Hidden Creek: Reflections on Architecture

[ed_getka]

Tommy,
   Sounds like you are having fun, I was wondering when we would hear from you.

For the rest of you,
From Hunter's Links   "Dogmatism on the part of any one, no matter with what authority he speaks, is unwarranted and unwise in dealing with a problem so complicated and difficult as the one in hand, namely, building on the LAND AVAILABLE the best product possible."

[blasbe1]

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 . . .  

Tommy:

While I'm sure your thoughts are not intended to stifle critical thought . . .  are you saying all the critisiscm posted here of HC is "inane dreck?"  You can limit your response to my thoughts, if necessary, none of which I would consider "silly rubbish."

I will speak for myself only, my criticism was mostly sparked by the noxious adournment of HC that followed what was an otherwise enlightening and greatly enjoyable day.  Sorry, but the course gets no better because three influential people speak about it before we play . . . it rises and falls on its own merits . . . I see much too much HC love in the room in relation to the relative merits of the course.

I believe the course is strong, I believe the program was stronger and I'll remember the program much longer than I will the course.  Why does "Mayday" take heat for some critical thought when it was critical thought that brought us all to HC to begin with?

Nobody is saying that HC isin't a very good course, but it's frankly not as good as people here are talking it up . . . I hope this is not an attempt to move a very good course into terrortiy where it frankly does not belong . . . let's leave that to the various processes, not GCA outings and GCA discussion.

Come on Tommy, "inane dreck?"  Dude, the only thing inane or dreck about this discussion so far is your statement.

Be well,

Jason

[mike_malone]

 I take no offense in what Tommy is saying and see none intended. Teddy bears are not offensive.

    He was in the front row at the morning meeting. Bill Coore had to wipe his face off because Tommy slobbered all over him with his softball question which sounded more like a hymn of praise.

   I just read Ed Getka's and Jim Coleman's posts from yesterday. I missed them.

   I have felt that this discussion has stayed mostly on the architectural points. If someone makes it personal, I just say" Are you talking to me?" and move on.

[mike_malone]

 Mike Nuzzo,
     You might be right that HC is top ten in the Philly/ S.Jersey area. The issue for some of us is that it is at the tailend of that list not the top.

[George Pazin]

I will speak for myself only, my criticism was mostly sparked by the noxious adournment of HC that followed what was an otherwise enlightening and greatly enjoyable day.  Sorry, but the course gets no better because three influential people speak about it before we play . . . it rises and falls on its own merits . . . I see much too much HC love in the room in relation to the relative merits of the course.

So it's wrong for Tommy to label your criticism "inane dreck", but it's okay for you to label the praise from those who loved the course "noxious adournment"?

Wonderful consistency.

[blasbe1]

Mike M:

I saw no personal element to anything said, and you are right about teddy bears

Nevertheless, a jab was at least lobbed toward those critical of HC, which in these threads means you and me by my count.  

For me, it's hard to think that I'm being that hard on a course when I think it's a top 100 course, but just not a better top 100 course than another in the area (GN).  

That's what is so frustrating about this entire discussion, it's either conform to the notion that HC is "day in day out" better than GN or there's something obviously flawed in my GCA appreciation.  I hope future discussion is more tolerant of different opinions, especially ones that are based in experience and thought.  I'm not shooting from the hip here.  God, I never thought I'd be fighting for Mr. F., but here I am!

     
Jason

[blasbe1]

I will speak for myself only, my criticism was mostly sparked by the noxious adournment of HC that followed what was an otherwise enlightening and greatly enjoyable day.  Sorry, but the course gets no better because three influential people speak about it before we play . . . it rises and falls on its own merits . . . I see much too much HC love in the room in relation to the relative merits of the course.

So it's wrong for Tommy to label your criticism "inane dreck", but it's okay for you to label the praise from those who loved the course "noxious adournment"?

Wonderful consistency.

[George Pazin]

Ed -

I was one of the first to take issue with Mike's comments, but I don't take issue with him or his right to his opinion. I just happen to disagree with the observations and felt the desire to express why.

I do take issue with someone who feels that the praise - which is well deserved in my opinion - is simply due to some adoration of C&C or Roger Hansen. That is flat out weak, in my opinion, totally lacking in intellectual effort, but that's not what Mike is doing.

The land at HC is only so-so if your standard for land is dramatic landforms. I happen to believe that it is wonderfully ideal for golf, with more than an enough fairway and green movement to compensate for any perceived lack of elevation change or specific landforms, such as lakes, gorges, whatever. This is clearly a personal perference of mine, but I wish the detractors would make clear that it is a personal preference on their part to  wish for more elevation change, etc., as well

Viva la difference (however you spell that). It doesn't bother me that the courses I love most are not always the most loved by everyone else, we each have our own standards when it comes to discussing and evaluating such a subjective art form.

[blasbe1]

So it's wrong for Tommy to label your criticism "inane dreck", but it's okay for you to label the praise from those who loved the course "noxious adournment"?

Wonderful consistency.

Sorry George, I messed that last post up.

Your point is valid and while I was caught up in the literary moment but I think the minority has to meet fire with fire, so I'll stick by it, albeit that I do not at all mean that praise of HC is noxious adournment, afterall, I am still praising it as a very good course too.  A point seemingly missed here.  

If I had said Pebble is a great course but just not as great as Cypress down the street would people tell me I don't get it GCA wise?  

I'm not exactly sure why it's different here.  

[George Pazin]

Jason -

I understand your point.

Unfortunately, discussions of most golf courses tend to get personal at some point, because we are pretty much all passionate about them in one way or another.

I really like your idea for opening up the course more, but I can also understand others desire for a more isolated approach. To me, that is definitely a personal preference thing, and I can also understand a desire to reduce expenses considered unnecessary by some.

I guess for me the biggest issue on the thread is that I believe many golfers tend to be more impressed by overt landforms and obvious drama. I would like to see more appreciation of the subtler forms, such as the ridge that Tom P mentioned on #14 in one of the other threads.

My incredibly limited experience with golf courses is that dramatic landforms and obvious choices cause a course to be overrated, while subtler movement and choices cause a course to be overlooked, but this is certainly a broad generalization. I'm happy to see a course like HC receive some of the praise I believe it deserves.

 

[blasbe1]

I do take issue with someone who feels that the praise - which is well deserved in my opinion - is simply due to some adoration of C&C or Roger Hansen. That is flat out weak, in my opinion, totally lacking in intellectual effort, but that's not what Mike is doing.

George,

You have entirely missed my point.  First, I've personally flat out admitted to favoring C&C courses over almost all other things modern so the praise that I criticism is not of the architect and certainly not of the developer, it's of this group and the fact that I think it may be more influenced by some than others, that's the adournment I see.  Again, I think if Fazio did HC (please imagine that he could) I think the discussions would be a little different here.

If you've read my match play comparison with GN, whether you think that's a fair comparison or not, you cannot tell me it's without thought.  

Have you played GN and what are your thoughts regarding the two courses?

Jason    

[blasbe1]

I guess for me the biggest issue on the thread is that I believe many golfers tend to be more impressed by overt landforms and obvious drama. I would like to see more appreciation of the subtler forms, such as the ridge that Tom P mentioned on #14 in one of the other threads.
 

George:

You are right on about needing more of the subtle to be appreciated, but I think everyone here get's that, at least as that notion is expressed in HC's inset greens and fairway movement.  BTW, HC has its share of dramatic shots, 4 and 11 jump to mind.

Part of my concern with HC is that perhaps we are overcompensating the for subtlety factor.  I'm not sure and for one I'm looking forward to playing alot more golf to compare it too and get totally skinned on this board

Jason    

[George Pazin]

I haven't had the pleasure of playing Galloway. I'm a landlocked Pittsburgher who doesn't get out enough.

P.S. I did misunderstand your other post, because it seemed as though you were saying that only someone whose vision was clouded could lavish praise on HC. I welcome being challenged on my views, but I'd prefer to stick to the actual opinions, rather than  trying to guess what motives lie behind them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason Blasberg,

I've only played Prarie Dunes a half a dozen times so I'm not as familiar with it as those who have played it far more than that, but, top 10 in the US is pretty lofty.  

What course would you displace in its favor ?

Mike Malone seems to feel that great courses need abrupt elevation changes in order to be great, yet when I cite several flat, great courses, he offers no response.

He then states that great courses should have intimidation factors that jump out at you, yet TOC, GCGC, Maidstone and others have none.  What is the intimidation factor ?

By his criteria, Shadow Creek and Trump National in Florida should be top 10.

Mike Malone's statement that the early holes at HC are all so similar that he couldn't draw a distinction between them is mind boggling, and perhaps indicative of his powers of observation.

Of all of the many people who I've ever listened to discussing HC, that's one observation that I've never heard before.
I'd like to have him describe the similarities in the first four holes.

The test of desiring or prefering to play a course day in and day out ISN"T a member's test, it's a universal test, and certain courses possess that attribute.  NGLA is one of them.

That test is the ultimate test.

Do you enjoy the golf course and do you enjoy it on a steady if not daily diet ?  Does it offer challenge, fun, variety and interest ?
Hidden Creek passes that test for me, Galloway National doesn't.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Pat

I love Hidden Creek and I've said that my first impression was misguided in part and my subsequent 3 plays have increased my affinity and appreciation for the course tremendously.

However

How can you say that those flags sticking out of the DEEP pot bunkers at GCGC are not intimidating?  The cry out to you to stay away.

How can you say the Road Bunker, Hell, Strath, Coffin or numerous other bunkers at TOC don't intimidate?  Their names in many cases reflect your fate.

Similarly, the hazards at Ganton and Woodhall Spa, two Heathland courses I am familiar with just pucker the butt with the thought of your fate should you enter.

I do appreciate the hazards MUCH more after my first play but you must admit they are not the same as the above courses by a long shot.  There are those who believe that greatness requires such hazards and that is a viable opinion and takes nothing away from HC.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I love Hidden Creek and I've said that my first impression was misguided in part and my subsequent 3 plays have increased my affinity and appreciation for the course tremendously.

However

How can you say that those flags sticking out of the DEEP pot bunkers at GCGC are not intimidating?  The cry out to you to stay away.

Because you can't see them unless they are pointed out and you can't see what they reference.  In addition, the fairways ar SO WIDE that you have plenty of room to avoid them.[/color]

How can you say the Road Bunker, Hell, Strath, Coffin or numerous other bunkers at TOC don't intimidate?  Their names in many cases reflect your fate.

Because you can't see or comprehend what they portend when approaching some of them.  TOC plays mostly blind, especially off the tee, where the fairways are WIDE.

Intimidating was never a feeling that crossed my mind.
But, perhaps it was due to playing with three locals who told me where to hit each drive.[/color]

Similarly, the hazards at Ganton and Woodhall Spa, two Heathland courses I am familiar with just pucker the butt with the thought of your fate should you enter.

I do appreciate the hazards MUCH more after my first play but you must admit they are not the same as the above courses by a long shot.  There are those who believe that greatness requires such hazards and that is a viable opinion and takes nothing away from HC.

How would you compare the hazards at GCGC ?

Had Roger Hansen indicated that he wanted a more difficult course, I'm sure C&C would have produced same.[/color]

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jason,
George seems to be hitting on a lot of what I was trying to get into when I posted that at almost 12:00 am last night. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to get more into it as much as I would like. I felt the land for Hidden Creek to be totally enjoyable for golf, and I'm still wondering why so many have this penchant for thinking its not on interesting ground. Did Tillinghast balk at building Winged Foot? What about George Thomas at Riviera? (while Thomas did balk, he none the less built a masterpiece)

You see, I thinks its a falicy to think of Hidden Creek being on totally uninteresting land. I can name you almost evey architect in the world that would have loved to build a course there too.  For all of us, it takes a lot more then one round for most to see some of the more interesting features of the golf course--try about thirty or forty before it becomes so interesting that you know it can be a soul mate. But Hidden Creek is a course I look forward to visiting again and again and again--wanting to be challenged by those interesting greens and the fairways that set you up to take them on. And that my friend is the entire point. Hidden Creek may not have the visual which many think need to put it over the top, but that to me is restraint from having to build a bunch of gimmicky features that it didn't need. That's R-E-S-T-R-A-I-N-T-!-!-!

Don't you find it somewhat interesting that not one of you have noted that Bill Coore mentioned Pinehurst #2 as a major influence at Hidden Creek? Not just Heathlands, but a mix of North Carolina sandflats and English Heath, only with just as much influence of the Southern part of New Jersey and its surroundings.

Or did you guys miss that while you were slobbering!?!?!?

(Also, don't take anything as I say as an insult. I would be horrified if you did.)

Mayday,
Lets test you a bit, and no asking others what my question was to Bill Coore, because, while it may have sounded somewhat of slobbering to you, it was actually an architectural question and one that Pat continued later on because I think he knows its a very in-depth question. It (the question) was no different then when questions are being asked in an interview process. It's to explain or to set-up  to others (especially you ) the exact detail of the process.

Now that maybe somewhat slobbering, but it was in fact--a factual question, and while I'll be the first to admit I have nothing but complete adoration of the genius of Bill Coore, that adoration is nothing but shared with Gil Hanse, Tom Doak, Mike DeVries and many others too far to mention, as well as have no problem showing it, I trust in at least thinking they know my adoration is somewhat mutual when it comes to the art and appreciation of great golf architecture.

I await your answer!

[Geoffrey Childs]

How can you say that those flags sticking out of the DEEP pot bunkers at GCGC are not intimidating?  The cry out to you to stay away.

Because you can't see them unless they are pointed out and you can't see what they reference.  In addition, the fairways ar SO WIDE that you have plenty of room to avoid them.[/color]

Come on Pat - you always point them out and are you suggesting that they play no role or you avoid them at all costs by playing away in the WIDE fairway with no consequence? By doing that you would be intimidated!

How can you say the Road Bunker, Hell, Strath, Coffin or numerous other bunkers at TOC don't intimidate?  Their names in many cases reflect your fate.

Because you can't see or comprehend what they portend when approaching some of them.  TOC plays mostly blind, especially off the tee, where the fairways are WIDE.

Intimidating was never a feeling that crossed my mind.
But, perhaps it was due to playing with three locals who told me where to hit each drive.[/color]

So Pat the bunkering at TOC had you just playing way wide and left without any strategic consequences all day?  Wow- I thought this was a strategic golf course.  I guess not.  Just play away from the hazards all day. I'd be curious what Tommy N thinks of your answer about the hazards of TOC and their limited effect on play

Similarly, the hazards at Ganton and Woodhall Spa, two Heathland courses I am familiar with just pucker the butt with the thought of your fate should you enter.



How would you compare the hazards at GCGC ?

Had Roger Hansen indicated that he wanted a more difficult course, I'm sure C&C would have produced same.[/color]

Pat-  The hazards at Ganton and Woodhall Spa are teh biggest, deepest and meanest in the UK.  You could lose a battleship in the bunker on #18 at Ganton. They absolutely affect play and strategies.  You do not ever want to get into numerous of them on either course. It makes for thrilling golf.

[HamiltonBHearst]

It tells me a lot that Pat would join HC in addition to all the other fine clubs he belongs to.  Does anyone deny that it passes the "go directly from 18 green to 1 tee standard"?

Part of the agenda I thought was to gain insight into the processes that went into building the course.  Would any developer/architect have produced a better product on the land?

I would like to know what the "slobbering question" Tommy N. asked.  I am sure it was quite insightful and flew over the heads of many that prefer the mailed in specials  with big features we get from other architects.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Hamilton we were all sorry to miss you at the outing and looking forward to meeting you.  What could have possibly kept you away?  


It tells me a lot that Pat would join HC in addition to all the other fine clubs he belongs to.  Does anyone deny that it passes the "go directly from 18 green to 1 tee standard"?

It passes that test quite well.  In fact last time I was there was with Pat, Ran, Wayne M, TEPaul and we did just that.

Part of the agenda I thought was to gain insight into the processes that went into building the course.  Would any developer/architect have produced a better product on the land?

Probably not. What is your point relative to some of the comparisons with other courses that are in this discussion?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Hammy,
I will divulge later on when Mayday has his chance to answer the question and test his memory--IF he was listening!

If he misses it, he has to throw his clubs off of the bridge at Rolling Green and then watch "A Gentleman's Game" in succession, 10 times over.

Mayday, the floor is yours!

[mike_malone]

 Tommy,

    I must confess to listening to the answers more than the questions. My statement came from looking at Bill Coore's face. He seemed somewhat embarrassed at being "canonized" before he was dead.    My guess is that it had to do with their AZ. efforts.


      Pat,

        My "bias" (note George Pazin, it was in my initial post also) for challenging topography  relates to the "shots created "not eye candy.When these shots are missing I think "greatness" is limited. Uphill tee shots,downhill tee shots, severe side hill lies are all created by this changing topo. It is the array of shots created that tests players.

      I TOLD YOU SEVERAL TIMES THAT I HAVE NOT PLAYED THOSE COURSES, so I can't comment  on them.

     I am open to a nonlinks "flat, great course". Can't think of one.

    What seems similar at HC for the par 4's and par
5's on the front is first of all the framing of the trees. I think you don't see the green on many of these holes from the tee (I'm sure you will correct me) so, the view is influenced by the wide fairways and the occasional bunker. The look of the bunkers seems usually to be slightly tilted up in a small incline.  The trees, the fairways , the bunkers coupled with fairly similar tee heights create this similarity. Many of the people I talked to about HC have mentioned this similar look.


   I doubt that many of us disagree about this course in the final analysis. A 6 or 7 on the Doak scale and a wonderful "member's course" are hardly negative.

   George seems to feel that the dramatic courses get too much attention to the detriment of the subtler ones. That may be true, but I can assure you that is not where I am coming from.

   I think it is more interesting and challenging to ask ourselves whether the "minimalist" school falters in the quest for the highest status when the end result is OF lesser topographical interest.


  HH,

     I did not feel a desire to go back to #1. I think it is an interesting exercise to speculate on what could have been done differently. But, I think the attempt to create an American heathland course eliminated some of these options.

  I thought as I played it that I would like to be a member there, but I hate the shore.

 

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

Your fundamental premise that a golf course cannot be great without uphill tee shots, downhill tee shots and severe side hill lies is flawed.  Your observation that there aren't uphill tee shots at HC is wrong.  I can think of some; two back to back  (11 and 12 where Bill had a terrific par to get a point for the good guys).  

Clearly it doesn't come close to the rolling topography around Philadelphia, but little does.  The fact is undeniable that there are great golf courses on flat ground, some by your favorite architect:

Kittansett
Atlantic City CC
Boca Raton North and South
Opa Locka
Ritz Carlton North and South
Floranada
TCC, Pepper Pike has the same amount of overall elevation change (~40 feet) and the useage of it is similarly ideal.

Other flat US courses such as:

Westhampton
Garden City
Yeaman's Hall
CC Charleston

Many UK links courses including:

TOC
St. Andrews New
Muirfield
Carnoustie
Deal
Sandwich

It doesn't matter that you haven't been to any of these.  They are regarded as great and they don't have any of the requirements that you deem necessary.  Maybe they aren't to your liking, but they can be great.  You may not think HC is a great course; not everyone will.  But the reasons you state seem pretty ill-conceived and are not convincing.  Maybe you could express your reasons better or at least they could contain more substance.

"I think it is more interesting and challenging to ask ourselves whether the "minimalist" school falters in the quest for the highest status when the end result is OF lesser topographical interest."

What does this mean?  It seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding.

"But, I think the attempt to create an American heathland course eliminated some of these options."

What options did they eliminate?  Topography?  You need to back up these generalized statements with some real information or they should be discounted.

[George Pazin]

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.

Mike -

I noticed this in your first post, but if this is a bias, I share this bias. Where we differ is our definition of interesting land. To me, it is smaller land movement, not broad slopes or significant elevation changes, that make for interesting land.

My home course, the wonderfully understated North Park Municipal Golf Course, has terrific rolling land with significant elevation changes. They don't call our area the North Hills of Pittsburgh for no reason. But when I play NP, I hit relatively the same shots each time. For instance, the 14th hole is a short par 5 that doglegs left. It curls around inside a hill that is similar in character to one of the turns at Daytona. You get significant sidehill lies almost no matter where you are, fairway or rough, 2nd shot or 3rd, but it is largely the same shot, just with a different iron each time.

Contrast that with one of the par 5s at HC, like the 17th. You have no significant uphill, downhill or sidehill shots, but you could have a minor version, enough to influence the shot, of each, depending on where you end up.

I guess you must not feel the stance difference is significant enough to matter. I'd disagree, but that difference makes life interesting!

Regardless, the fact that you've played Merion and didn't list it as great simply tells me you have an extremely high standard for greatness, which is admirable, if a bit confusing at times.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike,
Thanks for the honesty. It's refreshing even though I had to work for it.

So then, you weren't listening and you didn't hear my question that you feel I generalized as canonization, only going by the reaction--thus in my terms. Is that a bold and accurate statement on your part then?

You have to know Bill Coore enough to know that if youcomplemented his dog, he would blush with embarrasment. That's Bill Coore. There's not a arrogant bone in his body.

When I asked my question, it was simply adding a compliment to the question to set-up the fact. The proof of it is what is in the body of the work of the courses I mentioned.

For 50 points, what is the subject I was broaching regarding C&C and Hidden Creek? If you listened to his answer, you should have no problem knowing both my question and my compliment!

What then was his answer to my question--since you were listening to the answers and not the questions.....

And that's the ultimate point I think many of you miss in all of this--he was a great speaker, but you weren't listening to all or some of the questions. The same with the golf course--if your not paying attention the subtleties of Hidden Creek will fly right past you and thus the opinion that its just a golf course.

I happen to think it's much more then that, and I'm sorry we didn't play together or at least go out and look at more of the stuff there to see and talk about it. That's the best way to understand such a course that is so subtle.

So lets go back to the restraint thing I was mentioning earlier today.

How would you have made Hidden Creek a better golf course? What do you think it needed? Personally this generalization that it should be compared with Heathland courses is a puzzling one. It would be like comparing Cypress Point and Pine Valley, or heaven forbid, Long Beach Recreation Park or Split Rock or Cobbs Creek.

I can only hope I'm making my point....