[Jim Franklin]

Matt -

I still need to play Quaker Ridge. I was supposed to play it two weeks ago, but it fell through. I belong to a Tillinghast course and love his work. I predict a 3,3,3,1 for me with HN being the one. I did enjoy the course and think I liked it better than most here, but Tilly is Tilly and it is tough competition.

[Scratch_Nathan]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Matt.  I'm a big fan of Manhattan Woods (full disclosure: I'm a former member... moved from the Met section to south FL, otherwise I would still be).  I think it stands up very favorably to many of the esteemed courses on your list.  When thinking about my positivity about the layout, I always mentally return to my first round there.  I walked off the course incredibly impressed with the uniqueness of the course, variety of looks and assignments, fairness and challenge, and the lack of intrusion by cars, homes, power lines, etc.  After one round, I easily remembered every hole and even particular architectural features that I liked throughout. 

I always felt that if a couple of changes could be made, it has Top 100 U.S. quality:
- the 18th green which is quite tricked-up and un-natural needs dynamite treatment
- the short par-5 15th (originally designed as a very long par-4 and then unilaterally changed by course's owner... without any revision to the green, whose size and contours were built to receive fairway wood and long-iron shots, not 3rd shot wedge approaches) should have the green reduced in size and more menacing hazards should be added in fairway and greenside for its 490 odd uphill yards to work.

With regard to Plainfield... the 15 exceptional holes owe much of their greatness to the brilliant Ross use of elevation/contour of the property.  I understand when the course was re-routed to make room for the driving range (in the 1930s if I remember correctly) the course purchased that flat land where holes 13-15 were built.  My impression is that those flat holes do not seem part of the whole and, while not exactly poor holes, they are out of character with the more three-dimensional designs that make the other holes at Plainfield so magnificent.  I'd give it 2nd 10 status because of those demerits.  You don't think 13-15 are a let-down compared to the other holes?

[corey miller]

Jim

You have played Hudson National?  why don't you tell us what you think of the course rather than give us your friends comments?   that might make a reasonable discussion easier.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Ward,

While the fairways at Bayonne are quite generous, you have to factor in the strong winds that sweep the site, thereby reducing the effective width of the fairways.

Searching for balls in deep thick fescue takes time, produces big numbers on the scorecard and detracts from the experience.

Hidden Creek has very generous fairways, as does GCGC and NGLA, but, the fescue is thin, not thick, because it's not irrigated.

Bayonne would be a far better golf course with thinner fescue rough.

Scratch Nathan,

Manhattan Woods with a couple of changes a top 100 ?

While I'm sure that I haven't played it as often as you have, I don't see it being a top 100 if they made 100 changes.

Can you name 5 great  holes at Manhattan Woods ?

As to Plainfield, 13, 14 and 15 are pretty solid golf holes.
While the bunkering on 13 and 14 could be more in tune with the rest of the golf course, their strategic substance prevails even if their form doesn't.

[Matt_Ward]

Scratch:

With all due respect -- MH is not a top 100 candidate from the courses I have played. The architectural hodge podge of contributions from so many people (e.g. Watson, Player, Kay, et al). My God one needs a road map to figure out who did what and who made what corrections, changes. etc, etc.

I also don't see how the course merits a 75.7 CR and 149 slope from the tips. My God that would make the course nearly on par with the likes of WF/W and BB on that front. It's tough in spots but not THAT demanding.

Scratch, my list has come under a fair microscope from the varied participants. Please tell me in specificity where MH would finish on a top 50 listing. Are you saying it belongs in the top ten? Second ten? Please help me out because saying a course is good, or great, without providing some actual context is nothing more than a polite tap dance around the final result don't you think?

You say you "easily remembered" the holes -- that's a good statement because after playing there a few times I only wanted to remember a few holes period.

When you say the existing 18th green needs to receive "dynamite treatment," I have to wonder just how good that hole and others are?

Let's speak about Plainfield shall we. Yes, the holes in question were altered -- but how do they fundamentally lower the overall rigors you face from a shot values perspective? If we are going to apply a "look" factor that must be consistent at each and every turn then there are other top 100 courses in the USA (see Augusta as prime subject #1) plus others in the metro NYC area that have made modifications to their respective courses since their original opening.

Scratch, you ask are the holes in question a "letdown?" Sure to some degree but they are not fundamentally weak or so completely out of character as to make the time spent at Plainfield one iota less compelling. When you say "letdown" I don't see that a layout at the top ten level in NYC must have 18 bulletproof holes. Does Bethpage Black have 18 top holes without even the hint of flaws. No, it doesn't. Neither does Winged Foot / West and a few others at that high level. However, the sheer TOTALITY of what is there at Plainfield carries the day for me inspite of whatever minor elements that holes 13-15 bring forward.

Take what Nicklaus did at PB -- with the par-3 5th. Did his thoughts on that hole take away from the Neville design at that sacred layout? I don't think so. If you were to throw into the mix what the Fazios did with Inverness and Oak Hill / East I'd agree with you that in those instances the result that came forward stood out like a sore thumb.


Pat Mucci:

The fairways at Bayonne are wider than the ones at Dunluce at Royal Portrush and the fescue roughs / hay there borders on encroachment just off the secondary rough. Few people, save for me and a handful of others, ever bemoan that condition. And, it's a condition that exists at more than a select few top tier UK and Ireland links type courses.

At Bayonne, if you hit it thaaaaat wide of the mark then you deserve whatever the lies you get.

Pat -- how much wider than 40-50 yards across does anyone need ?

If the fairways at Bayonne were the limited width of Dunluce then I'd be in full agreement with you. They are much wider -- the only ones that are a bit narrower are the shorter holes and even then you have sufficient room.

Now, if a hurricane were to blow thru the property then that would be a different story.

The issue is proportionality to what the given widths are. At Bayonne proportionality has not been sacrificed. The other issue is getting people to play the appropriate tees for their respective game.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Ward,

I'll guarantee you that if you played your first round at Bayonne and only hit one ball off each tee, you'd agree.

Some of the visuals are very deceiving.

I'd ask you, on the first hole where should a golfer aim ?
Without a previous experience, the golfer is clueless.
The same applies to # 10

And to a good degree on # 2, # 4, # 8 and many, many more fairways.

The width only becomes apparent when you're in the fairway, and not necessarily when you're on the tee.

A first time golfer is at a huge disadvantage and has to feel very uncomfortable as he stands on the tee.

I was lucky, I played Bayonne when I was in a great driving cycle, so, I was able to hit my drive where I was directed to hit it.  Had I not been in that cycle I'd be even more critical of the Fescue.

I like the course, but, the dense Fescue detracts from the play and the experience of the golf course.

[Jim Franklin]

Corey -

I have played HN, but I did not like it as much as my friends did. I have had three seperate friends play the course and all three were excellent golfers and all three raved about the place. In fact, all three are from vastly different parts of the country to boot so no regional bias. I liked it. As I said to Matt, I would play 3,3,3,1 if I had 10 rounds between WFW, WFE, QR, and HN.

I think Fazio did an excellent job with a difficult site. The greens are fantastic and I would enjoy putting on them on a daily basis. I have not played the breadth of courses in the metro area that Matt has, but I would think HN is better than 4th 10, but I have not played the others. Hell, I thought Somerset Hills was better than what Matt thought as well.

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt/Patrick,

I think Patrick's last post is an extremely valid and insightful one, and I had a very good caddie as well who gave me the proper lines, etc., but it's still very difficult to accept what the eye sees and commit to it.

One of the great things to me about Bayonne is that it IS uncompromising.   It is NOT architectural light.   There are blind shots, and lots of them if your line and distance aren't both appropriate.   It is not a course to be trifled with, nor is it a dumbed down version of links golf polished up like Chinese food buffets for the American palate.

I absolutely loved that aspect about Bayonne.

On the other hand, Matt...when you ask what tees I played and whether they were appropriate, I'm feeling a bit patronized because we've played together a number of times and you know my game.   If you tell me that I was playing the wrong set of tees at the blue 6700 yard tees, then I think you're getting too used to putting out pat responses as debating points because distance was not the issue in the least.   

The wind, like most summer days along the NYC and Long Island shorelines, was relatively calm in the morning with increasing breezes by noon and beyond.   By the early afternoon, winds were gusting over 20mph and steadily at 15 or so.   Definitely enough to cascade shots not struck 100% solidly sideways as blithely as a ping pong ball, so that's where width matters most and that's where Patrick is absolutely correct....if you can't find your ball in the fescue, or the faux dune is so steep as to make even hacking it out to the fairway a major ordeal, then the game loses some of its fun and even challenge.

I'd also contend that hitting those greens in the appropriate spots in the wind is nigh impossible for the vast majority of golfers and I'm betting that 3-putts are as common as 2 putts on a regular basis.

You mentioned the greens at Winged Foot, or other inland courses, but I can't think of very many links courses with wildly undulating greens, save the Old Course example I mentioned earlier.

Similarly, there are the Portrush and Carnoustie examples, but similarly, I think inpenetrable rough is the rarity on links golf, and not nearly as enjoyable as the joy of hitting your ball, going to find it (and being able to), and hit it again (and being able to), that is such the pleasure on hard, firm, running, unpredictable, and raw natural links golf, much of which Bayonne presents wonderfully well.

[Matt_Ward]

Pat Mucci:

When you say an aiming point at the 1st hole is difficult -- guess what Pat, the same can be said for a ton of courses in the UK and Ireland with difficult to discern site lines for tee shots and the like. So what does that show to the point you originally made about fairway widths?

When you say the width only "becomes apparent" when you are in the fairway as a compliment to designer / developer Eric Bergstol. Many top tier courses give the "appearance" in order to put mental pressure on the player to execute properly. I don't see that as a flaw --either in Bergstol's approach or the holes in question.

You say a first timer will feel "uncomfortable" -- Pat, if the person is hooked up with a top shelf caddie the "uncomfotable" feeling can be minimized if not negated entirely.

Pat, go over and play Dunluce at Royal Portrush and other courses of that type. They are treated as world class layouts but the overall narrow nature of those courses is much more constricted than Bayonne and these same layouts have fescue rough that lies just off the secondary rough cuts on many of the holes that is as thick, if not thicker and deeper, that what you find at Bayonne.  

If people are going to apply a standard of playable fescue roughs then that argument needs to be spread evenly to all such courses.

Bayonne has miles of width -- if it was anywhere near what I have found at Dunluce and other such related courses I would be happy to agree with you. Not here though.

Mike C:

Mike, I'll say this again -- discerning the proper line is part of the puzzle of any course. The celebrated and storied layouts in the UK and Ireland do this all the time. Does that make the respective golfer feel a bit uncomfortable prior to pulling the trigger at the tee. Sure it does. Guess what? That's solid golf design. Making the player unsure and failing to execute properly is what makes for a grand time at any course - including Bayonne. That's why a place like Bayonne has caddies -- if you don't have a good one that's unfortunate. Those who do have a good one -- can be blessed in so many ways.

Let's get back to the original point -- the depth and tenacity of the fescue rough at Bayonne. The fairways there are PLENTY wide -- as I said previously. My God -- is 40-50 yards across not wide enough? Should we have 100-yard fairways on such a small piece of property?

Mike, I asked what tees you played from. Yes, we've played together and I know your game to a degree but I don't where you played from when you are were at Bayonne that day. The question was a simple one -- not accusatory and it is not some sort of "pat responses" I mention as a recurring debate point. But I stand by my comment that far too often many golfers play the wrong tee boxes and then to cover up for their own poor play will use the argument of unfairness or other such drivel for the time they spent. My comment was not directed to you personally either then or now.

When you make the argument about the wind -- Mike, I'll say this again for the upteeeeeenth time -- when people play in the UK and Ireland you can play courses with heavy wind and with fairway widths that are considerably NARROWER than what you find at Bayonne and have HAY-LIKE conditions just beyond the narrow 6-foot strip of secondary rough. These same courses in the UK and Ireland are raved about here on GCA and elsewhere. Where's the consistency in the application of such comments? How bout Dunluce then be taken down a few pegs on the greatness ladder because of the conditions you and Pat talk about. I don't see people doing that and Doak has it as a 10 on his scale.

Eric is no fool -- he provided the width factor I have mentioned countless times because of the circumstances tied to the wind patterns that blow through the greater NYC harbor area. Show me a hole where you have only 20-25 yard widths with fescue rough of hay-like and dense-like situations that is awaiting the player beyond the six-foot strip of secondary rough. Please cite the clear examples because I've played the place a few times and don't recall any.

I do admit there is very dense and nearly impenetrable rough in any number of areas at Bayonne. But, the proximity to those areas is governed  by the comments I have made previously and on this post now. If someone hits it that wide of the mark and expects to have a lie that allows ALWAYS for an easy and quick recovery then they have been really sipping some strong tea.

Let's talk about the greens. The green sizes are HUGE in many spots so that the wind patterns and shot executions which are needed can be accomodated. You don't find greens the size of the 8th at PV at any holes at Bayonne. Let's talk about contours -- you would need to give me a clear example where a particular green is sooooooo off-based or unfair to sound shot execution.

Is Bayonne tough in spots? Sure. But is it unfair either from a design standpoint or from a preparation mode in terms of the grass lengths? I don't see it that way and I respect what you and Pat have said. 

Mike, if this site is going to praise Dunluce and other types of courses which feature narrower fairways than Bayonne and sport HAY-LIKE conditions just off the secondary six-foot rough sectins then some sort of equity and overall fairness is long overdue. I've played my share of links type courses in the UK and Ireland and the rough at quite a few of them is much more in play and they have fairway widths that can be quite vexing to find when wind speeds of 25 mph or more occur.

Jim:

Thanks for your comments -- but got to say this -- who can you say I'm wrong about HN being in the 4th ten until you have played all the other courses I have placed ahead of it?

To finish in the top 40 among courses in the greater NYC metro area is no sin or fault with that layout. But, I'll say this again -- Westchester County is likely the most COMPETITIVE county in all ofthe USA when just private courses / clubs are assessed. HN would not make my personal top five in Westchester but as I said previously that's testament to the superior depth of courses that are there.

In regards to Somerset Hills, I really like the place. But there are courses of the same relative lack of total distance -- Montclair's #2 & #4 nines comes to mind immediately, that get little national attention but have more than its share of total substance.

SH has some of the best green contours but it also has more than its share of pedestrian holes. The closing duo is rather poor and the range of qualities of the par-5 holes is not Tillie's best work by far. I do like the 11th hole but the 12th is just an overrated and over-glorified short par-3. The metro area has plenty more of this type that are better and less celebrated.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

Just one quick question -- where would you place Bayonne among your top courses in the metro NYC area. If not the first ten -- as you said previously -- then where specifically?

Thanks ...

[Mike Sweeney]

To finish in the top 40 among courses in the greater NYC metro area is no sin or fault with that layout. But, I'll say this again -- Westchester County is likely the most COMPETITIVE county in all ofthe USA when just private courses / clubs are assessed. HN would not make my personal top five in Westchester but as I said previously that's testament to the superior depth of courses that are there.

Matt,

Have you ever been to Suffolk County, New York? You neeeeed to play some courses out there sometime. 

[Jim Franklin]

Matt -

I agree I need to play more and also that me saying HN should be higher holds little value since I have not played the majority.

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt,

There are a number of courses in your top 50 that I haven't played, including some of the most renowned, so it is difficult for me to accurately speculate where Bayonne would fall among them.

As I mentioned, I think it's a terrific golf course with a lot of strengths but just a bit bordering on overkill.

If I had to guess based on assumption of my impressions of some of the others I've yet to play, it would likely fall around 15-20.

With the fescue as it currently plays, however, I have to ask;

What is the difference between thick, impenatrable fescue and a course with water on both sides of 50 yard wide fairways?   

[Matt_Ward]

Mike S:

Been to Suffolk many times -- be happy to line-up the top ten in Westchester versus top ten in Suffolk. If you make the listing even longer -- say top 15 or top 20 then it's absolutely no contest for Westchester.

Jim:

Be curious as to what deficiencies your friends see with both layouts at WF and QR.

Thanks ...

Mike C:

Thanks for the reply.

Mike, I have to take you to task on the inclusion of the word overkill. Bayonne has plenty of width -- in a number of cases the fairway widths extend 40-50 yards across. I mean how much more is needed?

If the fairways were on average below 30 yards across and then you had hay-like rough immediately beyond the six-foot wide secondary rough I could more easily accept your position.

In regards to your last point I would ask you to re-read what I just posted in the above paragraph.

Mike, if someone has real difficulty in hitting 50-yard fairways then they should really love the under 30-wide fairways that Dunluce at Portrush offers. Last I checked Dunluce is listed among the top 10-15 courses in the world. If one wants to hammer Bayonne then Dunluce, and others like it, need to take a major drop as well.

[Mike Sweeney]

In no order

fishers
shinnecock
national
sebonnack
friars head
maidstone
atlantic
st georges
westhampton
the bridge

Matt

If you can find two guys here that would prefer your soon to come Westchester list I will be shocked.

ps Yes fishers is in suffolk and bethpage is split by the county line but i kept it off.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Matt, I respectfully disagree on the question of Suffolk vs. Westchester.

I don't think there is a case where if I ranked both 1-10 that there is any spot in the batting order where a very impressive Westchester lineup would be preferable to its counterpart.

1. Shinny vs. Winged Foot West.....Shinny by miles.
2. National vs. Quaker.....National
3. Friars vs. WF East.....Friars
4. Fisher's vs. Fenway....Fisher's
5. Maidstone vs. Century....Maidstone
6. Atlantic vs. Wykagyl...Atlantic
7. Westhampton vs. Westchester....Westhampton (maybe the most debatable to some)
8. Sebonack vs. Sleepy....close but I'd give it to Sebonack
9. Easthampton vs. Siwanoy...close but I'd give it to Easthampton
10. Southampton vs. Old Oaks....close again, but I'd give it to Southampton

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff Lewis:

Hold the phone amigo ...

Shinny is not "miles" beyond Winged Foot / West. I may concede it's ahead of it but we are talking by the tiniest of margins.

In regards to Friar's -- I can't truly comment because I have not played it thus far but WF/E is not a lightweight by any means.

Forgive me for your assumption that Century takes a backseat to Maidstone. The East Hampton layout has just a few holes of note along the water -- the 9th especially. Very much overrated by a whole host of people. Century is more consistent throughout the round.

I don't see Fisher's Island as part of the Suffolk scene for reasons already mentioned. Fenway is not chump change when held against Fisher's. The Scarsdale layout can more than hold it's own.

I do concede that NGLA does have QR.

Jeff -- enough of the nonsense with Easthampton being better than Siwanoy. How bout we line up the C&C layout against the likes of Wykagyl. In that case the Westchester layout sports the edge.

You say Sebonack is over Sleepy -- I'll concede that.

Westchester is beyond the likes of Westhampton -- you are simply ignoring the qualities of the Travis layout.

How bout Atlantic v Hudson National ? That's a pick-em in my book.

You also mention Southampton over the likes of Old Oaks. No way jose.

In sum -- a very tight call.

Expand the listing to a top 15 or top 20 as I mentioned previously and Westchester has the clear edge.


Mike:

Read what I posted -- I didn't say the top ten would be an overwhelming win for Westchester but that it would still prevail.

No doubt you have a solid mix with your top five -- Shinny, NGLA, Friar's, Sebonack and likely Maidstone, but it begins to lag the further down the list you go.

Mike, you can't count Fisher's because it's really not part of the Suffolk scene although technically it's listed that way. Fisher's is more related to CT -- since that is where most access comes from. Bethpage is more about Nassua then Suffolk -- only a handful of holes are in the county.

Ad a top 15 or top 20 listing and Westchester wins big time.

In no particular order ...

Winged Foot (2)
Westchester CC
Quaker Ridge
Fenway
Century
Sleepy Hollow
Metropolis
Old Oaks
Pound Ridge
Wykaqyl
Whippoorwill
Apawamis
Anglebrook

I can list plenty more -- your Suffolk listing is top heavy and then becomes real thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin ...

[Mike Sweeney]

Mike S:

Been to Suffolk many times -- be happy to line-up the top ten in Westchester versus top ten in Suffolk.

Okay since you are conceding defeat on the first ten by asking for an expanded list, here goes:

Montauk
Huntington CC
Southampton
Easthampton
Laurel Links (recently praised by Matt Ward!)

Did I mention the county line goes through Bethpage?

Matt,

I don't see Fisher's Island as part of the Suffolk scene for reasons already mentioned.

You have Fishers listed in your Top 10. What scene is it apart of? Westchester? When David Patterson ask the Jersey guys to re-configure the NY county lines feel free to throw Fishers to Connecticut, until then we will keep it to courses in the county. Did you not recently throw out Branton Woods on one of my post?

Not enough Tilly for you? Let's go to Southward Ho!

Again two people who back you up and we will concede!

Matt, what courses in Westchester play on the water bringing wind into the equation?

Should we compare the public courses in each county Matt? That might work out well for you Matt!!

Matt,

It is the Triboro Bridge, try the Queens exit occasionally!

[Scratch_Nathan]

Pat M.

I'd say there ARE five great holes at MW and all others except 18 are good to very good:
Greats: 3, 5, 6, 11, 13, 16

Matt W.

I know your list is going under the microscope and I'm sure you knew that would happen when you put it up.  You're one of the lucky ones who have played almost all of the best tracks in the area with the highest concentration of great courses.  Ranking them is like splitting hairs once you get beyond NGLA, Shinnecock, WF West, Friar's Head (of course, it's THAT good) and Bethpage Black.

Methinks your knowledge about the hands involved in MW and your "need to know who did what" might handicap your evaluation of the place.  How did you get around Sebonack without having a coniption  

The only possible evidence of Watson would be the routing, Player did almost nothing (except design the green and pot bunker elements of the course's weakest and poorest fitting hole - #18) and 17 holes of the course are absolutely Stephen Kay and Doug Smith's work... can't really figure out how you're seeing anything disjointed beyond the closer, which I already called out.  What do you think looks inconsistent with the rest?

The fact that 18th green needs to be dynamited doesn't eliminate the value of the whole.  That's the point you were making about the "totality" of Plainfield.  My comment about MW being "Top 100 Quality" was qualified by the fact that changes to #15 and #18 would have to happen EVEN FOR ME TO THINK SO... but IMHO, the totality and individual collection of holes at MW is very unique and terrific, and I prefer the design to Atlantic, Hudson, Sleepy Hollow and many other met courses that get a lot of respect.  Perhaps you could give it another look sometime when I'm up north again!

Interesting that you mentioned Fazio's work at Oak Hill... I'm playing there tomorrow for the first time.  Should be interesting.  Wish me luck!

SN

[Mike Sweeney]

Pat M.

I'd say there ARE five great holes at MW and all others except 18 are good to very good:
Greats: 3, 5, 6, 11, 13, 16

Scratch,

I am not as low as Matt and Pat on Manhattan Woods, nor am I as high as you. I think you can make a pretty good argument that it is one of 25 or so courses that could make the bottom 10 of Matt's list depending on personal taste.

Matt is sinking in quick sand right now and since he is rerouting NY County lines maybe he can bring Manhattan Woods over the river to Westchester!

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt,

This is a really good thread...I appreciate you starting it.   As I mentioned earlier, I also appreciate you putting your opinions on the line, whether I agree or not.   That sometimes makes for interesting discussion.

Since we're talking about Bayonne, it is currently rated number 32 on the Golfweek Modern listing.   Where do you think it belongs?

When I say "over the top", I'm not talking strictly about fairway widths, or fescue depth/thickness, but about the totality of many of the golf holes.   For instance, you have a hole like the 16th that requires a long accurate drive from a high perch (affected greatly by wind), and then a well-struck lengthy approach to a green stuck out into a peninsula, which depending on the drive, might be semi or totally blind.   Then, coming into the green, you have an abrupt rise in front only to fall off sharply just beyond, and generally has various humps, bumps, quadrants, and knolls to contend with.  

Much of this general theme is repeated again on the 17th, only without the advantage of the downhill teeshot.

It's a very exciting, very stimulating, and very adrenaline-filled course, but in stretches, I believe that a bit more restraint architecturally would have provided a more timeless and enjoyable quality to the course.

Frankly, I won't be surprised if Eric Bergstol recognizes this and makes some adjustments in coming years.   It's a really worthwhile effort that just needs further refinement IMHO.

[Patrick_Mucci]

When you say an aiming point at the 1st hole is difficult -- guess what Pat, the same can be said for a ton of courses in the UK and Ireland with difficult to discern site lines for tee shots and the like. So what does that show to the point you originally made about fairway widths?

Matt,

Naming other courses that may have the same configuration/design flaw doesn't legitimize Bayonne's penal rough.

When you say the width only "becomes apparent" when you are in the fairway as a compliment to designer / developer Eric Bergstol. Many top tier courses give the "appearance" in order to put mental pressure on the player to execute properly. I don't see that as a flaw --either in Bergstol's approach or the holes in question.

I do.

When a ball becomes lost within three feet of the edge of the rough, on a repeat basis, I consider that to be a flaw.

But, you must look beyond the current rough.

I have no doubt that some/much of the rough was planted to stabilize the dunes, and that with maturity the rough will be thinned out, but, currently, it's excessively penal.

You say a first timer will feel "uncomfortable" -- Pat, if the person is hooked up with a top shelf caddie the "uncomfotable" feeling can be minimized if not negated entirely.

I don't buy that either.
No matter how good the caddy, he can't overcome the insecurity in the golfer's mind derived from the signals sent to his eye by the architectural features.

Pat, go over and play Dunluce at Royal Portrush and other courses of that type. They are treated as world class layouts but the overall narrow nature of those courses is much more constricted than Bayonne and these same layouts have fescue rough that lies just off the secondary rough cuts on many of the holes that is as thick, if not thicker and deeper, that what you find at Bayonne.

Citing courses with the same problem doesn't diminish the problem.
You can't ignore it.
But, as I stated, I think, with time, that the rough will be thinned out.

If it is, that would justify/support my opinion.  

If people are going to apply a standard of playable fescue roughs then that argument needs to be spread evenly to all such courses.

Agreed, that's why I cited NGLA, GCGC and Hidden Creek.
They all have wide fairways and fescue roughs, but, the roughs are far thinner than Bayonne's, although GCGC is more difficult than the other two.

Bayonne has miles of width -- if it was anywhere near what I have found at Dunluce and other such related courses I would be happy to agree with you. Not here though.

We disagree

[Pat Burke]

And While you guys argue over Westchester, Sleepy Hollow, Winged Foot et al,
I'll gp play Dove Canyon, or God help me Big Canyon
Why did I let my parents move me to California!>!?!?

[Jim Nugent]

Matt, do you think Bayonne would be better if they thinned out and/or lowered the rough? 

[Matt_Ward]

Scratch:

Good luck at Oak Hill / East.

Suffice to say -- we see MH a bit differently. No doubt the course is tough but it's CR and slope are a tad beyond what I think is appropriate.

Is the layout a top 50 course for the NYC metro area. In my mind, it falls just outside it. Others, yourself included, see it differently. Differences in opinion make the world go round.

So be it.

Next time I have the opportunity play MH I'll be sure to look closely at the different holes you outlined.

Jim Nugent:

I don't see the fuss concerning the length of rough at Bayonne. If you go to the other more celebrated courses I have already mentioned they have daily conditions that are the same as Bayonne and HAVE even NARROWER fairways.

Will Bayonne lower the rough over the course of time. I can't really say but I can say this -- the sheer imagination to get the course built and to have varied and interesting holes speaks volumes for Eric Bergstol. For all the hype that Shadow Creek gets the Bayonne GC story is even better.

Mike C:

I went to the golfweek site and checked out the modern listing -- Bayonne is not listed yet.

Let's talk about the holes you mentioned.

The 16th generally plays downwind -- the shot is initimidating but it doesn't require close to the Herculean blow you mentioned. Strong players really don't need to hit driver there. If you miss to the right then you put yourself in a very precarious position -- as one should be.

If you play down the left center of the fairway the entire green opens up for the approach. If you hit near enough the separation point of the fairway the player has no more than 160-180 yards to the target. I don't see that as being over the top in your words.

Mike, you also forgot to mention that balls can be rolled up as the green does provide an open avenue in that regard. Is the hole tough? Sure? Is it excessively difficult? Not in my book.

In regards to #17 you play Bergstol's version of a cape-like hole.

I have to emphasize that playing the appropriate tee is key here. The extreme rear tee places tremendous pressure on the player because of the sheer length (490+ yards) and the fact that the prevailing wind is generall into the player. Hats off to Bergstol for an expansive tee that allows for the same type of cape effect but making sure that the sheer physical dimensions are kept in a reasonable manner.

After one finds the fairway -- again it is quite wide and you have plenty of bail out area to the right side. There is a landing zone for those who don't want or can't hit deep enough to the green itself. I have played plenty of unique holes in the UK and Ireland and don't see Bayonne is excessive in any manner. No doubt the velocity of the wind impacts play but there are bailout areas and angles of attack that provide alternate means of access to the hole. I consider that dimension to be quite reasonable.

Mike, you constantly mention the word "restraint." You must have seen a totally different courser than I have on the different times I have been there.

Will Bayonne modify certain aspects of the course. Likely it will. Nearly all courses do in some form or fashion. But the general presentation / theme of the holes there is well done -- for all the ink that Shadow Creek gets for being the ultimate in man-created courses I see the story of Bayonne as being even more compelling. However, unlike Shadow Creek -- the golf architecture contained within is even more unique and enjoyable to play.

Mike, you forgot to mention the greatness of the par-4 15th -- just 316 yards up the hill. With the several bunker protecting the right side. Under certain conditions -- the green can be driven but the smart play is to get into position for the short iron approach. A great transition hole between the par-3 14th and the long par-4 16th.

There's plenty there that really is a testament to Bergstol's creativity.


Pat:

You can argue all you want but let's face some reality here -- Bayonne is amply wide -- 50 yards across in many spots. Pat if someone can't find a 50-yard fairway then the player needs to revisit the practice area and get their swing in order. If the player has that much "insecurity" with that amount of width I can only imagine the kind of "insecurity" that same player would have if they played Dunluce at Royal Portrush or Crystal Downs or any other course where the hay-like rough is right on top of the narrow playing areas.

Pat, I can name plenty of top tier layouts that have narrower fairways than Bayonne -- and have as penal if not more penal rough that encroaches just outside the fairway areas. Do these courses get demerits for the presentation they provide players? A number of these courses are celebrated here on GCA.

I just want the standards to be applied evenly.


Mike S:

Get real OK !

I didn't concede a thing.

Fisher's Island is separate and apart from the general locale of Suffolk County. The main access comes via New London, CT. Mike - shall I send you a compass and map?

If you want to add Fisher's to your territorial border -- then I've got to expand Westchester to include portions of Greenwich or Fairfield County.

Let me mention that certain people here on GCA and elsewhere consider Pine Valley to be part of the Philadelphia golf section even though it is techincally in New Jersey. Guess what? I agree with them.

Mike, follow the course-to-course hook-ups that Jeff Lewis did. Be more than happy to demonstrate that after you get past the top five -- which Suffolks wins by a smaller margin than you think -- and the issue falls towards Westchester. You mention the impact of the water -- where does the physical water inrtude in the actual playing of the holes on Suffolk County? Her Mike, the H20 makes for a wonderful view but it's interplay is more cosmetic than real.

Let's talk about Bethpage shall we -- the county line includes only a portion of the 8th hole and 9th tee and some of the 10th as well. Forgive me Mike, we should include the Black because of such a limited connection. OK, sure! With that type of reasoning I'll be sure to include the layouts from Rockland County since it's just across the Hudson from Westchester.

Mike, I will concede that the public dimension is better in Suffolk because of the availability of the land and the push to capture daily fee players. Westchester is simply too developed and far too expensive to go that direction.

Final comment - Mike, go the route Jeff Lewis did and I'll be more than happy to go one-on-one on any of the layouts.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()