[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood said, "I will becoming out with my unbiased NJ top 20 shortly...then hopefully the isssue will be settled once and for all!"

Hello out there in Ohio land -- where for art thou is your "unbiased" list?

C'mon Tom -- it's time to play "show and tell" on your assessent of NJ golf.

redanman:

Concur 100% on your take on Mountain Ridge. Fine course but not in the same league as Plainfield. Put MR in another state and it would be one of the best -- in Jersey it can't make the top ten -- a possible second ten choice but likely far closer to the rear than towards the front.

P.S. -- If there are "sleepers" in Jersey golf one also needs to include Essex County CC (post Gil / George B work), Montclair GC (#2 & #4 nines) and of course my perennial favorite Forsgate / Banks Course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Redanman,

Could you identify the specific holes that you claim comprise the stretch of "snore holes" on the back 9  ?

Could you also identify the holes that comprise the stretches you classified as boring ?

And, could you tell me specifically why you claim Prichard's bunkering is awful ?

[T_MacWood]

Matt
I'm wondering if I should do a top 20 or top 50...either way I should have it together shortly (Rome wasn't built in a day...and as you know I take thus stuff very seriously  ) at that point we will finally be able to put the entire subject to rest...what are in fact the best courses in NJ!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

The redan at Westhampton, as a decent example, is just pushed up out of the ground (Chicago GC's is the same way, BTW), both play very well as redans, better than say Yale's.

I'm not saying one way or the other, but is THAT good "integration" to you or anyone else?

Perhaps you should take another look at the 7th hole at Westhampton, it's not as pushed up out of the ground as you seem to indicate.  Pay particular attention to the approach and rear of the green.

Then, stand behind the 4th at NGLA and tell me which green is more pushed up out of the ground.[/color]

Back to Mountain Ridge, if Slappy wants to say it's one vs. two orders of magnitude below Plainfield, I'm not going to turn blue argueing, but it emphasizes the point that it is clearly not the equal or in the class of Plainfield.  (Their food and hilltop view are absolutely first rate, but again with the hilltop clubhouse it suffers the fate of 1 and 10 down the hill and 9 and 18 up the hill.)

Holes # 1 and # 10 are very good holes into the prevailing wind.  # 18 is a fabulous finishing hole, one of the best anywhere.  # 9 is a soft par 5 that has been improved, but could still use a little more improvement in the bunkering.[/color]

Regards Mountain Ridge - The terrain on which holes such as 2-5

Are you sure you played Mountain Ridge ?
The terrain on holes 2-5 has good movement, and those are fabulous golf holes[/color]

and 11-17 doesn't move that much,  is really not very exciting and most importantly much of that second nine stretch is land on which Plainfiels holes 13-16 are built on so it can't go both ways (At Plainfield? BAD....BAD, at MtnRdge? GOOD!) doesn't work that way.

Either you didn't play Mountain Ridge or your memory is failing.  # 11 has wonderful vertical and lateral movement, and the stretch of holes, 11-17 are fabulous.  # 17 has to be one of the best par 5's in the state, with its green elevated above the fairway.  Hole # 14 is an uphill par 3, how can you claim that the terrain is flat like # 13 at Plainfield.  # 15 plays from an elevated tee down to the fairway.  Again, how can you claim that the terrain is the same as # 13 at Plainfield ?  Hole # 12 needs to be fully restored, as the prior internal alteration, vis a vis, tree planting doesn't work.[/color]

As for Mtn Ridge in obscurity, it is on Golfweek's current Top 100 Classical, so that's not exactly obscurity.

Few outside of Metro NY have ever heard of Mountain Ridge, far less have played it.[/color]  

Tough test? Yes (Black tees 74.5/140 off a par of 71 - But so is Baltusrol Lower, a current whipping boy with the architectural cognescenti); great architecture (As good as Baltusrol Upper? NAH!) -

Nonsense.  Many claim that Baltusrol upper is boring, the same holes and architecture for the first six holes out and the last three holes in.  Mountain Ridge has far more variety.

I like all courses, but Mountain Ridge and Hollywood don't take a back seat to Baltusrol Upper.[/color]

not much and like I said great food and clubhouse view, overall?  Great club and experience.

Regarding Pritchart's bunkering it is repetitive and unidimensional as a  restorative effort especially with the homogeneity of the grasses, visually it is poor at Mountain Ridge (but functions in a good? penal manner), but not as bad as say at Skokie and not as good as at Aronimink or Beverly (All personally seen by me in about a  4 -6 weeks timeframe last year).

Could you explain what you mean by repetitive ?
Could you explain what you meant by undimensional ?
Could your explain what you meant by the homogeneity of the grasses ?

Are you saying that Aronomink's bunkering isn't repetitive ?

Could you point out the different bunkering styles at Aronomink ?

Could the same be said of Ross's bunkering of Seminole ?

CBM's, SR's and CB's bunkering at any of their courses ?[/color]

I'm not saying Mountain Ridge is the dregs, most courses / should be so good (It would be a standout in many states), but to put it up there with Plainfield?  That dog ain't gonna' hunt.

You've yet to provide substantive info to back that up.

In addition, you're probably unaware of restoration work that Prichard was prevented from undertaking, on hole # 7 for example.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
How different are your opinions of NGLA, today, then they were after the first time you played that golf course?"

Pat:

That's pretty hard for me to say since the first time I played NGLA I was probably about 14. Even if had an architectural opinion about the course back then it's too long ago to remember what it was.

But here's an interesting thing for you to guess on. I hadn't been back to NGLA in about 40 years. Guess which hole I remembered best?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Is it one of the following ?

# 2, # 3, # 4, # 6, # 8, # 11, # 16 # 17 or # 18 ?

If so, I'll narrow my field at the next go round.

If none of the above, it's obvious that you possessed no inherent architectural skills  

[TEPaul]

That's a good example and good description on redanman's part using the Westhampton redan as an example.

I think Westhampton is a great fun course to play but it's one of the best examples I've ever seen of a course where the man-made architecture doesn't integrate with the natural site or natural lines of the site---which are remarkably flat.

If Pat or anyone else is really going to seriously try to maintain that the architectural lines of Westhamption integrrate well with the natural lines of that site then obviously we're talking about different subjects here.

What do I mean when I mention architecture does not integrate well with a natural site? What I mean is it's really easy to pick out what was made and what wasn't and exactly where either stops and starts. And if even the most novice architectural analyst can't pick those things out at Westhampton then all I can say is he's either not understanding the subject or he's totally blind!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

That's nine holes you listed there but yeah it's one of them.

And if I did possess inherent architectural skills back then let's just say those inherent architectural skills were laying totally dormant at the time.

The thing I certainly do remember best about those days when I was about 14 at NGLA was just how terrified I was of the likes of Messrs Knott, Tailor, Choate, Grant et al. They were guys who did not suffer kids lightly---that's for goddamned sure!!

Matter of fact that Knott got on me a few times so bad I almost fainted or started to cry---I can't remember exactly which now and finally he pushed me past my limit and I became hysterical and told him if he didn't lay off of me I was going to piss all over his shoes!    

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Is it amongst # 2, 3, 4, 16 and 17 ?

[TEPaul]

Yes. This isn't the best or most sophisticated "guessing" I've ever seen but proceed Don Quixote!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'm eliminating # 4, leaving

# 2, 3, 16 or 17 ?

If I'm correct on my four finalists, I'll list each reason for selecting them, and then announce the hole I think you remembered.

I will tell you that I'm currently leaning toward the back 9.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

It would be really helpful and more worthwhile if you only list those courses that you have personally played and not just from aerials, third-hand accounts and simply from walking the properties.

I'm looking forward to see your "unbiased" listing.

[TEPaul]

"If I'm correct on my four finalists, I'll list each reason for selecting them, and then announce the hole I think you remembered."

Go for it you big Kahuna! The only thing is you're probably playing one of you're clever little games here because I believe I've already told you at least two times which one I remembered best---but knowing you---you probably either didn't hear me or forgot what I said about five minutes later.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

First of all, why would I listen to you ?

Secondly, I don't recall you mentioning a favorite hole or one that you remembered to the exclusion of the others, but, my reasons for picking each hole are as follows.

# 2

Because you step off of the 1st green and are confronted by your first exposure to blindness,   But, it's more then just blindness.  Absent a caddy or fellow golfer who's been there before, you have absolutely no idea on where to aim.

In addition, the Windmill makes its presence known.

Upon ascending the hill a very unusual vista unfolds in front of you.  You begin to understand the hole you're playing and get a glimpse of what lies ahead as well.

# 3

While the tee shot LZ is clearly visible, one isn't quite sure where to play the drive.  Once in the fairway, like # 2 tee you have little to guide you with respect to your approach.
Once you ascend the hill, all is revealed, the neat bunkering, unusual green, berm to the rear and bell tower, as well as some neat views.

# 17

For the obvious panorama that unfolds as you ascend to the tee for your drive, and for just the opposite reason on your approach, the blind nature of the shot to the green.

# 16

For the visual across the lake to the ascending fairway with the large right side fairway bunker looming in the distance.
And then, as you ascend to the LZ the amazing realization that the fairway is comprised of two huge bowls and a spine seperating them, and that even if you're on the spine, the approach shot is blind.  If you're in the bowls the shot is totally blind.  And from the tee to the LZ to the green, the windmill looms large.  Then, upon reaching the green, the bowl like putting surface, surrounded by high elevations to the left and rear of the green with a fronting elevation as well.

All these would seem to combine to make this hole, my hole of choice, even though the view from # 17 is stunning.

So, I'm going with # 16.

[TEPaul]

I'll make it even easier for you and also roll another question in here that if you guess the answer to---you really are good. You can take out #3 but the reason why that hole probably wasn't the most memorable to me has to do with one little added feature to it that's the same at Piping Rock where I came from. #3 hadn't had that one added little feature I think I just might say that #3 would have been the most memorable to me.

So what is that little added feature that #3 NGLA has and Piping Rock does too---twice actually---at least back when I was 14!

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
First of all, why would I listen to you?"

Well, Pat, actually it's pretty elementary. It's so you can learn something about architecture. If you're going to continue to act so cavalierly about all this then I really should start charging you for all the things you've learned from me about golf architecture. You know what they say---an education can be a very valuable thing!

[TEPaul]

"So, I'm going with # 16."

You got it. #16 was the one I remembered best from almost 40 years previous!    

[George Pazin]

I think Westhampton is a great fun course to play but it's one of the best examples I've ever seen of a course where the man-made architecture doesn't integrate with the natural site or natural lines of the site---which are remarkably flat.

How does Fox Chapel's redan compare, in terms of artificiality?

With a hilly area like Pittsburgh (even though FC is gentle by comparison), it's amazing to me Raynor couldn't find a more natural redan. That thing looks like someone was trying to build a replica of a Daytona corner.

Looks like fun to play, though.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Directional or aiming markers

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Directional or aiming markers"

Pat:

What the hell is going on with you? You're on one helluva a roll today. In a mere few hours your "correct" percentage may have jumped from a bit over 2% to 5% as it races to the 10% mark before the end of the week.

I'm impressed! I wish it wouldn't have taken me five years to get through to you but it appears to be working. I'm impresseed---congratulations! Keep it up and try not to do any backsliding on me!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I knew you'd see the light ...... eventually.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

It's time for you to go to your room and leave the adults in peace---you've been enough of a pest today!

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

You boastfully stated about posting your top New Jersey courses and sharing your "insights."

Geeze Tom -- where for art thou is your listing ?

You talk the talk -- how bout walking the walk ?

[T_MacWood]

Matt
I'll get right on that....I'm sure you're waiting for my NJ top 20 (or 50, I can't decide) with bated breath.  

[Matt_Ward]

Hey Tom:

Quit jerking everyone's chain.

You don't have the b*lls to put forward a list.

Enough of the BS puhleeeeze.

It's time to go back to your uncanny sense of dissection of aerials and their true meaning.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()