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: Essex County CC
« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2009, 11:07:11 AM »
Greg:

Thanks for the yardages ... ECCC is simply a "must play" for any design junkie who comes to NJ. Missing it and you have missed something really special. Hats off to Hanse / Bahto and the club leadership.

Pat M:

Regardign green complexes one has to include the likes of Montclair, PV, Plainfield, Somerset Hills, Forsgate / Banks and Alpine, to name a few that leap to the front, in my mind.

Here is GD's latest top 20 for NJ ...

1). PV
2). Baltusrol Lower
3). Galloway National
4). Plainfield
5). Somerset Hills
6). The Ridge at Back Brook
7). Ridgewood (E&W)
8). Baltusrol / Upper
9). Bayonne
10). Hidden Creek
11). Liberty National
12). Trump National / Old
13). Metedeconk National (1st & 2nd)
14). Hamilton Farm
15). Hollywoof
16). ACCC
17). Mountain Ridge
18). Pine Hill
19). Neshanic Valley (Ridge & Lake)
20). Shore Gate

Jerry K:

Good question you asked.

If you notice the GD listing it is a major mess -- and that's being quite literal.

NJ is stocked with some of the finest private clubs one can imagine, as you likely know. The public side, while good in spots, would not crack my personal top 20 -- although technically ACCC is now public although for much of its existence was private. That's why it's amusing to see such public courses like PH, NV and SG at the last three positions. What this tells me is that raters have simply followed the script to play places that have opened up recently and disgared the other private layouts that fly below the radar screen. No real digging on their part. The same rationale applies to The Ridge at Back Brook. In a low profile state that layout may ring bells of fanfare -- in Jersey it is badly overrated in its current GD position.

My overall listing would be something along this way ...

1). PV
Good spacing to #2

2). Plainfield
Ditto to #3

3). Ridgewood (E&W)
4). ECCC
5). Galloway National
The above three are very, very well done in plenty of spots / instances. Galloway is the best of the modern designs we have in NJ, in my mind.

6). Forsgate / Banks
7). Trump National / Old
Looking forward to seeing the newest 18 -- heard from others that it's on par with the original course. That's saying plenty!
8). Hollywood
9). Montclair #2 & #4
10). Bayonne - salute to Eric Bergstol for a winning effort in of all places Jersey City !
11). Baltusrol / Lower
The above courses could be placed in somewhat of a different order but Baltusrol / Lower would likely grab the position it's in. Hats off to the club in hosting majors but the totality of the architecture is really not that compelling.

12). Somerset Hills
13). Mountain Ridge
14). Hidden Creek
15). Hamilton Farm
16). Metedeconk National (1st & 3rd Nines)
17). Liberty National
18). Baltusrol / Upper
19). ACCC
The ones listed from #12 to #19 can certainly be switched in spots too.

20). Morris County *could place a few other courses in this final position but I like the Raynor design there -- some of the most fun and different holes you can encounter. Honorable mention to a few others -- Hackensack can certainly make a claim -- and I need to see what's been there most recently. Alpine is also worth a possible spot at the rear end of the line.


Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #26 on: April 23, 2009, 02:23:12 PM »
Matt:

There are two courses I haven't played that I would like your opinion on:

1. The New Trump Bedminster - how will it rank as compared to the old one?

2. I have heard from many people that the par 3 course at Hamilton Farms is better than the 18 - what's the problem with it and why do you think so highly of it?

Jerry

Matt_Ward

Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #27 on: April 23, 2009, 02:33:49 PM »
Jerry:

I cannot comment on the 2nd 18 at TN from a direct experience -- from those I respect who have been on the grounds they say it's quite good in many respects. I plan on being there prior to this year's US Boys and Girls events to see for myself.

The par-3 course at HF is justifiably touted. Really interesting place for people to see what can be done with the "short course" concept. Although I have not played ANGC's par-3 layout -- the folks who have played both that I have talked to like the NJ model better.

I like Hamilton Farm because the course works quite well with the native rolling countryside -- I'm also a big fan of the risk-and-reward par-5 9th which provides a slew of strategic calculations. Like I said I could just as easily bump it down a few nothes too. And, I need to mention, there are a few places in NJ that have done some serious improvements that I need to revisit -- Hackensack comes quickly to mind.

Since I posted my top 20 do you have a listing you care to share ?

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #28 on: April 23, 2009, 03:02:03 PM »
Matt: I haven't played enough of the courses to rate them but I will say that I have no disagreements with your rankings.  The only comment I would make is that today, I agree with Plainfield as #2 but not that far ahead of Ridgewood or Essex County.  GD proves it is big on eye candy with its rating of the Ridge at BB - and there is nothing worth saying about Shore Gate.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2009, 07:27:43 PM »

Matt and Pat:

Could you give your list of best modern and classical courses in NJ?

Jerry, I won't because I categorize courses differently, normally in three to four general categories, Championship, Sporty, Member and Other.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #30 on: April 23, 2009, 07:29:20 PM »

Pat - last year we put in a large principals nose in the proper spot, short of the great 16-green

George,

That's fantastic, I can't wait to see it.

That green is one of the great greens in golf.

Matt_Ward

Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #31 on: April 23, 2009, 07:33:26 PM »
Jerry:

If you notice - GD has really pushed hard on the muscle courses -- Baltusrol Lower, Metedeconk, Liberty National are all long courses but I don't see the compelling architecture for them to be touted as being exceptional.

You make a good point about #2 Plainfield -- the gap between #2 and the others I mentioned from #3 thru #5 is not that wide --- certainly not as wide as #2 is from #1.

What's interesting is how raters generally have given higher marks to "new" courses but completely failed to appreciate the kind of old style layouts in the state which have gone through some serious improvements (e.g. ECCC, Plainfield, Forsgate / Banks, etc, etc.

Ridge at Back Brook is a total shock -- TF has done much finer designs and to see the layout in Ringoes being rated close to the likes of Galloway National is quite comical.

For whatever reason GD is losing its touch in being remotely in the ballpark in what it includes as the best in state. ECCC is a superb layout -- yet doesn't merit even a blip of attention from a magazine that should know better. To be fair -- Golfweek doesn't get a free pass because ECCC should easily be included among their classic lists given the slew of courses I have played that are clearly not at the level of the West Orange, NJ design.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #32 on: April 23, 2009, 07:35:42 PM »
Matt,

Liberty National # 11 ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?

They must be kidding.

I'd like to know who, how and why they rated it so lofty ?
What was it about the course that they really liked ?
The faux streams, ala Shadow Creek ?

Whom, in their RIGHT mind, would rank it ahead of Hollywood or Mountain Ridge, just for starters.

Neshanic Valley is over rated as is Trump National.

Perhaps some raters rate on difficulty, and from the back tees Trump National is difficult.

Matt_Ward

Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #33 on: April 23, 2009, 07:51:14 PM »
Pat:

GD can easily revamp its process by elevating the votes from those who are more familiar with the state's courses -- those who live here and see / play the courses much more frequently.

The problem comes when you have one-time visitors who simply play many more of the "new" layouts and as a result you get this skewing upwards of such layouts.

Digest needs to really give some thoughts for an overhaul because key states where the golf is THAT good is being seriously missed. ECCC proves that in a big time way.


Mike Policano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #34 on: April 23, 2009, 08:18:15 PM »
To echo the comments of Pat and Matt, ECCC or 'The County', is an excellent course.  Any visitor to area should try to arrange a visit.  You will not be disappointed.  I am headed back there the first week of June and I am looking forward to the changes that were completed over the winter.

I understand that in addition to some new tees, there are some new bunkers on 7 and 8 and on 16.  The 16th has a classic Banks green.  It is almost not possible to leave that green before putting from a few different places when you get there.  Also, I understand the 15th par 3 has been lengthened.  Should be fun!

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #35 on: April 23, 2009, 08:53:47 PM »
Mike P thanks:

what we did last fall to add needed strategic fairway bunkers (except re-setting the group-bunkering on 15) was:



*  one new bunker on hole 4

*  3 new bunkers on the Long 7th

*  one fairway bunker up the hill on the right on hole 8

*  one bunker on 13, way up on the left

*  re-set and add to the bunkering along the left on 13, from the top of the hill all the way down to the rear of the green

*  as I said - PN on 16

also scheduled but we could not get to them in the fall, was a bunker near the left of the green on the 10th

and a pot bunker of sorts right greenside on the 18th


Banks and Raynor had planned a minefield of bunker around the course but course only "allowed" Banks to establish about two thirds of what was planned..

Complicating the scenario further, Banks was "asked" to use 7 of the old Tillinghast greens - #1 thru 6 and then #9. He used the placement of them in most cases but I think he expanded the 4th and 5th greens.

We've been trying to "elevate" the difficulty of the front nine but then, at the same time, we keep upgrading the back nine. 

One of the main objects was to blend the Tillinghast holes" closer to the appearance and playability of the Raynor / Banks holes

The course plays a bit less schizophrenic than it used to.



« Last Edit: April 23, 2009, 11:11:57 PM by George_Bahto »
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

Mike_Cirba

Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #36 on: April 23, 2009, 09:16:20 PM »
Essex County and the work that was done there are both very top notch.

Two of my greatest golfing pleasures this past year were seeing both Essex County and Sleepy Hollow each a full Doak Scale point or more better than the last time I'd seen them only a few years prior.

The work that was/is being done on both courses by George and Gil is exemplary, thoughtful, historically-sensitive, and somehow even contemporary.   

Greg Stebbins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #37 on: April 23, 2009, 09:21:20 PM »
George,

There are 4 new bunkers on #7.  The bunkers on #10 and 18 that you describe are also complete.

I think you meant that you upgraded the left bunkers on 15 and the 9th green is a Tillinghast green rather than the 8th.

Keith Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #38 on: April 23, 2009, 10:57:32 PM »
Matt, as a Jersey guy I assume you mis-typed that 'Bayonne is in Jersey City????'

Matt_Ward

Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #39 on: April 23, 2009, 11:45:30 PM »
Keith:

Meant to say of all places that Bayonne has placed Hudson County of all places on the golfing map.

The Jersey City folks can take credit -- shall I call it that -- with the likes of Liberty National.

Mike C:

Interesting comments -- inquiring minds would like to know the pre and post Doak numbers for both courses you mentioned -- particuarly for ECCC. One final question to ponder -- would the ECCC of now make your top classic course listing aka Golfweek's top 100 ?

Mike_Cirba

Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #40 on: April 24, 2009, 07:09:13 AM »
Matt,

Yes, both would be.

Matt_Ward

Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #41 on: April 24, 2009, 07:44:24 AM »
Mike:

Thanks -- but you left out your pre and post Doak numbers for both courses. Interesting to see that info given your original comment.

Jim Nugent

Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #42 on: April 24, 2009, 01:23:00 PM »
These are not official, but here are the approximate new tip tee distances, all within 5 - 10 yards.

Does that mean each hole could be up to 10 yards longer than the distances you listed? 

Steve Lapper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #43 on: April 29, 2009, 02:33:21 PM »
Gents,

   Just back from an early day, blustry round at ECCC and I'm happy to report that course just continues to improve from every perspective. Having seen, up close, several of George's new bunkers, it can now be said that the name Bahto will go from revered to despised in the Men's Grill room!

   A contingent of near geriatric slope and rating officials from the NJSGA followed us around on their carts like gnats but instead of the normal "biting & nipping," were enthusiastic about the course's progress and installation of new (mostly back) tees along a good number of back nine holes. These tees were being hurried along (we're told) to ready them for the US Open Sectional Qualifying next month. They fit in nicely and have no "landing strip" features to disturb the nicely staccato'ed  nature of the originals.

  George and Gil's work at restoring the greens to their original sizes and shapes should serve as a model example for any club looking to highlight their original ODA and historical genius. The fairways were blooming with poa annua and the greens rolling respectably with fresh layers of recent sanding still noticeable. It's easy to look at the large "greens within greens" promoted by C & C , Tom Doak and the KBMs of today, but one look at the huge Raynor/Banks/MacD greens of yore reminds me of their proper genus.

   The place , as all of us who've had the pleasure to play there, oozes of fun and charm. It is uniquely sporty and challenging and only the proper refreshment is needed to coax one back out to the first hole for another go round. I am in full agreement with Matt.....it deserves no less than a top 4-7 finish well inside NJ's top ten, handily exceeding so many other more popular tracks.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2009, 08:50:11 PM by Steve Lapper »
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking."--John Kenneth Galbraith

Jeff Spittel

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #44 on: April 29, 2009, 06:02:38 PM »
As a proud Jersey native, some of those selections are unfathomable.  Within about a stone's throw from my folks' house there are some fantastic but little known private tracks that are vastly superior to places like the Ridge and Pine Hill.

Echo Lake CC (Ross), Morris County CC (Raynor), Suburban GC (Tillinghast), Rock Spring CC (Banks) are all great courses that get no love in the rankings. I'm not sure I get it.
Fare and be well now, let your life proceed by its own design.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #45 on: April 30, 2009, 09:09:23 AM »
Will ECCC be awarded a NJSGA, MGA or USGA Championship ?
« Last Edit: April 30, 2009, 05:26:33 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Ed Oden

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #46 on: April 30, 2009, 11:05:58 AM »
Growing up in northern Jersey in the 70s and 80s, I don't recall hearing much chatter about ECCC.  Was that a down period for the club/course before restorative efforts were made?

Also, I pulled up the club on Google Earth.  What's the story with the Byrne course next door?  I assume the club originally owned both and sold the Byrne course to the city/county at some point.  Does it have the same Tillinghast/Raynor/Banks history?  Thanks in advance!

Ed

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #47 on: April 30, 2009, 12:32:11 PM »
Ed. I played the west course (now Byrne) for about 17 years as my home course.

This was designed and built by Banks whereas the upper course (Essex County CC - originally called the East course) was design jointly by Raynor and Banks - Raynor died not long after they broke ground and Banks built the course according to the basic ideas of their original proposal - but quite a few restrictions imposed by the club.

The Francis Byrne lower course was opened to public play - probably in the 1960's or so - to help fund the costs of the upper course.

Eventually the club sold it off to the Essex County Park Commission.

There has been a lot of work done there lately but not in the vein of restoration.

The original plan of the lower course was very good but many bunkers were not originally put in and over the years modifications to the course, operating it as a muni, really messed with the design.

I would have loved to put that course back to what it was but that would never happen under the present county park commission ownership, so it did not interest me at all.

There are a number of holes on the lower course that were exceptional;
* the great 15th was a Raynor Dog-leg, a really good version;
* the first hole was originally a 575-yd Road hole that was totally ruined when they built the muni-club house - it became a nothing par-5 of about 486-yds or so.

* One of my favorite holes is the 3rd, a Leven hole with a great bunker guarding the green but the original tee was moved from directly behind the 2nd green (now in a clump of trees) and the bunker berm dramatically  softened.

For those familiar with the course, the present 8th - a terrible short par-5 now - was shortened dramatically many years ago - the tee was way up in the private course.

Ed, this course has less Tillie background than the upper course, only in that  Banks was pressured to use some of the old Tillie greens.
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

Steve Lapper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #48 on: April 30, 2009, 04:08:02 PM »
ECCC deserves a special event!!
« Last Edit: April 30, 2009, 08:19:15 PM by Steve Lapper »
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking."--John Kenneth Galbraith

fpd

Re: Essex County CC
« Reply #49 on: April 30, 2009, 09:31:42 PM »
anyone have before and after pictures? would love to see some of the recent work at ECCC