Thought I would add some of my observations to the preceedings:
The views of New York City from the clubhouse and 1st tee area are extremely inspiring, and make for a great start to a great day.
I'd like to elaborate on my "chess match" description. One thing that has not been discussed in-depth prior on this thread is the continual struggle to achieve the proper angle for the next shot. I feel I can safely say that I have not seen many courses like this, with such an emphasis on proper angle and location on the green.
First, angles of approach:
On most of the holes here, there is a preferred angle of approach into the green. While we don't have many pictures to share with you, I count at MINIMUM 14 or 15 of the approaches with a preferred angle to the green. I haven't seen enough Park courses to adequately make a determination as to what his style was to locating bunkers and dictating preferred lines of play, (for example, my experience with Ross courses is challenging bunkers, Flynn playing away from bunkers for preferred angles in. I have limited experience with both and may be wrong.)
I seem to recall he tacked between both routes here: taking on bunkers to have a good angle in (for example, the right fairway bunker on #1, second shot on #18, for two) and playing away from bunkers in order to have the best angle in. This second point I seem to recall being evident on #7, for example.
On the topic of landing the ball in preferred locations, one shining example lies in hole #2. About 135 yards or so, there are four distinct quadrants to the green in which holes can be located, and a shot should be played to in order to have a desirable result. My discussion with Dean on his experience playing this hole was that oftentimes, it was best to play away from the hole location, where a reasonable two-putt could be had.
I can understand this particular phenomenon confounding golfers--I understand the ego thing at work, when we have wedge or 9-iron in hand, temptation is to go right at the flag. On #2, misstruck shots would not only not land in the proper location, but be funneled away by the green contours to spots elsewhere on the green--maybe front of the green, maybe one side. This is not exclusive to this hole--many other holes here require te shot to be played to a preferred location. #18 green is particularly striking in its demands on the golfer to hit a controlled mid to long iron, from an uphill lie, to a severely contoured green. Again, misstruck shots will be funneled away to points other than the intended location.
I'm not so sure Matt's blanket statement regarding "short pitch shots to greens" is entirely accurate--yes, one may hit a lot of wedges and short irons in, if the proper location is found with the tee shot, but the question is, is the ball in the right location for a one or two putt?
The "temptation" phenomenon is not only evident on the approaches, but also on many of the drives as briefly touched on above. I could see in many instances where hitting driver looks attractive, but isn't the right play.
This, I was thinking about afterwards, is one of the most memorable things about this golf course; namely, the demands placed on the golfer throughout the round, the demand to think and execute, in spite of the modest length.
I do wish Google aerials were updated, so we could provide a recent aerial, so all of you here could see and better understand some of our points made about angles and lines of play.
Further, I didn't feel particularly "cramped" on the course at all, and I'm 6'3" and 210 lbs. Yes, there are areas where there are a few holes in close proximity to each other, specifically around the creek/canal at the bottom of the property, but I'd have to see it on a summer Sunday in May or June to properly validate or refute this. It's a small piece of property, and I think it can be said that Park got the most out of it. I hope to be back, very soon.
Special thanks to Dean, Patrick, and Club Staff: PGA Master Professional Bill Adams and Staff PGA Professionals Jeff Maines and Joe DeChiara.