Is Fishers Island overrated?

[JNC Lyon]

Great Stuff Donnie, thanks for sharing.

These pictures are really starting to show me how "template" architecture does not mean the same result for every hole on every golf course.  Thank you for the education.

This is a good observation about Raynor.  Not only do his template holes vary from course to course, but the non-Template holes are often some of the best and most strategic on the golf course (7, 9 15 and 18 at Fox Chapel, 14 and 18 at Yeamans Hall).

The pictures of Fishers are great as well.  When I think of Fishers Island, I think of the pictures I have seen of the cliffside holes.  The pictures above show many different landscapes, textures, and architectural elements that are part of the golf course.  The place looks like a golf wonderland.

[Donnie Beck]

Don't know why the pictures are cut off but oh well.. Off to work

[ChipOat]

Donnie Beck:

Another 20 pictures and you'll be off the hook.  Also, while your description of the  ARCHITECTURE OF THE HOLES IN YOUR PICTURES (not the view) is superb, you don't have to defend FI to me on an absolute basis.  However, when you get time, I'd be interested in a few (polite) comments about PRC and The Creek.

By the way, based on my experience, 60 hours is a pretty short week for a head superintendent except between December-February.  Do you really want your Green Chairman to know you're not putting in a full week any more?  If your new wife wanted a husband who was actually going to be around, she should never have married someone in the golf business.

Tom Paul:

In thinking about it, I guess I'm more concerned with the end results.  Hugh Wilson is deified for fitting the wonderful holes at Merion into the natural contours of the property.  On the other hand, CBM moved a fair amount of dirt around at NGLA and you can't argue with his results, either.  Your excellent question is worth its very own thread.  Do you want me to start it or will you do it?

As to your question re: hole-by-hole, I'll get back on that.

Tom Macwood:

Since there don't seem to have been any steam shovels used at Fishers, it would seem fair to conclude that Charles Banks had nothing to do with the course at any time.  Isn't it known for certain that he never set foot on any property without at least one steam shovel right along side?  I mean, I wasn't there but, given his "nom de guerre", I'm sure my assumption about that is correct.  There isn't really anything else you need to know, in my opinion.

Wayne Freeman:

Based on MY criteria, I only questioned whether FI is really that much better than Piping Rock or The Creek IN TERMS OF WHAT'S ON THE GROUND (and in the air).  No other courses are mentioned (by me, that is) and exactly where FI falls (20 - 30) in the various publications is also not the question (although it is the reference point for the comparison with the other two).

However, due to the title that I (intentionally) assigned to this thread, I'm not surprised at the broader range of responses and side discussions that have ensued.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Matt,
What makes a consensus much more valuable than rubbish is that ...."different people throwing their findings together and then producing some outcome which is all lumped together" lessens the impact of one man's bias, like your own. Your entitled to your opinion and that's fine for you, just like it's fine for those individuals who think FI is placed correctly, but those opinions are only a small part of the overall picture. There will always be disagreement as to what's placed where, but a realistic benchmark can only be achieved by distilling a judgement out of many ingredients. Now, the benchmark that's been laid down by the 'Big 3' golf course ranking systems place FI in their top 20 (only one of them has it higher than WFW). It might be newer criteria, like firm and fast, that jumped it up into that strastophere, but nevertheless, it's there.

By the way, I didn't say you were out of touch, far afield, yes, but that's just my opinion. 

Great topic Chip, you're a brave man, and sorry for the sidetrack. 

[ChipOat]

Tom Paul,

In terms of pure architecture, I just slightly prefer the green complexes at Piping Rock.  Maybe the construction budget was higher at Piping Rock - they just seem to have more to them.

Also, my experience with Fishers Island is that, much like National or TOC, a brisk wind is sort of required to bring out the best in the course.  Piping Rock still plays pretty tough (for me) on a windless day.  I would say the same thing about Shinnecock, Merion and Pine Valley, as well - no wind required.

As for individual holes, they all have wonderful examples: 4,5 (or more) at FI, #6 at The Creek is the single best golf hole on the entire plant Earth and #13 at Piping is one of neatest short par 4's I know - almost the equal of #8 at PV and/or #10 at Riviera.  All three Biarritz holes are very strong (FI, TC and PR in that order) and all three Short holes are equally disappointing relative to National, in my opinion.

Interestingly, all three finishing holes are a tad underwhelming to me.

OK - your turn.

[TEPaul]

"By the way, based on my experience, 60 hours is a pretty short week for a head superintendent except between December-February.  Do you really want your Green Chairman to know you're not putting in a full week any more?  If your new wife wanted a husband who was actually going to be around, she should never have married someone in the golf business."


Chipperino:

You may not understand that FI might tend to look at things somewhat differently than other clubs, particularly with maintenance goals. I have known for many years one of the long time former green chairmen from FI and it seems to me one of the barometers for the condition of the course was how much time Donnie went fishing in a season. In other words, the more time he was fishing was an indicator the course was in better shape (the way those members like it which is very dry and F&F) than if he was fishing less. That might've been a bit theoretical and humorous but perhaps not. It seems like at FI perhaps more than most any course Nature is a partner of Donnie and vice versa!  


Matter of fact, the son of that former green chairman and I were talking the other day about firm and fast at FI. He said this; "When I hit a shot off the tee and when landing the ball kicks up a bit of dust I know that summer is really here."

[TEPaul]

"As for individual holes, they all have wonderful examples: 4,5 (or more) at FI, #6 at The Creek is the single best golf hole on the entire plant Earth and #13 at Piping is one of neatest short par 4's I know - almost the equal of #8 at PV and/or #10 at Riviera.  All three Biarritz holes are very strong (FI, TC and PR in that order) and all three Short holes are equally disappointing relative to National, in my opinion.

Interestingly, all three finishing holes are a tad underwhelming to me."


Chip:

That is a short analysis of those three courses but nonetheless a very informative one in my opinion, and I wouldn't take issue on a thing you said. #6 Creek is a truly fine and memorable hole primarily due to the fact the green is just unbelievable and pretty much unique for a bunch of reasons. There is a little bit in the way of restorative work however that I think can be done on it on either side of it fairway.

Another thing I would say about The Creek is on most all those greens if you put some pretty good speed on them (and firmness) they do tend to really pop in the strategic and imagination department. I realize that is probably true of most all golf courses but with The Creek I think it is additionally the case than most.

Did you know that Raynor considered the 6th green at The Creek as something he essentially modeled after his original 15th green at Mountain Lake and that for a couple of interesting reasons he thought Creek's 10th was a better version of a "Leven" hole than NGLA's 17th?

[Donnie Beck]

Chipperino:

You may not understand that FI might tend to look at things somewhat differently than other clubs, particularly with maintenance goals. I have known for many years one of the long time former green chairmen from FI and it seems to me one of the barometers for the condition of the course was how much time Donnie went fishing in a season. In other words, the more time he was fishing was an indicator the course was in better shape (the way those members like it which is very dry and F&F) than if he was fishing less. That might've been a bit theoretical and humorous but perhaps not. It seems like at FI perhaps more than most any course Nature is a partner of Donnie and vice versa!  

Tom,

There may be more truth to that than you think. For what isn't worth year to date I have caught 5 or 6 stripers. This was the wettest year in my time at Fishers. Most people would assume a wet year would lead towards an easy year but it couldn’t be further from the truth. We had an abnormally cold and wet spring which was followed by a cool and wet July.

6” of rain in 4 hours on July 1st


This actually shows the pretty good view of the diagonal carry to the 3rd fairway I was trying to describe to Chip earlier.



Followed by the hottest August I can remember including a two week stretch of 90+ temps which is rare on the island along with night time temps in the 70’s. With the cool wet spring the poa on the green never developed any roots and when the heat in August came it was a very difficult year to keep the greens firm to match the rest of the course when the fairways started to go dormant.  The bents in the greens were doing just fine but the poa an inch away was wilting away. The only way possible is good ole hand watering so I spent most of my summer on the end of a hose rather than the end of a fishing pole. The one good thing is the fairways have never had more grass and after a good over seeding this fall we should be a great position starting off next year.

Chip,
Unfortunately I have never played Piping but have played the Creek and loved it. It was probably at least ten years ago so I won’t be much of an asset comparing holes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip:

My dad worked for Spalding ('50s and 60s) and he basically said quality control with most all the manufacturers really sucked back then compared to what we know today. He said with all the tour players on Spalding's staff, PGA and LPGA, all the balls going to them were taken out of the sleeves at Chickopee, Mass, dropped through the ring and only the ones that dropped through well were repackaged and sent out to the tour players. Dad used to keep one of those rings in his golf bag at all times. You haven't seen one of those rings in about the last three decades, have you Chipperino?  

TEPaul,

I had a tube milled to five one thousanths of an inch (1.685) larger than a golf ball and a compression machine.

Titleists and Hogans had the best quality control, Maxfli's the worst.]

You can't believe how many brand new golf balls failed to get through that tube, and of the ones that got through the tube, how many then failed the compression test.

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

Consensus formulas fail because you don't have enough people playing the same courses -- you have people who only play certain courses and you have others applying such numbers to a possibly far different listing of courses from the others.

Where is the cross comparison analysis? Where is the standard reference points?

Jim, you say there's bias. Really? I dont' doubt that people do have preferences -- but I also think that it would help things immensely if one had bonafide national raters -- those who really see the entire country and can really provide a national perspective -- instead of the preponderance of regional homers that can far too often dominate the findings now. Digest takes the view that if you throw enough people as raters (they are in excess of 800, if memory serves, you will get expanded coverage. It doesn't happen that way.

Please explain to me -- since you hold the national pubs as some sort of gold standard -- how Digest fails to see the qualities of Kingsley Club after so many years in now being opened? I can provide numerous other examples as well and they would include Golf Mag and Golfweek as well.

Jim, with all due respect, the ratings are nothing more than interested people who see a smattering of the top tier courses and then throw forward numbers which are crunched through some sort of numerical formula that ipso facto, in the minds of those who have created the system, will unearth the really stellar layouts that exist.

Jim, let me point out if someone has played 100 or less courses in their lifetime and plays FI it's likely they will weigh in and say the course is in THEIR top five. That's fine ... however, if you have someone who has played 1,000 courses it's very possible FI may be rated lower simply because of the sample size involved. If you follow consensus driven formulas they weigh the guy who's only played 100 courses as a complete equal to the guy who's played 1,000. The issue is not that the first person is wrong -- for what they have played their findings can be totally true -- for them.  But when weighed against someone who has played far more courses and likely has played in a range of different states / locales the overall perspective is enhanced by the totality and breath of the overall experiences encountered.

Jim, just a question -- have you played Fisher's Island? Do you see it as top ten layout in the USA from what you have personally played? Have you played Winged Foot / West -- do you see the course behind FI or ahead of it? Have you played Ballyneal? Would you place it ahead of or behind FI? Ditto Sebonack -- which is sometimes weighed in by too many people as overly difficult when playability is clearly present if people play from the appropriate tee boxes.

You say I am "far afield" -- in what way? FI is still thought of by me to be an excellent course -- somewhere in the 26th to 40th position. Just try to realize there is so much on the existing golf scene -- some of the new courses and others that have been ignored -- that merit consideration. With all due respect -- the mags themselves are not as cutting edge as many might think. Why do I say that? Because the field work is lagging behind what I and others are able to see and play.

You also say "benchmark" -- really? No system will have perfect results because of the subjective nature involved. But, I think
FI benefits from its isolation and the nature of what it takes to get there. I also see the proximity of the H20 also impacting matters. No doubt the land -- both internal and external -- play a powerful role. I am a fan of FI but if people see the course as a top 20 in the USA then, with all due respect, their overall sample size is indeed much smaller than they might imagine. Just my opinion from the "far afield" seats.
  

[Patrick_Mucci]

MWP:

What the hell, if I had one last round and that was it I would like not just to play it at NGLA but to play it with Pat. Golf is funny that way----we've probably only known each other for a dozen years but as these things sometimes turn out we've had a lot of experiences with the same people over the years without actually knowing each other and the additionally interesting thing is it apparently went back a generation before us. Both our dads were good national amateurs and given all the things they played in and where they played there is absolutely no way they could not have known each other and run into one another even if Pat and I never knew it. For us and probably because of and with our fathers too, golf really is more than just a game, it's kind of like a way of life for us as it was for our fathers before us. Even if I stop playing like my dad did some years before he died it will always very much be there.

TEPaul,

That's very well said.

Why don't we schedule our last round of golf at NGLA for September 10th, 2029, I'll see if I can get Terry McBride to join us

[TEPaul]

Donnie:

What you said there about probably your wettest year being one of the hardest for you in many ways really does make sense to me given what FI has always been in the F&F department in the summer months, how and why (no fairway irrigation).

You should go play Piping Rock and even pick Chip Oat's mind more about what he specifically means about some of its "architecture." Some tend to pass by a hole like Piping's #13 (Knoll) but not Chip. It is a very good call on his part. The hole is a very short one (where of course you really can't be missing its fairway by much) but that green is totally remarkable no matter how you try to approach it and from what distance. The thing that additionally fascinates me about the 13th is recently I found out Macdonald originally had a steep fairway ramp approach on the front of it which is now fronting bunkers placed in its very steep rise. The back shelf on that green which is so shallow is something to behold particularly when considering what happens if you go right, left or long.

And Piping's redan is a spectacular golf hole, particularly "shot-value-wise" and one I don't even think it is fair to compare it to NGLA's (they don't need to be compared to one another as both have so much going for them in somewhat different ways. The thing I've always appreciated a bit more about Piping's is it is a bit higher than NGLA's and consequently the fairly necessary fairway kicker on the right produces a lot "hotter" bounce and filter). If I happen to go to Piping with you we can spend a lot of time analyzing just how Macdonald made that green and how much he made it by quite easily analyzing what its natural landform looked like before golf. It really does show an extraordinary architectural imagination on his part as well as a lot of guts. It took a massive amount of fill to create that thing but the interesting thing about it he made it look like most of it might've been there anyway somehow. I did not appreciate that enough until the last time I saw it and noticed where he apparently got all his fill for it. I never noticed that before and I grew up there.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Matt,
Yes, I've played Fishers, walked WFW the day after Love won, and played WFE . My personal view is just that, I don't rank courses.

I think that the distilled impressions of hundreds of raters carry much more weight that your lone voice. Your bias has always been toward length and difficulty, therefore you aren't the best person to look to for a well rounded opinion, which is what a large group provides. Not only that, you seem to always be promoting new courses, so I'd say that you are skewed toward that product. That doesn't mean I think you aren't capable, just not as well rounded as a group can be.
 
Now, you aren't going to change my opinion of you as the lone wolf of raters, nor are you going to change my opinion of what constitutes the most relevant set of opinions, so we might as well leave this thread so it can continue with its original questions.

[ChipOat]

Donnie Beck:

What are odds that Gil Hanse will, in fact, be called in to restore the pre-1938 Redan?  Also, does the club have anything else in mind in addition to that?  Are there any pre WWII aerials around for reference?

Since I'm a behind the times, could you also give us a three sentence summary of the work that Gil Hanse has already done?  Was Bill Kittleman involved with that?  Fishers Island has always been his idea of what a good golf course should be (i.e. great holes and unwatered rough).

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

With all due respect -- you don't rate courses?

C'mon -- that's a copout.

Your telling me that the mags are right on FI but then you have no personal opinion on the matter at-hand.

OK.

Jim, the idea length and difficulty are my cat's meow is really an old party line repeated here over and over again. I have made strong cases for plenty of courses far from that situation -- however, those who tow the party line for the short and quirky ones don't take too kindly when I throw forward courses of a different sort that have plenty of qualities to offer -- beyond just length and demands but are a bit more than just the narrow beam of courses they always favor.

Maybe you have seen my comments on places likes Morris County? Forsgate / Banks? Eastward Ho! I can go on and on with various other examples.

Jim, I provided for you a detailed response and you either didn't read it carefully enough or simply ignored it. Sample size does matter and when you have mags apply a standard of 'one man / one vote' you mix and match perspectives of people who are often rather limited and likely skewed towards those layouts nearest to where they live. Let me also poiint out -- again -- that cross comparisons from a personal standpoint are critical -- what you get instead is some sort of mathematical hodge podge of numbers that create some sort of final number product which really does little of anything. That's what makes a book like CG by Doak so interesting. I know what his personal preferences are but it doesn't take away what he provided.

Jim, another fallacy -- I mention new courses because they happen to be really great stuff. Help me out with the likes of Ballyneal and Roclk Creek, to name just two. I also mentioned the clear bias here on gca to most Nicklaus courses -- his recent opening at Red Ledges in UT which is often thought of as a ski state and not a golf one. I also championed the likes of Kingsley Club which a preponderance of the 800 raters from Digest has amnesia with and is not even rated among their top 100.

In the event you likely don't know -- I have also highlighted plenty of old style courses in and around the nyc metro area that get so little attention -- I have highlighted the likes of Plainfield which only recently has been noticed by others. Ditto for the work by Hanse & Bahto created at a place called Essex County CC which is truly remarkable. There are other courses I have saluted for their timeless appeal.

In regards to opinions -- you aren't going to convince me on what I wrote in detailed response to you -- I was hoping you would have given it more thought and avoided the predictable stereotypical shrug of the shoulders. So be it. Back to the focus of this thead.

Final item -- I have Fisher's somewhere between #26 and #40 among my personal favorites in the USA. One would think that my assessment of the course was not even among my top 100 given what you have said. No matter. Thanks for you take -- lone wolf signing out.

[Donnie Beck]

Chip,

A lot depends on DEC permitting.

[ChipOat]

Reclaiming original green pads really requires an elaborate process!

Do you have good pre-WWII aerials to guide you?

[TEPaul]

"Over the years excess topdressing material was dragged on to the collars and approaches, so in order to properly restore the original dimension we have had to remove the collar sod then physically remove the excess topdressing material by hand (in some areas in excess of 6”) then use the nursery sod to complete the expansion."


Donnie:

That particular item I look at somewhat like evolutionary sand kick build-up on the top of bunkers. I think sometimes it actually makes the greens play more interesting than it probably did originally. We expanded a number of our greens right over that topdressing material that had been dragged to the collars (that once was peripheral green space) that tended to create interesting greenspace rolls on the periphery. In some instances it tends to create a "counter-roll" that can be used to good playability effect such as getting pins near to those areas than otherwise as the ball won't roll off the green as easily with that counter roll to hold it but if it does anyway it creates a more interesting and challenging recovery than otherwise.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Donnie Beck,

Mt Ridge recently did a masterful job of reclaiming the putting surfaces back to their footpads.

You may want to contact the superintendent, Cliff Moore, to obtain info on their project.

[TEPaul]

Donnie said this as sort of a caption to the photo of the 3rd under its photograph on Post #76:

"The 3rd is a perfect example if you look at placement and angles of the fairway you will find that his use of the natural landform is absolutely brilliant. This could quite possibly be the best short par 4 in the country."


Chip and Donnie:

I would like to go back and really discuss the architectural and playability specifics and details of this hole. It is not a long one but Donnie may be right about what he says about it and I think the architectural reasons should be aired and explained.

For starters, there are a few specifics, architecturally, visually etc about this hole that make it pretty unique compared to other really great short par 4s. There also may be some specifics to its overall "engineering" that make it pretty unique both visually and playability-wise! Was Raynor even aware of ALL the ramifications and nuances of its over-all result? I can't imagine he wasn't but who will ever know? 

[John Mayhugh]

My favorite type of hole is the short par 4 and the the third at Fishers is one of the best. 

The hole works perfectly on the site.  The tee shot plays a bit uphill and the ideal line is determined by how much of the rough adjacent to the beach that you want to carry.  There is a drop-off along the right side of the fairway but you don't want to miss left either as you can end up in the trees or tall rough.  As you arrive in the fairway, you encounter one of the toughest short approach shots you'll ever have.  The green is elevated above the fairway and is largely encircled by deep bunkers.  All you see behind the green is open sky.

We were fortunate that there was not much wind on the day we played. With wind, it seems a must to have your tee shot end up where you can run the approach up between the bunkers.  An aerial shot to that green is about as scary as it gets. 

Following are a few photos.  I apologize for the quality.  I did not take any photos of the hole in the afternoon, apparently deluded into thinking that my morning photos turned out OK.

Here's an aerial view with the green on the right.  Too bad you cannot see the contour of the land.


From the tee.  Difficult to choose a good line.




The left side of the green.


The right side.


The back of the green as seen from 4 tee.


Another look from 4.


Kevin Pallier escapes.


I wish I had more photos as mine don't do a good job encapsulating what a wonderful hole this is.

[Kevin Pallier]

John

I am also a big fan of # 3 - both times I hit a decent drive with no more than a PW / SW in and still didn't get a par. It requires a precise a shot as you say with very good control and how many of our bunker shots went from one side to another ? 

3 through 5 was probably my favourite three hole stretch on the course...mind you there's plenty of good stretches throughout the layout.

I loved FI - the course was firm & fast the day we played it - with a wonderful setting and ambience.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm going to raise some hackles on this one, I'll bet.  The real title I had in mind should be, "Is Fishers Island SLIGHTLY overrated?" but that wouldn't have gotten as much attention so I went with the more provocative one.

Chip, if anything, I think it's underrated if you analyze the holes independent of your preconceived notions of the names associated with the holes and your ideal version of a template hole.

First, I think Fishers is a magnificently beautiful, and wonderfully designed golf course and I could play there every day and still love it.


With the wind, I could play 54 every day and never tire of that golf course, it's spectacular in every way.


But the MacDonald/Raynor thread got me thinking about Piping Rock and The Creek versus Fishers.  If you compare the pure architecture (admittedly, as I view it) and strip out the gorgeous ocean views at Fishers, does Fishers really deserve all the raving it gets that puts it so far ahead of the other two in the minds of almost everybody?  Not in my opinion.

I disagree.
In some respects the architecture at Fisher's is vastly superior to PR and TC.
Take the Alps-Punchbowl 4th hole at Fisher's.
Does it have an equal ...... anywhere.

How much of your analysis is "maintainance" oriented ?

It isn't easy to move a lot of earth around, dig deeper bunkers and build more creative green complexes on a small, essentially private island located 12 miles offshore - especially in 1918.  Erego, I think Piping Rock and The Creek OUGHT to be at least as good as Fishers - if not better.


I find the dramatic topography at Fisher's, combined with the lowland property at Fisher's to be a superior site, given what was produced.
I don't think difficulty with supply, construction efforts and logistics produce inferior architecture.
The way the holes were fit into the land at Fisher's is simply brilliant.

The best example I can think of is the Redan at each of the three (apologies to those on this site who haven't played them).  It would have been, and would still be, a major undertaking to re-create the depth of the bunkers and pitch of the green at Fishers compared to Piping, Creek, National, Shinnecock, Somerset Hills (Tillinghast) and all the others that I haven't ever seen.  At Fishers, if you dig down more than 3 feet, you hit salt water.  To make a Redan with the same teeth and degree of difficulty as those mainland examples, the green would have had to be built UP a good five feet which then requires an elevated tee box - which would probably look stupid sitting there next to the first green.


This goes back to one of my original points, you're contexting the 2nd hole at Fisher's, on probably the lowest and flattest part of the land, with the 3rd at PR, where the green sits up high, fortress like.  The Creek has no Redan par 3.  It has a pseudo or hybrid redan at # 8, but ask yourself, which reverse redan green complex is superior, the 8th at TC or the 12th at FI ?  The 12th at FI gets my vote every time.
The 1st at the Creek, a par 4, has a redan green, which I like.
But, you can't extract that which you like and ignore that which doesn't compare favorably with FI.

Are there some world class holes at Fishers Island?  Of course there are - it's a Raynor.  Biarritz comes to mind as the best I've ever seen and the Alps/Punchbowl combo is another mega-winner.

Agreed.
But, I think you're selling the FI version of the Redan and others short.
The 3rd is a fabulous Plateau hole.  The Cape, the Short, Winthrop, Double Plateau, Eden, Knoll, Waterloo, and Home hole are all fabulous.

Are # 2, # 3 and # 4 at The Creek that special ?
# 17 ?  # 18 ?
Now don't get me wrong, I love The Creek and Piping Rock, but to push Fisher's Island to the side, like a step-child, does a disservice to the inherent architecture on a special land form, forgetting about the views.

But does Fishers deserve its elevated stature on most radar screens versus Piping Rock and The Creek?  


ABSOLUTELY.

As a golf PLACE, Fishers Island is hard to beat anywhere.  As a golf COURSE, I think the other two are just as good (or better) - and they should be.

I disagree.
You've chosen to ignore the gaps in brilliant architecture at the other two courses.
Tell me, are # 4 and # 5 all world at PR ?   Mediocre ?
How about the Alps and Knoll at PR.
How about 14, 15 and 16, are they all world holes, good holes or fair holes ?

Just because a stunningly gorgeous women has on a spectacular dress doesn't mean that she doesn't possess inate beauty.

You're too focused on the dress and have missed the beauty and merits of the design of the holes at Fisher's Island.
If I didn't know better I'd swear that TEPaul, that idiot savant, was advising you.

Go ahead, guys - take your shots at this heretic.

You should be burned at the architectural stake, or better yet, dangled off the dock at Fisher's Island as shark bait.

[ChipOat]

Pat:

I can't argue with your opinions as they qualify as "informed" (you've played all three courses) and you're directly addressing my questions rather than hiding behind other criteria.

Soooooo....I can't really argue other than to say

1) I agree with your questions about specific holes and the architectural gaps at The Creek and Piping Rock EXCEPT I think that #13 at PRC (Knoll) is really, really good.

2) Some of the "other" holes you think so highly of at FI are, in my opinion, good solid MacRaynor holes - which isn't damning them with faint praise, by the way.

3) I'm not creative enough to be a student of routings (I wouldn't know how to change one so I don't judge them).  Thus, I can't take a position on your high praise of FI versus TC and PRC in that regard.  Given what I know about your appreciation of golf architecture, I'll concede your kudo's on FI.  However, could you expound on where PRC and/or The Creek might be lacking in that regard?

As I recall, your recent round(s) at Fishers Island was your first time there.  Am I correct?

[Jim_Kennedy]

That third hole is a beauty and I just have one question. It has been quite a while since I played there but I seem to remember that the lower section that ran along the right side of the hole contained pretty long grass and was rather unplayable along its whole length (this coincides with the brown are in the aerial that John posted). I recall a set of green tee markers that were placed on the upper fairway as sort of a drop area.

It looks pretty cleaned up now. Am I mistaken?

Thanks