When design fails to match quality land

[texsport]

John:

You will be pleased to know that the management eventually decided you were right about your first point, and they have removed all the trees around both the ninth and seventeenth greens, as well as a lot of those to the left of the sixteenth fairway.

Well then, I rest my case, the credability of my criticisms having been proven.

Friar's Head is now better than it was and my answer to the original question appears to have been shown, beyond doubt, to have had great merit.

You would have thought that I claimed Friar's Head wasn't a great course!

As to coments about the need for aiming points, my answer is, golf courses are for playing, not just for admiring as a great piece of visual art. Nothing is more frustrating than to have a chance to play a new course, only to play poorly, out of an ignorance as to where to hit the ball. No great course needs to defend itself by inducing blindly played strokes. The course should be in plain sight, to be fairly challenged by all.

[Mike Nuzzo]

As to coments about the need for aiming points, my answer is, golf courses are for playing, not just for admiring as a great piece of visual art. Nothing is more frustrating than to have a chance to play a new course, only to play poorly, out of an ignorance as to where to hit the ball. No great course needs to defend itself by inducing blindly played strokes. The course should be in plain sight, to be fairly challenged by all.

You must be from Texas...
 

[Geoffrey Childs]

John - you say "Nothing is more frustrating than to have a chance to play a new course, only to play poorly, out of an ignorance as to where to hit the ball. No great course needs to defend itself by inducing blindly played strokes. The course should be in plain sight, to be fairly challenged by all."

Friars Head has great caddies.  My last loop had me hooked up with Hank Kuehne's ex caddie.  It was easy for him to pick clubs for me   .  Seriously, we discussed lines of play and features.  I've been lucky to play there several times but a first time player should benefit from the caddies.  Also, its a private club where most of the play is from members who know where to play in different situations and conditions.

I can't think of truly blind shots at FH - only options galore.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Lastly, your desire to see more water (it's the LI Sound..relatively benign compared to bigger cousin to the south and east, the Atlantic Ocean) is shared by many but would have necessitated destroying groves of rare pygmy birches and other unique species that help protect the sturdiness of those bluffs. Again, to do any of that would have been purely artificial and out-of-character.

Steve,

Just to confirm your point, while that exposure at FH facing North does not get hit by hurricanes, it is very exposed during "Nor'easters". I believe that Fishers has had to repair holes 7-10 (same exposure) over the years, and they do not sit on a cliff like FH. My guess is if you take out too many trees at FH, you would risk losing the holes in 50 years.

[Mike_Cirba]

As to coments about the need for aiming points, my answer is, golf courses are for playing, not just for admiring as a great piece of visual art. Nothing is more frustrating than to have a chance to play a new course, only to play poorly, out of an ignorance as to where to hit the ball. No great course needs to defend itself by inducing blindly played strokes. The course should be in plain sight, to be fairly challenged by all.

John,

Have you played National Golf Links and if so, could you share your impressions?

Thanks.

[Mike_Sweeney]

John,

Have you played National Golf Links and if so, could you share your impressions?

Thanks.

Mike,

National has blind shots at 2, 3, sort of on 5, 16 and 18. It sucks!

[George_Bahto]

"The course should be in plain sight, to be fairly challenged by all"



what an amazing statement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mike_Cirba]

George,

I think the amazing thing is that is the prevailing viewpoint among modern golfers.  

Certainly Jack Nicklaus, with his early "I'd make every hole downhill and visible if I could" philosophy, taken to a new level with Tom Fazio's "Framing" philosophy, have contributed to this expectation.  

Whatever happened to golf as part adventure and part discovery?

Otherwise, let's just line up the guys out on the range, wet it down so the ball doesn't bounce or roll, and whoever puts it closest to the target wins.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

John Kendall,
Let me hazard a guess and say that your a Golf Digest panelist with a scorecard filled out with nothing but highmarks for the latest Fazio course, correct?.

That being.....

(1) Though the course is built on varying terrain, it's transitions are too schizophrenic for me.

Yes, and that Cypress Point place too. What a bunch of psychopathic land movement that is going on there. Blame it on   the way Seth Raynor routed the course. (Or so I'm told....)

Great effort has been taken to expose as much sand as possible, obviously to establish a links with dunes theme.

I agree with you. What this place is missing is symetrical mounds of containment lining both sides of the fairways and framed with those long gold grasses to hide all of the ineptitude. Damn that Bill Coore for trying to create something spectacular on such a lackluster site. (I wish they had a emoticon with a dunce cap.)

Some holes are a complete departure from that idea.

Hey! you just finally noticed something about the golf course! It's called the transisition from 10,000 year old sand dunes into a 200 year old potato field!

This is actually the portion I wish you would further explain your thinking in regards to the site AND the routing being a bit skitzo. Because I do think whether you want to admit it or not that you are claiming that it could have been a better routed golf course. Personally, I think its one of the great routings in the Sport of Golf.

The use of trees as major hazards around the 9th and 17th greens is out of character for the course.

John, This is an extra point question.

What for the most part, completely covers the sand dunes on the North Shore of the Long Island Sound? For an extra 10 points, what makes both you and Tom Doak think that the removal of the trees mentioned wasn't part of the complete vision of the golf course before you even played it?

And time for the Daily Double!

Give us your best guess.

Will Tom Doak ask for more trees cut away or removed after the construction of Sebonack is completed, and if so will he admit it here?

(2) The obvious placement of the 11th green in a  grove of trees above a dune field is too artificial.

The other day, before even reading some of your bizarre answers, I was looking at the movement of the terrain @ #11, realizing for the first time how much it follows the lay of the land--that gentle slope from the tops of the dunes, falling down into the fairway on a sublte slope to the fall-away, "reversed-tiered" green. Those coffin bunkers that line the left side and the sheer artistry of the left greenside bunker itself is proof (once again) to me that for someone to really appreciate this golf course--to really understand it, that you have to essentially put away the clubs and JUST GO LOOK.  Now that is probably beyond reason for you when considering your views of playability and the artistry of golf courses, but frankly, and I say this with the most sincerity and hopes that you pick-up a book like the Architectural Side of Golf or The Links and at least try to comprehend it without wanting to drift off and go look for color photos, which you won't find in these two books.

And the impact of your statement, As to comments about the need for aiming points, my answer is, golf courses are for playing, not just for admiring as a great piece of visual art.... is proof enough that you really don't have a clue to the regards of what GREAT GOLF ARCHITECTURE is all about. Do you think that some of us don't like playing--that we're just into looking? ? ? ? What a ludicrous assumption on your part! In fact recently, I was so taken by seeing Shinnecock on a visual tour that I more or less demanded I get the chance play there, and I did. I loved having my ass kicked in by it too!

(3) There doesn't seem to be any obvious aiming point when approaching some greens--5,6,7,18. The playability of the course would be improved with some idea of where to hit your approachs.

John, In all honesty, please tell me that all of this is just a big huge joke on your part and that your just trying to get a rise out of everyone while hoping Tom Doak bites into your carrot. Please explain to me what more you would need to explain the essence of the approach into #5? I figure it to be the 2nd best short two-shotter I have ever played in my life. (with several others not far behind.) The boomer green turned 45 degrees right with a protecting mound is great fun to putt into for your approach from 30-35 yards in, if not more. I play have played this very same way several times. Its the easiest bogie, hardest birdie you will find.

As for holes 6 & 18, I can only suggest you learn the great joy of playing this game by feel simply by going for the flag. There truely isn't a better target out there. Hole #7, well this is where the knowledge of studying that fabulous green comes into play. I had it committed to memory with-in ten minutes after seeing it for the very first time. It is one of the greatest green complexes in the game, and I'm feel sorry for you that you can't visualize it better when thinking about it from the fairway.

(4) The shaping and framing of the approach to the 18th green is very artificial and a disappointing finish.

O.K., a visual presentation here......

Lets see now. From the tee, you have to negotiate where your and how your going to "golf" your ball. I myself have figured out it is one of the most demanding tee shots on the course simply because of all of the alleys of play and the intimidation on the left side.. If you can hit that long running draw where it can carry down the hill, your going to have a much better angle going for the "Pin" or flag anywhere on the green. Your taking those deep left-side death pits out of play, unless you hit a hook into them. If you choose the right line of play from the tee, your risking taking the hill right down into the bunker, which brings the greenside tree further into play for any right or center pin OR if its on the left side of the green the contours of the green can and will propel you into those nasty death pits--even though the green is larger then the state of Can'tucky. It's just some brilliant, subtle shaping of a green there, and frankly that is what I think you seem to miss out the most here is the word subtle. You go from extreme tee shot to a natural sloping approach that severely dips or envelopes, then rises above the entire hole.




(5) I'd like to have seen the ocean more.

Did you include this on your Golf Digest ballot when you turned it in? It sounds exactly like something a Golf Digest Panelist would say.

I'd have no comments on routing as it appears to be masterful.

This is an amazing statement--a total contradiction too. You have no comments on the routing because its masterful, yet you  don't like the fact you have to think of some holes, while some of the most thoughtful, intricate features pass you by.--at least that's the way I'm reading it. Yet the routing is masterful. Is that a gratuitous masterful?

[Tom_Doak]

Hey, Tommy:

Maybe Mr. Kendall was trying to get YOU to "bite into his carrot," not me.

I think Friars Head is a great course, although for me it is not QUITE "the Cypress Point of the East."  Cypress is one of my favorite places in the world, Friars Head not quite so yet, although it continues to rise in my estimation every time I go there.  (I've been to Friars Head four times now, Cypress Point maybe twenty, so Friars Head is working from a disadvantage.)

You are entitled to think it's all that if you want to, I'm not going to RIDICULE you for maybe going a bit overboard because you have a personal connection to the place.

Mr. Kendall is also entitled not to like the course.  If you are nicer to him he might even listen to your explanation of why you think he's wrong.

And as for your extra point question:

From a golfing standpoint and from an esthetic standpoint, I'd love to see more trees cut down at Sebonack, and so would Jack Nicklaus, but for now we are limited to a certain acreage mandated by the permitting authorities in order to preserve wildlife habitat through the golf course.  We did try to use up as much of our limited acreage as possible on the holes which faced toward Peconic Bay, and thanks to our revegetation of some cleared areas, we were able to take down trees behind the 15th green to better expose the dune behind the green and the bay view beyond.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom,
You of all people should know I would never ever dare compare Friar's Head and Cypress Point. The only comparison put forth was that it too is located on "schizophrenic" sand dunes as Mr. Kendall has put forth.

Second, and I would like to address this as succinctly as I can, my connection to Friar's Head is minute connection. Some of you may laugh at that, but unless one of you can grant me a small loan to join I'm nothing more then a very small contributor with grand hopes that the small things can help the club be all it can be thus hopefully influencing the golfing world that greatness lies in places just like it, Pacific Dunes, Sand Hills, Apache Stronghold, Rustic Canyon, Stonewall I & II, Bandon Trails, The Kingsley Club, etc. and their aspirations of being all they can be.

They are P-U-R-E. Just like EVOO (Food Network's Rachel Rae's term for Extra Virgin Olive Oil)(I have to tell you I really like that gal!)

[texsport]

Coach Naccarato

         I'm from Texas and we're generally a friendly, courteous and straight speaking folk. But,I have not appreciated the personal insults thrown my way because of tiny comments about details that I'd change at Friar's Head. It's a game and a piece of dirt for god's sake!

          I thought golf was a gentlemanly sport, but this has not been.

        (By the way--you have a connection to Friar's Head?)

        As for the straight speaking part, I must admit that your views of what constitutes good golf architecture and mine are widely divergent. To each his own, and I'll keep mine!

        Here's why! Your insulting advice to learn something about Golf Architecture from a book, your vitriol for Golf Digest raters (Hundreds of good players), your criticism of reknowned golf architects, and of course, of me, have left me , and I'm sure many others, laughing!

        And thanks for lumping me into such expert and esteemed company during your neotenic rant- I'm honored.

       Concerning your suggested reading exercise,I contend that anyone might learn about the history of Golf Architecture from a book, but nobody can become an expert (and certainly not knowledgeable enough to pretend to be an expert) in what constitutes a good golf course unless you are (1) a pretty good player, or (2) have practiced Golf Architecture successfully.

       So let's examine those qualifying points!

       Of course, we can eliminate #2, the successful architect part, for you, immediately.
     
       As far as #1, playing ability goes, lets have a little test:

       (1) Are you a scratch, or at least, a low handicap player? Have you ever been?

       (2) Can you consistently carry your tee shots, say, 270 yds?  even 260 yds?

       (3) Can you carry your 5 iron, say, 200 yds? even 190 yds?

       (4) Can you move the ball left, right, up and down at will?
       (5) Can you spin your irons and wedges and play soft low spinning shots at will?

        Do you qualify?

        Well, I can do all of the above and I learn about design by playing rather well at times. We know that you are not a successful architect, nor can you play a lick, so, you cannot possibly have a complete appreciation for good playable design. To pretend otherwise would be akin to believing that a 5 ft guy could write a book about center play strategy in the NBA. If you think otherwise, please write a book and try to get it published--a hacker's treatise on Golf Course Architecture.

       Also, I can guarantee you that I never enjoyed "having my ass kicked" by a golf course in my life.(Yet another tip off about your game I'm afraid--as is advice to "shoot at every pin"!)

         I'm being as polite as I can when I say that you are extremely presumptuous to insult Golf Digest panelists, Golf Architects or me about what is or isn't good, playable design. You have no valid point of reference to qualify as an expert. (I'm sorry for the paradigm shift concerning your self assured knowledge but remember, I said plain speaking).

        We all known that architects hit a lot of practice shots during course construction. They often enlist professionals to do the same as a test of the design's playability. But, of course, you are aware of this with your vast golf history expertise. When is the last time a good architect tested playability of a course based solely on practice shots and opinions of a hacker?

         Expressing opinions openly is what the forum should be about, but, as far as insults are concerned, save them for your hacker buddies because IMHO you don't have a clue.

         Lastly, and sadly, I'm not a Golf Digest rater, but I do aspire to qualify one day. I must apologise to them for being the catalyst responsible for the childish insults hurled their way with no basis in fact or knowledge.

         



     

[Tommy_Naccarato]

John Kendall Sr.,

   (1) Are you a scratch, or at least, a low handicap player? Have you ever been?

No. The lowest I have been is a 9-handicap and played to it up until I gained over two hundred and fifty ounds due to an eating disorder. However, I have always played with a caderie of very good players as well as held my own with them in match play.

    (2) Can you consistently carry your tee shots, say, 270 yds?  even 260 yds?

No, I'm a short knocker all the way. However, I would take great delight playing the Old Course with a long knocker, knowing I could probably be pretty competitive with them if I wanted to.

      (3) Can you carry your 5 iron, say, 200 yds? even 190 yds?

No. But I fail to see what difference this would make if I was using a five wood doing the same. How does this compute in the John Kendall School of Golf Architecture and Theory?
     
      (4) Can you move the ball left, right, up and down at will?

YES. Usually love to do it whenever I can on ANY given course if the shot calls for it. I detest boring straight play. I'm the type of golf personality that will play Riviera's 4th using the Redan kick feature as it was intended, even with the advent of modern irrgation and kikuyu. However, I would think in the better interest of golf architecture, you would probably better off to call it shotmaking, and by the sounds of it, I'm going to assume you think of yourself as expert shotmaker 90% of the time. The other 10% must have been when you were visiting Friar's Head. From the sounds of it if you were frustrated from shotmaking while playing Friar's Head. I would be willing to bet that you would be completely bamboozled at many other fine layouts in America.

      (5) Can you spin your irons and wedges and play soft low spinning shots at will?

Yes and No, meaning my short game, when getting the chance to practice is usually pretty fair. And I do find it odd that you don't mention putting in your list of architectural competency questons. Perhaps this is a portion of the game which you really didn't think matters much when it comes to YOUR school of golf architecture.

John, Lastly, I probably did go over the line a bit and I do apologize for that. But frankly, trying to equate what I do know and don't know about golf architecture in the form of an equivalency is more then enough reason to suggest reading the books I mentioned above. Surely it would help as much as having a week long series of instructions from the finest teachers in the land--but ultimately if you don't have the gifts and mechanics to hit it far; to hit it high and get it to stop on a dime--especially when the equipment favors those with swings speeds over 105 MPH, then you better pick-up a book and use that God given brain of yours to learn a thing or two in regards to the parts of the Game you do find pure and enjoyable.

Why, you would be one of the few people in America playing the Game if it all came to playing on a level of talent, and frankly from what I have seen from guys with similar opinions "architecturally," they don't stand a chance simply because it doesn't matter to them in much the same as playing scratch does to me.

Cheers


P.S. In regards to consultations, I will have you know that I have contributed advice at two (2) Top 100 Modern layouts on the Golfweek list as well as served as a design consultant on the refurbishing of the Arizona Biltmore Adobe Course. I'm also serving as a consultant to Lee Schmidt & Brian Curley on revisions and remodeling of Max Behr's Oakmont Country Club in Glendale, California; Historical consultant to Virginia CC in Long Beach, California; Hacienda GC in La Habra Heights; and Redlands CC in Redlands, California. I also have been offering photographic and artistic design services to many other architectural firms and groups in hopes that I can assist them and their needs, as well increase my golfing knowledge.

[redanman]

I'd have no comments on routing as it appears to be masterful.

good god, here I am responding to a coloured post ...... and second-guessing the living gods at that - my days on this earth are surely numbered now

Anyone else ever think about the nature of the two loops being so similar and never crossing over? Was that masterful?  Were returning nines really the best routing?

Anyone ever think a par 5 that did NOT transition the two distinctly different areas might have been nice? What about a par other than 72?

Was there a formula being used?

Even though the look is different aren't #2 and #11 two mintings of the same denomination coin?  #3 and # 13 are the same type of hole (long par 4 ) in opposite directions, the par 3's are the points of the compass, there is the obligatory C & C drivable par 4 (#9 is almost drivable,too, BTW).

Note: trees near #9 green are rapidly disappearing so one must have been there lately as Kenny is doing a fine job as a very liberal coniferator and a deciduator as well!

Lastly, I think Friar's Head is a wonderful wonderful golf course, but why  is true discussion really not tolerated on it here? Is any course beyond discussion?

One last thing (again)

Why must one be a proficient golfer to recognize great architecture? (As is the implication that one must carry the ball 270, be a scratch, carry a 5i 190-200 (Heck, I can carry 7 clubs for the entire 7000+ yds of a modern Fazio course , move the ball (harder and harder each passing year for all of us), hit 15 different wedge shots (You failed to mention  putting skills, Mr Kendall) and don't forget the knock-down, the 210 yard running shot from under a tree branch only to miss the putt for eagle....

p.s. my answer is yes to all of the above except the best I ever did was 1.something index, so I guess I was never a true "scratch"   so I can judge, I suppose.

Other than some internal biases that he needs to overcome, Mr Naccarato has a decent if slightly jaded eye for architectural features that is certainly better than average and the fact that he is not a flat-bellied +2 handicap is not a handicap for him.  A parallel?  I doubt Rex Reed could make a film or even direct one but he sure as hell has an eye for evaluating them.

Disclaimer: Tommy is my buddy and home wiring consultant.

[A_Clay_Man]

       As for the straight speaking part, I must admit that your views of what constitutes good golf architecture and mine are widely divergent.
     

Mr. Kendall sir,
Are you telling us, from this comment, that your prefererence is a repetitious over-manufactured look?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Redanman,

How easy you forget...Par at Friar's Head is: (By the way, this color is burgundy)

1-4 10-3
2-5 11-5
3-4 12-3
4-3 13-4
5-4 14-5
6-4 15-4
7-5 16-4
8-3 17-3
9-4 18-4
 36   35

For a grand total of 71, IF you are of the mindset that its relevent.

My observations are that no two holes are alike a Friar's Head and each has its very own character and strategy. The brilliance of the routing is in the transitions, and each take full advantage of natural and man-made created features. Simply because of the balance of character between farmland and duneland holes. You would lose that if you didn't have the transitions. As far as a formula, well, if you had been out at Hidden Creek, you would have seen just how much of a formuliac person Bill Coore really is, and I think it would be best not to confuse formula with style and class.

This is why Coore & Crenshaw and the Boys are so respected by many: If you had a house being constructed, would you want it to be one of these planned "McMansions"  (where ever detail McDonald's on the planet earth resembles one another, over and over and over, or would you rather have it where your house was especially being constructed just for that site--to take advantage of every detail IN THE FIELD which would give you the very best house your money could buy, where conceptionally there would be a plan, but the house aspired to be everything to the site it could be with nature. (Where is a great FLW quote when you need one?)

Anyway, on your thoughts on #2 and #11, they are two par 5's going SOMEWHAT in the same direction but play nothing alike in both strategy and shot-making talent or skill.

Dr. Geoffrey Childs (a slouch of a friend if there ever was one) recently stated to me about a certain course (not Friar's Head) that it had the essence of "tacking" when it came to the strategy of this specific golf hole. I found that sailing term to be a brilliant even for golf course strategy, and the 2nd at Friar's Head is in fact an excellent "tacking" hole. One that you have to weave back and forth to get to the pin and into the hole. (Because that's what its all about!)

The 11th, is an excellent hole for the competent golfer to be challenged by birdie or better, IF he makes the right decisions regarding the path taken. If he rips a drive from to the right finger of fairway, he has a blind second that is capable of making the green--with a few hazards to make you think about it good enough before you make your attempt, but the subtle crossing-downward slope of the fairway to aid your attempt. The green is angled to accept this great shot, but hit a fade and you'll find yourself being penalized by the nasty little pit that sits just front right of the green.

If you choose the straight-away play, it will get you there in three, but if you stray to far left, you dealing with a series of massive coffins that will bury you deeper then Nikita Kruschev. You are then forced to deal not just with the gaping pit left of the green, but going into a falling away from you, greenside tier.

There is nothing at all similar about the two holes other then a somewhat similar direction (They in fact slightly different, both pointing inward to one another and it makes a very subtle difference.)

Discussion is tolerated here completely, but doing it just to be different is sort of, well, sort of descriptive of the nature of the state of the game today. Too many robots that stifle creative thought. And you know all too well how many golf courses that have been constructed in the last ten years by the usual suspects that are aimed at one sort of consumer mentality.

I'm still blushing at the last paragraph. Free electrical work for you, for life! (Just like Seinfeld's Soup Nazi) Of course being the Godfather of your greatest work has a lot to do with it.

Adam,
Sorry to hear about your Dad, and I hope all is well.

[ForkaB]

 I doubt Rex Reed could make a film or even direct one but he sure as hell has an eye for evaluating them.

Bill

The trouble with that analogy is that films are pure entertainment whilst golf courses are both entertainment and venues to challenge highly skilled individuals.  Mortals like you and me and Tommy can (with relatively decreasing ability--the lowest I've been is 3) only guess about the challenge aspect of a golf course to an elite golfer.  Could Rex Reed really understand what was going through the mind of a Truffaut or a Coppola when either was making a film?  I personally doubt it.

R