[corey miller]

Played again yesterday and come away more impressed every time.  Can not think of another metro course where the ground game is more important.  

There seems to be some piecemeal work going on does anyone know who is responsible?  Some   some OK.  With a little push and the removal of 2000 trees are we at top 100 classic? Maybe not for architecture but certainly for fun.

[Scott_Burroughs]

We have a resident "expert" here who could give details.....

[Brad Klein]

Started playing RHC furtively in 1969 when I began caddying at adjoining Woodmere Club. Have subsequently been able to get on now and then without sneaking on, but haven't played the scared place since 1997. It's a wonderous property, with holes through the salt marshes, in between backyard lots, and up and over some amazing little coves and alleyways. Design heritage includes bendelow, Tillinghast (see his imprimatur on 2nd, 15th and 16th holes for sure) and Perry Maxwell. That's the good part.

More recently, I believe Cornish and Silva have been toying around with the place for years. Club has some very serious coastal erosion/salt incursion problems, and the golf course doesn't drain during high tide, so there's lots of water right under the fairways. If they could somehow elevate the place ten feet they'd save one of the great hidden gems of Long Island golf.

[corey miller]

Brad-Do you know what work Maxwell did at RHC?  Would think he was responsible for 15,16 greens, much more bold than many of the others.  Also do Woodmere and Inwood (which i assume is fairly close) provide the player with the ability to play the ground game?

[Brad Klein]

I could never determine who did what work at Rockaway Hunting Club. The 2nd hole looks very Tillinghast, I can see where the outrageous rolls on 15 and 16 could be either of their creations.

Woodmere is literally adjacent, with RHC's 5th brushing up alongside Woodmere's property and RHC shoulder to shoulder with its neigbors 17th. Both courses do not drain real well, which sogs down the ground game and kind of undercuts design integrity. At least RHC offers such shot-making opportunities. Woodmere, an RTJ redesign in 1952, is more of the "fly the ball in" style, even though only par-70 and 6,300 yards. It used to be notoriously overwatered; not as much now.

Inwood, 4 miles to the west, is on better draining sand, and allows for far more run up. It's a more traditional ground game course overall.

[ChipOat]

Try to answer all questions quickly - off to meetings.

1) Ground game suffers from now-soft fairways (watering system) in front of greens that were designed for run-up shots - even low punches don't roll far, anymore.  Water table makes National-like turf impossible without turning off the water entirely and baking the place out.

2)  Changes driven by a pro-active board member - Stephen Kay has been the architect who consulted and executed.

3) Have to check my club history book for Maxwell involvement; course bears little resemblance to pre-WW1 original for several reasons.

4) Course needs to raise several fairways and do major bunker work (big $$$) to become like Inwood as a hidden gem, but it's already top 100 for the fun factor.  Lots of birdies make it a wonderful match play course.  On a hot, sunny day with a 3 club wind and a good bunch of guys, it's a very special place.

Corey Miller:

What work did you not like and what did you think was good?

[Mike_Cirba]

I recall Patrick Mucci really raving about Inwood after playing there last year.  It sounds like a course to see and I'm curious to hear the extent of Doak's work there.

chipoat;

After hearing about the differences in the water tables between Inwood and Rockaway Hunting, I'm wondering if RHC's bunkers are simply shallower by design?  Do you think they'd be problematic even with the $$$ spent to improve them?  

[Mike_Sweeney]

I am tentatively scheduled to play RHC on Tuesday July 23rd in an afternoon outing that I think I can bring guest to. If anyone has an interest in playing, just send me an email, and when I get the details, I will forward them on.

[ChipOat]

Mike Cirba:

Inwood appears to have been conceived as more of a championship course.  Rockaway, on the other hand, was a polo and racquets club from the start - golf was an interesting diversion and the budget for more elaborate bunkering and green complexes was never really a priority.

By the time golf became the predominant sport (early 1980's), the costs were already too high and the interest not widespread.

Current upgradings are long overdue but still must be sensitive to financial reality.

[Bye]

RHC and Woodmere, so close to one another and yet so far apart.

[SPDB]

#7-9 are great holes. I also really like 17.

Chip - is the bulkheading effort still afoot on the teeing ground for #8?

Irrespective of how you feel about the conditions, design of RHC, one thing is for certain, it is A LOT of fun to play. Chip is also right about it being a great match-play course.

Question: Is there any Emmet left or was it a total Tillie do-over.

[ChipOat]

SPDB:

New tee on #8 adds 30 yards to the hole; will check on evolution of course in club history.

Mike Cirba:

Bunkers at Inwood are built up from ground level; if not, they'd be just like Rockaway's.

[Mike_Cirba]

chipoat;

Thanks...I assumed that perhaps they had more of a sand base to play with at Inwood prior to hitting H2O, but given the low-lying land your explanation makes sense to me.    

[corey miller]

Chipoat-perhaps i should not say the work because i am not sure when everything was done but.

#2 one of the trees that block the fairway bunker was cut down last time i played and i was pretty psyched but returned to see a new tree planted yesterday.  The trees inside the dogleg need to be removed and make the bunker a carry bunker. did they extend the green in front?  It seems to me the course could benefit by removal of most of the trees on 1,2,17,18 letting the wind blow more and fill in some of the dunes or washout areas or whatever they are with sand.

 #4 remove the trees that are on left about 180 out.  they are blocking what looks to have been a giant bunker on the inside of the dogleg.  perhaps these holes the depth of the bunkering could have been deeper as these would not ever flood.

#5 would cut the bushes and stuff in front of the tee.

#7 it looks like the grass is growing right of the fairway up to the bulkheading which helps the hole. intimidating cape like tee shot into the wind. real good use of diagnal carry with the riskier shot definately rewarded with a easier 2nd.

#8 had been helped with the new tee and the bunkers and mounding on the left

#10 not a fan of the mounding right side of this hole which seems to be pretty new

#11  do not like the trees that have been planted between 11 and 12

#12  a real fine 3 shot par three into the wind.

#13  Whatever was done here has helped the hole. i think they just reclaimed fairway left by cutting back a lot of the unnatural stuff.

yesterday late afternoon looking down 13 was one of the prettiest spots in golf with the fescue covered dunes(mounds) and the bridge in the distance. was wondering why not incorporate this look into the full area by cutting everything between 7-8-13, and 12-13 though i think maitenance stuff might be there and also between 9-10-11-12.

#14 not enough game from that back tee into the wind.

#15,16 love the greens do not touch......

#17  do not like the giant mound right of the green. probably thought that it offers 18 tee some protection.  looks like they cut a lot of the grass down behind 17 18 tee and one restoring the view across the bay.

#18 how about cutting the rough behind the green to bring the back bunker into play?

in spite of the watering system that chipoat described it is pretty hard to hold a ball on 1,4,6,9,12.

i think T.Doak in his book said the bunkers were shallower because of the flooding problem.  

The course already is a hidden gem. could this be an example of a course where no work having been done is better than having had bad work performed?

[Chris_Clouser]

I'm pretty sure Maxwell did some work there after the hurricane in 1938.  I believe he came in during the summer of 1939 from conversations with a family member who vividly remembers Maxwell working there that summer.  This family member personally drove him out to the course every day.  But he didn't do any work on the course himself.  He was out of college for the summer and golf course design was the last thing on his mind while in the New York area.  Some things never change.

Incidentally, this same family member also drove Maxwell back and forth between Rockaway and Winston-Salem where PDM was working on Old Town and Reynolds Park.  

[SPDB1]

I have heard that both father and son worked on RHC, and not at the same time.

[Chris_O]

A few comments:
1. Think there is a plan in action to make significant changes to 17-range-18 area. Idea is to lower range area and build mounding around range...making clipping the corner on 17 much more difficult.
2. Trees on 2 don't prevent anyone with ability to cut the corner from doing so. Given that you have 125-150 in without flying the trap, I don't see the risk/reward there anyway.
3. Have heard that the original layout/routing included holes currently on Woodmere property. Think the routing from 5-6 is a result of selling property that is now Woodmere.
4. I have played Inwood several times. My last round there was with former head of Greens Committee. He mentioned that the course/routing today is dramatically different from the course that hosted Bobby Jones and company in the 1920s.

[ChipOat]

Chris O

You are correct on #'s 1-3; can't comment on #4 although a quick scan of the new book about LI golf ("America's Linksland") indicates a different routing at Inwood but only a couple new holes.

It's an interesting book - check it out.

[SPDB]

by my message i meant Perry and Press

[corey miller]

Chris- isn't it 240-250 with all sorts of trouble right to try to clip the corner on 17.  I think the range area between 17-18 with all the trees and washout dunes is hazard enough.  Now if they want to keep balls from leaving the range it's a different story Hole two i disagree on in that there is low liklihood of clearing bunker because all the trees right, i mean the bunker is on the inside of the dogleg and is blocked by trees.  i will change my words from make 2 fairway bunker a carry bunker to restore 2 fairway bunker.  You are right as it is now it is a three iron short of bunker.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Get out to Inwood and play it after Labor day, try to make it on a windy day, you won't regret the long ride.

Bye,

Which course enjoys the better piece of property ?

Chipoat,

How many holes at Rockaway are on the water, or a hole width removed from the water ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Sometimes, I feel that I live in my car, anyway.  Inwood is a mere, hop, skip, and jump, and I'll be sure to take your advice.  Perhaps we can do it together, and you can once again witness the awesome power of my vaunted, seemingly possessed wedge game?  

[Bye]

Patrick,
Woodmere is a "condensed" short course with many parallel, back to back holes on a very flat property. RHC weaves through the fine neighborhoods and homes of Cederhurst and Woodmere and posseses an awesome setting. It's very unique and special in my mind, but it's been at least a decade since I've been there.

Woodmere has two holes on the water, but they ruined the 18th, a once great cape hole with the addition of the giant pool. But there are no real special holes there.

[ChipOat]

Patrick Mucci

#'s 7,8,9,10,13,14,15 are either on the water or a hole width away.  In addition to those, #'s 6,11 and 12 get the full effect of the "water wind".  #'s 1,2,3,4,5,16,17,18 are usually "1 club" less breezy.

Patrick and Mike

Do NOT schedule a day at Inwood without me.

[Mike_Cirba]

chipoat;

I'll look forward to that.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()