Neal Meagher and I have just returned from Long Island after a rather intensive week long junket. It was fascinating to see things through the eyes of a lifelong designer who had never been to the headwaters of golf in America. For myself, it further clarified and reinforced most of my long held impressions.
Some loose thoughts:
Maidstone is astonishing in that every single element about the club and golf course seems to blend in perfectly with its surroundings. I am not one to put much stock in clubhouses, but rounding the corner and seeing it standing there so majestically flying its flags gave me chills. The golf course communicates a sense of rustic appeal with old world putting surfaces and quaint charm.
Superb collection of cape tee shots and a terrific set of par threes.
However, the club seems to maintain the course with an air of indifference, almost as if it is looked upon as just one more activity for the members to do when not laying on the beach or lunching on the veranda. Yes, it has an air of comfortable permanence, but that philosophy can be taken too far - in this case it appears to suffer from neglect.
Neal and I were a bit taken aback by the devolution of the bunkers particularly. Some are little more than grassy pits with a narrow strip of muddy sand running through them. The putting surfaces were in fine condition, but the otherwise complete absence of attention to details really detracts. In addition, the rough lines have wandered out into the fairways, invalidating some extremely well thought out bunkering schemes. It appears the Superintendent might be lacking direction.
Perhaps the membership do not know what they have, or maybe they just don’t care, but it would really only require a minimum of extra effort bring it back.
Easthampton plays like two courses. The front nine is routed beautifully with intricate twists and turns through thicket of trees. The interior contours on the putting surfaces are full of little humps, bumps and hollows, but I wonder how they will play when the members begin to demand modern greens speeds. Although visually arresting, the front is far too claustrophobic for my taste. The fairways are fairly narrow, and errant tee shots end up in knee high grasses. There is not the room for real width there, so the holes are not as strategic as most of C&C’s work.
The back (10-16) is routed through what I’m told was once a potato field. Here, the holes are more expansive and bear a strong resemblance in bunker shapes to Talking Stick North. The putting surfaces on this side of the property are wild, particularly the short par four 11th hole. The 17th is a medium length par four with what looks to be a modified Biarritz green, except here the deep swale is incorporated into the putting surface, similar to what Doak did at the Creek Club’s 11th hole.
Interesting and fun golf course, though its lack of cohesion keeps it from being one of their best efforts overall. We were told the membership fee is going to be 250 grand, but they are in a fight with the city and are operating out of a residence on the property.
Westhampton was a complete shock. IMHO, this should easily make the top 100 Classic list. We combed it for several hours with Mike Rewinski, and with two exceptions, his restorations and modifications are brilliant. He has a crystal clear grasp of the genre, and even though Brian Silva had a hand in a few things over there also, everything still hangs together beautifully. Neal had never seen a Punchbowl green and nearly swallowed his tongue at first glance. I am trying to recall another par-3 Punchbowl combination, but none come to mind.
Pretty decent Redan, but the Short hole has a prize winning green. Pat Mucci’s complaint that the tee should not have been extended on the Short is well founded. In a stiff wind, the green is segmented so may different ways that to get it close would require too much luck.
If you love Raynor as much as I do, this golf course will be fascinating. It has undergone some change, but with few exceptions, Seth would love what’s there now, and maybe that is all that matters. Westhampton is forgiving enough to play every day and never get tired, but has so many twists and quirks that it looks difficult to score on. A rock solid 7.5 in an awfully tough neighborhood.
We ended up playing Shinnecock twice, a rare treat indeed. I continue to be impressed at how classy and straightforward this course is. With few exceptions (#10 comes to mind), most of the longer holes invite the run-up shot. However, the golf course is all about angles, and if you manage to put your tee shot in the right spot, the next swing is relatively tension free. The green contours are not dramatic, but there seems to be a pronounced pitch on nearly every green. The golf course demands a full arsenal of shotmaking, and I suppose that is why Corey Pavin and Raymond Floyd took home the cup. By the way, Tempo Raymundo was beating balls on the range. It must be nice to live 5 minutes from site of your greatest triumph.
Joel Stewart is right, the condition of the course is perfect - maybe too much so. I had forgotten how similar Pinehurst is to Shinnecock in terms of greens falling away sharply at the fringes. But if forced to draw a comparison, this still looks, feels and plays like the Muirfield of America and there isn’t much more to say than that.
Atlantic, on the other hand, is a different world. Perhaps after Shinnecock there was no chance of impressing us, but I still wanted to keep an open mind and discover what is good about the golf course. Besides, our host is a wonderful man, one of only 150 family memberships. However, I’m sorry to report that Atlantic is only a fraction of what it could have been.
The mounding along the fairways is so forced, mechanical and artificial that it is literally jarring to the eye. The same problems endemic to Poppy Ridge and Lake Merced are also here - especially the green complex repetition.
Golf ought to be 18 different questions, not the same question 18 times. I personally do not have the solution to the 4 or 5-iron carry over bunkers to a rock hard green. Once or twice, fine, but browbeating golfers with the same shot 15 times (except for #11, 12 and 18) gets tiresome and aggravating. The course is a chore to play.
Plus, it is obvious that the owner was wedded to more traditional American style pacing because the overall routing of the course is really confusing - nothing flows and nothing fits. I’ve been told they changed the sequence of holes several times and that is like going back and trying to save a bad movie with a recut.
For the most part, the fairways are flat runways between sculpted containment mounds until #17. Then all of a sudden it looks like they had an epiphany and installed these interesting humps and bumps in the landing area. Yeech, I cannot see how that golf course won Best New in 1992, because the GD guys I know have far better taste than that.
To make matters worse, there is actually a painting of Rees Jones above the clubhouse fireplace like he’s a modern Charles Blair Macdonald. . . . Neal and I nearly retched.
In contrast, NGLA still occupies its own category. Even after rewriting and editing thousands of words devoted to hole-by-hole analysis, there are still dozens of things that I had not noticed or was too dim to grasp.
We were fortunate to have the course all to ourselves for two afternoons after the Singles matches had cleared the course, and it was important for Neal to get a close look at everything with a sketch pad in his hand instead of a golf club. I think he found religion. I was able to shoot several rolls of B&W, the best of which will go on the wall of my office.
It was a treat to finally meet the famous Tom “TE” Paul - though a bit shocking. In contrast to Patrick Mucci, Tom strikes me as nothing like his posts. Somehow I expected a serious and measured man with a severe, no-nonsense demeanor. His posts are normally so comprehensive and crisp that to meet this thoroughly disarming man with a ready smile and ultra friendly face is a lesson in how silly it is to form a vision of someone before you meet them. His observations driving around the course with us were quite insightful. It is still impossible for me to believe he has only been interested in architecture for four years.
Karl Olson was enormously helpful and sat with us for several hours, explaining in detail what he had done over the years to restore the golf course as close as possible to 1929. He is considering restoration of the 8th tee to the left of #7 green to make the line of play closer to Macdonald’s intention.
Also, he discussed the possibility rebuilding a tee directly behind the 11th to set up the carry over the crossing bunkers. He is correct that to go all the way to the left would be a safety hazard with the 7th fairway, but directly behind the Double-Plateau might work. I took some photos of it from that angle and it looks tremendous. It has always been my impression that the hole doesn’t make sense with the tee all the way to the right.
Additionally, George (Bahto) is certain that the 12th green used to have a horseshoe type feature running through the middle. Whether Macdonald filled it in or not, he would know better than me.
Karl ended up joining us Monday morning for 9 holes before going to Bethpage, and to be honest, just the three of us out there on a perfect morning, absolutely alone beneath the windmill might be the best moment golf has to offer.
We wandered into the library afterwards, which everyone who loves this game ought to do once.
The problem with National Golf Links is that it always makes me feel so small and insignificant. Perhaps it is a hallucination, but I have always carried the arrogant belief that given the right piece of land I could design a Shinnecock Hills.
No chance at National though, zero. After all these years, I have still not fully absorbed all the lessons Macdonald left behind. And the difference between understanding great art like that and actually creating it is beyond my wildest dreams or comprehension.
So there I am in the library with his statue, like the ape standing before the monolith. I laid my hands on it hoping for some kind of spiritual epiphany . . . . I feel like an idiot when my eyes get moist every time I look at that statue.
Neal sometimes gently reminds me that golf courses are really just sculpted dirt with grass and sand over them . . . . I guess it comes down to whether you believe in ghosts.
George Bahto’s Stonebridge was next, and the next time I hear an architect say “If we built that today, everyone would hate it” needs to be dragged by the ear to see what this man has done.
We were flabbergasted. Several of the greens shocked us into silence. I guess when you get to a certain age and don’t care what anyone thinks, you design Stonebridge.
Even stuck with an odd routing and houses that encroach on the fairways, the green complexes are spectacular and beautifully conceived. There is an Alps, Cape, Redan, Principal’s Nose . . . . just so far beyond gutsy that he might be the only person in America with juevos big enough to do that.
I finally met Patrick Mucci next, who looks, talks, acts and sounds exactly as he writes. We closely examined some aerials and then played Garden City. My contrarian nature does not make it easy for me to agree with somebody about everything, but in the case of Garden City, I do.
If that club was smart, he would be installed as dictator and Green Chairman for life. Patrick thinks very deeply about golf and articulates it in complete paragraphs. Ask a question and you will get a fully reasoned answer.
Once installed he could begin by fixing the 12th hole, the course of so much discussion here in the Treehouse. There is absolutely no reason why it ought not be restored exactly as it appeared. The aerials and photos are crystal clear. The only excuse would be a membership or architect lacking the courage to do it.
The guy in charge of restoration at garden City is no chicken, he was crazy enough to design a links course with back-to-back par 3's on #10 and #11 and only build two par fours on the whole back nine. . . . .right Tom?
I was also intrigued by Patrick’s idea of restoring the 7th fairway to the right side, moving the fairway out to the strip bunker now hidden in the weeds. The basic strategic arrangement of the hole would make more sense than it does now, especially if the cross bunker was put back exactly as Mr. Travis designed it.
There is also the matter of rough lines, which ought to be the subject of a thread by itself. We went through some modifications at Olympic, and the results are superb. It would not take anything but a mower to redraw the rough lines on the golf course to bring more bunkers into play - plus the 9th green could be re-extended to the back right side. The hump in the back follows all the way off the green to the right hand bunker so obviously, that it seems inconceivable it was not originally part of the green.
If everyone hates it, the grass will grow back. But if everyone loves it, it will be an improvement that costs nothing.
As for me, I am putting the clubs in the closet for a while. My trembling hands have finally got me so self-conscious I look like a Parkinson’s patient. Funny thing though, the flat stick is still pretty solid.
If nothing else, I have reached my lifelong ambition to write one post longer than Tom Paul.