NJ

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

Have you played Forsgate and if so when precisely? I ask this because an aerial shot of belies what makes the course so unique. The grade changes on the terrain are quite real and do cause the player to gauge what side of the fairway one wants to finish on.

The course has plenty of grade changes and although the holes may appear to be straight (from an aerial perspective) they are far from boring and / or repetitive.

Frankly, the four par-3's at Forsgate are only equalled by the likes of what you see at PV and Plainfield. They are so unique and rare that they are literally bulletproof in my mind.

The back-to-back par-5's at the 8th and 9th are also supremely crafted holes. IMHO -- I see them collectively as a better design than the two back-to-back par-5's you find at Baltusrol Lower.

Forsgate gets little attention because of its halfway location between NYC and Phillie. Few people understand the range and detail that Banks provided at the course.

You downgrade the greens but you are all wet Tom. They are varied through and through and they constantly keep you guessing. Pity the poor player with a so-so day with their approaches.

I'll say this again -- to the credit of the new management Forsgate is once again a supreme layout that provides plenty of variety and uniqueness that few courses in Jersey can match.

Regarding the #2 layout in NJ -- not even close when people mention Mountain Ridge, Hidden Creek, Somerset Hills or any other layout in the Garden State.

Mike Cirba hit it on the head squarely -- there are no less than 10-12 great holes at Plainfield. Whatever is detracted from holes #13 thru #15 (although I see #15 being a bit better than the other two) the bulk of Plainfield is first rate and is beyond the others in the state.

Pat is quite correct -- the sheer depth of courses for such a small state is quite impressive.

P.S. It's important to point out that the "potential" for The Knoll is there but it's way too premature to say it can ever comeback to the days of yesteryear. I pray that can happen through the involvement of George Bahto but the inability of the town to get their act together thus far is truly disappointing.

[T_MacWood]

Matt
September 18, 2004 10:30 AM

The par-3's are stellar. The course has some of the wildest greens you'll find anywhere. There are a number of other very good holes...the fifth is favorite of mine. The features...especially the pushed up greens and deep bunkers are dramatic.

Unfortunately the dramatically elevated, pushed up greens are overdone...they present the same visual over and over and over. It is redundant...remember your complaint about sameness. That is one of the reasons I like the fifth...it is the one hole that breaks the mold. Why no doglegs? And what do you make of the routing...especially the back nine?

I will becoming out with my unbiased NJ top 20 shortly...then hopefully the isssue will be settled once and for all!  

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

Thanks for sharing the info on when you played the course.

You need to help me out -- you didd't address my point -- the terrain at Forsgate causes an unbelievable array of different lies in the fairways -- credit to Banks for taking farmland and transforming it to a site that replicates the feel and flavor in being from across the pond. You need to remember you're talking Monroe Township, NJ.

You see the greens far different than I do. The contours and the way the pins can be defended from a wealth of angles is incredible stuff. Did you happen to notice the superb nature of the 10th and 11th holes. They are completely different even though they follow a comparable path. The bunkering work is simply above and beyond all but the elite few in NJ from my many years in playing them all.

Tom -- please tell me what holes are "overdone?" They are varied in terms of their angle, positioning and overall contours.

The back nine routing is fairly compact and well done. I can see an argument being made that it is repetitive to some degree but that's not the case with the finishing three holes -- the 16th is a superb par-4, the 17th a demanding par-3 going in the opposite direction and then you get the 18th which has been lengthened and goes back towards the clubhouse in another direction. That's quite a run of first rate holes to seal the time there at the course.

I look forward to your "unbiased" top 20. I will be happy to share mine after seeing yours. Please realize I am only interested in reviewing your list provided you have played the courses listed. Fair is fair.

[wsmorrison]

Matt,

What do you think the back to front slope is on 18 at Forsgate?  Man, is that a severe incline!  

I enjoyed the par 3s and holes 2 and 5 in particular.  And there is nice topography, but I thought there was a sameness in the bunkering, I mean how many holes have deep bunkers right?  A very nice course, but if that's in the uppermost tier of NJ, I'd be surprised.

Like Merion, the property definitely dictates the routing.  It is too narrow to have many perpendicular holes to the current orientation.  In my opinion, there are a number of good par 4s but as a collection, they are not very strong due to the overwhelming lack of variety in design.

By the way, I played it this October 19th between 9:30 and 1:15.  It was sunny but cold  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Tom MacWood,

It is about NJ courses, but you objected to parallel holes and indicate that too many parallel holes was a weakness in the routing and the golf course  So I brought up TOC where every hole is parallel to another.

In addition, TOC has nowhere near the elevation changes that Forsgate possesses.   Topos of the two properties would highlight Bank's use of the terrain.

Do you find the dramatically elevated pushed up greens at NGLA overdone ?

Does not TOC suffer a sameness in the approach view  ?

Redanman,

Could you identify the specific holes that you claim comprise the stretch of "snore holes" on the back 9  ?

Could you also identify the holes that comprise the stretches you classified as boring ?

And, could you tell me specifically why you claim Prichard's bunkering is awful ?

[wsmorrison]

"Does not TOC suffer a sameness in the approach view  ?"

Sorry to answer before Tom MacWood does.  But in my view, not at all.  The bunkering is vastly different on every hole as are the runups.  Little humps and bumps around and on the greens seem much more natural.  To me, where the engineering is so overt, the course may be fun to play (and it certainly is at Forsgate) but not visually appealing and it remains to my eye a lack of variety.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Wayne,

You're hanging around TEPaul too much.  

Please refrain from answering questions posed to someone else.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Only a delusional New Jerseyian would compare Forsgate to the Old Course and the NGLA...get a hold of yourself man!

Matt
There is some nice elevation change, magnified by Bank's built up greens. A very good golf course, but I was a little disapointed for the reasons I explained.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Tom MacWood,

I only pointed out the same features/elements that you found objectionable at Forsgate, in other golf courses.

[mark chalfant]

Tom, next time you visit Jersey be sure to play Morris County.
It has many elements I think you appreciate:

modest length, lovely rolling land, many great holes as well as
bold greens

[TEPaul]

"Please refrain from answering questions posed to someone else."

Wayne:

Or to put it another way---which is in the tenor of the "Mrs Grundy type classroom atmosphere" Patrick Mucci tries to conduct on this website;

"Wayne Morrison, sit down and shut up until I address a question to you!"

[wsmorrison]

I was never one to raise my hand politely.  I always liked to shout out the answers.  Pat will just have to send me to the principal's office.

[TEPaul]

Wayne Morrison said;

"To me, where the engineering is so overt, the course may be fun to play (and it certainly is at Forsgate) but not visually appealing and it remains to my eye a lack of variety."

A better distinction could not be made. Some on here seem to feel, and have said a number of times on here that the way a golf course plays is all that matters, and the way it looks has little or nothing to do with it. Certainly, others have every right and good reason to disagree with that.

If two golf courses "play" equally as well but one is  engineered and somewhat artifical looking and the other is  natural looking, it seems to me a golf architecture analyst has a good case to say that the one that is more natural looking is a better and more appealing golf course and golf architecture. Anyway, that's basically the way I feel, and it speaks to my dilemma about the consistently engineered look of the 18-19 year career of Seth Raynor and perhaps others of the so-called "National School" of architecture.

But I must say in the last few years I've come to accept much more the engineered "look" of Raynor (as an interesting juxtaposition of artifical looking against natural lines) and the others of that school simply because their courses really do "play" so well.

And in the final analysis I appreciate the fact that, of that age anyway, that style and look does provide an important difference---and to me "difference" in golf architecture just might be its most valuable over-all asset! I think I'd actually prefer to have this kind of difference than even standardized naturalism everywhere!!

Perhaps an astounding admission but I really do think I mean it! I do prefer an extreme natural look though!  

[TEPaul]

"Pat will just have to send me to the principal's office."

Wayne:

That's not possible because I'm the principal and if he tries a stunt like that, I'll just come down to his classroom after his class is over and his students have moved on and slap him upside the head!  

[Matt_Ward]

Wayne:

The back-to-front slope on #18 at Forsgate is no more severe than what you find at the par-3 9th at Five Farms at Baltimore CC.

Heck, there are greens at Winged Foot / West and Oakmont that have more pitch and even more contours from side-to-side. I see nothing wrong with the hole except for the times when people airmail their bunker shot and hit the clubhouse!

Wayne -- with all due respect -- you glossed over way too many details from simply a one time visit.

The four par-3's at Forsgate are on the same page with heavyweights at Pine Valley and Plainfield.

Did you happen to notice the Eden like quality of the 3rd with the superb rib cage that divides the green from one side to the other. Have the pin on the right hand side and it takes a herculean blow to get near the pin.

How bout the reverse redan par-3 7th. The hole is also delicious as the green runs abruptly away on a diagonal from left-to-right.

What about the "short" par-3 12th with its diabolical horse-shoe contour. Try to play the hole when the pin is placed in the rear section behind the horse-shoe -- what a pin placement and green.

The long par-3 17th is being returned to its original biaritz condition. The hole is long and has enough detailing to present a wonderful difference from the other three holes.

Collectively, the four par-3's at Forsgate are a first rate quartet as they are varied in length, configuration and approach perspective.

Wayne -- did you miss the Banks inclusion of back-to-back par-5's on the front? How neat are the two holes? They are completely different and wonderfully positioned to close the front nine. Did you notice the unique rib cag separation on the 8th hole? Did you notice the unique challenge the par-5 9th presents with its grade change in topography for the tee shot and the second? Did you notice how demanding the short approach is -- especially if you come up a wee bit short on the left side?

Let's talk about the par-4's -- the opening hole provides the golfer an opportunity to get off without too demanding a hole. You then have a good mixture of different type holes -- the 2nd is vastly underrated. The 4th is an OK short hole but the 6th -- nicknamed "knoll" is demanding because of the "knoll
that Banks fashioned directly on the left side.

The closing three holes on the front are simply top rate IMHO.

You mention that the par-4's lack from an "overwhelming lack of variety in design."

Wayne -- the 10th hole is unique because of the
topography -- you must have missed seeing it but it's there front and center. The green is also well contoured and the bunkering -- both fairway and green is well done.

The 11th is a short hole and a good mix between what the 10th provides and what you get with the upcoming 12th hole.

The 13th is usually played as a long par-4 in major events and is far more demanding than many believe.

You also have the 14th -- when played from the tips is a tough driving hole to one of the smallest and toughest greens to hit. Did you even notice that?

The 15th goes back in the other direction -- it turns slightly to the left and again you face a green that is tilted on a diagonal from back left to front right.

The 16th and 18th I have already explained as two dynamic holes that have a wealth of design details.

Wayne -- with all respect -- you need to play the course again. You glossed over plenty of details that are there. If memory serves -- someone scolded me -- hint / hint -- for making definitive comments on courses from one time visits. The shoe might be on the other foot this time -- right?

Let me also state that while the land at Forsgate has been shaped by man's hands I find that to be part of the reason that makes playing there so unique.

There are plenty of people on GCA who bitch and moan that many top tier golf courses are too long and boring and don't have enough of the fun aspect when playing there.

Forsgate has fun in spades. The greens, bunkering and variety of holes are something you don't find in many places --including my home state which is rich and deep in quality golf.

I salute the new management because the desire to get the course at maximum firm and fast conditions is ongoing -- they have taken down a number of intrusive trees and the desire to bring back the 17th will only add to its stature.

I'll keep Forsgate in my top ten because you see design aspects there that only the very elite of Garden State courses can either match or exceed.

Tom MacWood:

Please do post your top 20. I love it when other folks decide to go out "on a limb."

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

But I must say in the last few years I've come to accept much more the engineered "look" of Raynor (as an interesting juxtaposition of artifical looking against natural lines) and the others of that school simply because their courses really do "play" so well.

Tom, in the ultimate, isn't the the most important factor, how the golf course plays ?

GOLF is a game, played upon a field of play, a golf course, and how that field of play plays is by far THE most important element in evaluating the golf course.   How it looks is window dressing.

If you look at NGLA, Piping Rock, The Creek, Yale, Westhampton, The Knoll, Essex County and other courses in that generation of CBM, SR and CB you see manufactured or engineered holes, course after course, hole after hole, yet they work marvelously at each and every one of those sites.

WHY

Because they play so well.
Because they are integrated so fabulously with the principles of play of the game of golf.[/color]

[George Pazin]

You need to help me out -- you didd't address my point -- the terrain at Forsgate causes an unbelievable array of different lies in the fairways -- credit to Banks for taking farmland and transforming it to a site that replicates the feel and flavor in being from across the pond. You need to remember you're talking Monroe Township, NJ.

Matt -

Why is it that you commend Banks for this, yet, with Doak's transformation of flatlands in Lubbock, you seem to feel that, in the end, it is an artificially created course?

[wsmorrison]

Matt,

I admitted that I've only been to Forsgate one time.  I do not know the course as well as I should to make a detailed analysis.  Frankly, this is why I keep insisting that golf raters are not providing a valuable service in one or two visits.  My comments were macro in nature and not micro.  

Forsgate has interesting topography.  I grant you that.  I've seen much better topography and I've seen a lot more that is worse.  However, the routing is dictated by the site and it happens to make good use of the topographic features.  The green complexes are not a stong suit, partly due to their familiarity.  To me, the repetitive use of deep bunkers on the right is boring after awhile.  I didn't gloss over anything, I spoke of what I was qualified to speak of and that is the overall sense of the course--and here I happen to agree with Tom MacWood.

I said that I really liked the 2nd hole, I can't understand why this would be "vastly underrated."  If it is, the raters that underrate it are overrated.

You talked about the rib cage on 3 (when I played, the pin was back right) then the "unique" rib cage on 8.  I'm not sure what you mean by ribcage--I guess a man-made ridge in a crescent shape--but how can it be unique if it is found on a previous hole?

When you use words like diabolical, Herculean and delicious in describing the course, I get a bit quizzical.  

I agreed that the par 3s were a very good collection of holes.  I say that having been to 44 Flynn courses where he systematically built a strong collection of par 3s on each course.  While Forsgate's are very good, they are not close to Pine Valley's--nor a number of Flynn's.  They are better than any set of par 3s by Flynn in NJ however--by a long shot  

Listen to me, please.  I like Forsgate, it is a very good golf course.  I would love to play it again (not for $125 though).  To me, it falls short of great but is great fun.  Part of my reaction is that a natural look, even if not by nature is preferable.  Are the shots fun, Yes.  But forgive me, I don't see the appeal of a horseshoe in a green, or a ribcage for that matter.  What's so great about this feature?  I am at a loss to understand the use of templates to such a degree.  

Give me a natural ridge or a Maxwell roll that looks so much better.  Actually, give me Flynn's complexities of slopes--it is far more appealing to my eye.

Why repeat themes over and over again?  This is my big knock against Raynor and Banks.  It is a constant reminder that this is an overly-contrived setting rather than a natural one.  I know that is what Raynor and Bank's customers wanted, but are they always right?

[wsmorrison]

"Because they play so well.
Because they are integrated so fabulously with the principles of play of the game of golf."

Pat,

They do play well.  To me that is not enough...but it is far better than not at all.  I would much rather have a course that plays well but looks manufactured than one that looks nice but plays like crap.  That seems to be the choice outside the architects that raised the art form to accomplish both playability and a sense of naturalism.  

The courses of Raynor and Banks may integrate well with the principals of play but they do not integrate well with their surroundings.

[TEPaul]

Pat asked;

"Tom, in the ultimate, isn't the the most important factor, how the golf course plays?"

Pat:

Of course it is but that doesn't mean that the "look" of a golf course's architecture---eg engineered vs natural---is not important too. The question then becomces how important is the "look", or a natural look vs an engineered or artifical look?

When some on here say or imply it's of no importance at all, I, for one, will certainly continue to disagree with that!

[Matt_Ward]

Wayne:

You tapdanced around the numerous details I provided on the vast array of holes at Forsgate. If you admit to not knowing the course that well -- how do you presume to stack it up against the best in Jersey?

You're one time visit was truly limited IMHO. I'd ask you to move away with this fixation on Flynn (it's obvious you love the guy Wayne! ) and devote more attention to what Banks does. Clearly, from your own words you see Banks and Raynor in the same light. I've played all of the noted Banks courses and save for The Knoll -- which could be outstanding -- and his work at Essex County CC (a pity you won't be at the 2/19 meeting) -- the work at Forsgate is ripe with plenty of design details and the imagination and thought one needs in terms of utter shotmaking control is there time after time. You see his green sites and bunkering as being repetitive. Far from it. The angles of the greens and the way the bunkers cut into a variety of hole angles if the pin is situated there make for a high demand on driving accuracy even with the wide fairways.

When you say PV is light years beyond the four par-3's at Forsgate I dissent. Forsgate's four are right there -- I can match them up anyway you want. The serious edge goes to the 5th at PV versus the 17th at Forsgate -- just wait until the full biaritz element is concluded. Otherwise, the 3rd at Forsgate is better than PV's 3rd, the 12th and 10th are a wash and I see the 7th at Forsgate being a tad better than the 14th at PV.

Let me also highlight the "rib cage" effect on #3 and #8 is different in terms of its slope and effect on the shots played into the respective targets. They are not identical by any means.

Wayne -- what about the back-to-back par-5's Did you notice anything?

Ditto the quality of the par-4's I also spelled out. Did you see the 14th hole? The 16th, etc, etc?

Sorry buckeroo -- but you missed plenty from what I have seen there. I'll also pass this on -- when people become fixated on what is / should be carried forward / re: design then it's likely you will get people with a very narrow sense of what is OK in design. Clearly, you see Flynn as being the paramount figure in terms of design. So be it -- for you.

I'll say this again -- stack up the sheer array of holes -- even for a limited routing plan (although I disagree on how strong when can say that given the movement in the land and in the holes at spots) and Forsgate is well done. Let me see the boys handle the course when the green speeds are comparable to what you have at Rolling Green in peak season partner. The rolls and contours at Forsgate will break many who can't truly roll their ball.

George:

The land at Forsgate and at Lubbock are completely different. While Banks applied some make-up to the site (the property was already rolling from even the earliest photos) -- the wholesale re-engineering at The Rawls Course is an extreme makeover that was done really well. Just because man's hand doctored the site at Lubbock I don't hold that against what was ultimately created. In fact -- my comments on The Rawls Course have been quite positive for what Tom Doak and crew did there.

[wsmorrison]

Easy big fella.  You twist things around quite a bit.  Firstly, I don't tapdance and I didn't tapdance around your examination of Forsgate.  How many times do you want me to say I don't know the intricacies of the course?  If it makes you feel better, keep dwelling on it.  You also should stop relying on my fixation of Flynn.  I'm not fixated on him, I simply know his work best by a large margin and refer to him now and then.  What did I write that makes you determine that I consider Flynn paramount in terms of design?  I like a natural style much better than manufactured given similar playability.  This style includes Abercrombie, Wilson, Crump, Flynn, Mackenzie, Colt, Coore and Crenshaw, Doak and others.

I never used the term light-years ahead when comparing Forsgate's par 3s to PVGC's.  Don't exaggerate to suit your argument.  I said they weren't close and I stand by that.  Listen, I won't get into a comprehensive analysis with you, I cannot do so in a way that is worthwhile--I lack the knowledge.  This doesn't mean I can't express a valid feeling for the overall concept at Forsgate.  Can't you accept that I feel the way I do about the course and move on?  It's not like I'm insulting your grandmother.  I am fond of the course yet I don't think it is delicious in anyway  

What about the back to back par 5s?  What about them?  They are better than the back to backs at Baltusrol lower.  However, I've only walked that course twice so what do I know?  They are nice holes.  Please don't confuse their quality with 7 at Pine Valley or 3 at Philadelphia Country Club.

The artificial rolls and contours on Forsgate's greens are silly to me.  Anybody can make putting difficult with man-made features.  Why not have 4 foot deep swales and putt across that?  Oh, Raynor did that.  Why not have horseshoe ridges in greens?  Oh Raynor and Banks did that too.  Well, why not have 3 foot high pimples on a green?  Oh, Crump did that.  Well, at least they had the good sense of removing such an artificial device.  In my mind, it is OK to have this once in a while, but to systematically use these artificial devices, it shows a lack of creativity and I am not fond of it.  It isn't a Flynn vs. Raynor/Banks thing.  It is my preference.  

You make it seem like it must be a fixation on my part that would lead me to this conclusion.  Can't it be my own taste and leave it at that?  In all honesty, if you weren't so consumed by rankings--and you are far from alone, you just might allow that the course is excellent but to some it may not be completely to their liking and falls from their top tier of courses.  In my case it is that I am not fond of templates, overtly artificial devices on greens, and bunker repetition.  Again, I enjoyed playing the course and would like to do so again.    

Out of curiosity, since you never addressed one of my issues, what do you make of the continual use of deep bunkers right of greens?  How many of the holes have this feature?

[Matt_Ward]

Wayne:

It appears to me your tastes are fixated on how courses stack up against Flynn designs -- that seems to be your reference point in many responses. You're absolutely right -- you are more than entitled to such a conclusion -- however narrow it may be. I wonder how many Banks courses you have played?

The architects you mentioned about not creating artificial courses is a bit off -- Doak's design at Texas Tech is clearly man-made -- but guess what? It works well. This narrow tunnel vision idea that "natural style" (a term never really defined) is always superior doesn't compute for me -- it may for you.

Wayne -- c'mon stop with the semantic BS -- light years ahead and "they weren't close" is the same thing. The sum of what you said is the same. Like I said the totality of the four par-3's at Forsgate are right there with what you find at PV IMHO.

Yes, Wayne I can move on but when you cast a definitive impression on a course you played one time I have the right to probe and delve furher. I'm sorry you don't appreciate questions or retorts from those who may disagree.

Help me out Wayne about the 7th at PV -- the hole mandates you play up to a certain point and then leapfrog over hell's half acre. It's a fine hole -- the 8th at Forsgate is not chop liver by any means. There you play a 570 yard hole that goes uphill all the way and the fairway is sloped dangerously to the left to accentuate any ball movement in that direction. Let us not forget the demanding target in hitting the green in the right location on Forsgate's 8th hole.

I don't doubt the 7th at PV is fine hole -- I just said the back-to-back par-5's at Forsgate at the 8th and 9th can stand toe to toe with the two at PV.

I have a huge amount of respect for Pine Valley but I don't believe everything at the course is bulletproof. New Jersey has a swath of top tier layouts that often get very, very little attention and thought. Forsgate is one of them IMHO.

You say the greens at Forsgate are "silly." What about the inane contours you find with old time layouts? Do they get a pass? Wayne -- you may want to scratch off your list in playing another Banks course called The Knoll -- one of my personal public favorites in NJ and a favorites of others as well -- because it contains such hideous elements.

Wayne -- given your notion of what constitutes sound architecture it appears to me you favor a limited scope of design products / outcomes. OK -- I can see your rationale.

Regarding the bunker issue the depth and positioning of the bunkers at Forsgate is significant. I believe when you enter a bunker at Forsgate you are forced to deal with a very demanding shot -- not the cat box creation of some of the old time other architect "masters" who populated such courses with "good looking" bunkers but far little teeth. The ones at Forsgate are well done and frankly well positioned.

I can name at least half a dozen holes where this feature doesn't exist. The 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 13th, 14th and 16th, are some examples that come to mind. Frankly, Wayne I guess you would not like Winged Foot West or Bethpage Black because the placement of bunkers at both of those layouts does have a number of deep bunkers that are right of the putting surfaces.

The analysis of a course is a detailed oriented process. It's very possible that a one time visit may bring forth the kind of details that are necessary and clearly far reaching. I simply believed you missed a number of those details. I'm not here to crucify you Wayne -- just to point out the details that visits for over 30 years I have been fortunate to see.

But then again what the hell do I know.

[TEPaul]

Ran:

Looks like you'll have to get to Forsgate this year and put one of your excellent course profiles on it in here.

Matt Ward opines;

"The analysis of a course is a detailed oriented process. It's very possible that a one time visit may bring forth the kind of details that are necessary and clearly far reaching."

This is true. Ran Morrissett, the modern day eagle-eyed Einstein of golf course analysis and  review should be able to pull that off in under five hours! What and how much will he pick up about the golf course that Matt Ward has been missing for over thirty years?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

The courses of Raynor and Banks may integrate well with the principals of play but they do not integrate well with their surroundings.

Could you explain how they don't integrate well with their surroundings ?

Could you start with Westhampton ?

Thanks

[/color]

TEPaul,

How different are your opinions of NGLA, today, then they were after the first time you played that golf course ?