Opining on Alpine

[Patrick_Mucci]

I recently played Alpine and was more than pleasantly surprised with what they've accomplished.

While some fairways remain to narrow for membership play and some of the new bunkers are lacking, overall the results are very positive.   In addition, the golf course is in superior condition, especially given the weather pattern in Metro NY this year.

The golf course is fun and challenging.

One hopes that the good work will continue.

Those that get the opportunity to play Alpine should do so, you won't be disappointed.

Noel,

Any chance that the cart path behind # 14 green can be removed ?

Is there an ongoing tree "management" program ?

Is Bob still the Green Chairman ?

[NAF]

Pat-

We are just going to begin the rebunkering efforts on the back 9 in the next few weeks.. By October it will be done.  I'd like to see another few hundred trees felled on both nines though so there is some width. We recently commissioned some aerial photos and the place looks like a forest. We still have at least 500 trees that should go and maybe 1000 (in my opinion).. Dave Oatis from the USGA just revisited to give his views on which ones should go and hopefully will submit another report to the club. So yes there is sort of an ongoing tree program.

The work on the front 9 has been fantastic and I enjoy playing it much more than the back.  I especially like the work done on holes 5-9 with the rebunkering designs and the added green space on holes like #8 and #9.  The fronting bunkers on the par 5 7th are the Tillie Originals.  Forse and our contractor dug down and found their shapes.  They havent seen the light of day since the 50s!  

The 6th green will also be changed this year--not original Tillie anyway-- and made more subtle and the 2 tier nature Tillie inspired and puttable from one side to the other.

The back 9 work is more subtle except for what we deem the Tillinghast pit on the right side of the short par 4 12th.  I want to put in a Sahara bunker scheme there and Ron thinks instead that it was meant to be a huge grass hollow.  My interpretation of Tillie's original plan differs..  I think it is one of the few places on the course to be creative without impacting original intent especially on a short hole where there should be a penalty but I've been voted down because no one cares because you can't see the Pit from the tee.

Forse will be adding a back tee on #11 adding about 30 yards.. #13 has a redo bunker on the right.. #14&15--redone bunkers-- The club is trying to get the land owner behind 15 tee to do a land swap or easement to add another 20-30 yards (I agree).. #16 will have 20 yards added (I disagree).. 17 redone bunkers and #18 a new 616 yard tee! (I don't mind but think it is a waste of $$-reachable for all but a few at 578 yards even though downhill).. Alpine will be near 7000 yards--maybe 6950 or so I think if all this comes to fruition. Extremely difficult given the terrain.  I disagree with adding the length.  We have maybe 3 subpar rounds by members a year and only 2 players are capable. Is that taking care of members?  As a 9 handicap I'm overmatched from the TIPS but not matched enough from the member tees (6400).

I agree on #14 cart path.. I will tell Rob who is still greens chair and is the future prez of the club about it.  No plans at the moment to remove it from behind the green..  I forgot to add there is talk on the green committee to adding a back tee 40 yards behind the current 14th..

I battle a fellow Senior Am member you know on the greens committee often about the addition of fairway bunkers on the course.  He and the low marker at the club (who is also on the committee) want to add penal bunkers for interest purposes on a few holes.  I vehemently disagree but they want to take the issue to Forse.  Tillie built Alpine without them from my historian research b/c of the tremendous elevation changes and the way the ball bounces there. Unfortunately, Alpine is often VERY GREEN without letting balls utilize our terrain.  Still, I don't understand what adding the bunkers would do.  The ones they want to add are not strategic in nature (I know where they want them) plus Alpine is too TIGHT off the tee to begin with--even with tree clearing.  Alpine is all about the approach and how you putt those steep greens.  Being in the rough is penalty enough in many cases.  But these low markers don't understand Tillie's intent.

Alpine is also getting a new $20 million clubhouse--looks like Winged Foot's and we have a new secondary clubhouse that was finished last year.  The club is very expensive for me and I don't know how long I'll remain.  But I love the course and being the club historian and on the greens committee only makes me want to stay.  Rob Hershan will do a great job.. If only he'd take my advice and shrink the committee to 3 people..

[Patrick_Mucci]

The Tree/s on the left of # 12 and # 17 are highly invasive to the lines of play.

I really liked # 3 with the new tee.
I won't comment on the houses.[/color]

The 6th green will also be changed this year--not original Tillie anyway-- and made more subtle and the 2 tier nature Tillie inspired and puttable from one side to the other.
It's too severe a slope with the lower portion only 9 yards at its deepest point, with a 7 yard steep incline and then 18 yards of a fairly flat upper tier.  The approach shot is very difficult so you should have a big green, just soften the seperation of the tiers or redo the green to AWT's specs.[/color]

The back 9 work is more subtle except for what we deem the Tillinghast pit on the right side of the short par 4 12th.  I want to put in a Sahara bunker scheme there and Ron thinks instead that it was meant to be a huge grass hollow.  My interpretation of Tillie's original plan differs..  I think it is one of the few places on the course to be creative without impacting original intent especially on a short hole where there should be a penalty but I've been voted down because no one cares because you can't see the Pit from the tee.
Get rid of the circular bunkers, they look and play awful.[/color]

Forse will be adding a back tee on #11 adding about 30 yards.. #13 has a redo bunker on the right.. #14&15--redone bunkers-- The club is trying to get the land owner behind 15 tee to do a land swap or easement to add another 20-30 yards (I agree)..

I disagree.
The hole has a ravine and water that effectively stops long hitters from going farther.  And, what you gain in distance will be offset by the increase in elevation.   In short, it's a waste of money and the net affect will be minimal.
Save your bullets for better prey[/color]

#16 will have 20 yards added (I disagree).. [color]
I'm with you on this one.
The tee marker says 184 and it can play to 191.
Why add the length ?
What's the reasoning ?[/color]

17 redone bunkers and #18 a new 616 yard tee! (I don't mind but think it is a waste of $$-reachable for all but a few at 578 yards even though downhill)..

Alpine will be near 7000 yards--maybe 6950 or so I think if all this comes to fruition. Extremely difficult given the terrain.  I disagree with adding the length.  We have maybe 3 subpar rounds by members a year and only 2 players are capable. Is that taking care of members?  As a 9 handicap I'm overmatched from the TIPS but not matched enough from the member tees (6400).

Noel, I couldn't agree more, the golf course if long enough.
Approaching those sloped greens  is a difficult task for the best of players, let alone the members.[/color]

I agree on #14 cart path..

Get rid of the elevated shrubbery behind the green as well, it looks terrible and is not the backdrop you want for that green.   It's out of context with the backdrop on all of your other greens.[/color]

I will tell Rob who is still greens chair and is the future prez of the club about it.  

Perhaps a round of golf with him might be helpful.[/color]

No plans at the moment to remove it from behind the green..  I forgot to add there is talk on the green committee to adding a back tee 40 yards behind the current 14th..

You may want to consider moving the tee to the left.
The encroaching trees almost mandate a banana slice.
It's a neat little hole.[/color]

I battle a fellow Senior Am member you know on the greens committee often about the addition of fairway bunkers on the course.  He and the low marker at the club (who is also on the committee) want to add penal bunkers for interest purposes on a few holes.  

What for ?
The golf course is amply difficult.
Tillinghast employed creative deflective mounding, such as on # 12, 13 and 17 in an attempt to redirect golf balls on that hilly terrain.   Adding penal bunkers is absurd.
The course is almost void of fairway bunkering, and for good reasons.[/color]

Rob Hershan will do a great job.. If only he'd take my advice and shrink the committee to 3 people..

Why so many ?
Tell Bob I was asking for him.
Let's try to arrange a round in the next month or so.[/color]

[Matt_Ward]

Pat Mucci:

It will be interesting to see how Alpine fares when the USGA Sr. Amateur is played there next Wednesday (August 11).

Noel:

Couple of quick points ...

Alpine would be helped immensely with some lengthening beyond the areas you mentioned.

I am in complete agreement with fellow member Jay Green on having the 12th be altered from a mediocre par-4 to a par-3 that plays about 200 yards.

Alpine has too many short par-4's on the back nine and the modifications would be a small thing to implement.

Let me also mention the fact that the 14th hole and the overhanging trees needs to be remediated. It is really a silly inclusion.

I concur with the members who see a new tee as a plus. I would like to see the club install a new tee for the hole that is located immediately behind the 16th tee -- one would have to cut the trees that block the area now but the hole would be more of a direct play then the inane situation you see today. In addition, the added length would bring full circle the range of par-4's the course offers and make the back nine a tad more equal to the rigors of the front side.

A good comparable example would be to see the scoring averages now for the 3rd hole. Clearly, this hole belongs among the top six holes at the course -- previously it was nothing more than an afterthought. No longer.

One other thought -- a new back tee could also be added to the 4th. The back area could be cleared and an additional 30-40 yards added to the hole. Here is a hole that favors the longer hitter to a distinct advantage. Pushing back the tee would make for a more demanding approach as originally envisioned by Tillinghast when clubs / balls did not go as far as they do today.

Noel -- you are so right about the trees -- chopping down another 750-1000 would only add to the qualities of the course. The other added element that would bolster the course is applying less H20 to the fairways. The course is always way too soft and while the conditioning is first rate in so many ways the added elements of water only add to the air game motif that is Alpine. A firmer surface may not be verdant green 100% of the time but it would make the rugged site play in tune with the bounce of the ball that doesn't exist today.

I also agree with you on the 6th hole -- the green needs to be altered because the front pin placement is nothing more than suicide location for any golfer who hits beyond it. The hole is a demanding one but the green needs fit with the situation and not be such an outcast / freak.

Alpine has made huge strides and kudos are clearly in order to Rob Hershan for his consistent and thorough leadership. Ditto to the key members of the Board who have seen fit to make the adjustments that have only made the course even better.

[NAF]

Matt-

Jay Green causes me more probs on the greens committee than anyone else.  A very nice man but he does not care one iota about Tillie.. He thinks he was a drunk who designed a golf course.  BTW, his wife is one of the loveliest women at the club, elegant in the old world sort of way and a great player.

I disagree on the 12th.. Moving the tee  up 85 yards disturbs the flow of the course for me.  Also once you shorten a par 4 into a par 3, the flood gates will be open as per changing the course going forward as it isnt in Tillie's original plans.  No one breaks par at Alpine and the green on 12 defends itself fine enough.  In reality 17 is not a scoring hole given the dime shaped green so 12 and 14 are your only shots at finessing a birdie and given the greens there are no gimmees here either.  I don't mind a 3 wood and pitch hole.  Regardless, the tree situation on 14 will be fixed, I'm sure the tee will be moved left and ultimately back.

Pat- those circular bunkers on no. 12 are coming out. Worst bunkers on the course!

My only regret is that I was not involved enough with the club to get the 2nd put back to Tillie's original plan.. It was his favorite hole. Rick Wolffe thought it could have been one of his best par 4s he built!  And with the new clubhouse, they could have done it b/c the pool (where the old green was) is coming out.

I shot 85 from the tips today at Alpine after a recent run at a few Donald Ross great courses shooting 80.  ACC just gets me on the greens every time!  And I know how they putt to.  

Unfortunately, many members don't know what they have at Alpine.  The Senior Am qualifier next week will be a challenge for these guys.

[corey miller]

Noel

I thought things were getting done according to the original Tillie plans minus the lost 2nd hole?  Wasn't this the mandate given Ron F?  And if not, don't you think things work better when you all get his ideas first, and negotiate from there?  It seems like there are a few too many opinions floating around.

I have a lot of confidence you will do the right thing but it seems like a lot of unnecessary changes are being contemplated. 4 to 3's, tees in back yards.  Just take down some darn trees.

[PThomas]

this is why GCA is great!  I don't think I had even heard of Alpine! my knowledge and experience with courses in the northeast is sadly lacking.....

thanks to Pat and all for their thoughts!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Alpine would be helped immensely with some lengthening beyond the areas you mentioned.

How would the golf course be helped ?[/color]

I am in complete agreement with fellow member Jay Green on having the 12th be altered from a mediocre par-4 to a par-3 that plays about 200 yards.

It's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard of.

Then you would have 3 par 3's that play to 190-200 yards, how monotonous..

# 12 is a wonderful par 4, with a very unusual feature in the right side rough.  You seem to equate length with merit or quality.  # 12 is a very good hole as it is, with a demanding drive, requiring optimum positioning to a delicate approach to a severely pitched narrow green.

Why ruin and eliminate the need for an accurate, well placed tee shot to a fairway that slopes left to right that favors a drive hit to the left side of the fairway ?[/color]

Alpine has too many short par-4's on the back nine and the modifications would be a small thing to implement.
Do you also recommend lengthening the short par 4's on the front nine at NGLA, Westhampton and Garden City.

Those four short holes on the back nine at Alpine are so different, so unique, that they give the golf course tremendous character, a distinctive flair.  
Don't forget that they play MUCH longer than the yardage due to their uphill nature.
And, I'll bet that the average score on each will be high for the USGA senior amateur qualifier.[/color]

Let me also mention the fact that the 14th hole and the overhanging trees needs to be remediated. It is really a silly inclusion.

Agreed, or move the tee slightly to the left.[/color]

I concur with the members who see a new tee as a plus. I would like to see the club install a new tee for the hole that is located immediately behind the 16th tee -- one would have to cut the trees that block the area now but the hole would be more of a direct play then the inane situation you see today.

What hole are you referencing ?
# 16 is the par 3 that plays at 184-191.[/color]

In addition, the added length would bring full circle the range of par-4's the course offers and make the back nine a tad more equal to the rigors of the front side.

I would guess that if you wanted to squeeze the unique and distinctive life out of those holes and make the golf course souless, lengthening the short holes would be the best way of accomplishing that.[/color]

A good comparable example would be to see the scoring averages now for the 3rd hole. Clearly, this hole belongs among the top six holes at the course -- previously it was nothing more than an afterthought. No longer.

The approach shot was always a challenge.
The new back tee lets you hit away with the driver, especially up the left side, whereas there was more in the decision making process when the hole was shorter.[/color]

One other thought -- a new back tee could also be added to the 4th.

Why ? And for whose benefit ?

Approach and recovery shots hit to the center of that green are faced with exceptionally difficult putts if the hole is cut left, or back right.  The fellows I was playing with hit big drives and 7 irons into that green.  40 yards back would mean a 2 or 3 iron into that green, a green and surrounds not designed for that length of shot.[/color]

The back area could be cleared and an additional 30-40 yards added to the hole. Here is a hole that favors the longer hitter to a distinct advantage. Pushing back the tee would make for a more demanding approach as originally envisioned by Tillinghast when clubs / balls did not go as far as they do today.

I'm not so sure about that.

I played Alpine years ago before it had an irrigation system and the ball used to run forever.  I used to routinely reach the 9th and 18th in two.  I'm longer today, and doubt that I could achieve that feat.[/color]

Noel -- you are so right about the trees -- chopping down another 750-1000 would only add to the qualities of the course. The other added element that would bolster the course is applying less H20 to the fairways. The course is always way too soft and while the conditioning is first rate in so many ways the added elements of water only add to the air game motif that is Alpine. A firmer surface may not be verdant green 100% of the time but it would make the rugged site play in tune with the bounce of the ball that doesn't exist today.

I'd agree.

AWT created some really neat deflective mounding that redirected the ball to prefered locations.
Wet conditions have eliminated their function.
The fairways need to be widened to put those deflecting mounds back into play.

But, one has to be careful.
I remember playing Alpine when we would aim into the far left rough, hoping that our ball would stop in the far right rough, and not run into the trees.  The slope in the fairways necesitate WIDER fairways, and firmer, yet not fairways that are too firm.

WIDTH is critical[/color]

I also agree with you on the 6th hole -- the green needs to be altered because the front pin placement is nothing more than suicide location for any golfer who hits beyond it. The hole is a demanding one but the green needs fit with the situation and not be such an outcast / freak.

Agreed.
Noel, what does AWT's original design of that green reflect ?[/color]

Alpine has made huge strides and kudos are clearly in order to Rob Hershan for his consistent and thorough leadership. Ditto to the key members of the Board who have seen fit to make the adjustments that have only made the course even better.

I think Bob will continue to do a good job, but, lengthening the golf course for lengths sake, at the expense of wonderful, unique, distinctively designed short par 4's would be a mistake and would make Alpine like any other LONG golf course, dull.

I'd also like to see the fancy stone wall removed from the ponds on # 2, they are totally out of character and context, but, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

I can't believe we're this deep into a thread on Alpine and no one has mentioned the 10th hole.

I pray this means that there are no plans to alter it, except perhaps removing a bunch of trees on the left side.  

[NAF]

Pat,

Matt and some members want a back tee on #14 by the 16th tee across a ravine.. this would make the hole 80 or 90 yards longer rendering the upper fairway option redundant in the name of length.. I think there may be a compromise where one is 30 yards back and left of present tee..

#6 green in AWT plan was a 2 tier green but obviously less slope.. the current green is a 1950s product by the same people (the former pro) who changed number 2..

#10 is definitely a unique hole in golf!

[Matt_Ward]

Let me clear the air because what I said has been twisted.

I didn't advocate length for the sake of length. Alpine has an imbalance between the uniqueness fo the front side (minus the inane green at #6 which will be changed) and what you see on the back side.

I am in agreement regarding the 10th hole. It should stay as is provided the green isn't cut and pressed so that just about any putt will roll off the green. When Tillie envisioned the hole he could not have possibly contemplated the green speeds one sees today.

Noel, let me mention that the 12th is nothing more than a filler hole between the qualities of the 11th -- a superb hogback green and the demands of the long par-4 13th. When you say you are opposed to the changingof holesthen how do you explain the 2nd and 3rd holes? Both were fundamentally altered.

The 12th would be the only serious par-3 that plays truly uphill from the tee to the green. The 5th is a very short pitch and the 8th is not as severe in terms of the terrain change. The 12th could be the filler between the 11th and 13th holes and provide for the kind of balancing act between the front and back sides.

Let me also mention that the changing of the 14th hole is long overdue. The existing tee is truly in serious error with the trees hanging sooooooo near the tee. It's more of a conversation piece hole -- not a serious one. On the subject of changing holes, if you can recall, the green at #14 was also changed to better provide a range of hole locations that the former green did not have.

Moving the tee back to where I suggested would allow for the player to hit full out with their longest clubs. The bunkers that now split the upper and lower halfs could still be in play for the longest of hitters as they should be -- not as a constant thorn to those who can't really carry the ball which is now the case.

The 14th would solidify the totality of the holes on the inner half IMHO. The idea I am mentioning would not add to the "souless" nature of the course as someone has said -- I think I have seen enough of Alpine to know that a better balancing of holes is what's needed. Presently, you have too many short par-4's that accentuate some goofy clubdowns -- see the present 12th and 14th holes as vivid examples. When you compare the 12th and 14th to such a neat and dicey little hole like the 17th the contest is not even close.

Let me mention that a new back tee ont he 4th would not be for the average golfer. It would be for the strong player who routinely is able to get so far down the fairway primarily because of today's equipment. The moving back of the tee would only be a fundamental acknowledgement of what has transpired since the hole was created. Players of quality can easily get far down the fairway to render the contours on the green meaningless. It would be the perfect antidote to what strong good players can squeeze out of the hole and provide for the kind of balance that short hitting high handicappers face everyday.

Let me also reiterate what I know to be true -- I have been at Alpine for numerous visits these past two years -- the course is routinely too overwatered. It needs to play much faster. While the turf situation is a good one there is too much water being applied to keep the course overly moist and slow. Part of this deals with a membership that has become used to the slow turf conditions and the elimination of any ground option. That is truly unfortunate. A little brown color will not hurt the golf course it will only add to its overall appeal IMHO.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I didn't advocate length for the sake of length. Alpine has an imbalance between the uniqueness fo the front side (minus the inane green at #6 which will be changed) and what you see on the back side.

What kind of imbalance ?

GCGC, NGLA and many other courses are "imbalanced".
It's based on what the architects found in the ground.
Why do you find the need to artificially manipulate the golf course in the name of achieving "balance" on the nines ?

Should Tom Doak and Mike Keiser rip up Pacific Dunes for the sake of "balance" ?[/color]

Noel, let me mention that the 12th is nothing more than a filler hole between the qualities of the 11th -- a superb hogback green and the demands of the long par-4 13th.
Filler ?

That's one heck of a good little hole.
It has a sloping, left to right fairway, a very unusual and large deflection mound that AWT created, an elevated diagonal and sloped green, well protected by bunkers.  In short, it's a heck of a good short hole.

Why would you want to make another par 3 that would be little more that a clone of # 8 ?[/color]

When you say you are opposed to the changingof holesthen how do you explain the 2nd and 3rd holes? Both were fundamentally altered.

That's not true.

The 3rd hole had the original tee back near the current tee.
It was moved up for clubhouse/pool needs.
Now, it's back where it started.

On # 2, the hole is essentially the same hole it's always been, there has been little or no change to the teeing area, and the hole remains a drive down to a valley with the green doglegged right. Only the ugly rock retaining walls are different
[/color]

The 12th would be the only serious par-3 that plays truly uphill from the tee to the green.

It would become nothing more than a clone of the 8th hole, identical in distance, approach and angles, and the same distance as # 16.   Why take a unique, distinctive par 4 and make it the mirror image of another par 3 ?

That would be repetitous and monotonous[/color]

The 5th is a very short pitch

I don't consider a good 8-iron or 7 iron a short pitch.
# 5 is a good uphill par 3, well protected with a green that slopes left to right, with deep bunkers on the right.  It's a nice par 3 between to good par 4's.[/color]

and the 8th is not as severe in terms of the terrain change.

It's pretty close and making # 12 a par 3 would make it similar to # 8 and the same distance as # 16, and that's boring.[/color]


The 12th could be the filler between the 11th and 13th holes and provide for the kind of balancing act between the front and back sides.

It's already a good hole between two other good holes.

With respect to your need to balance the nines, do you suggest that NGLA rip up the 1st or 2nd holes to accomplish a "balance" between the nines ?[/color]

Let me also mention that the changing of the 14th hole is long overdue. The existing tee is truly in serious error with the trees hanging sooooooo near the tee. It's more of a conversation piece hole -- not a serious one.

# 14 is a wonderful hole with great cross bunkering.

While it's true that the trees on the right have become invasive, the answer is to fix the tree problem, not destroy the options and play of the hole.[/color]

On the subject of changing holes, if you can recall, the green at #14 was also changed to better provide a range of hole locations that the former green did not have.

That change did not received with universal support or acclaim.  There is nothing substantively wrong with that hole that some tree trimming or shifting of the tee to the left wouldn't help.[/color]

Moving the tee back to where I suggested would allow for the player to hit full out with their longest clubs. The bunkers that now split the upper and lower halfs could still be in play for the longest of hitters as they should be.

There's not a golfer at Alpine, pro included, who could carry those bunkers from 40 yards back.  And, remember, the fairway beyond the bunkers slopes left to right, any tee to the left of the current one would make a drive very demanding since you would no longer be hitting into the slope, but with it.[/color]

 -- not as a constant thorn to those who can't really carry the ball which is now the case.

If you move the tee back, substantively, you eliminate the wonderful option of going for it or laying up.  Why eliminate that feature ?[/color]

The 14th would solidify the totality of the holes on the inner half IMHO. The idea I am mentioning would not add to the "souless" nature of the course as someone has said -- I think I have seen enough of Alpine to know that a better balancing of holes is what's needed.

Balance for what purpose ?
For what reason ?

Are the nines at Somerset Hills "balanced' ?
Do you suggest altering the architecture in order to achieve some sort of artificial balance at the expense of wonderful holes that Tillinghast himself desiged ?

Or, do you feel that golf courses only have merit if their nines have equal par and yardages ?[/color]

Presently, you have too many short par-4's that accentuate some goofy clubdowns -- see the present 12th and 14th holes as vivid examples. When you compare the 12th and 14th to such a neat and dicey little hole like the 17th the contest is not even close.

The 10th, 12th, 14th and 17th are so unique, so special, why do you want to squeeze the distinctive life out of those holes and that nine ?

Remember, they're all uphill and play much longer than the card.

Tom Doak better get rid of those 4 par 3's on the back nine at Pacific Dunes, or convert some of the par 4's on the front nine to par 3's for the sake of "balance", and balancing the nines.

Your idea is one of the worst ideas I've heard.

Alpine is terrific just the way it is.
A little fine tuning is okay, but changing par on the 12th and lengthening the 14th beyond the membership's ability is folly.[/color]

Let me mention that a new back tee ont he 4th would not be for the average golfer. It would be for the strong player who routinely is able to get so far down the fairway primarily because of today's equipment.

There are no strong players at Alpine, or many other clubs for that matter.   Why create a hole beyond the membership's ability to play it ?

That green is crowned, sloped and well protected, why have golfers, good golfers hitting 3-irons to 3-woods into it ?
It makes no sense, especially if you examine the handicaps of the membership that hang on the locker room or pro shop wall.

You just like length for length's sake.
It has no merit at Alpine.
Alpine is already a testing challenge to its membership and good golfers from all points of the compass.[/color]

The moving back of the tee would only be a fundamental acknowledgement of what has transpired since the hole was created.

Are you referencing irrigation systems.

I used to hit # 9 and # 18 easily before their irrigation system.
Now, both greens are pretty much out of reach.[/color]

Players of quality can easily get far down the fairway to render the contours on the green meaningless. It would be the perfect antidote to what strong good players can squeeze out of the hole and provide for the kind of balance that short hitting high handicappers face everyday.

I know most of the membership at Alpine, who are these players of quality you reference, who can get far down the fairway ?[/color]

[NAF]

I have to agree with Pat on all of his points..  I don't understand the need to lengthen this course or shorten a par 4 into a par 3.  As Pat stated there really are no good players at Alpine. Out of say 275 members maybe 6 or so sport a handicap of below an Index of 5!  I can't break 80 there with my best game and the people I've taken never do including some very good golfers.

Hitting a long iron into the 4th after the shot requirements of the 3rd now would be silly to me.  Especially into that green.  I don't think you can get a long iron into a left pin placement there.

Leave the course alone.  I only agree with Matt about the watering of the fairways, it is overdone but Alpine's past included many supers who couldnt grow grass.  I think Steve our super is excellent at growing and wants to keep it that way despite my longing to see some brown there.

Alpine defends itself on the greens, WHY O WHY do we need to create more length and fairway bunkers?

[Matt_Ward]

Pat Mucci:

We agree to disagree -- end of story.  
 
Noel:

Who said anything about a LONG IRON into the 4th. Noel -- read what I said -- don't just blop down words from the sky. The existing 4th is a tough hole for the average player right now. Agreed. The terrain of the tee-to-fairway area plus the green makes for an exacting hole. Not so for the better player. The creation of a new championship tee would only reflect the tremendous gains that technology has provided. I can name numerous instances in which the top players are able to get way down the fairway from the existing tee and have a short flip shot into the target -- then the green contours become less of an issue -- if at all. The original hole didn't have to deal with today's technology gains. Ergo -- the new tee would only bring back to balance what was there initially.

Also -- who said anything about added bunkers? Some of the bunkers were improved through the handiwork of Ron Forse and that's a plus. However, the bunker style known to Tillie is not there at Alpine when compared to the likes of Fenway, QR and WF.

Noel -- another point -- the added length is only an acknowledgement of what technology has done for the years and the added tees would only be played during the biggest of events. In 99.99% of the cases the new tees would only be there for elasticity sake ... nothing more.

If you want to moan about added distance -- then scream at what the new tee has meant to #3. It has changed the dynamics of that hole to be among the 3-4 most difficult holes at Alpine. Does the new teeing area help the play of the average player. I don't see it.

Noel -- you are the guy who says leave alone the 10th green. But you fail to mention that the green cuts are beyond what even Tillie could have envisioned. I see no problem in keeping the 10th green at the height of cut that Tillie would remember. If the green is triple cut and pressed it can become nearly unputtable and the pin locations become extremely limited -- either front left or right.

The issue we do agree is the amount of over-watering the course endures. Alpine is way toooooo wet -- it would not hurt the course one iota if there were a few brown spots but a bit more education would be needed for members top understand the gains the course would provide. Alpine is pure air game -- and frankly this hurts a disproportionate amount of members who would benefit immensely from the added rolls they would get from the terrain.

The tree issue is also one that needs to be continued with in the year ahead. Alpine still has way too many overhanging situations -- the one at #10, #12 near the green, etc, etc.

One other thing -- a general widening of the fairways in concert with less water would make the course play even better. The 1st could be widened at least 10 yards -- right now it necks dows to less than 30 yards -- in some cases close to 25 and it severaly limits the playing angles into the delicious starting hole.

Noel -- one last thing -- having the 12th as a par-3 hole would be no different than what TCC does with the 2nd hole there. Frankly, the hole is a better addition as a par-3 than the pro forma dumpy par-4 it would be. I see the 12th in the same way and just because a tee could be added for par-3 purposes it doesn't mean the hole could not be continued as a par-4 as it is played now.

[rgkeller]

Pat,

Sounds like a nice little golf course is about to be destroyed.

A shame.

[Matt_Ward]

rgkeller:

Glad you could chime in from the deep left field seats. Nothing at all -- not even remotely -- is being contemplated to "destroy" such a course. The leadership of the club is keenly aware of what they have and what steps will be appropriate for the long haul.

Suggestions made by myself do not have any intention to "destroy" Alpine -- they are merely put forward for the purposes of discussion / debate.

Frankly, if the course were to simply apply far less water than is applied now and were to cut back additional trees the bulk of the course would be just fine.

The "shame" you mention comes from people who insert themselves into the picture who have little, if any info, on what is actually being discussed.

[rgkeller]

"Frankly, if the course were to simply apply far less water than is applied now and were to cut back additional trees the bulk of the course would be just fine."

Well, there you go.

"The "shame" you mention comes from people who insert themselves into the picture who have little, if any info, on what is actually being discussed."

Adding additional tees that will be used only .01% of the time is a shame.

Trying to balance the two nines is a sin.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Who said anything about a LONG IRON into the 4th. Noel -- read what I said -- don't just blop down words from the sky. The existing 4th is a tough hole for the average player right now. Agreed. The terrain of the tee-to-fairway area plus the green makes for an exacting hole.

Not so for the better player.

What better player ?   There are none at Alpine.[/color]

The creation of a new championship tee would only reflect the tremendous gains that technology has provided.
For whom ?  The PGA Tour pros who will never play there ?[/color]

I can name numerous instances in which the top players are able to get way down the fairway from the existing tee and have a short flip shot into the target -- then the green contours become less of an issue -- if at all.

Matt, you continually reference "top players", who are they ?
They aren't members of Alpine.[/color]

The original hole didn't have to deal with today's technology gains. Ergo -- the new tee would only bring back to balance what was there initially.

Before the automated irrigation system was installed drives went as far as they do today, and, that's a spine like fairway that directs mis-hits to unpleasant lies.[/color]
 

Also -- who said anything about added bunkers? Some of the bunkers were improved through the handiwork of Ron Forse and that's a plus. However, the bunker style known to Tillie is not there at Alpine when compared to the likes of Fenway, QR and WF.

I hope you're not trying to compare the topography at Alpine to Fenway, Quaker Ridge or Winged Foot.  It's as different as night and day, and therefore, so are the features.[/color]

Noel -- another point -- the added length is only an acknowledgement of what technology has done for the years and the added tees would only be played during the biggest of events.

There are no "biggest of events" at Alpine.[/color]

In 99.99% of the cases the new tees would only be there for elasticity sake ... nothing more.

Then it would be a terrible waste of money, and worse, a signal, if not a precedent, to alter the course for golfers who will never play it.[/color]

If you want to moan about added distance -- then scream at what the new tee has meant to #3. It has changed the dynamics of that hole to be among the 3-4 most difficult holes at Alpine. Does the new teeing area help the play of the average player. I don't see it.

That's because you were unaware of the original back tee on that hole, and the fact that it was destroyed to make use of club facilities.   The current tee essentially restores the old tee and the play of the hole.[/color]

Noel -- you are the guy who says leave alone the 10th green. But you fail to mention that the green cuts are beyond what even Tillie could have envisioned. I see no problem in keeping the 10th green at the height of cut that Tillie would remember. If the green is triple cut and pressed it can become nearly unputtable and the pin locations become extremely limited -- either front left or right.

I've never heard Noel or anyone else advocating triple cut mowing and rolling of the greens at Alpine.
They provide more than adequate defenses.[/color]

having the 12th as a par-3 hole would be no different than what TCC does with the 2nd hole there. Frankly,
It would be tremedously different.

You want to alter the hole for the membership, permanently.
The 2nd at TCC is only altered for the US Open or similar events, for four days every 10 years or so.

Likewise TCC eliminates the 9th and 10th holes, borrows four other holes from another nine, combining two of them, the 1st and 2nd.   And you want to compare that process for that extremely limited period of time every decade, for permanently disfiguring a wonderful short par 4 ?

In addition, the 12th at Alpine is a better hole than the 2nd at TCC.[/color]

the hole is a better addition as a par-3 than the pro forma dumpy par-4 it would be.

It would be the mirror image of # 8.
Why eliminate something unique and replace it with a clone of another hole on the golf course, and with another par 3, the 16th, that plays to the same length. ?

The golf course is fine in its present configuration.

All it needs is less water, wider fairways and some tree management and members and guests will enjoy it more.

It certainly doesn't need more length.[/color]

[Geoffrey Childs]

I've been lucky enough to play Alpine quite a bit from an MGA tournament in the late 1980's to guest play with Noel and once with the pro. Alpine defends itself very well with its topography and its greens.

Ron Forse is doing a fine job so far.  Let him continue with the bunkers, remove a whole lot of trees, firm up the turf and you will have a wonderful course for the members.  Stop trying to make it into something it will never become.  There are plenty of fine Tillinghast "tournament venues" in the neighborhood already.

[NAF]

MAtt-

I think Pat Mucci has you game,set and match..

Alpine is never going to be top 10 in NJ.. I know that.. It can be a good, boutique, niche course.  Let me say it is not a fun course in the NGLA way, it is a tough course that really tests your short game especially putting.. Clearing the trees and getting rid of the clam traps helps the look at and restores some playing angles to attack the pin placements.  That is all we need. Tillie and the terrain do the rest.

All of this competitive nature to be the best, host a tournament--who CARES if ACC  holds Senior Am or Senior Am qualifying.. I don't, the lady members don't.. The members should have a course that is for them, not for the low handicappers (all of 15 people) who need $$$$$ on a new tee just for them or some tournament once every few years.

In our last Greens Committee meeting, I told them (the group) that the USGA will finally at some stage do something about the ball and what will become of all these new tees.  I was laughed at and scorned.. Our pro said NO WAY that will happen.. He'll see.. I'd rather spend the money on keeping my fees down.. Pat, Alpine and I may soon go our separate ways, I'll be able to play 2x a month as my parents are members but at north of 20k a year for the quality of the golf, it is a bit expensive. The members are some of the wealthiest in NJ..  As Club Historian and being involved in the changes and being close to Rob, I love the club dearly but it is just way overpriced.

Matt- The 3rd tee is very close now to the original hole. I had the pics with me- club has them now..

The 4th is 400yds long. I never hit driver--why o why must we hit driver all the time.. A 3 wood over the hill with a draw usually leaves 145 yards.. Ever notice the 2nd shot plays a club longer--it does, very hard to perceive the uphill nature.  With a left pin position (those who have played ACC with me know this pin), it is a very easy 3 putt no matter if you have 8 iron, 9 iron in your hands.. With 5 or 6 iron as you are talking about there is no recovery from the left side to that pin, none you are toast. I've 3 putted from pin high and 8 feet  (on the right obviously)to that pin a million times..

Hole is hard enough..

[Patrick_Mucci]

Noel,

Take a look at the scores for the USGA Senior Amateur Qualifying today.

These are the best Senior Amateurs in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey, AND, they didn't play the golf course from the tips.   Some of the holes had the tees well forward.

And, the hole locations weren't unfair.

From the current tees the course presents the membership with all of the challenge they can handle.

[James Bennett]

Pat, in an earlier post, you commented that

'Before the automated irrigation system was installed drives went as far as they do today, and, that's a spine like fairway that directs mis-hits to unpleasant lies.'

Can you elaborate on your thoughts here, about whether a dry firm and fast condition is suited to a members club on holes with a spine-like fairway where the ball is likely to roll to an unpleasant lie?  Its an area I'm trying to get my head around after a dry summer and autumn with intentionally dry, firm and fast fairways (for the first time in 40 years).  I know the members enjoy the forward roll, but not the lateral movement off fairway into unpleasant lies (I'm talking about members who hit a good drive nearly 200 yards at best).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, in an earlier post, you commented that

'Before the automated irrigation system was installed drives went as far as they do today, and, that's a spine like fairway that directs mis-hits to unpleasant lies.'

Can you elaborate on your thoughts here, about whether a dry firm and fast condition is suited to a members club on holes with a spine-like fairway where the ball is likely to roll to an unpleasant lie?  

AWT designed neat contaiment mounding to redirect the ball back to the fairway on many of the holes.

And, the fairways were dramatically wider.

On some holes, tiers were crafted to receive balls on the fairway, like on the right side of a left to right sloping fairway.
[/color]

Its an area I'm trying to get my head around after a dry summer and autumn with intentionally dry, firm and fast fairways (for the first time in 40 years).  I know the members enjoy the forward roll, but not the lateral movement off fairway into unpleasant lies (I'm talking about members who hit a good drive nearly 200 yards at best).

The members learned how to use the terrain to their advantage, to ride the slope of the fairway.

Noel can probably expound on this as he's played the golf course many times[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

NAF,

I don't know if you noticed the scores for the USGA Senior Amateur qualifier, but 75 played off.

Only one  golfer broke par, and the course wasn't played from the tips, in fact the tees on the following holes were a good deal forward of the tips.

# 2, # 6, # 7, # 8, # 9, # 11, # 13, # 14, and # 15.

If the best Senior Amateurs from Connecticut, New York and New Jersey found the golf course all they can handle, I'm sure it's more than an adequate challenge for the membership, and, that wasn't from the tips.

[NAF]

Pat-

I did notice!  They played from the whites for G-d's sake (maybe a little longer) so we are talking about 6500 yards tops.. The only break of par on any 9 holes was a 34 on the front (which has the easiest hole on the course and a short par 5)..

So why are we even talking about lengthening the course.  If I drank the Matt Ward Kool Aid perhaps we'll have the US Amateur one day..

BTW, Matt caddied for my man James Malone who shot 83..  Matt you never thanked me for putting Jim in touch with you.  

I wonder if Matt is surreptitiously mounting a campaign to get Alpine changed to his vision by whispering to those in the know.