Lincoln Ridge > Idlewild?

[Mark R]

Took a weekend road trip with landon77 to Northern Kentucky and played Idlewild (twice) and Lincoln Ridge. In short, Lincoln Ridge seemed better designed, more private...and more fun. Anybody out there have an opinion on this?

[rolo tony]

Played both courses last Tuesday, it was first time playing both. I had a great time at both. I think Idlewild is a more technical course with a smaller margin for error (also watch out for black walnuts everywhere this time of year, almost rolled multiple ankles). Only real con I had with Idle is that on holes w/ multiple baskets, not all baskets were always there, and that led to some confusion. That being said, next time I'm in that area there's no way I could play one without playing the other with them being so close together.

[Dave242]

I rated Lincoln Ridge (A+ = 5+) higher than Idlewild (B+ = 3.5 discs). For me, Linclon Ridge tops my list of 242 courses played. Here's a breakdown of the criteria I use:

1) Holes with good risk/reward. Fair, but harsh punishment for bad decisions or execution.
Idlewild = A, Lincoln Ridge = A

2) Holes that have rewarding birdie opportunities for me. I throw 300’ accurately, 360’ max.
Idlewild = B-, Lincoln Ridge = A

3) More wooded than open – lots of variety of shots required caused by hole shape and topography
Idlewild =A+ , Lincoln Ridge = A+

4) Natural beauty (Appalachian beauty preferred) and seclusion.
Idlewild = A, Lincoln Ridge = A+

5) Bonus points for multi-throw holes with defined landing zones, good risk/reward and multiple options to play them.
Idlewild = B-, Lincoln Ridge = N/A

They are both incredible courses, but I find the dink and dunk nature of too many of the multi throw holes (and the two doinky <200' holes) at Idlewild downers. I also think the gimmick of the "island" greens overused.

[Cgkdisc]

Lincoln (Banklick) is a blue level course with few multiple shot holes and Idlewild is a top Gold level course with mostly multishot holes, meaning a fair comparison isn't possible. Lincoln will likely be more fun to play for more players, myself included, since few have the skills to play Idlewild well. It's been my observation that Gold courses in general don't get rated as high as they probably should for this reason. I believe even gold level players like some blue level courses better than some gold courses because they are used to being able to defeat the blue level design with their power. So they have more fun crushing blue courses rather than playing gold courses designed to test them.

[Chainchaser]

Both courses are really great courses in their own right. I have played bothe several times and even though they are above my experience level I always have fun at either. I guess i feel lucky because both of these courses are withing fifteen minutes of my house with idlewild being the closest which is 2 minutes up the road. Now that boone woods has been redesigned I have another good course close by. It is a par 3 course but at my level it is just what I need. It used to be a dump but now they changed baskets and added nice big tee pads so it is a really nice course for the park it is in. I may ditch work early and play the back nine on the way home.

[Dave242]

Idlewild is a top Gold level course with mostly multishot holes.

What makes Idlewild a Gold level course.....much less a top Gold level course?

[Cgkdisc]

The very fact it's out of your blue level throwing range (300-360) is one indication. It was also designed for gold level from the ground up and the hole designs have been verified for good scoring spread for gold level from tournament play stats. In addition, it's consistently rated as one of the best gold level courses by gold level tournament players.

[Dave242]

Here lies the problem: Idlewild is NOT outside my throwing range! What makes birdies at Idlewild unrewarding is that it is a dink-and-dunk course. Many of the holes are shaped in ways where you either can not go for it or are foolish to go for it. But, it is tight enough where you will get scoring spread even for the accuracy of a Pro.

Here are the numbers to prove my point. Par is taken from the signage (from the online pictures). "Par Drive" is how far you have to make your drive and approach to park it for par. "Birdie Drive".....you guessed it is for birdie (an average of only 237'!!).


Hole Length Par Par Drive Birdie Drive
1 640 4 213 320
2 526 4 175 263
3 561 4 187 281
4 235 3 118 235
5 510 5 128 170
6 588 4 196 294
7 261 3 131 261
8 336 4 112 168
9 192 3 96 192
10 672 4 224 336
11 441 4 147 221
12 142 3 71 142
13 586 4 195 293
14 477 5 119 159
15 1001 5 250 334
16 306 4 102 153
17 222 3 111 222
18 651 5 163 217
Avg 464 152 237



There are several great holes (holes 2, 14 and 18 are the best in my mind and seem like true Gold level holes to me), but the rest of the course is not Gold level IMO. Good to great in my book, but I am amazed you would call it a top gold level course.

[Cgkdisc]

It's only dink dunk in some places because you choose to do that. Idlewild isn't that open so in several cases, it's both power and accuracy that get you there on holes like 2, 6, 10, 14, 16 & 18. I dink dunk on some of those to play safe but gold level players can 'pure' several of those lines. Par might be inflated for gold level on 1, 5, 8 & 14.

[Dave242]

We agree on holes 2, 14 and 18 being legit and excellent Gold level holes. (I was surprised 14 was listed as a Par 5 - seems like a legit and great par 4). Regarding 6, 10 & 16:

6 - to get to putting range in 2 throws for a birdie 4 is possible (2 275' throws), but with the shape and the tightness, IMO it is foolish (the risk outweighs the reward). I have played with plenty of 1000+ Pros I can not see this hole averaging less than 4. So given that, you might as well throw putter, putter, putter (190' each), putt out and move on. Dink and dunk.

10 - I could only find the basket position that sits off to the left behind a grove of tightly spaced trees. I hear there is another basket position, so that would alter my opinion. I LOVE the right angle dogleg-right at around 280' - forces an accurate tee shot to set up the long approach. The grove of trees guarding the basket inserts ways too much luck into scoring. Not dink and dunk.....but doinky.

16 - I suppose my mind could be swayed on this one as to how good a Gold level hole it is, but here is my thinking: At 306' with the tightly spaced trees, OB meandering creek and postage stamp green I say "have at it" if you want to take your chance with OB. It would take a beautiful S shot to land on the green. With the size of the green, I do not think it is a worthwhile plan to go for the green even for the best players. What makes this hole better/more interesting then is the risk-reward decision on how close to the moat surrounding the green you want to try to get. If I remember right, it is 7-10' from basket to mote and ~10' across the moat. So a perfect shot gives you a ~20' putt....not bad. Too far away gives you a pitch-in upshot and a drop-in 3, and in the creek gives you a circle-3. So, all of this is good! The bigger issue is the random trouble on the very tight flight path to get there and all the OB trouble you can find if you miss your line by just 1 degree. I am thinking even Gold players get many more 4's than 2's when trying for a birdie 2. Therefore it is foolish to go for it (but it sure is fun!). Therefore.....putter (200') putter (100'), putt. Therefore......dink-n-dunk.

[Cgkdisc]

The thing about the dink dunk perspective is that some of the USDGC holes at Winthrop lend themselves to this approach or take the risk. It still doesn't mean they aren't gold level from a challenge standpoint. I tend to agree with you on 10 lucky factor near the pin. Seems like the right side pin I remember might be better. I always thought 16 was just short of its potential to be a great hole because it was too tight near the tee for players to take the risk. Haven't seen whether they took my advice a while back so goldies could now justify the risk.

I've been involved since 1998 with Idlewild development on about four trips and still have suggested tweaks which Fred sometimes takes into consideration. I'm not a fan of 11 unless it was just a straight shot par 3 thru the "tuning fork" tree, even though it would be too easy for gold. You'll see my name on the tee sign for 3 which is one where I persuaded them to go past the woods line to make it a par 4 and create that peninsula pin placement. I also worked with Rob on the stats for 4 to get it lengthened the proper amount so the scoring spread became more appropriate for a par 3.

[Dave242]

Par might be inflated for gold level on 1, 5, 8 & 14.

If you decrease par on each of those holes, the average drives needed for par is 166', and for birdie is 273'.

By comparison Renaissance Gold is 179' & 286', Winthrop Gold is 186' & 300' and Maple Hill 196' & 351'.

So again........152' & 237' for Idlewild just does not seem Gold level to me.

[Cgkdisc]

Did you adjust your calculations for elevation and fairway tightness? I would also take out the par 3 holes. The gold level SSA calculation expects the average birdie throw to be about 285' with 250-265 on tighter courses and 300-325 on more open courses. Maple Hill pars are a little on the stingy side partly because they have a few tweener holes.

[Dave242]

I did not factor elevation since the ups typically counteract the downs when evaluating a complete course. The numbers were just a rough-idea thing for my own sanity check. I factor that into my intuition. The usefulness of mathematical modeling starts to lose meaning anyhow on wooded multi throw holes as your 2nd and third throws become dependent on your lie. And, so much is dependent on exact hole shapes - how they force you to throw and how they punish you for poor execution. Mathematically influenced intuition is a better approach to the art of course evaluation (and design)....I'm sure you are 1-3 lightyears ahead of me in understanding this!

BTW, Lincoln Ridge is the top of my list and Steady Ed (longs) is 2nd just 1 point behind on my grading scale (both are A+ = 5 discs). I played Steady Ed last in July 08 while it was still quite new, so if any tweaks on some of the "lucky" approaches have been modified that might be my #1 course. I'm surprised your rating on Steady Ed was not higher (come on now....no need to be humble!).

I hear you on the tweeners at Maple Hill. I rated that down since a tweener for Gold scoring makes it a "downside hole" for Blues like me (no chance at a birdie...scoring spread comes only from my screw-ups). Maple Hill "feels" like a real Gold course since I know on many/most of the tee pads that I can not even hope to birdie and that my Gold rated friends would be loving the challenge.

[Cgkdisc]

While I appreciate the Thumbs Up on my "reviews," I'm not really planning to post actual reviews and true ratings. You'll notice I don't put any Pros or Cons, just the supplemental info on the course background and certain issues to help others understand what might be going on there or what the thinking was in the design. I pretty much just put the rating there that seemed to be in line with others who reviewed the course. That's the case for Steady Ed. For example, I'm frustrated we haven't gotten the Red tees cemented and better landscaping planned for a landing area on hole 4, or stakes to indicate OB on the water holes so they play the same whether the lake water is up or not.

Understand that I don't think any course really deserves a 5 link value yet although I'm OK with going along with what people think the current best ones are for 5 links like Blueberry Hill. I'm a much tougher reviewer if I get to talk with the designer in person at the course. But I try to show them why something is a problem, and more importantly, how to potentially improve it if they are open to it. It's one thing to simply criticize. It's another thing to actually help someone improve something. As a designer/instructor, I remember where the little and bigger flaws are that bug me on the courses I've designed, usually more than what others can find. However, since I don't own any of the courses, I rarely have the power to fix some of those issues. So, you have to live with the critiques that may not be your fault. But they is what they is.