News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike_Cirba

In Defense of Baltusrol
« on: August 12, 2005, 03:42:43 PM »
With the exception of Augusta National, perhaps no other club in the country defines itself around the championships that it has hosted than Baltusrol Golf Club.

A lot of the discussion here this past week or two has been largely critical of the Lower Course, with words like "uninspiring" and "unimaginative", and "boring", and "forgettable" thrown around.

On the face of it, it's easy to see why this Discussion Group, who generally tends to prefer courses that are "fun", "natural", "strategic", "optional", "charming" and let's face it, "forgiving", would have a knee-jerk reaction to a course that is largely a straightforward, narrow, 7500 yard, par 70, rough-laden "test of golf".  

Although designed by one of the Golden Age masters, the Baltusrol Lower that is on the ground today is clearly not the same course he built in 1924, and hasn't been for some time.  Instead, it has been revamped and reshaped a number of times for championship play over the years, first by Trent Jones and then over the past decade by his son Rees.

However, to the membership's credit, even with a great deal of changes over the years, the basic Tillinghast framework clearly remains.  The routing is the same, the bunkering schemes largely still intact, most of the greens are original, yet the changes in distance, modernization and width seem to make it play quite a bit differently (re: much tougher for the average player as well as the professional) than probably Tillinghast might have envisioned.

The members at Baltusrol make no apologies for this.  Unlike many Golden Age courses that either can not or will not redesign holes to keep up with the play of top golfers, Baltusrol seems to feel that to honor their rich heritage, they must remain a vital and vibrant part of Major tournament golf.

To that end, they've accomplished some good things in the past decade.  They've removed many trees, and dealt effectively with some maintenance issues.  They've rebuilt their bunkers and although many feel that Rees's stylistics don't really look like Tillinghast, the club evidently is generally happy with them.  

Most recently, new bunkers have been added on a couple of holes, with the idea that length alone won't be sufficient to test top players.  

Looking beyond 2005, the club has determined that they need to move existing bunkers closer to the fairway and further from the tees.  They are looking to create a permanent US Open type test, and the planting of bluegrass roughs that we see this week is just the first stage.  I've heard that the fairways will be subsequently narrowed in the 275 yard plus range.

The results this week seem to indicate that they are doing some things right.  Many of the top names have risen to the top of the leaderboard, and the course seems to still yield to low scores, while making "par" a good number to shoot for.

In thinking about the individual holes at the Lower Course, I do admit that a few of them aren't quite as memorable or distinctive, but I'd ask anyone to name a bad hole.  Instead, it's a course made up of consistently very good, solid golf holes that while not particularly flashy, do have their high moments on holes like 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 13!, 16, and I must admit that I enjoy the final two holes quite a bit and think they make for an interesting tournament finish.

I also think Baltusrol Lower is one of the most pleasant walks in golf.  There is something very pastoral and serene about the grounds, in the setting below the mountain, and I'd never miss an opportunity to play there.

However, I think what I'm getting at in this post is simply this.  The Baltusrol Lower course, despite we might think it should be, will continue to be altered just like Augusta National.  The fact is, to create a Major championship test for today's modern tournament professionals, a course cannot stand still simply because the folks in Far Hills have not monitored equipment very well.

If a course/club still desires to be a Major player on that Championship stage, as Baltusrol certainly wants to do, then what is wrong with changing their course to keep up with the times?  It's not like it's a static environment with Tiger Woods easily reaching the 17th at 650 yards uphill.  

I don't know that any club wishing to host Major championship golf has the choice to sit still any longer.

That's unfortunate, but it's also the reality.

« Last Edit: August 13, 2005, 09:04:16 AM by Mike Cirba »

Geoffrey Childs

Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2005, 03:59:04 PM »
"In thinking about the individual holes at the Lower Course, I do admit that a few of them aren't quite as memorable or distinctive, but I'd ask anyone to name a bad hole.  Instead, it's a course made up of consistently very good, solid golf holes that while not particularly flashy, do have their high moments on holes like 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 13!, 16, and I must admit that I enjoy the final two holes quite a bit and think they make for an interesting tournament finish.

I also think Baltusrol Lower is one of the most pleasant walks in golf.  There is something very pastoral and serene about the grounds, in the setting below the mountain"

Mike I agree with this statement from your post.  I especially like #5.

HOWEVER - I would really like to know what happened to the authentic Mike Cirba and what did you do with him?  Is that new house of yours in Stepford and does Jen have a remote control for your actions You're scaring me. ;D "

Mike_Cirba

Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2005, 04:05:31 PM »
Geoffrey,

I guess I do like to challenge the conventional thinking here at times.  There is a lot of "me tooism" going around amidst the usual rancor, yet I haven't heard anyone suggest how older courses can still remain pristine yet viable Major championship sites.  ;D

Also, I'm beginning to think that there are a number of courses that are going to be changed pretty continually for tournament play, as long as technology remains unchecked.  I mean, even Shinnecock and The Old Course are extended every time you turn around (as well as recently narrowed), but at least they both have the natural advantage and defense of wind, something Baltusrol does not.

Perhaps the alternative is to just refuse to change, and become ultimately irrelevant as a Major test, or be relegated to hosting the Seniors, Women, or US AM.  Certainly some courses have gone that route, probably more through necessity than choice. (i.e. Merion).

But what would you suggest to a club that has a long Major tournament history that wants to stay vital?  
« Last Edit: August 12, 2005, 05:26:56 PM by Mike Cirba »

Tony_Chapman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2005, 04:14:02 PM »
Mike - That's a great post right there.

I saw the profile of Baltusrol on TGC last night and they said that Baltusrol is the only golf course to host at US Open at the same club but on three different courses. That is some kind of feat to me. The fact that they embrace that is a testament to the membership.

I've obviously never been there, but it always seems to bring out the best players (Nicklaus having won here twice) and I think I also heard they were the host course in 1954 when the Open was first aired on television.

Geoffrey Childs

Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2005, 04:15:12 PM »
Mike

I agree that these changes are necessary for old venues to remain viable major tournament sites.  Otherwise we will have Old Kinderhook or Trump Bedminster taking their place  ;D (I am on the record as liking both those courses a great deal so take this in the humor it is meant)

I'm just goofing a bit.  You have a healthy balanced view that is unafraid to scream out in cyberspace that you really like a Rees or Fazio course. Hell, today even Sweeney asked an as yet unanswered tough question of Tom Doak  so maybe there is something in the water around here.  ;)
« Last Edit: August 12, 2005, 04:33:43 PM by Geoffrey Childs »

Matt_Ward

Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2005, 07:40:41 PM »
Mike:

The issue with Baltusrol for me comes down to the fact that the earliest components of much of the Tillinghast contribution has been either shaped, touched-up or eliminated by the number of hands that have touched the course since its opening.

No doubt I salute the club in its thirst for hosting such events. Few places are as well organzied and well prepared as Baltusrol has been for handling such events and I have been covering major championships as a media person since 1980.

The Lower is simply not architecturally compelling minus a few spots that offer more but only because everything else is so matter of fact.

I opined that the new tee on #3 is a must for the world class players of today. This brings back into play the creek that cuts in front of the green and it does force players to account for it should there tee shot miss the fairway.

The land at the Lower is simply vanilla. No doubt you can add difficulty to the course -- see tee extensions, fairways mow patterns that are brought in at certain distances and the infusion of new bunkers at key locations.

However, some of the new features at Baltusrol don't fit with what was there. The fairways bunkers at #13 and #18 look completely out of place.

The Kentucky Bluegrass inclusion will remain. The fairways will likely be kept at the narrow points but bot with the sheer density of rough one sees with this year's PGA.

Yes, Mike you are correct. Baltusrol is intent on sending a message that it is prepared to be a future host. Frankly, as a Jersey guy I salute the club although I don't see the Lower being anywhere near the first page of outstanding venues that are in the unofficial American rota with the likes of Oakmont, Shinnecock, and Pebble Beach, to name just three.

Courses can chase the gold ring of future major championships but quality architecture -- like natural
beauty -- cannot be attained through the "forced inclusion" of elements that are often savage in their creation and bear no resemblance to the original fingerprints that came at the outset.

The best way to see what I have just said is to compare the likes of the Lower with its little brother the Upper. The Upper has remained in setp because it does have the better land but more so because it has not abandoned its roots for the pot of gold that comes with such big time events in golf today.  



Mike_Cirba

Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2005, 09:32:00 PM »
Matt,

I do agree with you about the out of place look of the new bunkers.

I thought it was just me objecting to the Rees Jones style again, but I think aesthetically at least, I'd love to see Baltusrol given a restorative facelift on the look of the bunkers overall.  For instance, I'd love to see Baltursrol's bunkering looking more like Fenway.


Mike_Cirba

Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2005, 08:58:03 AM »
Man, what's a guy got to do around this place to spur discussion and debate?

Perhaps I should have mentioned Aronimink?   ::) ;D

By the way, if Baltusrol is flat, so is Seminole!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Matt_Ward

Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2005, 01:47:15 PM »
Mike:

I agree with Brad's take / re: Baltusrol in Golfweek. The issue with many major championship sites today is that you are often left with little wiggle room in the set-up and the fine points of architectural greatness are often shelved for the following:

1). Either narrow fairways and provide high punishing rough (see Carnoustie as the best example recently).

2). Or dry the course sooooo much that it becomes a game of luck (see Shinnecock or Roya; St. George's).

Tiger said it best in his Tuesday press conference at Baltusrol -- the top players in the world will make whatever adjustments they have to regarding course conditions. It's really the guys like David Toms, Mike Weir and others of this ilk who are getting the short end of the stick.

Baltusrol's Lower Course has little in terms of personality (Amen corner, church pews, Devils's A-hole, etc, etc) it has been morphed / steroid produced muscular golf.

To the layout's considerable credit there is not a gotcha type hole or ones that are manufactured to be silly or inane. Tiger liked what he saw when he first played the course about a week prior to the event -- he said a very honest and straightforward course akin to others of that generation.

The Lower was changed to reflect what championship golf is about. If anything the membership is the ones that will have to live with the finished product long after this year's PGA Championship is concluded. When you make a pact with the devil to get all the attention for one week -- that same devil will claim what you have for long after the championship is finished because the golf course Tillinghast knew is no longer what one sees today in so many ways.

For me -- there is great pride that the dateline for every press account for this week's event comes from the Garden State. I salute Baltusrol for returning to the spotlight and hope it will garner a return PGA in the very near future since a future US Open is not likely to occur.

However, if I were to list my personal top 100 the Lower would not be among them because the architectural elements that are valued on this site so highly are really not a primary element in what the course has become today.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2005, 06:54:05 PM »

Baltusrol's Lower Course has little in terms of personality (Amen corner, church pews, Devils's A-hole, etc, etc) it has been morphed / steroid produced muscular golf.
That's not personality, that's a unique feature.
Baltusrol has plenty of personality, but, it's subtle and doesn't scream out at you.
[/color]

The Lower was changed to reflect what championship golf is about. If anything the membership is the ones that will have to live with the finished product long after this year's PGA Championship is concluded. When you make a pact with the devil to get all the attention for one week -- that same devil will claim what you have for long after the championship is finished because the golf course Tillinghast knew is no longer what one sees today in so many ways.

While I'd agree with the first part of the above paragraph, regarding the last sentence, I don't agree with that at all.
You're confusing the look with the design an playability AND...
you're viewing the golf course solely in the context of the PGA setup..   The routing and holes continue to retain AWT's signature.
[/color]

However, if I were to list my personal top 100 the Lower would not be among them because the architectural elements that are valued on this site so highly are really not a primary element in what the course has become today.

Could you elaborate and tell us what valued architectural elements that are valued on this site so highly, are really not a primary element in what the course has become today ?

And, could you elaborate in the context of what the members, NOT the PGA Tour Pros encounter ?

Thanks
[/color]


Mike Cirba,

Don't be fooled by what you see on TV.

When was the last time you played the golf course ?


« Last Edit: August 13, 2005, 06:55:30 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Mike_Cirba

Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #10 on: August 14, 2005, 07:07:27 AM »

Mike Cirba,

Don't be fooled by what you see on TV.

When was the last time you played the golf course ?[/b]



Patrick,

I'm not sure where you think I'm being "fooled"?  What did I contend that you find erroneous or off-base?

The last time I played there was two years ago, although I have since walked much of it again last Feb. during the GCA meeting.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #11 on: August 14, 2005, 08:33:37 PM »
Matt,

I do agree with you about the out of place look of the new bunkers.

I asked you if you had played Baltusrol recently ?

What is "the out of place look of the new bunkers ?
Could you describe it ?
[/color]

I thought it was just me objecting to the Rees Jones style again, but I think aesthetically at least, I'd love to see Baltusrol given a restorative facelift on the look of the bunkers overall.  For instance, I'd love to see Baltursrol's bunkering looking more like Fenway.

Why ?

Baltusrol isn't Fenway.

If you haven't played it, and are only making your comments based on the blimp shots, you're doing a disservice to yourself and Baltusrol.

Play it.  View the bunkers as they greet and meet you during the course of your round, then tell us what you think.

Unless of course, you're comparing the blimp shot of Baltusrol to Blimp shots of Fenway  ;D
[/color]



HamiltonBHearst

Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2005, 10:54:08 PM »


"unless of course your comparing the blimp shot of Baltusrol to blimp shots of Fenway".  That is a classic cut through the crap Pat Mucci post.  ;D

Should the goal of Baltusrol be to have the new bunkers look like the Baltusrol bunkers of years ago or should they look like Fenway bunkers?  

Is Fenway the most representative example of Tillinghast in the USA?   Who did the work at Fenway?

Rick Wolffe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2005, 11:11:26 PM »
August 14, 2005
Springfield, NJ

Q. Would you like to see another major come back here in the near future?

TIGER WOODS:  Why not?  This is a wonderful golf course.  I had never played it until last week when I played my first practice rounds here and then this week obviously in the championship.

I can understand why everyone loves this golf course.  I mean, it's hard but it's fair.  It's right there in front of you.  There's no hidden tricks, and it's a golf course that finally showed its true form today when it dried out.  It was playing soft and they were afraid to lose the golf course earlier in the week and they didn't let it dry out and finally let it dry out the last couple of days, and you've seen the scores go up."

Tiger Woods
Worlds's #1 ranked Professional Golfer

Rick Wolffe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2005, 11:14:48 PM »
John Daly's short answer may give some another perspective:

Q. What do you like about the golf course?

JOHN DALY: What is there not to like!

Mike_Cirba

Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2005, 08:20:07 AM »


"unless of course your comparing the blimp shot of Baltusrol to blimp shots of Fenway".  That is a classic cut through the crap Pat Mucci post.  ;D

Should the goal of Baltusrol be to have the new bunkers look like the Baltusrol bunkers of years ago or should they look like Fenway bunkers?  

Is Fenway the most representative example of Tillinghast in the USA?   Who did the work at Fenway?

Hamilton/Pat,

I've seen many old pictures of Baltusrol, back to the 20s.  The bunkers today are quite different and I don't think anyone would argue that point.  

And Patrick, I have seen the new bunkers on 18, the day we were out there.  You didn't like the look of them either, if memory serves.

I've only seen the new bunkers on 13 from television.  To me, they appear to be overkill, functionally and aesthetically.  I can see giving something to consider to the person who is bailing  left, but subtlety generally wears well.

Personally, I'd like to see the bunkers a bit more rugged and raw, even given the parkland setting.  The old pictures I've seen look pretty fabulous.  

I agree with Rick Wolffe's comments, via Tiger.  ;D  I thought the course played very interestingly yesterday, and it was wonderful to see the firmness of the greens.

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2005, 08:37:16 AM »
Rick Wolffe, if you let Tour pros who visit once a decade decide the fate of your golf course, you're in trouble most of the year. Those garish fairway bunkers on 18 sure were a factor, weren't they - well, maybe for members, but they had no affect during the PGA Championship as far as I could tell.

Peter_Collins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Enormous greens at Baltusrol
« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2005, 10:20:57 AM »
In re: the enormous greens at Baltusrol.

1) The greens appear to be absolutely enormous on TV.  How much larger are the greens today compared to the original Tilly design?

1a) Would the course (i.e. strategic challenge, defense of par, "golden age of architecture" asesthic) benefit from smaller putting surfaces?



Patrick_Mucci

Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2005, 10:48:07 AM »

Hamilton/Pat,

I've seen many old pictures of Baltusrol, back to the 20s.  The bunkers today are quite different and I don't think anyone would argue that point.

What club's bunkers don't look different from 80 years ago ?
[/color]

And Patrick, I have seen the new bunkers on 18, the day we were out there.  You didn't like the look of them either, if memory serves.

I believe you viewed them from the clubhouse view and not from the 18th tee as the player sees them.

I didn't like the concept of adding the bunkers, but, didn't comment on the bunkers themselves.
[/color]

I've only seen the new bunkers on 13 from television.  To me, they appear to be overkill, functionally and aesthetically.  
How can you say that without playing the holes and viewing them from the golfers eye ?
[/color]

I can see giving something to consider to the person who is bailing  left, but subtlety generally wears well.

Personally, I'd like to see the bunkers a bit more rugged and raw, even given the parkland setting.  The old pictures I've seen look pretty fabulous.

Then it's the "LOOK" that is your focus and concern.

It's doubtful that the membership would return to a "look" that they rejected about 40 years ago.

Remember, it's the club, the membership that makes those decisions, not the architect.
[/color]

I agree with Rick Wolffe's comments, via Tiger.  ;D  I thought the course played very interestingly yesterday, and it was wonderful to see the firmness of the greens.

I realize how difficult it is to give the Devil his due.   ;D
[/color]

Mike_Cirba

Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2005, 11:01:03 AM »
Patrick,

I walked the 17th and 18th fairways from the "golfer's eye" view and also perused around 16 and a few other holes that day.  I stood over the edge of the bunkers on 18 and peered down into them.  Without hopping in, I"m not sure where I might have gotten a better view.  ;D

I mentioned earlier that I don't like the new bunkers on 13 & 18 from BOTH a functional (strategic) as well as an aesthetic standpoint.  

I also said that my clear preference would be for the bunkers to look older, more rustic, more rugged, and not have the typical Rees Jones clean liines.  That is about "the look" quite admittedly.  I think the Sahara feature on 17 should be wild and wooly, not formalized and fragmented as it currently is.  Rees did the same thing with the Hell's Half Acre features at Quaker Ridge and Ridgewood so it is about the architect as much as the club.




HamiltonBHearst

Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2005, 11:15:58 AM »


Not sure how many players hit into the bunker on 18 during the tone-a-mint but Davis Love certainly did in the final group.

Mike_Cirba

Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #21 on: August 15, 2005, 11:29:25 AM »
I guess I'd like to understand why many in this group love Oakmont, with wall to wall narrow fairways, deep rough, and oodles of penal fairway bunkers yet decry the same type of course at Baltusrol?

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #22 on: August 15, 2005, 11:37:12 AM »
the old girl held its own, at least according to par

I think this tournament shows just how unbelievable F___ing good those guys really are......a longer course, high heat and humidity, difficult rough, etc...and the winner still shot 4 under......I'm a 12 at my club...I would LOVE to be able to go out to Baltusrol tomorrow and play it from the back tees and see what I would shot, just as a bit of comparison to Phil et al...I wonder if I would break 120?????

as a point of comparison, I played Talking Stick with a couple of the guys who were playing  it in a mini-tour event a few days afterwards..one of those guys shot an easy 65 from the back tees :o ???

199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

Patrick_Mucci

Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #23 on: August 15, 2005, 09:55:17 PM »

I also said that my clear preference would be for the bunkers to look older, more rustic, more rugged, and not have the typical Rees Jones clean liines.  

How did they look in 1967 before Rees was involved with the club ?
[/color]

That is about "the look" quite admittedly.  

I think the Sahara feature on 17 should be wild and wooly, not formalized and fragmented as it currently is.  

Rees did the same thing with the Hell's Half Acre features at Quaker Ridge and Ridgewood so it is about the architect as much as the club.

I'm fairly familiar with Ridgewood.
Could you point out exactly where Rees altered the Hell's Half Acre features on either # 3 east, # 2 center, # 4 Center,
# 4 west or # 8 west ?

To my knowledge there is NO Hell's Half Acre Bunkering on any of the par 5's at Ridgewood.

But, I guess it's so en vogue to criticize Rees that you and others do it on phantom features that don't even exist.
[/color]
« Last Edit: August 15, 2005, 09:56:14 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

T_MacWood

Re:In Defense of Baltusrol
« Reply #24 on: August 15, 2005, 10:40:58 PM »
Pat
Ridgewood had two Sahara bunkers...the 4th of the west nine and the third of the east. Rees' work on the HHA at Quaker Ridge borders on the criminal.

Do you ever get tired of defending Rees? Have you ever given any thought to defending Tillinghast against these transgressions?