll start to see more of this kind of thing?

Link, if interested:

https://youtu.be/E06tZk8KJoo