Hidden Creek: Reflections on Architecture

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

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.

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.

But what the hell do I know. I've only lived in the state my entire life and seen / played all the courses in question here. Of course -- that doesn't mean squat to some. I guess I must belong to the wrong groupie brigade.

P.S. Mike Cirba is closer to my take on the course than many who have opined thus far. I would give Hidden Creek no more than a 6 / re: Doak scale.. As a comparison, Plainfield is no less than an 8 and Galloway National no less than a 7.

I salute C&C in getting the most out of the property but frankly southeast Jersey is fairly limited in the natural topography and I don't see near enough of the architectural details that have been the hallmark of this talented duo. People can push around the word "subdued" in order to bolster their contention that the course has enough heft without all the extras but I see the land issue as being one of the weaker elements. Please, for all you out there in cyperland please don't bark at me that I am suggesting that the course must have excessive man-made features in order to rise to the level of greatness. C&C did well with what they faced but simply doing that doesn't mean for me -- at least until I return and play the course again -- to mean that Hidden Creek is among the very elite courses in NJ -- there's others that have plenty of qualities but so few groupies to tout them -- save for me and a handful of lurkers who have enjoyed the lovefest that this course has created.  

[George Pazin]

If you're evaluating only the question of whether or not Hidden Creek is good, great, sublime, whatever, what difference does it make to play the surrounding courses?

I can understand the need if you are ranking the course, but saying you need to play other courses to be able to evaluate HC is like saying you can't appreciate the greatness of the Sistine Chapel without knowing a full history of art during the Renaissance.

It's not like this was the first golf course most of us ever set foot on.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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!
Geoff,

The first flag is on three, it is almost invisible and requires a drive of about 300 yards to reach it.  The fairway is about 60 yards wide just short of it, hence it's totally unintimidating.

Are you intimidated by a feature you can't come within 50 yards of ?[/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]

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

Geoff, I have a different perspective when it comes to playing golf courses.
I ALWAYS ask my caddy or fellow players to tell me WHERE to go, and NOT to mention where not to go and why.  
It's part of my belief regarding the importance of positive reinforcement.
Perhaps it's our perspectives on what we want to see, and how to play a hole that seperates our views on hazards.[/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.



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.

Those hazards don't appear at GCGC, although perhaps the old pit on # 2 might qualify, just as the pit on # 3 at HC might qualify.

Different courses present their obstacles in different forms and configurations.  Just because one or two golf courses have extreme hazards doesn't mean that lessor hazards aren't equally as effective for their purpose based on their integration with the rest of the golf course.

The bunker on # 4 is not insignificant.
Neither is the right side fairway bunker cut into the huge mound on # 2.  A bunker that is fed by the fairway.[/color]  

[Patrick_Mucci]

My "bias" (note George Pazin, it was in my initial post also) for challenging topography  relates to the "shots created "not eye candy.

What makes you conclude that the dramatic topography at Shadow Creek and Trump National isn't for shot value ?
How can you draw that conclusion ?[/color]

When these shots are missing I think "greatness" is limited.

Then how do you account for the universal acclaim regarding the greatness of TOC, a course virtually void of challenging topography by your definition.  Throw in Maidstone and GCGC as well.  How is the "greatness" of those courses limited by their lack of challenging topography ?  This question doesn't require your having played these courses in order to answer it.
[/color]

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.

Would you list ten (10) GREAT courses that have SEVERE side hill lies, which is one of your requirements for greatness.[/color]

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

How about Pine Tree, Boca Rio or Hollywood ?[/color]

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.
You must be kidding.   The golf course was cut out of a forest without so much as a bare space larger than a table on the entire property.

In other words all of the hundreds of acres of trees should have been cleared ?    So that you would see trees in the distance ?[/color]

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.

Have you played Pinehurst # 2 or Pine Valley ?

Did you notice any resemblance in those courses to what you posted above ?

Are they not GREAT golf courses ?[/color]

The look of the bunkers seems usually to be slightly tilted up in a small incline.

Could you cite the specific hole and bunker/s.

Do you recall Bill Coore's description of bunker look and construction ?[/color]  


The trees, the fairways , the bunkers coupled with fairly similar tee heights create this similarity.

Fairly similar tree heights ?
Is this different from Pine Valley and Pinehurst # 2 ?
Will a course at the perimeter of the pinelands, in a dense forest, be surrounded by tall trees ?
And now you want those trees to be of differing heights ?
What difference would it make, the density of the forest will project the look of the same overall height of the trees.[/color]

Many of the people I talked to about HC have mentioned this similar look.

How many ?[/color]

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.
Mike, I've never given much credence to "ratings" Doak's or anyone else's.

The test for me has always been, after leaving the 18th green do I want to go back to the first tee and play the golf course again.   Isn't that the only thing that counts ?
That happened to me at Maidstone, NGLA, GCGC, PV, Friar's Head, Seminole, Boca Rio, Pine Tree and many many more, including HC.  It did not occur to me at GN.[/color]

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.

I think you need to play GCGC, Maidstone, Pine Tree, Boca Rio and TOC to answer the question for yourself.[/color]

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.

You can always gamble in your spare time.[/color]

 

[mike_malone]

One of the habits of the frequent posters here is to dissect what you say, ask you a zillion questions, and keep doing it until you get worn out.


    I played HC in order to make a judgement as to what I thought its status should be. That I came away thinking--very good member's course and a 6 on the Doak Scale is predominantly a" feeling". Unfortunately, it is necessary to put it into words here.

    I try to use as few words as possible. I decided that the course lacked  enough balance throughout the hole to be called "great".I thought there was not enough distinctiveness to each hole to make them memorable. I walked away wondering "How many great holes were there?".Honestly, I can't come up with one.There were no weak ones either.

    I thought of what I had learned of great courses. One thing is "shot-testing". Often that is done by the wind on a great links course (one I have played that is flat is Portmarnock ) or by using challenging topography.My view of shot testing is some serious challenge to execute the shot without a sense of impending doom if you fail.
   
    I think there is no doubt when one is on a great course. I felt that at Pine Valley, Ballybunion, Royal County Down, Portmarnock, and The National Golf Links.  I almost feel it at Merion and Lahinch.

    HC is a damn good course to elicit such praise from so many when it lacks the knockout punch.


  Tommy,


   It has been a long time since I have felt the need to answer questions like yours about whether I am paying enough attention.
     

[mike_malone]

Pat,

   I have said repeatedly that "wind" is that extra feature on links courses. When I played Indian Creek the wind was 20 mph or so. It was great. It was clear that it was designed with that in mind. This could be a great flat course, but Wayne says there is 50 ft. of elevation. I don't know if that disqualifies it as flat.

    The point is that one's shot is severely tested by the wind on these courses.

   You make it tough to answer questions. I tried to put some flesh on the bones of my "similar" comment and you tear every idea to hell.  It is obvious to me.  I'm sure someone will agree with me on this issue.

I liked the width of the tree line from a playability stance, but i am fairly confident that the width is pretty consistent and the trees are of a similar look.Gosh, Pat it looks similar to me.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Ok Pat

You are right.  I am wrong.  Uncle   I was not thinking of #3
#6

#10


plus others

Penal hazards play no role in play of the course if you ask a caddie or companion where to play and pay no attention to trouble that can add multiple shots to your score.

[TEPaul]

Geoffrey Childs said;

"Ok Pat
You are right.  I am wrong.  Uncle   "

Geoffrey:

What's gotten into you?? No one on Golfclubatlas ADMITS they're wrong about ANYTHING! It's highly abnormal, and saying such a thing to PATRICK MUCCI is just NOT DONE!! If you're going to admit to Patrick you're wrong for GOD's SAKE don't also say HE'S RIGHT! The latter is a complete oxymoron---at least the "oxy" part is---in his case the "moron" part is worth some serious consideration.  

When Patrick is wrong he simply doesn't respond.  

[Geoffrey Childs]

TEPaul

I think Pat is really on to something here.  Really.  Next time I'm at Pine Valley should that ever occur in my lifetime I'm just going to ask Rocky where the hell to hit it and forget about those irrelevant hazards.  What's the course record?  

[Geoffrey Childs]

Woodhall Spa



Those are hazards

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

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.

But what the hell do I know. I've only lived in the state my entire life and seen / played all the courses in question here. Of course -- that doesn't mean squat to some. I guess I must belong to the wrong groupie brigade.


Matt,  If this same group came to New Jersey and played Pine Valley would they be disqualified from praising its architectural merits ?

Would they need to see other courses in New Jersey prior to making an assessment and declaring it had great architectural and playing merit ?

Some things are self evident, and the integration of the land form with the architecture at Hidden Creek is one of them.
In addition, when Bill Coore tells you what they sought to do with the land, and how they succeeded, it's hard to argue he was wrong or didn't produce a superior product.
 
With respect to rankings, National or State,  If I'm not mistaken, YOU and ONLY YOU are the one who raised that issue.  Noone else cares.

I'd also question the time, date and conditions under which you played the course as being non-representative of its playing qualities.

You might prefer Gallaway National due to its length.
Given the choice of playing one or the other, day in and day out, Hidden Creek would get my vote.

The variety presented by hole locations alone is enough to swing my vote.  Many of GN's greens have limited cup locations causing the hole to play the same, day in and day out.

With some greens at Hidden Creek being over 50 yards in depth, approach shots can vary by 3-4 clubs or more, day to day, and that doesn't take into account the diversity and contouring in the putting surfaces.

But, everyone's tastes are different.

If you prefer Gallaway National I'm sure you'll want to play there as often as possible.  I know that's the way I feel about Hidden Creek.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ok Pat

You are right.  I am wrong.  Uncle   I was not thinking of #3
#6

#10


plus others

Penal hazards play no role in play of the course if you ask a caddie or companion where to play and pay no attention to trouble that can add multiple shots to your score.
Geoff,  These hazards pale in comparison to the bunker short and right of the 2nd green at Hidden Creek.

The flagged bunker on # 3 at GCGC is virtually unreachable from the tee by all but the longest players.

As to the advise of caddies, it's been my limited experience that when a caddy tells you not to hit it to a particular spot, that spot becomes a magnetic attraction to golf balls.

Many, if not most of my great rounds were shot on a golf course that I was seeing for the first time.

WHY ?  Because I DIDN'T know where the trouble was.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Woodhall Spa



Those are hazards


No more so then the bunker on # 4 and the sand pit on # 3.

Remember, think positive, pick spots to hit to, not to avoid.   Geoff, see the ball, be the ball, and ignore the lumberyard.[/color]

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Sorry to miss you while I was at Glen Ridge G.C. today. Go on over there and check out the similarity of the bunkering to Woodhall Spa. Some of the top profiles at Glen Ridge are a bit higher and more dramatic but very much the same idea and look.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Pat

#3 is a great par 5 and that massive bunker short right of the green is the best hazzard on the course.  It's one reason I think C & C build the best par 5's perhaps ever. No argument here.

#4 is a redan bunker and its OK but not among the most penalizing redan bunkers I've seen.  What would you think the sand save % is for that bunker vs. #4 at NGLA?

I'd join HC as a National member in a heartbeat if I could swing the $ right now. However, its not ever going to be known for its fierce hazards and as you said it was not meant to be that way from Roger Hanson's vision for the club. Ganton and Woodhall Spa are known for the penalty their bunkers exert on the poor golfer who ventures there and nothing you post here is going to change that   . HC is a great course and deserving of praise but it can't be everything to everybody.  What course can so why do you try so hard?

[blasbe1]

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 ?

Pat:

Pebble, Oakmont, Merion, Crystal and Pinehurst.  

Having played only Pebble in this group, PD is far better than Pebble, thus those behind Pebble go with the house of cards, I save National b.c I'm a Long Island guy and we protect our own.  

Also, and IMO, PD is every bit as good as Shinnecock, and actually alot more fun to play day in day out, so if I were to score Shinny and PD I'd score them the same.  But what do I know, I like 4 at GN better than 4 at HC?  

Jason  

[Patrick_Mucci]

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 ?

Pat:

Pebble, Oakmont, Merion, Crystal and Pinehurst.  

Having played only Pebble in this group, PD is far better than Pebble, thus those behind Pebble go with the house of cards,

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 save National b.c I'm a Long Island guy and we protect our own.  

Also, and IMO, PD is every bit as good as Shinnecock, and actually alot more fun to play day in day out, so if I were to score Shinny and PD I'd score them the same.  

But what do I know, I like 4 at GN better than 4 at HC?  
That's true, that almost automatically disqualifies you.  
But, Prairie Dunes better than Shinnecock ?
I think you're losing your objectivity and your mind at the same time.

As far as fun to play, it depends upon what tees you play.
You certainly can't play the U.S. Open tees and have fun at any course.  If you played the member's tees I think you'd find it highly enjoyable.[/color]

[Brian Phillips]

Gents:

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.
Matt,  I don't need to see all of the 'offereings' to give an opinion about Hidden Creek.  I was there three years ago and told everyone on here that I thought it was great before Pat had even seen the place.  Tom Paul encouraged me to go look at it the same week I played Merion, Pine Valley and Aronimink...I think that is enough comparison

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.I don't understand you sometimes.  What do the other courses in the area have to do with Hidden Creek.  Is it good, excellant or crap...I don't give a damn about other courses in the area.  What do they ahve to do with my opinion?

But what the hell do I know. I've only lived in the state my entire life and seen / played all the courses in question here. Of course -- that doesn't mean squat to some. I guess I must belong to the wrong groupie brigade. Have you ever thought that although you have played sooo many courses you still don't know what you are talking about?  .Maybe you do but is not arrogant to talk the way you do about others that have a love for architecture.  Not even Tom Doak acts like you.  You seem to think that the more you play the more you know.  I bet everyone on here has played more golf in one year than Bill Coore has played in ten years, does that make you better at judging courses than him?

I salute C&C in getting the most out of the property but frankly southeast Jersey is fairly limited in the natural topography and I don't see near enough of the architectural details that have been the hallmark of this talented duo.I cannot get around why everyone thinks the property was not good.  I think it is a good piece of property put in the right hands which the Hansens did.  It IS rolling property IMHO.
People can push around the word "subdued" in order to bolster their contention that the course has enough heft without all the extras but I see the land issue as being one of the weaker elements. Please, for all you out there in cyperland please don't bark at me that I am suggesting that the course must have excessive man-made features in order to rise to the level of greatness. C&C did well with what they faced but simply doing that doesn't mean for me -- at least until I return and play the course again -- to mean that Hidden Creek is among the very elite courses in NJ -- there's others that have plenty of qualities but so few groupies to tout them -- save for me and a handful of lurkers who have enjoyed the lovefest that this course has created. Yes, you need to play it again and I promise your opinion is going to change over the years.

[Matt_Ward]

Pat:

We agree to disagree on the issue of Galloway National v Hidden Creek. I favor Galloway National irrespective of the the "length" issue you mentioned. The quality of the holes speak volumes for themselves and the totality of what is there -- in conjunction with the overall routing -- places it a good bit beyond what is present at Hidden Creek.

To use your own words -- You might prefer Hidden Creek for the "look" it provides.


Brian:

My poiint was a simple one -- I'm sorry you could not grasp it. There are other Jersey courses IMHO that are equal or beyond Hidden Creek. I believe my playing of all the key Jersey courses for the last 30+ years gives me a perspective / context over others who have not done so. It's not simply playing more and more courses but playing a very good sampling in tandem with clear analysis. Field work means something to me -- if it doesn't mean anything to you so be it.  

The property is "subdued" to the point that its' features were not that unique to my way of thinking. If and when I get back to the course I will certainly give this even more attention. However, let me repeat, I am very aware of the topography of southeast Jersey and the limitations it presents to golf courses.

People have a tendency to throw around the word "great" to the point it cheapens its overall meaning. Are you saying that Hidden Creek belongs in the same company as Pine Valley and Merion -- two layouts universally acclaimed as "great" golf courses? I don't.

Brian -- last point -- please don't insert the word arrogrant into the equation. You don't know squat about me. I don't lower the bar by inserting the word "arrogance" when my opinion is different than others. People do disagree and that's fine with me since some love vanilla and others embrace chocolate. Do I have strong opinions on golf courses? Sure do -- just like you. If I don't see things exactly the way you or others see them -- I say celebrate the difference and don't crucify the person.

[wsmorrison]

"My poiint was a simple one -- I'm sorry you could not grasp it. "

This is not arrogant?  Matt, I disagree with you that it necessary to have played golf in NJ for 30 years, seen the courses you have and viewed them from whatever knowledge base or perspective you consider yourself endowed with. A fellow from California can come in, play Hidden Creek several times in different conditions and make his own mind up about how the architect used the ground available and the added architecture to make a determination.  You remind us constantly about your experience in NJ when that context doesn't really matter.  Are you saying that I cannot analyze a golf course in NJ as well as I can in PA (whatever level that might be)?  That would be a ridiculous notion if it is.

I don't know anybody that is comparing Hidden Creek to Merion or Pine Valley.  Why look at these extremes?  Hidden Creek is an excellent golf course,  and I welcome the opportunity to get to know it better over time.  Like the folly of ratings, judging a course one or two times and making the general pronouncements such as Mike Malone made is probably premature.  Who knows, he might feel the same way after playing it for the 20th time.

I'll tell you one thing, it is a very good course no matter what state you reside.  I think for what the owner wanted and what the land provided it fulfilled, and probably exceeded, expectations.  What more could you ask for?

Now, if you really want me to irk you, ask me which I'd rather play regularly, HC or your beloved Forsgate.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Ward,

How can you praise the routing at Gallaway National when you have long, awkward walks from many greens to the next tee ?

There's a clear and frequent disconnect within the inherent structure of the golf course that reflects poorly on the routing of the golf course.

Gallaway National's routing is a Major shortcoming in the design of the golf course.

How can you compare the routings of the two golf courses when Hidden Creek's is vastly superior by any criteria ?

[George Pazin]

Brian, that was one of the best posts I've ever seen.

 

[Brian Phillips]

Pat:

We agree to disagree on the issue of Galloway National v Hidden Creek. I favor Galloway National irrespective of the the "length" issue you mentioned. The quality of the holes speak volumes for themselves and the totality of what is there -- in conjunction with the overall routing -- places it a good bit beyond what is present at Hidden Creek.

To use your own words -- You might prefer Hidden Creek for the "look" it provides.


Brian:

My poiint was a simple one -- I'm sorry you could not grasp it. There are other Jersey courses IMHO that are equal or beyond Hidden Creek. I believe my playing of all the key Jersey courses for the last 30+ years gives me a perspective / context over others who have not done so. It's not simply playing more and more courses but playing a very good sampling in tandem with clear analysis. Field work means something to me -- if it doesn't mean anything to you so be it.  You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.  It does not matter how many courses you have played, I really could not care.  Tour pros have played more courses than you have, does that mean they know anything about architecture.  You are making the assumption that you know a lot about architecture just because you have played many courses.

The property is "subdued" to the point that its' features were not that unique to my way of thinking. If and when I get back to the course I will certainly give this even more attention. However, let me repeat, I am very aware of the topography of southeast Jersey and the limitations it presents to golf courses.You say you like to do field work.  How can you claim certain things about Hidden Creek if you did not notice the topography of the site.  There is a lot ov movement at HC you just have see.  You obviously do not. That is scary considering the number of courses you have played.

People have a tendency to throw around the word "great" to the point it cheapens its overall meaning. Are you saying that Hidden Creek belongs in the same company as Pine Valley and Merion -- two layouts universally acclaimed as "great" golf courses? I don't.No, it is not at the same level as Pine Valley or Merion (no one ever said it did)but it is at the same level as Sunningdale and many other heathland courses.  It is better than Aronimink IMHO, but I think Aronimink is overated and if it had not been drawn up by Ross people would not blink.

Brian -- last point -- please don't insert the word arrogrant into the equation. You don't know squat about me. I don't lower the bar by inserting the word "arrogance" when my opinion is different than others. No I suppose I  don't need to say anything, you shoot yourself enough.People do disagree and that's fine with me since some love vanilla and others embrace chocolate. Do I have strong opinions on golf courses? Sure do -- just like you. If I don't see things exactly the way you or others see them -- I say celebrate the difference and don't crucify the person. Come down from that pedestal that you have put yourself on and maybe people will start to celebrate with you but while you are on Mount Everest and the rest of us on the ground it is difficult to party together.

[Dan Herrmann]

I could play HC every day and be a very happy camper.  The more I think about the course, the more I like it.  It really brought out the good parts of my game and made the bad part (putting, this month) look really bad.

But isn't that a good thing?

I also loved the fact that it's so walkable.

I was also very impressed with the staff and ownership.  This place has its act together, and I hope they're very successful.  It's a great model and I hope others follow it.

[Mike_Cirba]

Somewhat like Tillinghast, I believe that the fundamental imperative of a great golf course is to provide for testing approach shots.  

For sake of discussion, let's define "testing" as requiring exacting conception and talented execution, lest the next shot will be seriously compromised, or the approach shot itself punished with certainty.  For example, there are very few approaches you can stand over at either Merion or Pine Valley without it being crystal clear that failure is not a very good option.

What's more, those shots are FUN.  They get the adrenaline pumping, they cause the heart to flutter, and there are few greater exhilerations than achieving in the face of such pure, stark challenge.  

To a degree, they also offer options.  One can attempt to miss to the correct spot, or aim for a section of green that is more attainable, and away from spots where a slight miss can put you quickly in harm's way.

I'd like to hear from the group which approach shots at Hidden Creek they believe merit such a description.