Hidden Creek: Reflections on Architecture

[Mike_Cirba]

George,

Put the kid down now.  

How are you going to qualify for Tommy's 12-step program if you are permitting family obligations to interfere with your usually well-reasoned posts on GCA??  HUH??  

Next thing you'll be telling me that HC is superior to Rustic...that's how quickly the mind can go once young children are involved!    

[wsmorrison]

Mike C,

Come on, I just wanted to have a little fun with Matt. I won't do it again, although I really prefer HC to Forsgate 7 or 8 out of 10 rounds.  He really jumps when you push the Forsgate button, doesn't he?

Keep reminding Tom of the Flynn book!  It couldn't hurt

By the way, I threw that quote in about my abilities as a softball to Matt.  He hit it...it looks like...it might be....oooh, caught by the shortstop.  He's always tooting his own horn (I've played 10,000 courses in NJ alone so nobody has an opinion as valuable as mine) that I thought I'd let him know what it seems like to the rest of us peons.

[Brian Phillips]

Brian:

Please re-read what you originally posted. You said Hidden Creek is a "great" golf course and then added the fact that you played Merion and Pine Valley along with Aronimink. Help me understand something since I'm on Mount Everest (love the personal invective -- it really adds class to you position) but if Merion and Pine Valley are great (my assumption) can you please tell me how Hidden Creek joins that same level of quality? Please knock yourself out with your reasoning.

Matt,

I really enjoyed reading your latest reply to me. I wish I could write as good as you do, I struggle to get my point across in writing sometimes. To answer your quip about having no class…no, it is not something I am known for and I am trying to work on it!  Five years in the Royal Engineers is the only excuse I can give you.

Back to the golf.  I never once said that Hidden Creek was on a par with Pine Valley or Merion, I said that I saw Hidden Creek the same week that I played those courses and that was good enough comparison, I also played Sand Hills god knows how many times in the weekend before as well.  My point for mentioning them was that any course that I played in that same week as those classics was up against it to be rated highly.  

To explain the word great in the way I use the word (not the way you use it) I will set up a scenario in a bar.

Fellow Architect (FA):  So Brian, heard you like Hidden Creek?
Brian: Yeh, it’s a great course, Bill and Ben have really achieved what they wanted there a subtle, sneaky heathland course, it’s great.  Really does remind me of the Sunningdale etc back home, even more so than Pine Valley
FA: Really, better than Pine Valley?
Brian: No, no, that’s not what I meant.  I mean it plays and looks like a classic heathland course
FA: So, you mean both Pine Valley and Hidden Creek are great courses?
Brian: Yeh, of course.
FA: So what do you mean? Hidden Creek is as good as Pine Valley?
Brian: No, no, you are missing the point, they shouldn’t really be compared.
FA: Okay, but I will put you on the spot anyway. Which is better?
Brian: Of course Pine Valley is better but Hidden Creek is still a great course.


Definition of Great in The Oxford Dictionary: of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average.

Hidden Creek is a golf course that is considerably above the normal or average.

I didn't say the quantity of courses played is the sole ingredient. I added that cogent analysis is also needed.

No but you did say the following:

In order to gauge where Hidden Creek truly belongs -- whether as a "very good" course or an "excellent" course I submit people need to see the full range of course offerings in Jersey before they fall overthemselves with glowing compliments about the C&C layout.

Why?  You have not addressed that issue.  Why do we have to?

What is happening is that the groupies have descended upon Jersey and now are canonizing one particular layout. I marvel at the skill in elevating one course to pantheon level greatness without fully comprehending the scope of architectural qualities which are the hall mark of a number of other courses. New Jersey is far richer than just about all the states in the Union save for the likes of New York, Pennsy, California, to name just three.

…and you still don’t think that what you say here is arrogant, if it is not arrogant then is it not patronising?  
 
There are people on this planet who have played a much wider sampling of courses than you or I. I believe the person with the greater number of courses allows such persons to  place in some sort of context how those many courses shake out when compared and contrasted against each other. Those playing far less can still have an opinion, but the totality of what they have to review is still an issue for them to overcome.

As I said before, you can only lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink the stuff.  I would trust most on here than a touring pro in regards to opinions about architecture any day…including yourself.

Brian -- what's "scary" is your ignorance of the topography southeast Jersey possess.

What does the topography of southeast Jersey have to do with Hidden Creek and whether it is a great course or not?  The Jubilee course at St.Andrews is on the same type of ground as TOC.  The Jubilee is a boring slog if you ask me and TOC is a great course (it has taken me 5 goes to finally get it to sink in mind you!).  The only topography that is important is the topography at Hidden Creek.  It is rolling and that is enough to create a great course.

Now, was that an invite to come and play some golf in the area with you?  If it is I would love to play a few rounds with you and the other guys in the area.  I have to warn you, I swear when I have had a beer or two but I am generally a nice guy…at least I think so.  Anyway, I would like to see you walk on water when you come down from Everest…

Cheers,

Brian.

ps. I did mean it when I said I enjoyed your writing.

[ForkaB]

The Jubilee course at St.Andrews is on the same type of ground as TOC.  The Jubilee is a boring slog if you ask me and TOC is a great course (it has taken me 5 goes to finally get it to sink in mind you!).

Brian

I can't believe you've gone over to the dark side so soon!  You are dead right about the Jubilee (and almost everything else you have posted on this thread) but TOC "a great course?"  Say it ain't so!

Well I guess I'l have to play it tomorrow, then, and see for myself.......

[Brian Phillips]

Rich,

When I played it about three weeks ago it was superb.  Played together with Ronan and he played it about one or two over and that was his first time.

We played the Jubilee the same day and both Ronan and I were bored half way around.

That round that day on TOC was weird...an eye opener...just started to see things that I had never noticed before, don't know why.

Brian

[blasbe1]

As much as I like Prairie Dunes, dislodging the courses you list is a bit of a stretch, especially courses you haven't played, for if you allege that Prairie Dunes is better than Pebble Beach, then perhaps so is Merion, Crystal Downs and Pinehurst # 2, and as such, how can you say that Prairie Dunes is better then courses that you've never seen ?
[/color]

I'm not it's better than courses I've not played, I was lawyering that point    I do think it's better than Pebble, and the others above my very well be as well.  But I'm harder on Pebble for the weaker holes than some others may be.  

     

[SL_Solow]

This has been a very interesting post, not so much for the contents of each post but more as a reflection of the various approaches to evaluating courses.  I attended the Hidden Creek outing and played the course for the first time.  I think the course is outstanding.  Where it rates vis a vis others I cannot yet determine in large measure due to the nature ot the challenge presented.  This is a very subtle golf course.  It is built on a very large scale; wide fairways and large greens, with relatively small yet meaningful undulations throughout.  Accordingly it lacks any real "wow " factor except for those in love with the heathland look.  For those who miss the larger elevation changes I am reminded that by and large the golden age architects avoided severe sites.  I think that was for reasons beyond their ability to move sufficient earth; it related to the suitability of rolling land to create good golf shots.  But certainly this site lacks the drama of some others.  Moreover with most of the interest centered on the greens and the approach angles, it is difficult to determine in one play just how much difference placement off the tee, failure to execute approaches, ability to execute a variety of recovery shots will make.  This was exacerbated for me by the fact that the greens had been aerated.  Its clear that they are interesting and challenging but I was unable to evaluate their full impact.  Clearly there are courses which threaten disaster on a more regular basis and thus have a greater "pucker" factor.  But I had the feeling that there were a lot of different ways to play most of the holes and that the impact of changing winds would have to be factored in more regularly than on most courses.  In short I was very favorably impressed for a first play and I have the sense that I would be more favorably impressed on subsequent plays.  I got the sense that the width of the course was functional in that it would give different players different ways to play the holes and would give the same player different ways to play depending on conditions and even depending on their tee shots on a given day.  In short I thought there was a lot of golf,  and that I would not get tired of the course.  Where it ranks in the pantheon is not very important to me and any judgment on my part regarding that issue would be premature.

[Jerry Kluger]

I'm wondering about this "pucker" or "white knuckle" test which is being used in determining the quality of a hole's design.  If that is going to be the test then all of the Florida courses with enormous amounts of water are the only ones which will pass the test.  What is the quality of the player who we are using as a standard in determining if the shot is terrifying enough to be good design?  If we use only the best golfers as a standard then the shot be impossible for the vast majority who play the hole.  I think that the test of good design is how challenging the hole is to as many levels of golfers as possible.  HC tested the golfer with respect to his ability to play the shot that is required to get to the pin -- and sometimes there were different types of shots which could be played and the better the golfer, the more options he had.  If the hole challenges you and there is a reward to meeting the challenge then the design works, provided there is also enough of a penalty should you not meet the challenge.  But this does not mean that the penalty has to be more than a difficult recovery shot from a greenside bunker.  

[George Pazin]

I wonder how much more pucker there would be if the greens had not been aerated recently. I know some of the recovery shots I hit would have not turned out as well.

[Mike_Cirba]

I didn't say "pucker factor".  I think I said said "adrenaline inducing", but the terms inspiring and intimidating and intensity come to mind, as well.

Name me one great course that doesn't have some fear level for the better player or make him think twice about firing at the flag.

But it's not just about the dangerous side, either.  It's about creating pleasurable excitement.

Put another way, how many approach shots at HC would you love to just sit in the fairway with a bucket of balls for a few hours?

I can think of a few, but I wonder if we'd agree.

[John Foley]

How about

-Approach at #2
-#3 anywhere from the left hand fw bunker in.
-#8 from the fw/cross bunker in
-#12
-recoveries around #14
-#17 to reach in two

Those are FUN shots.

[Matt_Ward]

Brian P:

How is personal knowledge arrogant? Excuse me partner but when someone knows their own turf -- their own backyard -- I think I have a little wiggle room from this peanut gallery in terms of what I believe to be superior golf in my home state.

How is my opinion arrogant because I don't leap like some frog on the C&C bandwagon with each and every golf course? I like Hidden Creek for what it provides -- I just believe there are other layouts here in Jersey that merit equal or even more attention.

Brian -- you said Hidden Creek was a "great" golf course. Please don't tapdance around what you said. You then mentioned you had played Pine Valley and Merion and Aronimink. In my mind -- forgive me -- I see PV and Merion as bulletproof courses that clearly and easily merit the level of greatness. I don't see Hidden Creek at that same high level. Like I said, in using a baseball metaphor -- it's a solid
double -- but it's not a home run in my book. What's so funny is that when people deviate from the gospel word of those who are C&C fanatics the person taking the contrary position is then held out as some sort of oddball.

Brian -- you can throw forward all the BS about Mount Everest and all the pedestal drivel you want. You did say Hidden Creek was a "great" golf course -- and then threw forward the association (implied) with Pine Valley and Merion. Please do yourself a big favor -- take the humble pie approach and admit you goofed big time.

P.S. I do enjoy your writing -- even when it blows harder than the wind in Scotland.

[Brian Phillips]

Matt,

I can't find where I said it was great golf course but If you say I did so I did but I will say it now....It IS a great golf course.  I never ever put it on the same level as PV or Merion, you assumed I did.

You still have not answered why we have to play other courses in the area to give an opinion on HC.

Lets just agree to disagree and move forward otherwise we will be chasing our tails for the next month....

Brian

[Brian Phillips]

Brian P:

How is personal knowledge arrogant? Excuse me partner but when someone knows their own turf -- their own backyard -- I think I have a little wiggle room from this peanut gallery in terms of what I believe to be superior golf in my home state.

Matt, you don't have any more feet to shoot.  I don't need to say anymore...you do enough yourself.

[TEPaul]

Matt Ward:

As far as I can see this thread is supposed to be a discussion about the details of the architecture of Hidden Creek where a forum of GCAers was held last week, not Forsgate or PVGC or some other course in NJ. What is the purpose of arguing with people on here how the course stacks up in the state of NJ against other courses in your mind or whether the word "great" fits it? This thread is called "Re: Hidden Creek: Reflections on Architecture". You keep telling us how well you know the courses of New Jersey. How well do you really know the architectural details of Hidden Creek? One wonders because you always seem either unwilling or unable to discuss it particularly comprehensively or intelligently as many of the others on this thread have.

Everyone has their own opinions about the architecture of golf course---including you. In this case it's Hidden Creek not some golf course 60 miles north you think is a better one. Since golf architecture is subjective there probably isn't any real right or wrong. But are you capable of discussing with others your feelings about the details of Hidden Creek and discussing with others why you agree or disagree with their opinions of the details of the architecture of Hidden Creek? If you are why don't you just trying doing that on this thread?

[Mike_Cirba]

To me, the most fun on the course are the back to back approaches at 10 (with the fall away green begging for a running approach) and 11 (with a little postage stamp on the top of the hill, very much resembling #11 at Shinny).  

Oh that there were more of this variety.  

[mike_malone]

 Tom,
     Isn't all architectural reflection comparative? The definition of great golf architecture is found in actual golf courses like  Pine Valley. It provides the benchmark.

    Very good courses have a few warts but also create a standard . Examples in the Philly area would be Huntingdon Valley, Aronimink, Philly Country.

    Fine courses such as Applebrook are in that next area. Nice courses but not intended to test one strenuously. There is nothing wrong with these courses. In fact you often hear they are more fun. Hidden Creek seems to me to fall into this category.

     The architecture is not as demanding tee to green as the "great" or "championship" courses. I have said that the terrain is the  obvious part that is less demanding. It is fine, fun, and appropriate for its goals.

   

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

Thanks Mike -- you are 1000% correct. Architecture is in reflection comparative. One plays course "A" and then to measure it's relative qualities holds it against the likes of course "B" and so forth and so on. Frankly, all sports revolve around this type of analysis. People try to provide appropriate comparisons such as courses designed for championships and those designed for serious member play. Ditto for specific course types -- links, parkland, etc, etc.

You are also right on target Mike -- the terrain / land is a critical component and for me the #1 aspect in any course assessment. I am fully aware of the limitations of the terrain in southeast Jersey -- so is C&C as they turned down the first two sites that Roger Hansen showed them (now the location for BHP / East & West).

While the land Hidden Creek has now is better than nearly everything around it -- it is still limited -- allow me to use the more politically correct term of "subdued" -- to the point that I don't see the supreme virtues all of the C&C fan club keep harping on and on and on about.


Brian P:

In your initial post on this thread -- you stated Hidden Creek was a great course. You then threw into the picture the names of Pine Valley and Merion in some sort of attempt to show some sort of linkage -- even if it wasn't meant deliberately. Hidden Creek is not a great golf course IMHO -- if you believe such -- then I urge you in your next visit to Jersey to contact me and I'll be able to provide the names of other courses in the Garden State equal or beyond what you saw there.

I enjoyed Hidden Creek and salute C&C in getting the most out of the property. With the likes of Galloway National and ACCC it makes up a unique troika of courses in the greater AC area.

[George Pazin]

I guess a corollary to Tom P's big world theory would be that architecture is 1000% comparative for some, and one helluva lot less for others.

Count me as an other.

[George Pazin]

Feel free to call it whatever you like.

I'm always happy to rethink my posts, in fact I do it all the time. I am relentlessly critical of my own posts, though it may not always show!

I'll expand a little, maybe it will make more sense to you - or maybe not.

To say architecture is 1000% comparative to me implies that the only thing that matters is how a golf course compares to another. There is no examination of a course's attributes and how they may or may not work, other than to compare it to another course, regardless of whether or not those courses even merit comparison.

Saying architecture is 1000% comparative also implies to me an obsession with ranking courses, and does not allow for learning anything, positive or negative, about golf courses in and of themselves.

This could all be improper inferences on my part, or it could be accurate, depending on your point of view.

If you are trying to figure out where a golf course lies in the grand scheme of all golf courses, I suppose architecture is 1000% comparative.

But if you are trying to understand what you enjoy about a course, and what you don't enjoy, it is way less. Waaaaaaaaaay less, to put it in terms someone else might prefer.

Feel free to label this post goofy as well. Sticks and stones!

 

* You didn't need to remove that, Mike, I thought it was funny. I will now forever remember my 3000th post as my goofy post.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom, Isn't all architectural reflection comparative?
The definition of great golf architecture is found in actual golf courses like  Pine Valley.
It provides the benchmark.

Very good courses have a few warts but also create a standard .
Examples in the Philly area would be Huntingdon Valley, Aronimink, Philly Country.

Fine courses such as Applebrook are in that next area.
Nice courses but not intended to test one strenuously.
There is nothing wrong with these courses.
In fact you often hear they are more fun.
Hidden Creek seems to me to fall into this category.
Is this where NGLA would fit in ?[/color]

The architecture is not as demanding tee to green as the "great" or "championship" courses.

So you equate great golf courses as ONLY those golf courses that are demanding "championship" golf courses ?  ?  ?

This would seem to disqualify Cypress Point, Maidstone, NGLA, Fisher's Island, San Francisco, Prairie Dunes, Chicago Golf Club, Seminole, Wannamoisett, Somerset Hills and others from
"Great" status.  How would you classify the above courses ?
[/color]

I have said that the terrain is the  obvious part that is less demanding. It is fine, fun, and appropriate for its goals.
Does this mean that the lack of demanding terrain at Garden City, Maidstone, Westhampton, Winged Foot, Baltusrol, Quaker Ridge, Pinehurst #2, Chicago, Wannamoisett and Riviera remove them from being considered great golf courses as well ?[/color]

Matt Ward,

Roger Hansen, Bill Coore and Jeff Riggs discussed Hidden Creek, play of the golf course followed their presentations.

The get together afforded us the opportunity to listen to the creator, the designer and the curator of the golf course at Hidden Creek.

Bill Coore did not travel from Scotsdale, Arizona to discuss hundreds of golf courses in New Jersey, Pennsylvania or New York.  Roger Hansen did not attend to discuss any courses other then Blue Heron Pines and Hidden Creek, the only two golf complexes he's put together.
Jeff Riggs was present to discuss the construction and care of Hidden Creek, the only golf course at which he presently serves as Superintendent.

Why you insist on diverting the focus from other than the object of the symposium is beyond me.

NOBODY attended the symposium to discuss other golf courses in New Jersey.

NOBODY attended the symposium for the purpose of making comparisons to any other golf course in New Jersey or elsewhere.

I don't need to play all of the golf courses in Oregon to appreciate the golf courses at Bandon.

I don't need to play all of the golf courses in Nebraska to appreciate Sand Hills.

And, the attendees who came from Texas, Florida, Illinois, California and other distant points don't need to play other courses in New Jersey to appreciate Hidden Creek.[/color]

[HamiltonBHearst]

Well said Patrick.    I am sure the members of the club who are enjoying the course so much are not thinking about other courses in NJ while they are playing.  

[Michael Moore]

NOBODY attended the symposium for the purpose of making comparisons to any other golf course in New Jersey or elsewhere.

Mr. Malone clearly stated that this was one of his objectives.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Moore,

NOBODY attended the symposium for the purpose of making comparisons to any other golf course in New Jersey or elsewhere.

Mr. Malone clearly stated that this was one of his objectives.


Would you cite where Mike Malone made this statement ?

I hope you're not relying on your interpretation of post # 83 to substantiate your claim.

When asked to compare features found at Hidden Creek with those found at many other great golf courses Mike indicated that he hadn't played those courses.  
Perhaps his sampling pool is limited, making valid comparisons impossible ?[/color]

[Michael Moore]

Yes, in post #83 he said -

"I played HC in order to make a judgement as to what I thought its status should be."

There's no interpretation or substaniation needed.

I appreciate your willingness to investigate this. I think that it is important that we attempt to stay factual on this board.