Galloway National

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

The issue is NOT about having recovery shots provided for.

GN is not "one dimensional" nor is it beyond the means for most players.

Frankly, I don't think you can really comment on GN if you have not played it -- your response is simply in the general sense.

GN is far more playable than the likes of a Pine Valley or a number of other courses I can mention which are rated quite high nationally but don't provide for much of a recovery dynamic.

TF gets whacked around on this site but GN is far from the typical eye-candy out-of-place layout he is famous for creating.

GN is well worth playing for those who get the opportunity.

[Sean_A]

Sean:

The issue is NOT about having recovery shots provided for.

GN is not "one dimensional" nor is it beyond the means for most players.

Frankly, I don't think you can really comment on GN if you have not played it -- your response is simply in the general sense.

GN is far more playable than the likes of a Pine Valley or a number of other courses I can mention which are rated quite high nationally but don't provide for much of a recovery dynamic.

TF gets whacked around on this site but GN is far from the typical eye-candy out-of-place layout he is famous for creating.

GN is well worth playing for those who get the opportunity.

Yes, of course, I am responding in the general sense rather than specifically about GN, but it does seem to me that Mayday doesn't care for the lack of recovery opportunities at GN.  If not this, what is he on about other than some walking issues (which I fully understand as well)?  Reading the Lost Farm thread it seems as though one reason Coore may have used some of the flatter land is to help keep the course walkable.  If true, its a direction of design I applaud. 

There are always exceptions Matt.  I have never seen Pine Valley, but it strikes me that the course is for sure designed to be difficult, but not the sort which whacks a player with rough, trees and sand unless a player is well wide (or sometimes short and long) of the mark.  It is my understanding that its difficulty lies in its greens and where they are approached from.  In other words, it relies on unforced errors and subsequent lapses in course management/execution.  Perhaps some of this intent has been lost with the creeping trees?  Maybe one day I will be lucky enough to have a gander. 

Ciao

[mike_malone]

 Jim Coleman,

     I  TRY to shape tee shots all of the time. I'm just not capable of executing very often. My point is that the lack of execution then leaves a much more interesting recovery shot on a well designed course. Why do you think I fought for years to get rid of those silly evergreens? The original design allowed for many marvelous recovery shots which were eliminated by those rat trees!

    Matt,


     I'm not saying GN sucks. I'm saying it ain't so special architecturally. With the routing questions and the lessened options for the average player it just becomes an expensive effort to titillate. As Archie says it can be fun for the better player in competition because disaster looms. This is at the heart of most criticisms of penal  or target golf. It is hard to score but little fun to play. What's more important, a good score on a demanding course or a pleasurable day of challenging and strategic shots during a good walk ?

[Jerry Kluger]

I think one of my posts has been misinterpreted.  Galloway isn't any different than any other course which is cut from dense woods - the recovery shot for a really bad tee shot can be limited to playing sideways or backwards to the fairway.  I should also mention that these courses in the sandy area of South Jersey usually do not have very thick rough - rather, you wind up playing from a very thin and sandy lie which can be very difficult. This can be the case at Pine Valley and it can be the case at Hidden Creek.  You can make a general statement that the center of the fairway is a safe place to play your next shot from but that can be said of any course.  At GN you need to be on the correct side of the fairway otherwise, you can have a very tough approach across a bunker or over a ridge on the green - these are the angles which Mayday feels are important and I agree.  What it also has are holes which turn right or left and a tee shot on the wrong side can make for a much longer and more difficult shot into the green - it can also mean running out of fairway down one side or the other.  The first hole is short but if you are down the left side you have an approach shot which is much longer than you would want considering the difficulty of the green and the bunkering.

[mike_malone]

 Jerry,

   I think it was more often the bunkering which did not OFTEN present an angled tee shot for strategy. I felt the bunkers were usually just to be avoided rather than taken on. The thrill of Pine Valley is the multiple angles one can usually take from the tee. When bunkers are usually parallel hazards with trees beyond them the choices diminish rapidly. I think the photos Scott Burroughs posted pretty much support what I am saying.

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

I've played GN more than once and observed a full range of players play the course -- the fallacy that recovery options are limited or nonexistent is fantasy land. Let me also point out that GN is very walkable -- the net elevation at the Jersey Shore is very limited so that all but the most severely challenged of people can handle it.

I agree that a course -- even the elite ones -- should be elastic in terms of playability and from the dimension in providing for recovery options. I mentioned previously how Dunluce Links at RP carries the concept of penal to the nth degree with such narrow corridors and the resulting hay-like rough that awaits such misfires. GN is certainly not in that mold.

PV, does need to get a tree whacker out and allow the inherent design elements to flourish and not be obscured as they are in so many ways today.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

I've always had mixed feelings about GN.

And, those mixed feelings prevent me from elevating it to a lofty position.

The mixed bag you refer to can't be a good sign, it's got to bring demerits with it.

I happen to love the 2nd hole, although, at that size target, when a ball on the green, rolls off the green, I can see how criticism will follow.

I'd rather play Twisted Dunes or Hidden Creek or Atlantic City.
For some reason, GN never wowed me.

[archie_struthers]

 

You know Pat it's a real conundrum.....Galloway has so many cool shots starting with number one
that second shot is really fun .....then comes that nasty little par three.....I ve seen so many guys just beaten before they leave the third green>>>>and then they play 4 and 5 

the pars fives are real easy .........but  the greens can be gnarly 

and I have made eagle or butchered seventeen while hitting the same shots or so I thought.....perhaps the thrill at Galloway is not knowing whether the shot is good while eyeing down the shot......it happens a lot out there......that delayed gratification thing   

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

What makes GN so special to me is when you size it up to what you generally get from TF and his associates. GN is clearly made to be something different from that formulaic style and quite attune to what the native area callls upon.

[Sean Leary]

Gents:

What makes GN so special to me is when you size it up to what you generally get from TF and his associates. GN is clearly made to be something different from that formulaic style and quite attune to what the native area callls upon.

Thats interesting. It's special because you expected less?

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

GN provided MORE because it didn't rely upon the tried and true TF design elements one can see in so many of his other designs. Just shows what TF can do when allowing the qualities of the site to be brought to the fore.

[Sean Leary]

Sean:

GN provided MORE because it didn't rely upon the tried and true TF design elements one can see in so many of his other designs. Just shows what TF can do when allowing the qualities of the site to be brought to the fore.

Not disagreeing with this. But you called it "special" to you because of it. I find that interesting, thats all.

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

The issue I have with many TF designs is that there is this tendency to overkill through the design elements that are forced upn the site. The fallacy being that "extras" are needed for the place to really shine. It's like the salesman who has made the sale but continue to sell. Sometimes the best advice is to back away. At GN that was done in my mind.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

I agree that there are a lot of good/interesting shots presented to the golfer, but, there's something I'm unable to put my finger on, that leaves me lukewarm about the golf course.

I don't know whether it's the walks between holes, the eastern flies/bugs, random severity or difficulty, but, there's something missing that prevents me from elevating the course to loftier status.

It's not a course that I want to run to the 1st tee after coming off the 18th green, which is my ultimate test.

[mike_malone]

 I buy a hat in the U.S. or a sweater overseas if I like it. I just headed straight for the car.

[archie_struthers]

 


Mayday not even a pair of socks ?  LOL...

[David_Elvins]

I buy a hat in the U.S. or a sweater overseas if I like it. I just headed straight for the car.

I bought a shoe bag at GN.  What does that say?

[David_Elvins]

the pars fives are real easy .........but  the greens can be gnarly 

Archie,

Interesting you say that.  I thought the par 5 greens were probably the best on the course.  The 6th seemed like the perfect small heavily contoured target for a par 5 and the the contours or 16 were also great IMO.  11 and 9 held more than enough interest too. 

The real disapointment for me was the par 3s.  I loved 2 but The 17th seemed to be more about the views than anything else. A relatively boring green with a token hazard on the left.  The 5th was all about the view too with another boring green with little contour or trouble (relatively speaking) and a pretty awful tree close to the right.  And the front to back slope on 13 (?)  seemed over the top.

[Sean_A]

Sean:

The issue I have with many TF designs is that there is this tendency to overkill through the design elements that are forced upn the site. The fallacy being that "extras" are needed for the place to really shine. It's like the salesman who has made the sale but continue to sell. Sometimes the best advice is to back away. At GN that was done in my mind.

Matt

I know you are responding to another Sean, but I can get 100% on board with this post in a general sense rather than pointed at TF.  I have long believed archies feel (or maybe they just like fiddling about dirt) the need to create the unnecessary, perhaps in an effort to justify their fees.

Ciao

[Matt_Ward]

Sean A:

You really have to understand what I was saying previously about how TF is generally viewed here and elsewhere for many of his designs. Those who have classic course-itis frown upon what the man generally does and those who are enamored with the eye-candy promotion efforts look upon GN as being lacking in some way.

I see GN as being the best of those both worlds -- yes - a few others have pointed out an element here or there that could have been improved -- but on the whole GN is a solid layout and has the good, IMHO, to compete for a coveted top ten spot among all Garden State layouts.

[mike_malone]

 Matt,

   While you say GN could contend for top ten in Jersey, aren't there 25/30 other courses that could also contend for that spot? If it isn't contending for top 3 then it falls into a large group of nice courses. That's where I see it.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

In my mind a top ten NJ golf position is a discussion with no more than 15 courses -- likely a dozen tops. The nature of the types of courses being a prime contender for consideration is actually quite diverse.

[Ian Dalzell]

MayDay
I don't post that much, but I do read quite a bit (I guess that puts me in the lurker category) but your opinions on GN have sent me to the keyboard . . .

GN is a terrific test of golf, solid, really solid architecture and I'm just now sure how you can defend your stance on this one.  It doesn't seem that you have much of a defense, except to say it did'nt do anything for you ?

I personally have to disagree - I am proud to live in an area that has so much great golf, and the 1st hole at GN sets the tone for the entire round - not overly long, but you feel justifiably proud when you walk off with par.

Your contention that Emerald Links or Centerton is worthy of top-10 in Jersey is slightly offensive, and while I don't make a habit of agreeing with Matt (thanks for all those Portrush digs Matt) I have to agree with him that given the depth of talent in NJ you cnanot be serious (John McEnroe, anyone).

Can you please tell me again why Emerald Links can be discussed in the same vein as GN?

Cheers.

Ian

[Matt_Ward]

Ian:

You're right -- don't "make a habit" in agreeing with me.

I love what Dunluce / Portrush provides -- just help me understand something -- why the need for such narrow fairway corridors with hay-like rough literally just a few steps from the fairway grass? The Colt design doesn't need to be helped with such a heavy handed inclusion.

Agree w you on the nature of the 1st hole and what it means to start the round with a par there.

[Ian Dalzell]

Matt
As much as I would love to debate and defend the merits of my home track, this is a GN thread and I'm not about to hijack it.  We will hold that passionate debate for another day