[Steve Okula]

To my amazement he told me that that decision revolved as much around the consistency of the new green's putting surface as anything else! To insure that, the thinking at the moment appears to be to take the grass off the present green and use it for the new green. I said that I thought with proper soil and grass samples and testing they could just leave the surface (grass) of the present surface alone and match it on the new green to their satisfaction. If any of our experts,  agronomists and supers on this site have some ideas about that, now is the time to make some recommendations!<P><P>

I was at RCD April 2004. I played the front 9, but due to time had to be satisfied with a quck tour of the back. I would say it was the most difficult and beautiful golf course I have ever seen. I have never had so much fun being totally humiliated.

I liked the conditions, hard and fast. I found the greens to putt well, but curiously, appeared to be about 50% Poa annua, mowed closely. This was in stark contrast to the high mown fescue/bent I saw at Portrush and other courses on the same trip. I thought the RCD greens played better than the others, though, Poa and all.

Maybe I'm confused, but it seems to me that when I was there April '04 the 16th hole had just been remodeled, turfed, and was waiting to open. Do I have a faulty memory? perhaps I'm confusing the holes.

Perhaps Mr. Browne could enlighten me?

[Johnny_Browne]

Steve,
It was remodelled in 2004 and has had the fairway redone since. As I said it is ok but still seems unfinished and has probably the making s of a great hole somewhere.
Johnny

[Dan Moore]

Love everything about RCD and can't wait to get back.  The 13th is one of my favorite par 4's anywhere.  

[Yancey_Beamer]

Remarkable course, From the walk from the Slieve Donard ,to the clubhouse, to the first tee, to the entire eighteen holes in all it's beauty and complexity.Most of all be certain you're having your very best driving day.There truly is no other course that resembles RCD.

[Dave_Miller]

Without doubt one of the very top golf courses I've ever seen and primarily because it's archtitecture is very different and extraordinary to play!<P>I've never much talked about course "conditioning" but the way Co. Down's condition is now and has been recently is as perfect as could be for a course like that. To me it's the perfect "maintenance meld" with the course's architecture!

Tommy:
There is none better than RCD. Awesome is the only word to describe.  Although I think Ran has you in the hole by hole Match Play
Best
Dave

[Chris Cupit]

With apologies to Ran and Tom, here's my front nine match:

Hole #1  Pretty much no contest, as NGLA cruises to an early and relatively easy 1 up lead.  RCD doesn't need to feel too bad as not too many holes would match up very well to NGLA's #1.

Hole #2  Two blind tee shots.  RCD is clearly a much more difficult/demanding hole but NGLA has the windmill and an incredible green complex and the rear bunker is cool.  More interesting fairway movement at NGLA although RCD is not without interest either as shots down the left (safe side?) kick hard into the left gorse/rough.  Close call so we'll call it a halve.  NGLA still 1 up.

Hole #3  While the tee shot at NGLA provides a beatiful view into the hillside  that will make up the second shot to the "Alps" green, it can't compare to the drama at RCD.  Even the second shot at NGLA, completely blind to the green, is only so-so.  Green is ridicuously wide and the right plateau isn't as intimidating when you can't see it. RCD has a more strategic tee shot as a perfectly placed tee ball allow for a glimpse into the green whereas from too far right or left one is left with a blind approach.  Second shot also goes to RCD as the massive dunes behind and surrounding the green combined with the awesome fringed bunkers make this hole at RCD a clear winner.  Match, all square.

Hole #4  With apologies to NGLA but unique and intriguing beats a fantastic template hole.  I've played the "redans" at NGLA, Shinnecock, N. Berwick, Camargo (my favorite imitation) as well as some lesser known copies and while it is a fantastic hole, it's still just a template of a fairly frequently duplicated hole in golf.  RCD is dramatic, its green has all types of interesting movement and edges that seem to disapear and roll off into bunkers and the entire right hillside of gorse combined with the purple Mountains of Mourne (sp?) in the background give RCD the first lead in the match--RCD  1 up.

Hole #5  Most llikely a vitim of technology, NGLA's par 5 is just too short.  First time I played I couldn't believe it was a par 5.  Tee shot is fine but nothing great and while I remember the green had some interesting humps in the middle (and I think it fell away from the player) it wasn't a big concern with a 5 iron second shot.  RCD's elevated tee shot to the dogleg right par 4 definitely got my heart moving more than at NGLA and the green at RCD seemed nestled perfectly between the mounds, though far enough away that missing the green left all sorts of interesting shots from around the green.  RCD pulls in front, 2 up

Hole #6  Another blind tee shot (not that there's anything wrong with that) at RCD and then a pitch to an elevated green with all kinds of trouble to the right.  Nice hole but it doesn't hold a candle to Mac's masterpiece, "short" at NGLA.  My favorite of NGLA's par 3's and more than enough interest in the green to claw NGLA back to 1 down.

Hole #7  Another blind shot at RCD, this time a short par 3 to a devil of a green that is seemingly impossible to hold even with a wedge going downwind.  Bunker short and built into the dune is great and bunkers left seem to swallow balls up.  At NGLA the tee shot can't compare to the hotel at TOC's 17th and even the bunker as the road seems a bit weak.  The road bunker is a nice imitation however.  Call this hole a draw.  RCD still 1 up.

Hole #8  Two outstanding holes.  The split fairway at NGLA and the elevated green with its well protected left side are just about perect.  Although I never had the courage to play up the left side this is one of the best views from any tee in the world.  RCD is a far more difficult hole especially with a left to right wind blowing into you and the green perched up and surrounded by gorse.  It is one of the most intimidating shots in golf.  Beauty beats the beast however and the match is back to ALL SQUARE.

Hole #9  My favorite par 5 at NGLA.  An enormous/expansive view off of the tee.  The crossing/left bunkers are perfect and the second shot demands that you actually pay attention to where you lay up.  Climbing up out of the valley to the second and third shots to the green is like climbing up the stairs of heaven--only dissapointment is that you know you are halfway home.  But, the world's best halfway house awaits!  At RCD you have the absolute hardest damn par 4 I've ever played.  Every day seemed into the wind and blowing from the left.  Of course the ideal drive on this blind tee shot is a draw into the wind to avoid having to start your tee shot out over the gorse below.  Cresting the hill on #9 is surreal--absolutely gorgeous.  Provided you can find your ball you end up with a second shot of 200+ yards across/between two crossing bunkers and a hill of gorse on either side.  A better hole than NGLA?  I play it safe and call it a draw.
Match--ALL SQUARE      

Back side for another post.  Two of my favorite courses in the world.  If I had to pick only one course I could play the rest of my life, it's NGLA.  Beatiful, interesting and fun.  I would never grow tired of playing it.  RCD might be the hardest  course I've played and I'm not sure I'd want the daily beating, but, far and away the best course in Ireland and easily in my top 5 in the world.

[Chris Cupit]

I think I should have said, "apologies to Ran and Paul"

[Brendan Dolan]

Only played RCD once, but was curious of what you guys thought of the contour of the greens?  I thought they were some what flat and lacked quirk for a links course.  Some of them had neat fall offs, but overall I expected to see more humps and bumps.

Thanks,
Brendan  

[TEPaul]

Chris:

Nice comparison of NGLA and RCD.

However, when you proceeded from your tee shot on NGLA to the green on #9 you must have been hallucinating!

'Like a stairway to heaven'

What stairway? Hopefully the stairway to heaven is steeper and more inspiring than the second half of NGLA's #9.

The fact is the second half of #9 is just plain boring and completely uneventfully architecturally and in play. Furthermore, if a halfway house, even a cool little 217sf one like NGLA's, gets into your mind while playing the second half of the 9th that only goes to prove the second half of that hole needs life support!

The second half of that fairway is the only real weak point on that golf course. I know exactly what should be done with it and coincidentally it seems to be very similar to what Macdonald knew should be done with it. The fact he  considered it and never did it is one of the real enigmas of that course, in my opinion.

Perhaps you got the 'stairway to heaven' thing confused with the second half of the 9th hole of the golf course next door. And even if the house next to the green next door is a combined "halfway" and "all the way" house and is a good deal bigger than the "halfway" house at NLGA, all in all the house next door is a whole lot more attention getting.  

[Chris Cupit]

Well, perhaps my duck hook into the left edge of the crossing bunker put me in such a hellish spot that emerging from it seemed overly eventful or perhaps writing while under the influence got me going a bit over the top.  BUT, I really liked the 9th hole, even better than #5, #7 and even #18.

I was also very impressed with all 217 sq. feet--my (almost) ideal size for both a halfway house and about half the size needed for my dream clubhouse

I'll bite--how would you improve the second half of #9?

PS  I guess my term "halfway house" may not be proper--I see where it should be referred to as a "Pavillion"

[TEPaul]

"BUT, I really liked the 9th hole, even better than #5, #7 and even #18."

Chris:

Will you like the 5th hole better as a par 4 because that's exactly what it's going to be!  

That you say you like the 9th better than the 18th it occurs to me you may be hearing from one Patrick Mucci soon and you can expect the discussion to be rough, I will assure you of that.

For my part, Chris, all I can say is you must be a very strange man, and that my "Big World" theory is being reconfirmed all the time.

"Golf and architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone."

[Chris Cupit]

Uh-oh.  I'd better get ready.  Sometimes you can't help what you like or what looks good to your eye.  My experience at NGLA is limited to just three rounds but after the tee shot on 18 which I did enjoy (big bunker left and that bay on the right) it just seemed like a hike/slog up a hill to a landing area that wasn't real defined and the green that I don't remember much about other than it being big.

For #5 I think it would be a better short par 5 than tough par 4.  The course should be viewed in its entirety.  I know I am as guilty as the next of plucking a hole out from the course to analyze it but while it's not my favorite "stand alone" par 5, I think it fits in the course.  If the hole could gain a little extra length as much as I hate that trend, I usually hate converting 5's to 4's even more.

I might be guilty of loving 14-17 so much that 18 seemed a little bit of a let down?!  Again, I'm splitting hairs and would like to add that I've played Shinnecock twice and while it's fantastic and a pleasure and privlege to play, if I had to choose to play one course of the two, it would be NGLA.

Yeah, I'm am a little different in terms of my golf taste, but how interesting would things be if everyone liked the same stuff?  If two people always agree on everyhting, one of them isn't very necessary!

I've never minded blind shots (RCD, TOC, are two of my favorite courses), I don't enjoy playing unless it's in competition or with my wife (maybe the most competitve person I know).  This year I've played (poorly) 4 "competitive" rounds and five other "regular" rounds and that was plenty for me.  

I'd rather play "slow" but very undulated greens instead of lightining fast table tops, I never play winter rules no matter how crappy the conditions may be, I think bunkers should not be raked, woods should be made of wood and long putters banned forever.  (How is anchoring a club against your body fairly making a golf stroke???).  

I play golf with a caddie whenever I can and can't understand people who don't enjoy that, I hate carts but make my living owning a course that requires carts, I volunteer and serve on a USGA committee and yet I wish they would have done more to stop manufacturers from dictating the game through equipment advances as well have preserved some semblance of "amateurism" in the game, but.....

I've scored 99 on the rules test, but think it's ridiculous to expect the average guy, who might want to play by the rules, to possibly be able to because there are too many rules and they are too confusing to most people.

I still don't understand why US Amatuers and British Ams were majors for Bob Jones AND when Jack Nicklaus was chasing Bob Jones' records but when Tiger is chasing Jack, they don't count anymore.  Does this mean Jones only has 7 majors???  Or does Jones have 13, Jack 20 and Tiger 15??

In any event, I am ready for my thrashing!!  

[TEPaul]

Don't worry about it Chris, I'm just funnin' wit ya.

[Chris Cupit]

Thanks  I won't get too nervous, now.

What do you think about making #5 a par 4?  Also, what would you do to #9.  Be careful, it's my favorite

[TEPaul]

Chris;

On the other hand, and on a far more serious note, it appears that you and I may have a very fundamental disagreement and departure in both what we like and expect out of golf architecture and great golf holes and courses.

I see you said a few times that some holes to you---eg the green of #18 was just too 'undefined'----so much so you had a hard time remembering much about it other than it was just big.

But you see that lack of definition for the golfer is precisely what I not only like about architecture but what I love about architecture. But I certiainly admit that me loving lack of definition and you liking definition in golf and architecture probably puts me in a serious minority and you in a serious majority.

And why would I say that?

Here's why. I think some golf and architecture, perhaps the best of it, both is and should be just about as undefined for the golfer as Nature herself can and does offer. I say that because I don't believe that Nature herself ever exactly contemplated being used for golf, and that's part of the point but certainly not the whole point.

The remainder of my point is unlike most and some on here I believe that the game or sport of golf is actually two simultaneous competitions, and that fact alone frankly makes golf very unique as a recreation or competition.

Those two simultaneous and somewhat unrelated competitions are on the one hand, man against man simultaneously playing their own golf ball that is totally unvied for across a field of competition that is supposed to mimic raw nature and be anything but standardized for that very reason---eg it is supposed to require vision, experience, intelligence, and thought from the golfer to determine for himself what the risks and rewards may be across that playing field. It is for him to imagine what he may not be able to literally see.

On the other hand, the other competition both can be and in my opinion actually is man competing against the course itself----eg Nature or a very good imitation of raw nature---as good an imitation of raw nature as the essentially 4-5 standardized requirements of the game of golf will allow. For that reason I don't think it is for Nature to define and show herself to the golfer in this sense.  

So, in the latter sense and context, Nature herself---eg the golf course really is a competitor against the golfer---eg he is competing with the golf course alone with his unvied for golf ball, and in a very real way, Nature or the golf course then needs to compete with the golfer.

And if that is the case, and it is to me as it was to Max Behr, what can Nature have, what should she posses that will allow here to defend herself in this competition with man and his golf ball?

I think she should have every component part to defend herself that we can see in raw nature, and one of those things, perhaps one of the most important of those things, is lack of definition. You can even call it deception, visual deception, whatever.

But why? Simply because unlike the human opponent in the competition in other games where the whole point of the compeition is that the ball is vied for between human opponents on a standardized playing field such as a tennis court, in golf and in the competition of man against nature, Nature is static---eg she cannot move to defend against the human opponent, as can a human opponent against another human opponent vying for a common ball on a standardized playing field that is standardized for that very reason.

I think lack of defintion is one of Nature's best tools and that's precisely why I love it in golf and architecture. At the very least it does require the golfer to think, to use his experience, his intelligence and his imagination to visualize what he may not be able to literarlly see about the golf course----rather than to simply physically execute which is the entire purpose of a game like tennis which is solely a competition of man against man where they can both move about to offense and defense with a vied for ball on a standardized court. In the latter case, and for the very reasons listed above about tennis, the whole purpose of the playing field is that it must be completely visible and totally defined.

[Chris Cupit]

Your points are excellent--so much so that I am a little confused as to what it exactly that "moves me" in a golf course.  I appreciate the distinctions you make regarding defined and undefined features in architecture.

Part of my "problem" may be that with relatively brief looks at NGLA I can't remember the holes that blend in so well.  I have a perfect picture in my mind's eye of holes 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15 , 16 and 17.  For whatever reason, I only vaguely recall the greens at 5, 11, 12 and 18.

My least favorite green may be the plateau green on the alps hole--arguably the most contrived/defined looking on the course.  To some degree of course, all golf architecture is contrived in the sense that it is all created--some hole may look as if they blend better into the existing surrounds but all are human creations to some degree.

I think I also appreciate the ability to naturalize, blend, harmonize of whatever you call it the man made course to its environment.  I know what you mean about some courses being so "defined" and artificial that they are easier to remember but I don't seem to enjoy that either! For example, I live near Atlanta National and can easily recall every hole and except for holes 9 and 10 I think that course is a complete disaster! Defined, over the top garbage!!

I also appreciate your distinction of golf as essentially two games--man vs. course and man vs. man.  I am not sure what has brought on my last few years antipathy to playing.  Living in Atlanta does not leave me with much golf that I get excited about playing.  Yet, I get excited about playing overseas or up in the northeast where the courses are just flat out more enjoyable for me.

Were I to play a compelling course I might actually enjoy just playing golf.  I am not sure if because my attitude is now that I only care to play if "it matters, e.g. a competition, that has changed how I view a golf course.  

Maybe I just need to be reminded of how great the game can be when played on inspiring ground.  

On a positive note, I've just completed a renovation of my course and have become more excited than ever about playing.  I completely enjoyed "tagging along" with the architect Mike Riley and was blown away with how much thought and planning goes into every decision.  Where every bunker, every hump or fold of a green should be was absolutely intriguing.

I am certain that if I could spend more time looking at holes through the eyes of an architect, I wouldn't miss as much.  Maybe my untrained eye is still only able to pick up the obvious or can appreciate what it likes but can't discern why.....yet.

I know from my limited "architectural exp." that I have a lot to learn before I can really appreciate everthing that is going on.

I am fortunate to have played many great courses and NGLA and RCD are both in my top ten!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()