Easthampton

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If you've been watching the Weather Channel, you've no doubt seen the latest report about record low temperatures, below zero readings in Hades lately.

Ken Bakst,

I've never commented on the playability of a course that I've never played, and I won't start now, despite the fact that it's killing me that I can't give Tom Paul a hard time  

[Brad Klein]

By the way, when I made that comment on tone, I was not referring to either TEPaul or Vostinak.

TEP, just so you know, it wasn't 50 holes, it was only 48 - holes #3-14 at Bethpage Black, the next morning East Hampton andf that afternoon Shinnecock. We walked, had caddies the last two rounds, and got around in under 3 hours per 18, which left plenty of time for looking, taking notes, hitting extra shots. I can easily recall every hole, and in each case I was seeing the course for the 2nd (EHGC), 4th (BB) or 20th (SH) time.

We were on the clock, so to speak, and had assignments to write for - but yes, it would be loverly to spend 3 days somwehere. Though I have to tell you I get a much stronger sense from visiting a place once and walking it, then, playing it, then I will for ther next 15 viists thereafter. First impressions prove very powerful, though I'm certainly able to learn from follow-up visits, and would love to go back there to EHGC to see it again. But I still think the greens are too severe - esp. in the case of 5,8 & 9.

[TEPaul]

Brad:

Just joshing anyway, and I bet you didn't play any golf the next day, did you?

I am just joshing except for AnthonyP asking about certain holes because he can't even remember what they looked like! That's a little off-putting on the face of it, particularly if he was rating or reviewing--but I'm not trying to be disagreeable by saying that.

By the way, what did you think of #18 Easthampton? There's just something about that hole I can't seem to warm up to for some reason, and I really don't know what that reason is.

[Ken Bakst]

Brad

I guess that leaves me out in the cold.  
I’m not sure what you interpreted to be a “cheap personal shot” but I certainly didn’t intend for anything I said to be interpreted that way (that’s why I littered my post with those smiley faces).  But please accept my apologies for anything that I wrote that offended you because I certainly didn’t intend to do that.  Not my style.

The reason I corrected you on the par 71 issue was because you raised it in connection with the routing.  The implication was….why did they squeeze a par 72 into such a small property.

And I just could not let your eyeball without laser comment go uncorrected.  Just think about what some developer who’s considering C&C for a job might think in response to a comment like that from somebody with your stature in the golf architecture community.  “Gee, it sounds like they built those greens too severe and they could have avoided that if they had just taken the time to laser them.  That doesn’t seem too responsible or professional to me.”  The fact is that I’m pretty confident that Bill Coore himself knew exactly what the grades were on those greens before they were seeded.  And if a few spots are in fact too severe, like you think they are, then it’s not because they didn’t laser them but rather that they just pushed the envelope a little too far.  Is that possible?  Of course it is.  Better to be bold from the beginning, as it is much easier to soften a feature than it is to enhance it later.  And if a green contour is in fact too severe, Bill Coore would be the first person to admit it and go back in there and fix it!

Now if you and/or Anthony truly think that the tee shots can be characterized as optionless and that you just have to hit in the short grass, I just think that it would be more constructive to explain why (using specific holes as examples) rather than just making blanket statements which can’t be debated/discussed.

And please remember that I stated right from the beginning that nobody in any profession is above reproach.  And C&C is certainly not “nobody”!    

[TEPaul]

This is a wonderful architectural discussion group website and it would be a good thing to discuss the remark in detail (by AnthonyP I think) that some of Easthampton's holes have some drives the really don't challenge the golfer--no bunkers to challenge or whatever.

This may be stating the obvious, and it surely can't be something that Brad Klein would fail to see (particularly after writing a comprehensive Donald Ross book-- Donald Ross being one of the premier "false sense of security on the tee shot/second shot architects" ever!).

But it seems like there are a lot of golfers and a lot of good golf analysts too who seem to get put off with architecture if there is not something obvious that challenges them on each and every shot and most particularly tee shots.

There are most definitely many great golf holes that do that all over the world but there are other holes that are great too that do not do that-some not at all! With the latter though, you generally just look down the hole to the next shot and see why there is plenty of meaning in where you hit your tee shot although the tee shot itself may have no risk/reward to it at all!

This latter type hole that may not appear to have any meaning on a particular shot--like the tee shot, just might be some of the most sophisticated holes of all architecturally (this is what I'm hoping for and suspect in spades on Rustic Canyon's #12!).

Of course if you find a hole whose tee shot has virtually no risk/reward in and of that tee shot itself and no particular meaning on the next shot either in the context of where you put your tee shot on a fairway, for instance, then how can you help but have an uninteresting hole and uninteresting architecture almost completely devoid of strategy?

But some of these good holes that have completely wide open tee shots with no real risk/reward to them always have something that comes next that gives the placement of the no risk tee shot plenty of meaning.

I'm certain I'm stating the obvious, at least I sure as hell hope I am!

[LPM]

It is unfortunate that you came away with the impression you did about the speed and contour of the greens.  Having had the opportunity to play the course on several occasions last season, I can tell you that at 10 on the stimp, even "Gentle Ben" would have his hands full putting EHGC's greens.  Clearly this was not the intention of the architects to have greens that roll at 10+, otherwise they would have selected different grasses and shaped them differently?

This course is one of the most challenging, shot making golf courses I have played anywhere.
In terms of providing challenging shotmaking decisions, Coore & Crenshaw did a terrific job in balancing the risk reward decisions to be made on the tee and on the approach.  There is not a single hole where the player does not have this quandry. The beauty of this course lies in the subtlety of the risk reward decisions.  This course is devoid of the types of contrived holes and risks that so many of the new courses these days have as they attempt to "cut through the clutter" and make their respective marks' on the golf course architecture landscape.  In many ways, the architectural character of EHGC is personified by the self assured personalities of its architects. These are some of the ways in which this course distinguishes itself.

While the course is not long by modern standards at 6,400 yds, I would be curious to know the score of any player who thought the course was "too short."  Like many of the great older courses, EHGC provides a very challenging test of golf on an efficient layout.  The course is laid out for walking as opposed to "The Bridge" and Atlantic, the other two notable East End newcomers....You get the sense in playing this course that it would have been laid out the same way if it were designed in 1898 as opposed to 1998....  Needless to say, I am a fan of EHGC.

Brad:

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say about Easthampton at all and I like the tweaking from Pat about calling 911!

I do not agree though about the green contours of Easthampton. If anything I've wanted to see Coore and Crenshaw take some real chances in architecture because I think they have the sophistication to do it! The line is that Ben may actually be a bit more conservative than Bill is.

As for the green sizes and contours and the speeds of them I don't agree at all. 8 on the stimp is way too slow and those green could stimp to 9.5 or 10 and would not go over the top at those speeds but would only become "greens within a green"! Not much different than the size and speed of NGLA #1! To be able to reasonably two putt on that green from any area would definitely take an 8 or less but somehow it can do OK at 11 because it becomes a most strategic "greens within a green"! Same with Easthampton!

I hope I only said the fairways were fescue. As for my feeling about Easthampton generally, again, I admire them for taking the project the way they did. Easthampton is not a great course--it really doesn't have the capacity or ability to be. It was an inherited routing and they did what they could. They weren't trying to hit a homerun at Easthampton as some people think architects should or try to every single time. They only say they did what they could and I do think the architectural feel and detail is really excellent. I love your opinion of it being 7/8 scale--that's a neat observation and likely very true!

But as for the holes and do I think they're all wonderful--not really, certainly not all of them, in my opinion. #1, not very good, bad position on the propery but not much anyone could have done about that. #2 is a good par 3 and is deceptive distance-wise but visually wrecked by the radio tower backdrop. #3 is a good looking fun short hole! #4 really does start to look like Pine Valley and some great bunkering particularly the huge thing down near the green on the right. #5 is a good hard long par 3 with a tough green. #6, apparently Bill Coore's favorite lost me--I don't really see why he said that. #7 has one of the more deceptive drives visually to actually but I really don't buy that blind depression on the left on the second. #8 is a hole that from a designer's perspective was just an obstacle to overcome. Ben didn't see how to do it but I think they succeeded! A downhill par 3 of 130 yds with a tough "greens within a green" is OK with me even if it is small. #9 is a blind odd drive with no ability on the golfer's part to get his tee shot into a position to play his approach into the length-wise gut of the green, but removing trees on the left to do that obviously wasn't something they were allowed to do. Too bad but even the way that hole is conceptually is pretty cool. It's just jammed into a difficult corner of the property though right up against the road--inherited routing again.

#10 is a good long par 4 hole with a very strategic "right corner" and bunkering and a great into the prevailing wind ground game option approach shot. #11 is a little jewel. I love holes like that that pull your aim at the most agressive line! The green is wonderful. #12 is a hole that is basically such an unusual "look" to be sort of special to me. How well the hole  actually works as to the functionality or use of the right side drive option and exactly what the strategy of the hole means in relation to either right or  left drive option vis-a-vis the meaning of the approach to the green is probably somewhat debatable!

#13 is a very good par 3 with a very deceptive right side set-up with the bunkering. #14 should be a good "into the wind" par 5 but I can't see why they didn't do the alternate right fairway particularly if they tweaked up the difficulty of getting to the left one successfully somehow. The blinded approach to the right side of the green from certain fairway angles is good! #14 seems to be a pretty good par 3. #15 is a very good distance strategy drive option hole to risk gaining visibility. The green is a gutsy move on their part with the dramatic contour in the center.

You're right about the tee shot on #17! You have to hit a good tee shot to get into positon for the meat of the hole--which is what to do with you second shot! If you don't hit it far enough you have a big problem and a one dimensional weird second to get yourself back into some kind of position to have a reasonable approach for a third shot to a very narrow raised green.

I don't see what the problem with that is. If you generally can't hit it long enough off the tee the strategy would be to play the tee shot a bit wide to the left to gain yourself some room and angle to hit a more direct but longer second instead of having to hit a slice if you drive it too short and too close to the corner.

Brad, I'm real short off the tee but even I had a direct look at the green off a good drive for me from the tips. But I was out there a ways with a long iron into a raised narrow little green and wasn't sure what to do which is exactly the way C&C wanted me to feel. So I layed up, but others who can hit  irons much farther than me from the same basic position might have gone for it.

If I detect what I might feel is one inherent criticism about Coore and Crenshaw is that Bill (who is generally the router) tends to route around right angles sometimes as he did on this hole!

There was one iteration at Ardrossan Farm that way where if a player didn't hit a drive long enough he had a very odd and cumbersome little shot to get back into positon for his next shot approach and this one at Ardrossan was a par 4 to boot!!

But becuase #17 Easthampton is a par 5 the tee shot and second shot if you miss your drive makes far more sense to me. Sometimes I like the way good architects tend to break the expected rules and make one shot--or a bad shot connect to the next shot in the form of basically limited options just to get back into positon for the next shot.

Think how many times that's true at Pine Valley for missed or semi-missed shots! #1, #2, #7, #13, #18!! I have no problem with that at all--I think it's good tough meaningful architecture. I think the idea of having a ballsy "get out of a bad shot" recovery shot after each and every misplayed shot is a completely overblown philosophic architectural prinicple!

And as I said previously #18 just didn't grab me but it looks pretty hard--for what that's worth!

I have no problem with criticizing Coore and Crenshaw where I see it, as Pat thinks I do. I have no problem praising Tom Fazio where I think he deserves it either like a few of the hole at Galloway!

[TEPaul]

Here's a fascinating bit of trivia fact on the Easthampton G.C. Last night while talking to a man about many other things he said that he (and another man) routed what became the Easthampton G.C. about 20 years ago and it was approved by the township long ago! And this man is not the one I thought routed the course.

And we do know that what Coore and Crenshaw did there design-wise was off and "inherited" routing (they readily admit it). The reason for that was the difficulty of taking a new routing back through the townhip at this point!

But what is there now and what the man who originally routed the property thinks how what he did and how it compares would be very intereting to know. From the perspective of an architect it might be interesting to see what restrictions there actually are or aren't by designing off an "inherted" routing.

Would the township really care, for instance, if the hole sequences were set and the holes were basically in the same places as the original routing but the golf was played in reverse on the routing? Probably not.

Don't ask who the man is either because unless he wants his name on the Internet for some reason I'm not saying.

[G Tiska]

Just a couple of facts about East Hampton.

The approaches on 1, 6, 7 and 9 along with all the backside except for 18 were built on the grensmix. This was done to keep them firm [like the greens]. Firm greens and soft approaches doesn't work well! TE Paul you are correct.

The course Really measures 6100 yds. So the greens need to be severe in its contours. Re gardless what the card says.

Talking with C&C, they both told me the greens should never roll more than a TRUE 9' 6"

Fairways were seeded to 100% fescue, this turf can not handle cart traffic

C&C  inherited the routing, nothing could be done because of permiting issues.

[TEPaul]

Thanks George Tiska for clearing that up. It was you who told me that one time when you found me out walking on the back nine and I asked why the approaches looked so different growing in!

You were very nice to take me around that time--can't remember if I told you I was looking for my little dog or not.

You were nice to take me around The Bridge when you found me walking around out there. That time somebody told me to take a left at the opening of the chainlink fence--that it was a shortcut to Bridgehampton.

No, Rees really did tell me to go over and look but when I told him I did he said; "What are you trying to do to me?"

[Ran Morrissett]

How wide do some of the fairways get?

Are these greens Pebble Beach greens in size or bigger? Tom Paul: you've played Redtail in Canada which has medium size greens with lots of interior contour - any similarity with those at Easthampton?

How 'great' are Easthampton's best holes? How good are their par fives? (I always think of Swinley Forest as better when it plays under 6,000 yards with its 15th as a wonderfully hard two shotter).

Do the greens and their surrounds encourage a ground game? Certainly they didn't plant fescue fairways just for grins?

I don't suppose anyone has any pics, eh? I have seen one in Quirin's new book of the 3rd, which looks like a special hole indeed.

How quickly can you play 18 holes there? Under three hours?

[Anthony_Nysse]

We all need pics.....calling CHRIS HUNT

[TEPaul]

Ran:

I'd say the fairways at Easthampton are random widths--sort of tailored to the particular hole and they use the contours of the ground on particular holes well. I don't think #1 is wide at all but #12 is probably 80yds wide.

The greens are also of random sizes but not particularly small except for a few like #8, #9!! and #17!

I wouldn't really say that Easthampton has any "great" holes but does have lots of holes that are quite unusual and most all of them lots of fun and interesting to play.

The ground game is certainly part of some of the open approaches on various greens but I don't recall too much in the way of chipping areas on the sides or backs of greens if that's what you mean.

I have snap shots of all the holes around here somewhere but not the kind I could put on the computer.

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I second your comments about Ken Bakst's post.

Having not seen Easthampton, I can't comment about the merits of the course.  But, this is GolfClubAtlas at its best, I think.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Ran,
I would say the Easthampton has a number of "great holes", the biggest problem is that most of them are on the back nine. I felt that as a member of Easthampton, one would have the desire to play the back over and over and the front side only occassionally. If the rest of the golf course were up to the standard of 10-16, I think this course would be considered one of the best on Long Island.

[George Pazin]

bumping

[Michael Dugger]

countless images on www.golfarchitecturepictures.com