Hidden Creek course profile is posted

[TEPaul]

Why did I say members of Hidden Creek or Applebrook who are strong should play from the back tees?

Maybe because those are the very same members or critics who have said those courses are easy, not that interesting, not fun or challenging!

Those are the same members who should definitely experience what it was like to play some of the best and most challenging architecture from yesteryear without the titanum, v-1s that didn't exist back then.

Either that, or I'm just wrong!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

I think what those members are really saying, particularly about Hidden Creek,  is that the course doesn't have the "dramatics", or "eye popping visuals" that have become de rigeur on most courses today, despite the rugged looking bunkers we all appreciate.

Yes, it's subtle and yes, it's very sophisticated....almost Rossian in concept and execution.  And there is a LOT of really good stuff going on, particularly through the first 12 holes.

However, I must admit that I've been thinking about this one for a couple of days, and what keeps coming to mind is Dr. Mackenzie's lament after respected golfers kept coming through Cypress Point without mentioning a single word of criticism.  

"What's WRONG with it?", he wondered aloud.

Listening to the glowing plaudits on this website, and personally believing that both Coore and Crenshaw, as well as Roger Hansen are realistic and receptive enough to want to hear more than a constant drumbeat of praise, I'd offer the following.

If great art requires intelligent criticism to remain healthy, then I think we are being a bit negligent here.

Is Hidden Creek the "perfect" course?  Why do so many of the positive comments contain the qualifier, great "members" course?  Is there anything that might be changed or rethought?  Do all of the holes and concepts play as well as they were conceived?  What is the strategy involved in holes like 1, 6, 16, or 18?  

The only words I heard questioning anything at HC were Archie's a few weeks back wondering where the risk was in the risk/reward short par four 8th hole.  He was correct in his assessment, I believe. 

How about the mounds, such as the large one fronting the 2nd hole, which are obviously man-made and rather unnatural looking, or those crossing the 5th and 16th fairways?  

Are all of the greens suitably sized and contoured for the approach lengths, and the type of shots required to hit them, or might some like the 14th be a bit too contrived and depth-perception-elusive?  

Why does one also find themselves behind trees on the 15th hole if you drive through the fairway into the bunker at the far end?  Isn't that a form of double jeopardy?

I've played HC, and enjoyed it a great deal.  As I said, there are a LOT of superb things going on, and it's a very different style golf course that SHOULD be heartily applauded on many levels.  However, I believe these are fair and realistic questions I'm raising, and they were shared by the other members of my foursome, who ranged quite a bit in scoring ability, but all of whom have considerable experience and insight into course architecture.

I also think that if we are to be fair to the architects as well as the owner, we should not paint the place with such a broad brush of overwhelming praise that we lose sight of the fact that many golfers will not quite understand it, nor is it completely beyond the pale of constructive criticism by those who do.

[Mike_Cirba]

There seems to be no question that Hidden Creek is a fun, subtle, golf course with a low-key visual presentation that exemplifies the kind of courses we all enjoy seeing.

However, given the fairly flat sight, the lack of forced carries and other dramatics, and the lack of blatantly obvious strategies on many holes, I guess what I'm asking above from others who have played the course is this;

While stimulating the mind, and the eye, does it also quicken the pulse and cause a rush of adrenaline at times as all great courses do?

And if so, where does it stand in the company of the many other highly-regarded New Jersey courses like PV, Plainfield, Baltusrol, Somerset, Ridgewood, etc.?

[Matt_Ward]

Mike C:

I too enjoyed Hidden Creek and believe it's a wonderful addition in raising the level of courses in and around the immediate Atlantic City area.

As someone who has studied and seen much of Jersey golf for over 30 years I cannot say that Hidden Creek is in the league of the heavyweight courses you mentioned: Plainfield, Baltusrol, Ridgewood, Somerset Hills, etc. etc.

The depth of courses in the Garden State is, as you know, very compelling and extremely competitive. Would Hidden Creek make the top 40 overall courses in the state? Clearly. Would it make the top 20? No, in my opinion.

In order to further discussion I've enclosed my review of Hidden Creek which appears in the latest issue of Jersey Golfer as well as the ratings scale we use. I hope this will help stimulate a much broader analysis of the course.

HIDDEN CREEK GOLF CLUB / EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP
Tel # (609) 909-2990
6,872 Yards / Par-72
Course Rating – 72.5    Slope - 131
RATINGS GUIDE NUMBER - 6.5

Give developer Roger Hansen credit for dogged determination. When Blue Heron Pines / West was being conceptualized Hansen wanted the talented architectural duo of Ben Crenshaw, the two-time Masters champion, and his partner Bill Coore to design the course. The result? Hansen was politely turned down. Why? The tandem believed the proposed property was lacking in real quality.

Hansen had solid success with BHP / West and opted to have a companion public 18. He turned once again to Crenshaw & Coore and was rebuffed for the same reason. After success in building two quality public 18-hole courses -- Blue Heron Pines will host the USGA Public Links next year, Hansen moved ahead with his desire to build a third course – this one private. Again -- he turned to Crenshaw & Coore. The result? A third time charm. Hidden Creek is the first New Jersey layout for Crenshaw & Coore and Hansen’s wait has paid off with a quality result.

Crenshaw & Coore are selective about the sites and clients they work for. They don't overextend themselves with numerous projects that can drain attention and result in pre-fabricated designs. What's their best design to date? Without question – Sand Hills in Mullen, Nebraska. Many architectural critics, including this writer, believe it is among the 2-3 finest courses to come into existence in the last 25-30 years.

The Crenshaw & Coore philosophy is to minimally alter what nature has provided. However, the natural topography of South Jersey is rather nondescript. There are exceptions though and Hidden Creek is one of them.

Hidden Creek is a design that doesn't beat you over the head with idiotic clutter and mindless obstacles. The layout is not a blowtorch design – it seeks to entice you – seduce you – bring out passion for the next shot – the next hole. What you do find is artfully created putting surfaces that ebb and flow without resorting to savage contours.

Among the better holes is the par-3 4th at 222 yards. Hitting from an elevated tee the hole has elements of a redan with a slightly sloping green that falls from right to left. The player can avoid a huge bunker that protects the left side but missing too far right will put pressure on your recovery. Crenshaw & Coore simply say - "here's the hole - show me what you've got."

Holes #8 through #12 are uniquely varied and wonderfully done. The 8th is a drivable par-4 of 300 yards from the tips. If you can carry a tee ball over a centrally located fairway bunker about 260-270 yards you get a favorable downhill roll to the target. Not a great short par-4 but one that maximizes the "fun" element for all types of players.

The 9th is a solid three-shot par-5 with the exception of the longest hitters. The sight line is indeed a challenge as the tee shot needs to hug the right side to open up the angle for one's second. One can then hit a long iron or wood that must avoid a series of fairway bunkers sprinkled down the right side.

The par-4 10th at 476 yards features a slight turn to the left and the fairway will propel a tee shot that can carry to the down slope. Overcook the tee shot too far left and a savage small bunker will pick your pocket. The approach shot must also be gauged correctly as the green falls away. When the pin is placed in the front third the ability to get close will require a jeweler’s touch indeed.

A clever change of pace happens at the 11th. A devilish short par-3 of 121 yards plays slightly uphill to a green perched on a natural rise. The green appears smaller from the tee – but it’s a bit larger than you think.

The 12th is arguably the most demanding hole on the course. The 467-yard par-4 has a well-placed fairway bunker that angles into the driving zone. You can avoid it by hitting a shorter club off the tee but your second then becomes longer. If you dare play it boldly by squeezing a tee shot between the bunker and the tree line that pinches in from the right.

Hidden Creek is not a winner in all senses.  Some of the bunkering is out of place or over the top in its demands. A good example being the two fairway bunkers on the uphill par-4 15th hole. The first is within range of the tee with overhanging tree limbs that doubles your penalty. The second bunker is only in play if your name is Jason Zuback -- the long drive expert. Ditto the right fairway bunker on the 10th. The fairway bunker located in the heart of the 2nd fairway also could have been placed a bit further down the fairway forcing better players to think about its meaning.

The weakest hole among the closing stretch is the 16th -- it's 470 yards from the tips and straightaway, however, it possesses little meaningful character. Nonetheless, Hidden Creek succeeds in being what it was meant to be -- a quality member’s course. The range of holes fits nicely for all handicap levels.

Galloway National and the restored Atlantic City Country Club have been the private clubs of choice in the area. The addition of Hidden Creek makes for an interesting trio. Roger Hansen’s tenacity paid off in getting Crenshaw & Coore. Is Hidden Creek a smashing home run? No. It's a solid double and one to keep on your radar screen if an invite comes your way.

Ratings Scale
10 -       Flawless.
 9 -      Nearly perfect.
 8 -      A must play go now!
 7 -      Superior – clicks on all cylinders.
 6 -      Solid layout – never boring.
 5 -       Play when time permits.
 4 -      Average
 3 -       Needs attention to various details
 2 -       Major upgrades needed
 1 -      Flawed and forgettable
 0 -       A mess

[Ran Morrissett]

Geoff,

Funny that you would say that - I thought of Rustic Canyon while I was playing Hidden Creek and of an architect sitting in his office looking at a topo map for both sites and not in the least understanding either site's amazing potential.

Matt,

Your post is why this is a great Discussion Group. You have  different criteria from many that post here and you take the time to express your own conclusions. The same criteria that makes you question if Hidden Creek is in the top 20 in New Jersey is the same criteria that leads you to say that The Bridge is in the top three courses on Long Island - and that gives you a unique perspective on the world of golf course architecture, for sure. If we all thought the same, I would shut down the DG today.


Matt/Mike,

Neither of you appreciate the 16th? The fact that the mounds are on a left to right diagonal and if the player plays down the narrowing, right side of the fairway that he  gains an advantage of a club or two shorter into the green doesn't count? The fact that the green is one of the wildest on the course with its high middle spine coming in from the left doesn't give this hole character? I think Roger is still laughing how my first putt from 50 feet ended 25 feet away from the hole!

Mike,

What is the strategy of the 1st hole? You mean other than the best angle in is down the tree line on the left? Yes, there is a wide fairway but the further right one goes, the more problematical the right greenside bunker becomes. Doesn't that count as strategy? A wide fairway with a prefered side from which to attack seems a wonderful ploy, specially for a 1st hole. I thought it turned out great and I know that it is one of James Duncan's very favorite holes on the course.

As for the bunker that fronts the 2nd green, C&C intentionally tried to capture the manufactured features of the heath courses in certain spots. Look at pictures of how some of the bunker walls rise out of the ground at Walton Heath and you'll appreciate part of the mind set that the Boys were in as they built Hidden Creek. In fact, closer to home, they went to Garden City GC during the construction process of HC to study the abrupt features/bunker walls on that course.

And don't you think that the ever increasing severity of the right to left slope 250 yards from the 8th tee on the left of the hole will send a ball or two into real trouble (i.e. the man who takes a mighty swipe for the 8th green will end up wishing that he hadn't)?

Gentlemen,

A LOT of time and thought went into the design of each hole at Hidden Creek by extremely talented people - offering critical analysis after ONE ROUND is tricky business indeed.
Isn't it ironic how we as a group praise architects that spend tons of time on site tweaking the natural features and then we rush out after one round offering a critical assesment of their work?

 

Cheers,

PS For the record, I find Hidden Creek both dramatic and eye popping. Standing on the 4th tee or the 16th and 17th tee with the setting sun breaking through the pines would make anyone pause to soak in the beauty. It is a world class course, full stop, a dream come true in every respect, and one of the 2/3 best constructed courses I've ever seen. I cry that there is nothing like it here in Southern Pines.

[Matt_Ward]

Ran:

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. A few points to make.

First, I never said The Bridge was in the top three on LI. I did say I would put the course in my personal top five from what I have played on the Island and I believe I've played all of them of note with the exception of Friar's Head and Easthampton. Clearly, others disagree with such a lofty inclusion and as you say that's what makes GCA so facinating. I agree.

Second, when you say people have made critiques on Hidden Creek, or any other course for that matter, based on one visit I have to ask -- how many times have you played the course? Is there a specific number before one can post comments -- both pro, con and in the middle? The reason why I say this is because Tom Doak did much of the same thing for the large bulk of courses he reviewed in Confidential Guide and other writers of key major golf pubs do the same.

Ran -- I've learned in plenty of situations that first impressions usually make lasting impressions. It's not a guarantee of course, but I don't think one should discount it either.

Third, I have to scratch my head when you place the course in such elite standing. Are you saying that Hidden Creek is in the same league with Sand Hills? Pac Dunes? In my mind, the two courses I just listed are easily two of the finest new courses that have come on line in America in the last 25-30 years. You'd put Hidden Creek in that company. Interesting -- but I respectfully disagree.

Hidden Creek is a wonderful course and I salute Roger Hansen and the Crenshaw & Coore partnership for a job well done. But let's place things in perspective -- New Jersey is a very competitive state and there are a number of outstanding courses here in my home state.

I don't doubt the C&C design team took great care and diligence in their work. That's a plus to their ability to really provide a hands-on creation that few people at the top of the design business actually do.

But I stand on what I saw and what I wrote and I can easily say Ran we emphasize different areeas of importance in design. I would be most curious to know where you would rate Hiddeen Creek in NJ? Is it ahead of Baltusrol? Plainfield? Your beloved Somerset Hills? Hollywood? Are you saying Hidden Creek is among the top five in the Garden State?

Thanks ...

[TEPaul]

I too would second what Ran Morrissett said about the critiques of Hidden Creek and that the divergence of opinions is a good thing.

In my opinion I side much more with Ran in his evaluation of Hidden Creek and the "reasons" for some of what's there and how it all works, than I do with Matt Ward, for instance.

Matt very well may have some single barometer of criteria in his mind for what makes any course really good--I don't know that but his evaluations of courses and his natural inclination to put them in a number order and rate them against each other would lead me to suspect such a thing! And that's just fine--since Matt Ward is a dedicated rater!

The first thing to understand about a Coore and Crenshaw golf course or the way they seem to approach their business is first and foremost they seem to look for the opportunity to get into courses that are different (and certainly from each of the others they do) in some way.

To Bill Coore, anyway I'm coming to realize "difference" in golf architecture is a very good thing--"difference" in his courses and difference in the work of others too. So, it's important to understand how C&C seem to want to work across a spectrum of design that involves difference to them!

Some can and may say to see the handmade detailed rugged look of any C&C course's bunkering gives away their "style" and that may be true to an extent--but I know for a fact that Coore would consider doing a golf course with no bunkering at all if he felt he found the right site. I thought that site might have been Ardrossan Farm and I proposed a bunkerless course to him there but he said he felt Ardrossan was a great site for "some really good bunkering" (his words)--so what do I know?

You can talk about the fact that although all the bunkering at HC is handworked and ruggedly grassed some of the bunkering at Hidden Creek pops right out of the ground (that's basically the very first indication that a bunker is not a natural land formation, BTW). That's surely true of #13! and #2's right side bunkering down by the green.

So why did they make it to pop right out of the ground like that which looks quite unnatural? For a very good and well thought through reason that basically has to do with the entire theme of the golf course.

They decided at that site to pay tribute to the early "heathland" style! They fully understand that early "heathland" style was quite rudimentary in it's sophistication and conctruction techniques and that the creation of a bunker originally in the "heathlands" was to dig the fill and pile it right there in a formation that created a popped up bunker shape. That's why Coore said early on that the bunkering at HC was going to be "ridgy" like the early "heathland" look!

Bunkering in those days in that area were simple rudimentary representations of the linksland's natural bunkering and in the heathland style they never meant to make it a completely natural "mimic" as say a MacKenzie did about 25-30 years later whent the art of architecture and really "natural looking features" had advanced and evolved light years in sophistication and technique to almost copy the exact look of all things natural!! The pinnacle of that effort, to me culminated at Cypress Point and the almost indistinguishableness of those bunker features with nature itself. The early "heathland" style had not come close to that sophistication and it shows still today!

C&C are certainly knowledgeable enough to know that the "style" they were paying tribute to (the early "Heathland" style) had not come close to reaching that kind of architectural sophistication--but they went with a tribute in New Jersey to that early "heathland style" anyway!

Both Coore and Crenshaw don't even flatter themselves by pretending to know everything. Bill knew he probably was no real expert on the detailed look and feel of the early "heathland" style and that's one of the primary reasons James Duncan was picked as the project manager at Hidden--James is European and knows those kinds of courses and their styles better than C&C do or at least that's what they figured.

Also the sophistication of the architecture of Hidden Creek and the strategies involved are basically the ground itself and the variability of how it reacts and how golf balls react to it at any particular time.

Coloration and the ground game are two of the primary themes of the golf course and how the strategies work and the variableness of them probably won't be found--even architecturally--in a single playing--matter of fact they're sure of it and I agree!

The ability to score on that course will be interesting too. For that the ground is all important (and the spectrum of scoring will show it)--so it might seem easy one day and very difficult the next.

That's a very sophisticated premise on which to construct a course and it's architecture in my opinion! And the payoff to that is the greens themselves--many (but not all) are big and you probably need to consider them in very definite sections to do well on that course in certain conditions. Much of the strategic consequence of Hidden is probably in the greens themselves. One new member is not happy that he 3 putted Hidden about nine times one day. What he needs to do is understand why he did that!! That's going to require him to begin to understand the architecture of that golf course and its subtlety and sophistication better.

But there's no "modern Wow" on that golf course! There wasn't ever supposed to be any! There wasn't any "modern Wow" on some of the early heathland courses.

So I don't have a single issue with Matt Ward if he thinks the course may be lacking something. That's his opinion and his good right to think that.

But I like the golf course for the very reasons that I think Coore and Crenshaw do--it's different--subtely different and its that way on purpose!

And I'm very glad I went down there so often when it was under construction. It's great to see courses under construction--certainly as interesting as playing them and it's extremely interesting to talk to the architects about what they're thinking and trying to accomplish. If I hadn't done any of that Hidden Creek may have taken me a bit by surprise but understanding what they did and why was another great part of continuing architectural education!

[BV]

Hidden Creek  is perhaps a lot like Sarah Jessica Parker?  Lots of way cool features, but not even a "solid 7".  

[Mike_Cirba]

Ran/Tom Paul;

I listen to both of your well-stated opinions and I feel a bit silly taking issue with you after enjoying Hidden Creek so much.  I think we're talking about the difference between really, really good and highly sophisticated vs GREAT and "world class", and I have to tell you that my opinion is closer to Matt Ward's on this one.  

Yes, there are quite a number of things out there that are unique, and yes, I understand what C&C and crew were trying to achieve.  But, just because they achieved their goal of trying to capture the essence of some of the golf features found on heathland courses doesn't mean that it's an equal of Walton Heath or Sunningdale.

I can tell you that our group spent a LOT of time looking at each hole and despite what you might believe, I really think that we did "get it".  Between the four of us, we've probably played somewhere in the range of 1,500 courses worldwide, including one fellow who's played 99 of the top 100 in the US, and another who's played about 300 more courses than I have.

In Ran's case, I don't understand how he can play Mid-Pines, or Pine Needles, for instance, and then claim "I wish we had something like this down at Southern Pines."  

Please let me reiterate that I really, really like Hidden Creek a great deal, and think everyone involved deserves nothing but plaudits and certainly it's a course that's an excellent addition to New Jersey golf and the members have a really FUN golf course....

But...I'd like to hear where people would place it among NJ courses....  Not because I am so hung up on rankings, per se, but if we're claiming something is world class, then tell me how it ranks against Plainfield or Somerset Hills, for instance.  

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I'm certainly willing to admit that my tastes or evaluations in architecture might be slightly different, different or even quite different than Matt Ward's or yours. I'm in no way saying or implying that Matt Ward or you don't know what you're talking about in architecture--of course you both do--we just might have a different feeling about certain courses, types of courses, styles, components of them or whatever.

But I want you both to know that not once--not one time in two years on this site have a gotten into comparing Hidden Creek or any other course to the rest of the courses in New Jersey, the nation or the world.

When I hear things like a course is a "solid 7" (Hidden Creek on this thread) I sort of scratch my head not because I may not agree with whatever a "solid 7" may be--I just frankly don't know what that really means nor do I care and probably never will.

I know what Hansen and Coore and Crenshaw were trying to do out there in Egg Harbor and I think they did it admirably for what they all believe that golf course is for. If they all believed that they wanted to try for an absolute "world class" course they very well may have done something different  than the tribute to the "early heathland style" that they did out there--and did very well, in my opinion.

But I try to look at what a course is for and whether the owner and architect accomplished what they set out to do! I think they did that extremely well at Hidden Creek and I think they did what they set out to do with the Easthampton course too, certainly they did with Friar's, although if someone tried to compare Easthampton to a "world class" course they'd probably get blank stares from Ben and Bill.

I like Hidden Creek a helluva lot for what it is and what it was intended to be--a really good tribute to the early English "heathland style" in New Jersey.

I've always read what others say and I watch with amusement as they throw around this ranking and rating stuff and words and comparisons like "GREAT" and "world class" and I'll continue to let others do that without much participation on that from me.

Certainly in the latter category ("world class) I would not hestitate to concur with most others on the status of courses like Pine Valley, Riviera, Shinnecock, Oakmont, RCD, Port Rush, Cypress etc!

But given all that I'd be more than willing to discuss or debate what anyone may say is "wrong" with or "lacking" about Hidden Creek in what they wanted to do with that golf course.

And Mike, I'm not going to play or ever see 1500 golf courses worldwide or 99 out of the top 100--whatever validity that may have. I'm just interested in understanding as many of the ramifications of architecture as I can, particularly the concept side of it, the prinicples behind those concepts and certainly good restoration.

[BV]

Fine comments from Mike (Part of his aforementioned "group", BTW) and Tom.  

Hidden Creek is a beautiful example a propos the thread comparing raters to whookers   .  Mr. Hansen is a wonderful man, he has had built a wonderful golf course which he well knows is not a top 100 golf course, (Tom Paul, don't even worry what that means).  I didn't tell him that I thought his course was the #3 course in New Jersey, but I did rave about many a thing.  What was done at Hidden Creek was marvelous.  But let's have some intellectual honesty here.

Whether one really gets excited about the details or the routing or the overall experience and can separate this wonderful sense of well-being and calm brought on by all of this is what distinguishes a rater (Or if you prefer, my good friend, Mr. Paul, a critic-meaning one who is critical or can criticize) from a fan of a particular school, style or movement.

I can't wait to play Hidden Creek again and again, and the back nine of Easthampton again and again, but if we just fall into the abyss of a C&C love fest here, intellectual honesty is lost.

Maybe an honest thought to be addressed here is "Compare and Contrast Blue Heron Pines East and Hidden Creek".  Maybe this is the GCA open book mid-term exam.  In doing so one may arrive at a state of inner calm and peace realizing that the two courses extremely well fill their nitches and needs, but neither cracks the heirarchy of the New Jersey elite..

My hat's off to Roger Hansen, he is probably closest to living the dream that many have here. (Owner/Father   , Builder of several fine golf courses, giving much to the game, member of a top 100 course, too-and ready to build more courses if he wants to), but he is also a realist and knows the perspective on all of this, having no pretensions.

Another example before I go, I discussed The front nine of Easthampton after I walked it and before I played it with someone and told him "This may be what I was hoping to see at Pine Hill".  After later playing it I was much more impressed with the back nine at EH which showed more skill in design out there in the field (Yeah, yeah, I know the whole story there so don't tell me about the inherited routing.... I know more off that story than most of you do ) point being that the features no matter how good they are don't make the whole greater.  Andrew Bernstein once posted a thread about Forest Creek on just that.

So few courses really have it all fall into place.  Are there 10, 20? 50? in the world that really do?  There are really very few, that's why they are so special. Also this is why an architect of hte prominence of Fazio is so disappointing to hear making statements such as "I will build 150 top 20 golf courses in the next 10 years" (The exact quote is mercifully fading from my memory and I no longer awake crying in the middle of the night recalling that comment) .

The point of knowledgeable people seeing and criticizing the very best golf courses  and pooling their opinions is to understand the consensus of greatness.  The tops of all the lists show all the same faces, only hte order is different.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

I feel uncomfortable using comparisons, as well.  Hidden Creek is a very good course, wonderfully integrated on good land, completely consistent with its intentions, and a heckuva LOT of FUN to play!

And I know you never compared it to other courses, except perhaps to point out similarities, or examples that were used as inspirations.  But, others here did, and they compared it favorably and even in terms of superiority to some pretty heady company!! (i.e. Sunningdale Old, Swinley Forest, etc.)

That implies that it's among the Top 100 courses in the world, out of the gate, and I think that's a bit overstated, despite its considerable attributes.  

[Ran Morrissett]

It is an interesting phenomenon how the conversation on a golf course inevitably seems to turn to ranking it.

To answer Matt's specific question, yes, I of course would have Hidden Creek in the top five in New Jersey, and yes I place it in the same broad category as West Sussex and St. George's Hill, which I place among the world's top 100, but...so what?

Much depends on how successful Jeff Riggs is over the next several years in developing hot (fast and firm) playing conditions. If the course becomes soft and slow, much of the strategy goes out the window (but given the decision makers in place, and given how it was constructed, there is ZERO chance of that happening).

Far more interesting to talk about the features and holes than its ranking.  Ben Crenshaw's folks seem to agree as they created a link to the course profile on his site www.bencrenshaw.com , which is very gratifying.

For instance, Matt writes, "The fairway bunker located in the heart of the 2nd fairway also could have been placed a bit further down the fairway forcing better players to think about its meaning."

Let's talk about that instead (fyi the bunker is 225 yards to carry from the back tee on this 370 yard hole and the bunker is uphill from the tee).

My response is that the bunker was cut from a slight ridge in the fairway, which tapers out as you go further up the fairway. Thus, they could have manufactured a bunker from nothing ala the abrupt one in front of the 2nd green (which Mike doesn't seem to like) or they could have followed what nature gave them. What would you have done as the architect? Ignore the existing landform and create something from nothing or do what C&C opted to do?

Cheers,

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

I'm anxious to play Hidden Creek, and will be doing so in September, but, have you been bonding with Matt Ward ?
TOP FIVE (5) in New Jersey is a very strong recommendation. Tell me the other four courses you include so that I can understand which remaining courses you feel it displaces.

BV,

I think you touched on a very good point, intellectual honesty, and the need to avoid excessive adulation and excessive condemnation.  The need for true objectivity.

Matt, TEPaul, Ran, Mike, & BV,

How much of an impact on your assessment is the fact that this golf course just came into being, or the WOW factor based on your tastes ?

[Matt_Ward]

Ran:

Please help me understand your comment previously posted:

"It is a world class course, full stop, a dream come true in every respect, and one of the 2/3 best constructed courses I've ever seen. I cry that there is nothing like it here in Southern Pines."

What are the other 2/3 best construced courses you've ever seen? Are you placing Hidden Creek at the level of a Sand Hills or Pac Dunes? You say Hidden Creek is among your top five in Jersey. If you could provide for me and others your personal top ten I'd like to see where everything goes. Your listing will likely reflect your own personal tase, as it should, and as mine did with Long Island when I rated The Bridge very highly. I'm still living that one from a few other GCA notables.

As an FYI -- Tom Paul hit the nail on the head concerning my function. I rate courses -- as a result of that I try to assess NOT ONLY the merits of the course in question, but how it stands in comparison to other first rate architectural efforts. The readers I write for in New Jersey are a very sophisticated lot and would want nothing less. The bar, as I'm sure most would agree, in the Garden State is quite high.

Clearly, just the fanfare of having Crenshaw & Coore golf course in New Jersey is going to create some powerful buzz because of their previous successes -- most notably Sand Hills. However, such a record can also have a downside because many who have played that course may be thinking "another Sand Hills" is always in the offing. As we all know -- masterpieces aren't produced like everyday McDonald's hamburgers.

Hidden Creek is a wonderful addition to the Jersey golf scene -- particularly in the immediate Atlantic City area. However, let's not forget two other private clubs of distinction are already there --Galloway National and ACCC. What I think would be interesting is a in-depth critique of these three since I'm sure many will do such comparisons and contrasts in the years ahead. In my mind for what it's worth -- Galloway is in my top ten in the Garden State.

Latly, Ran mentioned about making critiques based on one visit. I'll ask again -- how many visits should be carried out if one is deemed insufficient? Don't many course reviews really happen with just one review? Clearly, one can always go back and see how things have progressed, matured, etc. As a writer I've done that with many Jersey layouts and when I hear that certain things have taken place I make return visits. A case in point but unrelated to Hidden Creek -- the tremendous reconditioning effort that went into NJ National since '01. The resolve in that case kept NJ National among the top ten public courses in the state. So in essence -- a rating is an ever evolving assessment. But, for me that snapshot in time does take place when I visit the course initially.

Pat:

Since I have visited so many courses over the years the "WOW" factor is really less of an issue. I've heard so much hype over the years that I try to downplay whatever I have heard UNTIL I've played the course in question. This keeps me from being major league disappointed when the hype doesn't match the reality. The only two courses of note where the hype was clearly exceeded by a visit includes Bandon Dunes, Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes, to name just three.

On the unknown side I have visited places where little was known about the course but came away trremendously impressed -- two cases in point -- The Kingsley Club in Michigan and Paa ko Ridge in New Mexico.

[TEPaul]

BV

I'll be more than happy to "compare and contrast" Hidden Creek and either Blue Heron if you really think that's what it takes to show some intellectual honesty in golf architectural analysis. Frankly, I'd rather discuss the holes of Hidden Creek themselves (if Hidden Creek is the subject) and talk about the architecture of those holes and how those holes and the course function and play.

Frankly, I've already done that to a degree and explained my critical and architectural feelings about the width of bunker placement on a section of #3, the efficacy of architecturally enhancing the left side of #8 etc.

Before I do that again at some point, I do want to thank you for explaining what an architectural critic is and what an architectural critique is, as well as the distinctions in knowledge and analytic ability between a rater and a fan of a particular school, style and movement.

I also want to thank you for reminding me I don't have to worry about what a top 100 course means, although I hadn't planned on worrying in the slightest about what that meant. So far the only thought I've had on that is whether those who are raters and those national golf magazines that do the rating have much idea on how to form a consensus of what that means.

It seems to me by their own admissions the raters have numerous ideas about what that means and are often quite perplexed that the managers or editors or whomever puts the lists together don't seem to share or even understand many of their ideas--and vice versa.

If I saw a business run that way I'd have to say; "That's a helluva way to run a business."

I'm not in anyway attempting to minimize my own personal opinions about the way courses in this country or this world are rated by those entities (magazines) doing those ratings. I don't agree with the way it's done, I don't agree with many of those who are doing it and I've never hesitated to say that there has to be a better way to analyze golf courses and their architecture. I've even supported what, in my opinion is, a more efficient and benefical method or concept. Frankly, I thought some of the articles on architecture from the old days by the likes of Tillinghast, Hunter or Behr were some of the most benefical ways of educating others in architectural appreciation. Far more so, in my opinion, than todays magazine rankings!

I'm interested in your sentence; "The point of knowledgeable people seeing and criticizing the very best golf courses and pooling their opinions is to understand the consensus of greatness."

I don't really want to argue semantics with you, BV, but that sentence seems to me a bit like a dog's tail chasing the dog. It seems to me like an effort to figure out how to form a consensus of opinion of architectural quality or even greatness rather than how to identify one which has always managed to have been formed on its own somehow!

How did PV or Cypress or Pinehurst #2 ever manage to become instantly identified for the quality of their courses and architecture before panels of 800 raters were fomed by magazines?

In my opinion, good architecture, great courses and their architecture had a way of identifying themselves in many and various ways long before we had the apparent benefit of rankings, ratings and lists from national golf magazines. And I believe both now and in the future that quality architecture has that same ability to identify itself without the assistance of those ratings and their raters.

This is most definitely not to take away from the interest and fun many of us fascinated by architecture have in discussing all it's pros and cons of bunkering, greens, holes and courses.

People not so interested hopefully might lurk on this site or contribute to better form their own opinions on holes and courses from what they see and read on here. That's of course a good thing. And I'm in no way advocating that my  opinions on the lack of necessity of rating is the only way--I do realize most on here don't agree with my feelings--and that's OK with me.

There's nothing really wrong with discussing if a bunker on Hidden Creek's #15 is placed incorretly because it may only come into play for Jason Zubak or my grandmother! It's interesting to us but probably somewhat limited in effective or benefical consensus. In fairness to C&C's intentions at Hidden Creek, I would however, like to clarify the reason a bunker like the one right of #2 green appears somewhat unnatural (in the opinion of MikeC). In other words there's a very good reason it appears that way.

But that minutae aside, there was a remark related to me by Geoff Shackelford by a public player at Rustic Canyon that I put a lot of stock in regarding architecture and a consensus of its quality. He apparently sheepishly said to GeoffShac; "I hestitate to say this but I didn't find the course as difficult as I thought it was supposed to be but I had so much more fun playing it than I thought I would".

That kind of remark and opinion is so much more valuable, I believe, to a really accurate understanding of the consensus of quality of a particular golf course and its particular architecture (and architectural intention) than all of the apparent knowledgableness of raters and ratings (and us) and their presumptions of what's good or great. And that kind of remark has a way of extrapolating much more effectively and accurately--just as it always has!

And at Rustic Canyon, as I've heard, that extrapolation of very positive opinion has happened--and that to me is what consensus of opinion of the quality of archtiecture is all about.

That kind of opinion and consensus, I'm sorry to say to you, BV, is more important, I think, than what the raters and ratings or you and I say about the golf course or the minutae of it's architecture. Credit goes to Hanse & Co and Shackelford for creating the best of what they intended to do and all the rest about how it stacks up to everything else in California, the country, the world, the top 100 or what may constitute great or world class is semi meaningless!

That's the way I look at it anyway and I do realize that you have other opinions.

There's something else about the rating world, BV, or maybe just your individual approach to it I would very much like to know more about.

You do say that playing a golf course many times is in fact a better way to appreciate and understand it. I certainly would not disagree. In that vein, relating to this particular thread on Hidden Creek (and Easthampton), you mention you're looking forward to playing Hidden Creek and the back nine at Easthampton many many times.

Congratulations on joining the back nine at Easthampton and Hidden Creek G.C.! Because if you haven't done that and you think that your roll as a rater deserves continuous access to those clubs, I would tell you I'm not much in favor of that rating attitude either and might remind you that neither club is probably that interested in your ongoing analysis and evaluation of it.  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I don't understand your question about Hidden Creek just coming into being or the WOW factor at all. Clarify please.

[BV]

BV,

I think you touched on a very good point, intellectual honesty, and the need to avoid excessive adulation and excessive condemnation.  The need for true objectivity.

BV,

How much of an impact on your assessment is the fact that this golf course just came into being, or the WOW factor based on your tastes ?

My opinion, which is not one of the ones that brings this course to the top of the heap right away, is based upon what all my opinions are based upon.  There are lots and lots of things that I like and I cannot give the course a "Solid 7", which I think is the best way to describe it.


And TEP, my continued access to any course is not dependent on my being a rater, so please don't make such inferences.  Ever.  


If I want to play a course because I enjoy playing it that is my business, but it does not affect my objective opinion of it.      Very simple  e.g. : I love playing NGLA and I think it is architecturally on the extremely short list;  I enjoy playing Maidstone any day, too, but it is not on the extremely short list.  They are not in the same "tier", and that is how it works for me.

Also, I don't think I am implying that the tail chases the dog.  What makes great courses great is what one searches for in courses new to one's own personal consideration, perhaps I didn't make that clear enough.  THe extremely short list is extremely short, I'll stand by that and how that list relates to all courses.  Personally, I don't have a list like Ran where he says he will always prefer to play #197 that 198 on his list.  (Sorry Mr. Morrissett if I am mis representing or mis-quoting you).  Once I am past a very short list which is private to me (And is not necessarily 1-2-3-4-5..., courses come in bunches for me as to their merit for study.    

TEP, I am sure with all your time on your hands and your superior typing skills, you will rebut every crossed "T" in my response, but I have to be done now and may not be back for a week to these pages.  


Extrapolating a line from the first post on the thread, being enjoyable for a round again and again does not make any particular course........ or..... or ...... save enjoyable for a game again and again.  Maybe Ran has been misinterpreted, but I can't type very well, so I am done, severly chastized for my criticism of C&C.

[TEPaul]

BV:

I'm not going to rebut every crossed T in your posts--it's not that big a deal. I just wanted to express my feelings about your opinions of Hidden Creek and rating and ranking--that's what discussion is all about, don't you think--someone says something and someone else responds? I sure do have a lot of time on my hands and I do type fast and post too much on here but if that's a problem for you I'd advise you to do the same as I advise others who have found that bothersome or whatever--just ignore it.

I'm happy to know you don't use the rating process as access to golf courses. That's something that's a bugaboo with a lot of people--certainly not just me. The ones it's really a bugaboo for is the members that are often INDIRECTLY used for access which is not much considered by those trying to gain access.

I see nothing wrong, though, with contacting a member directly if a rater wants access and I see nothing at all wrong with a rater calling a club and asking if he can play to rate the course. Both can certainly say no directly. I do know that if I was either a member or someone at the club who controlled access I wouldn't let such a thing become a constant access thing for the sake of rating. Every club is different that way and that's just fine.

BV, clearly I would be interested in discussing any aspect of architecture on here with you, be it a course, hole, bunker, green, fairway, tree, whatever.

But I'm not so interested in discussng architecture by debating what someone means when they solely say something like "intellectual honesty" or "bias" or "C&C are one's fairhaired designers" at the expense of truly objective analysis without explaining exactly why they are saying such things.

And as to why you might favor a course or a group of courses as the "greats" on some "short list" architecturally I have basically zero idea why you feel that way.

As to the reason I have no idea I'd have to point you to your last post and the paragraph under the quote that starts with "In my opinion"....

I can see from that paragraph that your opinion is based on all your opinions and that's based on what you like etc which is lots and lots of things and all that adds up to the reason  that you cannot give Hidden Creek a "solid 7" (whatever that is). Unfortunately I don't have the slightest idea what any of that remotely means regarding what your opinions of golf architecture are.

That sounds to me like saying; "My opinion of that is because of my opinon of this, which I like very much and that all adds up to less than a "solid 7". That's no different than saying my opinion is this way because that's the way it is.

But anyway, don't worry about it because as Ran mentioned differing opinions are just fine and part of the dynamic of this site. It would be nice to know what your opinion is though not just that you have one.

I do know in no uncertain terms that you apparently do not like trees on any golf course even ones that may be naturally treed sites. While I accept your opinion on that I sure do disagree with it if it pertains to all courses and all archtiecture.

And the beat goes on!
 

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Speeking of WOW factor, I think Matt may have forgotten Wolf Creek which he places in his Top 50 in the USA. That is the beauty of this site, you have all sorts of opinions and plenty of people who like to rate things.

To be honest this constant rating of top 5 in the State or top 25 in State or 6 or 7 on the Doak scale takes away from thoughtfully discussing the architectural merits of a golf course like Hidden Creek or The Bridge or Wolf Creek.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that is what a rating is - an individual's opinion. I'd rather know what the site is like, what are the interesting natural features that the architect inherited. And how did he incorporate his design with the site. What are the most interesting challenges of the design - are they thought provoking and do they exhibit variety. Did the architect leave his own dictinctive style or artistic flair? What is the character of the green complexes, which are major factor in all outstanding golf coures?

There have been thousands of words written on The Bridge, but there was more architectural insight contained in the first few paragraphs of the Hidden Creek profile than all the hundreds of posts ever written on The Bridge.

[Paul Turner]

I can only comment on the photos and I can certainly see the heathland resemblance in the bunkering and the low profile greens which look to be extensions of the fairway (in the main).  

The course does look less open than even the heavily tree lined heath courses (i.e Sunnigdale Old) and more heavily bunkered than most English heathland courses.  Roughly, how many bunkers are there at Hidden Creek?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I think you have to differentiate sites that are hostile to golf courses and sites that are conducive to golf courses.

I also think you have to differentiate architects that would reject designing and building a golf course on a site from those that would design a golf course on that same site.

The picture you posted looks to me to be a hostile site,
one that C&C would reject.  It wouldn't be fair to compare Hidden Creek with the course pictured in your post.  Nor would it be fair to discuss their merits relative to one another.

The discussion on the merits of a golf course should be site specific, with the pros and cons of the site considered.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I agree every course should be judged on its individual merits and the site may be the most important ingredient. When seeing a course for the first time I try to learn as much as I can about the nature of the site (sometimes easier said than done). Every site is unique and the architect must choose his direction based on the site (that is one of the reasons I dislike the term minimalism). It is interesting to see how architects approach difficult sites like Whistling Straits or Kapalua or Shadow Creek or Wolf Creek or Cape Breton. I love what Thompson did at Cape Breton - all 11 kilometers of it.

I'm not fan of architects over-shaping a good site (Nantucket) and I'm not a fan of architects going minimalism on so so sites (Notre Dame). Neither course is bad, but neither is inspiring either.

[Robert_Walker]

I have played Sand Hills. I visited Friars Head when the course was being shaped, and I was fortunate to play Hidden Creek last week.  I have also visited Austin Golf Club and East Hampton. It is clear that Coore and Crenshaw make golf courses the old fashioned way. They find them. They do do a lot of shaping, yet at the end of the project it is impossible to see what was there originally, and what was not. I like that.

Another element that is very important to their work is taste and sensibilities. They know how to achieve a natural look about which other designers do not have a clue. Look at the edging of their bunkers, or the little piles of dirt strewn about Hidden Creek. Manmade randomness is difficult, if not impossible.

Because of their construction techniques and design methods, I place C&C with the great designers of the “Golden Age”. When you visit Hidden Creek, you are at a special place. The work is great. The design is great.

It is World Class.

Also…
This is a course that is challenging and playable for everyone.

[TEPaul]

Robert:

That's a really wonderful post and not because I'm a fan of Coore and Crenshaw. Yours is just an extremely understanding and fundamental way of explaining the principles and nitty gritty detail of what it takes to do golf architecture in a sensitive and basically natural way. It wouldn't matter to me who you were describing, if any designer worked the way you outlined I'm all for them!