[Andy Scanlon]

Andy,
   Welcome to the site, do you play out of RG? Maybe some of these approaches just seem uphill to me due to my low trajectory ball flight.

Thanks, Ed.  Yes, RGGC is my home course.

[mike_malone]

 It seems obvious to me. Noel played with Wayne and me and prefers RG to Alpine ; Ed played with Wayne only and I only came by for a visit and he prefers Alpine. Case closed!

[wsmorrison]

Typical Mike Malone judgement...based on scant or meaningless evidence.  The first swallow (the bird you knucklehead   ) does not a summer make.

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,

    There is no other reasonable explanation. Ed looked intelligent and perceptive to me. Yet he prefers Alpine . It must be your fault

[wsmorrison]

I hope you don't think that RGGC needs to be viewed as the better than Alpine by everybody.  It is more reasonable to imagine that different folks have different opinions rather than your presence being an over-riding influence

I think it more likely that Noel's earplugs worked better than Ed's.  Maybe since you popped in and out on us Ed simply forgot to put them back in  

[ed_getka]

Mike,
   I don't think of the uphill approach shots as being blind in the sense you are describing. I can see where the pin is when I'm standing on the tee, but since that isn't the shot that will reach the green it doesn't really help me much on my approach shot. On my approach shot the holes I noted had greens above me where I couldn't see the green and it makes it hard for me to commit to a shot I can't "see" (as in visualize). This problem probably doesn't have much effect on someone who knows the course well and can see the green surface in their minds eye and knows where they want to go.
   Hopefully we'll have a chance to golf together somewhere this year.

[mike_malone]

Ed,


   From the fairway , at the ideal target length (225-250 from tee) I guess a part of the left side of #4 is blind , just over the bunker on #5, just over the right bunker on #6, the right side of #7, the back of #8, just over the bunker on #11, coming in from the right side on #12 ( a critical part of the strategy on this short hole) ,all of #15, small portions of #16-#17 because of bunkers , and the back of #18.

   I think of a blind green as one where I can't see any of the surface from the landing area. Based on this I see only #15 as blind. I would call #2 at Pine Valley blind , as I recall it .

       I have played many courses with elevated greens and I find more than an occasional totally blind green as a drawback. I might be living in a fool's paradise thinking that RG has little blindness, but I would not be a member at a course that had many blind shots.

  I do hope we can play. Thanks for your TOC advice.

[wsmorrison]

I'm not sure what Mike and Ed think are blind shots.  Do you mean where you can't see any portion of the green, a portion of the green, the bottom of the flag, the flag itself?  There is also the matter of different landing areas for different golfers.  What might be visible to some might not be for others.  For instance, if you hit a very long drive on the 9th at Shinnecock, you can't see anything of the green, nor the flag.  It might be easier for some to have a full shot in to a visible target.  Last time I was there I hit it to the end of the fairway (from the member tees) and had no sight clues at all.  I knew the green so it wasn't too unsettling.  For someone there the first time, they might not have any confidence at all in the approach, this after a tremendous drive.

In the case of Rolling Green there are a number of blind and semi-blind shots as you would expect on a course with 11 uphill approach shots.  Some blindness is irrespective of distance, others a result of distance, pin position and landing zone location.  Now that I think of it, there are so many areas of greens that are unseen it must be a bit difficult for first timers and guests.  It is a wonderful feature for members as it takes local knowledge to feel confident where the pin is and how to hit the shot.  This certainly accounts for some of its difficulty.

If you end up on the left edge of the fairway on 1, most of the left side of the green is blind although the flag is visible everywhere.

If you are on the left side of 2 most of the left side of the green is hidden by the raised bunker; half the flag is visible.

The par 3 third green is visible from the tee, none at all from the left bunkers  

Only the very front of the green is visible from most landing areas on 4, nothing on the left side at all.  The best angle for attack is usually the right side of the fairway and there's a bit more of the green visible from this LZ.  For most newcomers, if they think the shot is pin high, they're short.  If they think they went over, its pin high for back pins.  The partially blind nature of the green and being informed that the green has a severe back to front slope makes most golfers try to play below the hole.  A front pin is tricky and many times balls trickle back down the steep slope leading up to the green on shots that try to stay below the pin.

On the left side of the fairway on 5 (where you should be on this level hole) the farther left the more of the green you can see.  From the right side you can only see a bit of the rear of the green and the front quarter of the green due to the fronting bunkers.  

All but the rear portion of this long green is visible from the tee on the par 3 6th.

Completely visible 7th green.

Only the front of the green is visible from most landing areas on the steeply uphill par 4.  The landing area is level to the creeks and just over then the ground rises sharply to the green.

The 9th, a 620 yard uphill par 5, has so many different approach areas that it is hard to say how much is hidden.  The green, especially on the left is usually not visible from most LZs.

On 10, all but the left edge of the green is visible from the tee on this LONG par 3.

The 11th is downhill then uphill.  The entire green is visible from the tee like most holes so the pin position is not unknown when the approach shot is taken.  The farther left the more green is visible.  From the right only the very front is visible.

12 is partially visible from the left side of the fairway with back left and the right side obscured by hill and bunker.  Like the 11th, a tee shot on the right side obscures most of the green save the front left.

13 is completely visible to strong drivers.  For shorter hitters, it is mostly obscured because one has to hit down into a landing area below the green so that no parts of the green are visible, even some flag positions.

I have to take a break...taking my son to breakfast.  I'll finish the post if anyone finds this at all of interest.

[wsmorrison]

14 is a slightly uphill 200 yard par 3 over a valley to the plateau where the clubhouse is situated.  The middle and back portions of the right half of the green are hidden from the tee.

15 is almost completely hidden from view from all landing areas.  Only a few feet of the front of the green can be seen.  Only red flags (they're color coded for depth) are on the front tier.  White and yellow flags are on the back tier.

16 is mostly visible.  The large fronting bunker hides a bit of the front and right portions of the green.

17 is more visible from the right side although the far left side of the green, where there is a falloff is not seen.  There's a nice kicker on the back of the green so most of the rear portion is visible.  From the left side, little of the left portion of the green is visible.

On 18, only the rear portion of the green is not seen.  The landing area depends upon how one plays the hole.  As a par 4 from the member tees, the landing area is at the turn.  As a par 5 (horrible set-up) the approach is from a much shorter distance so less of the rear portion of the green is visible due to the uphill nature of the approach.

[mike_malone]

 I guess I am just used to the fact that if I can see most of the green I can fill in the rest. It seems to me that the numerous openings to these uphill greens provide guidance as to the rest of it. There is not alot of trickiness hidden.

   It does seem that "blind" may need to be defined more clearly.

[JNagle]

Alpine or Rolling Green?  I'd take both.  Ron and I are consulting with both courses and each has great features.  Each course is routed beautifully upon the land.  Both courses are definately ones that need additional study, not just a first glance or walk through.  Each visit to RG and to Alpine has revealed more about the course than the previous and it seems there is more to learn.  Most of you are familiar with RG but few are familiar with Alpine.  Time does not permit a detailed description of the course but I would say that because of the routing fairway bunkers are limited and not necessary.  We fought adding fairway bunkers to the course.  Greens contours are subtle to gentle swells and greenside bunkering is exceptional.  The 5th hole has become a great little uphill par 3 since restored.  I would recommend visiting the course and really studying the routing and green complexes.  The 14th is a very strong short 4.  The 6th green was rebuilt this past year with an over 3' tier removed.  The 12th (as far as we can see) was never rebuilt.  The 14th and 2nd greens have been renovated and the 5th and 8th greens were modified slightly.  All in all Alpine is underrated and worthy of study.

[wsmorrison]

Season's Greetins, Jim.  Thanks for your informed input.  What accounts for the changes to the greens at Alpine?  Was the 3' tier original Tillinghast that didn't work due to increased green speeds or was it not original?  Noel tells me that there are 2 completely new greens and 6 others were revised, I guess before you and Ron came on the scene.  What is the history of the green changes and are they acceptable as is or require restorations of some sort?

I'm glad you said it is a course worthy of study...I'm going to visit again in 2006 and this time make sure its when there's no snow on the ground.  Wasn't it an engineering feat as well given the rocky nature of the area?

[wsmorrison]

This is what Noel Freeman had to say about Alpine.  Noel as many know is the club historian/greens chair member:

"#2 and #14 are Silva/Mungeam greens.. #2 being completely new
#6 is a new Forse green
#3 was flattened a bit but can still be putt off of
#4 right shelf put in early 90s
#5 expanded rear and right in 90s
#8 was changed tremendously not slightly as Jim wrote. It was a
punchbowl green that completely was blown up. The hole is an uphill par 3 with a bunker about 10-12 yards short and left of the green.  In its original form, I surmise Tillie used a ramp (hillside) right after the bunker to bounce shots in left to right into what was by my interviews of old member (people there 20-50 years) a punchbowl green.  Why they blew it up? I don't know.  I am saddened by it.  We just started mowing
the area past that bunker 2 years ago but the super keeps it too wet to bounce the shot it.  The hole is very difficult at 191 yards uphill with a steep fall off right.  The current green is very difficult and also has a different putting surface (not sure what form of bent) than most of the other holes.  I think holes 2 and 14 have the same turf-form

#14 is a cute par 4 with a 2 tier fairway option.  It is too uphill to drive but fairway bunkers which I find superflouous were added and amended by Ron/Jim.  The only issue with the hole is you can reach the upper fairway with 3-5 wood but I think to no avail as you are left with a sloping left to right hanging lie and sand wedge.  Like many greens at Alpine the green complex is elevated/crowned and you cannot run a shot up.. An interesting thing about Alpine is it is totally aerial on approaches for the most part (Tillie didn't do that often).  You can only bounce in shots comfortably on #9 and 18 the finishing par 5s.. Most members don't do that but I know how to work the contours if the super lets up on the water.

Also #14's green is in its 3rd incarnation.. Touched by Silva/Mungeam twice. They changed it because it was so steep you could easily putt off of it.

Jim, sorry we've never met.  I am not sure if Bob Hershan told you who I am.  But basically I fought to keep the addition of fairway bunkers and loss of Tillie factors at Alpine hardest.  Many of the members of the Greens Committee could care less who AW Tillinghast is.  Luckily past presidents and Bob do care.

FYI, I think the best holes at Alpine are #1,3,9,10,11 and 18.  9 and 18 are my favorites.  I think given new technology #9 is a wonderful gambling  hole.  Also the green on #11 with its plateau/knob in front and punchbowl in back is probably the best on the course."

[wsmorrison]

Oh, and lest I forget, Noel also said to me:

"I love my course and invite you at all times but it isnt as good as Flynn's handiwork.. The property at RGGC is just too good and holes like 7, 9,10,12  and 14 are just too superior to what Alpine has to offer.. That said, I think the greens at Alpine are superior but I'd have to invite you to check them out.  Out of 10 rounds, I'd play 6 at RG to 4 at Alpine.. RG is top 100 classic... alpine would be more like 150-175 if the list ever went that high."

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Ed Getka,

You should be aware that the holes you referenced as # 1
and # 2 were the original 17th and 18th holes, and, the 3rd hole was the original 1st hole.

While I like the course a great deal it suffers from two flaws.
Like most AWT courses, the range was an after thought and the location of the main clubhouse and resulting logistics make it very awkward.

I wonder, if, instead of selling the land immediately adjacent to the third tee and fairway, they had built an adequate range and reconfigured the golf course to have it start on the original 1st hole, how much more convenient it would be, and how much less their operational costs would have been.

Maintaining two clubhouses can't be cheap.

Lastly, a continuing tree removal program will only make the golf course better.

[ed_getka]

Thanks for the feedback guys. Have a happy New Year.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()