[Mark_Fine]

He's the architect who designed Running Deer Golf Club in Southern NJ and it's a gem!  Expected to find a course designed by an "Ed Carman" but instead I found one of the coolest new designs I've seen in some time.  This guy has some great vision and immagination.  I don't get wowed very easily anymore and there were holes there that wowed me.  Don't get me wrong, it's not perfect (#9 for example needs work) and there might be a few too many bunkers but this is a course with potential.  I don't have time to post more now but if you have the opportunity to play Running Deer, do it.  You will not be disappointed.  
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark;

Ed Carman designed and built Centerton Golf Club in 1962, and owned and operated the course for a number of years.

It is quite good, with some really cool short par fours and some solid finishing holes.

A few years ago, he decided that a private club with an emphasis on fast play might be needed in the market, hence the name "Running Deer".  Apparently, one of the criteria for membership approval is the ability to play within something like 3.5 hours.

All Hail!!!!!  

I know that Tom Paul was down there and commented favorably on the very wild green complexes.  Another friend of mine played there and enjoyed it considerably.

I'll make a point to add it to my "must-play" list.  Thanks for bringing it to light.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Oh, he is an architect, Here I thought he might be another Golf Digest Panelist.

[Mark_Fine]

You need to play it Mike.  There is more than just good green complexes there.

Tommy,
These days it's about 50/50 whether someone is a GD panelist or not    Believe it or not there are probably only 200 or so that play more than 5 different courses a year (so I am told).  

[fred ruttenberg]

I am a member and if anyone needs an introduction to play let me know.  Ruttenberg@blankrome.com

[Mark_Fine]

Fred you have a gem there.  It's a course that would be great fun to play on a regular basis.  The only hole I have to really question is #9.  I couldn't figure out what Ed was after on that one other than to force every golfer regardless of ability to layup and play a wedge shot for their third.  Get rid of those trees on the front right side of the approach to the green and you improve the hole significantly.  I have issues with the waste area as well but removing a few of the trees would be an easy start.  What are your thoughts?
Mark

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Is #9 the par 5 that has the guarded carry right up to the green and the fairway extending past the green on the left?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Yes.  You are limited what you can hit off the tee (even from the tips) unless you try to cut something to the right (the fairway wraps around a large waste area).  But there is little reason to go right because you have to lay up on your next shot regardless how far you hit it.  Trees screen the green on the right jutting well out to the right edge of the fairway and the green is tucked behind with deep bunkers and hollows guarding the approach.  The fairway runs up pretty far up on the left giving the layup shot some buffer room so the golfer can make sure the trees don't come into play.  It's a forced threeshotter but at only 500 yards from the tips (461 yards from where most golfers will play it), you have to question the logic?

With some changes, it has the potential to be a great risk/reward closing hole for the front nine!  Would love to talk to Ed about it!

Mark

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Ed's son (the pro) spent a bit of time explaining the thinking on #9 to me but I guess I'm getting older and losing my mind because I really don't remember exactly what he said now.

I never did take my committee foursome down to play the course (because it wasn't open) but plan to schedule that anytime now, so I will look closely at that.

If there is no way to get a shot into that green in two shots I guess you really do have to question the conceptual logic of the hole to some degree.

That kind of concept is one that GeoffShac and I have talked about a little. Way back he mentioned that Coore & Crenshaw were interested in the shortish par 5 that put severe demands on a good player to hit the green in two and that they were looking and  researching for something that did that successfully to maybe copy or conceptually copy. I got the feeling that they were interested in the concept because it was very rare (or maybe even nonexistent) and as such obviously very challenging to design. In my opinion, #17 Easthampton is actually a successful and brilliant example of this (but using a much different feature concept-not trees).

I really think that to do something like that successfully a designer has to PRESERVE some kind of TEMPTATION for the golfer to hit it in two no matter how heroic it might be. Obviously to block the temptation with trees you can't get over or around is not the way to do it!

What you're saying is #9 Running Deer has to be played in three shots. If that is so then the hole probably will become one dimensional and lose a great "GO" option (with the green guarded in front by hazard).  

I'm also interested in this concept (shortish go/no go par 5) but from an historical perspective. I'm completely convinced that Perry Maxwell was "conceptually" copying ANGC's #13 when he redesigned our #7 hole. So as not to blatantly copy ANGC he threw his own little wrinkle into the hole which was to design a very small green right next to a quarry (Rae's Creek) and heavilly bunker all around the green.

The concept was simply to put severe demand on the good player to hit the green in two even if he was inside 200yds. But the demand apparently was TOO great and consequently the "GO" temptation was almost totally lost and good players simply played wide of the green to the right. Because of this one dimensional playability and frustration the hole was never popular with the members and eventually the club redesigned Maxwell's green slightly and even grew trees in the quarry that makes the hole at present even more one dimensional.

Being almost 100% convinced of what Maxwell was trying to do and why he threw in his own little wrinkle (so as not to blatantly copy ANGC's #13), we are now going to take the trees out of the quarry, expand Maxwell's original green space down nearer the quarry and give the green basically the same orientation and playability of ANGC's #13 (a fading orientation from a fairway approach lie that is hooking!!)

All this is really neat conceptual and historical stuff but the point of this story is that Maxwell was trying for a very neat concept and for whatever his reasons (his own green-end wrinkle) he did not pull off the redesign successfully because his tempting "GO" option did not have the proper amount of temptation so the option didn't really work or function and the hole lost it's interest and function.

If there is little or no way to hit #9 Running Deer in two shots it will probably suffer the same fate.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I'll be anxious to hear your's and others comments on the hole after playing it.  I played it from the tips and hit driver into the waste area (about 275 give or take from the back tee).  I was lucky to be able to get a club on the ball and hit a very good recovery 5I to the lay up area and then wedged onto the green.  

Though there are several, the biggest issue I have with the hole are the trees near the green that essentially block any chance of hitting the green in two shots from any angle or distance that you hit your tee shot.  The green is tucked in behind them.  If you remove the some of the trees, the hole would be improved significantly.  It would give the daring player the option to get as close as possible to the left side of the fairway (short of the waste area) and hit a long high fade about 240 onto the putting surface.  It's risky going left because it makes your second more difficult if you feel you can't reach the green in two.  You'd have to carry all of the waste area on your 2nd shot and probably play a bit of a draw.  And note, the waste area is not just sand.  It has all kinds of vegatation and you don't want to be there.  

Again, right now the hole is similar to #7 at Pine Valley except it is only 500 yards and has fairway wrapping around the right side of the waste area.  I smart player even playing from the shorter tees would not attempt to use much of that fairway as there is little advantage.  It just brings the waste area and more trees into play.  Best to just lay back off the tee.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Moving this one up too.  Three regular contributors on this board recently played here, so it might be interesting to discuss.

There is a LOT going on here...post more tomorrow.

The word that comes to mind...stolen from GeoffreyC...is BOLD.

[redanman/BillV]

The original question asks "Who is Ed Carmen?"  He is the inventor of the large plastic dimpled golf ball yardage markers in red, white and blue at 100, 150 and 200 yards respectively.  They are prominently featured at Running Deer.  They did aid in the playing of this course.  It is the ultimate homer's course as there is
s so much local knowledge that a visitor cannot possibly play to his handicap (But I did-78 from a combo of Tips and back teees, appx 7050 yds.  A few birdies seen including #13.)

An interesting golf course to use that word in its most current use of almost a left-handed compliment.  I have rarely if ever seen so many features on a golf course.  How well they mesh, potentiate, just go together or clash is the centre of the discussion. Virtually every green is partially to nearly wholly obscured from view by scottis style mounds, every green  seems wild for wildness sake.  There are more trees inside the bunker lines on this course than on almost all mismanaged Donald Ross Gems together.

1-makes you hope that the course is as good as Tobacco Road which this hole is reminiscent of.

2-Tobacco Road comparison still holds for a while.  Odd combination of features.  second presentation of the oddly recurring feature of a paired mound and tree in or near the ideal tee shot placement.

3-Scotland Run's contribution to the course. Paired tree and mound to the right.  Fairway which half of which is dead flat and half severely slopes to cattails and wetlands.

4-An odd par 5 with a very demanding tee shot for maximum distance and absolutely no strategy    or penalty to the second shot.  See green description above.

5-Short iron par 3 to a large wild green fronted by wetlands.

6-Fairly conventional hole with recurrent paired mound and orphan tree.  See green description above.

7-Unimaginative very wide green fronted by an unsightly pit with wetland characteristics.  Good "shot values" due to shallowness of green relatively.  No paired tree/mound feature.

8-Fairly conventional mid length par 4.  See green description above.

9-An awful hole.  There is a huge mounded waste area in hte center of the 3-wood landing area for me from the "Tips" tee.  The fairway skirts this in the shape of a question mark (Was Des here?) then taking off at a 135* angle to the left 75+ yards past the middle of the green, direct approach being blocked by 50 ft tall trees.  My par came from Driver into the shit, 7-iron, gap wedge, 2-putt.  See main green description.

10-Imagine Augusta National bunkering with about 8-10 trees on the right side of the fairway direct approach to the green.  "Kick a field goal".  The contours of this green were different.  Not a bad hole, jsut strange.

11- Stupid.  This word was uttered from my lips more times than I can say.  390ish par 4 90* dog leg left (Not originally apparent (More confusing bunkering tha #16 Colleton River-Nicklaus.) If you try to carry the corner left bunker and the trees there, you may hit the blindwater hazard.  I elected to hit a 3-iron into the middle of teh fairway bunkered area and hit a 7-iron to a few feet, don't remember if I made the putt as I was trying to figger the hole out.

12-Odd dog-leg R that i played from the LONG WET tees.  50 ft tall trees on a peninsula beg you to carry them to reach the 150 marker on this ?470 hole to have a good angle.  Entire fairway was a mirror image "?" with half flat and half sloping strongly to the blind water hazard over the aforementioned trees.  There is no line of charm approach angle to this green of the aforementioned description.  

Break for lunch

[post prandial BV]

12-Another hole that made me utter "Stupid" as there was little or no logic involved in the profusion of features.

13- A demanding long par 3 up to 250+ with a heavily sloped well mounded and large front left bunker.  3-wood to 4 feet helps.  There are several spots I can anticipate a golfer putting off this green.  THe fact that I made birdie did not influence me in my opinion.  Relatively conventional bold hole.  

14-A really odd par 5, I hit my driver right near another paired tree and mound, I hit a very low running 2 or 3-iron to a spot where i had to duck hook a 7-iron to the green.  Bunkers off the tee are probably unreachable and trees on the left are probably not drive-past-able.  See typical green description.  Thehole takes a bit of sharp angle left, but you can't drive it far enough off the tee in many instances.  Confusing straegy.

15-Straightaway 360-390? par 4 with the best green on the course.  No run-up available here as there is to a small portion of many greens, but an oblique ridge across the back is really clever. MOst inspiring hole on the course?

16-Conventional par 3 5-iron or so, two Mae West front mound/bunkers funnel shots, a green that has contours that make sense (Will filter shots, not a common theme).  HTe conventionality of the hole was startling to me.

17-Half and half fairway feature again with sign on tee telling you of a 350 yard long water hazard the left side.  Mound and solo tree on... you get it, mound surrunded green, 3/4 or more blind.  Only visibility is from right side.

18-Even Mark Fine didn't like this 480 yard par 4 with no place to hit the tee shot to approach the green you can't see until 100 yards out.  Bunkers and trees inside the line, all the rest.

I admire the effort made on this course, the profusion of features, the break the mold, think out-of-the-box mentality, but sometimes they just don't go together at all.  It is like a dissonant modern JAzz piece, but I don't think it is that sophisticated.

I played by myself, had the place to myself once I played through a group on 7, played carrying my own bag, looked at all the features, re-looked and turned down an invitation to join MC and GC yesterday because I felt that I didn't miss much.

Kudos to the effort.  There are several fairly conventional holes, several that made me utter stupid aloud to myself and double and triple penalties that are jsut not acceptable to me and my way of thinking.  I look at a course to think how players of all abilities would play it and there are not a lot of fun holes there unless you just want to get to the green and putt roller coasters.

I liked 1,2,3,5+/-,16

I abhored 9,11,12 and 18

I generally disliked 10,14 and 17.

Very varied opinions of the same golf course.  There is a feeling of a collection of holes and of features.

Sorry that I didn't like it better, I just didn't.  I really tried and really, really looked and looked and looked.

I played it a couple of weeks ago and really thought about it.  I liked Tobacco Road, which it first reminded me of,  a whole lot better as it has a theme, an execution, a mission and a certain level of success as an entity, no matter what criticism you lay at its feet.

BOLD Running Deer is.  It needs some work in its present form, though.  It strikes me a bit disjointed and full of features for their own sake.

"There are just too many notes, Herr Mozart."  -The Emporer in Amadeus

[Matt_Ward]

BillV:

Your assessment of Running Deer is quiye harsh and I dare say a bit unfair.

The 9th clearly has issues in the drive zone but given what Ed Carman did on a number of holes, especially the stretch from #11 thru #13 (holes you didn't find appealing), I think the course is clearly a major effort of accomplishment and would give it a 7 on the Doak scale.

I will be posting more comments to the holes you described later today.

Incidentally, what number on the Doak scale would you give Running Deer?

Don't know if you've played other South Jersey notable courses but would like your Doak number of the following if you've played them:

Twisted Dune
ACCC
Scotland Run
Galloway National
Marriott Seaview / Pines
*and any other South Jersey layout you wish to include.

[Mark_Fine]

Bill and I differ in our view of this one but hey you can't agree on everything.  I think this is a very good golf course.  I'd play it again in a heartbeat.  As I've said above, there is some really neat stuff going on here.  
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

This weekend was a long one, so I'll keep this short and post more tomorrow...

My Doak Scale rating is a 6, but it's tough to rate a course where some holes are an 8 or 9 and others are a 0-2.  

I will say this, however...give me a chainsaw and I'll make it a solid 7.  

[GeoffreyC]

I'm way too tired to go into any detail today but I will also post more tomorrow if time allows at work.

I started out really liking the first three holes at Running Deer very much.  While there is some additional very good stuff there (5, 12, 15), there are some really stupid (sorry can't think of a more appropriate word) holes as well.  The worst set of par 5's on any course I can remember. Many greens are just wild for the sake of being wild without any connection to the strategy of the holes.

I would give the course a 4 1/2.  With a chainsaw it would go up but there are more problems then just trees inside the bunker lines. I'm glad I traveled 2 1/2 hours to see it.  It was real fun at times.  It had me shaking my head other times. I recommend others go to play there and see for themselves.

Doak scale

4- a modestly interesting course with a couple of distinctive holes among the 18 etc. etc. - RD certainly fits here.

5- Well above average course, but the middle of my scale. A good course to choose if your in the vacinity and looking for a game, but don't spend another day away from home  just to see it, unless your in Alaska. RD is NOT above average in my humble opinion.

6- A very good course definately worth a game if your in town, but not necessarily worth a special trip to see it. It shouldn't disappoint you.  RD does not fit this category IMHO.

[Mike_Cirba]

Geoffrey,

Glad we were able to get together yesterday to play Running Deer.  

We agree so often that it's almost fun to disagree.  

But, don't you sort of contradict yourself in first recommending that others get out to see it and then citing the Doak scale definition of a "6"?  

You were right on the money with your comment to me that some holes are an 8 and others are a 2.  I had to steal it!

It's also difficult to rate a course where there is SOOOOOOOO MUCH going on, and everyone seems to agree that it's very, very bold.

Another comment of yours that I thought was extremely accurate is the course is very "Stranzian".  In a world of boring, vanilla courses, is it any wonder that something like Running Deer generates such reaction and debate?  

For my taste, it gets a point just for having some balls to create an imaginative course.  It gets another for the rough, wild, untamed, "look", and chaotic features that sometimes leave one scratching their head, sometimes looking on in apt admiration, but never leave one bored or apathetic.

[Matt_Ward]

It's amazing that so many people have SO much of a difference of an opinion relating to Running Deer. Guess that will give us plenty of talk about this week.

I give plenty of credit to Ed Carman in designing a course that as Mike Cirba has described accurately as BOLD!

Are there holes that presently don't work. Yes, there are. I think all of the par-5's are a bit weak and the 9th does need some changes in the driving zone.

But, as a low handicap golfer and someone who hits the ball above average in terms of total length I found Running Deer to be the kind of course that keeps me in check unless I hit the right combination of length and distance. Too many new designs today don't possess that quality.

Keep in mind fellas -- Running Deer is on dead flat land. Very few courses in South Jersey have any real movement with the land (exceptions being PV, Pine Hill, etc) and as a result are a real yawn to play. Running Deer has plenty of movement and for those who complain about the trees I hasten to add gentlemen you are in close proximity to the Jersey Pinelands. Stop the whining -- what do you expect from South Jersey the clear expanse of The Old Course???

When I hear negative comments concerning holes #10 thru #13 I begin to wonder what course people were playing. With the exception of the holes I mentioned I found Running Deer does reward well played shots and does penalize according to the proportion of the miss.

Can people provide a Doak scale number on other South Jersey courses they have played. I don't need numbers on Pine Valley -- that's too easy. Give me a few numbers on recent openings if at all possible. I want to see if people are consistent in their analysis when applied to other courses from the same geographic area.

I see Running Deer as a 7 and I guess my numbers seem high compared to others. I see Running Deer as a different type of course that isn't loaded with all the tried and true formulas that can be some tiring and predictable. Does everything at Running Deer work? No. But, please GeoffreyC give me a break. A 4 rating??? I think too many people may be looking at Running Deer and comparing it to classic designed courses. Gentlemen -- I hope the portofilio of those who rank Running Deer so low isn't solely comprised of rounds played only at Merion, Phillie Cricket and all those Bucks County classics.

[BillV]

As per the descriptions Geoffrey listed above it is between a 4 and a 5.

Deny the existance of the features I listed above and my objections listed, Matt.  Sorry I won't get to play with you this week at LCC, but I am going to Indiana if I have to drive as we attack Afghanistan.

This is a course by an amateur architect where one might say "I could do better", but I am not going to do so because I can't design a thing and am not that stupid to fall into that trap.

There are bold intriguing novel features, but it reminds me of the high school senior who goes to buy clothing for an interview and buys a beautiful, boldly striped suit, a boldly checked tattersall shirt of 400 thread per inch fine Italian looming,  and a bold Hermes tie, all of which separately are fine, fine pieces of clothing and go together, like, not at all.  And he wears old sneakers, or at least the wrong color shoes.

Golf courses are more than collections of features, no matter what else there is in south Jersey.  THAT, Matt, is arrelevant to this discussion.

[GeoffreyC]

Mike - I'm not sure we disagree very much based on our conversations Saturday.  You decided to give a couple of brownie points for effort and I didn't this time.

A Doak 6 expects "It shouldn't disappoint you". RD did in too many instances. Even a 5 expects an above average course.  There are so many good new courses around that some have to be BELOW average.  Too much needs to be corrected at RD.  Not to say it can't be done but I'll wait until it is.  If the whole course were filled with holes like 1, 2, 3, 15 it would be a solid 7 or more. The Doak scale is not very forgiving as are some of the numbers handed out to magazine audiences where the aim is different.

Matt- Which do you rate higher, Hamilton Farm or Running Deer. I give HF a 6.  A very good course worth a visit.  Did not disappoint.  Ballyowen, a 5 1/2. Very good course with 4 repetitive par 3's. Ocean Forest, a 7. Wonderful golf course.  No way RD is on the same log scale as OF. Sorry but we disagree.

Bill gives a perfect analogy of some of the features that don't meld in together just above this post.

[Mark_Fine]

Wow, what differences of opinion.  Great example of why there is no such thing as "the right Top 100 list" and never will be.  

But a 4 or 5???  Give me a break guys.  What course did you play?  I think some of us are forgeting that some of the best courses of all time were done by amateurs or first time architects.  I'm afraid this might be an example of where "who designed it" influenced "how good it could possibly be"??  

This guy has some vision and you could see it and feel it in many of the holes.  Wild for the sake of wild??  Sounds like something people say about Tom Doak's green complexes and it doesn't seem to hurt him??

Let's put it another way, there is as at least as much questionable stuff going on at Inniscrone.  Running Deer sits on a far better site.  

I just wonder if Gil Hanse did RD would the feelings would be a little different.  I can almost guarantee you they would be.

This course is easily a 6-7 in my book.
Mark

[BillV]

Mark

Go check out Applebrook for Gil on a flat site.  

We indeed played the same course.  I was perhaps less impressed with my 78?  

Running Deer is solidly between 4 and 5 on Doak's scale in its present state.  That doesn't mean it can't get better.

Re-read my clothing analogy, please and thank you.

[GeoffreyC]

Mark- please don't imply that I'm wrong because I disagree with your assessment of Running Deer. We simply disagree.  I actually had a very good time and enjoyed much of the course.

Inniscrone has in my opinion 3 weak features. The 5th, the back tee on 8 and 10. Perhaps the tee shot on 18 if the wind is blowing in.  The rest melds in fantastically well. Its apples and oranges trying to compare the two.

Some specifics. I'd guess at least half of the greens have areas where you need a wedge to get from one spot to another.  This should not be a recurrant theme. THe best green on the course I think is 15.  THat on is like a stretched out short hole geeen.  The horseshoe extends for over half the green with an upper shelf wrapping around the back. Even some of the "normal" greens have funky features.  THe 16th has a little collection area back right that runs balls off the green.  Normally you might see a chipping area with a drain at the bottom.  Here you have a TREE where the drain would be.  You could be 18 feet FROM THE HOLE while totally unplayable against the trunk of a tree.

As discussed by Bill as well, the 5's need a lot of work.  On 9 both Mike and I manage to hit the "fairway" between the waste area and the right treeline.  It was 14 paces wide.  We had about 190 into the pin with a forest between us and the hole and an awkward angle to lay up left. SOme reward for going at a narrow area!  Similar forest between drive and green on 14 as well.

The area between the bunkers on 18 was 12 paces wide where it turned to the right. I would cut down all the trees right of the bunker and make a split fairway on 18 with some reward for threading a tee shot to the preferred right side. That might make some sense.  There are too many places where there is simply no place to drive the ball.  It's a good second shot (to 4 pars)course if you could drop the ball down in some landing areas that are awkward to find.

I'll go on if you wish but that's enough for me to mark it down. Running Deer was a thrill seekers delight but not something I want a regular dose of. I'd love to see a skins game there!

[GeoffreyC]

Matt

On a magazine scale I would give Running Deer a 7 as well.  I think everyone should go out and see it.  As Mike Cirba stated "In a world of boring, vanilla courses, is it any wonder that something like Running Deer generates such reaction and debate?" Let people see some of the possibilities.

The Doak scale, however, is very specific.  I don't have my CG here so perhaps someone could quote what a Doak 7 is and then we can talk about it from there.  I gave the 4,5 and 6 definitions above.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()