Hidden Creek course profile is posted

[Mike_Cirba]

My oh my, I've opened a can of worms....

My apologies if I've taken this thread too far afield, but after reading everyone's take, I'd like to post a few thoughts..

First, I NEVER meant to get into a whole ratings discussion, and would have MUCH preferred to discuss the pros and cons of the architecture of Hidden Creek.  It was only when others mentioned comparisons to some of the generally ackknowledged greatest courses in the world and Ran made the comment that he wished that Southern Pines had something of similar quality (the Pinehurst area being one of the absolute meccas of great courses) that I had to weigh in with questions about the "perfection" of the course, simply to manage expectations as well as provide a slightly differing view based on my impressions.

Second, I didn't mention the number of courses played by our foursome as some bragging point.  I mentioned it in reaction to Ran's asking how many times we played Hidden Creek, and wanted him to know that our group was rather well experienced, and not likely to be wowed by either the name of the architects, or other factors other than the course itself.  We all liked it a great deal, and to a person agreed that anyone joining the club would find a golf course that they could play over and over and have fun and challenge each time.  THAT is quite a statement, and indicative of the quality of the course.  However, we each also thought the course reached it's pinnacle at the 12th green, and never gets quite so good again after that.  

Everyone in our group was also well aware of the minimalist style of C&C, and enjoyed the fact that the architects largely used "what was there" in their fashioning of golf holes.  There is a subtlety that wears well at HC, and we also had nothing but plaudits about the hand-worked bunkering, which is superb as the pictures on this site clearly prove.  However, there were some other features that stood out somewhat obtrusively as clearly man-made, such as the large mound I mentioned on the right-front of the 2nd green, or, the rough mounds on the 5th and 16th.  While I am and was aware of the Heathlands theme, I can't say that they ended up looking particularly well integrated or naturally flowing, although I must admit a real fondness for the 5th hole, which is clearly a "deceiver".  

But, I think the original reason I posted is obvious in my first post.  The course profile on this site, as well as the first several posts on this thread, were extremely laudatory, and made many wonderful points about the positives of the course, as well they should have.  

However, I asked a number of questions on my post, because I truly don't believe that we learn all that much without debate and consideration of every angle and opinion.  

Coore & Crenshaw (as well as Mr. Hansen) had the courage and vision to build something "different", unusual, and somewhat unique.  That's to be applauded, certainly, but it isn't as though it's a course that many will understand immediately, nor is it a course that is somehow beyond the pale of architectural criticism.

I'd really like to keep the discussion to the course itself, because there is a LOT to learn and discuss in doing so.  I hope that some of the somewhat personal "digs" I've read in subsequent posts will cease, and we can keep the discussion informative and above board.  For instance, I personally am not much for the "wow factor", and comments that try to paint those who might find some valid criticisms of the course as some type of yahoos looking for visual stimulation are a bit much to take.  Similarly, comments that paint the course's fans as somehow "biased" are insulting, as well.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

That's a good level headed post--as yours always are!

I don't see that a single contributor to this thread has mentioned the absence of a "wow factor" at Hidden Creek as a negative of the course or that it's lacking in some way because it doesn't have any modern "Wow".

Frankly, the dedicated lack of any "wow" factor is well known there and a known asset at Hidden Creek. The only "wow" is supposed to be in the natural "color contrast" which is probably the second theme of Hidden Creek. That's what I was told anyway.

The primary theme is obviously the basically low profile "heathland" look very much combined with really firm and fast conditions "through the green" and greens surfaces designed for a surface firmness (greens) that ideally would be tipped so far as to make the runup and ground game option almost the most reliable option even for really good players.

Imagine that! Greens that don't "pitch mark" and only lightly "dent" to the aerial shot. Those kinds of green surfaces don't hold well and consequently begin to encourage good players to discard their standby aerial option and look for other choices.

I doubt many of us have truly seen a modern course both designed and slated to do just that! That to me is what Hidden Creek can be and ideally is intended to be by the designers. Just think through the designed approaches of almost all the holes and that becomes apparent.

It should be understood here and now that much of the architecture and design of Hidden Creek is to meld into that all important maintenance factor of firm and fast in those areas and to those degrees. C&C understand that and are dedicated to it there and even more so Jeff Riggs and also Roger.

You've mentioned a few times the man-made and probably quite "unnatural" look of the bunker short right of #2 and the mounding on #5 and #16. Frankly, I would add to that much of the fairway bunkering on #13 and many of the other holes.

You should understand that's not an oversight! That's not a mistake! That's a dedicated, and I might add pretty gutsy move on the architects' part to create a true tribute to the early "heathland" look of England.

Those early "heathland" courses had bunker features that were very man-made looking and consequently not natural looking because those early heathland courses were the early architects first forays into trying to use the original linksland (natural) bunker feature as a design element in the heathlands--an area to which the bunker feature was clearly not natural.

Actually those early heathland courses were the very early architects first attempts to create couses in areas other than the linksland. One might legitimately say that was architecture's first attempt at total architectural (manmade) creation!

The way those early bunkers were constructed and the way they looked was often rudimentary and simplistic. Turf and dirt were dug out and piled generally in front of the bunker cavity from which it came. As such those early bunkers FACES popped out of sometimes level ground and created what Coore called a "ridgy" look. The ridginess was solely the creation of man and looked like it--certainly not very natural looking--as nature made the original linksland dune bunkering, for instance!

Again, that's a gutsy move on their part and done only as a tribute to the early "heathland" architecture. We all certainly know that Coore and Crenshaw can create extremely natural looking bunkers almost anywhere but in this case they weren't trying to do that.

I too would like to talk about the architecture of Hidden Creek without the constant comparison of how and where the course fits in with other courses in the state or nation but others are just naturally inclined to do that as they seem to be first and foremost raters and not architectural analysts of individual course architecture.

But I would certainly like to discuss Hidden Creek in and of itself, if you would.

I said once before that I feel that hole #3 in the second shot landing area should have the left side bunker scheme enhanced or added onto to shrink in that second shot landing area at that left bunker scheme against the quarry bunker right. I think that landing areas is a bit too geneous and shrinking it in would generate far more thoughtful options and choices on the second shot to lay up short of that area, or fly over it or try to thread a much narrower needle on the ground.

And as you might remember I feel that the left side of fairway #8 should be enhanced with something (bunkering, rough ground, whatever) to force conservative golfers into consideration of other options or at least to create more intensity if using that large and conservative left side fairway option.

Much of my architectural criticism on holes has always seemed to be to either intensify certain options to balance them better with other options that might not be so well noticed or used.

Options create interesting strategies and options and strategies are best when they come into a bit of a balance in the minds of players and create some degree of quandry. Holes that have obvious and a commonly used and one dimensional strategy are not the best or most interesting, in my opinion.

Unless of course they happen to be for variety and get into the category of a hole like #16 which is primarily low on options of gaining the green in two and high on strict demand of distance shots to achieve the green and a regulation par number.

C&C are pretty well known for these extra long par 4s that are even intensified by routing them into the prevailing wind.

Holes like that are good too because they make a golfer deal with the prospect of no practical GIR unless pulling off two of their alltime best and most creative shots (this is a lot of Flynn's principle) and if not then only being left to figure out the best way to "sneak up on that hole" for a par number anyway--ala the real European super-long wind related par 4s!

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

Thanks for reminding me about Wolf Creek because I have not forgotten what I said regarding the merits of the course. When I first played the course (February '01) I was indeed thoroughly blown away by the sheer imagination and will to get a course built in such a hostile environment as Pat Mucci so accurately describes.

Let me also point out Tom that I have been back to Wolf Creek two times since with my most recent visit this past May to see how things are progressing and I was disappointed by the lack of detail in the conditioning area. Many of tees were not cut properly, the greens were shaggy in spots and there was no less than two tees at the championship position that needed extensive regrading and finishing.

As I said in one of my previous posts on this thread the process of rating is a never ending item. My initial impression of Wolf Creek and the manner by which it achieves supreme interplay with the existing site, the quality of its general routing and the mixture of holes is truly mind boggling. I say that from the numerous visits I've made over the years to a wide range of courses across the USA.

At the same time given the present state of affairs at the course I would without hesitation lower its standing until such time as these matters are rectified. Please understand that, in my mind, conditioning does play a significant contributing factor in bringing out the architectural aspects originally intended.

Yes, Tom, I too wish to discuss the architectural merits or lack thereof of the courses mentioned on GCA. However, ratings are an indispensable aspect of that discussion because it permits people to place in some sort of "context" where things stand. When I look at a golf course I don't just look at "that" course I try to see how it stacks up against others I've played. Clearly, the merits of a course need to be analyzed thoroughly in itself and I agree that's been done for the most part with Hidden Creek on this post. All the other aspects you mentioned -- the integration of the site, interesting features, etc, etc. have been brought out in my posts when I describe a course (see my review of Hidden Creek above in case you missed it). I don't do a quick "up" and "down" but provide detail.

But just keep in mind when Ran says top five in New Jersey I'd like to get more info on the others he puts in that company and when he says 2/3 best ever constructed I'd also like to understand the other courses he is linking to that statement.

Finally, I've played my fair share of courses through the years not to be swayed by pre-hype fanfare and not go ga-ga with the so-called WOW factor.

[Ran Morrissett]

Matt,

By well constructed, I mean by physically how well built the course is, from the clearing and the deliberation over which trees stayed/were felled to the handwork lavished on the bunkers to the non-USGA green complexes that encourage a ground game to the grow-in with the irregular fescue lines to the minutia of scattering a little piles of soil here and there, the end result is one of unusual craftsmanship.

The above takes TIME, talented people and money, and this project had all three with one advantage of the painstaking process being that the course now enjoys an instant maturity about it - look at the 30 pictures in the course profile and tell me if you don’t agree.

In terms of # of times a critic needs to play a course to gain an appreciation, he might play it once and see all or he might play it 100 times and never get much from it. Getting to speak at length with the owner re: his thoughts and those of C&C, speaking to the Green Keeper, and speaking with the Project Manager as well as another member of the C&C design team was a HUGE help to me in beginning to understand this project.

For instance, Mike, you have mentioned in several posts that some of the mounds don’t look natural. Well, the Project Manager is the first person to tell you that they’re not supposed to! Ala the abrupt bunker walls on flat heath holes like the 4th at Walton Heath (and some of the features at Garden City GC), some of the features at Hidden Creek aren’t meant to be integrated into nature in the same manner as for instance their bunker work at Sand Hills. Capturing some of this abruptness was a first for them and they relished the opportunity of challenging themselves and creating something different and unique (or at least that’s what they told me).

We all ask architects to spend a lot of time on site in an effort to maximize the subtle nuances of the landforms/features. Hardly seems fair that we ask so much from them while we in turn rush to critique their work after just one round under one set of playing conditions. That's the way it goes, I suppose    but C&C was doing something when they spent all that time on site: I say that they were giving each hole character.

As to where Hidden Creek fits into New Jersey, I just don’t see why that matters or is even of interest. However, so as not to duck the question and to answer in Doak parlance, there is one 10 in New Jersey and to my mind, no 9s (an example of 9 being Royal Dornoch and there are no RD’s in NJ). There are several 8s and lots of hidden gem 7s like Mountain Ridge and Hollywood (until the Club lets Rees put back in Travis’s central hazards and diagonal bunkering to create the strategic interest within the many straight holes). Who knows how good Ridgewood can be once – or if – 800 trees are removed? I place Hidden Creek in the 8s with other great favorites like Somerset Hills and Plainfield.

Finally, as for my comment re: the courses in the sand hills of North Carolina, every course here is tree line to tree line green grass. There is no visual contrast against the pines on the same order as there is at Hidden Creek via the fescues. I am not saying that fescues need to be used here but let's not mask the sandy soil either - the courses could and should be more reflective of their sand hills setting.

Cheers,

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

I'm really glad we're having this discussion, because it's helping me sort out my own impressions of Hidden Creek.  You used the word "intensity" in your post, and it hit me that perhaps this is where I find Hidden Creek somewhat lacking.

Most great courses have any number of shots where the intensity factor is high, largely because of the shot requirements, or perhaps even the "perceived" shot requirements, that cause psychological turmoil in the golfer.  In that respect, Hidden Creek appears somewhat benign.

Now, I'd be the last to argue that par isn't defended pretty well AT the greensites there, and the fact that everyone there intends to keep the course firm and fast will certainly go a long way towards turning up the lights on the architectural features in a way that will accentuate those defenses.  

However, there are not many shots out there where one stands on the tee, or in the fairway, and immediately recognizes that exacting requirements lie ahead.  Perhaps it lulls one into a false sense of security at times, and that's all good stuff, but at some point I was hoping to see more variety in the challenge, and "intense" holes have a way of doing exactly that.  Is there a full shot that would have one "white knuckling" it out there?  

Ran/Tom;

I do and did understand that the bunkering and mounding was meant to emulate the heathland "pop-up" style of the earliest courses there, but visually, I'd prefer something more in the vein of Ganton, for instance, or Garden City, which Ran mentions.  

MANY of the bunkers at HC look really, really good, as the pictures on this site clearly indicate, and I don't think they look particularly artificial or contrived.  However, a handful of features did stand out as abrupt, and almost unnecessarily so.  

I wonder if all of us played the course without knowing a thing about the design intentions, or the architects and owner's wishes, or even who designed it at all, or the maintenance goals, whether we'd be so readily accepting of those "pushup" features, or whether we'd wonder why they were created?
        

[Ran Morrissett]

Mike,

Is it white-knuckle property? If it isn't, then C&C aren't likely to create a white-knuckle shot but that doesn't mean that a hole like the 4th isn't still a WOW (!!) hole, at least to me.

Before I spoke with anyone other than the Head Professional, I played the front nine and my first words - even before saying hello - to Roger Hansen upon meeting him at the turn where "That front right bunker on 2 has to be one of the world's all-time great bunkers!" He then told me about seeing Coore on top of it, pulling chunks of turf off here and there and everybody really getting into its creation.

Pretty cool stuff and as I know you appreciate, nothing beats such a hands-on approach.

Cheers,

[GeoffreyC]

I'm looking forward to getting out to Hidden Creek in the near future.  Until then, I am enjoying this discussion.  Its what this site is all about.

Ran-  Ridgewood did take out at least 500 trees (so I was told) this past winter.  Its a wonderful course but it will never be an 8.  Nor will it ever be in the same company as Quaker Ridge, Fenway of Winged Foot East.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

These last numbers of posts are really beginning to get to the nub of things--they really truly are! This could be some of the best in depth architectural post discussion I've ever seen on Golfclubatlas!!

You ask what would we have thought of the course and specifically that "ridgy" bunker look (that is not intended to look particularly natural) if we had never had the opportunity to speak with the architects about it and what they were visualizing and attempting to do there?

That's the ultimate question, isn't it?

For me, clearly, I never would have understood it and probably would have thought for some strange reason they had simply failed to do what I thought they generally do so well, construct architecture that is about as good as can be found at mimicing and melding into true nature and its look!

And failing to understand what they were doing there I probably would have been disappointed that they had failed to live up to what I'd come to expect of them (from what they'd done elsewhere).

Even when at first told about the "ridgy" look I really didn't understand the half of it. He said too "a tribute to the early heathland look" but I've never been there so I have only a vague idea of what that meant and less of an idea of the exact rudimentary construction and look of some of the early "heathland" features.

Little by little I've come to understand the import of it all and what they really meant by a "tribute." In retrospect, the choosing of James Duncan as the project manager was a very clever move on C&C's part and makes more sense the more you think about it. One has to get to know Duncan too--he's a highly brilliant man, in my opinion, and incredibly sensitive to just this kind of architecture and the detail of it despite the fact it may have many vestiges of the rudimentary!! (If I didn't know Duncan and he put on a coat and tie I swear I would think the guy was a young don at Oxford or Cambridge!).

Anyway, having heard and yes learned all this I consider it just another part of a really good continuing education in golf architecture.

That's definitely not to say I buy into it because Coore/Crenshaw/Duncan simply explained it and I tend to buy into anything and everything they say--not at all.

It's that in a case like this (a project like this) what they are saying and trying to do has a true beauty to it! To really understand where they're coming from and trying to do is a beautiful tribute and understanding of not just classic architecture but the evolution of the entire art of architecture!

When you look closely at that evolution you see the things those early guys were doing and even though they may have tried to mimic real nature, really wanted to mimic true nature  they knew they couldn't because of the limitations of the art and construction practices and the exigencies at that early time. By the way, NGLA itself is just a blowaway study of that early transitional time of great golf architecture (for the playing of the game)  which was about to transition to truly nature mimicing art and features but simply had not at that time--1909-1910!!

This evolution from the less than natural man-made architecture to the truly natural man-made archtiecture (best evidence Cypress) is hard to put your finger on although it's clear that the profession's ability to do it increased by leaps and bounds between say 1910 and the late 1920s!

Anyway, C&C understand this completely and although they are able to make architecture that is as natural looking as can be which probably would have made the likes of Park, Hutchison, Fowler, Colt, Alison etc swoon, they know that those men as much as they wanted to could not do that and they are paying tribute to what they did back then by what they made at Hidden Creek.

Now, how cool is that? That's not only an appreciation of the classic golf course and even the Golden Age because they're paying tribute to those early guys who were struggling to get there but couldn't for obvious reasons.

Does all this stuff leave you with any doubt why some of us admire the likes of Coore and Crenshaw so much?

Again, to me, Mackenzie hit the pinnacle of really making golf features look like nature (Cypress), a pinnacle never reached before, but even he knew his limitations to go even farther.

Those old guys wanted to go farther though with nature's look! They dreamed of a time when the art could somehow make all of golf architecture look like nature (a truly elusive dream when you consider what Behr said about the inherent unnaturalness of tees, fairways and greens, the three necessities of golf, and yes, even that old and odd golf vestige--the linksland bunker feature and its inherent unnaturalness to many part of the world).

I think if those old guys could wake from their graves they would definitely turn to the likes of C&C, Hanse, Doak etc, as the ones to ultimately realize their early dreams of total naturalness in all of golf architecture somehow!

And I have no doubt someday C&C may try for that elusive dream somehow but not this time at Hidden Creek. There they decided to pay tribute to some of those early guys for understanding their own limitations of that time but still being able to visualize that elusive dream in golf architecture.

This golf course in many ways is just a tribute to the evolution of architecture at a particular time complete with many of the vestiges of the limitations of that time.

In a strange way it's not much different from the early career theme of Pete Dye. Pete became not just fascinated with the natural aspects of Scottish courses but most particularly with the early architects' rudimentary attempts to create those representative linksland early architectural features, the highly manufactured and man-made looking "sleepering" and such! That highly man-made element was what he brought back and used in his early architecture! Interesting, isn't it?

Keep it going--this is a great discussion. But just a caveat--"natural looking" is good but let's not throw a blanket of "naturalness" on everything or it might limit us from really understanding the true evolution of architecture and what any particular time was really like!

And also Mike, you said you'd have preferred the bunkering style of say a GCGC (also very early and basically man-made looking) at Egg Harbor instead of what they did there.

Not me Mike--that would have really been out of place, in my opinion (and obviously theirs), at Egg Harbor.  I was down there completely preconstruction and the natural site felt more like the Heathlands by a mile than the original Hempstead Plain of of GCGC.

I'd like to get into a discussion of that "intensity" thing too, but later. Why that wouldn't work all that well at Hidden, in my opinion, I'd love to talk about.

Hidden feels to me like a site for super low clarity on strategic dictation. Very much a "false sense of security" golf course.

For "high intensity" I think you need architecture with slim margins for error, sharp transitions from the good to the bad.

Hidden just feels like it should be the opposite to me, but honestly, how ironic can it be and how complex too that the other NJ course that also apparently was conceived and created as a representation of "heathland" golf, Pine Valley,  has some of the highest "intensity" in the world and also some of the slimmest margins for error!

All just more evidence of the ongoing fascination of golf architecture and it's interesting evolution!

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

Is it white-knuckle property? If it isn't, then C&C aren't likely to create a white-knuckle shot but that doesn't mean that a hole like the 4th isn't still a WOW (!!) hole, at least to me.

Ran,

Let's see...sandy subsoil in a forest of mature evergreens and decidious trees, all on spacious land that is considerably more rolling and naturally interesting than one might to expect to find in south Jersey...

Why does that sound vaguely familiar?  

I'm half teasing, of course, because the intent of Hidden Creek was considerably different than that other well-known course from that state.  Interestingly, though, would you agree that the most nerve-wracking shot is probably the short pitch to the par three 11th?  

I would have really liked to have seen more intensity of that type required on other approach shot, particularly.      

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

You're good but this time you really are failing to pick up on some of the distinctions and nuances that contribute to interesting architecture and what a particular place and time really means if one can get back and imagine it without what came after.

Although admittedly, you're half teasing, drawing an analogy between the natural preconstruction site of Pine Valley and the natural preconstruction site of Hidden Creek isn't even close--not remotely close in one extremely important aspect.

Sure both are South Jersey, both sandy, both piney, both apparent representations of early "heathland" golf architecture but the topography of one is vastly different from the other! And that's key!

Even looking at the fact that both are 'Heathland' representative one should not get too doctrinaire about that particularly when viewed in the perspective of that early heathland time and place.

The early American architects, Crump, MacDonald, Wilson, Fownes, went back over there and studied not just the linksland but the heathland too for their inspiration and concepts.

Today they would have a vast array of places and styles to draw from for inspiration but not then--at that time basically there were just those two!! And that is so important to consider!

They really weren't into exact copying either--just pulling basic concepts to varying degrees and applying them to what they found over here--if they could have done more--if they had the ability to move more earth and really copy, maybe they would have but they couldn't do that so it never happened that way!

It's also so important to know, I think, the real historical importance of the English heathland architecture in the evolution of things. The importance is it was really the first foray into total golf architecture and the first departure of the game from the original Scottish linksland--that clearly was NOT total golf architecture (not totally manmade)! The Linksmen even pooh-poohed the attempt in the heathlands as not real golf because it all had to be made--the opposite of which (the wholly natural golf aspects of the linksland) was considered the very essence of golf at that time for its reliance on basically just nature in the beginning!

But Willie Parks proved them wrong in the heathlands with his homerun course, a massive undertaking for that very early time, and the others, Colt, Abercrombie, Fowler, etc followed and pulled off respected architecture in the heathlands  eventually even gaining the respect of the Linksmen.

So the point is although "heathland" representative, both Pine Valley and Hidden Creek have real differences as did many of the other early American courses that were "heathland" representative, despite the fact all were total architectural creations--vs the very fundamental that the origninal linksland courses were not!

The differences in elevation changes and how those elevation changes actually are and were between Hidden and Pine Valley are the key and the reason for PV's "slim margins for error" ("white knuckle") vs the far more gradual transitions both topographically and otherwise of Hidden all the way into what might be called a "false sense of security" theme at Hidden--almost the opposite of PV.

Hidden really only has one hole of notable elevation change--#4 while Pine Valley has so much of it and often dramatically so all over the course.

In the PVGC archives there are indications from Crump and others of the fact that although PV was basically a "heathland" representation--(Crump really studied Sunningdale)--that PV was a remarkably different concept solely for it's radical topography which interestingly was stated in that early writing (PV's archives) as vastly different topographically than most everything else in South Jersey.

So although only half teasing be very careful of your analogies because there are very important distinctions (like topography) both then and now!

[GeoffreyC]

Ran

In conversations about various golf courses we almost always come down to your asking me- Yeah Geoffrey but where would you rather play day in and day out.  Where would you have more fun on a regular basis.

So Ran- before I find out for myself at Hidden Creek I will ask you among the following wide variety of Modern courses which if any would you pick to play regularly before Hidden Creek?

Rustic Canyon
Wild Horse
Victoria National
Ocean Forest
Plantation Course
Inniscrone
Beechtree
Sand Hills
Pacific Dunes

Thanks

[TEPaul]

This cliche about what course would you most like to play everyday is interesting but personally it isn't all that representative of my feeling of overall quality of architecture.

I'm just fascinated and blown away by Oakmont but I wouldn't want to play it everyday. I like a challenge as much as the next guy, I guess, but I'm not into self flagelation yet. I love Pine Valley too but I don't know about playing it everyday. Same for Merion. On the other hand, I have gotten a little bored now and then on my own course, Gulph Mills, when I used to play it practically everyday.

From that list my pick right now would be Rustic Canyon.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom-  I have this conversation with Ran all the time and he will always ask me if would rather play XXX then Bethpage and if so why do I think more highly of Bethpage then XXX.

I'm certainly going to see Hidden Creek for myself as soon as possible. I was supposed to go with the Cirba/Ward/Vostinak group but it was in conflict with a wedding I had to attend.

I think the fun factor isn't the greatest way to analyze architecture just because courses like Pine Valley, Oakmont, Bethpage, Winged Foot West etc. just beat you too hard on each shot.  However, I think by examining WHY a course like Cruden Bay, Rustic Canyon and others like them are so much fun to play then valuable lessons can be learned about site selection, maintenance and strategy.  I'd really be curious to learn which of the above modern courses by the likes of Doak, C & C, Hanse, Fazio and Rees Jones Ran and others like Mike CIrba, Bill Vostinak and Matt Ward would rather play on a regualr basis then Hidden Creek.

[Mike_Cirba]

Geoffrey;

I'd like to see Cuscowilla and Chechessee Creek added to your list for Ran's "where would you rather play" exercise.  

Tom Paul;

I was half teasing Ran, who claimed that the land was not conducive to "white knuckle" golf, but my poking had an element of truth.  For instance, what's so special about the topography at Garden City (Hempstead plain), which is rougly about as rolling as Hidden Creek, yet contains any number of shots where intimidation rears its fearsome head.  Yet, conversely, many elements of Garden City can be rightfully called "minimalist" in design, so it's not as though Emmett and Travis had to force "intensity" into the design.

So, yes, I know I stretched the point to include Pine Valley, which is MUCH more rolling than Hidden Creek or Garden City, but more importantly, also has a different "design intent" than HC.  Roger Hansen was not looking to create something that will test the best golfers in the game with a strict and penal examination ala George Crump or William Fownes.  

I've re-read your last two posts a few times, and one thing I think I have to agree with and admire philosophically is the almost "Luddite" approach used by C&C & Duncan on this project.  I frankly don't think a lot of people are going to understand it, and I still would argue that the lack of intensity is going to be viewed as weakness by many (I just view it as lacking some necessary variety in shot requirements).

I think your own mention on bringing a bit of intensity to the preferred bail out areas on a few holes like #8 tells me that you see some of the same problem.    

However, in an age where machines can build courses out of deserts that look like Oregon rain forests, this total eschewing of technology is a pretty revolutionary and subversive idea!!  Viva la revolucion!

Think about it.  They decided to play homage to the first inland courses and to do so, they essentially "pretended" as though they did not have the technology available to do much more than rudimentary features, while leaving the rest of the course in largely untouched fashion, as the Woking's of the world were originally built.  

If someone tells me that they did this work with mules, hand plows, and lots of empty flasks I think they'll jump up about 10 points in my book!  

[Scott_Burroughs]

Wildhorse is on the Next Fifty list, so he apparently hasn't played it yet.  I'm not sure if he's played Victorial National either, the course write-up might be John's.  What about Ocean Forest?

As usual, I'm probably wrong.

[GeoffreyC]

Mike- Other then Pac Dunes and Plantation (which Ran goes GAGA over) I choose courses that I have played and those I thought Ran had played.  I wasn't sure about him playing Wild Horse. I wanted to get a feel for the true level of his enthusiasm from a point of reference I could relate with.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I'll get into that discussion of "intensity" or a "high intensity level" some other time but that's not really what I meant to say about either of my recommendations for Hidden Creek either on #3 Or #8 when I said "to add a little intensity on #8".

What I meant by that on #8 is someway of "balancing the available options in the mind of a player" and frankly that could probably be done with a low level of intensity anyway. I've never even played Hidden Creek and for all I know the green itself and the approach to the green from over on the far left of the fairway may make that option one that's not that appealing anyway. But if that's not true I think something should go on the left of the fairway to balance the choice of other options from the tee!

I'd say the same thing about the bunker scheme to the right of the green end at Applebrook's #10 because it looks to me like players would rarely use that far right fairway option so the way to get them to use it more is to shrink down the fairway space on the option of laying up right in front of the green. Doing that will get them to look elsewhere more readily (like right).

GCGC is a great looking course and architecture--very unique really, probably due to it's antiquity but it is not the kind of course I would say has a "high intensity level".

To me a real "high intensity level" is when you're sort of on edge all day for no particular reason except that any minute you feel something might go drastically wrong. In Philly those to me are PV, HVGC and Merion!

Most Ross courses I know are quite low on intensity level simply because Ross used the "sense of false security" so well with lots of rope off tees and designing basically second shot courses that are so subtle even at the green ends players can make bogie or worse (even with pretty good shots) and still not be real sure what went wrong!

I think of Hidden Creek as much like that kind of Ross theme--most of the risk and reward is at the green and green-end anyway although even there it can be super subtle!

I know that there may be plenty of golfers who won't understand Hidden Creek and might not appreciate it but in a discussion of architectural quality I really hate to say it but I don't care that much about them not understanding it at first, as contrary as that may sound.

For the course to really be what it's designed to be it has to have those conditons that make it extract shots subtly and that's firm and fast maintenance--C&C know that and so do Riggs and Hansen.

Coore thinks Hidden is going to be harder to score on than Friar's Head when it's in the condition it's designed for!! Looking at those two courses I find that absolutely amazing to contemplate that fact but I'm sure he has a much better feel for that than I do.

And if Hidden does start to extract those shots from golfers subtly it's going to get their respect and appreciation eventually! It may take a while but if golfers continuously lose shots that aren't bad one but maybe not that well thought out, eventually they're going to figure out something's going on and that it must be in the golf course.

On the other hand there are plenty of members at my course that have been making the same mistakes in judgement for decades and still haven't figured out what's going wrong!

One guy who's been there forever, I gave a brief explanation a few years ago of the subtle strategies of the holes and he came back and said: "That's amazing, I'm playing no better but scoring much better and am having a real ball with a renewed outlook of what this course is all about! What did you call that--tactics?"

"No, I told you we call it strategy. It might be subtle around here but it's there as you found out!"

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

You know me, and you know that I LOVE holes like 12 at Rustic Canyon, for instance, where the strategy is a combination of vague/misleading from the tee, and par is protected at the green.  

I love it even if only a small percentage of golfers coming through that hole ever understand why they don't quite score as well as they feel they should on the hole.  I think that type of architecture is very sophisticated and non-obvious, and I'm all for it as a modern feature.

But, one of the things that makes Rustic work so well in my opinion is that, yes, it has those type of holes, but also has holes with greater intensity and shot demands, such as the par three 6th, or the drive on the 14th, or the approach to 16.  This leads to a variety, balance, and even excitement during stretches that provides a wonderful blend overall.

By contrast, SOOO many of the holes at HC are of the  subtle, non-obvious variety.  As a theme, that's certainly valid, and I would agree that half the fun is discovering the choices and strategies over time.  However, I'd still contend that without a few places where the noose is tightened, so to speak, it becomes the mental difference between a friendly game of chess with your wise old grandfather, and a game of chess where your psychotic opponent is going to kill you if he wins.  

Put another way, I love mind games, but enjoy having the emotions and adrenaline at work, as well.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

When you walk a golf course and don't play it,
It's difficult to gain the feeling of intensity.

Observing deep bunkers is quite different from having your ball go in them and not being able to extract it.  That experience, creates fear, fear of finding another bunker, especially an abundance of invisible bunkers that litter the site.

GCGC may start off on the benign side, but its personality changes rather abruptly.

Its resistance to scoring creates intensity.

Fearsome deep bunkers create intensity.

Deep rough creates intensity

Sloping greens create intensity.

The wind creates intensity.

The combination of the above create intensity.

You have an OPEN invite to play GCGC anytime you want,
just don't get too intense on me  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

A course like GCGC I doubt would create a really high intensity level feeling in me--it's just not really that type of aura. And by saying that I don't mean a thing about the quality of its architecture--I love the course and I admire it a lot--it's quite different in and of itself from most anything I know in many ways. Wind, deep bunkers, sloping fast greens etc, I've seen them all in many different presentations but that's not it.

I'd have to think more about what it is that does that to me where I'm on edge all day although I could be playing great. GCGC could be beating the hell out of me score wise and I doubt I would feel that way there but who knows.

Sometimes I wonder if it isn't some kind of claustrophobia somehow but Merion I feel that way and I think I do too at Royal County down and they're open, so go figure.

Maybe it's the prospect of serious "others" that does that to me and that might be something that I feel when I can't figure well what might happen even if I do what I think is right. Maybe courses I can't read the architecture on too well do it to me--not real sure.

I think viscerally anyway I was always good at "reading" golf courses and when I think I read something right and execute right and things go really wrong it makes me very edgy. Merion's always done that to me, PV and Huntingdon Valley too. Sure there are places at NGLA like that too.

Not Maidstone, not Shinnecock and not even Oakmont, that's all very apparent and not really so hard to read--there tough sure but when you do something right on those courses you generally don't get surprised (except on #11 Shinnecock--maybe #7 too).

I'm not too certain what I mean--I'll think on it more.

MikeC:

Enough on Hidden--I think you just have a particular feeling about the place--and maybe you just need that "intensity level" more than I do. When I mention it it isn't something I have to have to really appreciate and respect the architecture it's just something that happens to me on some courses. Mostly what it does to me is make me "hang on" (to the club) and unable to really let it "flow".

But maybe I'm making too much of this. You have to understand I've played a lot of those courses that do that to me in some really good stroke play tournaments and it can be so nerve-racking compared to other course even in stroke play tournaments. Stroke play tournament golf really is a different cat and some courses really make me edgy ("high intensity level) when playing that on them!

I doubt I would feel it at all on them in recreational golf though!

[Mike_Cirba]

Another interesting architectural discussion

[Jim Sherma]

Had the pleasure of playing 36 at HC yesterday and found this great thread when poking around. Worth the time to read the whole thread.


Really interesting course and I definitely get the ‘second-shot course’ distinction. I found the greens very difficult to read and repeated plays would allow for a wonderful education. The greens create a need for more precision off the tee than is obviously apparent. Definitely a course worth going back to.



More OT, the conditioning and the club experience was all that. The fairways could have been a little firmer for my tastes, but overall the course played very well.

[Tom_Doak]

I have played well over half of Bill and Ben's courses, but somehow have never gotten to Hidden Creek.

[Jim Sherma]

The key to the routing IMO is the use of the limited elevation movement on a pretty flat spot. I especially thought the back 9 made great use of the little ridge that holds the 11th and 15th greens is very well done.


The front might be a little more unique with very wide fairways while the back has more places to get in trouble off the tees.


On a maintenance note I thought the native was everything it should be, wispy with playable shots. However, a lot of the bunkers had very overgrown gunch around them. Having a two or three yard patch of lost ball/unplayable separating bunker and fairway seemed a bit too disproportionate for my taste.

[Tommy Naccarato]

I have played well over half of Bill and Ben's courses, but somehow have never gotten to Hidden Creek.

One of my favorites of there repertoire!