Galloway National

[Kevin Pallier]

To be a very good course you first need a very good routing. Is the routing very good?
 Secondly, I think you need to create various shots by the use of angles off the tee or approaching the green. Doesn't this course pretty much force you down the middle?

Finally, shouldn't the greens have movement rather than abrupt elevation changes?

I must say it has its own category to itself----a big waste of money.

Mayday

I didn't know there was a specific formula to appreciating golf courses - where can I google it ?

Besides - I cant believe that in your eyes it's the only "big waste of money" course ? Surely - everything that's not a 10/10 would fall into that category of yours ?

[mike_malone]

 Ran out to see "Crazy Heart". Now I have to run out again. Crazy Heart was much better than GN.

  I missed the comments about how good the routing is.

  Kevin,

   There is a specific formula to evaluating courses. It asks is it golf or not?

[Mike Sweeney]

  Finally, shouldn't the greens have movement rather than abrupt elevation changes?

Mayday,

While we  wait for you Top Shore and Philly list, can you also tell us which greens at Galloway have more abrupt elevation changes than 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17 and 18 at Yale?

[mike_malone]

 Mike,
  

    A ridge that runs through much of the green is one thing that you can read. A 3/5 foot area that erupts is inscrutable.


      I would rank the shore courses roughly in this order --Twisted Dune, Hidden Creek, McCullough's, Sand Barrens, and Galloway.

   Five in Philly--- Huntingdon Valley, Torresdale/ Frankford, Manufacturer's,Philly Country, and Glen Mills. I can't rank a course where I was a member.

[Mike Sweeney]

Mike,
  
 A ridge that runs through much of the green is one thing that you can read. A 3/5 foot area that erupts is inscrutable.

9th at Yale?

I would rank the shore courses roughly in this order --Twisted Dune, Hidden Creek, McCullough's, Sand Barrens, and Galloway.

[b]Not as bad as I expected.   The only real surprise is the omission of Atlantic City so I assume you think Doak did a hatchet job there!! I would also be curious if you have ever played Wildwood. Not saying it should be on your list, just an interesting course that nobody seems to play. [/b]

Five in Philly--- Huntingdon Valley, Torresdale/ Frankford, Manufacturer's,Philly Country, and Glen Mills. I can't rank a course where I was a member.

I can't argue with your Philly list as I have not played three. Have you played Whitemarsh?

[Ron Csigo]

  Finally, shouldn't the greens have movement rather than abrupt elevation changes?

Mayday,

While we  wait for you Top Shore and Philly list, can you also tell us which greens at Galloway have more abrupt elevation changes than 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17 and 18 at Yale?

The only green that I recall having a 3-5 foot elevation change is #11 (par-5) at Galloway which is comparable to the Biarritz #9 at Yale.   

[Jerry Kluger]

Matt Ward put me on to a course at the shore - Sea Oaks - has anybody played it - I did, I was truly surprised how good it is.

[Ron Csigo]

Matt Ward put me on to a course at the shore - Sea Oaks - has anybody played it - I did, I was truly surprised how good it is.

I've played it quite a few times Jerry.  It is a solid course.  A good mix of short and long par 4s.  Also, the par 5 16th is a fun risk/reward hole.

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

Sea Oaks, as Jerry mentioned, is well worth playing. Located minutes off LBI -- the Ray Hearn design gets little attention. Ditto for the ole Atlantis -- located in Tuckerton -- the first USA design by George Fazio and now owned / operated by Ocean County. The par-3 6th there is still a solid hole and one of the best par-3's in NJ.

Down further south but not too far away is Vineyard Golf at Renault. Designed by Ed Shearon it too gets little love / attention. Both of these courses north of the immediate AC area and likely are not counted as being in that mixture.

Save for the likes of Twisted Dune -- I can say that the aforementioned two are worthy of one's time and attention when visiting the area.

Mike Malone:

Galloway was placed 5th by you. Can you explain that ?

Also, as Mike S alluded to, how come no love for ACCC ?

[mike_malone]

 I forgot about Atlantic City; GN gets bumped. I have played Wildwood and would likely place it sixth on this list.
 I would not rate Whitemarsh highly because it has too many bland holes.


     I shouldn't say 3/5 feet of elevation but rather 3/5 feet of circumference that probably only rises a foot or so but breaks up the natural slope of the green. I think in the past I called this overengineered.
 

   The issue is one of reading the break from a long way. The breaks in some of these greens seem to work against one's eye.



    I still haven't heard a defense of the routing. Why do we give the course a pass on this, what is hailed on this site as the #1 factor in great design?
   

[mike_malone]

 Matt,

   I have what I would call my "ambition" bias. When a course aspires to be ranked and spends loads of money to pretty it up then my standards go up as well. I don't apologize for my position that variety in shot selection is the essence of golf, so all great golf courses must meet that requirement in their routing and in the design elements of each hole that support the variety of possible shots for all levels of playing ability.

   Just last night I leafed through my copy of Steel's " Classic Golf Links of England, Scotland, Wales , and Ireland'. In there is a wide angle picture of TOC from the loop at the end of the course backwards. At first glance you see very little going on there. But, a closer inspection shows a multitude of humps and bumps that create the palate for a great golf course that has an endless number of shots for all classes of golfers.

 GN seems to be purposeful in its limiting of those shots. It then goes to great expense to create a fancy look.  

    It is more intriguing to engage me on my attitudes about Hidden Creek, which has a more interesting form of ambition. Bring in the best design team and create an understated course with significant variety for all levels of golfers. This is why I like HC. I just think it should be happy with the title of 'great members club" and decline offers to be ranked.


  In my mind these ambitious efforts usually waste vast sums of money that don't enhance the actual golfing experience.

[Jason Walker]

Mike-
On this thread the routing has been described as "clunky", a "bit tight", "good", and "carved through the pines".

In your opinion, what makes a routing bad and what makes a routing great?

Thanks

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

Let's get a bit realistic here.

We are talking about dead flat property along the Jersey Shore here -- not the unique terrain elements that lie at the core of TOC and other Scottish treasures.

You need to spell out more clearly how GN is deficient. TF, to his considerable credit there, did NOT incorporate more elements that would mean a replica type formulaic course that he has done upteen times before.

GN works within those dynamics -- and not stands apart from them.

The qualities of the individual holes -- minus an exception here or there -- works extremely well.

You say GN spent tons of $$ to "pretty it(self) up." Far from that -- it made it a point to work in concert with what is the Jersey Shore and does so magnificently. If you think McCullough's and Sand Barrens are ahead of it - then you frankly have more issues than the ones you stated and likely TF is an element you just are not admitting to.

GN has playability and the elastic nature to test the better player.

[mike_malone]

 I think that the most important part of the routing is choosing how to use the limitations that nature places on you . For example. friends of mine recently played Overbrook , outside of Philly. It seems obvious to even the casual architectural gollfer that the course is awkward. That is seems to have been put on the property in an ill conceived way. There are too many blind tee shots with unseen danger. I always wonder how much more playable a course could have been built there. Edgmont is another course that is gifted with intersting terrain that seems to just run up and down the hills without using the slopes to advantage.


Our area is rich in good golfing topography,so the land provides a great beginning for the routing. Therefore, bad routings are unforgiveable.


   Once you get to flat or nearly flat property such as the shore has the designer can do pretty much whatever he wants for routing choices with the main restriction , usually, of wetlands. For GN I found the walks between holes to be an affront to golf as a wakling game.

[archie_struthers]

 


Galloway is IMHO really good.  Forget about the cool entrance and wonderful practice facility,  there are lots of fine golf holes in a unique setting. I disagree respectfully with my friend Mike Cirba about the site, as the land Jack Nugent and Leo Fraser found and later sold to Vernon Hill and Co. is as good as you find down here. Methinks that the sequence of the holes , rather than the routing itself is the problem for many here.

 For those of you who don't like the golf course think about the sequence , the flow . Perhaps that''s the overriding flaw , if there is one.    Certainly the first hole is fabulous , arguably the best hole on the golf course starts the round. Two is a very interesting and demanding par three which often brings scratch players to their knees.  What follows are lots of good holes, among them  #'s 4, 5 , 8,  10, 13, 15 17 and 18.   That's a lot of good golf holes for one course.  The five pars are the weakest link, and are probably a little shortish by today's standards. But then again , so are Augusta's  .

The greens are definitely quirky, and anyone who has played there in the annual two man scramble knows how hard they can get. Looking forward to more discussion and analysis of why people don't like Galloway.....I've yet to hear a real good reason!

Hey Mayday, I've walked it many times and it really doesn't bother me that much...

[mike_malone]

 Matt,

   I'm not a course rater or ranker so I don't need to be a slave to specifics about my impressions after playing a course for the first time. I stick to the simple gut impressions---was it fun and do I want to come back. Fun for me is variety; GN limited choices so it lagged on the funometer. McCulloughs allows you to hit it anywhere and you end up with some zany recovery shots. That is better golf.The "want to come back" criteria brings other nongolfing factors into play such as distance to travel, cost, and access. So, I love to return to Centerton in the winter for $15 dollars even though it is almost an hour away versus $30 for Springfield, the nearest public course to me. To return to GN would mean finding someone to get me there again. I would rather save that access seeking for either a new adventure or a round at HC with someone like Mike Sweeney or Jim Thornton where we could argue the whole way around

     I still can't get you defenders of GN to tell me why the routing limitations should get a pass.

    

[mike_malone]

 Archie,

   It isn't that GN isn't a good golf course; it is that it isn't great or exceptional. I would much rather play Twisted Dune than GN because it is all about playing fun golf and nothing else.

[Sean Leary]

What is amiss with the routing? Long green to tee walks? Property split by a road? Details please..

[Ron Csigo]

Mayday,

From what I've read, the routing is a little complicated because the layout had to incorporate three separate parcels of land.  Also, parts of the coastline were protected.  This is probably why some of the holes seem forced and the bay piece of the property could not be utilized to its fullest potential.  However, the rest of the course, which is built through the pine forest, enjoys the sand and natural contours offered by the land.  

[Jason Walker]

Mayday-
a little confused here...

For example. friends of mine recently played Overbrook , outside of Philly. It seems obvious to even the casual architectural gollfer that the course is awkward. That is seems to have been put on the property in an ill conceived way. There are too many blind tee shots with unseen danger. I always wonder how much more playable a course could have been built there.

I'm very familiar with Overbrook as one of my best friends is a member there.  I too find the course a bit awkward, but I don't go around wondering how much more playable the cource could have been built--I wonder how in the world they fit 18 holes onto the property.  And yes, there are 2-3 blind tee shots, but the danger is only unseen if you're playing it for the first time without a member or a caddy.  And I'm surprised to hear you bring that up as a flaw given your fondness for courses in the UK--plenty of blind shots over there.



I have what I would call my "ambition" bias. When a course aspires to be ranked and spends loads of money to pretty it up then my standards go up as well. I don't apologize for my position that variety in shot selection is the essence of golf, so all great golf courses must meet that requirement in their routing and in the design elements of each hole that support the variety of possible shots for all levels of playing ability.

First time I've heard anyone coin the term ambition bias, but at least you can admit to it.  Be honest--is it Tom Fazio, Vernon Hill, the Commerce Bank-ish clubhouse--what is it that really bugs you about the place?  To say that you place McCullogh's and Sand Barrens ahead of GN shows--as Matt Ward said--there are more issues than you're revealing. 

Is the routing an intimate walk?  No.  But in my opinion there is PLENTY of shot variety there.

[Tom_Doak]

The greens are definitely quirky, and anyone who has played thee in the annual two man scramble knows how hard they can get.

[\quote]

This is the closest anyone's gotten to describing Galloway's greens.  Could someone try to give a bit more detail.

I'm curious about them because when I was building Atlantic City CC, the golf pro/project manager, Billy Ziobro, "forbid" me from going over to see Galloway.  He said the greens there were outlandish and exactly what the company DIDN'T want me to build for ACCC.  I have to admit I was quite surprised to hear that about a Tom Fazio course, and I've been curious ever since.

[mike_malone]

 First of all, the routing is not my main concern. But, it has popped up in most critiques that I have read. I just wanted some proponents to address it. Ron seems to have done some of that.
   As for Overbrook the weakness of the blind tee shots is the penalties in the landing area.  I think the routing has some other major issues. #1 and #4 are parallel doglegs that send wayward drives directly into the other hole. This required the planting of hideous evergreens just to keep balls away from the other hole. This is a very amateur mistake.

 As for ambition it is only a consideration of mine in the playing of the course. I just feel that GN is not very special when you strip away the glitz.

[David_Elvins]

Tom Doak,

Quite similar to St Andrews Beach. 

Small, plenty of contour, many slopes running away from the pin feeding to broad grass chipping areas which make the target even smaller.  Hard to read.  Random bumps.


I like a lot of them but saw them whilst they were slow. Will try and post a few pictures later.

[Jerry Kluger]

Mayday: I am a bit disappointed.  First of all, we should never judge the quality of a course by the cost or access which are totally separate issues - I played Shinnecock and NGLA as an unaccompanied guest - one time shot and a whole bunch of money but I would not knock them because of it.  GN gets no pass for its routing - its what brings it down a notch from say Hidden Creek.  The property at GN is overall more interesting than most in the area as it does have some movement and clearly there are some elevated greens.  I liked Twisted Dune but for a purist I think that it is a bit dishonest to use a totally created course on basically flat and boring piece of property and say it is a good example of proper routing.

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

Let's be clear -- the underlying unstated reason for those who see GN in less than positive terms is the TF connection. People who are anti-TF don't have much wiggle room with GN but for those who see Hidden Creek ahead of it -- the architecture issue is part of the dynamic.

Mike:

Your issue boils down to the fact you see the walking element there as a flaw. Mike, that's very funny because I think can make a more believable case if you had used as an example a place with a more pronounced walking issue like BB.

One other thing -- I'm still waiting on how you view McCullough's & Sand Barrens as being ahead of GN. Surely you jest ! You also mention routing limitations failing at GN -- I don't see it that way -- the land was used for what was allowable given the natural constraints and TF did an admirable job ion making sure that a Jersey Shore course actually looks like one.

You also need to define "glitz" and what specifics, as you define them, are present.

One other thing -- provide for me a TF layout you have played that you see as being stellar.

You say "fun" is missing at GN -- again in what way ? GN will reward good shots and penalize poor ones proportionally and apprropriately.