[mike_malone]

    I am still thinking about this course. I played it Friday morning and then Yale later in the day. It doesn't compare favorably to Yale .


      I felt that the artificial tees and green settings were jarring against the wonderful ground. The penalty for mishits was often severe. I prefer the openness of Yale and the huge greens that give one many possible recovery chances.

   I did not like the overwatering. My home course suffered mightly from the attempt to keep our course green in Aug. It seemed to me that a couple of greens were failing. It just doesn't make sense to see deep ballmarks from wedges. The architecture would be enhanced by more firmness.


    I preferred the nontelevised back nine, particularly #12 (my favorite hole) through #17.


   While there weren't any clunker holes, I  was not wowed by any either. This is an every other hole experience at Yale.



      I wonder how those with more experience see this within the NY/NJ area.

   

[mike_malone]

 Maybe if I expand the comparison beyond Travis to the general area I can elicit some comments.

[mike_malone]

 A friend of mine whose brother is a member asked me " What did you think of the clubhouse?". While I stayed over night there I never gave it a thought.

[Mike_Sweeney]

I have only played the "other" course at Westchester, so I can't take any cheap shots at you today.

[wsmorrison]

Mike S,

Why are you interrupting Mike Malone?  He seems to be having a conversation with himself...at least he found someone who understands him  

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,

   Your architectural insights are just second to none! Stunning, really in their detail.


  The course is ranked in the top 100 GW Classic and the pros seem to love it, but no one seems to have a clue.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Wayne,
I'm reading the thread and thinking to myself, the very same thing.

I'm laughing so hard right now I'm ready to soil my pants!

Yes Mayday, Walter Travis knew nothing....

[mike_malone]

 Tommy,

   Compared to the other Travis courses you have played how does Westchester stack up?


    The gca world needs to know that Tommy is terribly jealous of my cameo role in "A Gentleman's Game", the movie. I have told him that I would get him into the sequel, but this is not enough. His jealousy is embarrassing

[David Panzarasa]

I personally love the course, as I am in favor of courses set up like that. Seems like there are many courses in the area that are like it or set up like it. not the longest course, but premium on accuracy, putting, and do not need to be a bomber.
 what is interesting to me, is that the smaller tighter courses are what the better golfers and pros will call "a shot makers" course. In my eyes if people need big greens and wide open space so their eratic shots have an easier shot to the green then these are not the types of courses for you.
 Mayday, if you dont mind me asking, did you shoot a good score? A good score meaning better or worse then you usually shoot?
 From reading your post in here, you dont like how severe the results of poors shots are. Why should they be easier? I like to think of these courses as a risk-reward at almost every shot, if you hit a good shot your rewarded with a clean look at your next shot, and if not your in trouble. Why should you have monster greens and wide open fairwairs all the time? Why is it that one needs a good open recovery after a poor shot?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mikey,
I haven't had the good fortune to play Westchester, but do have an open invitation to. From the many, and I mean many aerial photos and images I have seen, it looks to be a pretty charming place that at one time contained some solid golf architecture.

However, I have had the good fortune to have played his redo of Garden City, and from my tastes, if Westchester or Hollywood are anything like it, well, I'm sure Travis hit a home run there too. I'm sure Westchester has its faults, but I'm not sure why you would be comparing it one of the Top Ten Courses in the world--Yale. In fact, I'm baffled by it.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mikey,
Yes, I'm am jealous. I'll admit it. The possibility of me being in the sequel, well it would be outstanding. I'm ready for my close-up. (Me walking across the bridge with Ellen Muth, going to Norton's for a dip in the pool and a little zug-zug.)

[mike_malone]

 Well, I played Yale the same day. Thus the inevitable comparison happened.

     I was kind of hoping that some Travisphiles could compare the different terrain at GCGC and Hollywood to Westchester. I wonder if he is better with less movement where he adds the features than on rolling terrain where these additions seemed awkward.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mayday,
I've played Yale and Winged Foot in the same day, in that order. Do you know how much it weighs on a persons mind to take in that much architecture in one day? Two outstanding golf courses loaded to the hilt. It's impossible to even compare them. I'm not even sure why your trying to.

[mike_malone]

 David,

   I have never had my performance affect my view of a course. The only time it is a problem is if I am so far out of play that I don't see the course.( This happened at Lulu. I was on the outside of the evergreens so many times.) That being said, I didn't play well, but that continued at Yale. I played very well at WFW and was disappointed in the course; played very well at Plainfield and loved it.

   I readily admit to a bias that recovery shots are more enjoyable than punchouts or penalty strokes. I wonder how much the trees and some of the impossible underbrush were a part of Travis's thinking.


    The artificial elevation of the tees and the significant building up of the greens was an important part of my displeasure.


     I think someone can design any kind of course they want. I just don't like the more penal courses. I am hoping that someone can shed light on how much more playing space there may have been originally. I suspect much more.

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

If the building up of greens is something that you find displeasure in, please explain how you find the built up greens at NGLA and Yale more pleasurable.  Consider the greens at Indian Creek, they are certainly built up and yet they are wonderful.  Most greens are built up and few took the pains and expense to hide them with drawn out angles and other methods.  You know Flynn built up greens, he simply hid it better than most.

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,

       When one bulids up the tees and greens on rolling terrain they run the risk of them not being harmonious. So, this would leave out GCGC, Hollywood (from what I have been told) and Indian Creek.

   What struck me was how Yale appears more harmonious than WCC. It seemed like the elevations in too many cases were working against the lay of the land.


    It was EXACTLY that Yale was so manufactured but not jarring versus WCC that stood out to me.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Mayday

If you want to learn a bit more about WCC read the following authored by my friend Mike Prystowsky

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/opinionprystowsky.html

I must say that I totally disagree with your assessment of WCC West.  One thing that seems to stand out to me about the Travis courses that I've played (WCC, Hollywood, GCGC, CC of Scranton, Round Hill) is the ability to find wonderfully natural greensites where possible.  At WCC he does that on the opening hole (natural dropoffs short left and behind), #2 (a little dell ), #3 (right smack on top of the hillsidewith dropoff short and right into a hazard), #4 (over the rockledge to a mini-biarritz green), #5 (top of a mound or dune) and I could do on but my favorite is #13 to a true dell setting within the hillside.  What did you find awkward?

The greens at WCC are superb but not up to those at Hollywood and CC of Scranton.  They have shelves and slopes that hide great pin locations.  

I don't for the life of me understand what you are saying about use of the land compared with Yale.  I will agree that Yale is the superior course but Travis utilized the incredible rocky, hilly site superbly at WCC.  In doing so you have some quirk and blindness but you also get unique holes like #4, 6, 12, 13 and 14.  

Ken Dye put in bathtub Tillinghast-like bunkers and removed a bit of blindness but read Prystowsky's article and you can see what Travis did at WCC.  It's quite a good place and in my opinion orders of magnitude better then you give it credit.

As far as a comparison to the openness at Yale, look at the articel.  Westchester could use a lot of tree cutting but as far as Travis is concerned, it was a virtually treeless and REVERSIBLE golf course  

[mike_malone]

 Geoff,


   That is a very fine article. Thank you. I liked WCC. It just paled in comparison with Yale. In an attempt to be specific I chose to focus on what I saw as deficiencies versus Yale. Those were the built up tees and greens which seemed less in harmony with the land.

   I thought that the area for misses in the blind landing areas was less interesting than Yale.


     I suspected that there may have been far fewer trees. The article seems to imply a preference for the original use of bunkering versus trees. I  agree that would make the course more pleasing.


    Other than the builtup greens and tees, most of my criticisms ,thus, are of changes made later.  I agree with your assessment of some wonderfully natural green sites. I just don't find his additions to those sites appealing in some cases. This seems to be another classic course that could benefit by going back.

    Losing angles of recovery play seems to be the greatest shame from adding trees to these courses.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Mike

If we compared every course we discuss here to Yale that way we would have very little in the way of positive reviews on this site  

I'd prefer to discuss WCC on its own merits with I think are many.  I think it falls a bit short in its 3 and 5 par holes but it excells in spades on the 4 pars.  there is great variety in length and topography and shot values.

I don't see the greensites as built up at all and especially when compared with Yale, Fenway or Winged Foot. Please try to give some specifics so we can discuss individual greensites.

I agree totally about playing angles lost due to trees but it is currently a different type of examination then you like or prefer. I don't find it overly tight or penal with regard to driving corredors except when playing the Friday before the pros show up for the tournament and the rough is 4-5 inches deeper then it is for normal member play.

[mike_malone]

 I don't memorize holes when I play. It is too much like work. But, there were several significant rock walls of ten + feet on tees. My impression was that many of the green sites would have been more appealing and interesting if he had followed the land more faithfully. We all agree if WFW hadn't built up its green sites there wouldn't be anything there .


  I agree with your preference for the par fours and in particular #12. If the par threes and par fives "fall short" isn't that a significant down grade for the course?


    I guess I'm just getting cranky about parkland courses with wonderful movement in the land that cover up those great playing angles with trees or penal rough.


     I haven't studied that article enough , but I believe the course would be much more pleasurable if it were closer to those oldest photos.



    If I hadn't played Yale later in the day I would probably have compared it to Rolling Green in my head. I don't usually share these comparisons on this site.



  But I can tell you that after playing Yale twice in one month that it should be  closer to #30 on that GW list. I don't see RG that low. But, I think we should threaten #40-50.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Mike

Without some specific greensites I can't help the discussion any further.  I will say for your reference that I think that WCC has a far better use of the land and greensites in particular then I remember for Rolling Green.  At Rolling Green I recall the majority of holes have high tees hitting down to the fairways with the green above you for th approach. Westchester utilizes natural dells, hilltops, ledges and saddles very well for its green locations.  I think its a true strength of the course.  The greens are placed very well relative to the natural landforms.

Its all relative when I speak about the 3 and 5 pars.  WCC has two similar short par 3's but both are quite good.  The 7th and the 10th are mid/long holes of no great merit but good holes.  The ninth is pretty mundane for a par 5 but I really like the 15th and the 18th. The use the topography very well.

[mike_malone]

 Geoff,


   You need a refresher on RG. This can only be done by playing it. But, there are many such elevated tees to uphill greens. There just aren't as many as people think.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff Childs,

What many fail to understand is the difficulty in dealing with the massive rock formations and the difficulty the underlying bedrock presents when designing and constructing a golf course.

One can't equate the design process on a site like Westchester and a site like GCGC, NGLA or Shinnecock.

I"m not familiar with Rolling Green, but, I"d imagine that bedrock and massive underlying rock formations didn't present themselves to the degree found at WCC.

[mike_malone]

 Pat,

   Do you think that Travis designed into the course the significant openness that shows in those early photos as a complement to the rock ledges ? I think a return to more openness would be good for the playability of the course.

   Is that a huge bunker I see at the corner of #17 dogleg where a water hazard now stands?


   I loved the way he used the rock outcroppings , but I believe the original design may indicate less constraints on balls hit away from these "hazards".

[Patrick_Mucci]

Do you think that Travis designed into the course the significant openness that shows in those early photos as a complement to the rock ledges ? I think a return to more openness would be good for the playability of the course.

I'd agree.

In addition, wind would become more of a factor.

Is that a huge bunker I see at the corner of #17 dogleg where a water hazard now stands?

I'd have to see the photo, but, I'd doubt it, unless it was a fronting catch bunker.

I loved the way he used the rock outcroppings , but I believe the original design may indicate less constraints on balls hit away from these "hazards".

That makes sense.

It must have been a unique challenge to the early designers, although, I"m sure the neighbors weren't complaining about the noise from the dynamite, and that the environmentalists weren't complaining about the displacement of species.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()