News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
The Architects Golf Club
« on: July 26, 2001, 07:41:00 AM »
I had the pleasure on Tuesday to play golf with Ron Whitten at the grand opening of The Architects Golf Club in Phillipsburg, NJ.  For those of you not aware of the project, the course was designed by Stephen Kay and Ron Whitten as a celebration of 70 years of great design styles.  Each hole, beginning with Old Tom Morris and ending with Robert Trent Jones, is a reflection of the design concepts used by these and 16 other premier architects between the periods of 1885 – 1955.  

For me it was extremely interesting to get to play the course with Ron and hear hole by hole what the thought process was for each one’s design and construction.  

I have no intention of describing every hole here but I will comment extensively on the first one as it sets the tone for the whole design concept and how the course turned out.  

The first hole on the course is an Old Tom Morris par five somewhat reminiscent of the opening hole at Royal County Down.  It’s a relatively easy opener, this one playing downhill with a panoramic view of the distant hills and countryside.  Key features of the hole include fescue edged bunkers, one sodded wall bunker to the right of a relatively benign green and a stonewall 150 or so yards off the tee on both sides of the fairway.  What I found most interesting, however, about this hole and many of the others were the compromises that were made and thought process that went on between Ron, Stephen and the owners.  The first thing I said to Ron when I stood on the #1 tee was that I hope there are no yardage markers out there and it would have been nice to see that stone wall run right across the fairway a la North Berwick.  If it were up to Ron, both of those things would have been true plus the fairway would have been un-irrigated browned out fescue, the pot bunkers would have been deeper and filled with brownish colored sand, the greens would have been slower, and the hole would look like it was dropped right out of Scotland.
Unfortunately, Stephen and the owners were paranoid that if golfer showed up and saw all that on the opening hole they would throw their clubs back in the car and leave.  As we all know, very few golfers these days are purists and only a handful would have appreciated the authenticity.  

So as a result, the bunkers have white sand and are much more tame, the fairway is not browned out (though Ron is pushing hard for the irrigation to be turned off once its grown in), the stonewall doesn’t extend across the fairway, the green runs the same speed as the other 17 holes and there are yardage markers if you want to look.  But still, the essence of Old Tom Morris is captured in the hole.  After a not so solid opening drive, I was still able to run my second shot past the bunkers onto the green from 255 yards away.  There are not many holes on this side of the pond where you can do that today.  

This “compromising theme” runs throughout the golf course - Ron pushing the “purist” end, Stephen pushing the “capture the architect’s design philosophy but maintain modern playing standards” end, and the owners just trying to make sure that the end product will result in enough golfers wanting to come play their course so they get a return on their multi-million dollar investment.  

I should further add that I saw very clearly how the “safety” and “liability” factors influence blind shots, tree plantings, etc.  Those of you who get to play there will notice a number of trees that do nothing for the golf course and look very much out of place but were planted for "safety and liability" reasons.  In reality I believe few of them offer any protection and most of them will be taken out (especially if Ron has his way).  

But overall, the course I believe accomplished its objectives and will be a huge success.  There are lots of interesting golf holes (my favorite was probably the Travis hole #5).  But most importantly, the course was great fun to play (whether you care about golf architecture or not) and for those who do, they’ll have great fun identifying the different design features of all the great architects of the past.  

A course like this can only help to further the appreciation and understanding of golf architecture in general and that alone is a success.  

I won’t give it Doak scale number but I will say this, I surely plan to go play it again and would encourage others to play it as well.  


ForkaB

The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2001, 08:14:00 PM »
Great report Mark, and sounds like good work by Ron and Stephen.

It's probably a bit too late, but given the owner's reluctance to do the full Monty with the OTM hole, what if the order of the holes had been reversed?  Start off with RTJ (maybe even complemented by a retro-50's style architecture pro-shop), and then move backwards in time from there, finishing with a hole just as Mark described Ron wanting to make it, complemented by a 19th hole that was modelled on the bar at Western Gailes, for example.

Maybe a thought for Architects II--They're Baaaack!


TEPaul

The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2001, 08:23:00 PM »
Thanks Mark, and that golf course (despite the fact you say they may have compromised a little) should certainly take care of those who sometime idiotically say that some hole or holes are "out of character" with the rest!

There's nothing like variety on a golf course and "The Architect's Club" of necessity would have to take that to an unusual extreme--and that to me is a very good thing!

The course sounds sort of like one of those poor fractured souls you sometimes hear about who have something like 18 distinct and different personalities! That's not bad either since some of the personalities might be boring and at the very least an interesting personality might be coming up next. Maybe the same could be said for "The Architect's Club".


Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2001, 11:36:00 AM »
Rich,
Maybe Ron will chime in if he is on-line and comment on your idea.  I'd enjoy hearing your comments on the course if you ever get over to play it.  

Tom,
You will find the design very interesting and I'd also love to hear your perspective.  Infact, it's a perfect course for those participating on this web-site to check out.  Might be a great meeting place in the future for a get together.  


Craig_Rokke

  • Karma: +0/-0
The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2001, 01:13:00 PM »
Mark-
I'm glad to hear you had a good experience.
(I was hoping that a stick of TUMS wasn't
necessary to cure your architectural indigestion.)

Matt_Ward

The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2001, 06:32:00 AM »
Mark:

It was good to meet you face-to-face at The Architect's Club the other day.

I too enjoyed the course, however, it concerns me about the overall course conditioning / presentation.

I am fully aware and agree that new clubs need to assure total grass coverage, but The Architect's Club needs to turn the water off and let the "firm and fast" conditions that so many of the designer honorees advocated come to the fore.

Ron W. and Stephen both understand the value of the ground game and how it should be integrated into any course. However, I am always worried because the "green is golden" mentality is a very strong one and much of the golfing public is really in the dark on these matters.

The tees need to be trimmed to avoid having visible footprints when you take your stance. Ditto the fairways which were soft and the putting greens need to be really rolled so that you can get a much truer indicator of the greens.

I spoke with the owners and with the superintendent and they agreed that firm and fast conditions were preferred. Only time will tell if this is eventually done.

I enjoyed the holes, especially the long par-4 9th (aka Donald Ross) at 447 yards. You mentioned the Travis hole and I also enjoyed that. The stretch from the 7th through the 17th is also quite good. I am especially happy to see counties such as Warren and Hunterdon be used for course development -- some of the most spectacular land is located in this part of Jersey.

The only real poor hole -- the 18th (aka Robert Trent Jones). It was deadly dull and a real bummer after such a build-up.

Ron indicated there wasn't any real alternative given the lack of land. I wonder if anything can be done?

P.S. Thanks for mentioning the qualities of Running Deer in South Jersey. It's a real honey! The Jersey Golfer will be running course reviews on both of these courses in our next issue along with several others. If you're interested I can send you a copy to your home address.

Thanks for mentioning the qualities of Lehigh CC. I'd like to see it this summer. Let me know what I should do. Talk soooooon . . .


Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2001, 10:53:00 AM »
Matt,
Since the course is brand new, let's give it some time and see how they maintain it.  It's hard to rate conditioning so soon don't you think but I very much agree with what you are saying.  

You have my card; call me about playing Lehigh and we'll set it up.  

Good to meet you.
Mark


Mike_Cirba

The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2001, 05:11:00 PM »
Moving this back up top for anyone who played today to post their thoughts.  (I'll be doing so tomorrow, as well)

It's particularly interesting to go back and re-read Mark & Matt's commentary here and I would only say right now that I am glad that Kay & Whitten (and the owners) decided to provide such a fun and novel concept that tries to pay proper tribute to the famous architects of the past.


Sandy_Barrens_Jr.

The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2001, 05:27:00 PM »
Mike, You are forbidden from entering any duneland for six months. It is your punishment. Take it like a man.

Mike_Cirba

The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2001, 05:45:00 PM »
Sandy Barrens,

I can tell you that I saw pretty fair facsimiles of the old white faces at Merion on the 3rd hole (Hugh Wilson), replete with love grass.

Now I ask you, Sandy.  Where else am I going to be able to see that kind of thing around here?  

Your buddies Thomas and Mackenzie were represented, as well.  

It's hardly an authentic purists feast for the senses, but the proper intent is evident.  


Paul Turner

The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #10 on: October 01, 2001, 02:48:00 PM »
I had a good time playing there yesterday with Mike C, Bill V, Rene V and GeoffreyC.

The course did, at times, feel like a collection of golf holes rather than a golf course.  But not always and there were plenty of interesting shots on offer.  

I haven't had a lot of exposure to the American architects but here's my take on some of the holes.

The 2nd (MacDonald (Short)) green contours were interesting with 3 separate regions.

3rd (H Wilson) snaked nicely through fairway bunkers.

4th (Emmet) attractive lofted approach.  Not sure of the effectiveness of the fairway bunker, it seemed too far out to be strategic.

5th (Travis) Nice fall-away ridge on the green, but this hole really does feel separate from the rest with its "chocolate drops".

6th (Colt/Alison) I've played loads of Colt par 3s and the heavy bunkering and steep "fall offs" were fairly consistent with what I've played.  But in my experience, Colt would have built a much smaller green for a realtively simple drop shot.

8th (Raynor), not a very interesting uphill 3.  The step contour was pretty basic.

9th (Ross) wildly contoured green.  We had a front right pin position which I think was almost impossible to hold with the long approach.  But the putting was certainly challenging.

10th (Thomas)pretty good hole where it was worth flirting with a huge fairway bunkers to get a better look down the green.

11th (Flynn) the "Shinnecock" bunkers are tempting the carry, with a ridge to push the drive even further if you hit a real big one.  Then an exciting downhill approach.

12th (Banks) it's pretty good hole, but we felt the bunkers weren't deep enough for old "steam shovel".  The yardage chart claims it's a Redan.  If it is, it's only a very loose interpretation.

13th (Mackenzie) this was quite fun.  But I didn't think the triple tiered green was Mack's style.

14th (Maxwell)fun run up approach, banking in from the left.  Why then, does the green tilt right to left?  

On a critical note, there's been a lot of earth moved, which is a bit smooth and rounded for my eye and there's generally too much rough around the greens, leaving little option but a lofted SW out.  

And the Christmas trees that line a few holes must go!

And also, I've got to say it, why 2 Ross holes?  A Fowler/Simpson or Park hole would have pleased this Brit.


Mike_Cirba

The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #11 on: October 01, 2001, 06:46:00 PM »
Paul,

So enjoyable to play with you yesterday!  At minimum, I got to see the holes played in a way that it was meant to be.  Thank God that golf lets the weaker player catch up with the long-hitter at some point!  

Ok...

The Architects Club...for a golf course architectural purist like myself, it was difficult not to go there with considerable expectations.  However, given that 99% (as Mark Fine might say) of golfers do not give a whit about architecture, it might be instructive to try to discuss this collection of styles as a golf course first.

The course starts straightforwardly and fairly simply.  The first six holes are all relatively short and the course definitely builds in challenge as one goes along.  

Despite the different design styles, it still all clings together through several incorporated elements that are consistent throughout.  They include;

1) Uniform lush green conditions
2) An attempt to isolate each hole from the others to a large extent through some fairly extensive earthmoving and general building of holes in the lower areas.
3) A focus on making the holes suggestive of differing design styles rather than an authentic attempt to capture the most severe and differentiating features of each architect.
4) A very good, contiguous piece of natural property that is generally unmarred by many of the negatives of modern golf (i.e. housing, long cart rides, focus on "signature holes"
5) A very walkable course with short green to tee walks

Generally, I think the place works pretty well as a "golf course", irrespective of the novel design intent.  If I didn't know or didn't care a thing about architecture, I would not find much incongruous or interruptingly spectacular.  The course has an nice flow to it, and it's more of a progressive challenge than a balanced one.

Now...onto the stuff that we care about.

First, the good points.  To a large extent, Kay and Whitten were able to capture the general "look" of each architect presented.  In and of itself, and as an exercise that intends to educate the golfing masses, that is a very good thing and they should be highly commended (as well as the owners).

Several holes stand not only as good representations of the architectural style, but also as very good holes in their own right.  The best among them include the Hugh Wilson (3), Walter Travis (5), Donald Ross (9) (the green is wonderful), William Flynn (11), Perry Maxwell (14), and Stanley Thompson (17).

For those reasons alone, it's definitely worth seeing for the fan of architecture.

However, despite the effort to capture the general look and playing characteristics of the architects honored, one inevitably feels disappointed in many respects.

The unfortunate tree-planting program has already been mentioned, but I think that the most uncharacteristic compromises to modern golf have already been made during the construction.  

One begins to sense the trouble at the "Macdonald" second hole, which is an uphill par three to a plateau green with some steep sidewalls to bunkering.  The problem is that the hole and green orientation is completely straightforward with no real strategy involved.  I have never seen a par three Macdonald green where the green wasn't on some sort of diagonal orientation, and to present such a straightforward hole as indicative of his style is inevitably a downer.

One sees the same type of thing on the Harry Colt 6th, which is a drop short par three to a large green.  Although the bunkering is fairly rugged, the target is much to big.

There are par threes by Macdonald, Raynor, and Banks and all of them are disappointing.  Raynor's in particular is a yawner that doesn't do him the slightest justice, playing uphill to a boring two-level green with no character whatsoever.

If the idea had been to showcase their par three style, a true redan, biarritz, short, or interesting variation of any of them would have been much more interesting.

Other holes suffer from the fact that there is almost no real strategy from the tee.  Two classic examples include the Thomas 10th, which tries to be a somewhat reverse image of the 10th at Riviera, yet is too long to accomplish the mission, not to mention that the orientation of the green is at the wrong angle to properly reward the bold drive.  The Mackenzie 13th, which emulates the green setting of Augusta's 13th, suffers from the fact the it is straightaway and only require a LONG drive to give a go at the green.  Otherwise, there is no safe or challenging play from the tee.  

But the biggest failing of the Architects Club is the lack of interesting green surrounds.  Not only is the thick rough a deterrent to attempting any shot but the boring "blast from rough", but the grassed areas around the greens are almost modern in style, with blase' slopes and generally flattish, benign greenpads.

It's as if the general look of the architects was emulated, but everything is just a little softer, a little rounder, a little tamer, a little less exacting, than what those architects actually created.

If anything, the Golden Age architects made their mark by using and creating BOLD features, usually at greenside, and within the surfaces themselves.  At the Architects Club, just when things should get really, really good, it all sort of breaks down.  

I understand that those are the type of compromises that need to be made given the public nature of the facility, but it was still a disappointment to think of how good it might have been if Whitten had his druthers.  

All in all, the Architects Club is a good golf course, based on a better idea.  It's a lot of fun to play, has some real good openness, nice mountain vistas, interesting architectural features that certainly attempt to be true to the honored designers, and presents a testing challenge, primarily due to the length (3653 yards) of the back nine.

However, I know I'd love to see Whitten someday get a freer hand to design some green complexes that are more in tune with the wild, creative men of the Golden Age.


Sandy_Barrens_Jr.

The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2001, 08:19:00 AM »
Mike-You actually were given a reprieve of three months total sentence until you submitted the last two paragraphs which ended up adding two more in addition to the original penalty.

Final Tally:
6 months original penalty
2 months added on for each paragraph
Total: 8 months of no dune walking.

You must also turn in your lob wedge to the court clerk at once.

Baliff, Next case please.


BillV

The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2001, 02:56:00 AM »
Hard to add much to my compatriots commets, but I'll try.

I think it is a wonderful place to bring your architectural ninconpoop friends (Which this group hardly has) and give them an idea that golf courses may have truly different styles as many of the architects represented are not well accessible to the public player. It makes it worth a detour to see before they plant more of those trees.  Paul summed it up, "And Christmas trees, bloody hell!" when I commented on the tree plantings when we all met near #8.

The conditions of the greens were some of the best I've seen on a new course recently, it was a pity that other than 4,9,17, and 16 the contours weren't terribly interesting nor bold.  Authenticity is another thing but I'll only comment that the 11th (Flynn) while a fair representation of strategy did in no way resemble a Flynn green to me.

I thought the Maxwell hole was the best one out there as it had a bold green, a fun fairway, representative appearance, a need to roll an approach in (484 into the wind Driver 2-iron!) and some strategy, but I think they reversed the green diagram during construction?.!

The MacKenzie hole was such a mishmash, being so straight and trying to combine elements of Augusta 12,13 and Pasatiempo 16 green.  There was a monster bunker right that I couldn't even scare with a well-struck tee shot and a dry stream with wide rough separating the narrow 3-level stairstep green which I found inspired by PT#16 but unlike anything I've ever seen except #O Lake #7 elongated about 4 times.  It was placed at a diagonal, however.

Biggest miss had to collectively be MacDonald, Raynor and Banks, the holy trinity who were misrepresented by three masquerading par 3's of little character or challenge.  Surely with all these fellows did, better representations could be created.

In short, I tried to fool the group into making lavish statements about great concepts, but none were buying it.  I had a good time, Renee had a good score and I think the best way to describe the course is The Architect's Golf Club Lite.  Really flattering to play, not much more than superficial architectural features and those bloody trees have got to go!!!!  

The site as it exists is a beautiful, voluptuous rolling piece of land that has plenty of separation for safety's sake and needs the tree planting as much as it needs a freeway through it.  It is really a great site, but the trees are an abomination.


Talking to self.....

The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #14 on: October 02, 2001, 03:00:00 AM »
But Bill, you forgot to add that they have to change the Hugh Wilson hole #3, as it is totally inaccurate with sprigs of love grass in the bunkers. (The hole is nearly a mirror image of the layout of Merion #2......at least visually.)!  

Associated Press Internat

The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2001, 04:40:00 AM »
This just in........

Bill Greenwood, Buddy Marucci and Tosh Belzinger are slated to make changes to the bunkering on the Hugh Wilson AND William Flynn holes At Architects Golf Club.

Plans are to also hang pictures of the three "architects" in the clubhouse when they are done.


Sandy Barrens

The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2001, 05:20:00 AM »
As Dr. Katz might say, balance is the key to life.  Any criticisms of TAC need to be balanced against the good intent of those involved, and I think I was fair.

Please don't call Maidstone and tell them I'm coming next week.  They're really out there on the end of the island and I'm hoping that word of your stringent punishment doesn't reach them in time.  


Mike_Cirba

The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2001, 05:22:00 AM »
ooops...the post above was written by me to Sandy.  Sorry bout that early morning confusion.

Sandy_Barrens_Jr.

The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2001, 05:46:00 PM »
Mike,
No need to make the trip up to Long Island. They won't let you on it. (Long Island itself.)

Mike_Cirba

The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2001, 06:09:00 PM »
Sandy,

Given my banishment, it seems the only logical place I could go during my exile is southern California.  

Ted Robinson, here I come!!


Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #20 on: June 30, 2014, 08:17:59 PM »
I played The Architects today for the first time in about 10 years and was really disappointed.  The course was very wet (after no rain) and played "soft and soggy".  Overall conditioning has suffered quite a bit - greens were moon-like and hundreds (thousands?) of unrepaired divots peppered the fairways.

It's a real shame, because the concept had real potential and I really liked it in the past.

If only the super would turn off the sprinklers and fill the divots...

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #21 on: June 30, 2014, 08:27:59 PM »
I played The Architects today for the first time in about 10 years and was really disappointed.  The course was very wet (after no rain) and played "soft and soggy".  Overall conditioning has suffered quite a bit - greens were moon-like and hundreds (thousands?) of unrepaired divots peppered the fairways.

It's a real shame, because the concept had real potential and I really liked it in the past.

If only the super would turn off the sprinklers and fill the divots...

If the super turned off the spigots, perhaps the divots wouldn't be so bad!
@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Steve Lapper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #22 on: July 01, 2014, 05:32:18 AM »
The course and club are now publicly offered for sale (was privately offered for the past 14mos).

I'd not at all be surprised if they had a new maintenance staff and/or program. It nearly always seems to be the case that ownership cuts back (FOOLISHLY!) the maintenance budget when profitability shrinks.

 :P :-\ :'(
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking."--John Kenneth Galbraith

Anthony_Nysse

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #23 on: July 01, 2014, 05:37:25 AM »
I played The Architects today for the first time in about 10 years and was really disappointed.  The course was very wet (after no rain) and played "soft and soggy".  Overall conditioning has suffered quite a bit - greens were moon-like and hundreds (thousands?) of unrepaired divots peppered the fairways.

It's a real shame, because the concept had real potential and I really liked it in the past.

If only the super would turn off the sprinklers and fill the divots...

If the super turned off the spigots, perhaps the divots wouldn't be so bad!

Always easy to blame the Superintendent. What I first read this updated thread, I assumed that money was tight because it's being offered For Sale. This made me assume they're not spending the money for handwatering, extra labor and/wetting agents. Im sure the instructions are to keep it green, keep the cash register open and not have employees into the overtime.
  When money is tight, "overwatering" is common because handwatering isn't an option.
Anthony J. Nysse
Director of Golf Courses & Grounds
Apogee Club
Hobe Sound, FL

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Architects Golf Club
« Reply #24 on: July 01, 2014, 08:31:59 AM »
I wonder how much Harkers Hollow competes for players?  It is right down the street and was private until a few years ago.  HH is a nice Robert White design.
@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back