|
Grizzly Country Club
by Scott Shaffer
| Links Corner Course Database ID Number - 657 |
Release Date |
CRZ Filesize |
Par |
Course Length |
| 2001-11-19 |
29,312,517 bytes |
72 |
7536 yards |
| Type |
Style |
CRZ Filename |
|
FICTIONAL |
MOUNTAIN |
Grizzly Country Club 2.crz |
| Course ID |
Course Key |
| 2bb42597063c457eb72591e5b08f0ae5 |
2c4cc46ec797bf41e0ccc130166db7d5 |
|
LINKS CORNER REVIEW |
Reviewed by Mike Nifong
December 2001
Course type: This is a fictional mountain plateau course located in the Colorado Rockies. The elevation is specified as approximately 9500 feet. The pano is Whistler, but at least it does not look out of place.
Historical perspective: This is Scott's first course.
What is included: The read-me file contains a brief description of the course and its surroundings and a layout map. The cameo and splash screen are of differing styles (the cameo looking like a photograph and the splash screen like an impressionist painting), but both are quite attractive. There are no hole previews.
First impressions: The first thing you will likely notice, other than the colorful fall foliage, is that this appears to be very open golf course - only small trees and shrubs seem to populate the immediate vicinity. An off camera voice from the general direction of the clubhouse (presumably Scott Shaffer) intones, in a rather deadpan voice, 'Welcome. to the Grizz.' And then you hear the too-close growl of a bear. Now from the name of the course, you would probably assume that this is a grizzly bear, but the fact is, the Colorado Rockies are not really part of the natural habitat of that creature; moreover, if one had ventured all the way over here from, say, the Yellowstone area, it would presumably be because of the scarcity of food closer to home, so it would in all likelihood be a very hungry grizzly. Needless to say, the prospect of teeing off while being eyed by a hungry grizzly was not comforting. On the other hand, even if it were the smaller but more common black bear, I would not feel substantially better. At any rate, I looked all around and did not see the bear. Later, I decided that it probably was a real grizzly, but one that the course owners had imported from farther north and kept in a pen as a sort of course mascot.
In case you are wondering where I am going with this, it is just a long way of saying that this is not an optimum sound script for a designer who wants his course to be taken seriously. But I digress.
What comes next: In terms of style and texture, this is a very homogeneous course. Beginning with the first hole, every par 4 and every par 5 employs islands of fairway surrounded by rough texture, which is in turn surrounded by wild grass. The grass textures are all compatible and work well together with one exception - the texture of the rough that surrounds the bunkers. The main problem is its color: it tends too much toward the blue end of the green spectrum, while the other grass colors are more yellowish or brownish. Actually, it could probably be said in general that, if anything, this course is too colorful: not only do we have the pinks and reds and oranges of the fall foliage, but we also have a profusion of other hues in flower beds scattered here and there. While all of these things individually look fine, the combined effect can be a little overwhelming, as in the screenshot from the 14th tee. It kind of reminds me of the first time as a kid when I was given one of those 64-color boxes of crayons; for a while thereafter, all of my pictures seemed to have as their raison d'etre the use of as many different ones as possible. I am certainly no expert on Colorado wildflowers, but it looked to me like the flower beds were filled with cultivated plants; the use of natural areas featuring native wildflowers, while perhaps less blatantly colorful, would look much more realistic.
However one reacts to the use of color, it must be admitted that the planting and under planting are quite good, both in the choice of plants and in the recognition of when enough is enough. The effect is both convincing and attractive. Less successful is the treatment of water. The stream is not too bad, with the use of rocks and vegetation that looked natural enough unless you were right on top of it. The two lakes, on the other hand, had sloping banks with a small rock texture that made them look both man-made (perhaps that was intentional) and devoid of life. I also did not much care for the sandstone pillars that supported the bridge on the 6th hole, or for the sandstone base of the island fairway on the 18th.
In terms of general construction, I would say that this course is okay. There are some mesh shadows and bad edges, but nothing too egregious. Some of the choices of shapes and the occasional lack of finesse betray this as a first course, but I have certainly seen worse efforts from people with more experience.
Certainly, Scott makes use of many custom sounds, often to good effect. Cattle are heard on several holes (the read-me explains why), and a cow nursing her calf is visible on one of them. The stream sounds are nicely subdued on the second hole (although on a subsequent hole they were a little bit overwhelming). Birds and other wildlife are frequently heard, and there are some effective thunderclaps at a couple of points in the round. But there are some oddly dissonant notes. I have already mentioned the bear sounds (repeated on the 18th and, I believe, one other hole), and I also want to mention the bell that you are supposed to wait for before teeing off on the blind par-3 13th, presumably so you will know when the green is clear. Nothing wrong with that conceptually, but while I was on the green lining up my putt, the bell was ringing repeatedly. While I was not peppered with golf balls, I did wonder whether this was intentional (in which case the disagreement would be over the appropriateness of the humor) or the result of an oversight. Either way, it interfered with my enjoyment of the hole.
In terms of playability, the course is not bad. Over the course of six rounds, I would have to say it grew on me. As a consequence of the previously mentioned use of island fairways, I discovered that I did not use my driver as much as usual. On some holes, such as the 517-yard par-5 10th, you have no choice: your first shot is a forced lay up with a 5W, leaving you a second shot of 250+ yards uphill and over water. You might make the green - just barely - but there are no guarantees. On most of the non-par-3 holes, however, you can use your driver, but the question is whether you should: most of the natural landing zones will be in the rough. Just out of curiosity, I played my final round without using the driver at all - and had my best round at -9. Incidentally, take the advice of the caddie with a healthy sprinkle of salt. He will always give you the driver on the par 4's and 5's, and he will also over club you from the rough or the wild grass, usually giving you a 3W (!?), even when the situation calls for a 5I.
The greens are mostly fair, the two exceptions being the 1st, on which the slope is too severe, and the 16th, which has a tiered green with almost a five foot differential in height; with the hole cut into the upper break point (difficult pins), good luck on getting your putt close unless you have a lie either directly above or directly below the pin. The 8th has an unusual split green, with a band of fringe populated by three small but relatively deep bunkers separating the back section (where the difficult pin positions are) from the more easily reached front section.
Only two of the par-5's are reachable; neither the 5th nor the 18th can be reached even if you use a driver off the tee. The 18th is a particularly odd example of questionable risk/reward engineering. Your tee shot can either be aimed toward a more traditional island fairway (that is, one surrounded by water) or you can avoid the water by going around the lake. But whichever way you go, your second shot will have to be to the same patch of fairway, because you will not be able to reach the green from where your tee shot lands. What was the point?
The bottom line: This is not a perfect course. There are some things about it I found exasperating, and some (mostly sounds) I found downright annoying. Had I made my decision about it after one round, I would not have kept it. But, as I said before, it kind of grew on me. So, while I cannot give it my most enthusiastic endorsement, if what you have read appeals to you, then by all means download it and give it a try (or even a few tries).
Course Statistics :
Par 72; 4 sets of tees; 7536 yards from back tees; holes not handicapped |
This course is available as a FREE download.
|
|
Download course
|
Please support Links Corner
|
|
|
