The Front Nine at Winged Foot West----Please Help Me to Understand the Greatness

[mike_malone]

The greens were artfully crafted ; the greenside bunkering is perfectly maintained and well placed ; the ground is bland ; the teeshots were uneventful.

  Name the "great" hole-----PLEASE  I must be missing something.


    So, I would say Bethpage Black noses this one out.


    I think Billy Casper had the right idea; just layup and take your chances.

[Jason Blasberg]

Championship golf is often mistaken for great golf in the Northeast.  After walking 36 holes in the crowd at WFW during the US Am. this fact was never more apparent.  In addition, I just played Baltustral and can say it's relatively the same scenario (and I pared 16,17 and 18).  DON'T BELIEVE THE PARKLAND HYPE!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

The greens were artfully crafted ; the greenside bunkering is perfectly maintained and well placed ; the ground is blase ; the teeshots were uneventful.

For starters, how would you describe the tee shot on # 8 ?
[/color]

Name the "great" hole-----PLEASE  I must be missing something.

Let's start with an easy one, the very short 6th.

How would you rate the 3rd hole ?[/color]

So, I would say Bethpage Black noses this one out.
They're different courses on different terrain.
Both are great in their unique way.[/color]

I think Billy Casper had the right idea; just layup and take your chances.

Where did Casper lay up ?[/color]

[Jason Blasberg]

One caveat . . . cut down 75% of the trees at WFW/Baltusral Lower and regain the intended fairway cuts with 2.5 inches or rough so that more risk reward angles of play off the tee and corresponding angles of play to the greens are rewarded and these courses could truly shine . . .

However, that would require that we relinguish the idea that par must be defended at all costs, even for the pros in majors . . .

Not even the best of links courses are immune to the par fetish by those who set the championship conditions (Carnoustie and Shinnecock are the most recent examples of the idea that Old Man Par must be protected to a fault).

WFW's greens were not designed to roll 11 on the stimp meter with fairways 20 yds wide and rough 5 inches deep.

A perfect example of the par fetish gone bad is the current way the Black course's fairways are cut, I recently paced #15 at 22yds wide and it was absolutely disgusting to see half the fairway to the left grown in with 3 inches of rough.  

We can ignore designed angles of play with overgrown trees and overgrown rough and all go out and shoot 90+ with forced layups from the trees/rough or we can reclaim fairways and fairway cuts and shoot 90+ by short siding ourselves and letting the original intention of penal do its work around the greens.  I assure you the later is more fun for all.            

[Evan_Green]

Where did Casper lay up?

I believe what he is referring to is that in one of the US Opens, Casper laid up on #3 and then in all four rounds got up and down for pars

[Patrick_Mucci]

Evan Green,

I knew where Casper layed up.

The question was to see if Mayday knew, as his post indicated a global strategy.

You're obviously not familiar with the lesson learned when the attorney cross examined the policeman on a DUI/DWI trial.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Mayday,

Congratulation on your historic crossing of the Delaware and playing your first non-Flynn course.  

For once you are not totally off base! When available, my favorite day at Winged Foot is 1-10 East and 10-18 West. However I need to talk my host into moving up a set of tees.  

I agree with Patrick that 3 and 6 are worth considering as very good to great holes on The West and our own Mr Huck liked #3 more than world famous #10.

You may have seen some new grass on the edges of 10, 12, 14 and 18 West, as the greens have been expanded towards Tillie originals. I know that Neil did lots of old photo digging to find pictures of the old greens for the Greens Committee and Fazio, and Tiger may have some "new" tournament pins that Bobby Jones saw in 1929.

Next up for Mayday is New Haven !

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Sweeney,

I believe that Neil is responsible for discovering lost putting surfaces on many of the greens at Winged Foot, and more importantly, for convincing Winged Foot to recapture them.

Neil,

Good work, and I haven't forgotten your offer which will have to wait until next spring.

Let me know if you're coming to Florida this winter.
Boca Rio and Pine Tree await your arrival.

You too Mike.

[wsmorrison]

"All holes have interesting greens and green complexes, but agreed, Flynn indeed would never have tackled such a mundane property."

I am sure you're kidding, Bill.  Flynn handled everything from highly topographic land Tillinghast, Raynor and Lees said was impossible to build a course on (Cascades) to a man-made island with zero elevation change (Indian Creek).  If Flynn had a limitation, I'm not sure what it was.  Maybe a systematic use of multiple bunkers below elevated greens on one side and a single bunker at green level on the other.  That is the only systematic design feature I can find.

The balance of difficulty at Winged Foot East and West seems to be heavily skewed at the green end.  The lack of tee to green balance seems to be the only flaw I find.  It would be nice if there were more uneven lies in the fairways and a bit more interest on the drives.  Perhaps if the fairways were at their one-time width (as I recall) the interest would increase off the tee.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne & Mayday,

For those of you who don't see the tee to green challenge, you must have been wearing blindfolds, on the course after midnight, or been in a heavy fog...... literally.

Why not retrace every hole, every shot and see if you can recognize the challenge the second time around.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

I speak for myself.  I have trouble understanding anything Mike Malone says and usually distance myself from it.

I didn't say there was nothing challenging off the tee, I said there was a disproportionate amount at the green end.

[mike_malone]

Mike Sweeney,


   I did notice the green recovery that went on. It reminded me of the work at Lulu.


    Pat,

       I don't know what constitutes a geat hole for you, since you haven't given any reasons for your choices.But, I look for interest throughout the hole at a high level  of challenge and strategy to consider a hole great.
     A simple example would be #1 at NGLA. How far left do I want to go off the tee? How far do I want to hit the shot? On the second shot I am confronted with a daunting up hill challenge with several possible lies based on how well I executed the tee shot. Then  I encounter a marvelous green.There is interest at a high level throughout the entire hole.

     I don't memorize holes when I play, but if #6 was the short one with the green wrapped around the wonderful right hand side bunker, then I agree the green complex was outstanding, but the bunker on the left side of the fairway "told" me to just layup for a wedge. I felt this was an anti-strategic bunker. It drops the hole back into that very nice level that I have seen a hundred times before.


   I think many people are affected by tradition , ambiance , and conditioning when they evaluate a course.My interest is more in the architecture itself.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't memorize holes when I play,

That could be part of the problem.

You don't memorize holes, but you evaluate them absent recall ?  That's an interesting concept [/color]

but if #6 was the short one with the green wrapped around the wonderful right hand side bunker, then I agree the green complex was outstanding,

Then you'd deem it as great.[/color]

but the bunker on the left side of the fairway "told" me to just layup for a wedge. I felt this was an anti-strategic bunker. It drops the hole back into that very nice level that I have seen a hundred times before.

Could you cite just five holes that resemble it ?

That leftside bunker is removed from the fairway.

If you remove the left side, off fairway bunker it removes any option from the tee, and eliminates any risk-reward on the tee shot.

You cite the 1st at NLGA as great, yet the tee shot, with the bunkers left, is almost identical, save for the elevation at the tee.  Surely you can see the architectural resemblence, no  ?  ?

So how can one hole be great and a similar, if not congruent hole off the tee be bland ?[/color]

I think many people are affected by tradition , ambiance , and conditioning when they evaluate a course.
My interest is more in the architecture itself.

Then you missed something at # 6.

You never answered my question regarding the tee shot at
# 8.   I believe you described it as uneventful.
How did you arrive at that conclusion ?
Or, is that one of the holes you didn't memorize ? [/color]

[mike_malone]

 Pat,
  When holes aren't memorable one tends not to memorize them. The back nine had significantly more interest on the tee shot. Thus I still have in my mind the par 5 with a higher fairway on the left and a lower on the right.  I don't attempt to know the hole number; It does not interest me.These features add to the visual and playing interest of a hole. Relatively flat land does not.

  If you can't see the difference between the excitement of the teeshot on #1 NGLA and #6 WFW then I can't help you.

  You still haven't explained to me what constitutes a great hole.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
The "wow" factor is why so many courses when first seen, are viewed as great then over time fall off the map.  People sometimes associate memorability with this "wow" factor.  If they can remember a hole, then they think it must be good.  Frankly, I can think of a lot of holes that wowed me and that leave a lasting memory, but are dreadful when you look beyond the glitz.  Many times, holes like these are over done.  And sometimes holes that look simple are very complex.      

The truly great golf courses need to be studied to be really appreciated.  Many don't "wow" you either.  It's often the subtleties that separate the good ones from the great ones.  Pinehurst #2 immediately comes to mind

Mark
 

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Very good point and post there. That's where the everlastingly important "test of time" (in play) comes into play for any golf hole. How can anyone possibly deny the validity of it? How could that not be a truism? At the end of the day, what in the hell else is there anyway in golf and golf architecture?  

When a golf hole over time gains some real respect and keeps that respect golf architects and analysts need not deny that it should have that respect, but they really should study those holes to understand as well as possible what it is about them that got them there.

When architects and analysts start saying things like those holes shouldn't have that respect because 99% of golfers haven't a clue is when they start getting themselves in trouble.

Of course the real problem arises with golf holes that some architects believe should be respected over time but for whatever reason don't seem to be.

[T_MacWood]

I'll never forget strolling on to the first green at Winged Foot-West for the first time. That green blew my mind...I thought to myself this course was obviously created by an artistic genius. And the rest of the greens were equally ingenius.

Pinehurst #2 is a good comparison. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. There are no bad holes...not that I dislike a bad hole now and then.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

When holes aren't memorable one tends not to memorize them.

The back nine had significantly more interest on the tee shot.

Could you name the holes on the back nine with significantly more interest on the tee shot ?

And, you still haven't addressed the tee shot on # 8, one of the many you categorized as uneventful.

The fact that it may be the most difficult and unusual tee shot on the golf course should help to jog your inability to remember.[/color]

Thus I still have in my mind the par 5 with a higher fairway on the left and a lower on the right.  I don't attempt to know the hole number; It does not interest me.These features add to the visual and playing interest of a hole.

# 5 has that feature throughout the hole.
# 12 only has it sporadically.[/color]

Relatively flat land does not.

Then you wouldn't be interested in TOC, GCGC, Maidstone, Pine Tree, Boca Rio, Wild Horse, Quaker Ridge, Inwood, most of the holes at Friar's Head and many others.  

If you can't see the difference between the excitement of the teeshot on #1 NGLA and #6 WFW then I can't help you.
Then enlighten me, what is the difference in the tee shots, architecturally, other than the elevation ?

You still haven't explained to me what constitutes a great hole.

I don't need to, you were the one who implied that there weren't any on the front nine at WFW.

I cited # 3 and # 6, and I'll throw in # 8.

Do you remember the 8th hole ?
Do you remember the tee shot ?
How can you possibly describe and categorize it as uneventful ?
[/color]

[mike_malone]

 Pat,

   I had already formed my impression that the teeshots on the 4's and 5's were stuningly unimpressive by the time I got to #8.  If you want to describe it to me I would love to hear.

   Mark,

      It isn't "wow" that means much to me. It is how land adds to the visual aspect and playability of the hole. How can holes achieve greatness without challenging teeshots that land in challenging landing areas?


   If it had been a par three course , it would have been "awesome"

   

[mike_malone]

 I just did a quick check of the magazine rankings. WFW is in the top ten for Golf Digest and Golf for the U.S. rankings. Interestingly it is in the midteens for the Golfweek classics.

   I think these rankers are less focused on "architecture" and more on the total experience and tradition.





 I don't feel it is in Pine Valley's or The National's league.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mayday Malone,

If you can't remember the tee shot at # 8, it speaks volumes with respect to your powers of observation and you're architectural eye.

It's one of the most unusual and challenging tee shots I've ever faced, and the approach shot into the green, depending upon where your drive ended up, is equally memorable.

What facts or evidence do you have that the rankers are less focused on "architecture" and more on the total experience and tradition ?

You can't even remember the holes and tee shots, yet you're making the definitive statement that the rankers aren't primarlly focused on the architecture ?  ?  ?

Isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle, black ?

You missed the boat on WFW and need to see and play it more in order to recognize its architectural merit.

How can you make a qualitative analysis on a golf course you can't even remember ?

Trust me, the problem isn't with WFW.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

It isn't "wow" that means much to me. It is how land adds to the visual aspect and playability of the hole.

How can holes achieve greatness without challenging teeshots that land in challenging landing areas?
That's an interesting question.

Could you address it in the context of comparing tee shots and the landing areas at TOC, Augusta, Maidstone, Seminole and GCGC, just for starters ? [/color]

[mike_malone]

 Pat,

   I have yet to play those courses, so I can't comment.


   And I don't mind you saying I am incorrect in my analysis . But , that doesn't change the fact that the majority of teeshots on the front nine at WFW (4's and 5's) are not at the level of greatness of other great courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have yet to play those courses, so I can't comment.

Based on your analysis of WFW you'll be very disappointed when you get to play them.[/color]

And I don't mind you saying I am incorrect in my analysis.

But , that doesn't change the fact that the majority of teeshots on the front nine at WFW (4's and 5's) are not at the level of greatness of other great courses.

Which ones ?

Have you played Pinehurst # 2 ?[/color]

[mike_malone]

 Pat,
     I like the "desire to go back to the first tee " standard of judging a course. For me it is a feeling that I could a have a DIFFERENT but equally pleasureable experience the second time around. I certainly wanted to go around again at NGLA. I wondered how much more fun I could have.

   After WFW I thought there was a likelihood to have much the same experience. That was  " It's all about the greens".