Hidden Creek: Reflections on Architecture

[mike_malone]

 I ran into a friend(?) of mine from my club last night. He is a 20+hdcp. He rarely talks about architecture. He said he loved Hidden Creek. He said the options available to him off the tee and around the green made the game fun. He appreciated not being overly punished for his mistakes. After all he said "I'm already punished for a mishit; ending up off line or too far away".

    I may need to rethink my views on the course, if it can do that much for raising architectural appreciation.

    Many of the comments made here have been thought provoking, but my friend's comments are more compelling since I know him better.

[blasbe1]

    I may need to rethink my views on the course, if it can do that much for raising architectural appreciation.

Mike,

Don't change your views b/c of the Kool Aid factor here, or your friends experince for that matter, change it only based upon your own experience, so don't change it until you play HC again.

I was more impressed with HC two years ago and I was disappointed with it the second time, especially since I knew it already and so many say the nuainces take knowledge and time . . . thus, I currently view it as a very good members course with several outstanding holes but something is missing for me . . . a couple of years from now my thoughts could change but it certainly won't be b.c of someone's air brushed photos or dogged commentary.  

Don't flip flop so easily, Sir.

Jason

[mike_malone]

 Jason,

    Certainly there is an intimidation factor at play here. C+C  designed it; I wonder "what's the big deal?"; I must be wrong, since "who am I?"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tee to green Hidden Creek has few hazards and little terrain change .

Tee to green, how would you describe the hazards on holes 2, 3 and 4 ?
How about 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 ?
15, 17 and 18 ?

How would you describe the terrain change at # 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9 ?

10, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 18 ?

How would you compare the terrain changes to Winged Foot, Baltusrol or Garden City ?

Are you suggesting that Coore and Crenshaw should have moved more dirt to create artificial elevation changes ?

Jason,

Most of the people who I have spoken to who have played HC a good number of times, have commented that they enjoy it as much if not more with repeated play.  Your view certainly goes against the grain, perhaps the top dressed greens had an impact.[/color]

[mike_malone]

 Pat,
   I would love to answer your questions, but the early holes all seem too similar to me to remember distinctions. I can remember not feeling like it made a difference where I hit it.

   Have not played those courses you mention.


   I think that the main issue about this course is how to make the bland parts interesting without using much machinery. I think something more is  needed to be done to create some distinctiveness for each hole.

     Much of this may relate to your desire for repeat play as a necessity to fairly judge the course. The subtleties would be better understood on repeat plays.

[George Pazin]

Jason, I would hardly call Mike's willingness to rethink - not change, rethink - his opinion as a flip flop. He might not even change his position at all, but if he does, maybe it's due to reflection, not intimidation.

There's nothing wrong with changing one's mind. There's nothing wrong with sticking to one's opinions. It's refusal to consider anything other than one's opinions that is a bad sign.

-----

I hit into more bunkers Monday than I ever have in one round before, so clearly the hazards are in play for at least some of the people some of the time.

[mike_malone]

 A few thoughts on trees---- I loved the width ; there must be more than  100 yards across . Leaving an occasional tree to create strategy was also delightful. I particularly liked the skyline effect of the short #11.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Hidden Creek is one of the very best courses in its region, it just happens to be in a phenomenal region.

This is what I heard Bill Coore say about the property:  It's not overly dramatic, there is maybe 40' of elevation change across the site.

What I was expecting from some of the comments I've read in the treehouse was a flat golf course, and something I could learn from to turn a boring site into interesting golf - applicable to a project in Houston.

Well that site was more than interesting.  While it is only 40' of elevation change, it changes over and over and over...
I would call that sandy undulated land.
Perfect for a great course.
And for me that one was easily great.

David M. - my playing partner, and I couldn't get over the fact that some people think the course was flat.

Flat and Great are clearly subjective terms.

Cheers

[RJ_Daley]

I wonder if there is some sort of quantitative measure to be applied to land by the acre that indicates the frequency of undulations and degree of elevation change.  

For instance, there are X number of topo elevation tops to ridges or knobs of Y ft elevation from troughs-swales to tops per acre on average throughout Z# of acres.  

It seems to me that there might be an ideal there.  Not too severe in elevation changes on too abrupt of a steep grade, yet many rolls and features that offer natrually varied terrain for routing interesting fairways and green sites.  The ideal would obviously be a site like in the Sand Hills.  Yet all sand hills land is not alike.  Some is too rugged, some too mildly sloped.  

I personally think that the 40' total ele change you folks are speaking of at HC is just about perfect, if the frequency of the rolls are ample.

[tomgoutman]

Pat, thanks for making it possible for all of us to play HC and listen to Bill Coore talk golf course design/construction. I agree with your comments about the course. There is, in fact, great variety in topography for a course in Southern New Jersey. Additionally, as Bill Coore pointed out, there are very few flat lies, which is another source of variety. And, obviously, each green is a world unto itself. And yet, more than one very sophisticated golf course architecture type has told me that he has left the course with an overarching sense of the "sameness" of the holes. These people are neither stupid nor prejudiced; indeed, they all have a healthy admiration for C&C. So, where does this sense of "sameness" come from? My humble (and probably misguided) suggestion: the overuse of forward fairway bunkers, ones that should not come in to play (unless you're Mayday on no. 16), but provide stategic clues for shot placement (or alternatively try to trick you into thinking there is trouble where there is not). I generally love the use of bunkers of this type but like any great architectural device, its overuse can be visually fatiguing and create the sense of, "haven't we played this hole before?" Monday was my second time around the course, and I agree with Pat that repeated play permits one to better appreciate the variety that was designed into each hole with subtlety and genius.

[mike_malone]

 Back from the annual Irish-Italian Day at Rolling Green--Unfortunately the wrong team won.

      I need to expand on my topographical bias . I missed the drop shot tees or uphill tee  or approach shots that one sees at a course like this when I played Hidden Creek. At one point today our opponents had a forty foot uphill blind wedge shot(#14) after missing the green  by 20 feet. You just don't get shots like this at Hidden Creek.You can't get a shot like that unless they did a lot of earth moving(say like they did right down the road at Twisted Dune).I am okay with this decision; I just think it limits the upside evaluation.

   This is not to say the course is bad, just limited. When people talk about uneven lies at HC  I laugh compared to what I saw today.

   Take  #15 at Bethpage Black ---where is that shot to the green at Hidden Creek? I don't think you can say "that's a parkland course and this is a heathland course, so they can't be compared".They can be compared by the level of challenge.

     The penalties at HC are usually "annoying". Those at these topographically more interesting courses can punish you much more severely. And these are not stupid penalties like parallel water, just demanding tests.

       I love strategically designed courses, but I define them as what you think about before hitting your shot not how you deal with the next shot.

     HC seems to overuse the "gotcha" idea a little bit. It seems to be the response to the lack of topographical intimidation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

At one point today our opponents had a forty foot uphill blind wedge shot(#14) after missing the green  by 20 feet. You just don't get shots like this at Hidden Creek.

I had assumed that you played # 4, # 11 and # 18 at Hidden Creek.  The comment above indicates that you skipped those holes. [/color]

You can't get a shot like that unless they did a lot of earth moving(say like they did right down the road at Twisted Dune).

That's not true, clever use of the topography can get you those shots, providing the elevations exist.[/color]

I am okay with this decision; I just think it limits the upside evaluation.

You keep refusing to answer the question about the topography at Winged Foot, Baltusrol and Garden City.
WHY ?  GCGC is flat when compared to HC.

Are you suggesting that GCGC should have uphill, blind wedges from 20 feet short of the green ?   How about Maidstone ?  Inwood ?  Riviera ?  Pebble Beach ?  Pine Tree ?
Winged Foot,  Quaker Ridge ?  Ridgewood ?
St Andrews ? Troon ? [/color]

This is not to say the course is bad, just limited. When people talk about uneven lies at HC  I laugh compared to what I saw today.

How would what you saw today compare to the courses listed above ?

You seem trapped or confined by the idea that a golf course has to have dramatic topography in order to be great, so how did the courses I listed above achieve their lofty status ?[/color]

Take  #15 at Bethpage Black ---where is that shot to the green at Hidden Creek? I don't think you can say "that's a parkland course and this is a heathland course, so they can't be compared".They can be compared by the level of challenge.


Would you show me that shot at St Andrews.  You can't ?
Okay, I'll settle for Garden City
Oh, you can't there as well.
Well, I guess those courses present no level of challenge for you.  You must eat them up alive.

I think you've narrowed and confined your level of challenge to a particular shot rather than the broad selection of shots that can present a challenge, such as the approach into # 10 or the approach to # 11.  The level of a challenge isn't the establishment of a single shot.

Would you show me the level of challeng on the par 3's at Bethpage Black that equals that of the 4th at HC ?[/color]

 
The penalties at HC are usually "annoying". Those at these topographically more interesting courses can punish you much more severely. And these are not stupid penalties like parallel water, just demanding tests.

Demanding tests from what yardage ?

I played Bethpage Black from the US Open tees shortly after the US Open.  The "Level of Challenge" is severely muted from the forward tees.  So, are you referencing the "level of challenge" in the context of length or shot value ?[/color]

I love strategically designed courses, but I define them as what you think about before hitting your shot not how you deal with the next shot.

That's great, let's go hole by hole through Bethpage Black from the US Open tees and tell me what your strategy is on each tee ?[/color]

HC seems to overuse the "gotcha" idea a little bit. It seems to be the response to the lack of topographical intimidation.


Mike, I'm begining to think that you don't get it.

Where is that topographical intimidation at TOC ?
Where is it at Maidstone ?
Where is it at Garden City ?
Where is it at Pine Tree ?[/color]

[mike_malone]

 Pat,
     It is a lot of work to answer your questions.

    I certainly did miss that shot of 40 ft. up hill right next to the green at HC--remind me again where it was.

    I told you before I have not played those courses.

    TOC has the wind--that is what makes those courses, and I love them. If HC had significant wind it might be different.

 Pat,

    As to "narrowing" the shot spectrum, that is what HC does to some extent versus more challenging courses. These more topograhically challenging courses have the HC shots plus more. If you don't think more challenging shots are a requirement for a championship course to achieve the highest status than I won't argue with you. I think it is a well held requirement by those interested in golf course architecture.

   I ran into another guy who loved HC. He is a 24 hdcp.  I am beginning to think this is why it has that "members" tag. High hdcpers don't "feel" beaten up.


    Pat,

     I hope I was clear that I liked HC. But, I must confess that I "enjoy" Twisted Dune more (about a mile down the road  and public). That probably means I don't get it. Maybe I don't get it, but I will continue to express my opinion.

[blasbe1]

Certainly there is an intimidation factor at play here. C+C  designed it;

Mike Malone:

I don't think it's intimidation, I just think the course gets an immediate supercharge in many eyes b/c it was done by C&C.  This includes my own, I'm strongly predisposed to enjoy if not salivate over C&C courses.  I'm not sure HC would receive the same high praise here if it was a Fazio Course.  

Mike Nuzzo:

When you say "Hidden Creek is one of the very best courses in its region, it just happens to be in a phenomenal region" have you played Galloway National, and if so, what were your thoughts?  I found Galloway to be the best use of risk reward hazards and playing angles that I've seen from Fazio.

In a mach play vs. HC it would go like this for me:

1) GN one up, more reward off the tee for cutting the corner, and a difficult green well guarded short when long is dead, and it better grabs the players attention from the outset;

2) All square, likely my favorite tee shot and green site at HC            , and while 2 at GN is an intimidating short 3 with a wild green, it's still a short iron shot to a fairly large green unless the pin is front left or way back right;

3) HC one up, three at HC just grabs more interest approach the green, requires more heroic shots if out of position (from the right side);

4) All square, while I truly enjoy 4 at HC, 4 at GN is an excellent  use of angles, the optimum play is to challenge the bunker inside the dogleg left to have any chance for a clear shot to a back right pin, however, more create cut shots can be played if you're out of position off the tee;

5) GN one up, a demanding 3 par with a more interesting green that HC 5, several greens within a green on GN 5;

6)GN one up 2 solid holes, I prefer the more demanding tee shot at GN and prefer the approach at HC;

7) GN 2 up, a great shortish 4 par by Fazio, use of the tree down the left side of the fairway is perfect;

GN 1 up, while 8 is a strong 3 par at GN, the drivable 8th at HC is in a different league;

9) GN 2 up, reachable in two, but requiring a huge drive off the tee, 2 and GN interested me more and while it didn't move as much as the 5 par at HC, I found the tee shot more demanding and the angle of play suprising slides right if you catch a right hand bounce off of a big drive, also found the approach to GN more challenging;

10) GN 2 up, both very strong long fours, again I prefer the more challenging tee shot at GN and prefer the approach at HC;

11) GN 1 up, HC 3par sublime;

12) All square, HC's 12 is too strong for the layup 90 degree dogleg left at GN (although the green at GN is strong and fun to play);

13) GN 1 up, while the tee shot at HC is a challenge angle wise, it's a lay up, 13 at GN is too strong;

14) GN 1 up, neither my favorite 3 pars;

15) GN 2 up, I prefer the tee shot at GN and the green there is one of the best on the course, back right pins are murder for even short iron approaches;

16) GN wins 3 and 2, the shortest route home challenges the water left because trees right creep into play for the big hitter, pins tucked behind the left bunker are menacing to say the least, a good reachable 5 par;

To play out the round:

17) GN 4 up, after 13 and HC, the most forced tee shot at HC, fairway runs out down left so it's a layup short of the bunkers for the big hitters or a forced cut to get within long iron range, a very good potential two shot hole and a good blind carry to the left of the green but just not the knee knocker hole that 17 at GN is, especially in a match play situation, many will puke (including me) at GN 17.

18) GN five up, while it could be criticised as too much like 1, it's another gambler's hole of the tee to a well defended green and while a strong fade catches the speed slot for a short iron approach, it's from a hanging lie giving you lots to think about.  To me, the hole just has better movement than 18 at HC.
           
After 2 rounds at HC and 1 at GN, I found GN much higher on the fun factor, and while some drawn out walks from green to tee are a negative, the course is still very walkable.  So maybe I really don't get it!

Cheers,

Jason

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

I've played GN and HC a good number of times.  If faced with the proposition of playing one, day in and day out, it's no contest, HC is far more enjoyable in large doses than GN, and, that's without taking the bugs into consideration.

[JESII]

Is it also possible that the apparent sameness of the holes can come from something so obvious as the fact that the course is cut out of the pines.  Sea Oaks had that sameness for me too, although I think it is a different kind of tree than Hidden Creek.  I did like both courses though in general.  Somehow, Pine Valley seems to avoid this difficulty.  Maybe because of more dramatic elevation changes, maybe because more holes are visable than the one you're playing.  I don't know.

Maybe it's partly because Pine Valley was not intended to be a course played by all caliber of player and therefore the architects took many more liberties in the 'right in front of you' appearance of each hole.

[mike_malone]

 The only bad part of Tom's post is his unnecessary self-deprecation

[George Pazin]

Tom's post is well thought out, but it belies a sense of evaluating a course based solely on one's own game. If you move all the cross bunkers/fairway bunkers/center hazards out to where they're all in play for the big hitters, then they become trivial for everyone else. How do you handle the fact that Tiger hits it further than Fred Funk? Do you plan to just penalize Tiger, or do you plan to make all of the cross bunkers a mini Hell's Half Acre? Maybe you should have just played the championship tees on the back.

More than a few have indicated that they hit into hazards. I know everyone in our group did.

As to the sameness issue, I didn't think the holes looked the same at all. They had similar character - i.e. they all fit together well - but I don't think that's saying the same thing at all.

[blasbe1]

I've played GN and HC a good number of times.  If faced with the proposition of playing one, day in and day out, it's no contest, HC is far more enjoyable in large doses than GN, and, that's without taking the bugs into consideration.

Pat,

What's your match play between the two?  Controlling for bugs, of course.  

Jason

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

Match playing par 3's against par 4's and 5's, and par 5's against par 4's is akin to mental masturbation, hence I've never been one who endorses that sort of exercise.

Giving # 4 a GN the nod over # 4 at HC tells me all I need to know.

I think GN from the back tees is more difficult, I think HC is a far better golf course, day in and day out.   And, if one was inclined to do so, HC could be dramatically lengthened to present a challenging "championship" test.

Had HC's greens been running at 10 or so, I think some would be singing a different tune.

[blasbe1]

Pat:

I played HC two years ago in the fall when growth was much better, greens were as slick as you'd ever need to play them and I was impressed then, as I was impressed on Monday.  

The entire point of my counter point with GN was to give it  perspective.  I've played and seen enough to say that GN and HC are probably both slightly inflated in the rankings, but relative position is about right.  Also, the day in day out intangible is relevant only to members which should really be irrelevant in this discussion.  I also didn't ask, and frankly don't care, if HC could host a major/usga event (if that's what you mean by "championship"), and if it did, I'm sure the rough would over run most fairway bunkering wich is the courses second best attribute.

FYI, I thought Cuscowilla was so good I joined after playing one round and bought a house there after playing four rounds, and I joined Praire Dunes before laying foot on the tract.  I've been in semi-golfing Nirvana since having made return trips to both.  These two tracts are my sounding boards, one modern, one classic, and they are both outstanding.  In fact, PD is greatly under-rated and should be in everyone's US top 10.  So when people gush over HC so, I take a step back, compare and contrast with what I know and enjoy and criticise where I think appropriate.  Based on your comments, since you would rank HC above GN, you would also rank HC above the Plantation Course which is off base IMO.  

Last, while I need not defend my thoughts of that 4 at GN is a better test of golf in one hole, requring two well played and well planned shots, while giving the player a chance to recover and if that's "all you need to know" about my appreciation of GCA than your not thinking enough.  Perhaps the "R" word has you enraptured?  

Jason

   

[ed_getka]

I don't see why Mike Malone is being laid into here. I don't see him making any deragatory remarks that are out of line. He basically likes the course, but it isn't the type of course that gets him excited to play.
   The land from what I gather isn't what architects dream about when they sleep, so just how good could the course be? I haven't heard anyone say the course could have been better, other than to say some additional features could make it more interesting. That is not C&C's style, so I wouldn't expect to see it on one of their courses. Its either there and they work with, or its not there, and you make the best of what you have to work with.
   Mike has stated an opinion, and it can be questioned and points can be made, but if we want dialogue here I think we need to respect it, even if some disagree with it.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Welcome to the world of Mike "Mayday" Malone.  How would you like it if he were a member of your club and insisted that he KNEW FOR A FACT what your architect intended 80 years ago, and insisted on changing the course consistant with his KNOWING what is right and wrong?
    Believe me, it's no picnic.  Also believe me, I consider Mike a friend, albeit a dangerous one.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jason,

I have not had the opportunity to play Galloway National.
I did like HC more than Twisted Dunes.

I put HC in the Philly - South Jersey region.
If there are 200 courses in the area, and Hidden Creek was a top 10, that would be one of the best in it's region.
When Pine Valley and Merion are in your region, there are only 8 spots left.
I'm just guessing....

Cuscowilla is a good comparision.  It had a greater dispersion of holes, some better some worse.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Ed,
I say we all get together, tie Mayday Malone up and each one of us, one by one, take turns kicking him in the huevos. He deserves it.

You know what?

I'm so sick and tired of reading some of this inane dreck from some of the other posts citing that Hidden Creek isn't a good golf course, when in fact, its a VERY good golf course--one that I could play day-in and day-out for the rest of my life and get more enjoyment then I would playing any brand name course of a higher stature and Golf Digest ranking. (The ranking for the clueless)

With that........

Pat, I found Hidden Creek to have a lot of hidden deception and ultimately the controversy proves that its a course that is on the right track. It creates interesting conversation and dissection. But with some fo these people on GCA, some of which is like giving a soucher to a 11 year old and telling him to go operate on the cat. That's how clueless some of the thoughts on Hidden Creek seem to be from a few of the cognescenti from Monday night. I think they need to go back inside the clubhouse for another drink, because if they can't understand Hidden Creek with the developer, designer & superintendent there to explain it to them, then they are in a Atlantic City fog. They're like Sargent Shultz on Hogan's Heroes, "Col. Hooooogan, you know nooooothing!"

My hole of interest--my assignment was hole #6. This is what I found:

Keep Uncle George away from the tables at AC!

In all seriousness, A important drive in regards to placement of that drive, as are all of them at Hidden Creek when it comes to relation to the placement of the flag. Our hole was probably more of a conventional* hole then the others, nothing to taxing until you get on the the green. and hopefully as near to the flag as possible. I've noticed this about a lot of GREAT classic golf courses. Put the pin in an area like back left or right, and its a stroketougher to play the hole for most. It takes two quick spits and the the fun starts by having to gauge the speed around and the actual position of the flag. Its sort of a "Fairway on the green." It works with the entire hole that well! With a big, bold and beautiful C&C/J.Bradley bunker protecting the short right side. You can be in trouble at Hidden Creek, but the fact remains you are always offered a menial penalty out

Hallelujah!

I'm too tired to type anymore and will try to do more tomorrow, so until then, arrivadercie!