Liberty National

[Matt_Ward]

I had the pleasure in walking with Superintendent Greg James for the site of the new Bob Cupp / Tom Kite design called Liberty National -- within easy eye-view of the Statute of Liberty, the NYC skyline and harbor area.

Hard to believe but no less than TWO fully developed golf clubs are going forward in Hudson County, NJ. My father's family moved from the Bronx right after WWII and settled in Jersey City and it's hard for me to fathom how golf -- the regulation kind with all the amenities -- is now part and parcel of this unique / cramped area.

Liberty National is moving quickly along and it's fairly certain that the planned opening date for July 4, 2006 is within reach.

Unlike Bayonne GC which is about one mile southwest of LN the course is located just off exit 14B on the NJ Tpke. You can actually see parts of a few holes from the highway.

The golf course has not been altered to the vast extent you see with Bayonne. That doesn't mean to say that plenty of fill has been brought in to shape the flat piece of property into the golf course you see today.

What's incredible is how much development is taking place within this tiny area of land -- you have upscale housing situations with Port Liberte which is immediately next to the site. I shake my head in wonder because no less than 2 miles from the site you actually enter Jersey City "proper" -- by that I mean the real urban center of the community and the people who inhabit it. The development of Liberty National and the surroundings it occupies is truly a world unto itself.

How about the golf course ?

Liberty National, on first glance and only through a walking tour, doesn't present the architectural "compelling" elements you find with Bayonne GC.

That doesn't mean to say the course is lacking.

The layout will play in excess of 7,400 yards to a par of 70 and the demands / difficulty are clearly present. The ultimate aim of the club is to host a significant golf event and clearly all the elements that are being included are meant with that in mind.

What many people need to ALWAYS keep in mind is how tenacious the wind can be on a daily basis here. There is nothing to stop the wind sweeping off NYC harbor and throughout the property.

The layout is as follows (tip tee distances are outlined)

1st / 414 yds (4)
2nd / 220 yds (3)
3rd / 393 yds (4)
4th / 197 yds (3)
5th / 444 yds (4)
6th / 521 yds (4)
7th / 485 yds (4)
8th / 623 yds (5)
9th / 475 yds (4)

10th / 502 yds (4)
11th / 254 yds (3)
12th / 437 yds (4)
13th / 564 yds (5)
14th / 149 yds (3)
15th / 489 yds (4)
16th / 328 yds (4)
17th / 448 yds (4)
18th / 480 yds (4)

Time doesn't allow me to analyze all the holes. I'll do a few at a time.

1st hole / 414 yds (4)

The opening hole is still being finished -- the teeing areas are still being shaped. What's really fascinating about the starting hole is how a man-made creek runs parallel to the hitting area and with the slightest push off the tee can be reached. Placement, not power, is the operative word here.

The putting surface is also neatly angled with two frontal bunkers protecting about 1/2 of the pinnable areas on the target.

2nd hole / 220 yds (3)

I wasn't really impressed with this hole. Fairly flat and in some ways boring. The hole runs back to NYC harbor and you can easily see Lady Liberty in the nearby distance. There are a few bunkers on the hole but mainly as set decoration and not as clear strategic concerns.

3rd hole / 393 yds (4)

This hole sets-up as a dog-leg left par-4 and like the 1st the key here seems to be positioning. However, if you cut too much left you are then blocked by a series of mounds that obscure the approach.

4th hole / 197 yds (3)

Much better hole than the 1st par-3 encountered. The green is well-angled and you need to have the right amount of club to handle the target provided.

5th hole / 444 yds (4)

Here is where the test / fiber of Liberty National begins. You tee on an elevated area (40 feet above fairway grade) and you encounter water to the left which runs all the way up that side to the putting surface. The closer you play to the water the better the angle into the green. There are also two huge bunkers that stand guard on the right side of the green. Very deep and well constructed. The putting surface is also split with a front and back tier. The rise is not severe but clearly in play.

One other note about Liberty National -- the green sizes
are roughly 4,500 - 5,500 square feet and are VERY small when compared to the behemouth ones you seeta Bayonne. You also have fairly narrow driving areas -- on average from 25-30 yards.

Finally, to the credit of Cupp / Kite the routing is well done. You are never going in the same direction twice.

[Dan_Callahan]

Finally, to the credit of Cupp / Kite the routing is well done. You are never going in the same direction twice.

Are you saying that it is a prerequisite for a good routing that no two holes go in the same direction? I'm not sure I understand the rationale behind this criticism.

[Matt_Ward]

Dan:

I have a strong feeling that routing is the key determinant for any architect to demonstrate a command of the best features of a given site and to avoid any repetition that permits the better player to zone in or get comfortable with the holes created. Many times you might have a superb site but it is compromised (see Sutton Bay as an example IMHO) because of a very pedestrian level routing scheme.

Great courses, in my mind, never allow for the player to face the same situation twice or continually. In many ways -- great courses are like great baseball pitchers. They don't allow the player to get comfortable in knowing they will be seeing the same hole / pitch twice. They constantly strive to keep you off-balance and have the player make adjustments in a continuous manner.

Cupp / Kite, from my walking tour, seem to have done that with Liberty National.

[Dan_Callahan]

What about the great pitcher like Mariano Rivera whose best pitch—a fastball—is so good and unhittable it is a mistake to try to throw anything else?

To compare to golf, what about a peninsula site where it is clear that the best routing to take advantage of the terrain is out and back.

In that case, the holes will follow one after the other in the same sirection, but I wouldn't call that a weakness in the routing. I guess my question is: Do you considser this an absolute rule, or do you allow for exceptions?

[Tyler Kearns]

Are you saying that it is a prerequisite for a good routing that no two holes go in the same direction? I'm not sure I understand the rationale behind this criticism.

Dan,

I tend to agree with Matt here, although I do not consider it a prerequisite for a good routing. It would be ideal, however, very few natural sites are. It would therefore we more possible on relatively banal terrain, where earth could be pushed around to create features that allow for a 360 degree routing.

I would not compromise a good golf hole because it travels in the same direction as another, or even its immediate predecessor. The advantage of routing holes in all directions of the compass is that you get the full effect of the wind, head, tail and the myriad of quartering breezes.

TK

[Matt_Ward]

Dan:

My baseball analogy was meant for starting pitchers -- relievers like Mariano can succeed because of limited innings worked (one other thing -- his best pitch is the cutter). No doubt there are those you or others can name who could succeed with just one type of pitch but that's more the exception than the rule. Think of when Koufax perfected his control with the fastball and combined it with his superb breaking ball.

In regards to your point -- yes -- there are exceptions in terms of ultimate routing methods. But the evolution of routing schemes has come a long ways since the time of The Old Course when the nature of golf was more towards the out for "X' number of holes and then a return " for a "Y" number of holes.

In my experiences -- the best routings maximize all the unique elements (topography, etc, etc) of a given site and at the same time combine that with a golf linkage that doesn't allow the player to play the same type of hole / shot again and again.

Great routings don't beget mental comfort for the player.

Once repetition in a given design comes forward it permits
the better player to simply dial in with a greater sense of confidence. Keeping the player off track makes the demands of playing such holes / course that much more challenging and difficult to discern.

I am not ignorant of the fact that given sites comes with different limitations / possibilities. The site at Liberty National allowed for certain things but at the same time there were also a few limitations as well.

Keeping the player off-balance is where an architect demonstrates his "golf brains." Functional routings can be very good and are often used when real estate matters are needed to be included. In the case of Liberty National the issue of real estate is not a factor as the penthouses that will be created are all in the same area of the property -- near the 1st tee / 18th green and the clubhouse / practice facility area.

I hope to post additional info on the other holes at the course. Liberty National proves to be a very demanding layout once you start with the 5th tee through the 13th green.

[PThomas]

Matt - not having been there, pls explain your concerns with the routing at Sutton Bay

thanks

[kwl]

"Many times you might have a superb site but it is compromised (see Sutton Bay as an example IMHO) because of a very pedestrian level routing scheme."

Interesting indeed, Matt. 'The pedestrian level routing scheme', out and in, mirrors the old course. home of golf. classic.

hmmmm. did you recently purchase a thesaurus or are you merely completing a  GED creative writing course? i must tell you that you make me laugh. word of advice. stop taking yourself so seriously. nobody else does.

[Matt_Ward]

Paul:

The issue for me re: Sutton Bay is that here you have a gorgeous undisturbed area of the country and the routing is completely undercut in order to showcase the lake that lies adjacent to the course but never plays a role in the actual playing of the holes themselves.

Let me further point out that the 1st hole is no less than almost a mile away from the clubhouse and the trek to get there is akin to Marco Polo's adventures to the Far East.

The routing for the course follows one basic thought -- run the holes parallel (with a few exceptions like the 1st) going out and then run the holes parallel coming back.

I mean you have a parcel of land in no mans land USA in Agar, SD. It's not exactly like there are tons of houses or other constrictions in play as you would find at other sites in more congested locations.

Paul, you have to realize that Sutton Bay does experience its fair share of heavy winds. If you catch the course on a southerly exposure you play the outward holes downwind and when you make the U-turn at the 10th you encounter a headwind all the way through to the par-3 17th.

I just don't understand it -- the scenery is marvelous yet the course fails to some degree in my eyes because the routing could have been much more complex and meaningful. The individual holes are quite good --and in some instances very good but the wind patterns can simple render the course into a "one-way" pattern in one direction followed by the exact reverse in the other direction. That's fairly limited in my mind and fails to rise to the level of a complex / sophisticated routing that doesn't permit any sustained patterns to be the norm.

Like I said before -- I like to see the complexity and richness an architect can achieve and one solid way in seeing that is the final routing chosen. Great routings never settle on the pedestrian -- they always eschew anything close to being readily discerned as patterns lending themselves to predictability. Great routings always keep a player on one's toes and force the greatest variety possible in terms of shotmaking challenges.

Sutton Bay is a fine course -- it could have been even better in my mind.

[Lou_Duran]

Matt,

Ideally, I like courses that provide the variety and suspense you seem to advocate.  Unfortunately, many sites do not provide the opportunity to orient the holes in all different directions with little repetition.

On a blank slate like Tom Doak had with Rawls, what justification would you have for finishing that course with two par 5s even though they do go in different directions?

[Matt_Ward]

Continuing with the course analysis from my walking tour ...

6th hole / 521 yds (4)

Just a bear of a hole. If you get a helping westerly wind it becomes manageable but the tee shot must have sufficient distance and accuracy. There is water down the right side of the approach and the slightest push will find splish splash territory. The green is also well contoured because anything with pace can easily slide off the sides and leave some demanding chips / pitches to recover.

7th hole / 485 yds (4)

Hole reverses itself from #6. You need to avoid a series of bunkers on the left and right. The closer you can play down the right the more open the green becomes. Nonetheless, Cupp / Kite have cleverly angled the putting surface from lower left to back right on a diagonal and the bunkers that guard the right hand side are well-placed. This hole is a good indicator of what Liberty National is about -- it's not compelling architecturally but it's very clear in its appearance and the demands it calls upon the player to execute.

8th hole / 623 yds (5)

The first par-5 played and one very tough hole. If you encounter a southerly wind the hole will play far, far longer. The tee shot is key here as it is at so many other holes at Liberty National -- there is a fairway bunker complex deep down the fairway and unless the wind is with the player it'd unlikely you can reach it from the teeing area.

The second shot is where the task intensifies. You need to stay as far left as possible in order to open up the diagonal green. The landing area in the front section is quite small and the back does open a bit more.

The 8th isn't grand as par-5 goes -- but it looks to me like a hole that will rarely suffer fools either.

9th hole / 475 yds (4)

As you come to the 9th you will eventually cross a bridge that separates the bulk of the course from the holes #9 thru #12.

The 9th is a superb long par-4 dog-legs right with a carry over a man-made creek that comes in at a perpendicular angle. The key is again on the tee shot -- a slight fade should work wonders here. The green site is also a first rate one -- well contoured with a series of different "pocket" greens that will provide for multiple pin locations.

10th hole / 502 yds (4)

I was a tad disappointed with this hole because the architectural duo seem to have copied a good bit from the previous hole here. The hole goes in the other direction but it too is a dog-leg right with a creek cutting through the fairway. The green is quite large -- one of the biggest at LN and is fairly ordinary.

11th hole / 254 yards (3)

Talk about step up the plate holes -- the 11th is a quality hole as you play back to the west. There is water to the left and an artfully created fall-off area to the right for those who bail in that direction.

After this hole you cross over the bridge and head back to the main section of property for the remainder of the round.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Callahan,

If all, or most of the holes go in the same direction it doesn't allow the golf course to be played with the element of WIND, blowing from a variety of directions, and affecting shots differently.

[Dan_Callahan]

Patrick,

On an open site that's true. However, with the right combination of trees and hills, two holes running in the same direction might experience drastically different wind conditions. Perhaps not the obvious variety brought on by a hole that plays dead into the wind followed by a hole that is directly downwind, but in a swirling state perhaps far more difficult to account for.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Callahan,

There are NO TREES and/or HILLS in Hudson County near these sites or close to the water.

[Dan_Callahan]

Thanks for the geography lesson, Patrick.

I wasn't referring to Liberty National but instead to the general concept of reviewing/rating a routing based on whether or not the holes direct the golfer in a variety of directions. I have never found that to be all that important, but Matt clearly feels strongly about it (since he downgraded Sutton Bay because of such a "shortcoming").

I think his explanation is a good one, I just don't think it's quite so easy as that—at least in parts of the country where wind direction is impacted by land forms. I'm guessing that Matt doesn't disagree, since the net effect is to cause two holes running in the same direction to have different wind conditions—which is what he desires.

[Matt_Ward]

Lou:

You said, "Unfortunately, many sites do not provide the opportunity to orient the holes in all different directions with little repetition."

Lou, it's often not the site but the architects themselves who place the limitations. Sometimes architects fall in love with a particular hole design / concept they have done previously and they then go out of their way to replicate it again and again. The Tom Fazio camp often does this from the 70+ courses of his I have played. I think of it as a McDonald's Happy Meal package. Seen one -- seen them all.

In regards to The Rawls Course I think concluding the round with back-to-back par-5's is a fine choice. Doak created two holes that clearly go in opposite directions and therefore the wind cannot help you with both of them -- particularly if going for the green in two blows is being considered.

Frankly, I don't what you are asking me in regards to "justification" because I think the finish works very well there.

Dan:

Routing is the mechanism in which the architect does two key things:

1). Maximizing all the natural elements that a given site provides or if such site doesn't provide such elements creating them so that they enhance the experience when playing there.

2). Since a routing is a "journey" and a golf one at that -- being able to demonstrate a keen sense of variety & complexity in the holes created. Keeping a player off-balance so that no discernible patterns are present is one clear way IMHO that separates a good course from one placed at the highest of levels.

Dan -- I am not blind to the possibility that different sites / land forms, as you call them, will necessitate certain outcomes. Ditto the compactness of a site or if other elements intrude.

Yes, it is very possible that holes may go in the same direction -- yet the impact of such holes may be influenced by the nature of the ground movement and other related items. The thing to keep in mind is that I always inspect how the architect DIFFENTIATES what it is that is created. Good players are able to defeat so-so designs because they can zone in on a particular shot / ball flight because it can be repeated time after time. Great courses do not so easily show themselves to the player and IMHO the magnitude of such designs only increases the desire to play such courses.

On its face Liberty National doesn't have the compelling architectural elements of multiple options that you find at Bayonne but the core elements of a sophiticated routing is clearly one item that Cupp / Kite have provided IMHO.

[Lou_Duran]

Matt,

For me, an ideal routing provides for a wide range of shots with minimal repetition over 18 holes.  In areas where there is a predominant wind for much of the year, frequent changes in direction makes the task of mixing shot requirements much easier.

In addition to the logistical aspects of the routing, the sequencing and flow of the holes are very important. While two loops of holes with par of 4-5-4-3-4-5-4-3-4 may lend considerable variety to a course, site characteristics seldom if ever allow for it.

An exception might be a large, rectangular flat site like Tom Doak had at Texas Tech.  There he had the budget and mandate to create a substantive course.  There were few if any natural features to incorporate into the design.

While I too think very highly of the Rawls course, I found the two par fives finish to be unusual.  Even though they go in different directions, for most of us they require a driver, a metalwood or long iron lay-up, and a short iron approach.

I can understand having two par threes in a row like CPC's 15 and 16 to take advantage of the incomparable coastal green sites.  Even though the orientation is similar, 15 is generally a delicate, feel shot, while 16 requires a masculine, solidly hit straight ball.

In the former (Rawls), the architect made a decision to place similar holes back-to-back not because of site limitations.  As we know, MacKenzie had some qualms about #16 but the physical characteristics of the site more than justified the final decision.  (I find the back-to-back par fives 5 and 6 less justifiable, though they are fine by me.)    

BTW, changing directions repeatedly does not ensure variety.  I've played at a course where longer par-fours generally playing downwind are followed by shorter par-fours going the opposite way.  Unless the wind is really howling, the result is often drives and approaches with the same clubs and similar shaped shots.

BTW2, which 16-17-18 finish do you like better, the multi-directional one at Rawls or the one at Sand Hills which goes primarily one way?  Which is more repetitive and allows the better player to hone-in his game?

I do look forward to seeing the two new NYC area courses if only from afar.  There must be some major $$$$$ out there to justify such hyper-expensive construction.    

[Matt_Ward]

Lou:

I never said that simply having holes going in different directions guarantees that the course is going to be a very good or great one.

Lou -- the last two holes at Rawls allow for a major swing in shots between players. The potential is certainly there for players to birdie both or to bogey both -- depending upon how they are playing and what role wind will play. The prevailing win will likely mean #17 playing downwind while the final hole will often be into a headwind. There is a major difference in terms of what clubs / situations will come from playing them and for that reason, among others, I salute team Doak in providing for such a unique ending.

Lou -- there is enough variety with the two holes in question. Going for the green in two blows exists for the stronger player and the 18th playing into a prevailing headwind makes for such interesting situations for all types of players given the frontage of the pond by the green.

Routing is the way in which the architect captures the full essence of a given property -- the topographical and geographical qualities -- and at the same time imbue the land with a series of holes that challenge the player to the fullest. If you have holes that offer simple strategies and are of the same reward / penalty elements (going in the same direction continuously) you may still have a good course but it will fail for me because it doesn't constantly force the player to make key adjustments.

Liberty National does have certain weaknesses but the routing situation is one Cupp / Kite clearly were thinking about and from my walking visit did quite well.

[Matt_Ward]

The course continues ...

12th hole / 437 yds (4)

Very imaginative hole with a split fairway. Pays to hit left to open up all the hole positions. Green is also well placed and angled. Anything hit with too much juice can easily access various bunkers and run-off areas.

13th hole / 564 yds (5)

One of the best holes at Liberty National. The last par-5 and a good one to boot. Here you tee off towards NYC harbor and there is a huge bunker complex that protects the optimum right side. Most players will never be able to reach it because it is located way out there. The hole also features a pond that cuts in from the left and protects the green accordingly.

Strong players can opt for the green in two but the shots have to be well played with plenty of strength and accuracy.

14th hole / 149 yds (3)

Good change of pace hole. The tee pad is immediately next to the waterway area of the harbor and wind will always be a factor here.

The green is a dot -- very small and has plenty of protection from bunkers which insulate pin locations unless the optimum shot is struck. This is the kind of hole that will clearly add plenty of torture because while it is short it will not yield easily.

[Matt_Ward]

The final four holes ...

15th hole / 489 yds (4)

Plays away from the NYC harbor and requires two well struck shots to get near the target. Plenty of contour on the green and just off it for shots that are not struck properly.


16th / 328 yds (4)

A real change of pace hole -- here the player must decide if going for the green is worth the risk. There is a man-made water feature that is still being created on the entire right side of the drive zone. The slighest push will find aqua.

17th hole / 448 yds (4)

One of the best driving holes on the course. You need to slide the tee shot from left-to-right and avoid a series of well placed bunkers. The green is also a fine design as it angles slightly from back-to-front.

18th hole / 480 yds (4)

Classic finishing hole. The clubhouse -- to be open in '07 -- is set immediately behind this superb greensite. The hole runs parallel to the water on the right and the slightest push will be a watery grave.

The hole turns ever so slightly from left-to-right and you need to avoid bunker complexes on both sides with the ones on the right further down the fairway because of the optimum angle from that side. If the hole plays into a northerly wind it will be extremely demanding.

The putting surface is very small -- somewhere around 4,500 square feet and the pin placements can vary from relatively hard to very hard.

When you walk the final hole you see all the majesty of Lady Liberty to your right and the inviting wonder of Lower Manhattan just off beyond.

Like I said before -- the architectural elements may not be as compelling as Bayonne but on my walk through the course I came away more impressed than the negative critics who have opined thus far on the layout. It will be quite interesting to play the course and see what happens when clubs hit the turf there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Callahan,

I've heard it said that an ideal routing consisted of two loops of nine holes in opposite directions, clockwise and counter clockwise, so as to take maximum advantage of the wind.

Donald Ross was an advocate of such configurations.

[Voytek Wilczak]

Interesting writeup, Matt. Thanks.

I would add just one more thing - the wind off Verazzano really BLOWS over the LNGC site. This is the prevailing wind and is often very strong. With LNGC's varied routing, narrow fairways and small greens the course should be a stiff test in windy conditions.

Like Matt, I like the concept of Bayonne better, too, albeit only from pictures (I only walked LNGC).

I think it is great that two such drastically different courses have sprouted 4 miles from each other in Hudson County.

Perhaps the two will offer reciprocal playing privileges for members - they'll have their cake and eat it, too!

[Matt_Ward]

Voytek:

What's needed is for people to actually play the courses in question and see how the "rubber meets the road."

No doubt -- a walking tour is better than simply looking at photos or schematics. In playing the courses you get to see if the designed elements translate from the theory into the day-to-day reality.

One other point -- the velocity of the wind will clearly play a huge impact for both courses as you correctly stated. I don't think many people really appreciate the kind of wind patterns / strength there can be in that area. Holes could have as much 4-5 club diferences depending upon the existing weather patterns.

[Mike Worth]

Question for Matt Ward.

Love your comments about actually playing the courses you 'rate'.  Question.  Is it important that one play all 18 holes, or just the ones you're able to play because you showed up 45 minutes late for your tee time?  

[Matt_Ward]

SS1:

Always a pleasure to respond to your "thoughtful" and original posts.

I don't have any clear comments on Liberty National or Bayonne through a playing experience. I stated that from the get-go. My comments come only from a walking tour -- nothing more than that. I don't have any definitive comments until a true playing experience -- whether that means I start on the 1st or the 4th -- I will play the entire layout at both of the aforementioned courses when the opportunity arises.

Once again -- you bring up the tired cranky concerns regarding my initial visit to Hidden Creek. You need to get a life on this issue because you are once again following the long whiny road that is your specialty. I played all the holes in question that day -- those missed at the outset were played that same day -- and I have since returned to the course this Fall.