Hidden Creek: Reflections on Architecture

[Doug Braunsdorf]

First, I am sure I am saying nothing earth-shattering when I say we all had a great day for golf- 70 degrees Fahrenheit, light to moderate breezes, firm and fast playing conditions.  

I wanted to share some thoughts I had over the course of the day while playing, as well as on the car ride back up north.  

One of the first things that jumped out at me was the enormous scale of everything-the pictures on the course profile are a good starting point, but to gain the full measure of this work, like many things, it must be seen in person; the fairway widths, the bunkering, and the green complexes are so much bigger than they appear in pictures.  

The manner in which the greens tie in with the fairways is impressive, and fair, and offers the player several ways to play the shot--and often the most difficult thing to do is to determine where to land the ball, sometimes even short of the green!  A refreshing change from putting greens ringed by rough, with the aerial approach being the only option.  

By "fair", I mean, a shot that may not hold the putting surface may run off into a closely mown area, or rough, from where recovery is possible.  

The greens themselves provided the most challenge in reading putts--if I recall correctly, Bill Coore had talked about this during his presentation--because of the various ridges and 'muffins', provided a great putting challenge, but were still playable.  I do think this dimension to the greens will be even more realised in several weeks, after the greens finish recovery from aeration.  

Looking back from each putting green towards the fairway, it is evident that there are 'preferred' ways to play the holes, but not the only way to play the holes.  Many angles are afforded to the golfer here.  

One hole in particular that stuck out in my head was #13--in person, the player is offered more room than appears in pictures.  

In summary, my playing experience is weighted more towards tree-lined, or overtreed layouts with small(er) greens in the past, and this was a refreshing change from that, and one I plan to experience much more often.  

This is certainly a course that one could play multiple times in multiple ways.  

I may add to this later, but I would like any and all to post their thoughts and comments on the course and its architecture.  

[mike_malone]

 This board is for "the free discussion of golf course architecture". So, here goes---I think "greatness" requires a balance of interest throughout the the hole. Hidden Creek seems to me to be too understated until you get to the greens. The greens are very interesting without being "goofy". However, I think that is not enough to carry the course to "greatness".

      Tee to green  Hidden Creek has few hazards and little terrain change . I got the impression that this was intentional. Possibly, the "minimalist" approach comes up short of "greatness" when the land is just bland. I guess my bias is that the land makes the course and if it is uninteresting then the course cannot rise to "greatness" unless something is done in the way of adding features from tee to green.

    The net result is a very playable course that will attract a membershop looking for an enjoyable game of golf.  A very good "members" course that adds a nice option to the Jersey shore---an opportunity for a round of golf without the crowds and  beyond the hustle and bustle of the beaches or city.

    So, if that is what they wanted then they achieved it, but something makes me think that when you bring in the C-C team you are expecting more.

[mike_malone]

 Wow! I would have thought that the "quality" group that showed up yesterday would have some opinions on the architecture.

[Willie_Dow]

Hidden Creek brought me back to So Jersey in the fifties.  The original Seaview nine.  The heathland look of Pine Valley, and the closely cropped surrounds of the big greens.

It was a complete joy of a course to play, and I wish I lived closer to that spot.

Willie

[Jerry Kluger]

I really enjoyed the course and what I found the most enjoyable part of the course were the shots into the greens.  There were some very interesting contours which made reading the putts somewhat difficult but the approach shots were what the course is all about.  You had so many options of how to play your shot and how much imagination you have made the difference between success and failure.  And to me that is what gives a course character.  You didn't feel that the course was wearing you down rather you were looking forward to the next green and how you were going to be playing into it.  I do have to admit that my best approach shot was from the left trees on number 17 and I am still trying to see how I could ever play number 10 in a driver and 8 iron.

[George Pazin]

Patience, Mayday!

Tee to green  Hidden Creek has few hazards and little terrain change . I got the impression that this was intentional. Possibly, the "minimalist" approach comes up short of "greatness" when the land is just bland. I guess my bias is that the land makes the course and if it is uninteresting than the course cannot rise to "greatness" unless something is done in the way of adding features from tee to green.

I disagree with this pretty strongly.

First of all, I don't know about your group, but our group was in a very high number of hazards. I'd say it was approaching one of us per hole, it might have been higher. And the hazards were truly that, hazards. The varying placements of the hazards were such that I think all levels of golfers would be affected (though I don't have enough experience playing with really big hitters to say for sure that they might not simply fly over everything. But Tiger flew over everything at TOC in 2000, so that really a ball issue, not a design issue). Also, I think different hazards would likely be in play from day to day depending on the wind strength and direction. Making the hazards more straightforward would result in less varying play from day to day, IMHO.

Second, I thought the land was fantastic. The micro movement in the land was such that rarely did anyone in our group have a flat level stance. This is my biggest pet peeve with many modern courses - the desire to smooth over everything and promote fairness. This was definitely avoided at HC, and is a big reason why I think it would play differently every day. There is not much in the way of elevation change, really, just enough to keep things interesting, but I don't know how much elevation change there is on the great heathland courses that provide the inspiration for HC, either. Someone with more knowledge could perhaps provide insight here. I hate to use the same course as an example, but TOC also does not have much elevation change, relying instead on (perhaps the world's best) micro land movement. Jack Nicklaus described the stances on TOC as awkward. I could see some of that at HC.

One of the better players, who can out himself if he so chooses, told me and a couple others during the cocktail hour that he absolutely agrees with the notion that the course plays differently upon repeat plays, and that he has come to appreciate it more with each play. I think this is one of the ultimate compliments of a course.

I know it is a course that I would love to call home. As Pat said so well, I'd have been happy to head right back to the first tee and go out again. I'm sure it would have been totally different, and quite eye opening.

...I am still trying to see how I could ever play number 10 in a driver and 8 iron.

For me it was 3 wood, 7 iron.

And then a full pitching wedge!

 

[mike_malone]

"Second, I thought the land was fantastic", says George Pazin.


     George--  might this be a little overstated?

[mike_malone]

 Certainly a course plays differently each time one plays it and the width of this course lends itself to that variability on replays. This adds to the attraction of a members' course. But, I think how the architecture " presents " itself can and must be judged in a single playing.  That look and feel doesn't change much.

 

[Steve_ Shaffer]

This was my second visit to Hidden Creek. The first was early last April and the grass had not started growing. This time the fairway grass was growing but the greens had not returned from the aeration. I knew what to expect but the size and character of the greens and surrounds were still overwhelming to experience. Our group started on the 4th hole, the long par 3. What an experience to stand on that tee and contemplate your first shot of the day! Looking back on the hole from the green, we discovered it was better to be long than to be short. Next time, I'll know. Hidden Creek is a fine golf club, a members club, if you will. The only "wow factors" in the course are the greens and the bunkers, given the site. I think the 4th hole may be the only "wow factor" hole on the course from the tee.

[George Pazin]

As I said, Mike, I am a big fan of fairway and green land movement, so I did think it was fantastic. I will take this land over the dramatic canyons of Scottsdale any and every day of the week. It lacks the wow of most big name courses, but it more than makes up for it with smaller undulations, IMHO.

To compare it to another course I love, Lehigh, the land isn't nearly as dramatic with elevation changes, but if you hit 2 shots in the fairway at Lehigh 20 yards apart, you probably have close to the same shot from each, just with a different club. I don't think this is true at HC. Lehigh has plenty of uphill, downhill and sidehill stances to keep things interesting, but the many of the holes themselves probably play relatively the same from day to day.

Horses for courses, I guess - I loved Hidden Creek. I would never tire of Lehigh, either, but for different reasons.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

"Second, I thought the land was fantastic", says George Pazin.


     George--  might this be a little overstated?

Mike;

  I thought the land, and the use of the land was very good.  It may not have been extremely dramatic, but you must take into account where it is located, geographically speaking.  

  Hidden Creek, and a lot of South Jersey, is coastal plain.  By nature, the land is going to be relatively flat, in comparison, to, say, many of the Philadelphia courses you play regularly, built on the hilly terrain of the Delaware and Schuykill valleys.  
  This was my first C&C course I've played.  I don't have a basis for comparison, but I was very impressed with the end product.  I am in accord with you that it is a good members' course, but I also think there is enough challenge and variation built in it, movement within holes, greens, to make better players, or at least serious players want to come back and play it again.  

Ran had used this quote from Willie Park in the "Courses by Country" essay of Friar's Head:

"A golf architect must approach each bit of country with an absolute open mind, with no preconceived ideas of what he is going to lay out, the holes have to be found, and the land in its natural state used to its best advantage. Nature can always beat the handiwork of man and to achieve the best and most satisfactory results in laying out a golf course, you must humour nature"
 
  I feel this statement is fully realised at HC.  To me, in my limited experience with C&C, they embody this philosopy--and to me, that is what C&C designed courses are about--humoring nature.  The "wow" factor here is delivered in the sense of how natural the holes look--so unforced, but also in the scale of everything; the width of the fairways and appearance of bunkers, and slopes in the greens.    

 

[Rob_Waldron]

In general I agree with Mayday. I thought the back nine was routed over much more interesting terrain due of the elevation changes.  The extremely large greens offer the opportunity to dramatically change the course on a daily basis. Several greens were three to four clubs deep.

Hidden Creek is fun to play and provides versatility for course setup.....primarily due to the size and undulation of the greens.  I think C&C did a nice job considering the property they were provided.

[JESII]

Please do not let this fall into a "great / not so great" fiasco, I beg you.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug,

With respect to the firm and fast conditions, it should be remembered that half an inch of rain fell on the golf course during the previous night, which slowed it up a tad.

Mike Malone.

You were fooled, or predisposed by what Bill Coore said about defenses at a golf course.

To the unobserving, the fairway look wide off the tee, and they are.  However, you must look at the "effective" width in terms of playing and scoring well.

On the second hole there are two center fairway bunkers and what looks like a wide fairway, should you carry them.
But, beyond those bunkers it's a hogback fairway that will deflect balls hit right of the centerline further right to a lower portion of the fairway.
This leaves them with an awkward lie (remember what Bill said)
In addition it leaves them facing the mound feature which blocks off their view of the green, sort of like the 10th at Friar's Head.  Drives risking the left side get a higher elevation from which to have an unobstructed view of the green, and a prefered angle of attack into a highly contoured green.

On the third hole, again, the fairway looks wide, and is wide. but carrying the two right side fairway bunkers requires a big hit, and failure to carry them results in disaster.  If one is successful in carrying those bunkers, the next shot is infinitely easier in that it can be hit at a angle going away from the huge sand pit that lines the right side of the fairway.

Drives hit to the safer, left side are left with a difficult shot in that they are now hitting toward the large sand pit, and if they played really safe with their drive, have an outcropping of tree to contend with, forcing them to hit a big hook, or lay back, which leaves them a LONG carry over the sand pit to the green.

This theme is replete throughout the golf course.

To the unskilled eye, such as TEPaul's, golfers are prone to comment that with the wide fairways, there's no challenge off the tee, yet they can't figure out why they made bogie or worse on a hole.

If you recall Bill's comments on wind angles and angles into varying hole locations, and relate them to the prefered or ideal position off the tee, you'll better understand that the Tee shots have far more challenges than you observed.

# 12 is another great example, a super wide fairway, but, if you don't hit it down the riskier right side you have a very difficult angle of attack left for your approach.

There's more to the Tee Shot than meets the eye at Hidden Creek.

Just when I thought I was making progress with one Philadelphia guy, another misquieded sole springs forth.
What's in the water down there ?

[George_Bahto]

First of all thank you Pat Mucci for the access to HC and, as usual, for setting up another get together .........  a very interest group of guys, for sure.

I was most impressed with Bill’s and Ben’s use of the diagonal throughout the course as well as the manner the fairways flowed into those so interesting greens.

The width of the fairways was a welcome pleasure - such a wonderful change from the “defined line of play”

There were a welcome number of bunkers IN THE FAIRWAY!!!

The green blended wonderfully into the surrounding areas - it all FIT and melded together.

I think it is a course that required a great deal of thought by C & C in order for it to look so very natural.

Given the pine barren area of NJ and its very “calm” terrain, they did a great job of creating interesting lies ........ they were not uncomfortable and but there was hardly a flat area.

I went out on the course with Neil Regan and Mike Nuzzo late in the PM, Neil taking photos. The shadows were a sight to behold.

A great time with a great bunch

I’m not much into comparisons.

Hidden Creek is Hidden Creek - I loved it.

gb

[Patrick_Mucci]

In general I agree with Mayday.

Hidden Creek is fun to play and provides versatility for course setup.....primarily due to the size and undulation of the greens.  

I think C&C did a nice job considering the property they were provided.

Surely you jest.

The terrain is wonderful, it's just not dramatic.

Look at the terrain on the 2nd hole, the 4th, 5th, 6th 8th and 9th holes.

How would you compare the terrain at HC to Maidstone, Winged Foot, Baltusrol or Garden City  ?[/color]

[wsmorrison]

See what I have to put up with, with this guy?  Now you guys know why Tom and I try to beat some sense into this numbskull.  His head is too damn hard--and thick

By the way, Mike, I made the dinner reservation at the Newtown Square diner; you know the booth---be there for your weekly sense knocking!  I'm afraid we're not seeing any progress.  We'll have to hit harder.  

If that's just a members course to you, I sure wish I was a member!  Out of curiosity, were you in any hazards off the tee?  Did you shoot lower than your handicap?  Not that these are necessarily indicative of architecture...this inquiring mind just wants to know.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

Don't forget the 10th hole, the back side of the ridge that crosses the fairway can and did give a huge turbo boost!  That is routing a nice feature into the perfect spot.  The other holes you mention have wonderful features.  Our caddie, Jeff (who by the way was one of the best caddies I've had in a looooong time) thought many of the topographical movements were natural.  If so, they made great use of them in setting up the routing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug,

On # 2 I hit a perfect drive and was amply rewarded.
Another in our group hit a good drive, but to the right.
The mound totally blocked his approach view and he hit his approach way left, leaving him a long putt.

On # 3 into the wind, I didn't think I could carry the bunkers, so I hit it left, and then had to hit a great hooking two iron low, and around the tree, which I did, however, I didn't hook it enough and ended up in the sand pit bunker 150 yards from the green.  It turns out that my drive would have landed over the bunkers had I gone that route, but, I didn't and paid the price.

What many don't understand is that being on the green is no  great feat if the hole location present just as much of a putting challenge as it would a chipping or pitching challenge from another location.

Tee shots at HC are undervalued because the golfer is lulled into complacency by the illusion of wide fairways, when in fact, based on hole location there are prefered drive zones.

[George Pazin]

I couldn't agree more with everything Pat posted.

I've often thought that courses that relied on more subtle defenses - encouraging the proper side of the fairway through green contours, rather than explicit hazards - are at a real disadvantage when it comes to evaluations, whether it's for explicit rankings or simply shooting the bull with friends at the 19th.

When one has a distinct hazard to surmount and one does it, the advantage gained is quite clear. But if one hits to the wrong side of the fairway and gets screwed on the approach, it's not always apparent that there even is a wrong side of the fairway. This may only show up on repeated plays of a course.

I really believe that micro fairway movement contributes more to a golf course than so called dramatic features.

[mike_malone]

    I am reading what everyone is saying. I may not respond to everything because I find too much back and forth to be offpoint.

   I don't really disagree with anyone's viewpoint; I just see it differently than you. Whenever you build a course like Hidden Creek with much subtlety, you will get varying views.

   

[George Pazin]

There's no right or wrong, Mike. I'm just explaining what I loved about the course.

[Mike_Sweeney]

 
   I don't really disagree with anyone's viewpoint; I just see it differently than you. Whenever you build a course like Hidden Creek with much subtlety, you will get varying views.

   

Mayday,

First Bethpage Black had no sublety around the greens, yet it has great land, yet it is not a "great course".

Now Hidden Creek has sublety but not great land so it is not a "great course".

Would you give us your Matt Wardian  list of 10 "great courses" and how many courses do you think are great in the U.S.?

By the way, I probably agree with most of your post and I am really excited that I am going to play Hidden Creek, that "Members Course", for a second time on Memorial Day weekend.

PS You really do need to make that trip to see Yale for "movement of the land".

[mike_malone]

 Mike Sweeney,

     Of the courses that are seen as "great" in America, I have played Merion, Pine Valley , and The National. I thought PVGC and NGLA were great.

   

[Mike_Sweeney]

Mike Sweeney,

     Of the courses that are seen as "great" in America, I have played Merion, Pine Valley , and The National. I thought PVGC and NGLA were great.

   

Mayday,

That explains part of the issue. Now let's answer Mike from New York's question.   Let not worry about the "courses that are seen as "great" in America", the question is what courses does Mayday see as great?

For the rest of us,

Would anyone like to take some action on how many William Flynn courses in Pennsylvania will be on that list?