Pls help me understand

[Doug Siebert]

2) They believe that routing that forces you to walk or ride uphill for the next tee shot is poor routing

OK, on the too-few Ross courses I've played the more or less cliche layout is downhill tee shot and then back uphill to the green. Given a hilly piece of property, in what order are the following uses of the hills considered desirable:

1) Downhill tee shot, uphill approach
2) Uphill tee shot to a ridge, downhill approach
3) Play one hole along the ridge line and another along the valley
4) Play holes along the sideslopes
5) Cut diagonally with shots being neither up/down or along a ridge/valley

Second question. If you want a downhill tee shot for whatever reason, is it better to have the player play back up the hill to get to the green versus staying low for the green and then walking/carting uphill to the next tee?

Brent,

I'm surprised no one took a stab at this question.  It might be worth posting as a separate thread.  But I'll take a shot at it from my perspective.

The answer is "all of the above"...  The problem isn't so much that one of those options is better or worse than the other, it is that doing the same thing over and over again is bad.  Variety is the spice of life.

As a card carrying cart-hating walker, however, I don't buy the argument that the "uphill walk to the next tee" is an especially poor choice.  The hill is there, I'm going to have to go up it, it doesn't really matter to me at what point during the hole or after the hole I'm going up, I'm still going up.  While I'm still in pretty good shape and carry my bag up to the tee anyway, one advantage of the walk up to the tee is that you often have the option of leaving your bag at the bottom and just carrying your driver or a handful of irons up there.  It is much less often that you have the option of carrying just your putter up the hill to a green, because the next tee is rarely in a location that will allow that (though I sometimes see people leave their bag on the edge of the next fairway and bring their putter and their driver up)

I will admit I'm not particularly fond of a routing that sort of slinks sideways on a hill so that you have to walk up to a par 3 tee, play a dropshot par 3, and then walk back up that hill again for a dropshot tee shot on a par 4 or 5.  Too many architects are in love with the dropshot par 3s that they'll go out of their way in the routing to accomodate it.  I think that's what people were calling Fazio on for doing on Pine Hill.  Haven't seen it, so I can't speak to that.  I see far worse offenses in the drop shot category from the lesser names than I do from any of the big name architects.  It is not unusual in a resort type course to play four or five par 3s, ALL drop shots!  Now THAT really pisses me, and walkability has nothing to do with it!

[Mike_Cirba]

Hamilton;

Here's the downhill 12th.  Please note the cart route.

[SPDB]

Also, Ted, What happen to the joint venture btw Empire Golf and 1492 (Davis Sezna's group)?

[Ted Kramer]

Ted;

The holes I had in mind were 12 & 13, my bad.  

12 is a downhill par four, with a sharply falling, almost drop-shot approach.  

Doesn't the next hole drive you 200 yards right back up the same hill to provide the view of the Philly skyline?

I thought the green at 13, benched back against the slope, was pretty tame and it was generally a de rigeur downhill par three with a beautiful view.  A few holes later isn't there another dropshot par three, perhaps 16?

Ok 12 and 13 . . .

#12  - Par 4 which is level for the first 240 or so from the blue tees. The aproach is severely downhill. If you drive it too far you play from a downhill lie, from the short right of the landing area you can't see the green. The left side, which is guarded by a diagonal cross bunker which is angled from front right to back left, is the ideal landing area. This hole requires thought and careful placement of the tee shot if a good look at the green is to be had. I think it is an excellent hole.

From 12 green you now must walk about 80 yards up a pretty steep hill to the 13th tee, not so much fun. . . .

From here you have a great view of Philly, and yes, you did have to walk up the hill to see it, but you didn't have the same view on 12. Its not 2 in a row at all.

#13 -  #13 - Shortish par 3, green sloping from back to front almost enough to call it two seperate tiers, very tricky green built into a hill, tough to tell which way the ball will break in some sections, there are places where you would swear it goes one way and then it goes the other, tough to hold the ball on the front of the green making front pins tough, great par 3. In response to your post, it is not much of a downhill shot, its pretty level, maybe a bit down hill. The 16th is VERY downhill, drop shot style.

-Ted

[Ted Kramer]

Hamilton;

Here's the downhill 12th.  Please note the cart route.

Notice how the cart path veers sharply to the riders left after turning around . . .it is that angle that gets you up the hill with the view of Philly . . .you don't see the sky line on 12. Those two hole definitely go up down and then back up again, but the 13th doesn't go back down the hill, it plays pretty level. You walk down the hill after 13 green to play the par 5 14th.

I have some pics of the course on my PC.
If any of you guys can host them I'd be happy to share them.
I didn't take the pics and they don't really address these issues, but if you'd like to see the pics just tell me where to send them.

Thanks,
Ted

[Mike_Cirba]

Ted;

I could have sworn we saw the skyline from 12, but you'd know better than me.  I'm not sure that invalidates my contention that the routing was more concerned about the view from the next tee and the skyline than about playability, walkability, and intimacy of routing issues, and takes you right back up the same hill you just played down to accomplish it.

Also, does the golfer really have much of a choice on the 12th on the tee shot?  I mean, it seems that the left center (and not too long) is the only play....the right side is blocked out by trees.  

Then, since he forced you left, the approach has to confront and carry the front left bunker, correct?  What are the strategic choices?

[Ted Kramer]

Ted;

I could have sworn we saw the skyline from 12, but you'd know better than me.  I'm not sure that invalidates my contention that the routing was more concerned about the view from the next tee and the skyline than about playability, walkability, and intimacy of routing issues, and takes you right back up the same hill you just played down to accomplish it.

Also, does the golfer really have much of a choice on the 12th on the tee shot?  I mean, it seems that the left center (and not too long) is the only play....the right side is blocked out by trees.  

Then, since he forced you left, the approach has to confront and carry the front left bunker, correct?  What are the strategic choices?

Great question.
Right is definitely no good. So you really are forced left.
How far should you hit your drive?
Length is the big gamble here.
You can hit it far enough (270) to have a very nice level lie, however anything in the 235-260 range leaves that downhill lie. Anything short of that area does afford a level lie, but a considerably longer approach.

Now for the front left bunker . . .
From the preffered left side that bunker really isn't in the line of an approach to a hole cut from the middle of the green to the far right. Now a shot to a back left hole loctation is a different story. . .Is your strategy going to be to contend with the bunker in an effort to get it close, or are you a conservative player who would prefer to play to the fat of the green a then try your hand two putting from 40 feet?

So I would say that the strategic elements are these:

1. Length of tee shot. Is it worth hiting driver to a small target risking a downhill lie in order to have a wedge in, or would you rather play into the green from the safer spot 40 yards short.

2. Attack a left pin over the deep greenside bunker or play safe to the middle of the green and deal with the lengthy putt.

-Ted

****EDIT****
And I'll have to look more closely from the 12th tee to make sure that you can't see the skyline, I'll respond conclusively once I'm certain. For now I'll say that I'm better than pretty sure that you don't see it.

And I agree that whether you see it on 12 tee or not, your point about the routing is NOT entirely invalidated. It is still a valid point, although I'm not so sure it bothers me too much.

[Ted Kramer]

Also, Ted, What happen to the joint venture btw Empire Golf and 1492 (Davis Sezna's group)?

I don't have any idea.

-Ted

[Mike_Cirba]

John;

11 & 12 at Sebonack aren't built yet, so who knows how that will come out.  On paper, it isn't anywhere near as awkward a backtracked stretch as what we're talking about, nor would I imagine a large hill is involved.

[Brian_Gracely]

Some Pine Hill pictures that Ted asked me to post:

#3


#7 Tee


#7


#8


#9


#10

[Brian_Gracely]

And a few more:

#16


#17


#18

[Mike_Cirba]

Ted/Brian;

Some great pics...thanks for posting.

I particularly enjoyed holes 1, 3, 7!!, 9!, 11, 17!!, and 18, but think the much photographed 10th is beautiful but awkward, shelved and cut as it is into the steep hillside.

[Ted Kramer]

Thanks Brian.
Those picturse certainly aren't as good as a lot that I've seen on GCA, but they do give at least a decent feel for some of the holes.

The pics don't really have anything to do with the discussion thus far, I just thought they might be worth taking a look at.

Thanks again for all of the responses thus far.
-Ted

[Ted Kramer]

Ted/Brian;

Some great pics...thanks for posting.

I particularly enjoyed holes 1, 3, 7!!, 9!, 11, 17!!, and 18, but think the much photographed 10th is beautiful but awkward, shelved and cut as it is into the steep hillside.

I'm starting to think that we might have a little something in common with our opnions of gca . . . #10 is beautiful, but I agree, it always struck me as a little awkward too. I can't seem to get comfortble over the ball for my approach to the green. The hill is a little disorienting to me, maybe that was Mr. Fazios's intention, maybe not, but I do agree with your assesment.

As far as #7 and #17 are concerned, I couldn't agree more. They are two of the best holes on the course. #7 is a study in patience and #17 is just a perfect example of a true big-boy par4 . . .a good solid drive of 260 yards affords the player a 190-210 yard approach over a deep swale and good bit of waste area. The green on #17 is very well done as it seems just perfect to able to able to handle such long shots and reward the well struck approach.

-Ted

[Dan Herrmann]

French Creek also has a reasonable initiation fee, although it's the monthly dues where they get you!  ( for Dan and Eric)

Scott,
Actually, for my wife Laura and me, it was less expensive than paying 2 green fees twice every weekend.  When you add that to the ability to play after work in the summer, it works well for us.

But yep - it is a meaty monthly fee for what is essentially recreation.  But golf gets under your skin, and we all do unreasonable things when it comes to $ and golf  

I once worked for a great guy at Nike.  Norm was his name.  Norm went on one of those timeshare freebie things and we all laughed at him when he actually purchased one.  Well, 5 years later, Norm called the decision the "best silly decision he'd ever made."  Meaning that it was silly to spend the money, but for him, it improved his quality of life by forcing him to take yearly vacation and spend it with his family at the resort (which included golf, of course!)

[Mike_Cirba]

Ted/Brian;

Some great pics...thanks for posting.

I particularly enjoyed holes 1, 3, 7!!, 9!, 11, 17!!, and 18, but think the much photographed 10th is beautiful but awkward, shelved and cut as it is into the steep hillside.

I'm starting to think that we might have a little something in common with our opnions of gca . . . #10 is beautiful, but I agree, it always struck me as a little awkward too. I can't seem to get comfortble over the ball for my approach to the green. The hill is a little disorienting to me, maybe that was Mr. Fazios's intention, maybe not, but I do agree with your assesment.

As far as #7 and #117 are concerned, I couldn't agree more. They are two of the best holes on the course. #7 is a study in patience and #17 is just a perfect example of a true big-boy par4 . . .a good solid drive of 260 yards affords the player a 190-210 yard approach over a deep swale and good bit of waste area. The green on #17 is very well done as it seems just perfect to able to able to handle such long shots and reward the well struck approach.

-Ted

See Ted...I'm not such an evil, anti-Fazio, bad guy as John Kavanaugh tries to portray me.  

I love Galloway National.  Have you been there yet?  

[Ted Kramer]

Ted/Brian;

Some great pics...thanks for posting.

I particularly enjoyed holes 1, 3, 7!!, 9!, 11, 17!!, and 18, but think the much photographed 10th is beautiful but awkward, shelved and cut as it is into the steep hillside.

I'm starting to think that we might have a little something in common with our opnions of gca . . . #10 is beautiful, but I agree, it always struck me as a little awkward too. I can't seem to get comfortble over the ball for my approach to the green. The hill is a little disorienting to me, maybe that was Mr. Fazios's intention, maybe not, but I do agree with your assesment.

As far as #7 and #117 are concerned, I couldn't agree more. They are two of the best holes on the course. #7 is a study in patience and #17 is just a perfect example of a true big-boy par4 . . .a good solid drive of 260 yards affords the player a 190-210 yard approach over a deep swale and good bit of waste area. The green on #17 is very well done as it seems just perfect to able to able to handle such long shots and reward the well struck approach.

-Ted

See Ted...I'm not such an evil, anti-Fazio, bad guy as John Kavanaugh tries to portray me.  

I love Galloway National.  Have you been there yet?  

I also like 11 and 18 a lot too . . .you're ok in my book  !
No, I haven't been to Galloway yet. It is on my short list for next year.

-Ted

[SPDB]

That image of #7 green, particularly from that angle, and with the evident cant in the fairway, bears a resemblance to #8 green (left) at certain nearby course.

[JakaB]

I really want to try to understand what it is about Fazio and or Pine Hill specifically that a number of you guys can't stand. I'm choosing Pine Hill only because I've played the course enough times to have a basis for comparison and hopefully be able to understand and recognize some the issues that guys point out.


Don't Like:
-long walks from green to next tee (not set-up with the walker in mind, I walk, and its not easy)
-lots of bunkers, a few too many if you ask me
-not much risk reward

Ted,

Do you understand any better why this site makes you feel funny about joining a Fazio course.   I left your dislikes in my quote to show that you knew all about these things before any expert helped you out.....in other words.....do you understand any better after this fun little exercise..

I will give you credit for one thing...Pine Hill might get a few new members because of your efforts...It looks like a great value to me..

[Matt_Ward]

Ted:

The issues dealing with Pine Hill really boil down to this -- could more detail have been included for a layout that has such unique terrain given the flat land that dominates the south Jersey area?

Mike Cirba hit the "nail on the head" -- the greens at Pine Hill are simply vanilla. Few of them that stand out and say, "look at me and how much strategic consideration has been applied here."

Ted -- I edit a pub called Jersey Golfer and my assessment of public golf in the Garden State has Pine Hill as the 7th best course in NJ. That's still a plus, but it has to more with the fact that other elements of the course -- the terrain for starters -- is a big plus for the layout when compared to a broad range of other courses in the state. You also have the turf conditioning which is quite high at Pine Hill.

There are holes of substance -- I truly believe the back-to-back 9th & 10th holes are first rate -- IMHO arguably two of the most demanding anywhere among public courses in the state. The 9th is a superb uphill par-4 and the green is nicely contoured and protected. Ditto the downhill 10th -- standing at the tee and seeing the hole slide below you makes for an interesting scene. The 10th proves TF can design a strategic hole because you need to keep your tee shot as close to the right side as you dare. The slightest push can mean a quick end to seeing a par on the card. If you pull it left you can be easily blocked by the hill on that side. When people say the hole is awkward -- that alone scores points for me because the hole isn't cut so perfect -- or so chiseled as other TF holes -- you need to be very aware of how you play the hole because of that reason.

The bulk of the back nine is simply golf that's been shoe-horned into a tight area. I do like the downhill par-3 16th and the 17th is a solid par-4 with the fairway running out prior to the approach. But, the par-5 14th is simply a yawn and the dog-leg right 15th is simply a "let's squeeze a hole here no matter what" approach IMHO.

Frankly, how the course rates a 31st position on the best public courses in all of the USA by Golf Magazine is beyond me.

Pine Hill is a wonderful site, but the kind of design details one would need to take it to a higher level is missing. In many ways -- to borrow a Texas expression -- it's all hat and no cattle.

Ted -- as Mike C asks -- have you been to Galloway National? The quality of the details you find there far surpasses what you find at Pine Hill IMHO.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Matt

Now that PH is semi-private moving towards private, where would PH rate your opinion. I presume the ranking of 7th was for public.

Steve

[Matt_Ward]

Steve:

Pine Hill, even with the move to being private, would still merit a high placement among all Jersey golf courses -- likely top 50 for sure. Our raters for Jersey Golfer, I believe, had the course around the 30-35th position. I can double check and post later if I'm seriously off.

Steve, I think there are a great many people who fail to understand the vast depth of courses in the Garden State and you can see that with the quick ascension into heaven with all the fanfare attached to Hidden Creek. No doubt it's an exceptional layout, but I'm frankly scratching my head when a good number of superior courses are simply ignored or outright dismissed.

Forgive me for the segway apart from your quesiton.

Pine Hill possesses a superb site -- and candidly I believe many people simply inhale that quality and forget that the real detailing of holes is Fazio-lite. Yes, you have a few holes of note -- as others and I have mentioned -- but when you look at such private layouts as Forsgate and Montclair, to name just two in NJ -- and then see what Pine Hill possesses in the "detail" category you have to say someone missed the boat because the site at Pine Hill could have -- let me take that back -- should have -- been much better than what eventually came down the line. The course is good no
doubt -- but the possibility for real greatness was missed IMHO.

[Ted Kramer]

Ted:

The issues dealing with Pine Hill really boil down to this -- could more detail have been included for a layout that has such unique terrain given the flat land that dominates the south Jersey area?

Mike Cirba hit the "nail on the head" -- the greens at Pine Hill are simply vanilla. Few of them that stand out and say, "look at me and how much strategic consideration has been applied here."

Ted -- I edit a pub called Jersey Golfer and my assessment of public golf in the Garden State has Pine Hill as the 7th best course in NJ. That's still a plus, but it has to more with the fact that other elements of the course -- the terrain for starters -- is a big plus for the layout when compared to a broad range of other courses in the state. You also have the turf conditioning which is quite high at Pine Hill.

There are holes of substance -- I truly believe the back-to-back 9th & 10th holes are first rate -- IMHO arguably two of the most demanding anywhere among public courses in the state. The 9th is a superb uphill par-4 and the green is nicely contoured and protected. Ditto the downhill 10th -- standing at the tee and seeing the hole slide below you makes for an interesting scene. The 10th proves TF can design a strategic hole because you need to keep your tee shot as close to the right side as you dare. The slightest push can mean a quick end to seeing a par on the card. If you pull it left you can be easily blocked by the hill on that side. When people say the hole is awkward -- that alone scores points for me because the hole isn't cut so perfect -- or so chiseled as other TF holes -- you need to be very aware of how you play the hole because of that reason.

The bulk of the back nine is simply golf that's been shoe-horned into a tight area. I do like the downhill par-3 16th and the 17th is a solid par-4 with the fairway running out prior to the approach. But, the par-5 14th is simply a yawn and the dog-leg right 15th is simply a "let's squeeze a hole here no matter what" approach IMHO.

Frankly, how the course rates a 31st position on the best public courses in all of the USA by Golf Magazine is beyond me.

Pine Hill is a wonderful site, but the kind of design details one would need to take it to a higher level is missing. In many ways -- to borrow a Texas expression -- it's all hat and no cattle.

Ted -- as Mike C asks -- have you been to Galloway National? The quality of the details you find there far surpasses what you find at Pine Hill IMHO.

Thanks for the detailed response.
You must see a great sample of golf courses with your profession.

It seems that your opinion of the course is based largely on what you refer to as "Vanilla" greens. And you also state that they, the green sites, don't say "look at me and how much strategic consideration has been applied here".

Vanilla? . . . as in bland and or boring?
There is nothing about the greens at Pine Hill that look manufactured. They blend in. The geens fit comfortably with the contours of the land that they are built on.

The sloping terrain that the course is built on provides more than enough challenge on the greens. There is something subtle and elegant to a green that accepts and or rejects certain lines of play based on the lay of the land as opposed to greens which are severe and manufactured in an effort to astound and impress and say, "look at me . . ."  

I don't know how many times you've played the course, but I'm guessing it is not many. The greens are much better than Vanilla. It takes a little while to recognize some of the less obvious features, but they are there.

-Ted

[Matt_Ward]

Ted:

Check out each green at Pine Hill and for the most part -- there are exceptions -- they sit as flat discs perched either high in the air or somewhat below the golfer when approaching them. If you note the bunker pattern at many of the holes -- especially greenside -- is without much detail or linkage to unique contours.

The site is so blessed but the greens are the real indicators for me at least when it comes to design minutia. It just seems as if the green designs were formulated from a design cutting floor instead of created from a site begging for some real uniqueness.

A pity.

[Ted Kramer]

Ted:

Check out each green at Pine Hill and for the most part -- there are exceptions -- they sit as flat discs perched either high in the air or somewhat below the golfer when approaching them. If you note the bunker pattern at many of the holes -- especially greenside -- is without much detail or linkage to unique contours.

The site is so blessed but the greens are the real indicators for me at least when it comes to design minutia. It just seems as if the green designs were formulated from a design cutting floor instead of created from a site begging for some real uniqueness.

A pity.

Matt,

Maybe one day we can go out there and play together.
If you ever have any interest let me know.

-Ted