THE APPROACH TO THE FIRST

When I moved back to DC a few years ago, I was less than thrilled with the public golf options that were available. Mostly they consist of poorly designed high-end daily fee courses and bottom of the barrel municipal courses. I decided to check out the University of Maryland Golf Course as it was close in and had been designed by George Cobb. Cobb gets lost in the shuffle when discussing golf design because he was overshadowed by Robert Trent Jones, but through my travels that I have learned that one thing he excelled at was routing a course. Quail Hollow has risen in stature after Tom Fazion renovation and hearty praise from the tour players, but people tend to forget that the groundwork was laid by Cobb and his routing that took advantage of the site’s natural contour.

I was blown away by the routing after my first visit at UMDGC. After on time around Cobb’s course in College Park, I thought that with a little work, the UMDGC could become the best course in the DC area. The routing was that good. The few bunkers were horrible and the greens were boring and flat. Unlike many course in the area, UMDGC is isolated from the surrounding suburbs. The fairways are lined with mature hardwoods. It literally is an oasis inside the beltway.

THE APPROACH TO THE SECOND

A few months after the course became a regular stop for me, I learned that they were planning a renovation to the course for its 50th anniversary. Local architect Bill Love had volunteered his services for the Master Plan and the course must of thought they were getting a heck of a deal. An ASGCA architect for free? Great. The course closed last summer for the work and I have anxiously awaiting the reopening to see how things turned out. I made it out there this week, and I can confidently say, you get what you pay for. (More pictures and review after the jump)

THE TEE SHOT ON THE FIRST

The best I can say about the renovation, is that the University on Maryland Golf Course still has the potential to be the best golf course in DC. Bill Love to his credit did not mess anything up, he just did not enhance the course. His bunkers are pushed to the outside of the holes. It is rare that someone would have to hit over them off the tee and if one does it is often leaves them with the worst angle into green.

A MISSED OPPORTUNITY- THE 18TH

It is as if no thought was put into the strategies of the holes. I know this can’t be the case, but it is amazing how many times I walked to the next tee to find a bunker arrangement directly opposite of what the land is saying and where I had envisioned them going. The eighteenth is prime example. The long par-four is a slight dogleg left. The shot plays over a crest of a ridge down into a valley. The green is situated on the nest ridge near the clubhouse. The land is perfect to create an unbelievable finishing hole.

THE FINAL APPROACH

Instead Bill Love decided to place a bunker on the far outside edge of the dogleg. It provides no strategic value nor does it add anything visually. The ridge line was better in its natural state. The green itself is another disaster. While I like that it may be the biggest on the course, its flatness does not provide any incentive for one to place the ball on either side of the fairway. There are the typical bunkers left and right. All in all, the eighteenth is an uninspired hole occupying land that any designer would die to have to dramatically finish off a course.

WATER FAILS TO GET TO THE DRAIN

The eighteenth is a microcosm of the whole course. The greens are barely an improvement over Cobb’s flat no-nothing efforts. The bunkers are certainly an improvement in both playability and appearance, but their placement actually detracts from the experience. Bill Love also loves to use catch basins around the greens. The placement of these are well done in that they are not directly in the approaches of the holes but rather off to the side. This is a common mistake in modern golf course design and construction. Unfortunately Bill Love decided to ring many of his greens with basins, a completely unnecessary and expensive practice. Subtle swales would have worked better and looked more natural. Now wet spots are found around the catch basins creating soggy areas that are no fun to play out of.

I don’t know the final cost of the renovation but I no that it was budgeted to be in the range of what Renaissance spent at Common Ground in Denver. All I can say is that if you compare the two products one client got a lot of value and the other didn’t. Because of the natural land forms at UMGC, the course should be head and shoulders above Common Ground. Instead it is the other way around. There are some great holes out there and I still recommend any fan of golf course design to go and play the course. It is a great value (currently $32 midweek as some fairways are still growing in after the work). I will continue to play there as long as the annoyance of what could have been doesn’t drive me crazy.

I have included some more photos and comments below:

The long dog leg left second. Bill Love wisely widened the fairway left so that an aggressive player can play close to the water hazard and receive a flat lie to the uphill green. This is a great tee shot that uses the long natural, slope from the right to dictate strategy.

The challenging approach to the second green is easiest from the flat lie next to the hazard that pinches in at about 285-yards from the tee. A safe tee ball to the right will result in a long iron from a downhill, side hill lie. This is good, simple architecture.

The 190-yard fourth is as good a par three as there is in the area. Bill Love greatly improved the look of the hole with some nice bunker work. A well struck, high fade is the optimal shot here.

The fifth is a nice hole that plays down into a valley and then up to a elevated green. The new bunker on the right is far removed from the ideal line. The bunkers by the green are there only to punish errant shots.

The sixth slides right up a hill to a nice green site. The original hole had the bunker on the inside of the dogleg. Rather than enhancing this bunker and maybe building one further up the hill on the inside of the dogleg to catch the big hitter, Bill Love decided to put two mundane bunkers on the outside of the hole. A better option would have been pinching the green with a intimidating bunker on the left and sloping the green so that it is best approached from the right. This could be a great hole.

The uphill par five ninth features more hazards pushed to the side.

The tee shot on the tenth plays over a great natural land form. Normally one would think that playing near or over the bunker would leave the ideal line into the green...

... instead the best line is from the far left of the fairway. I like a little misdirection every now and then but it must be set up with good strategic holes before that. UMGC does not have that.

The tee shot on the 12th is compromised by a few large trees. This section of the course could use extensive tree clearing for both playability and to get air and light to the struggling turf.

The green site at the par five 13th is the most altered on the course. The result? An insipid two-tiered green.

The par five sixteenth plays along a ridge before turning right and playing sharply down a hill to a wide valley. This shows the approach. The bunkers are so far out of the way that there is no reason to challenge them when laying up. Angling the green from front left to back right goes against the natural grade making it necessary to surround the green with catch basins. Flipping the bunker arrangement would have made for a more interesting and functional hole.

]]> http://punchbowlgolf.com/2009/09/university-of-md-golf-course/feed/ 3