[John Kirk]

Matt,

The par 4s are better at Rock Creek, in fact they are a really excellent bunch.  But that is counteracted by two distinct advantages at Stone Eagle - less searching for lost balls and better golf shot watching.

It's fun to watch your shots come to rest, whether they are drives or approach shots.  At Rock Creek, you could conceivably hit approach shots on 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10. 14, 15, 16, and 18 and not know where they finished until you got close to the green.  Blind shots are part of the game, but they should not dominate the action, because it robs the player the pleasure of watching his own shots.

I see the greens at the two courses being very similar.  Rock Creek's might be a touch harder on average.  Both course feature difficult and interesting greens, which use the mountain slopes to deceive the unwary golfer.

I'm biased, because I get to play Stone Eagle regularly, but to give such a complex, beautiful course, which offers so much round-to-round variety, and uses the principles of width and undulation that we covet here at GCA, a Doak score of 5, makes me think Jonathan played the course on a 110 degree June day after already playing 18 holes in the morning.  The course yields shots of considerable interest in a spectacular setting, and especially tests the player's ability to judge uphill and downhill approach shots. 

[Jonathan Cummings]

the ground is ALMOST at the level of NGLA,

comparing the Stone Eagle property to that of NGLA may qualify as the post of the ages.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

I'm surprised you think Stone Eagle has less lost-ball issues than Rock Creek.  It may be true; I haven't played them both enough to be sure, but it wasn't my impression.  I think the difference might just be that at Stone Eagle there are lots of shots you don't even look for, whereas at Rock Creek you always think there's a chance because the rough is thin and the rocks are intermittent.

Plus, you know Stone Eagle a lot better.

[jkinney]

the ground is ALMOST at the level of NGLA,

comparing the Stone Eagle property to that of NGLA may qualify as the post of the ages.

AND YOU CAN PRINT IT AND BROADCAST IT ALL OVER THE WORLD, as it comes from a 35 yr. NGLA member.

[Jonathan Cummings]

jkinney - The architect of Stone Eagle won't even agree with you and Old Mac is laughing hysterically from his grave.  Sorry but your assertion is preposterous. 

Okay throw out both yours and my opinion.  Take a pole from this discussion proof and ask your question.  Do you wanna bet what the consensus will be?

JC

[jkinney]

jkinney - The architect of Stone Eagle won't even agree with you and Old Mac is laughing hysterically from his grave.  Sorry but your assertion is preposterous. 

Okay throw out both yours and my opinion.  Take a pole from this discussion proof and ask your question.  Do you wanna bet what the consensus will be?

JC

We've voiced our opinions. That's the end of it.  Move on.

[John Kirk]

I thought about what I wrote overnight, and I'd like to backtrack a bit on the visibility of shots at Rock Creek versus Stone Eagle.  In both cases, mostly on uphill shots, the ball disappears a number of times on both courses, and would therefore attribute this to a shortcoming of mountain golf.  I still think the shot watching is better at Stone Eagle, but not by a landslide.

My playing partner at the Renaissance Cup was having a terrible time driving the ball.  He flip-hooked a number of shots way left, so I saw more than my fair share of balls in the native.  I agree with Tom D. that a significant percentage of balls off the course at Stone Eagle are not worth chasing, but that's better than hitting one out there and spending five minutes in vain looking for it.

Tom, I agree part of the issue is knowing the course.  For instance, solid pushed drives find the native at Rock Creek #10, and you would gain confidence on the correct driving line as you played the course many times.

So Jonathan and Matt and all who still participate, I think it's about Rock Creek 8 and Stone Eagle 7.  I insist that Stone Eagle is lots of fun.

Last thing for a while, as I am mostly away from the computer.  I played golf with another recent Ren Cup participant.  Both of us "missed" Rock Creek after leaving, and felt melancholy afterwards.  Rock Creek's greatest attribute may be its memorability.  It leaves a spot in your heart on your way home.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Well said John.

After both rounds and following a shower I "retired" to the clubhouse porch and a tall gin & tonic - once by myself to read a magazine and a second time with a clan of pals to chat.  Rock Creek below us provided a noisy but marvelous babbling background applause to our porchtop proclamations. 

Those memories, like the golf course, are as deeply etched as similar experiences I have had at Sutton Bay, Sand Hills (many times) and recently at Ballyneal.

That's what golf is all about.

J

[Mike_Cirba]

Let me try my "Doak Scale" rankings of Doak-involved courses I've played, which differ from Jonathan's scoring using the GolfWeek method.

I'm just thinking that some others here might not be as familiar so this might be more productive for discussion.   Restorations/Renovations are in parentheses.

Sheep Ranch 15
Pac Dunes         10
(Garden City) 9
High Pointe 8
Stonewall North 7.5
Stonewall Old 7.5
(Yeaman's Hall) 6.5
(Atlantic City)    6
Legends- Heathland      6
Beechtree    6
Legends- Parkland 4.5  (I know Tom walked away from this project but a number of holes were built to his specs per my understanding)

I have a new one to add..

Inwood - 6.5

What a delightful place to play golf, and SOOOOOO much better than it had been with lots of trees gone and greens expanded, and approaches  and greens firmed up and bunkers boldly bunkering.

With elements of both Atlantic City and Garden City and some wonderful history all it's own, as well as some elements of cool quirk with back-to-back-to-back par fives and back-to-back par threes, it's a wonderful south shore gem.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Mike - I don't know Inwood.  Tell me more.  JC

[David Mulle]

Mike - I don't know Inwood.  Tell me more.  JC

Jonathan,
Inwood is a club on the south shore of Long Island.  RGD redid many of the bunkers and continues to consult on tree removal and other matters.

Many on here believe it is a hidden gem and I wholeheartedly agree.

It was designed (mostly) by Herbert Strong as a championship course (host of the 21 PGA and 23 US Open) but as technology has advanced, it has become a really good, "sporty"  members course.   

Here are two threads on Inwood including the arial:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?board=1%3baction=display%3bthreadid=4443

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,28974.msg559180.html#msg559180

[Matthew Mollica]

I'm a late arrival to this thread so I'm going back a little with these questions:

Mark Ferguson - You really think there's that many ordinary / poor holes on Barnbougle?

I really like 10. and I'm not as harsh on many you list.
I think 16 is the worst hole there, but 14 is perhaps the best par 5 there.
8's greensite is wonderful. I'm not sure what you don't like about 18.

4 is a wonderful hole too.

jonathan - several have questioned your 4 of St Andrews Beach. I'm another who is asking for you to flesh out your thoughts on the course. Why did you (and possibly your playing partners) view it so poorly?

Perhaps a list of the best 6 holes there, and the worst 6 and a why for each category might make it easier?

Matthew

[Mark_F]

Mark Ferguson - You really think there's that many ordinary / poor holes on Barnbougle?

Matt,

I sure do. I guess it all comes down to what one's definition of an ordinary or poor hole is, but when you enter the realm of the elite, whether movies, restaurants or golf courses, the standard is higher.

I really like 10.

It's a nice hole, played over 300 metres of fairly ordinary ground before you get an interesting second shot.  That's akin to getting the Ravioli of Dorset Blue Lobster and Salmon poached in Lemongrass Bisque at Gordon Ramsay's restaurant and finding out they hadn't passed the mousse through a drum sieve.

and I'm not as harsh on many you list.

Harsh is not a word one associates with you, Matt.

I think 16 is the worst hole there.

Agreed.

14 is perhaps the best par 5 there.

That really isn't saying much. It's like saying that "The Spy Who Shagged Me" was a better movie than the original.

8's greensite is wonderful.

The greensite is, but the green and green complex aren't much.

I also can't see the point of it strategically - there's no real reason to flirt with the upper area, as the supposed advantage of being on the same level as the green is outweighed by the narrowness and undulations of the area, and the bottom level leaves a next to impossible second shot for anyone other than Geoff Ogilvy or Philip Gawith.

I'm not sure what you don't like about 18.

The drive.

4 is a wonderful hole too.

It's a wonderful looking hole.

2 is on some fairly ordinary terrain, which in and of itself doesn't make it an ordinary hole, but the bunkers are woeful - they don't even remotely look like they are supposed to be there, and I think they give the game away by pointing out exactly where to go.

[John Kirk]

Mike Cirba has just rated Garden City GC a 9.  I have played the course once, only two weeks after greens aeration, so it's hard for me to appreciate and understand the course's nuances.

Nevertheless, I want to make an unusual comparison here.  Rock Creek versus Garden City.  Assuming there are now a few members who have played both, is there anybody here who would rather play Garden City than Rock Creek?  Even disregarding the dramatic difference in the natural beauty of the setting, does anybody here think Garden City is a better overall course design?

I liked Garden City just fine.  Great hole variety.  My main beef with the design was the large number of blind tee shots where you had to be told where to hit the ball.  But Rock Creek is better in virtually every category, except walkability.  I want to point this out to continue making my case that modern course designs are held to a higher standard.

Given the fact I primarily play golf to exercise and look at the scenery, I see Rock Creek ahead of Garden City, and would rather play Stone Eagle as well.

Garden City - x
Rock Creek - x+1
Stone Eagle - x

[Tom_Doak]

John:

I might be the only one who has played Rock Creek and Garden City.  (Well, Urbina has, too.  And maybe Jonathan Cummings.)  So you'll probably not get too many bites at that comparison.

Personally, I love Garden City, but I'd rather go back and play Rock Creek again.  And I was just there!

Garden City was an 8 in The Confidential Guide.

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

I have had the opportunity to play both GCGC and Rock Creek. I'll take the latter as my personal choice to play. That doesn't mean to downplay the qualities of the Nassau County located gem but Rock Creek contains a wide spectrum of interesting and superb holes. In addition, the overall complexity of the greens is also just a tad more consistent and vexing for me.

You also can't hold a candle to the scenery -- both on and off the course in Deer Lodge. I'd give GCGC a 7 Doak rating (maybe a half point higher) and Rock Creek is at least a full point ahead of it for me -- possibly even as much as a 8.5.

However ...

My only point of dissent is John Kirk's belief that blind shots are not part and parcel of an architect's package of tools to include. I would mention to him that the superb 7th at Rock Creek does feature a clear blind shot. Nothing wrong with blind tee shots -- I understand his view that seeing where the ball finishes is of importance to him but I don't see such an inclusion as a design flaw -- if anything, I see such an inclusion as something that only adds to the shots needed when playing such courses.

Re: Inwood

Fine layout on the southern portion of the LI area in Nassau County. Kudos to Doak and his team for updating the layout but my small pet peeve with the place is being on the glide path for every plane that's coming into JFK. Hard to play golf when you are the equivalent of an extended landing area for one of the more hectic airports in the USA.

There are a number of unique holes but Inwood is still more of a time warp course and if I had to play it versus one of the more modern courses I have played recently - such as Four Mile Ranch in Colorado, I'd likely play the Centennial State. Not to downplay the old time courses but a number of them are more older than many might think and the idea that the course formerly held a US Open and PGA is more about the past than the future for me. Still a solid 6 but if one wants to play a so-called "hidden gem" than head to Monroe Township and play the Banks Course at Forsgate -- that's even better in a number of ways.

[Jim Franklin]

I will never understand the anti-blind shot thing.

Many of the greatest moments of my golfing life were the result of blind shots.  The contact, the trajectory, the gut feel all saying "that oughta be fricking perfect!!"....then the walk, and the anticipation and doubt and "what ifs"...what if I airmailed it?....what if I misclubbed and it's short?...what if it sucked back off the green?...what if I had the wrong line?

Then...finally...the knowledge.  Sometimes good.  Sometimes bad.  Sometimes dejection.  Sometimes exhilaration. 

But always exciting.  Due solely to the blindness of the shot!  Blind shots stretch the moment.  They take 4 second of ballflight airtime and turn it into the best 30 seconds (or minute) (or two) (or however long...) of anticipation in golf. 

Well said and totally agree.

[John Kirk]

I guess it's hard to remember who says what around here...

To clarify, blind shots are great, but I don't want a steady diet of them.  All three courses, Stone Eagle, Rock Creek and Garden City, have several shots each round where the result is not known until the player gets near the ball.  I like to admire the majority of my shots come to rest from where I struck them.

In my initial time theory argument, I argue for blind shots for the exact reason Shivas mentions.  It is exciting to hit a shot, then walk up in anticipation of the result.

At Ballyneal, if you hit the ball in the wrong position off the tee, you can have blind approaches one after another: 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14.  But you can see what you're doing on every hole if you drive it in the correct position.  That's what makes Tom's designs at Ballyneal, Rock Creek, and Stone Eagle so solid.  It's the perfect way to introduce blindness in golf.  See the tee shot; if you drive it into the wrong place, you'll have to wait, sometimes with great positive anticipation, for your second shot result.  That's the way to do it.  What I don't like is a blind tee shot with few visual cues, and I think Garden City has that on several holes.  They even have to put flags in a couple fairways to show you where to hit it.  Otherwise, it's "hit it at the house" or "hit it just left of the tower".  Less fun.

[Sean_A]

I guess it's hard to remember who says what around here...

To clarify, blind shots are great, but I don't want a steady diet of them.  All three courses, Stone Eagle, Rock Creek and Garden City, have several shots each round where the result is not known until the player gets near the ball.  I like to admire the majority of my shots come to rest from where I struck them.

In my initial time theory argument, I argue for blind shots for the exact reason Shivas mentions.  It is exciting to hit a shot, then walk up in anticipation of the result.

At Ballyneal, if you hit the ball in the wrong position off the tee, you can have blind approaches one after another: 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14.  But you can see what you're doing on every hole if you drive it in the correct position.  That's what makes Tom's designs at Ballyneal, Rock Creek, and Stone Eagle so solid.  It's the perfect way to introduce blindness in golf.  See the tee shot; if you drive it into the wrong place, you'll have to wait, sometimes with great positive anticipation, for your second shot result.  That's the way to do it.  What I don't like is a blind tee shot with few visual cues, and I think Garden City has that on several holes.  They even have to put flags in a couple fairways to show you where to hit it.  Otherwise, it's "hit it at the house" or "hit it just left of the tower".  Less fun.

John

Thats interesting.  I would have thought both sorts of blind shots have a place in the game.  Just as forced carries and optional carries both have a place in the game. 

Ciao

[John Kirk]

Well, Sean, as with all aspects of golf architecture, it's a subjective opinion.

[Kalen Braley]

John,

I completely agree with your above assessment.  Of those holes on BN, you can at least get a preview of where your going on the tee before you get down in the fairway where its blind.  And you can build a visual picture in your mind to at least get some idea of the next shot requirement.

When stepping on the tee and not having a clue where to hit the shot, thats when it gets a little more dicey.  Sure this is only its worst on ones first play, and thats why I'm not against blind tee shots in general.  So a blind tee shot here and there isn't too bad.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()