are there ANY NGLA haters out there??

« **on:** January 19, 2006, 10:44:13 PM »

(full disclosure: I have not played there)

more threads and posts praising NGLA today......and everyone I talk to who has played there absolutely RAVES about the place!!

does ANYONE feel there are any possibilities for improvement out there? or is it a perfect golf course, the model for others??

thanks

« **Reply #1 on:** January 19, 2006, 10:49:54 PM »

My grandfather was with Manufacturers Hanover in the 70's and he was given a membership there through the bank. He was able to play all of the "Top Ten" in the country except Merion and The National was far and away his favorite. I heard all the stories and I can still remember some of them. I think the 14th hole, driving across the water was his least favorite, because he was not always able to carry it. I only hope that I am lucky enough to play it and make that carry for him.

« **Reply #2 on:** January 19, 2006, 11:10:20 PM »

What is funny (in the context of the general preferences at GCA.com) is that most NGLA's features are apparently "manufactured" (ie man-made). Lots of earth moving was involved.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. Particularly if the original site is flat as a pancake.

I don't doubt that the end result is awesome.

The whole area (NGLA, Shinnecock, Sebonack) is simply magical for golf.

Could be the highest concentration of the best golf in the world (per square mile).

« **Reply #3 on:** January 20, 2006, 07:46:59 AM »

The only thing I hate about NGLA is that I've never played it.

« **Reply #4 on:** January 20, 2006, 07:52:22 AM »

I am definately not a hater.. NGLA is in my top 10, but I don't care for the amount of blind shots there.

« **Reply #5 on:** January 20, 2006, 08:42:02 AM »

I could love NGLA... but having played there only once is not enough to fall in love with it. It's a course nearly impossible to capture all in once.
I'd need a few more rounds to really enjoy it.

NGLA is not love at first sight, but it's a potential for a long and lasting love...

Most love at first sight course end up being one round only love...

« **Reply #6 on:** January 20, 2006, 08:53:48 AM »

NGLA was love at first site for me. I went there wanting to not like it (I guess because everyone loves it), but walked away or more like floated away from the awesome experience. I fell in love with my wife the first time I saw her so I am a believer.

« **Reply #7 on:** January 20, 2006, 09:09:53 AM »

Quote from: Craig Edgmand on January 20, 2006, 07:46:59 AM

The only thing I hate about NGLA is that I've never played it.

I thought the exact same thing when I read the title of this thread

« **Reply #8 on:** January 20, 2006, 09:54:50 AM »

kudos to Donnie for honesty in admitting his dislike of the numerous blind shots...I believe T Doak recently said in a different thread that this was an issue that some people had with the course years ago....

« **Reply #9 on:** January 20, 2006, 11:43:58 AM »

Shivas,

# 18 a pushover ?

The next time you're in the neighborhood, why don't we make a wager substantial enough to get your attention.

We can bet on Eagle, birdie, par, bogie, double bogie and worse.

And, if the wind is up, I might throw in some attractive odds.

P.S. I get to set the hole location, and, it will be all the way
back.

« **Reply #10 on:** January 20, 2006, 12:02:09 PM »

I have not played NGLA, but friends of mine who have didn't like it at all. Preferred Shinnacock way more. I suspect they found it quirky compared to modern architectural standards. Many modern golfers object to blind shots, for example. Aren't there a few of those at NGLA?

« **Reply #11 on:** January 20, 2006, 12:09:32 PM »

I think loving quirky is true for almost eveyone on GCA Phil!

I wonder why and when blind shots became passe for many...only blind the first time you play it, according to Mr. Armour

« **Reply #12 on:** January 20, 2006, 02:26:10 PM »

Paul,
I think a lot of that depends on whether you're a person who sees a few golf courses but plays them many times, or someone who tries to see a lot of courses but doesn't get the opportunity to play more than 1-2 rounds at a lot of them.

My biggest problem with blind shots is that when you can't see the landing area, you also can't see whether the group in front of you has cleared the landing area. This either requires those silly bells or slows up play as you wait longer than necessary or use some other means to figure out when to hit. Its not the worst thing in the world, but a nuisance to be sure. I also don't tend to get to play a lot of places multiple times to appreciate the hole after I know what's there. I don't hate quirk, but I often don't have the opportunity to properly appreciate it.

By the way, apologies for changing the topic. I know nothing about NGLA...so back to the original topic now...

« **Reply #13 on:** January 20, 2006, 02:28:24 PM »

There are not enough people playing NGLA at any given time to worry about bells or whatever. Buy a course guide in the pro shop and go from there. The blind shots made the course fun in my eyes.

« **Reply #14 on:** January 20, 2006, 02:32:39 PM »

Paul - I agree that this group likes quirkiness. There are holes that cross the line from quirkly to stupid, don't you think? The 18th at Yale is sort of stupid, for example. Seventh at Whippoorwill - downhill lay up off the tee to an up hill long iron second shot. Just a weird hole. I hear they have repositioned the tee to give the option to take an aggressive line on the drive,which could make it really interesting.

Both of these courses are otherwise glorious.

« **Reply #15 on:** January 20, 2006, 02:39:46 PM »

I agree Phil that overquirky is not good

blind shots are not overquirky, imho

« **Reply #16 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:00:16 PM »

Paul - The greatest hole in the world - the Road Hole - may also be the quirkiest. You aim you're drive at a billboard!

« **Reply #17 on:** January 20, 2006, 03:00:52 PM »

Quote from: Shivaschmidt on January 20, 2006, 10:14:10 AM

But similar to what Brad noted about Pasa in the recent GW

Of course I don't subscribe to that rag and never will. Nevertheless I remain interested in all things Pasa. What did the Professor say?

« **Reply #18 on:** January 20, 2006, 05:17:40 PM »

First of all, I have to say I love the word "explicate."

But let's take this one by one, re Pasa.

#6 - yes, odd hole, too many trees on right, feels shoehorned in. That being said, the tee shot is a good one and the green is REALLY cool, especially now that it's been expanded/restored to former glory. On the scale of a "10" par 5 being 14 or 16 Sand Hills or 18 Pebble or 14 TOC, I'd give it a 5 just for the green alone. I've sure as hell played WAY worse golf holes.

#9 - uphill, interesting tee shot with angles to be chosen and pretty cool fairway bunkers, another fantastic green and green site, especially now. Give this one a 6.

#13 - interesting tee shot, chance to reach in two, deceiving bunkers crossing fairway which make a layup very problematic and interesting, yet another all-world green. Give this one a 7 if not higher.

There you have it. As I expected, the Professor is being a little too hard on Pasa's par fives. I guess I can live with a statement that they aren't the strength of the golf course as they certainly are not. But to call them a 4 out of 10 is silly, true only in a world where no one plays anything but the world's greatest golf courses.

I'd love to have him explicate.

« **Reply #19 on:** January 20, 2006, 05:23:19 PM »

I found the Professor's review of Pasa. It's actually very interesting and the only part I do disagree with is his take on the par fives. I believe if he gave it more thought and did it hole by hole like I just did, that 4 would rise to 5 or 6 at least. But in the end it turns out to be a small quibble from an overall great review.

http://www.golfweek.com/americasbest/raters_notebook/index.php

TH

« **Reply #20 on:** January 20, 2006, 05:28:38 PM »

TH / Shivas -

Unfortunately, the best par-5 on the course was turned into a par-4 ... the first hole. It probably was even better prior to the driving range and growth of trees ...

Mike

« **Reply #21 on:** January 20, 2006, 05:29:57 PM »

Mike - jeez, let's not even go down the "how it was in MacKenzie's day" road. 1, 2, 9 were all par fives, all incredible. 6 would have been as well. Picture the whole area without trees....

Sadly we must stick with how it is today.

Which of course is not all that bad.

« **Reply #22 on:** January 20, 2006, 11:36:59 PM »

Shivas:

Patrick beat me to it re: #18.

I'll take his side on any wager - your exemplary (one time?) record notwithstanding.

« **Reply #23 on:** January 20, 2006, 11:53:09 PM »

Chipoat,

Shivas forgets that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

And, with a wind out of the west or southwest I'l give him odds.

« **Reply #24 on:** January 21, 2006, 01:03:41 AM »

Quote from: Shivaschmidt on January 20, 2006, 02:58:17 PM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on January 20, 2006, 11:43:58 AM
Shivas,

# 18 a pushover ?

The next time you're in the neighborhood, why don't we make a wager substantial enough to get your attention.

We can bet on Eagle, birdie, par, bogie, double bogie and worse.

And, if the wind is up, I might throw in some attractive odds.

P.S. I get to set the hole location, and, it will be all the way
back.

Career average of 4.00 -- to a back left pin.

Well, my career average on Carnoustie's 16th is 1.5, but you'll never catch me calling it easy, let alone putting money down that I can play to it in the future

News:

PThomas

Glenn Spencer

Voytek Wilczak

Craig Van Egmond

Donnie Beck

Philippe Binette

Jim Franklin

Andy Scanlon

PThomas

Patrick_Mucci

Phil Benedict

PThomas

Andy Troeger

Jim Franklin

Phil Benedict

PThomas

Phil Benedict

Tom Huckaby

Tom Huckaby

Tom Huckaby

Mike Benham

Tom Huckaby

ChipOat

Patrick_Mucci

Doug Siebert

An Error Has Occurred!