I have been out to Easthampton many times and perhaps that explains why I see things out there that Brad and Anthony apparently didn’t see while they were fitting it into their 50 holes on 3 courses in 24 hours.
Or perhaps I’m just seeing things that aren’t there (this wouldn’t be the first time)! Now I am, of course, a huge C&C fan, but please don’t think that I’m just defending them blindly because I don’t believe that anybody in any profession is above reproach. So please try to read what I am about to say without immediately thinking: “Oh, he’s just biased.”
Before moving on to the subjective issues, however, I have to correct Brad on some of his facts. First, Easthampton GC is not a par 72 – it is a par 71 with 5 3’s (2,5,8,13,15) and 4 5’s (1,7,14,17). Second, C&C do not eyeball their greens without the use of a laser. And I know for a fact that the greens at Easthampton were lasered because I saw it being done there with my own eyes.
With respect to the architecture, you should all keep in mind that C&C inherited the routing (as has already been said), and the front nine (where there were constraints on tree clearing) sits on just over 40 acres. So given the site constraints, Easthampton was never intended to be anything other than what it is. A great little gem that is incredibly fun to play that has a ton of subtle influences that might only be revealed with repeated visits. Sounds like a pretty good members course to me!
With respect to the green speeds, I agree completely with Tom Paul. The ideal green speed is not 8, but more like 9.5-10 (just like Winged Foot). If they are running them at super fast speeds, then that would be a maintenance/course set-up mistake, not an architectural one. To say that the ideal speed is 8 because anything left on 8 or long on 5, citing just 2 examples, is dead is not valid in my opinion. The 8th green wouldn’t work on the long 5th, but it is an incredible green on a great short 130 yard hole that plays even shorter because of the 30-40 foot drop from tee to green. You just have to hit it short and right of the hole and not get suckered by the left hand pins (particularly the back left shelf like I did). And Brad, you seemed to have gotten it right if you were able to fine an easy 15 footer for birdie.
This green is very similar architecturally, in mirror image form, to the 6th green at Augusta, albeit at ¾ scale. And what is wrong with a green like the 5th where you have a difficult, if not impossible, 2 putt if you hit it long (particularly with a two-tiered green with the pin down in front). The play was to make sure you were short, not long, but you obviously weren’t able to figure that out on your first go around if you were hitting driver, even into a strong wind. At 209 to the middle, you only needed to hit it a 190-195 yards, so your driver into the wind was obviously way too much club!
Now I am completely baffled by Anthony’s statement that “too many drivers are no-brainers, just hit it in the short grass.” Nothing could be further from the truth and I could show you so many places on this golf course that you wouldn’t want to be in the short grass it’s not even funny. Anthony’s experience with the 17th hole tee shot is just one of many such examples. A long ball hitter can try to cut the corner to shorten the shot and get a great look into the green from a plateau, but blocking it right could be disastrous and pulling it left will leave you with a longer and completely blind second shot. The shorter hitter must keep the ball up the left side of the fairway to open up the second shot, so Anthony’s shorter tee shot up the right side was NOT a good tee shot. But even then, he still had the OPTION of cutting a long iron or fairway wood around the corner or laying up with a 6 iron over the trees. Perhaps the yardage on the card induced them to play from the wrong tees.
And I’m in complete agreement with Tom Paul’s description of the second shot on this hole. So what am I missing? Spectacular looking golf hole? No. Great fun strategic golf hole? Absolutely!
Furthermore, I completely disagree with the “no options on the tee shots” comment. But rather than me telling you all what I think the options are on every hole, perhaps Anthony could describe for us in detail why he thinks there are no options on the tee shots on almost every hole. There are some great options out there, but perhaps once again it takes repeated visits to really appreciate them. And I must be stupid because I’m obviously not one of those “smart” players who is forced left by the imposing out of bounds on the 12th hole.
Now we are discussing a hole that is being changed as described above, but I think it can still be useful to discuss it’s architectural merits anyway. That green sets up much better from the right and if you accept the challenge of the right side, you are rewardly beautifully with a second shot angle down the spine of the green away from the OB/wall. The further left you go, the more difficult the approach shot becomes (although left isn’t so bad with pins in the front 1/3 of the green or into a right to left/quartering wind). So, in my opinion, you just have to either hit it left to right and skirt the left side of the central bunkers, or attack the right side and avoid the OB (why does this concept not work here when it works so beautifully at Merion?). And I can’t figure how the central bunkers don’t come into play, particularly downwind. Perhaps they were once again fooled into playing the wrong tees by the overall yardage on the card? And even if those bunkers don’t come into play for the shorter hitters, what’s wrong with that (if you fixed that by adding more central bunkers back towards the tee, then you would eliminate the OPTION of laying up short of them)?
I have always thought that Easthampton would appeal to anybody that understands and appreciates great architecture, and not necessarily to someone that is going out with the expectation of seeing another Sand Hills because it was done by the same architects. So I am somewhat surprised by Brad’s and Anthony’s opinions. They may be right, but then, again, this could just be a circumstance where they might just come around to my way of thinking after they have seen/played it a few more times.
So Brad, perhaps you should come out again and study on this one for a while longer before you go writing something that you just might regret later!
And Patrick, I don’t think you have yet seen or played this one, so stay out of this!