I came across this review of Fishers Island on Top 100 Golf Course Blog..
http://top100golf.blogspot.com/2006/01/fishers-island-golf-club.htmlThis is a travesty in my opinion of poor research. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and thinking a course is overrated but many things can not be defensed here.. A few comments (along with mine)
"Fisher's Island is supposed to be Raynor’s masterpiece. We would hate to see his other courses if this was his masterpiece. Masterpiece is meant to imply an outstanding piece of artistry. Not here. It is a failed masterpiece."
My comment:
Wow! FI a failed masterpiece, that takes a lot of chutzpah to say. Given how that routing is perfectly in sync with the Island's shape, I can't believe the author labels it failed! I guess Fred Olmsted who was involved with the project didnt know jack about artistry either--heavens that Central Park is an eyesore!
More comments from the author:
"We had heard rave reviews about Fishers Island, most people citing the views of the water from every hole. So, a water view is the mark of greatness alone? Not exactly. Even water views from every hole can’t save Fishers Island. Let’s admit it, not all water views are the same. Looking out at New London, Connecticut is not exactly the same as looking out on the Monterey Peninsula or the Irish Sea. Having worked with one of the great course designers of his time, Charles Blair MacDonald, Raynor should have done better. He should have stayed a municipal employee, laying pipe."
My comment: Hey mate, that is really low telling us that Raynor who was one of the all time greats for golf architecture should have stayed a servant of the masses and laid pipe.. I can only insult you back via Macbeth, "Thy bones are marrowless, thy blood is cold!"
More drivel from the author:
"Apparently, Raynor’s idea of designing a golf course was to walk around and put in tees and greens without much else. While this can sometimes be the purest way to do a golf course as evidenced by many designers that did it properly, most famously Old Tom Morris, it does take some imagination and skill, which Raynor clearly did not possess. The first hole is ruler straight with little character. The second, an attempt at a Redan hole is weak. In the interest of fairness, we didn't hate the entire course. The next four holes including the “Punchbowl” and “Biarritz” holes are quite good and interesting. Then the course falls apart. No character, dull and repetitive.
We had heard rave reviews about Fishers Island, most people citing the views of the water from every hole. So, a water view is the mark of greatness alone? Not exactly. Even water views from every hole can’t save Fishers Island. Let’s admit it, not all water views are the same. Looking out at New London, Connecticut is not exactly the same as looking out on the Monterey Peninsula or the Irish Sea."
My comment: So you like 3-5 at FI.. Get in line.. Dull and no character.. Do you have a pulse? #7 with its wonderful vista and pond jutting in right where you want to land a drive, #9 with its double plateau green, the wonderful fortress green of the Knoll hole 10th, the best Eden hole outside of St. Andrews, the great two shot redan at #12. 13-15 may not be the be the finest holes at FI but they are solid ball striking requirements here. I think 18 has a wonderful green and it terrific as a challenging par 4.
Last comment that made me question....
"Apparently, it wasn’t all his fault. He died half-way through construction and never let anyone know where he wanted his bunkers put in. So, they never put them in. The course was never really finished. Maybe it is because they are trying to show what frugal Yankees they are even though the members have a higher net worth per capitia than any course in the top 100. You’d think they could have paid someone to finish the course? It any event, maybe we were being unfair to Raynor who has been dead for many years. It’s not entirely his fault. The course is poorly maintained and run down. There seemed no excuse for letting the course get so run down. Poorly maintaining the course doesn’t add charm, as the members are trying to show how frugal they are. It makes it shitty. Do they think it makes it more like a links course in the U.K. by burning out the fairways? With an obviously different climate you can’t maintain a course in the eastern United States like one in England or Scotland. This course doesn’t deserve to be ranked in the top 100"
Okay- has this guy never heard of Charles Banks or does he think he was an amateur too.. The maintenance comments are a joke considering they have no irrrigation!!!!!!!!!!!! This is so funny, I'll quote Shakespeare again...
"Methink'st thou art a general offence and every man shall beat thee"
Banks, Olmsted and Raynor deserve a lot better. I'm afraid to see the inaccurate other top 100 reviews..