[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Matt
Was the new managment installed in September.

The par-3's are fabulous...an outstanding set...and they possess some of the wildest greens anywhere. There are a number of strong individual holes, including the par-5's you mentioned, but there is repative nature to the course's green complexes. By the time you reach the back nine...you begin asking yourself...didn't I face a green very similar to this a few holes ago? The sameness is a weakness.

I'm not so sure I'd agree that the greens are the same.[/color]

Regarding the routing, 13 of the holes run parallel to one another. 1,2 (out), 15, 16 (back), 17, 14 (out), 13, 18 (back), 10, 11, 12 (out), 8, 9 (back). A lot of parallelism, with the majority of holes running in one of two directions. And not dogleg in the bunch (5 has a little bend).

Wouldn't your criterion, as indicated above, cause TOC at
St. Andrews to suffer the same criticism, and diminishment in your eyes ? [/color]

Pat
They are inferior (13, 14, 15) because they are out of character with the rest of the golf course. Not exactly exciting terrain as well.

You may have hit upon the cause of their "step child" status.

The terrain differs considerably from the rest of the golf course.  But, I don't think this should be held against the golf course.   Are we now to say that for a golf course to be good it has to have consistent, cohesive terrain ?  I would think not.  I'm not so sure that they are that much out of character with the rest of the golf course, I believe, as you pointed out, that it's more a function of terrain and the configuration of the property in that corner that causes them to be slighted.[/color]

Don't get me wrong, Plainfield is an excellent golf course. My question is, why is it considered superior to Canton Brookside, Salem, Pine Needles and Franklin Hills (or Scioto for that matter)?

I don't know that it is.

I believe one of the possible reasons was the former green superintendent, "Red".  Whenever a tournament was held, he set the course up to be devilishly difficult.  In addition, the other "Red", Red Hoffman was an honorary member, and as such, I believe that the golf course received favorable publicity.[/color]

[John_Lovito]

Holes 13-15 were designed by Ross.  The construction of the holes, however, was left to the club pro at the time, I beleive his name was Mclaughlin.

Yes, 13-15 are out of character with the rest of the course, however that does not automaticaly make them bad holes, just different.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Is Forsgate's routing similar to St. Andrews? Apples and oranges.

The approaches to the greens at Forsgate are visually repetative.

[David Panzarasa]

In my opinion,  I am bias since I play Plainfield all the time, so I must say PLainfield. But Hollywood to me might be pretty close second.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

[ChipOat]

Jay Cox and Pat Mucci said it before I could.

Not a single vote for Baltusrol Upper OR Lower?

I like Somerset Hills a bunch, but I think both courses at Baltusrol are way better golf courses.  SHCC has some marvelous holes and immense charm.  But major championship material?  Not to me.

I've not played Plainfield.

[GeoffreyC]

Chip- Who said anything about "major championship" material? Hell, by that criteria Valhalla might be better. I'd rather play Somerset Hills 8 times for every 2 I'd play Baltusrol.

TM- Those 3 tunnel holes (13-15) are not bad at all. I think 15 is a fine hole and the other two fit in OK.  I think ALL three are vastly superior to the 3 bastard holes at San Fransisco GOlf CLub.

What do you think is remotely up to par at Pine Needles compared to Plainfield?  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Tom MacWood,

Regarding the routing, 13 of the holes run parallel to one another. 1,2 (out), 15, 16 (back), 17, 14 (out), 13, 18 (back), 10, 11, 12 (out), 8, 9 (back). A lot of parallelism, with the majority of holes running in one of two directions. And not dogleg in the bunch (5 has a little bend)

That's what you wrote.

Your objections were clearly directed at the holes running parallel to one another, the same thing that happens at TOC.

You objected to the majority of holes running in one of two directions, just like TOC.

You can't have it both ways, or foster a double standard.

Tommy Naccarato,

What were you attempting to demonstrate with your photos ?

I believe you've posted pictures taken of the 9th hole (modern) and the 18th hole (old).  

Each approaches the clubhouse from an entirely different angle.

The old one is from the front of the clubhouse, the modern one from the back of the clubhouse.[/color]

[Scott_Burroughs]

With both Ran's (from the glowing course review) and Brad Klein's high scores (8.5 GW scale) of another S. Jersey course, I wonder where they rank that course in the state....

Pine Valley..........

Phil,

What is your #1 (assuming you're not joking)?

[pdrake]

it was a slight joke........I really consider PV a Philly course..........I think Hollywood is very underrated..............

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

The best that I've been able to ascertain is that Plainfield's 13th through 15th holes were implemented by the pro at the time, Martin O'Laughlin, around 1930.

Supposedly, they are to Donald Ross's plans, but I'm very skeptical.  15 is not a bad hole at all, but 13 and 14 are really pretty incongruous.  

The fact that it's still the 2nd best course in NJ despite this stretch is similar to San Francisco Golf Club which remains a great course despite the fact that 13-15 there is the work of professional Harold Sampson, and are similarly a letdown from the rest of the course.  

My personal feeling is that there are at least 9 or 10 great holes at Plainfield and that's what lifts it to it's stature.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Have any of you played 15 since the restoration began?  It is very far from average.  Incidentally, the 15th ate a lot of player's lunches in the 1997 Met Open--the green is as brutal as 16 or 18.  The fairway is now well bunkered.  This is a short hole that requires a little thought on  tee ball placement for a good 2nd shot.  The only way to play 15 is to study the pin while walking down 13.                                              And how can 14 be considered ordinary?   The big mound in the middle of the green has alot of character.  You can never be short on a back pin.  Front pins require flirtation with the H2O.  There is bailout on he left, but you are lured away from such a play because the center green mound is staring at you.  

[TEPaul]

This thread is probably another good reason I think rankings stink. All the courses mentioned on this thread are very good courses but now people are beginning to debate why one is better than the other and even beginning to identify what the weaknesses of some are that makes them "deserve" to be less good. That's the perceived justification when clubs start thinking to change things on their courses and their holes to make them compete better with other courses. I think that can turn into a dangerous trend!

[T_MacWood]

"What do you think is remotely up to par at Pine Needles compared to Plainfield?"

Geoffrey
It doesn't sound like you're a big fan of Pine Needles.

1. Both course are well bunkered. Pine Needles' bunkering is more homogenous. Plainfields is a mix of old and modern.

2. Both courses are very well routed. Pine Needles is a little more expansive.

3. Both courses enjoy interesting terrain. Pine Needles' is more dramatic.

4. Both courses have large number of outstanding holes. Plainfield has a three hole stretch that is out of character with the rest.

Pat
I'm not a big fan of the majority of the course being jammed into five mini parallel rows of two holes. At least St. Andrews moves around the compass, and takes you all the way out and back with significiant width...and even has a few holes that bend or play as doglegs. Apples and oranges.

What do you find praiseworthy about Forsgate's routing?

Ian
Today, I'd say Hollywood is a step below Somerset Hills and Plainfield, but better than Forsgate. In its day, my guess is Hollywood was better than all three.

[John_Lovito]

Tommy,

The two photos that you have included are not of the same hole.  The old photo is the original 18th back up to the front of the clubhouse.  The more current photo is of the 9th hole.

Tom,
You are correct about the mix of bunkering, old and new, at PCC.  That said, bunker restoration is in the master plan and much of it should be implemented shortly.  The 2nd hole is slated to be worked on next fall.

Also, you questioned the ponds on the course earlier.  The pond on 10 will be removed at some point in the future and a creek restored. The pond on 18 will be moved further out of play (it is needed for drainage) and bunkering will be restored to protect the dogleg.  The pond on 3 is original to the design.

[T_MacWood]

John
Thanks for the info...it sounds like a great plan. Fascinating about the old 18th. How many holes were on that side of the clubhouse? How did the current 18th fit into the layout?

[John_Lovito]

Tom,

There were two holes on that side of the clubhouse.  The 17th ran down the hill away from the clubhouse.  You can still see the old tee box by the current 18th green.  The original DR drawing is in the clubhouse.  It looked like a neat hole with a sahara like bunker about 50 yards short of the green.  The 18th went back up the hill toward the clubhouse.

John

[Scott_Burroughs]

it was a slight joke........I really consider PV a Philly course..........I think Hollywood is very underrated..............

...and all of the N Jersey courses are NYC courses....leaving NJ with little of quality if you look at it that way.

Kinda like many people consider Fishers Island a CT course or Lookout Mountain a TN course or John Kavanaugh an Indiana resident.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

I'm not a big fan of the majority of the course being jammed into five mini parallel rows of two holes.

Then you shouldn't be a fan of a course that's jammed into two parallel rows of holes, as the Old Course is.[/color]

At least St. Andrews moves around the compass,
That's not true at all.
There's little or no movement around the compass.
The course goes NW for 7 holes, goes SE for 2 holes, back NW for 2 holes and then back SE for the last 7 holes.

How many substantive direction changes are there from hole to hole on TOC ?  How many substantive direction changes are there from hole to hole at Forsgate ?[/color]

and takes you all the way out and back

Isn't that an attempt on your part to hide or glorify the parallel nature of the holes at TOC ?[/color]

with significiant width

What's that got to do with direction and parallel holes ?

Of course their wide, they're DUAL, shared fairways created by the PARALLEL nature of the routing, a feature that you designates inferiority.[/color]

and even has a few holes that bend or play as doglegs.

To call them doglegs is an exaggeration or distortion of the facts.[/color]

What do you find praiseworthy about Forsgate's routing?

The individual holes that Banks created within it.

How many times have you played Forsgate ?[/color]

Ian,

Both Hollywood and Mountain Ridge are above Somerset Hills, if it's the golf course you're talking about.

Somerset Hills has a number of weak holes, especially it's finish.  I don't think you'll find that at either Mountain Ridge or Hollywood.

Robert Mercer Duntz,

I'm with you.

# 14 and # 15 are terrific holes and # 13 is pretty good as well.

I hear people say that these holes are weak or out of tune with the rest of the course.  I ask them now, How So ?

Mike Cirba,

How, specifically, are # 13 and # 14 incogruous ?

[Paul_Turner]

It's probably Hidden Creek, eventhough I do agree with some here, that the finish is not quite a good as the rest.

That should get a few snorts of derision

After that, in my experience, it's a toss up between Plainfield and Somerset.  I'll hedge with SH.

Still. PV is miles ahead!

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I thought this was a thread about NJ, but since you are so keen to include the Old Course into your arguing exercise...here you go. Compare and constrast the two routings....apples and oranges.

[GeoffreyC]

TM

I have nothing against Pine Needles. It is a fine course and I enjoyed it a great deal. I enjoyed Beverly, Skokie and Mountain Ridge as well to name other highly thought of Ross courses. However, none of them are the equal of Plainfield IMHO.  Plainfield has several GREAT golf holes and the greens will get your attention.  You are constantly required to plan your shots at Plainfield due to those greens and it will get your attention.  It has those butt puckering shots that are lacking at Hidden Creek for an example of another NJ course.  I strongly disagree with Paul Turner on his evaluation.

I also think you underestimate Forsgate.  

[GeoffreyC]

BV

In the words of Tuco - "We are simpatico" on this issue my friend.

Ran- you are familiar with both Pine Needles and Plainfield.  What do you think?

[TEPaul]

"That's changing and the bunkering is, thank god, not by Pritchard."

redanman:

First of all for the 20th time it's Prichard, not Pritchard. And what do you mean the bunkering of Plainfield is 'thank God not by Prichard'?

I haven't been to Plainfield in maybe 5-6 years so I haven't seen the restored bunkers Gil did there. Is the bunkering in the photo of the 11th hole on a recent thread on that hole the restored bunkering of Gil? If it is it's the very same "grassed down" bunker face look that he did at GMGC and Ron Prichard has done recently at a number of courses.

I realize that some don't want to see any more of these "grassed down" face Ross bunker restorations but if those on the 11th in that photo on that recent thread are Gil's then I'd like you to tell me what the exact difference is, in your opinion, from the ones Ron Prichard has done.

[Steve Lapper]

<Per Monsieur Mucci>
Tom MacWood,

Mountain Ridge deserves consideration. It's a wonderful  Ross that is virtually unchanged.

NO it doesn't.  It is two orders of magnitude below plainfield easily.  It's long, it has a real snore of stretch on the second nine on uninspired property, it has awful Pritchard bunkering (not so untouched)  Not even close to my definition of "wonderful"

It's also the competitive equal of all of the courses mentioned in NJ. resistance to scoring? part of that is how boring stretches are, you have to keep awake.  Not one of Ross' best, no

Baltusrol Upper provides both interest and challenge as well.
Too many individuals only view the Lower in the context of
Championships and the back tees.  It's both fun and challenging from other tees. Upper has a lot more quirk and would probably be the choice of this group here if everyone played both and gave his opinion.  Lower is stern, geared to the card and pencil man and not as "interesting" as Upper but a USGA brass favorite.  Fortunate is the player who gets to decide between two really good solid courses every time he goes to this club!

The course with the most potential KEY might be The Knoll, George Bahto's home course.

There are an inordinate number of good golf courses in NJ.  but not, perhaps none in the same league as Plainfield

  Having played Mountain Ridge over 10 times in the last 24 mos., I'd most strongly disagree with Redanman.

   Yes, it is ONE order of magnitude lower than Plainfield (along with Somerset, Baltusrol Upper & Lower, Ridgewood and Hollywood), not "at least Two." The back nine has several very good holes, i.e. 13-15 and 17-18. I defy you to describe what is "boring" or wrong with those holes?? Please show us here in the treehouse what is "boring" about a 461 yd par 4 that tests the drive, approach, and putting with choices that confound even the scratch golfers? 14 is a very strong (against the prevailing wind) 184 yd uphill par 3 that has a partial horizon green with a strong tilt and fall-off built-in.
15's stern test of a pin-point drive leaves a very undulating, back to front with humps small green to hit, if you can? 17 and 18 are among the better finishes anywhere in NJ ex. of PVGC. I last went out in 2 under and came home in 4 over, with no loss of shotmaking skills..so it hardly the makings of a boring back nine!

It's "awful" Prichard bunkering is far from awful and not always perfect either, but it is not functionally much different than Aronimink's or Gil's work at PCC. The conditioning of Mountain Ridge is absolutely wonderful and the maintenence meld is as perfect as mother-nature in NJ permits. The members are near unanimous in agreement that the course has been restored to suberb sportiness and playability. From the tips, resistance to scoring is only a tad below that of PCC or Salem.

      When is the LAST time you played Mountain Ridge??? How many times have you seen it in 2003 or 2004?

      PCC has, IMHO, an EASY lock on NJ's #2 spot, but degrading and banishing Mountain Ridge to a much lower level simply is void of fact or defense. Play it a few times and make those same statements. It remains vastly underrated in the NJ rota!



   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()