News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
East Hampton (revisited)
« on: August 19, 2002, 01:00:16 PM »
Played East Hampton this weekend.  For a detailed discussion, please see the original post on this one that ran from 5/2-15 and is on page 40 of the archives (as of 8/19).

Fact #1:  Greens were at a very fair speed; stimp couldn't have been over 8 and even downhill sliders were do-able.  In fact, uphill putts were downright slow.

Fact#2: Although the front nine is loaded with trees, they are well situated so as to NOT obstruct shots from the fairway or tee boxes.

Fact #3: Although there is plenty of grunch on the front nine, you can FIND your ball in there.  Pars are hard to come by but bogies aren't that difficult.

Fact #4:  The back nine also has plenty of grunch, too.  Some of it (although not all) is "unfindable" stuff that slows up play and makes double bogies hard to come by.  Also, there are actually SPRINKLERS between #'s 10, 16, 17 and 18 to put water on the stuff!  Why does fescue need to be watered when it's already "rough"???

Opinion:  Front nine is a superb collection of holes on a really cramped piece of property; the attempt at a Pine Valley look was quite successful - even down to the color of the sand.  8 and 9 are neat green complexes that beg for more acreage (which just doesn't exist).  Back nine reminds me of a "wild and woolly" Garden City with more interesting green complexes.  #18 is a little anti-climactic but there wasn't much real estate left at that point, either.  A REALLY deep front bunker complex might help the visual impact of that hole, though.

Other than the sprinklers in the fescue, I was very impressed.  If it was any shorter, EHGC would replace Taconic as the best short course I've ever played.  Come to think of it, if they've lengthened Taconic with new tees to 6400 yards, then EHGC wins!

My first look at a Coore & Crenshaw - I hope I get to see many more.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:08 PM by -1 »

TEPaul

Re: East Hampton (revisited)
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2002, 01:39:31 PM »
Chip:

That's a good analysis of Easthampton. I share your feelings about the place just about completely even on down to the one real negative to me (and apparently to you)--#18.

I don't think much of that last hole--never have. I can't put my finger on it, for some reason. It's a fairly demanding hole, I guess, but I just don't really like its look, where it is, what it is etc. I don't like where the green-end ends up either. Maybe it isn't the architecture exactly but, you're right, there is something mysteriously anticlimactic about that last hole!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: East Hampton (revisited)
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2002, 02:03:46 PM »
Tom:

#18 would be fine if it wasn't #18!!

It's a pretty small green and making it bigger would be out of character with most of the other 17.

The hole needs extra VISUAL kick, IMO.  How about a seriously menacing front bunker complex a la #18 at PVGC??  Playability is about the same but the "oh wow" is enhanced.

Also, esteemed Doyen, why are they watering the fescue??
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: East Hampton (revisited)
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2002, 02:13:28 PM »
I haven't played it but have heard the discription "ran out of room/land" a couple of times.  Its simplistic but why can't they add a few acres here or there to streatch it out?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

BV

Re: East Hampton (revisited)
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2002, 02:14:59 PM »

Quote
I haven't played it but have heard the discription "ran out of room/land" a couple of times.  Its simplistic but why can't they add a few acres here or there to streatch it out?

Not on the front!!!  Quite a shoehorn job.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: East Hampton (revisited)
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2002, 02:24:08 PM »
Add a few acres onto Easthampton G.C?? That would probably require about five round trips to the US Supreme Court!

Has that township of Easthampton even allowed that poor club to build themselves a clubhouse yet Chip? If they haven't built a clubhouse yet, I have a better idea for the second half of that 18th!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

SPDB1

Re: East Hampton (revisited)
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2002, 02:28:29 PM »
chip, thanks for the update.

Interesting about the shoehorn job, and compact routing. C&C is reportedly very finicky about the sites they take on for designs. I wonder, then, why they would take this job given (what sounds like) a less than desirable parcel, compounded by the fact that they didnt even get to do the routing. Was the allure of being able to stamp their name on the south fork too much?

any answers?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: East Hampton (revisited)
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2002, 02:48:29 PM »
SPDB:

I'll tell you exactly why they did Easthampton. They were all out in LI ready to begin Friar's Head and things got delayed--maybe for an expected year.

So now they're all there and they can't start. At just that time they got a call from a member of the Bistrian (sp?) family who owned the land with a routing done locally and approved maybe 20 years before. They stuck with the approved routing and if you know anything about that area in and around Easthampton you'd know why!

Bisterian said: "Mr Coore and Mr. Crenshaw, we have a little piece of land here and we've always dreamed of building a little public or semi private course here. The land probably isn't very good and we don't know much about building a golf course, but would you help us?"

And Coore and Crenshaw said to him; "Awww, sure we'll help you." Basically they liked that approach and said yes given all the circumstances! It sounds like a funny, quaint little story but it's the truth, right from the horses's mouth.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

SPDB1

Re: East Hampton (revisited)
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2002, 03:40:10 PM »
Tom - thanks. So it was really an aside to FH? I know the history of how they wanted it to be a public course but were threatened into making it into a private club by the Easthampton P&Z board.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: East Hampton (revisited)
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2002, 04:16:13 PM »
Why would anyone push a club from public to private?

Do they really want to keep me out of the Hamptons that badly? :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

TEPaul

Re: East Hampton (revisited)
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2002, 05:56:51 PM »
George:

It's pretty simple really. With the amount of unbelievably rich people in that town and a very limited amount of golf courses there was almost no way Easthampton G.C. could survive as a public course. It's just way too close to town also to stay public. In other words, way too many rich people way to close to it!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: East Hampton (revisited)
« Reply #11 on: August 21, 2002, 05:25:37 AM »
Tom Paul:

Ground being broken for new clubhouse in October; location directly across parking lot from current temporary structure; architect's drawings show attractive shingled structure with excellent views of parking lot, practice range, and trees next to #'s 17 and 18; no dormy rooms planned as far as I know; scheduled opening 5/2004.

To all with the same question about space:

Much like Merion and Pasatiempo, there isn't ANY more property.  Both nines are bounded by either roads, houses or the Peconic Land Trust.

The advantages that the pre-war courses had of buying plenty of extra land around the perimeter of their original layout (e.g. PVGC, NGLA, etc.) get more obvious every decade.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:08 PM by -1 »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: East Hampton (revisited)
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2008, 04:56:44 PM »
bumping
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Andrew Hastie

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: East Hampton (revisited)
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2008, 04:57:54 PM »
Thanks

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back