News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Matt_Ward

Re: The Met Golfer's Top 50 ...
« Reply #25 on: May 28, 2008, 02:08:55 PM »
Mike M:

Try to realize that the 50 mile rule would need to be modified to deal with layouts further out on LI -- most notably Tallgrass and Montauk Downs State Park.

You might need to expand the radius to 100 miles.

Your Jersey side would also need to be updated ... while I am a huge fan of Knoll / West the layout as constituted now is not truly ready to be rated for all of its architecture capacity. When the work is done then you would have a different story to tell. Just not at this moment.

FYI -- only Royce Brook / East is available to the public and it's really not that good for such consideration.

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Met Golfer's Top 50 ...
« Reply #26 on: May 28, 2008, 03:09:39 PM »
A few comments - perhaps repetitive but who cares.

1.  With all the great classical courses in the area it is foolish to compare them with courses which were built recently such as Friar's Head and Trump Bedminister.

2. Met Golf should include Galloway in its listing since many people in the Met area spend their summers down there.

3. Baltusrol is still the most overrated course in the area.

4. Great restorations, such as Essex County,  should be separately recognized.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Met Golfer's Top 50 ...
« Reply #27 on: May 28, 2008, 10:23:57 PM »
Matt,

Your thoughts on Essex County West ?

Matt_Ward

Re: The Met Golfer's Top 50 ...
« Reply #28 on: May 29, 2008, 01:02:21 PM »
Pat:

The former Essex County West was indeed a superb layout and if much of what was there design wise was still intact then the layout would indeed be on a short list of top public courses worthy of play.

That is no longer the xase.

When Essex County government purchased the site and renamed it Francis Bryne a whole slew of changes happened -  many of which were not properly thought out.

To be fair -- some of the old Essex County West was compromised by the private sister layout on top of the hill when they expanded, I believe, their tennis operations, and took a portion of the dynamic uphill par-4 7th hole. It was a great hole but simply was compromised the point of it being a shell of its former self.

To the credit of Essex County government there was a movement to aleviate the considerable wetness that always occurred in the fairways of the 16th and 17th holes.

Unfortunately, so much of the fabulous bunkering provided by Banks has been eviserated. The greens still have grass on them but more often than not you need shoulder turn to get the ball to the hole.

In the olden days I really looked forward to playing the following holes ...

*The par-3 2nd still is solid in many ways -- the green is a tough target to reach and hold.

*The short uphill dog-leg left 4th. Always liked the old hole but the bunkering on the hole was aborted a long time ago.

*The 8th was a fine short par-5 -- would play as a long par-4 if the old tee were still there but it was eliminated when the private layout expanded their own property.

*The back breaking uphill side-hill par-4 12th. Still a real bear to play.

*The dog-leg left uphill par-4 15th. Cited by Bobby Jones as one great hole during his 36-hole exhibition to both faciltiies -- the hole is still relevant.

The only weak element for me is the closing two holes. They are nothing more then mediocre.

Pat, it's a shame what one sees today with Francis Bryne. Much of what made the former Essex County / West so unique and compelling has been lessened or stripped away.

The only one thing we can count on for sure is the memories of time spent there. If the old layout were still present it would be one of the real treats to play among public courses in the greater NYC metro area.

Ed Oden

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Met Golfer's Top 50 ...
« Reply #29 on: May 29, 2008, 01:56:27 PM »
Matt (or anyone else who would like to respond), does Morris County enter into the discussion?  I always thought it was great fun and surprisingly challenging despite a lack of length.  But I haven't played there recently and don't know if Prichard's work has impacted the club's standing among area courses.  At worst, I would think Morris County is emblematic of the incredible depth of the "next 50". 

Ed

Matt_Ward

Re: The Met Golfer's Top 50 ...
« Reply #30 on: May 29, 2008, 03:59:43 PM »
Ed:

Morris County GC is a very special place -- located in the tiny community of Convent Station this Seth Raynor layout is often overlooked because of bigger neighbors that draw more attention and fanfare.

The layout barely registers at 6,300 yards from the tips, if memory serves, but the course is divided into three sections of six holes apiece that really do provide plenty of fun and compelling architecture in a number of clear areas.

Thefirst six holes are rather short and easy to score upon with solid shotmaking. At the 7th you encounter "Big Ben" -- a 452-yd par-4 that is a rollarcoaster going up and down the hills and ending with a delicious green that falls away from the approach. The next five holes are also a good mix with solid par-4's at the 8th and 9th holes.

Morris County is often under-appreciated but for those who are Raynor fans and routinely gush about Shoreacres I would dare say they would find much to like at Morris County -- possibly even more so with the Jersey layout.

It's not a top 50 metro pick for me but I would strongly suggest it to those who want to see golf without the muscular and inane desire to stretch everything in yardage to the point of insanity.

Ed, you are so right about the "fun" factor when playing there.

Ed Oden

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Met Golfer's Top 50 ...
« Reply #31 on: May 29, 2008, 11:33:41 PM »
Matt:

Its good to know that my memories of Morris County are shared.  This is my favorite type of course.  Overshadowed by more acclaimed neighbors, yet just as interesting architecturally and almost always more fun to play.  These courses are comfortable in their own skin and never try to be what they are not.  While they may never qualify as a championship test, they also will never be boring.  When you're done with the round you feel like you know a secret others are not privy to.

Ed

Matt_Ward

Re: The Met Golfer's Top 50 ...
« Reply #32 on: May 30, 2008, 11:35:02 AM »
Ed, et al:

Would be very interesting to create a listing of a second 50 top courses.

Morris County is one of the more unique and fun courses that often escapes notice -- especially people not familiar with the key name that exist just below the radar screen.

Matt_Ward

Re: The Met Golfer's Top 50 ...
« Reply #33 on: June 01, 2008, 10:46:21 PM »
Clearly, the contributions of Charles Banks deserves a better overall placement than what was listed.

Notciceabley Essex County and Forsgate / Banks.

No doubt the likes of Sebonack and Bayonne would also need to be considered as I personally see them as easily making the top 25 rather easily.

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Met Golfer's Top 50 ...
« Reply #34 on: June 02, 2008, 07:38:26 AM »
No Inwood

No St. George's

No complete list, IMO

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Met Golfer's Top 50 ...
« Reply #35 on: June 02, 2008, 06:33:05 PM »
No Inwood

No St. George's

No complete list, IMO

Chip,

It's always difficult to place 60-75 good courses in a 50 course category.

I'm a big fan of Inwood and am supposed to play St George's this summer.

The inclusion of Manhattan Woods has me completely baffled.

Six other listings and/or order of listings merely have me baffled.

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Met Golfer's Top 50 ...
« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2008, 07:36:25 PM »
Having studied the list closely, and recognizing that there are many courses on it that I've not played (yet), my opinions are as follows:

WFGC West is an excellent, excellent course, but I have to go w/Shinnecock as #1.

Baltusrol Lower ranked higher than NGLA?  The major championship thing must count a lot on this ranking.  B'rol is a good course, but National has more architecture/per hole than most any place on earth.

Quaker Ridge "only" #6?  Lots of architecture there, too; better than WF West to many; hard to argue either way, IMO.

Garden City #7?  I can't get enough of GCGC's ambience and the good holes are wonderful.  It deserves a high rank just for having no halfway house (some would remove the drinking fountain near the 10th tee, as well), but is it better golf architecture than WF East, B'rol Upper and Friar's Head?  I can't get there from here.

Fisher's Island #8?  Like Garden City, another all-world golf place where the good holes are uber-excellent.  But better golf architecture than Friar's Head and WF East?  I put it just ahead of GCGC (personal taste) but not those other two.

Stanwich as high as #13?  Would it really rank that high if 10 of the 18 greens weren't ungodly fast?

Stanwich ahead of Friar's Head???  No chance, no way.

Friar's Head behind Stanwich, Fisher's and GCGC?  See above.

Maidstone below Fisher's Island?  That's a tough call, but I call them even (also personal taste).

Piping Rock below Somerset Hills?  Somerset is like Garden City and Fisher's - I'd play there every day if I could (Piping, too), but Piping has more appeal to me even after some of the "improvements".

Baltusrol Upper only #26?  It's way better than that.

Montclair Golf Club barely in the Top 50 and, also, ranked lower than Deepdale?  MGC deserves better than that.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Met Golfer's Top 50 ...
« Reply #37 on: June 02, 2008, 07:49:47 PM »
ChipOat,

There's an operational water fountain near # 10 tee ?

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Met Golfer's Top 50 ...
« Reply #38 on: June 02, 2008, 08:41:04 PM »
Used to be a water fountain about 20 yards ahead of #10 tee on the left back when I played in the Travis (20-30 years ago).

If you broke stride when you took a drink, you got a letter re: slow play.

Sounds like they decided even that was inconsistent with club tradition.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back