Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: JNC Lyon on March 06, 2011, 12:41:22 AM
-
Thanks to Sev K-H Keil for hosting Joe, Mark, John, and I at Galloway today. We had an excellent day for it. It was 50s, sunny, and windy. It was one of those days that is perfect for seaside golf.
The golf course also matched up to the course and the company. As many of you know, I'm not Tom Fazio's biggest fan. Therefore, I wasn't sure a course like Galloway would appeal to me. However, Galloway was very impressive throughout. Some thoughts:
-The routing at Galloway is not particularly strong. There are several awkward walks between holes, and a number of holes forced players to make big walks back to the tee. However, I liked the routing for the way it brought the golfer down to the water immediately, into the woods, back to the water, then back into the woods and hills for awhile, then, for the final two holes, back to the waters edge.
-All of the waterside holes were very well done. 1 and 2 are absolutely stunning to start out the round. The green complexes on these two holes are very bold: elevated from their surroundings, with all sorts of recovery shots awaiting. 2 makes great use of short grass to the left of the green and is a fascinating short par three. 5 is a demanding par three with the thumbprint in the front of the green. 17 and 18 are brilliant finishing holes at the water's edge. The 18th tee is a very special spot, with long views of Atlantic City and the nature reserve to the north, and the hole itself is a brilliant par four that requires two bold shots to finish.
-While the short par fours are the highlight at the Executive Course next door, the long par fours are the highlight at Galloway. 4, with its excellent fairway bunkering, 10, with a brilliant halfpipe green, 13, with its dramatic and highly strategic bunkering, and 15 with its wild green complex are all major highlights. Holes like these can get to be a slog, but Fazio loads them with interesting architectural features so that the golfer is engaged. While many long par fours discourage good shots, these holes at Galloway can inspire brilliant play.
-Galloway is a hell of a hard golf course, but it is also a ton of fun.
What says the treehouse?
-
JNC:
When you wrote what you wrote -- were you somewhat off-center after too many drinks ?
I mean you're part of the anti TF crusade movement here -- are you not ?
Glad to hear you liked GN -- I like it plenty even though the overall routing isn't its strong suit.
TF took the land and the combination of holes -- always keeps you guessing. Be grateuful you played the course minus the on-shore breezes when the greenheads invade.
Easily one of NJ's ten best courses and often times is overlooked by many people when the full TF portfolio is weighed.
One final thing -- I am not a big time fan of #17 but I do believe #18 is one of TF's best holes. Concludes the round in rgand fashion with the angled tee shot making one really think of what you need to do before pulling the trigger.
-
John,
You missed it... We had 80+ players swarming all over the golf course today at Springdale in NJ today. I chatted with a Princeton Coach and the team is off to spring break at Sea Island, Ga next week.
PM me if you want to come on down next weekend.
Malcolm
-
Matt,
I still have some vitriolic anti-Faz rhetoric in me, no worries, but he put up a great effort at Galloway.
What do you not like about 17? I thought it was a ton of fun today into a stiff breeze. It's a hard hole, but it also has a cool gathering green and ample bailout to the right. 17 gives the weaker player a chance for a three, while the stronger player still has no guarantees. I can't think of anything I didn't love about 18.
Malcolm,
I'm headed down to Hilton Head next weekend, but thanks for the invite. I'd love to see Springdale in the near future. Glad to hear it was busy today there...snow is still on the ground back here in Hamilton!
-
Did Dr. Joe take photos?
-
JNC,
Thanks for posting. I haven't played Galloway, but I'm glad you came away impressed. Fazio's better efforts are pretty darn good and it sounds like Galloway fits in that category.
-
Question: isn't it the last design Strantz did for Fazio?
-
The routing is definitely the weak part of a golf course with a lot of very good holes. The dog leg rt 18 this only ok as a finishing hole,and I admit the view from the t-box is great.
I never want to play it again however. The bugs!
The roads that you have to cross take away from the walkability and it is this that keeps a great collection of holes from being ranked higgher. I enjoyed the holes there more than Shadow Creek. I have not played Victoria National but have had respected friends call that TF's best work and would like to compare the courses.
-
Great golf with great company. You can't ask for more.
Galloway had some really neat holes and every one offered a unique challenge. No two holes reminded me of one another and I liked that a lot. The green complexes were really wild offer different ways to hit your approach shots to access hole locations. Also here are not many straight putts on the greens. There were a few putts that I couldn't believe broke the other way or broke more than I expected....very tricky in spots. The course is ripe with visual intimidation both off the tee and guarding the greens. It really puts a high demand on well executed shots throughout the round. If you lose focus and miss a shot, you're most likely going to pay.
Holes 1-3 are a great way to start out the round. You don't need to be exceptionally long on these holes, but you better hit the shots or else you're going to post some bigger numbers early on. The skyline green on the first hole is really good as is the perched second green which fronts the tide marsh. I would REALLY like to see a middle left flag on hole 3. I can imagine that it gives players fits. It would be similar to trying to land a ball on the roof of your car with a short iron in your hand as it runs off in front and in back on that side.
The golf course is a good mix of short strategic par 4's as well as some daunting longer ones. (Unless your J. Shimony who is being added to the Mitchell Report as we speak) The longer par 4's were very fair in that they allowed for lower trajectory shots.
The 17-18 finish I thought was a pretty neat way to wrap up the round. 17 is a long but fair one shotter and it reminds me a bit of the second shot from 13 at PV. 18 wraps perfectly around the marsh inlet and has a tricky green with lots of subtle movements.
Galloway is a solid golf course and is very worth a game when you are in the area. Big thanks to Sev for hosting us out there!
Mark
PS. JWB took pictures. He is probably loading them as we speak....or grading mid term exams..
-
I would say the first four holes at GN are great The first green is quiet a sight to see as you round the dogleg. It's pushed way up with a beautiful view of the bay in the distance. As a result of being so elevated it has some deep bunkers (of which I have experience) but they are the proper punishment for missing the green with a short iron or wedge. The second hole, a par 3, is exposed on the bay and the green has a bailout to the left for wind assisted misses on that side. That hollow is maintained as short grass and looked like one of the most fun recovery shots on the course. Number 3 is a short par four with a tiny green protected on the front left but open on the right. Bausch displayed his ground game early with a long putt from that side, which is also protected with a false front if I recall. And hole number 4 is a long dogleg left with an ample fairway. The view from the tee shows the fairway falling away to the right which could play tricks with targeting your drive. But Joe was quick to point out that the second more distant fairway bunker on the left gives away that the hole bends in that direction. The green seems tucked back into the woods. Very tough. And an honorable mention should go to the fifth hole, a brute of a par three into the wind and exposed to the bay.
The 2 and 3 shot holes on the back side get long and narrow (except for 12) and it's gets too tough for me but starting again at the short par four 15th the course finishes with four more very good holes. And the young Lyon loves the eighteenth because he almost jarred it from 100 yards.
Thanks again, Sev.
-
I am a very big fan of GN as the only criticism I can find with the course is the routing - but it's hard to criticize the road bisecting the property considering how many other great courses have that feature. You also have to recognize that the owner wanted to have as many holes on the bay as possible and this contributed to the routing problem. I have said before that I believe that #1 is perhaps the best opening hole I have played - challenging and beautiful but certainly not too difficult with a fantastic green complex. The variety of short and long holes along with great greens makes for a wonderful experience. If your game is off you can really have a lot of problems with the course but generally there is sufficient width for most conditions including a bad swing. The only warning is to check the wind direction before you go because those flies can make for a miserable day.
-
John S.,
I should hate 18 because I missed my four-footer after two great shots in there! I'm still mad about that...
The holes on the back nine are a test, no doubt about it. However, I thought 10 through 13 had enough width to keep things reasonable. A decent drive will find the fairway, which is ample on most holes, and give the golfer some options on the second shot. A bad drive or layup second shot will end up in the pines or bunkers off the fairway, but it is still possible to make par. I hit some snap-hooks on 9, 15, and 16, which, by any account, are bad shots that deserve to be punished. In each case, I found my ball and was able to recover. I made two pars and a bogey on these three holes.
For me, Galloway National is difficult from tee to green. However, the greens will make or break the score from start to finish. There were several holes where I hit a poor drive and made a par, and others where I hit a great drive and had to either work for par or made bogey. I think the emphasis at Galloway is around the greens, which are well-done and interesting throughout. In combination with the tee-to-green difficulty, they make the course an unrelenting test for the better player, but the high handicapper still has a way out.
Hopefully Joe can post some pics soon so we can really get some debates fired up!
-
I'm glad you've enjoyed your day at Galloway --- a few quick comments.
You've seen the course without eye candy yesterday. In another 4-6 weeks the fescue will be up and the greens will be lightning fast. The course gets very little play and the in-season conditioning is one of the very best in the state. I'm a big fan of the total experience at GNGC --- also, the 360 degree practice facility is something to write home about.
I've always been first to criticize the routing, but recently I was shown a detailed map of the property. The course was built on an extremely small, awkwardly shaped parcel of land --- taking that into consideration, combined with the fact most holes are very private (you rarely see other golfers, except across the lakes) and every hole is memorable, I have now begun to appreciate the routing as quite brilliant.
Galloway is a pure members' course. The in-season set-up is long and hard (more than the HCP adjustment gives you credit for); it tends to beat people up quite a bit --- in fact the difficulty sometimes discourages outside play. Once you walk it a few times, you'll discover that the course is more walkable than it appears at the first glance. The caddies should have pointed out the members' short-cuts that dramatically shorten walks and prevent you from having to walk back to the next tee box (e.g. 7 to 8, 8 to 9, 11 to 12, etc.). My usual twosome walks the course in just over 3 hours
I hear a lot of fuzz about the greenheads on this forum --- I play the course regularly all year round (yes, it is open 12 months) and there are only a few weeks (depending on the weather) when greenheads are really a factor; mostly limited to holes, 2, 4, 5 and 18. Members have figured out which bug spray repels them better and wear long pants during that time. Interestingly enough, the greenheads tend to gravitate towards the white roof of carts --- an adequate penalty for not walking the course in the first place.
-
The real interesting dimension of the TF discussion rests on one simple thing -- few people have really played the best of the best that he has designed. Often times -- people have played the generic cookie-cutter formulaic layouts that have made TF the poster child for scorn. Throw in the fact that he has botched upgrades / restoration (call it what one will) and you get the feelings that he is the Darth Vader of design.
I have played in the range of 75+ TF courses over the years and it's my belief that when TF has really stepped up to the plate his very top tier layouts are worthy of solid praise. No doubt his batting average on that front isn't as high as Doak's or C & C's but then again they make it a point to only work in very specific and limited situations. No doubt there's a price to pay for TF when he spreads himself on such a wide canvass.
GN is often overlooked on a national perspective -- frankly, as much ink as a nearby neighbor like Hidden Creek gets -- I see GN as being a solid two-three steps ahead of it. TF didn't overwhelm the land here at GN -- the course actually looks quite connected to the Jersey Shore region. TF could easily have mailed in the usual mounds and decorative bunker style but that didn't happen there.
The comments from Sev are spot on. The land site is awkward in areas but the isolation element does add to one's time there.
Anyone coming to Jersey for a Shore experience needs to have it on their menu -- along with a place like Hollywood which is set back from the ocean and coastline more so than GN.
Like I said -- GN is a top ten layout in NJ and that says plenty because, with the other exception of Bayonne, all are classic time frame courses from years ago. Breaking into that line-up is no small feat. TF deserves credit for his work there and the comments from the club support that.
-
I enjoyed Galloway and thought it was one of Fazio's best. That said, its Clubhouse is number 1 on my list of ugliest clubhouses in the world.
-
I'll try to process some photos soon, but for now you can chew on the routing:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/galloway_routing.jpg)
-
The isolation element of the routing is not a huge positive for me, although I can see why it's appealing to others. However, I found the course very walkable. Sev, our caddie, Chris, was phenomenal, and he showed us a few cut-throughs that made the walking easier. I also found that the club has an excellent walking/caddie culture. We saw multiple groups either riding/walking with caddies or walking and carrying. That sort of ethos really adds to a private club like Galloway.
The property at Galloway is strange to be sure, and Fazio did a decent job finding the best landforms and routing accordingly.
Matt, you really nail down the main reasons why Fazio the architect can be so frustrating. At Galloway, you get the sense he tried really hard. 8 could have been a very generic and boring water par three. However, he gives the golfer plenty of bailout right, and the greensite has several Redan characteristics that made the hole a blast to play. On the other hand, a Fazio course like Camp Creek outside of Seaside, FL has three generic water par threes, none of which the level of complexity of Galloway's 8th. Why does he put a lot of effort into some courses and not others? If he gave a fraction of the attention he gave to Galloway to all of his courses, I think he would be regarded better by his detractors, including me.
-
I know some might prefer the aerial smaller so the blue slider bar is not required:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/galloway_routing.jpg)
-
Joe,
The two big gaps in the course, between 5 and 6 and between 10 and 11, seem unavoidable because of the property constraints. The staggered routing within each piece of property that necessitates long walks back to tees seems more avoidable, and it was a little frustrating at times.
-
So much negativity for a really excellent course re routing. It's great that 2 people pointed out the difficulties of routing given the property.
-
JNC:
Be curious to know how you stack GN against other TF designs you have played -- not courses that have been upgraded but original designs.
thanks,
-
It would be really interesting to see how 5 could have played as a short par 4.
Mark
-
It would be really interesting to see how 5 could have played as a short par 4.
Mark
Heck, I thought it was a par 4 yesterday! ;)
Was that hole halved with a 5? I think it was.
For those playing along at home, this par 3 playing maybe 175 in the air was into a 20+ mph breeze yesterday.
-
You and I both made a 3 on our second ball after dumping our firsts into the bay!
I was told that the 5th was originally intended to be a short par 4 but permit issues became a problem.
Mark
-
Some pics of the first few holes. I think these contrast rather nicely from those on other threads that were taken in the spring or summer. I really like how these photos came out, in particular the very mottled greens at this time of year.
#1. Dogleg right par4 (400 yards).
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/1a.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/1b.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/1c.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/1d.jpg)
From the back of the deep green, you can turn around and see the AC skyline:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/1e.jpg)
#2. Par 3 (played about 125 yards this day to the up pin).
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/2a.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/2b.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/2c.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/2d.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/2e.jpg)
#3. Par 4 (375 yards).
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/3a.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/3b.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/3c.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/3d.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/3e.jpg)
More tomorrow....
-
Joe:
Great shots taken.
Quick question -- was this the first time you had played the course ?
If so -- impressions ?
And if you have -- where would you rate it among the other courses you have played in the greater GAP area ?
-
1 and 2 speak for themselves: great, bold greensites, tons of recovery options.
3 is a neat hole, and I like how the fairway contours dictate the strategy. However, the hole is a little too cramped. Shouldn't the club cut those trees back, especially on the right hand side? The pines just to the right of the caddie in the fourth photo are unnecessary.
Matt,
From what I remember, I've only played GN and Camp Creek. GN is way better than CC. I've made a point to avoid Fazio in the past (can you guess why?), but after Galloway I'd like to see some of his better courses.
-
Matt
What is your top Fazio list? 75 is a lot to pull from.
-
JNC-
You've made a point to avoid Fazio courses after playing just one of them?
-
JNC-
You've made a point to avoid Fazio courses after playing just one of them?
Carl,
That's the only original Fazio layout I've played. I have some strong opinions about his renovation work, particularly at Oak Hill, that leads me to avoid his architecture. Additionally, his golf courses tend to be very expensive to play, and they are not worth playing over cheaper layouts. Galloway changed my mind on his original stuff.
-
I think GN is a course where a caddie can really help - what did you guys think - did he really help you with the shots and reading the greens? Imagine those greens when they are running at about 11 or 12.
-
Jerry,
My guy, Chris, helped out a ton, especially around the greens. Even running at winter speeds, the greens were still very tricky the first time around. I would have been 3 to 4 shots higher had I not had him on the bag.
-
JNC:
Help me out how do you find the nerve to trash TF when you've only personally played two (2) of his designs ?
I don't doubt the guy has made a mess of certain classic redesigns / upgrades -- call them what one will. But he's got enogh ammo in the tank to shoot some serious top name courses forward.
That's why I said what I said to your take on Bay at Seaview -- there's a tendency to shoot some grandioise blanket statement when the personal homework side is really light. Research papers usually do mega research before extapolating such a narrow premise into a much wider viewpoint.
John S:
Been asked that before ...
If I had list a few of the best TF I have played -- would include the following in no particular order ...
Glenwild (UT)
Karsten Creek (OK)
Galloway National (NJ)
Shadow Creek (NV)
Martis Camp (CA)
Victoria National (IN)
Dallas National (TX)
drop down a notch to the likes of
Black Diamond (original 18 / FL)
The Preserve (CA)
Pinehurst # 8 (NC)
give me a bit of time and I might add a few more to the elite seven (7) I cited above.
*Have not played Alotian and Gozzer Ranch -- yet !
-
Galloway being a very good course is an aesthetic illusion. The course plays brutally tough when playing firm and fast-normal seasonal conditions. Like all Fazio courses, it is completely devoid of strategy and preferred shotmaking angles. At least the aesthetics are wonderful. Though a tough moderately short hole, the 2nd has a green that fails to hold anything hit. From the championship tee in a pretty good right to left wind-normal prevailing direction. In addition, rather than risk reward, you are simply forced to lay up on holes 3, 4, 7, 12, 14. This may be really good for a Fazio, but does not measure up among the best of NJ
-
Jerry,
My guy, Chris, helped out a ton, especially around the greens. Even running at winter speeds, the greens were still very tricky the first time around. I would have been 3 to 4 shots higher had I not had him on the bag.
You would have been 2 to 3 shots lower if you could have made some birdie putts.
;)
-
Matt,
Fair points, although, like I've said before, I don't think I need to play dozens of Fazio courses to have an opinion on his work. It's not like I live in a vacuum where I only play two Fazio courses and then know absolutely zero about his other work. I know he likes to move a lot of earth and spend a lot of money on his courses. I also realize he takes on a large amount of work, which will affect his total body of architecture. I've read countless descriptions of his golf courses, some positive and some negative. In that way, I am familiar with his work.
More importantly, as you know, I am intimately familiar with his renovation attempts at Oak Hill. These so-called "upgrades," both in the 1970s and now, are awkward pieces of schlock. He has crippled the routing in multiple places and built golf holes that belong on a Florida muni. He makes no attempt to blend his renovation work with the rest of the layout. The club (I don't quite know why) brought his group in to touch up these holes this past fall. While they made minor improvements, the holes still stick out like sore thumbs compared to the rest of the layout. His work at Oak Hill reveals an attitude of disregard for classic architecture and lack of knowledge about how golf courses fit into the land. The Oak Hill holes dramatically affect my impression of his architecture.
In many ways, Galloway will change my impression of his original architecture. Galloway is a lot of fun to play and blends in very well with the Southern New Jersey landscape. I had a ball playing GN, and I give a ton of credit to Fazio for doing what he did there. Perhaps my dislike for Fazio's work stems more from his renovation work than his original layouts. Galloway convinces me that his original work is worthing looking at in the future.
Matt, you can shred me all you want for having a "personal homework side" that is really light. I'm not claiming to be an expert on Fazio's complete body of work, but I have a solid concept of his philosophy, and it's not completely to my liking. Even so, I'll make an effort to see his best layouts in the future.
-
Jerry,
My guy, Chris, helped out a ton, especially around the greens. Even running at winter speeds, the greens were still very tricky the first time around. I would have been 3 to 4 shots higher had I not had him on the bag.
You would have been 2 to 3 shots lower if you could have made some birdie putts.
;)
Truth. There is only so much the caddie can do. Those ones on 13 and 18 still haunt me. What other shitty courses did you play this weekend? 8)
-
Jerry,
My guy, Chris, helped out a ton, especially around the greens. Even running at winter speeds, the greens were still very tricky the first time around. I would have been 3 to 4 shots higher had I not had him on the bag.
You would have been 2 to 3 shots lower if you could have made some birdie putts.
;)
Truth. There is only so much the caddie can do. Those ones on 13 and 18 still haunt me. What other shitty courses did you play this weekend? 8)
Well, since you asked, there is this less recognized Ross course near my house in St. Davids. :)
-
No doubt that Galloway is one Fazio's better courses. I prefer the nearby Hidden Creek. Different strokes for different folks.
-
To add to the Fazio discussion, I've played somewhere between 25-30 TF courses, here are my personal favorites:
Most favorite:
Galloway National (clearly biased)
Shadow Creek
Butler National
Black Diamond Quarry (for the 5 Quarry holes)
WW Pine Barrens
Dallas National
Caves Valley
Red Sky
Estancia
Pelican Hill
Least favorite:
Glen Club
Bayou Club
Atunyote Golf Club
-
Jerry,
My guy, Chris, helped out a ton, especially around the greens. Even running at winter speeds, the greens were still very tricky the first time around. I would have been 3 to 4 shots higher had I not had him on the bag.
You would have been 2 to 3 shots lower if you could have made some birdie putts.
;)
Truth. There is only so much the caddie can do. Those ones on 13 and 18 still haunt me. What other shitty courses did you play this weekend? 8)
Well, since you asked, there is this less recognized Ross course near my house in St. Davids. :)
I think there needs to be a GCA gathering at St. Davids. A Ross layout with a Forse restoration!
Mark
-
Robert MD:
Really ?
Forward me the names of courses in NJ that are clearly superior to GN -- oh, no doubt, you will have Pine Valley and Plainfield and likely Ridgewood ahead of it but I don't see Baltusrol Lower or Upper touching it. The common and tired refrain that TF has no strategic impulses is getting tiresome -- there's plenty there - clearly, if one is paying attention.
-
Like all Fazio courses, it is completely devoid of strategy and preferred shotmaking angles.
Robert,
There are several holes out there that have a ton of options and strategy. Of the holes you listed, only 3 (and 14, because it is a par three) is a non-driver hole. However, 3's fairway contours make for some great options off the tee, even if you are going with a long iron. The easy play is to the lower left half of the fairway, which leaves an obscured approach over the fronting bunker. The riskier play is to the high right side of the fairway, which leaves a good view of the green but also flirts with the woods on the left.
The other par fours you name also have plenty of options, and they are all driver holes. I hit my Sunday best on 7 and was well short of the end of the fairway. 4 takes a big tee shot to run out of room, and there is plenty of width out there to create a decision with respect to the left fairway bunker.
Your assessment of 2 is also flawed. We played in a stiff breeze yesterday that was behind us and out of the right. I hit a nine-iron that held some 20 feet beyond the front left pin in Joe's picture. The chipping area to the left is diabolical, but there is some room to miss short left. Moreover, the green is massive, with plenty of forgiveness on shots that do not have proper distance control. Good players might find it too tough as a short par three, but that argument does not wash with me.
-
Jerry,
My guy, Chris, helped out a ton, especially around the greens. Even running at winter speeds, the greens were still very tricky the first time around. I would have been 3 to 4 shots higher had I not had him on the bag.
You would have been 2 to 3 shots lower if you could have made some birdie putts.
;)
Truth. There is only so much the caddie can do. Those ones on 13 and 18 still haunt me. What other shitty courses did you play this weekend? 8)
Well, since you asked, there is this less recognized Ross course near my house in St. Davids. :)
I think there needs to be a GCA gathering at St. Davids. A Ross layout with a Forse restoration!
Mark
Heard the soup is good there. I'm in!
-
Sev:
Played a number of the ones you mentioned --
only Estancia would move to the upper tier I mentioned previously.
Possibly WR / Upper in AZ too.
Ditto for Pine Barrens / World Woods.
Butler National is a joint George and Tom Fazio project.
-
No doubt that Galloway is one Fazio's better courses. I prefer the nearby Hidden Creek. Different strokes for different folks.
Steve,
I have not played Hidden Creek, but it looks phenomenal. How similar is it to Galloway?
-
JNC:
You can't make broad assertions of anyone's work from a limited supply of courses. I don't doubt you or anyone else can have an opinion -- it's the definitive variety that wrangles me and others. How bout doing the homework -- before making broad assertions. Too many people want to jump into the debate but don't want to do the heavy lifting that comes with such statements.
One can surmise plenty through reading of articles and even seeing pictures and the like. The key ingredient comes from the personal hands-on sampling of courses. Short of that and you run the risk of being seen as a pontificator without the personalized legwork to support such broad and wide conclusions.
Let me point out for you and others -- when Doak did CG it resonates because he took the time and effort to go to the places he mentions. He didn't rely upon others or upon third hand accounts. I would urge you to do likewise -- you're smart enough but don't make the leap before the personal homework is done.
Make no mistake about it -- I didn't give TF a pass on his failed attempts at the upgrade efforts made with a variety of classic courses -- Oak Hill among them - ditto for Inverness and others.
But with that said -- your categorization of his original work needs to do a good bt more on the personal side of things. I've suggested fromt he 75+ of his layouts I have played -- his batting average isn't as high as it should be but when the focus and effort has been there the man has a number of layouts that would easily make any top 100 listing.
Yoiur last sentence to me indicates a desire to keep an open mind and eye to his other work. That's a refreshing start ...
Matt, you can shred me all you want for having a "personal homework side" that is really light. I'm not claiming to be an expert on Fazio's complete body of work, but I have a solid concept of his philosophy, and it's not completely to my liking. Even so, I'll make an effort to see his best layouts in the future.
-
NJ courses superior to Galloway
Bayonne
Alpine
Baltustral both
Canoe Brook both
Essex Fells
Essex County
Hackensack
Arcola
Mountain Ridge
Somerset Hills
Hawk Point
Montclair
Hollywood
Hidden Creek
Pine Barrens
Forsgate
Deal
Atlantic City CC
Seaview
And there are a few more that I have missed in addition to what Matt cited as superior
-
Matt,
I think anyone can have an opinion, and I don't think I claimed that my opinion on his original work is definitive. I'm not a Fazio expert, and I'm not writing the Confidential Guide 2 either. I understand that I can't judge a course accurately until I've played it. That's why I don't post reviews of Shadow Creek or World Woods on here. I'm not going to write about their architectural merits until I've played them.
Furthermore, I agree, for the thousandth time, that I will benefit in my analysis of Fazio from playing more of his courses (though don't expect me to pay $250 to play Atunyote any time soon).
However, to borrow a phrase from Ron Whitten, I do know that he manufactured Shadow Creek out of whole cloth and that he moves a lot of dirt at many of his projects. I have an idea of the work Fazio does. I can form some informed opinions about his work by reading and observing as well as playing. At this point, I can make better "broad" conclusions than "specific" conclusions about his work.
Once again, I'll try to keep an open mind on Fazio's work. Galloway already changed my opinion of him, big time. More experience will likely change my impression of Fazio and his architecture.
-
Sev - gutted I missed you at Paraparaumu but I've just been talking with John about your game there - sounds like you had a good day. Small world that I now see your name on here. That is golf...
I played GN in high summer last year when it was playing firm (and the bugs were out - sorry to mention it Sev!). I'll put some photos up when I work out how to do this.
JC we played it in the same wind as you did so can relate to your comments on how the first two par threes played.
2 is a great short par three - the photos don't do justice to the roll offs on the left of the green and the pitch from back to front. Early in the round to have your short game put under this type of pressure is great. I heard there was a leading amateur tournament here in '10 and the guys got hammered by #2.
As for TF, I know very little about his work but I (think) have played four of his courses (Waterville, Black Diamond, Caves Valley & GN) and judging by his work there some comments read above may be unreasonably harsh. And am I right in saying he leads any renovations at Augusta?
-
Robert,
I guess I'd like to see address my specific comments about holes at Galloway rather than just listing New Jersey courses that are better. I don't think Hackensack is nearly in Galloway's league, and I also preferred GN to Seaview Bay (The Executive Course). I like both of those golf courses a lot, but they are inferior to Galloway in many respects.
-
Sev - gutted I missed you at Paraparaumu but I've just been talking with John about your game there - sounds like you had a good day. Small world that I now see your name on here. That is golf...
I played GN in high summer last year when it was playing firm (and the bugs were out - sorry to mention it Sev!). I'll put some photos up when I work out how to do this.
JC we played it in the same wind as you did so can relate to your comments on how the first two par threes played.
2 is a great short par three - the photos don't do justice to the roll offs on the left of the green and the pitch from back to front. Early in the round to have your short game put under this type of pressure is great. I heard there was a leading amateur tournament here in '10 and the guys got hammered by #2.
As for TF, I know very little about his work but I (think) have played four of his courses (Waterville, Black Diamond, Caves Valley & GN) and judging by his work there some comments read above may be unreasonably harsh. And am I right in saying he leads any renovations at Augusta?
Michael,
I love the short grass left of the second green. It offers a tremendous variety for recovery options, and its severity is plenty reasonable on a short par three. Additionally, the collection area is banked up on the far side to keep golf balls from rolling too far away from the green, which is a feature that Brad Klein and Ron Prichard praised in their Mountain Ridge presentations. I heard the same story from our caddies about the US Am qualifier, where the scoring average on 2 was way above par. Rest assured though, 3 is very attainable there--you just have to hit the right shot.
Fazio is the leader on the Augusta renovations, which I only see as a bad thing for Augusta. TF needs to stick to doing original courses like Galloway and stay away from classic courses.
-
JC, what changes at Augusta don't you like? (all I know about Augusta is what I've watched on tele which is normally only the back nine as it's the early hours of the morning down here!)
To generalise, GN doesn't obliterate you and position off the tee is imperative. On our trip, we traveled north up the East Coast and it was around this stage in NJ that I could start leaving the driver in the bag and working the ball around the course with 2 iron more often.
I loved the short par four on the back nine, I think 12 where the ball rolls around that green like crazy. And then a couple of serious golf holes afterwards that separate the men from the boys.
-
Michael --- sorry to have missed you at Paraparaumu Beach. What a wonderful golf club --- Leo certainly gets it right. Without doubt, my favorite course in NZ (and that includes CK and KC).
Regarding the Galloway / TF discussion, now might be a good time for me to disengage from this thread...
JNC and Joe --- thank you for the thoughtful comments and great photos. My offer still stands to organize an outing later this spring / summer. We'll try to pick a bug-free day.
-
JC, what changes at Augusta don't you like? (all I know about Augusta is what I've watched on tele which is normally only the back nine as it's the early hours of the morning down here!)
To generalise, GN doesn't obliterate you and position off the tee is imperative. On our trip, we traveled north up the East Coast and it was around this stage in NJ that I could start leaving the driver in the bag and working the ball around the course with 2 iron more often.
I loved the short par four on the back nine, I think 12 where the ball rolls around that green like crazy. And then a couple of serious golf holes afterwards that separate the men from the boys.
Mike,
I think that's a good assessment of Galloway. Position off the tee is important, but the play around the greens (especially holes like 12) is of the utmost importance.
Like you I've only watched Augusta on TV. From what I've read, Fazio hasn't done more than add tees and trees. The trees are a major source of consternation on GCA and elsewhere, and I agree that they are a bad thing. I was watching the 1986 Masters highlights the other day, and it struck me that Nicklaus would not have birdied 17 with the trees where they are today. Imagine that, Jack Nicklaus NOT winning the 1986 Masters!
I guess my comment about Augusta was more a criticism of Fazio's renovations of classics than anything else. I wish Augusta would hire a Mackenzie expert, which Fazio is not.
-
Michael --- sorry to have missed you at Paraparaumu Beach. What a wonderful golf club --- Leo certainly gets it right. Without doubt, my favorite course in NZ (and that includes CK and KC).
Regarding the Galloway / TF discussion, now might be a good time for me to disengage from this thread...
JNC and Joe --- thank you for the thoughtful comments and great photos. My offer still stands to organize an outing later this spring / summer. We'll try to pick a bug-free day.
Thanks again Sev. I'd love to see Galloway and have Chris loop for us again later this year.
-
JC, what changes at Augusta don't you like? (all I know about Augusta is what I've watched on tele which is normally only the back nine as it's the early hours of the morning down here!)
To generalise, GN doesn't obliterate you and position off the tee is imperative. On our trip, we traveled north up the East Coast and it was around this stage in NJ that I could start leaving the driver in the bag and working the ball around the course with 2 iron more often.
I loved the short par four on the back nine, I think 12 where the ball rolls around that green like crazy. And then a couple of serious golf holes afterwards that separate the men from the boys.
For starters, how about the rough edged bunkering...Not to mention making it 9,000 yards.
Mark
-
JNC:
Never said you can't have an opinion -- but hang it on some real research -- not the quick variety.
Robert MD:
You must be joking truly.
Deal? Seaview ? ACCC? Pine Barrens ? I'm rolling on the flloor -- please stop.
Hackensack and Alpine are fine Tillie layouts but Galloway National is the better overall test and has the greater variety of holes. Neither would make my personal top ten but are good.
Montclair (which nines - ask the better players around NJ what they think of the layout and the results will shock you -- they played the State AM there last year, and while I like the course, it was not loved by any means).
GN can easily clean the clock of half the list you mentioned and only in about 5-6 instances is the classic courses ahead of it. You'll have to share your reasoning on the36-hole layout in Springifleld too.
-
This was my first visit to Galloway. Still digesting it, but it is very nice. More on that later.
#4. No 2 stroke hole, a dogleg left par 4 (446 yards).
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/4a.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/4b.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/4c.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/4d.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/4e.jpg)
#5. Par 3 (189 yards). Short and left are out of play.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/5a.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/5b.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/5c.jpg)
Because of the steepness of the hill left of the green, you can end up with a downhill lie in the bunker (read: next to impossible recovery).
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/5d.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/5e.jpg)
#6. Par 5 (520 yards).
The HHA is on the tee shot.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/6a.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/6b.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/6c.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/6d.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/6e.jpg)
The rest of the first nine this afternoon...
-
Joe,
I'm glad you got an action shot of my worst shot of the day out of the bunker on 5. ;)
I love those greens on 5 and 6. They are very wild and not what I expected from Fazio.
-
Joe,
I'm glad you got an action shot of my worst shot of the day out of the bunker on 5. ;)
I love those greens on 5 and 6. They are very wild and not what I expected from Fazio.
If I was to nitpick, I might like that far edge of the bunker to be more steep to minimize the chances of what happened to you. I commented this to our caddy, and he said your next to impossible shot was typical over there.
And in the interest of fairness, here is JNC on his approach shot on #4 after a nicely placed drive:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/jnc_4.jpg)
-
The common and tired refrain that TF has no strategic impulses is getting tiresome -- there's plenty there - clearly, if one is paying attention.
When people call you haughty, it's because of self-aggrandizing statements such as this. Drop it.
I've not played Galloway, but it looks quite appealing from the photos.
-
#7. Par 4 (390 yards).
With water left and the fw narrowing up, care must be taken on the tee shot. If you do up the neck a bit, you may end up with a downhill stance approach shot.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/7a.jpg)
Lay back a bit off the tee and have a flat lie w/ a view like this:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/7b.jpg)
I was allergic to the water left, but ended up in the front of the right fw bunker, which is simply no bargain at all:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/7c.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/7d.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/7e.jpg)
#8. Par 3 (196 yards) with what I would call a redan-inspired green:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/8a.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/8b.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/8c.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/8d.jpg)
#9. Par 5 (539 yards).
The fw landing area is two-tiered, with the left side higher than the right. I believe those looking to get home in two should take the high road.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/9a.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/9b.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/9c.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/9d.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/9e.jpg)
-
Kyle:
Excuse me -- I am sick and tired of people like you and others who turn the subject around. The idea that TF has top tier layouts that are always ant-strategy is flat out wrong and GN is just one course that demonstrates that.
Why not lower your empty and meaningless retort and see / play the course(s) in question before barking at me.
How bout firing at the people who make such statements -- or is your bent the predictable let's fire at Ward 24/7?
Play the course and then understand why would I said was said. Nuff said on that front.
-
Matt: It's kind of funny how we agree so much on GN and we disagree so much on the PGA Champion course.
-
Matt:
I've enjoyed every Tom Fazio layout I've played. These are, both World Woods courses, Hunters Green in Tampa and Pine Hill in NJ. I don't turn down the opportunity to play Tom Fazio courses and never have.
My comments are directed at your rather poor online personality that does nothing to reflect on the type of person you actually are. You come across as boorish and authoritative instead of insightful and critical.
-
Sorry I missed what looks to be a fabulous day.
Galloway is indeed in my very top Tom Fazio courses, as well as my top NJ courses, and it's a real treat.
Glad you all got to see it.
-
Galloway being a very good course is an aesthetic illusion. The course plays brutally tough when playing firm and fast-normal seasonal conditions. Like all Fazio courses, it is completely devoid of strategy and preferred shotmaking angles.
RMD:
I'm no expert on Fazio courses, but this has the whiff of overstatement. Of the one's I've played and enjoyed (Butler, Lake Nona, Conway Farms, Shadow Creek, Berkeley Hall, Belfair), I would disagree that they are devoid of "strategy" or "preferred shotmaking angles". They might be more demanding in many respects, but I don't think they are what you accuse them of being. To me, this sounds like the oft-repeated plaint that some raise when a hole has fairway bunkers that come into play or narrow fairways that cut down on "options". I've heard people say that they like all the options that wide fairways provide, but to me, it sounds like they want a design that is eternally forgiving. If you hit it into a fairway bunker that you were trying to carry, that doesn't mean that you are limited in options, it means that you chose a risky option, rather than hitting off to the side or laying up.
In terms of my personal taste, I'm a convert of the minimalist style, but that doesn't mean that I think that everybody else's courses are monochromatic. Not saying I haven't played some Fazio courses that are monotonous (the new Wynn course comes to mind), but I think generalizations like this are not particularly fair.
-
Terry.
Maybe what I see in great courses is not so evident, Though out of commission for the next few months, my golf game can b reak par on tournament prepared courses-I have a playing resume. When you tee it up on a C&C or a Doak, since they are favorites of many, options are there. Ballyneal and Colorado Golf Club can play had, but they have great architecture.
As for Galloway, on the first hole the better approach is from the left rough even though the bunkering is on the right. On the 4th, tthere is no gain for cutting the corner because the ball will end up on the right side of the fairway and have tree blockage. I can keep going on-the course is hard and beautiful, but could be radically improved by a more srategic architect
Matt,
our favorite courses definately differ.
-
Jerry:
Disagreements can and will happen -- think of it this way -- we seem to agree way more than we disagree. That's fine and dandy. The Champ in FL is an acquired taste !!!
Robert MD:
I have no issue with disagreement -- but you need to spell out how the NJ courses you mentioned are ahead of GN. I can see roughly 6-7 of them ahead of it -- but far too many of the ones you listed are far from being half as good as the TF layout is.
You also need to spell out in greater detail the lack of strategic calculations at GN. "Radically" improved how ?
Once you do that we can have a serious discussion. Thanks ...
Kyle:
My comments on TF are based on actual experiences -- 75+ of them. When people make statements about any architect -- notably about TF and usually they possess a very limited portfolio I get rather annoyed that the same venom is not directed at others.
My comments spoke to what GN provides and what TF has done for the upper tier of courses he has done. He has had issues with plenty of courses that are fairly pedestrian and lack any real differentiation. GN is far beyond that and I have stated in endless detail how the course stacks up and what it provides from a design standpoint.
Without sounding pompous -- I have been insightful and critical of the full range of courses I have opined about. Maybe you need to read the comments a bit more and understand that when people fire generalized comments as Robert has done that a reply is in order to him as Terry so rightly pointed out in his response.
Stand by what I said -- GN easily makes a top ten in NJ in my book.
-
Robert MD:
You must be joking truly.
Deal? Seaview ? ACCC? Pine Barrens ? I'm rolling on the flloor -- please stop.
Matt,
He mentioned Hawk Pointe too. Crazy talk.
-
Michael:
Agreed -- Hawk Point is a fine layout but nothing remotely close to the same page with Galloway National.
I chuckle when people say I am the one drinking kool-aid regarding course assessments.
Thanks for weighing in with a bit more perspective.
Michael -- quick question -- your personal top ten in NJ would be ?
-
Matt,
There are many I haven't played.
But Plainfiled is my #1.
The others I'd need to really think about to 'rank' them. Choosing amongst Hidden Creek, Hollywood, ACCC, Hamilton Farm, Ridge at Back Brook, Neshanic, Mountain Ridge, as well as others. And my favorite growing up in the '80's...Francis Byrne :)
-
RMD,
How would you change the 4th hole to improve it?
Joe
-
No doubt that Galloway is one Fazio's better courses. I prefer the nearby Hidden Creek. Different strokes for different folks.
Steve,
I have not played Hidden Creek, but it looks phenomenal. How similar is it to Galloway?
JNC,
There is a couple, fellow members of ours at Hidden Creek, who are local to the area, and whom are also members at Galloway. I've asked them the comparison question and the response I got suggested that for them HC provide more options for the golfer in terms of shots, particuarly on the approaches. I certainly got the sense from them that they get the greens rolling quite a bit quicker at Galloway then they do at HC. Lot's of internal contour at HC, so not sure how that compares to Galloway. They described Galloway feeling like more of a relentless test, as opposed to HC which doen't make you feel beat up, even though their handicap differentials are about the same at each course. When asked how they would split 10 rounds between the two (or 50 rounds a season in their case), for him it ends up being about 70% HC/30% Galloway, and for her it seem like about 90% HC/10%.
For others that have played both, I'm interested in your thoughts on the above.
Jim
-
Matt,
There are many I haven't played.
But Plainfiled is my #1.
The others I'd need to really think about to 'rank' them. Choosing amongst Hidden Creek, Hollywood, ACCC, Hamilton Farm, Ridge at Back Brook, Neshanic, Mountain Ridge, as well as others. And my favorite growing up in the '80's...Francis Byrne :)
Have you played The Executive Course MB?
-
You mean Seaview? :)
No.
-
Jim:
I had the fortune of playing both courses last year on the same day. My opinion is a little tainted as we walked both courses and I was exhausted during the last 5 holes at Galloway. That said, I found both courses to be fantastic. Galloway is tough tough golf course. It is every bit Fazio with penal bunkers; however, the greens were the best Fazio greens I've played. The walk is difficult but mostly due to the undulation and length of the course (also could have been the time of the day) The conditioning of Galloway was also first rate.
Hidden Creek was much more playable and enjoyable. Hidden Creek was not difficult but was a little more interesting than Galloway. That said, Galloway could likely hold a Nationwide event....Hidden Creek could not. The conditioning at Hidden Creek was a little to lush for the way it was to be played but that was a condition acknowledged by the Super at HC.
I really really enjoyed both courses....I would play HC 7 out of 10 times but what a problem that would be to have to be forced to decide between the two of these courses.
My favorite holes were #11 at HC at #2 at GN....only because I made two on both holes.
Finally, for every bit as bad at the GN clubhouse is.....HC's is that good. Both ranges on the other hand are great.
Look forward to going back to both.
-
Michael:
I have no issue with Plainfield -- since it falls to #2 for me after PV.
The gap between #1 and #2 is just a bit beyond the gap between #2 and #3 in my mind.
I don't see The Ridge at Back Brook even sniffing a top 20 position in the state. Amazingly, GN has more chops in so many ways when compared to a course like RBB.
I also don't see Hamilton Farm and Neshanic among the elite -- although the former might grab a spot for a top 20 placement for me.
Hidden Creek presents an interesting counterpoint because you have a C & C layout which made the most out of a site that is above average for the greater AC area but is not really exciting overall. GN shows what TF can do because the green complexes are quite demanding and the need for superior driving of the ball is called upon in which more rigorous way than many other TF courses. If anything I see ACCC as a distant 3rd when the two I just mentioned our thrown all together.
Jim B:
I like the playability dimension HC provides -- a bit wider and less intense on the tee game dimension - no doubt the yardage equation plays a role in that. The two courses present a stylish difference -- C&C aren't upping the ante on difficulty side -- TF, on the other hand, at GN presents much more harsher penalties for the slightest tug or push of a tee shot. The tee game dimension is what separates the two -- I also think the recoverying options around the greens at GN are a good bit more challenging.
-
Thanks Ryan and Matt.
Matt - It's interesting - the couple in question score comparably (handicap differential wise) at both HC and Galloway. He's a 7 index, she's an 11, so both good players. In trying to reconcilie how they score comparably on both, perhaps it is the following:
While it seems there is the harsher penalty at Galloway for the slightest tug or push off the tee, it would seem that HC may extract a similar penalty in score. It just does it in a more friendly (and sneaky) way as, because of the width off the tee it doesnt seem harsh (or explicitly demanding) until you start adding up the score and realize you really were coming into the green from a bad angle despite the hit fairway and gave some shots away.
Speculation on my part for sure as I've not played Gallaway...I for sure leave the greens at HC muttering "damn those guys (C&C) are good" as mark down a higher score than hoped, so I think the above is plausable. Perhaps they are an exception in this case.
Anyway, don't want to make this a HC thread. Just was looking to give JNC some color on the comparison question he asked before.
Thanks for you thoughts.
Jim
-
I've been writing some guys directly regarding this topic and one used the best adjective to describe GN - sterile. I think it hit the nail right on the head. Like I said, it's a really good course but there's no soul to the course....no feel. It's just one good golf hole after another with nothing else. I can't put my finger on what it's missing....but soul may be the best way to describe it.
HC has soul. The course is comfortable.
Sorry to keep rambling but that's my gut.
-
I disagree with the idea that Galloway National has no soul. The starting and finishing holes along the water were very soulful to me. Standing on the 18th tee in the late afternoon sun, legs tired after 17 holes of a tough test, looking out across Reeds Bay, then turning back to face the diagonal tee shot on the home hole? That moment was hard to beat. Sitting in the deep snow with a few days of midterms ahead of me, I'm trying to grasp that moment, that feeling, again. If I could pick a moment to return to right now, that one would right up there with the best of them.
Is that enough soul for everyone?
-
I disagree with the idea that Galloway National has no soul. The starting and finishing holes along the water were very soulful to me. Standing on the 18th tee in the late afternoon sun, legs tired after 17 holes of a tough test, looking out across Reeds Bay, then turning back to face the diagonal tee shot on the home hole? That moment was hard to beat. Sitting in the deep snow with a few days of midterms ahead of me, I'm trying to grasp that moment, that feeling, again. If I could pick a moment to return to right now, that one would right up there with the best of them.
Is that enough soul for everyone?
Seems more situational, than soulful.
-
I have played both a number of times and there is no question in my mind that GN is a much tougher test and if I took routing out of the equation I would have to rate it higher. But I would put HC right behind it and HC is a course I would much rather play on a regular basis.
-
Time for the second nine today.
#10. Par 4 (475 yards).
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/10a.jpg)
Pretty neat green. I did not know Fazio watched the Winter X Games for the inspiration of this half-pipe green. ;)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/10b.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/10c.jpg)
#11. Par 5 (501 yards).
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/11a.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/11b.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/11c.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/11d.jpg)
#12. Dogleg left par 4 (375 yards).
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/12a.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/12b.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/12c.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/12d.jpg)
-
Galloway was developed by Vernon Hill ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_Hill ) with hopes of hosting a major championship- The PGA. He hired Dick Smith, a local pro and former President of the PGA, as Galloway's Director of Golf. For whatever reasons, the PGA chose not to select Galloway. Hidden Creek is a "member's course." Galloway is a test of golf and could host The PGA.
-
Interesting tidbit Steve! From some of those back tees, it definitely has the teeth to host the PGA.
Mark
-
I have played GN about a dozen times, walked with a caddy about half of those. Always enjoyed the course. Don't understand comments that there is no strategy/choices/angles. The holes are memorable, greens fantastic. I have never played this time of year, but I love its dormant look before the reeds and grasses grow six feet high during the summer. It looks great.
-
It's a shame that you cannot see the contours and slopes on those greens - they are some of the most fun greens I have played. Without a caddie you will often be fooled when trying to read them.
I would agree that the course would be a good test for a PGA but I don't see how it could handle the crowds and it would be a disaster if those green heads were out.
-
I disagree with the idea that Galloway National has no soul. The starting and finishing holes along the water were very soulful to me. Standing on the 18th tee in the late afternoon sun, legs tired after 17 holes of a tough test, looking out across Reeds Bay, then turning back to face the diagonal tee shot on the home hole? That moment was hard to beat. Sitting in the deep snow with a few days of midterms ahead of me, I'm trying to grasp that moment, that feeling, again. If I could pick a moment to return to right now, that one would right up there with the best of them.
Is that enough soul for everyone?
Seems more situational, than soulful.
Can't it be both?
Joe,
Glad you used my term to describe the 10th green. I am a huge fan of the halfpipe green, and I think it is especially effective as a fun but forgiving green on a long par four.
11 is the weakest hole on the golf course. The bunkering is out of proportion with the rest of the golf course. Mark and I agreed that the saving bunker by the water on the layup was very strange. The green is also a bit weird. I think this hole is a short, gambling par five that Fazio just did not pull off well.
12 is a bit awkward off the tee, but the greensite makes up for it.
-
There seemed to be plenty of room to make 11 continue straight towards 12 tee.
Mark
-
There seemed to be plenty of room to make 11 continue straight towards 12 tee.
Mark
That's definitely true. I don't understand 11 at all. It's the one hole at Galloway that does not make sense to me.
-
I disagree with the idea that Galloway National has no soul. The starting and finishing holes along the water were very soulful to me. Standing on the 18th tee in the late afternoon sun, legs tired after 17 holes of a tough test, looking out across Reeds Bay, then turning back to face the diagonal tee shot on the home hole? That moment was hard to beat. Sitting in the deep snow with a few days of midterms ahead of me, I'm trying to grasp that moment, that feeling, again. If I could pick a moment to return to right now, that one would right up there with the best of them.
Is that enough soul for everyone?
Seems more situational, than soulful.
Can't it be both?
Of course, but that's a very specific situation. I wonder if you'd feel the same way after playing some golf and then seeing the place in July. I've not played the course, but to say it has soul after one playing is a bit of a stretch.
-
Galloway was developed by Vernon Hill ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_Hill ) with hopes of hosting a major championship- The PGA. He hired Dick Smith, a local pro and former President of the PGA, as Galloway's Director of Golf. For whatever reasons, the PGA chose not to select Galloway. Hidden Creek is a "member's course." Galloway is a test of golf and could host The PGA.
Galloway might not have a PGA Championship on its' resume yet but in 2012 it will host the USGA Men's State Team Championship (September 19-21). The Golf Association of Philadelphia has used Galloway numerous times for many different USGA Qualifiers that we administer and it has always been a great test of golf.
-
As to the contours and trickiness of the greens at GN, I can attest. On the redan-ish 8th I had a putt from the front right portion of the green aaaaaallllllllllllllll the way across to a back left pin. With a small pond fronting the front left of the green one would think the putt had to break that way at least a little. Because of a small hump a few feet in front of my ball and god knows what else the 25 yard putt didn't break an inch. My caddie had the right read but I just didn't listen. Fool.
-
#13. A brute of a par 4 (470 yards) that has slightly elevated tees but runs gently uphill from the beginning of the fw on.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/13a.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/13b.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/13c.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/13d.jpg)
#14. This par 3 (219 yards) is currently being tweaked at the back of the green.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/14a.jpg)
The back of the green is cut up and now laying in front of the green:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/14b.jpg)
The view from the back shows the job in progress. I'm not certain, but I believe the back part of the green has been raised a bit.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/14c.jpg)
#15. Another real nice 2-shotter (409 yards).
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/15a.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/15b.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/15c.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/15d.jpg)
-
I really liked 15 a lot. John and I were marveling at the green contours and thinking about where some good summer pins would be. Sort of has a Merion hole 16 feel from the landing area.
Mark
-
Yes, Mark, I remember. In the third photo of the 15th hole above, we thought that only a pin position in the swale visible on the left side of the green and back toward the camera and then to the right within the depression that the pin is in would be manageable. I'm sure other locations are used but I'm also sure they're treacherous.
-
Gents:
I have huge respect for GN but hosting any professional event is no small chore -- let alone a major.
The AC market is also a big smaller than what the PGA of America would like although that doesn't mean the folks with the PGA won't go to places with less size -- see Kiawah as a good example of that.
Many people like Hidden Creek because functionally it doesn't beat you up as Jim mentioned -- it will take strokes but more of one here and one there.
GN is about driving the ball first and foremost -- you need sufficient length with proper positioning because hitting too long a club into those targets is a sure fire recipe for high scores.
Like I said before GN would easily make my personal top ten in NJ -- only Bayonne, among the more modern courses has the goods to crack such a listing. Hidden Creek, for me, would be in a second 10.
-
Ok, time to finish up the tour! And Sev has offered to have me back later in the season when it is green and with long fescue areas which should make for a very nice contrast in the pics. I'll hone my short game at the nearby Executive Course and plan to bring GN to its knees. ;)
#16. Par 5 (532 yards).
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/16a.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/16b.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/16c.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/16d.jpg)
#17. Par 3 (249 yards).
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/17a.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/17b.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/17c.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/17d.jpg)
#18. Dogleg right par 4 (442 yards).
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/18a.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/18b.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/18c.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/18d.jpg)
I have built my usual photo album with all pics taken on this day (~200) and in much larger size. Visit it here if you wish:
http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/albums/galloway/
-
Joe: I'm trying to remember where that tree on the right side of #16 is relative to your tee shot. It looks like it just narrows things down and forces you to bring the water into play or can you play over it?
-
Joe: I'm trying to remember where that tree on the right side of #16 is relative to your tee shot. It looks like it just narrows things down and forces you to bring the water into play or can you play over it?
That evergreen tree seen to the right in the 2nd photo is way out there: over 400 yards from the tee. So it might knock down a wayward second shot.
-
While it seems there is the harsher penalty at Galloway for the slightest tug or push off the tee, it would seem that HC may extract a similar penalty in score. It just does it in a more friendly (and sneaky) way as, because of the width off the tee it doesnt seem harsh (or explicitly demanding) until you start adding up the score and realize you really were coming into the green from a bad angle despite the hit fairway and gave some shots away.
Interesting paragraph, Jim. You should think about turning it into a thread of its own.
-
Joe:
The "executive" tagline seems to crawl under your skin -- wonder why that is ?
Good pics of GN and kudos for that.
More people should now begin to understrand what GN does provide.
-
John Lyon is going to have a tough time sleeping tonight after seeing these pics of 18 green. The only two things he walked off 18 green with was a par and an extra vokey sand wedge. lol
Mark
-
John Lyon is going to have a tough time sleeping tonight after seeing these pics of 18 green. The only two things he walked off 18 green with was a par and an extra vokey sand wedge. lol
Mark
Truth. I really needed another crappy Titleist wedge.;D Seriously though, those pics of 18 just make me wish I wasn't stuck in colder weather.
-
Matt,
I believe it was the hilarity of that designation you gave Seaview Bay that has sustained the mirth of Mr. Bausch.
-
There looks to be a lot of interesting greens and plenty happening with earning angles of approach. Joe, how long is the course as quoted by your yardages? It seems incredibly long. The very odd thing from looking at the overhead is the amount of walking between greens and tees. There are at least three monster walks and several more which look bothersome. Does the property in some way (which can't be seen on the overhead) dictate that these bothersome walks are necessary?
Ciao
-
Some old pics to contrast to Joe's from a June day at Galloway.
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k231/flypt3057/jersey001.jpg)
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k231/flypt3057/jersey002.jpg)
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k231/flypt3057/jersey003.jpg)
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k231/flypt3057/jersey004.jpg)
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k231/flypt3057/jersey007.jpg)
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k231/flypt3057/jersey008.jpg)
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k231/flypt3057/jersey009.jpg)
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k231/flypt3057/jersey010.jpg)
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k231/flypt3057/jersey011.jpg)
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k231/flypt3057/jersey012.jpg)
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k231/flypt3057/jersey014.jpg)
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k231/flypt3057/jersey015.jpg)
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k231/flypt3057/jersey016.jpg)
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k231/flypt3057/jersey017.jpg)
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k231/flypt3057/jersey018.jpg)
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k231/flypt3057/jersey019.jpg)
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k231/flypt3057/jersey020.jpg)
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k231/flypt3057/jersey023.jpg)
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k231/flypt3057/jersey024.jpg)
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k231/flypt3057/jersey026.jpg)
-
Mike S:
Thanks for posting the pics -- really brings to life what GN is about.
Kris:
The reality is that Bay is a sport course -- in my mind, it's an executive layout that simply has not been upgraded to reflect what you see in golf today via technology and the like. Mike Cirba said as much in his comments. If they ever broght the course up to speed I'd be happy to see it in a different light. Clearly, the designation is one tied to my own personal feelings previously expressed.
-
There looks to be a lot of interesting greens and plenty happening with earning angles of approach. Joe, how long is the course as quoted by your yardages? It seems incredibly long. The very odd thing from looking at the overhead is the amount of walking between greens and tees. There are at least three monster walks and several more which look bothersome. Does the property in some way (which can't be seen on the overhead) dictate that these bothersome walks are necessary?
Ciao
Sean, the scorecard lists the tips at 7104, the next tees at 6638.
The course resides on three parcels of land, divided by two roads. Rt 9, a reasonably busy road, runs just about north-south and holes 11-15 are to the west of it. Somerstown Lane (not a busy road) sort of runs east-west and holes 3-5 are to the north of it. It is b/c of these roads that a couple of walks are not quickies. But is not a serious flaw to me at all. I love walking and the terrain is very much to my liking.
I do wonder if Fazio had any other routings done, in particular any where the range was located differently.
-
Mike S:
Thanks for posting the pics -- really brings to life what GN is about.
Kris:
The reality is that Bay is a sport course -- in my mind, it's an executive layout that simply has not been upgraded to reflect what you see in golf today via technology and the like. Mike Cirba said as much in his comments. If they ever broght the course up to speed I'd be happy to see it in a different light. Clearly, the designation is one tied to my own personal feelings previously expressed.
You are just digging yourself into a deeper hole here.
-
Mike S:
Thanks for posting the pics -- really brings to life what GN is about.
Kris:
The reality is that Bay is a sport course -- in my mind, it's an executive layout that simply has not been upgraded to reflect what you see in golf today via technology and the like. Mike Cirba said as much in his comments. If they ever broght the course up to speed I'd be happy to see it in a different light. Clearly, the designation is one tied to my own personal feelings previously expressed.
You are just digging yourself into a deeper hole here.
I like the description of the Bay as a sport course, actually.
-
I hope that the proposed GCA outing works - the golf would be great and so would the discussion thereafter.
-
The 4th hole at GN reminded me plenty of the closing hole at WW Pine Barrens:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/4GN_18WW_comparison.jpg)
-
Joe
Can the waste area at Galloway be carried from the tee?
-
What is the strategic value of that bunker or does it just limit options?
-
The World Woods hole looks more strategic. Don't you want to be left bringing the bunker into play so that you don't get caught behind the trees on the right?
-
Mayday: If I remember correctly the fairway for #4 at GN slopes to the right while the hole is a dogleg left - it is just a tough and long par 4 and the only way to challenge it would be to go over the trees but there are very few people who could attempt that.
-
The aerial photo does a great job of pointing out another huge strategic weakness in the layout. This is a pretty solid green complex that cannot function strategically because the prime angle of attack is from the waste area. The greenside right bunker should be a strong hazard that helps determine your play from the tee. Because of the tall trees through the fairway going within 40 yards of the green, a solid player is handcuffed on the tee and must simply hit a driver, 3 wood, or rescue depending upon the wind to anywhere in faieway not close to any edges. Eliminate the waste area cut down then the hole will have strategic qualities. This could be a good risk reward hole by installing an ability to carry the trees for a shorter approach with a better angle of attack.
-
What is the strategic value of that bunker or does it just limit options?
Please define for me Mayday the purpose of a bunker.
-
Different designers have different purposes for bunkers. I like those who want you to "take on " the bunker. Others want them just to be a penalty for a mishit. I don't think that is strategic.
-
I felt when I played GN that most of the time the idea off the tee was just to hit it in the middle of the fairway and avoid the trouble.
-
Cut down the clump of threes 30-50 yards out and the hole will work better.
As is you need to hit 2 iron short left side of the fairway.
We all hit driver down the middle and from there needed to hit a high fade (against the prevailing wind from recollection).
-
Different designers have different purposes for bunkers. I like those who want you to "take on " the bunker. Others want them just to be a penalty for a mishit. I don't think that is strategic.
#4 is asking the better player, IMO, to take something right along the edge of the bunker. Is that not "taking on" on the bunker?
The carry across the bunker to the narrowed up area is over 300 yards... shouldn't a player with the skill to hit the ball +300 yards in the air also be able to do so with some precision?!
-
You would have to be silly to try to get to that area of 300 yards ( what is it from the forward tess?). The hole says "keep it in the short grass and hit more club". When there are so many trees paralleling the hole the penalty for being off line is too severe to bother taking on that bunker. I think the reason that bunker is there is something other than playing golf.
Now, if that bunker is maintained so that it is easy to hit out of then it isn't a problem but then it isn't a hazard either.
-
Given the scale, I suppose its not really even a bunker as much as it is a waste area (even if it is treated as a bunker under the rules). It strikes me Mike that, like some of those areas at PV, the point of the area is to exact a penalty plain and simple.
-
My experience at Pine Valley was that most of the large waste areas were ultra strategic. How much you bit off was purely a function of your assessment of your skill. What could be grander than that? GN's message was "stay away".
-
2?
3?
7?
Each seems like pretty good examples of penal architecture in contrast to 6 or 16 for example where there is a real benefit to taking on the hazard.
-
Joe:
There doesn't appear to be any reason to take on the narrow area at 300 yards, so it doesn't much matter what is demanded of that particular shot. A player who can place the ball 300 yards away with the driver can probably place the ball 270 yards away with a 3wood and still have the same advantage on the next shot. What features of the green make playing to the narrow area at 300 yards the ideal play?
If the fairway bled into the fairway that is angled toward the tee a bit more, I think it would enhance that bunker's strategic value. From the photos, it looks like the bunker in this instance simply turns the hole without really providing a decision point for the player.
-
The World Woods hole looks more strategic. Don't you want to be left bringing the bunker into play so that you don't get caught behind the trees on the right?
Isn't that generally true of the GN hole as well?
-
Joe:
There doesn't appear to be any reason to take on the narrow area at 300 yards, so it doesn't much matter what is demanded of that particular shot. A player who can place the ball 300 yards away with the driver can probably place the ball 270 yards away with a 3wood and still have the same advantage on the next shot. What features of the green make playing to the narrow area at 300 yards the ideal play?
If the fairway bled into the fairway that is angled toward the tee a bit more, I think it would enhance that bunker's strategic value. From the photos, it looks like the bunker in this instance simply turns the hole without really providing a decision point for the player.
Because of some taller trees that come out from the right maybe 75 yards short of the green, there doesn't really seem to be any reason to take the chance of bombing the drive and carrying the bunker. But being along the edge of the bunker on the left is a better line into the green that is diagonally situated. Playing out "safe" to the middle and shorter leaves a much harder shot in with those trees really being in play.
On Saturday the pin was up and left. I hit a very good drive right along the bunker and had 140ish in. There is little or no back to front tilt in this green so my iron that maybe went right over the pin tumbled off the green. If my drive could have been even further along, I'd like my chances even better with an even shorter iron.
-
Frankly, the smart play at GN is often to drop down in distance being sought and get the best angle into the target.
No doubt there are some longer holes whereby that can't be so easily done.
Driving the ball well at GN sets up the whole day -- it also sets up big time failure when you don't execute. Too many courses here on GCA often accentuate the greens and surrounding areas - to TF's credit the course does but considerable pressure off the tee to get to those desired locations. Throw in any wind and when the course plays firm and fast and you have to buckle down the chin strap to do well.
-
Joe:
There doesn't appear to be any reason to take on the narrow area at 300 yards, so it doesn't much matter what is demanded of that particular shot. A player who can place the ball 300 yards away with the driver can probably place the ball 270 yards away with a 3wood and still have the same advantage on the next shot. What features of the green make playing to the narrow area at 300 yards the ideal play?
If the fairway bled into the fairway that is angled toward the tee a bit more, I think it would enhance that bunker's strategic value. From the photos, it looks like the bunker in this instance simply turns the hole without really providing a decision point for the player.
Because of some taller trees that come out from the right maybe 75 yards short of the green, there doesn't really seem to be any reason to take the chance of bombing the drive and carrying the bunker. But being along the edge of the bunker on the left is a better line into the green that is diagonally situated. Playing out "safe" to the middle and shorter leaves a much harder shot in with those trees really being in play.
On Saturday the pin was up and left. I hit a very good drive right along the bunker and had 140ish in. There is little or no back to front tilt in this green so my iron that maybe went right over the pin tumbled off the green. If my drive could have been even further along, I'd like my chances even better with an even shorter iron.
What's the difference in yardage? For a longer hitter, I think the difference between 140 and 160 is trivial. Your description and the aerial seem to suggest that the further right one goes, the shorter the shot should be from the tee to maintain position on the same oblique line passing through the center of the green. It seems like the hole offers a clear advantage to a long hitter dialing back over a modest hitter of a similar skill level (just with different skill sets) having to play to their personal max off the tee. The shorter hitters are forced to take on the bunker while the longer hitters are granted more options in club selection due to the geometry of the hole.
I'm not saying it's a bad hole, it just doesn't seem terribly strategic. The hazards are situated in a manner that makes them punitive, not decisive.
-
The waste bunker at Galloway's 4th is very effective as a strategic hazard. The player should be as close to the bunker as possible without going in it to gain the best angle into the green. Joe and I both hit drivers down the left side and had good angles into the green. I wasn't even thinking about carrying the bunker off the tee, because the hole was into a stiff breeze. If the golfer plays away from the bunker he will have a longer shot into the green or a poor angle.
Because of the angle of the dogleg, the hole is a bit awkward and could be more strategic. However, the waste bunker serves effectively as a strategic hazard: flirt with it to gain the best angle in, or play it away from it and face a very tough four.
-
The waste bunker at Galloway's 4th is very effective as a strategic hazard. The player should be as close to the bunker as possible without going in it to gain the best angle into the green. Joe and I both hit drivers down the left side and had good angles into the green. I wasn't even thinking about carrying the bunker off the tee, because the hole was into a stiff breeze. If the golfer plays away from the bunker he will have a longer shot into the green or a poor angle.
Because of the angle of the dogleg, the hole is a bit awkward and could be more strategic. However, the waste bunker serves effectively as a strategic hazard: flirt with it to gain the best angle in, or play it away from it and face a very tough four.
Playing an angle is not a very good definition of strategic hazard placement, IMO. That's a simple geometric issue that exists on all dogleg holes. The bunker seems to add little more to the equation than being a different lie than varying lengths of turf. If the dogleg corner were without the bunker, ceteris paribus, the hole would still play the same.
Ask yourself the question, that if you were to replace the bunker with rough, how do the shot options on the hole change?
-
It seems like the hole offers a clear advantage to a long hitter dialing back over a modest hitter of a similar skill level (just with different skill sets) having to play to their personal max off the tee. The shorter hitters are forced to take on the bunker while the longer hitters are granted more options in club selection due to the geometry of the hole.
Kyle-
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this usually the case? On most holes a long hitter can dial back and hit a 3-wood (or less) to where the shorter hitter can put the driver, and still have a shorter iron in because he hits his irons longer. (See, e.g., #13 at Augusta.) But from what Joe and JNC are saying, it's still better for the longer hitter to be as close as possible to the waste bunker, so both the longer hitter and shorter hitter have to decide whether to play away from it (and have a longer shot or worse angle) or close to hit (and risk going in).
-
Ask yourself the question, that if you were to replace the bunker with rough, how do the shot options on the hole change?
Depends on the rough. If it's pretty playable, and you don't have much risk of a terrible lie (which you clearly do in a waste bunker), the rough would be much less likely to force you to play safe and right.
-
It seems like the hole offers a clear advantage to a long hitter dialing back over a modest hitter of a similar skill level (just with different skill sets) having to play to their personal max off the tee. The shorter hitters are forced to take on the bunker while the longer hitters are granted more options in club selection due to the geometry of the hole.
Kyle-
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this usually the case? On most holes a long hitter can dial back and hit a 3-wood (or less) to where the shorter hitter can put the driver, and still have a shorter iron in because he hits his irons longer. (See, e.g., #13 at Augusta.) But from what Joe and JNC are saying, it's still better for the longer hitter to be as close as possible to the waste bunker, so both the longer hitter and shorter hitter have to decide whether to play away from it (and have a longer shot or worse angle) or close to hit (and risk going in).
If Joe only had 140 in then I don't believe the bunker is far enough away from the green to make a difference for the long hitter. What club will be in the hands of a player that can place a tee shot 300 yards away from 140? 8-iron AT MOST. So place him 10-20 yards further away along the same line and we're still in the mid to short-iron territory.
I think if the shot were significantly further... say in the 180-200 yard category, you could make a considerable argument for the strategic nature of the hole but from that distance of an approach I doubt the better player is even going to consider playing near the bunker. Also, if the bunker extended into the area where Joe and John hit their tee shots, at an oblique angle from the tee - we'd be in the strategic hazard territory.
Risk: Playing near or away from the bunker
Reward: An approach of 140 vs. 150 yards
Doesn't seem worth it.
-
Ask yourself the question, that if you were to replace the bunker with rough, how do the shot options on the hole change?
Depends on the rough. If it's pretty playable, and you don't have much risk of a terrible lie (which you clearly do in a waste bunker), the rough would be much less likely to force you to play safe and right.
Not sure I agree with the clarity of risk. A better player would much rather have a clear lie in a compacted waste bunker than a lie in any sort of longer grass. The hazard of the bunker or waste area from that distance really only exists for the lesser player, IMO.
-
Kyle,
A penal hazard is one to be avoided at all costs. A strategic hazard is one to be flirted with to gain an advantage. If you flirt with the bunker on the left on Galloway's 4th, you will gain an advantage. Hence it is strategic.
Any hazard will impose a penalty on the golfer, but that does not make it penal.
Also, I hit my drive on the same line as Joe, but I had about 175 into the green.
-
Kyle, how would you evaluate the strategy on the 18th at WW-PB, a course I know you've played more than once?
-
Gents:
I fear this is a question of how rigor in definition of the terms "strategic" and "penal" as well as the complexity of the strategy to be employed.
First of all.
JNC:
Your definition of penal hazard as compared to strategic hazard is messy, in my opinion. A hazard which has a penal nature (really deep, severally limiting options of play, etc.) is to be avoided at all costs. A hazard which is placed in a penal manner MUST be contended with to accomplish the hole (read: forced carry or hazards placed only to punish poor execution).
I do not agree with your definition of strategic hazard. It is a far too vague and does little to actually further the understanding of golf strategy in my opinion. I think you would agree that there are hazards in golf which A: influence strategy on the hole and B: would not offer any clear advantage to be near. An example of this is the road hole bunker on the 17th at the Old Course. If you want to say there are hazards in the game that influence the strategy of the hole by existing in locations where the golfer is attempting to play in order to gain an advantage for the next shot, then I would agree, but this is a subset of strategic hazards and not the categorical definition.
For me, a hazard is strategic if it's location is an influence on the strategy for the hole. A hazard is penal if it is placed in a manner which only punishes poor execution. It is in these definitions that I cannot see the bunker as a strategic hazard. If the bunker were taken away, the play would still be to the portion of the fairway where you and Joe hit your tee shots. Furthermore, if the bunker were taken away, the risk on the execution of this shot would be altered, however, this is only a tactical dilemma and does not change the fact that the portion of the fairway in which you located your tee shot is still the ideal position. The bunker is there to catch a mishit, it does not influence the ideal line taken from the tee.
Another way of putting it - did you place your tee shot in that spot because the bunker was there or because the geometry of the dogleg provided that was the most advantageous position within your range of skill for the next shot? I'll bet the bunker entered into the equation AFTER you considered the geometry of the hole, and not before.
Joe:
Both times I played the 18th at WW I was in the bunker after very poorly struck drives from the white tee, which according to my scorecard played 376. I remember hitting 6iron from 170 yards over the green on one occasion. In both instances, I was aiming to play over the bunker but not as near as possible to the bunker. What is the scale of the aerial comparison you showed? I also think the putting green is visible from the tee on the 18th at WW, no?
For me, from that yardage, the idea of strategy is almost non-existent and the hole becomes one of tactical execution. Executing a 230-250 yard tee shot into some part of the fairway inside the dogleg leaves an approach of under 150 yards from which another well-executed shot will hold the putting surface. The hazard inside the dogleg does little to influence the line of play outside of simply asking the golfer how much of the hazard can be carried and the hazards are placed to catch wayward shots.
-
Kyle,
I agree my definition was a little vague. I meant my definition for hazards that affect tee shots on par fours and layup second shots on par fives. There is no tee shot hazard that would be both strategic and advantageous to avoid at all costs. Second shot hazards are much trickier and harder to define as overtly penal or strategic.
As for a penal hazard, I think of bunkers on the sides of fairways most commonly as an example. These bunkers punish bad shots rather than guarding the optimal angle of attack. Forced carries often accomplish the same thing. A non-negotiatable 200-yard carry will only punish poor tee shots, unless the carry is of a diagonal nature. There is a penal aspect to Galloway's 4th, but I believe the trees lining the fairway are the penal hazard.
On the 4th at Galloway, I sought to place my tee shot as close to the bunker as possible without going in it. If the bunker were replaced by easily negotiable rough, I would have driven well left of where I did, into the rough, to shorten the approach and get a better angle. The geometry of the dogleg was part of my choice, but clearly the bunker also guarded the best spot from which to approach the green. Joe and I hit drives that successfully courted trouble, and we both made par as a result.
-
Kyle,
I agree my definition was a little vague. I meant my definition for hazards that affect tee shots on par fours and layup second shots on par fives. There is no tee shot hazard that would be both strategic and advantageous to avoid at all costs. Second shot hazards are much trickier and harder to define as overtly penal or strategic.
As for a penal hazard, I think of bunkers on the sides of fairways most commonly as an example. These bunkers punish bad shots rather than guarding the optimal angle of attack. Forced carries often accomplish the same thing. A non-negotiatable 200-yard carry will only punish poor tee shots, unless the carry is of a diagonal nature.
On the 4th at Galloway, I sought to place my tee shot as close to the bunker as possible without going in it. If the bunker were replaced by easily negotiable rough, I would have driven well left of where I did, into the rough, to shorten the approach and get a better angle. The geometry of the dogleg was part of my choice, but clearly the bunker also guarded the best spot from which to approach the green. Joe and I hit drives that successfully courted trouble, and we both made par as a result.
So after you hit your drives you wrote four on the card and walked to the next tee? What makes you so certain that being that near to the bunker made your next shot significantly easier than being away from it. You said you had 175 yards out and Joe had 140 yards out, but you hit along the same line. How did the bunker influence that difference? Did it, or did the variance in your skill? Did Joe take on more of the hazard to gain that distance advantage?
-
Kyle,
I agree my definition was a little vague. I meant my definition for hazards that affect tee shots on par fours and layup second shots on par fives. There is no tee shot hazard that would be both strategic and advantageous to avoid at all costs. Second shot hazards are much trickier and harder to define as overtly penal or strategic.
As for a penal hazard, I think of bunkers on the sides of fairways most commonly as an example. These bunkers punish bad shots rather than guarding the optimal angle of attack. Forced carries often accomplish the same thing. A non-negotiatable 200-yard carry will only punish poor tee shots, unless the carry is of a diagonal nature.
On the 4th at Galloway, I sought to place my tee shot as close to the bunker as possible without going in it. If the bunker were replaced by easily negotiable rough, I would have driven well left of where I did, into the rough, to shorten the approach and get a better angle. The geometry of the dogleg was part of my choice, but clearly the bunker also guarded the best spot from which to approach the green. Joe and I hit drives that successfully courted trouble, and we both made par as a result.
So after you hit your drives you wrote four on the card and walked to the next tee? What makes you so certain that being that near to the bunker made your next shot significantly easier than being away from it. You said you had 175 yards out and Joe had 140 yards out, but you hit along the same line. How did the bunker influence that difference? Did it, or did the variance in your skill? Did Joe take on more of the hazard to gain that distance advantage?
No, but I think the advantage we had from taking on the hazards allowed us to make four. I had to a scramble a bit for my four, but it would have been a much tougher four had I hit my drive the same distance on a different line. If I had hit the same drive twenty yards to the right, I would have had a much longer shot into the green that would have been harder to control. Instead, I left my five-iron second shot just right of the green for a straightforward up-and-down. If I had hit a longer drive away from the bunker, I would have had about the same distance but a worse angle.
Our tee shots landed in a similar spot, but Joe's hit a downslope just ahead of mine and kicked well forward. We took on the hazard equally, and Joe's drive landed with a better bounce, giving him a distance advantage. If the pin had been in the back right (over the greenside bunker), my angle would have been preferable.
-
Kyle,
Joe is on roids. Thats how he got the advantage.
Mark
-
Kyle,
Joe is on roids. Thats how he got the advantage.
Mark
Seriously. He kills it when he wants to--he kind of looks like John Daly at the top too.
-
Kyle,
I agree my definition was a little vague. I meant my definition for hazards that affect tee shots on par fours and layup second shots on par fives. There is no tee shot hazard that would be both strategic and advantageous to avoid at all costs. Second shot hazards are much trickier and harder to define as overtly penal or strategic.
As for a penal hazard, I think of bunkers on the sides of fairways most commonly as an example. These bunkers punish bad shots rather than guarding the optimal angle of attack. Forced carries often accomplish the same thing. A non-negotiatable 200-yard carry will only punish poor tee shots, unless the carry is of a diagonal nature.
On the 4th at Galloway, I sought to place my tee shot as close to the bunker as possible without going in it. If the bunker were replaced by easily negotiable rough, I would have driven well left of where I did, into the rough, to shorten the approach and get a better angle. The geometry of the dogleg was part of my choice, but clearly the bunker also guarded the best spot from which to approach the green. Joe and I hit drives that successfully courted trouble, and we both made par as a result.
So after you hit your drives you wrote four on the card and walked to the next tee? What makes you so certain that being that near to the bunker made your next shot significantly easier than being away from it. You said you had 175 yards out and Joe had 140 yards out, but you hit along the same line. How did the bunker influence that difference? Did it, or did the variance in your skill? Did Joe take on more of the hazard to gain that distance advantage?
No, but I think the advantage we had from taking on the hazards allowed us to make four. I had to a scramble a bit for my four, but it would have been a much tougher four had I hit my drive the same distance on a different line. If I had hit the same drive twenty yards to the right, I would have had a much longer shot into the green that would have been harder to control. Instead, I left my five-iron second shot just right of the green for a straightforward up-and-down. If I had hit a longer drive away from the bunker, I would have had about the same distance but a worse angle.
Our tee shots landed in a similar spot, but Joe's hit a downslope just ahead of mine and kicked well forward. We took on the hazard equally, and Joe's drive landed with a better bounce, giving him a distance advantage. If the pin had been in the back right (over the greenside bunker), my angle would have been preferable.
Ah. So Joe's 35 yard advantage had absolutely nothing to do with the location of the hazard...
....therefore, one could gain a 35 yard distance advantage on the hole without even considering the hazard.
What is the strategic decision forced by the bunker, again? Everything you've described above seems more and more influenced by the geometry of the dogleg with a bunker at the turn to catch a poor struck shot. The bunker seems to act more as one of the penal framing hazards you describe above than as a strategic hazard. Isn't is possible to carry the hazard completely and still have a poor angle because of the trees? There are instances where taking on the hazard will give the golfer no advantage, which then forces a tactical decision of club selection.
It sounds like, if the bunker were located where your ball landed - but not where Joe's landed - you could make the strategic hazard argument. Also, if the trees inside the dogleg were completely removed, the bunker would be far more influential on the strategy of the hole.
-
Without the bunker, the play would be to cut off the inside of the dogleg without thought. With the bunker there, the strategy is to drive as close to the bunker as possible without going in. From the tee, the golfer also considers driving away from the bunker to avoid the penalty of hitting from the waste area on the second shot. The angle as well as the distance is better from the left, close to the bunker.
The geometry of the dogleg definitely has something to do with the decision. The hazard is not perfect either, and if it had the shape you describe it would be more effective. However, the bunker forces the player to make a decision from the tee: do I want to challenge the bunker to get a better shot into the green, or should play safely away from it to sacrifice distance and angle? The distance decision is important, because with certain hole locations the player will have a better angle from 175 than from 140.
I didn't see carrying the hazard as a viable option from the tee, and I'm not sure when it would ever be an option.
-
Without the bunker, the play would be to cut off the inside of the dogleg without thought. With the bunker there, the strategy is to drive as close to the bunker as possible without going in. From the tee, the golfer also considers driving away from the bunker to avoid the penalty of hitting from the waste area on the second shot. The angle as well as the distance is better from the left, close to the bunker.
The geometry of the dogleg definitely has something to do with the decision. The hazard is not perfect either, and if it had the shape you describe it would be more effective. However, the bunker forces the player to make a decision from the tee: do I want to challenge the bunker to get a better shot into the green, or should play safely away from it to sacrifice distance and angle? The distance decision is important, because with certain hole locations the player will have a better angle from 175 than from 140.
What you are describing here is much more closer to a penal setup than a strategic setup, in my estimation of the situation. The strategy you're describing is very one-dimensional and you're even admitting that the bunker is only a factor if the player plays more to the left. The fact that you and Joe can have such varied results without the direct influence of the bunker tells me there are options to consider outside of how close to the bunker one is willing to play. Would a ball hit somewhere in the 35 yards between yours and Joe's shot but along a line 10 yards further to the right find more advantage or less advantage relative to both positions? I can infer with geometry that I can play away from the hazard and have a shot of 150 from an ideal angle based simply on these descriptions. For a better player this can amount to nothing more than a 3wood and 9iron that comes nowhere near the bunker. However, with your distance limitations you were forced to take on the hazard to get closer to the hole. This is similar to a player with distance limitations being much more concerned with a 180 yard carry than a player without those limitations.... see my point?
That sort of wiggle room is the criticism Robert Deruntz was applying to the golf course. There seems to be a large amount of space in the fairway not influenced by the bunker in which players can gain similar advantages to the ones earned by you and Joe with your selected lines.
-
Kyle,
I hope you get a chance to play the hole.
It may (or perhaps may not) change your theory regarding the nature of the bunker.
-
Kyle,
I hope you get a chance to play the hole.
It may (or perhaps may not) change your theory regarding the nature of the bunker.
Maybe. Strategy is become an often mis- or overused term in regard to golf architecture. So much so that I believe it is losing meaning.
-
GN forces the stronger / better players to club down on a number of holes. Hitting full out with the driver pays little dividends because TF has narrowed the corridors available and you can't be an iota wide right or left of those specific points in order to have the ultimate angle into the target.
Hitting 3-metal likely is the smarter play because you provide yourself with a wider corridor and give yourself as well a larger amrgin of error to play.
Kyle -- let me point out that the hole in question at GN is fairly similar to the 16th at Harbour Town Golf Links. The bunker at the SC-located course does something of a similar sort. No doubt the distance dimension is different -- and the hole at HTGL does feature a solitary tree that stands guard to the right center of the hole.
JNC''s point about the need to cozy up to the bunker is clearly a strategic calculation for him. For the stronger players the decision will be whether to risk driver and get the max out of its overall length and with that possibly sacrifice control. Different options for different levels of players. Both hole aren't pure Cape-type holes but there are choices and it's certainly not in my mind penal.
The thing about GN is that tee game objectives are so crucial because choosing wisely is the key to succeeding there when playing.
Kyle, maybe your understanding of the meaning of the word "strategy" is confused.
-
GN forces the stronger / better players to club down on a number of holes. Hitting full out with the driver pays little dividends because TF has narrowed the corridors available and you can't be an iota wide right or left of those specific points in order to have the ultimate angle into the target.
Hitting 3-metal likely is the smarter play because you provide yourself with a wider corridor and give yourself as well a larger amrgin of error to play.
Kyle -- let me point out that the hole in question at GN is fairly similar to the 16th at Harbour Town Golf Links. The bunker at the SC-located course does something of a similar sort. No doubt the distance dimension is different -- and the hole at HTGL does feature a solitary tree that stands guard to the right center of the hole.
JNC''s point about the need to cozy up to the bunker is clearly a strategic calculation for him. For the stronger players the decision will be whether to risk driver and get the max out of its overall length and with that possibly sacrifice control. Different options for different levels of players. Both hole aren't pure Cape-type holes but there are choices and it's certainly not in my mind penal.
The thing about GN is that tee game objectives are so crucial because choosing wisely is the key to succeeding there when playing.
Kyle, maybe your understanding of the meaning of the word "strategy" is confused.
I've outlined my understanding. I am using a closed definition that works for me with no arbitrary qualifiers that solely relate to this hole. I acknowledge there are differences in what determines strategy to different people but I feel the decisions made for this particular hole are more properly deemed tactical and nobody has describing something outside of my model. It is self-evident that a player playing inside of a dogleg will gain a distance advantage over a player playing outside of a dogleg. Unless the bunker is placed in such a way that such a self-evident decision is either changed, as in the 11th hole at Lederach, or there is significant variance in the distance advantage directly caused by the bunker, as in the short 16th hole at World Woods Pine Barrens. I do not view this bunker as strategic. As Joe and John's play has demonstrated, the bunker is not the factor in the ability of a player to gain a distance or angle advantage. From the aerial, it appears that the trees are the major strategic factor.
I don't think it's a bad hole if it doesn't fit my definition of what determines strategy. It is important to note that we are discussing the strategic implications of this bunker, and not the hole itself. The bunker does little to influence the strategy of the hole, especially when compared to the tree lines, angle of the dogleg, width of the fairway, etc.
-
Kyle has a correct understanding of how hazards function and the use of strategy. The 4th is a flawed hole that easily could be made into a very strong hole architecturally. The elimination of the waste bunker and prudent tree removal down the right approach would make the hole solid. The risk/reward would be carrying the trees for a shorter approach shot. Because the greens usually play very firm, the challenge of the left trees is very viable for access to a right side pin
At some point the weakness of the 7th will be discussed
-
Robert MD:
When will the weakness of your belief that GN is not remotely close to a top ten status among all Jersey courses be discussed ?
Hawk Pointe ?
Deal ?
Your move ...
-
Without the bunker, the play would be to cut off the inside of the dogleg without thought. With the bunker there, the strategy is to drive as close to the bunker as possible without going in. From the tee, the golfer also considers driving away from the bunker to avoid the penalty of hitting from the waste area on the second shot. The angle as well as the distance is better from the left, close to the bunker.
The geometry of the dogleg definitely has something to do with the decision. The hazard is not perfect either, and if it had the shape you describe it would be more effective. However, the bunker forces the player to make a decision from the tee: do I want to challenge the bunker to get a better shot into the green, or should play safely away from it to sacrifice distance and angle? The distance decision is important, because with certain hole locations the player will have a better angle from 175 than from 140.
What you are describing here is much more closer to a penal setup than a strategic setup, in my estimation of the situation. The strategy you're describing is very one-dimensional and you're even admitting that the bunker is only a factor if the player plays more to the left. The fact that you and Joe can have such varied results without the direct influence of the bunker tells me there are options to consider outside of how close to the bunker one is willing to play. Would a ball hit somewhere in the 35 yards between yours and Joe's shot but along a line 10 yards further to the right find more advantage or less advantage relative to both positions? I can infer with geometry that I can play away from the hazard and have a shot of 150 from an ideal angle based simply on these descriptions. For a better player this can amount to nothing more than a 3wood and 9iron that comes nowhere near the bunker. However, with your distance limitations you were forced to take on the hazard to get closer to the hole. This is similar to a player with distance limitations being much more concerned with a 180 yard carry than a player without those limitations.... see my point?
That sort of wiggle room is the criticism Robert Deruntz was applying to the golf course. There seems to be a large amount of space in the fairway not influenced by the bunker in which players can gain similar advantages to the ones earned by you and Joe with your selected lines.
Whether or not this shot 10 yards away from the hazard would find an advantage depends on the pin position. If the pin was on the far right part of the green, my drive would be in a better position. In general, a tee shot of one exact distance will gain an advantage by choosing a line closest to the bunker. It's also one of those strange holes where the shorter hitter off the tee will have a better angle into the green if he hugs the bunker. A longer hitter will have a shorter shot in but will have a poorer angle.
To my mind, the left tree line serves no strategic purpose on the 4th. Even if the trees were not there, only the longest of hitters could carry the waste bunker. Even then, it would be useless to do so because such a tee shot would scoot through the other side of the fairway and leave an awkward angle.
Additionally, the terrain in the fairway is quite interesting. The 4th has a reverse camber fairway, meaning the golfer has to hit a controlled draw to find the spot from which to approach the green. A good deal of thought is required before playing the 4th. A golfer cannot simply blast away and assume he will get a good angle into the green.
Besides all of this talk about the strategy of the tee shot, the green at the 4th is quite good, providing an out for the weaker player and reasonable rewards and punishments for the bold. I'm a fan of the 4th, though it's not my favorite hole on the course.
-
JNC:
Without the trees, players could decide the shot shape which lands in this very varied ground on the fairway. From the Google Earth aerial, there's no way a fade would come anywhere near the bunker without passing unhindered through the forest. Though a player could try an aggressive draw and take the bunker out of the equation and still cozy into position between the spots where your ball and Joe's ball stopped.
Your explanation is just demonstrating how there are other much more critical factors to the shot selection from the tee than that bunker. Can you see the green from the tee? Without a pin sheet, how is the golfer to determine the hole location so they may best determine the best way to play the hole?
I mean, it's just that the more I keep hearing about how this hole can be played from you and others, the more I'm becoming steadfast in my feeling that the bunker presents a tactical obstacle and not a strategic one. There just aren't all that many differing options presented by the position of the bunker that influence how one plays the hole.
-
... From the Google Earth aerial, there's no way a fade would come anywhere near the bunker without passing unhindered through the forest....
... Without a pin sheet, how is the golfer to determine the hole location so they may best determine the best way to play the hole?...
As I'm reading this, am I the only one thinking "are we evaluating golf courses now based on Google Maps"?
To be fair to the course and fellow DG members it might be a good idea to disclose before positing whether / how many times you have actually played / walked a course.
GN requires caddies --- every caddie has a pin sheet and will tell you details on the way to the tee.
-
... From the Google Earth aerial, there's no way a fade would come anywhere near the bunker without passing unhindered through the forest....
... Without a pin sheet, how is the golfer to determine the hole location so they may best determine the best way to play the hole?...
As I'm reading this, am I the only one thinking "are we evaluating golf courses now based on Google Maps"?
To be fair to the course and fellow DG members it might be a good idea to disclose before positing whether / how many times you have actually played / walked a course.
GN requires caddies --- every caddie has a pin sheet and will tell you details on the way to the tee.
Sev,
Kyle can definitely get part of the way there using geometry for his analysis of the 4th. I agree, though, that some folks simply need to see the course to fully judge the strategic implications of each hole. I think Kyle and most others on this board would agree about that.
-
... From the Google Earth aerial, there's no way a fade would come anywhere near the bunker without passing unhindered through the forest....
... Without a pin sheet, how is the golfer to determine the hole location so they may best determine the best way to play the hole?...
As I'm reading this, am I the only one thinking "are we evaluating golf courses now based on Google Maps"?
To be fair to the course and fellow DG members it might be a good idea to disclose before positing whether / how many times you have actually played / walked a course.
GN requires caddies --- every caddie has a pin sheet and will tell you details on the way to the tee.
Sev:
With no intention to sound arrogant, but is my analysis of the ability to hit a fade off the back or any of the tees accurate? Google aerials are useful for determining carry lengths, etc. All of my statements are qualified with "it appears that," etc.
Have you read my definitions and explanations of what I consider strategic and what I consider tactic?
-
The hole diagram rendering below is pretty good:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/galloway/hole4_500.jpg)
-
Kyle, you could hit a fade on this hole off the tee and find the middle of the fairway. It's actually quite wide on the right.
Hopefully you can play the course at some point and see. Google doesn't quite give you everything...
Mark
-
Kyle, you could hit a fade on this hole off the tee and find the middle of the fairway. It's actually quite wide on the right.
Hopefully you can play the course at some point and see. Google doesn't quite give you everything...
Mark
Mark:
My point was that one couldn't fade the ball into the position Joe and John were. For a strategic feature, approaching the bunker is fairly one-dimensional, don't you think? There isn't much strategy to be employed when only one tactic is possible or reasonable. Ask yourself this question: are there any skill sets for golfers that would make playing away from the hazard an advantage? The bunker is next to the position where every golfer would like to be in a position that penalizes poor execution without exposing a poor decision. What is the strategic decision presented by this bunker?
Google doesn't show everything, but playing it isn't likely to change my opinion on the strategic nature of the bunker. Sorry. That bunker does nothing to alter or influence the strategy of the hole, making it a non-strategic hazard. The play is to play as near to the edge of the fairway at the inside of the dogleg as possible, which happens to be defined by a bunker. The bunker is not defining this position as ideal, the fairway cut and tree lines are.
I think a good number of responders on this thread are falling into that trap that a feature that isn't strategic is bad. I think it's a fine hole. Not terribly sophisticated in strategy. All the issues are at the tactical level. But still a hole that requires skill to score on.
-
Can someone explain to me -- forgive my ignorance -- but how does anyone opine on a hole / course without really playing it ?
JNC's previous post on this element is spot on.
Analysis needs to be in the first person from playing and seeing firsthand what happens.
Forgive me if that sounds a bit much on my part to expect as much.
-
Can someone explain to me -- forgive my ignorance -- but how does anyone opine on a hole / course without really playing it ?
Matt,
Have you played Augusta? Both pre and post alterations? You opine on that pretty well....
-
Sean:
No, I have not played ANGC -- only walked in numerous times since 1976 -- been at 20+ Masters.
Oh, by the way, Doak didn't play all of his courses in CG -- if you see playing as the only way to rate -- that's fine.
Just be sure to apply that standard to all -- including the architects.
If someone can either walk the layout in question or better yet play it that's fine with me.
One other thing -- please explain to me how my comments on ANGC are all wet. Happy to hear your defense of the current 11th hole as pictured in GD's current issue.
-
Sean:
No, I have not played ANGC -- only walked in numerous times since 1976 -- been at 20+ Masters.
Oh, by the way, Doak didn't play all of his courses in CG -- if you see playing as the only way to rate -- that's fine.
Just be sure to apply that standard to all -- including the architects.
If someone can either walk the layout in question or better yet play it that's fine with me.
One other thing -- please explain to me how my comments on ANGC are all wet. Happy to hear your defense of the current 11th hole as pictured in GD's current issue.
Matt, you called people out about opining about a course that they had not played, yet you opine A LOT and VERY dismissively to others about ANGC which you have not played. Thats it. End of story. Its hypocritical, that is all.
-
Matt:
With all respect, I am opining on people's experiences and their conclusions. I am able to reach my own.
How does your own playing of the hole fit with my conclusions, using my definitions? If you're going to say that it's strategic because X then we're just going to disagree and the discussion will go nowhere. Strategic is a word that is incredibly overused and has gotten to the point where it has lost almost all meaning in terms of how a hole actually plays. I'm seeking a more stringent definition which NOTHING any contributor to this thread, who have played the golf course, have been able to meet through their own experiences. I should note that I am not in the camp that glorifies all that is strategic in golf, nor do I think that terms like penal and lack-of-options mean bad golf design. It amazes me how offended people seem to be when I opine that the bunker isn't strategic, as though that were some knock against the design. It's not, nor is it ever intended to be.
I think the "not playing the golf course" retort is a canard. My seeing the hole is unlikely to change my analysis that the bunker is not a strategic hazard. I'm relying heavily on people who have played the golf course's experience and attempting to match my definitions to those experiences. It's all pretty clear to those reading it how I'm defining things and the discussion has moved forward in those instances.
I'll throw you a softball here, don't bother to respond to this unless you're going to discuss the underlying premise of my definitions or attempt to explain how my definitions fit to the bunker in question.
-
Kyle:
I never said you can't reach your own conclusions. The issue is what they are based upon.
But playing the hole in question permits a much more direct connection - you say it's a cannard -- quite frankly, it's a dodge ball retort on your end. You know you can't answer the question from a direct connection -- so you dismiss it as being irrlevant. People who weigh things from nothing more than e-mail chit chat without either playing the hole or at least seeing it fiirsthand by walking the property are essentially deep left field seat observers. You think you have a view of the game from such a far removed perspective -- you may see the outline but you don't see the details directly. Trust me we won't agree here. Nuff said.
Sean:
Yes, playing is the ideal way for people to comment -- but walking is not far beyond. In fact, people have even said that walking without playing allows for a better connection. So long as people are personally on the grounds of a facility and have duly observed all the critical comments I have no issue with that. Sure, playing is the direct connection because you can see how your shots are handled by the design -- however, walking allows for people to not be solely focused on they play or their game is that particular day.
I stand by what I said -- if people have not played or walked a course then doing commentary from photos and third had accounts douesn't cut it.
Let me ask you this -- is Doak also less of an observer because he didn't play all the courses in CG ?
In regards to ANGC -- I have personally walked the property plenty of times -- seen the coursr in the pre Hootie time frame and afterwards. Is it as good as playiing -- no. But it's far better than those who have done neither. Let me also point out that those who defend ANGC need to answer what I have asked -- do the post Hootie changes really align themselves to the original intent of Jones / Mackenzie who wantred a parksland TOC layout. How does the second cut do that ? How does the insertion of those pine trees to clog driving lanes do that ? How does the inane lengthening of certain holes -- the 7th most especially -- do that. These are all fair questions Sean -- they are needed to be answered. I have seen Augusta personally more times than many other people on this site -- I have respect for what the ole Augusta exemplified -- not the one that is touted today. You can characterize it anyway you wish.
-
Kyle:
I never said you can't reach your own conclusions. The issue is what they are based upon.
But playing the hole in question permits a much more direct connection - you say it's a cannard -- quite frankly, it's a dodge ball retort on your end. You know you can't answer the question from a direct connection -- so you dismiss it as being irrlevant. People who weigh things from nothing more than e-mail chit chat without either playing the hole or at least seeing it fiirsthand by walking the property are essentially deep left field seat observers. You think you have a view of the game from such a far removed perspective -- you may see the outline but you don't see the details directly. Trust me we won't agree here. Nuff said.
Yet, my analysis is supported by some who have played the golf course. That's why it's a canard, we got beyond your opinion on how playing the golf course helps very early on in this conversation.
What is the question posed that I can't answer?
-
Kyle:
Here's the simple FACT -- not question -- you have not played or walked the course. How bout a direct connection before all the comments.
Continue to live in your self-enclosed bubble approach. Like I said -- it's the belief that if we WATCH the game from the deep left field seats we really understand what is taking place on the field.
Under your defiinition of things -- who needs to play or even walk the courses. We can simply take what others have said and then profess our knowledge from what they say and from photos. That is a stretch of epic proportions.
If you want to talk theory -- then by all means knock yourself out.
But, without personal observation and / or playing the course it opens you up to be seen as a distant observer at best and with that a lessening of what you can add.
Kyle, you are a smart guy and generally capable observer -- try to realize that personal connection is a fundamental element to really elevating the conversation beyond the outside / in approach you seem to favor. Just something for you think about.
-
Kyle:
Here's the simple FACT -- not question -- you have not played or walked the course. How bout a direct connection before all the comments.
Continue to live in your self-enclosed bubble approach. Like I said -- it's the belief that if we WATCH the game from the deep left field seats we really understand what is taking place on the field.
Under your defiinition of things -- who needs to play or even walk the courses. We can simply take what others have said and then profess our knowledge from what they say and from photos. That is a stretch of epic proportions.
If you want to talk theory -- then by all means knock yourself out.
But, without personal observation and / or playing the course it opens you up to be seen as a distant observer at best and with that a lessening of what you can add.
Kyle, you are a smart guy and generally capable observer -- try to realize that personal connection is a fundamental element to really elevating the conversation beyond the outside / in approach you seem to favor. Just something for you think about.
Matt:
The question is whether or not the FACT that I haven't played the golf course MAKES my observations true or not. Just because I haven't played the golf course, does not mean my analysis is incorrect or unworthy. I would love to hear your personal experiences that invalidate my opinion that the bunker on the 4th hole at Galloway National is not a strategic one.
-
I've only really read Kyle's last post so I don't really know what the full disagreement is, but if the large bunker on the inside corner or #4 at Galloway is considered to have no strategic importance to the hole I'm really glad nobody asks for my opinion of the word strategic...
-
(http://i54.tinypic.com/2wnczye.jpg)
Kyle,
How does the hazard, when playing the set of tees one up from the regular tees (as I did both times there) affect one's decision off the tee, in theory?
-
I've only really read Kyle's last post so I don't really know what the full disagreement is, but if the large bunker on the inside corner or #4 at Galloway is considered to have no strategic importance to the hole I'm really glad nobody asks for my opinion of the word strategic...
I agree.
It seems the debate is really about the shades of grey between strategic and penal, and people's own definitions of both.
-
I don't see that it does at all.
You still want to play inside the dogleg. The bunker isn't changing that fact - only limiting the amount of palatable space in which a golfer can do it.
The self-evident strategy of the hole is that playing just inside the corner in an area that leaves a clear shot at the green will give the best advantage. Just because someone places a bunker inside a dogleg near an ideal spot doesn't mean the hazard is in any way strategic.
Look at it this way - how does the bunker change the line of instinct? Where is Max Behr's so-called Line of Charm?
-
Kyle,
What are you assuming replaces the bunker in your scenario?
What if the replacement were more or less challenging than your initial thought? Such as fairway grass? Three foot high fescue?
-
Kyle,
What are you assuming replaces the bunker in your scenario?
What if the replacement were more or less challenging than your initial thought? Such as fairway grass? Three foot high fescue?
It's been discussed, but anything in replacing that bunker. Any change is only going to change the difficulty of playing inside the dogleg not present different options for applying shots to the hole (read: strategy). Isn't it self-evident that playing inside the dogleg will give a shorter shot to the green than outside? How does the bunker alter that strategy? Changing the difficulty of a shot is NOT strategy, it's shot demand.
Is the key to get near the bunker or to the edge of the fairway - wherever that may be? This is a huge difference as the only aspect of that bunker that is affecting the tee shot is the edge of it that runs along the edge of the fairway. So really - how the fairway corridor is presented is the strategic element to the hole, not the bunker.
-
Kyle,
You just said "changing the difficulty of a shot is not strategy, it's shot demand".
In this scenario, which shot are we making more or less difficult by changing the bunker to something more or less difficult to play from?
-
Kyle,
You just said "changing the difficulty of a shot is not strategy, it's shot demand".
In this scenario, which shot are we making more or less difficult by changing the bunker to something more or less difficult to play from?
The tee shot. Point of clarification: I didn't say anything about altering the difficulty of play from the bunker.
-
I asked about changing the bunker. To determine its value you have to imagine replacing it with a different surface. If it were fairway from wall to wall on that hole the strategy would be to play righ tthrough the center of what is currently sand. If the sand were replaced with three foot high fescue I would avoid it like the plague. As a bunker, I would try to get fairly close to it. That's strategy in my opinion.
-
I asked about changing the bunker. To determine its value you have to imagine replacing it with a different surface. If it were fairway from wall to wall on that hole the strategy would be to play righ tthrough the center of what is currently sand. If the sand were replaced with three foot high fescue I would avoid it like the plague. As a bunker, I would try to get fairly close to it. That's strategy in my opinion.
I disagree with the opinion is all. The nature of the hazard as a deterrent is inconsequential to the fact that playing inside the dogleg is still a superior play to playing outside the dogleg. The only thing altering the bunker does is to change the shot demands and tests your willingness to get near.
I think your definition of strategy does stand some scrutiny. By your definition, it could be reasonably argued that the bunkers pinching the fairway on the 18th at Bethpage Black are strategic, as well, since players can attempt to place a drive between them to gain a distance advantage from players playing short of them.
-
Kyle,
Every feature I have ever seen drives some degree of strategic planning.
-
Kyle,
Every feature I have ever seen drives some degree of strategic planning.
That's really my issue with it. The term just gets diluted thinking that way. I think enhancing the definition and employing a difference between strategic and tactical issues on the golf course is an important step to honing the art and science of golf architecture.
There is strategy in golf, which can either be pre-meditated or responsive in nature. Features drive strategy in many ways, but a strategic feature is a certain subset of golf feature that I feel requires a more stringent definition than "entering the golfer's mind." For me, simply accenting what is already apparent by the layout of the dogleg does not drive strategy.
-
Kyle,
The disparity in players ability is so tremendous in the context of analyzing the impact of a specific feature that if you're going to draw a line and say something doesn't qualify would be to take a big percentage of the population out of the conversation. I think you're trying to put something in a box that just doesn't fit.
-
Kyle,
The disparity in players ability is so tremendous in the context of analyzing the impact of a specific feature that if you're going to draw a line and say something doesn't qualify would be to take a big percentage of the population out of the conversation. I think you're trying to put something in a box that just doesn't fit.
It's possible, but then again that would make any conversation about golf architecture a moot point since the variance in player ability would trump all. To use an extreme example, a mythical golfer always able to get down in two from 80 yards out will most likely never consider the bunker in attempting to get to that position. There are many different outliers, but we can draw many common threads across these different breadths of golfers. For example, I think we go both agree that before playing for the green, the golfer will ultimately have to reach the turn point of the dogleg, correct?
I agree that the variance in player ability is a gigantic factor in discussing golf strategy, however, there is a lot of merit in discussing player intent and methods of attack. I'm not particularly interested in how one golfer will play the hole at one point given all the variables at that moment in time.
-
Mt main point is that the bunker plays a very strategic role to me, but not necessarily any different than light rough to my mother and that the tree on the right up ahead is more of a problem for her, and not so much for me...
-
For the reasons I and others stated above and the reasons mentioned by Jim here, I think the waste bunker does have strategic value. I don't want to put words in Kyle's mouth, but it seems like his primary argument is that the bunker doesn't have as *much* strategic value as others believe, since other aspects of the hole -- the dogleg, shape and angle of the green, and trees on the right -- have a greater effect on decisionmaking. That seems like a reasonable position to me, but it doesn't mean that the decision to put a waste bunker there makes the hole worse, just that it doesn't deserve great praise.
-
For the reasons I and others stated above and the reasons mentioned by Jim here, I think the waste bunker does have strategic value. I don't want to put words in Kyle's mouth, but it seems like his primary argument is that the bunker doesn't have as *much* strategic value as others believe, since other aspects of the hole -- the dogleg, shape and angle of the green, and trees on the right -- have a greater effect on decisionmaking. That seems like a reasonable position to me, but it doesn't mean that the decision to put a waste bunker there makes the hole worse, just that it doesn't deserve great praise.
Carl:
You've got it, except for the part were you imply I made a qualitative judgment of the feature.
Just because it doesn't have strategic value, doesn't mean it doesn't have any value.
-
Kyle,
Every feature I have ever seen drives some degree of strategic planning.
That's really my issue with it. The term just gets diluted thinking that way. I think enhancing the definition and employing a difference between strategic and tactical issues on the golf course is an important step to honing the art and science of golf architecture.
There is strategy in golf, which can either be pre-meditated or responsive in nature. Features drive strategy in many ways, but a strategic feature is a certain subset of golf feature that I feel requires a more stringent definition than "entering the golfer's mind." For me, simply accenting what is already apparent by the layout of the dogleg does not drive strategy.
Kyle,
In this post here you sure seem to be aiming to take that bunker out of the Strategic end of the pool...
-
Kyle,
Every feature I have ever seen drives some degree of strategic planning.
That's really my issue with it. The term just gets diluted thinking that way. I think enhancing the definition and employing a difference between strategic and tactical issues on the golf course is an important step to honing the art and science of golf architecture.
There is strategy in golf, which can either be pre-meditated or responsive in nature. Features drive strategy in many ways, but a strategic feature is a certain subset of golf feature that I feel requires a more stringent definition than "entering the golfer's mind." For me, simply accenting what is already apparent by the layout of the dogleg does not drive strategy.
Kyle,
In this post here you sure seem to be aiming to take that bunker out of the Strategic end of the pool...
That's right, by applying a more stringent definition. It has other more accurately descriptive features first.
Some people's yellow are others goldenrod.
-
The term Strategy/Strategic is too broad in the world of golf to only include the Goldenrod's...nice analogy by the way...
-
The term Strategy/Strategic is too broad in the world of golf to only include the Goldenrod's...
Exactly my point. We need our tans, etc.
-
Are you suggesting features like the bunker at Galloway fall under a different definition?
-
I've only really read Kyle's last post so I don't really know what the full disagreement is, but if the large bunker on the inside corner or #4 at Galloway is considered to have no strategic importance to the hole I'm really glad nobody asks for my opinion of the word strategic...
Jim, What is your definition of strategic?
return address, Ivory Tower, OH; Ivory Tower, CA
-
Are you suggesting features like the bunker at Galloway fall under a different definition?
Yes.
-
For what purpose?
-
Kyle, what if the bunker was more of the placement and appearance of the 13th at Bethpage Red?[/color=red]
I am in agreement with your points in this discussion. [/color=red]
-
For what purpose?
To add interest to trying to cut the corner.
-
You'll have to explain that one to me...
-
You'll have to explain that one to me...
Well, no matter what, the hole is shorter by playing inside the dogleg with no other option being as enticing. Furthermore, the position inside the dogleg is limited. Almost every golfer will ultimately want to be inside the dogleg. The line of charm matches the line of instinct.
The bunker is there to place a shot demand on that play. As such, the bunker is not posing the strategic question (how will you play the hole?) but it is posing a tactical question (can you place the shot here?).
-
You'll have to explain that one to me...
Well, no matter what, the hole is shorter by playing inside the dogleg with no other option being as enticing. Furthermore, the position inside the dogleg is limited. Almost every golfer will ultimately want to be inside the dogleg. The line of charm matches the line of instinct.
The bunker is there to place a shot demand on that play. As such, the bunker is not posing the strategic question (how will you play the hole?) but it is posing a tactical question (can you place the shot here?).
Kyle,
From the tees I played, that bunker most certainly posed the strategic question 'How will you play the hole?'
The option to clear it was most enticing.
-
You'll have to explain that one to me...
Well, no matter what, the hole is shorter by playing inside the dogleg with no other option being as enticing. Furthermore, the position inside the dogleg is limited. Almost every golfer will ultimately want to be inside the dogleg. The line of charm matches the line of instinct.
The bunker is there to place a shot demand on that play. As such, the bunker is not posing the strategic question (how will you play the hole?) but it is posing a tactical question (can you place the shot here?).
Kyle,
From the tees I played, that bunker most certainly posed the strategic question 'How will you play the hole?'
The option to clear it was most enticing.
Did you attempt it? Which tee?
-
Yes. Both times I've played. Safe both times.
Don't remember if it was the very front of the Blue tee or the tee in front of it.
Can discuss later...off to K of P mall with family.
-
Yes. Both times I've played. Safe both times.
Don't remember if it was the very front of the Blue tee or the tee in front of it.
I guess I'd like to know what you mean by "enticing?" With all respect, it's possible you're just making a poor choice and getting away with it in your two instances - like hitting the lottery twice in row. For example, one could conceivably attempt to play the hole directly through the forest - it would just be ridiculously stupid to do so. A 300 yard carry can be enticing to many players - though few could possibly do it.
Based on the aerials I've seen posted and the description players have said about being right, I think the hazard would pose a more strategic question if the option to play completely left of it existed - that is - to the area in the yardage guide around the 80 yard plate.
Temptation is a necessary factor in a strategic hazard, but not a sufficient one. Temptation is a characteristic of a well-placed hazard, in general.
However, I could see how the bunker becomes a more strategic hazard as the player moves forward on the tees since the geometry of the hole would allow an aggressive line to achieve the area I outlined above at the 80 yard plate. Going back to the original analysis of why to play toward the bunker, the difference between 130 and 160 yards for a better player is trivial under most conditions. Also notable is that every distance between 130 and 160 is also within the fairway/area available to land the ball and not taken away by the placement of the bunker. So really, a player on his game can pick and choose a line based on how they're feeling that day with little difference in the effect on the second shot. IF the bunker were placed such that the question posed was 130 OR 160 then, you've got a hazard a little bit closer to strategy.
-
30 yards makes little difference to which players?
I guess that's where we fell off the tracks...
-
To elaborate on that, I would prefer 130 from a mediocre angle over 160 from a perfect angle every time...assuming both are from the same grass height.
-
To elaborate a little further...I try to play the hole to the perfect angle every time. I consider the best place to play into a green from, including somewhere shorter than my driver length and plan on that spot...but if given a choice of results, 30 yards is a very large advantage...
-
To elaborate on that, I would prefer 130 from a mediocre angle over 160 from a perfect angle every time...assuming both are from the same grass height.
Wedge in one hand... 8iron in the other?
Is that club difference really worth being as near the bunker as possible?
-
For what it's worth, Jim, I was working the green complex and 5 tee during last year's Open qualifier and none of the players' tee balls appeared to try to fly the bunker and land in the narrrow part of the fairway.
What is the carry from the back tees to the narrow portion of the fairway? What are the chances, if the bunker was carried from that tee, that the tee ball would run into rough, and have that tree to deal with as well as an awkward angle to the green? Where is the reward there?
I doubt even the best players in the world can make a driver stop like a sand wedge. If I remember correctly, the narrow area of the fairway is slightly canted to the right. It's been a year since I've been there. I may be mistaken here.
I would say, Jim, you're a player comparable to that level of skill, playing in an Open qualifier, and I'm not trying to kiss your ass.
In the qualifier, I did notice a great many having mid irons in, some laid back and hit hybrids into the green.
Having that tall evergreen tree on the right, I don't know how much sense that makes, although it does force a tee shot too far right to lay up somewhere in front of the green, as the axis of the green points into the bunker.
I am with Kyle on having the bunker in the middle of fairway. This is a concept found on BethpageRed 13, as well as some other holes.
-
To elaborate a little further...I try to play the hole to the perfect angle every time. I consider the best place to play into a green from, including somewhere shorter than my driver length and plan on that spot...but if given a choice of results, 30 yards is a very large advantage...
Yes, I get what you're saying.
My point is more the fact that 130 and 160 are the lower and upper limits and that every point in between is available to the golfer as fairway. The bunker is taking NOTHING away from you within that range. So yes, you can get 130 by nuzzling up to the bunker, but you can also get 131 etc. And the choice in distances is made by the geometry of the hole - NOT the placement of the bunker. The bunker is simply a limiting factor. I said in an earlier post the only thing that mattered was the edge of the fairway and that remains true except possibly from the more forward tees.
I think I made the statement that if the bunker posed the question of 130 OR 160, it would be more strategic.
-
I am with Kyle on having the bunker in the middle of fairway. This is a concept found on BethpageRed 13, as well as some other holes.
I never said this Doug. I don't think the hole should be changed.
I just don't think people should go tossing around the word strategy without some scrutiny.
-
I am with Kyle on having the bunker in the middle of fairway. This is a concept found on BethpageRed 13, as well as some other holes.
I never said this Doug. I don't think the hole should be changed.
I just don't think people should go tossing around the word strategy without some scrutiny.
Little buddy,
My bad; I made a misstatement. You didn't say that. I am sorry.
-
I am with Kyle on having the bunker in the middle of fairway. This is a concept found on BethpageRed 13, as well as some other holes.
I never said this Doug. I don't think the hole should be changed.
I just don't think people should go tossing around the word strategy without some scrutiny.
Little buddy,
My bad; I made a misstatement. You didn't say that. I am sorry.
No worries, Redanboy, Jr.
-
I am with Kyle on having the bunker in the middle of fairway. This is a concept found on BethpageRed 13, as well as some other holes.
I never said this Doug. I don't think the hole should be changed.
I just don't think people should go tossing around the word strategy without some scrutiny.
Little buddy,
My bad; I made a misstatement. You didn't say that. I am sorry.
No worries, Redanboy, Jr.
Hey, I'm bigger than he is...
-
Doug,
You proabably saw me play the hole last year. I hit 3wood and then 6 iron. Barring a great break i. The waste bunker and then a great shot or a funky lucky bounce, I probably had one of the best approach shots that day--20ft pin high. My 6 iron crom about 185 was hit high and holding the right left wind and still released 30 feet. I enjoed the firmness and quality of the greens and should have advanced. Though the course suites my game for tournament play, it is a weak layout strategically. Everything is dictated for shots to hit
-
Kyle,
The 130-160 Either / Or scenraio you described is the antithesis of everything I've ever known or learned about strategic architecture. Once you decide where to go there's no marginal option. There's no "good miss". There's no ability for the lesser golfer to catch the better golfer when the difference between the two is the ability to reach the 130 area...
-
What's really amazing - assuming we can now move on to another dimension about GN -- is that it is rated THAT high by GW among its modern courses -- #27 -- but is rated far lower by GD. Frankly, GD does rate TF courses usualyl well.
Have to wonder about the disconnect there.
Maybe they have more strategic guys on GD ?
-
I am with Kyle on having the bunker in the middle of fairway. This is a concept found on BethpageRed 13, as well as some other holes.
I never said this Doug. I don't think the hole should be changed.
I just don't think people should go tossing around the word strategy without some scrutiny.
Little buddy,
My bad; I made a misstatement. You didn't say that. I am sorry.
No worries, Redanboy, Jr.
Hey, I'm bigger than he is...
lol
Mark
-
Doug,
You proabably saw me play the hole last year. I hit 3wood and then 6 iron. Barring a great break i. The waste bunker and then a great shot or a funky lucky bounce, I probably had one of the best approach shots that day--20ft pin high. My 6 iron crom about 185 was hit high and holding the right left wind and still released 30 feet. I enjoed the firmness and quality of the greens and should have advanced. Though the course suites my game for tournament play, it is a weak layout strategically. Everything is dictated for shots to hit
Robert, I did. I was the GAP checkpoint at 4 green and 5 tee. I recognized your name from this website, but I wasn't going to say anything then. I seem to remember you were minding your own business--some players talk to me, some don't. Fine. Wasn't the time or place, you were there to play to qualify for the Open. I don't remember your shots specifically, but I do remember a good many players laying back towards the corner.
Some, landing in the right rough, were double-penalized; that tree, and then the rough. And the awkward angle to the green. I seem to remember a number of players missing the green short right.
The thing is, I get what Kyle is saying.
In my view, what is the point of trying to drive over the bunker if you can't? What is the reward for taking on the bunker?
1. Fairway is very narrow there, and may kick balls into the right rough.
2. Laying back close to the bunker-ok, I get this for a "better" angle, but Robert, let me ask you, is it even a great angle from there? The green points at the wide area of the waste bunker.
Is that strategic? Doesn't seem like it to me. Seems dictatorial; hit the ball here, now hit the ball here. Why does the green point 45 degrees left of the center line of the fairway? To me, it seems like, "ok, hit the ball close to here on the tee shot, now hit a high, 20-yard fade and land the ball soft or else. The hole just seems fairly devoid of options. Strategy, to me, implies there would be several options. Maybe if there was fairway left of the bunker, there may be some strategy there, to gain advantage by playing left, having a look right up the axis of the green. There might be options here, but none of them seem very good. I also recall the green is elevated and tilted back to front, so it may be hard to run a shot up there. If the bunker doesn't serve a strategic purpose, is it just there as window dressing?
-
Kyle,
The 130-160 Either / Or scenraio you described is the antithesis of everything I've ever known or learned about strategic architecture. Once you decide where to go there's no marginal option. There's no "good miss". There's no ability for the lesser golfer to catch the better golfer when the difference between the two is the ability to reach the 130 area...
I think you're making a few assumptions here that are being taken out of context.
First off, I don't think it's okay to assume perfect execution. It's possible either choice ends up in the bunker with a poorly executed shot.
Second off, the 130/160 scenario I am describing is to be kept only in the context of this hole. The numbers 130/160 are meant to imply boundaries on diverging fairway lines of attack - so you get 129-161 etc. etc. The value of a good miss just depends on the width of the corridor. In the case of this hole, the bunker would be more strategic to me if it were small and closer to the turn point with the option of playing well-right of it, the option of playing between it and the tree line left or the present option of playing just short of it.
To touch on the point of the lesser golfer sneaking up. For this hole, everything I've heard anecdotally indicates that a strong player can accomplish the green with 3wood and a mid-iron. However, the lesser player has to use driver to get to the corner no matter what - AND has to take on the hazard to even put the same club in his hands as the greater player whose skill allows him to avoid the hazard outright. Is the hazard really strategic if only the lesser player MUST take it on all the time? How is this any different conceptually than the case of a forced carry where the lesser player is shaking over a 200 yard carry while the greater player makes it with ease?
With my idea for making the bunker strategic, the safe play for the better player is taken out of the equation by the bunker, forcing them to make a decision too. The repositioned bunker increases the shot demand for both players AND forces a decision from both players.
-
One of the things about GN is that the overall AC area is not seen by many as a golf getaway area of major note. Few people -- outside the 100-mile circle of AC wake up and say they need to go there for the total vacation or lifestyle component.
Clearly, the folks who belong at GN are fully aware of what they have and they may not be remotely interested in having the masses clamoring to play there since it is private.
I'm glad to see people on GW have elevated the course to where it is now. I'd say they it in roughly the right position -- the company ahead of the course is quite competitive.
Curiously, I think when GD did open it marked a break from the past when TF layouts had little in terms of consequential shot values and the like -- I see GN as a real examination that goes far beyond the postcard focus that often times with early TF layouts was the main item of note.
-
Have had the pleasure of lots of golf at Galloway. always enjoy the challenge . The greens can be really hair raising at times.
I've thought about the fourth given all the queries / opinions and and would postulate the hole could be great ...not just good ! If you replaced the ultra large waste bunker with a gnarly , nasty one on the elbow, lots of possibliities would be created.
. It would really reward attacking the corner for the bombers. If you succeeded you might get wedge in hand as the cant of the fairway would give you a left /forward kick. In firm and fast days it it just might lock you up behind the aforementioned tree on the right of the green so it isn't a mindless tee shot.
Like the debate , and Galloway . This suggested change would make for more birdies ( and doubles ) for the highly skilled player. At the same time the impact to the 10 and above handicapper would be minimal.
-
GN is only now getting the attention it deserves -- although GW raters do deserve plaudits for having it rate so highly.
I have always believed the course to be among NJ's top ten and that says something given the wide range of top tier classic courses that exist in the Garden State. Only GN and Bayonne would make that level in my mind among the modern layouts.
TF and his team did really well there.
-
Matt: Do you think GN is that much better than Trump Bedminster?
-
Jerry:
That's a VERY tough call Jerry. If GN is ahead it's akin to the space that Affirmed outraced Alydar from years agp.
The original 18 at TN is a solid course in plenty of ways. Has a good case for sure in making the state's top ten because TF didn't just concern himself with THE FRAME but provided plenty of internal details -- solid green shaping and no doubt a pressure packed layout in regards to steady driving of the ball.
Sad to say -- but TN gets little respect because The Donald is involved and I see that as being unfair. You tell me how you see it if you have played both.
I will try to break down both courses and then post more detail shortly.
Good comparison / contrast situation for sure ...
-
Matt: I have played GN a number of times but TN only once so i really am not in a position to compare. The reason I brought it up is to point out how much higher GN is rated compared to TN and is that difference justified?
-
Jerry:
I think TN / original 18 gets unfairly panned because of The Donald. Very solid course and if GN is ahead of it the distance for me is not that much.
Just two solid layouts in different areas of Jersey by TF.
-
hey Matt ...Jes you guys hit it far enough to relate to my thoughts on the elbow bunker versus waste area on #4 ...what say ye
-
Archie:
What do you want me to say ?
Curious to know this if you had 20 rounds of golf to play in the greater AC area how would you dividie
the courses you would play ?
-
If the revised bunker were nearly unplayable it would be an improvement, otherwise everyone would go that way every time and deal with the bunker on the occassions they found it. If it's a shot penalty, they'd have to think hard about the risk because there's surely a reward being as close as possible to that green.
-
Jim,
It seemed like going left into the bunker or woods was a pretty severe penalty. If that tee ball ends up in the bunker, you face a relatively long bunker shot out of a potentially questionable lie to an elevated green. The wind may be blowing off the bay as well. All in all, that second shot out of the bunker is no bargain. Furthermore, I'm not sure a one-shot penalty is a good litmus test for a hazard's strategic benefit. I would go back to Bobby Jones' Car Crash vs. Plane Crash metaphor: the recovery shot is the best shot in the game.
-
Here's my thoughts on the bunker that isn't and I'm on board with JNC...I think the current bunker is tooooo big and makes you lay up. There really is no option or reward for attacking.
You just can't justify trying to fly the trees on the corner as the fairway is too small....Make it bigger , bunker smaller..
.cmon matt , your gotta relate to this as you know the Galloway .
If it was truncated and you fly it some just couldn't resist trying to turn it aorund the corner and getting a big bounce towards the green. It wold be very much like some of the carries at Augusta, which are pretty heroic and really make the next shot much easier. Think 1 ,10, and 13.
Matt if I had twenty rounds in AC , which is my home base here it is .... 10 at Galloway....2 at Greate Bay Hidden Creek Twisted Dune and Atlantic City CC (best locker room ever) ...one at Seaview (Pines or Bay) one at Stone Harbor from the back (ouch)
-
Matt if I had twenty rounds in AC , which is my home base here it is .... 10 at Galloway....2 at Greate Bay Hidden Creek Twisted Dune and Atlantic City CC (best locker room ever) ...one at Seaview (Pines or Bay) one at Stone Harbor from the back (ouch)
I thought it was a New England thing, but Wayne Stiles STILL gets no love in Jersey at Wildwood CC. Great? No, but if you throw Stone Harbor a bone, the views at Wildwood alone deserve some love.
If Wildwood did what Southampton GC (NY) did this past year, it would be a top 3 at Da Shore.
PS. Greate Bay deserves 2 rounds for heritage alone, but due to the infrastructure issues, it can't be repaired the same way that Wildwood can.
-
Mike
In a wave of nostalgia for what used to be I redacted Wildwood and put Seaview in my last spot. I would rather hang out at Wildwood, its fun and the members are better. Lots of good friends and competition to be had there. The hot golf ball and equipment innovations have made it real short , as it has many older courses.
Greate bay , although impacted aesthetically by the housing , is really quite good hole for hole. It is difficult for the expert and not too tough for the rest. You can't shoot a good score at Greae bay without hitting high quality shots ...believe me on this. Park's false fronts are prevalent , and we have ripped out most of Garl's bad renovation of the mid 80's, thats why I rank it higher than Wildwood on my Jersey Shore....however many would disagree and have a legitimate argument
-
Archie:
Agree w you on GB -- too bad the housing is there but the core of the course still has much to offer. Like I said before, AC area has some really interesting layouts but GN stands above the rest and I'm happy to see that many people realize what TF did there.