Why Isn't Leatherstocking More Widely Regarded?

[Dan Byrnes]

Dan, you don't think that Taconic has rapid elevation changes? What about that ridge that runs through the center of the course? That slope affects many holes. Remember #9, the downhill par three to a green that I believe is too narrow to accept the shot? That's both an elevation change and a quirky feature. I don't recall the same at Leatherstocking, with the exception of #16, a hole that I'm not a big fan of.

I agree with Kevin that variety is the spice of this forum. I don't know Glens Falls, although the website proclaims it to be a Donald Ross course. Kye Goalby, a fellow whom I know from college and respect greatly, has an interesting opening line on the course in this thread:  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46453.0.html  Glen Rapaport calls it quirky, too, in this one-post thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40554.0.html

So I guess what one person considers to be "not as quirky," another pair do consider to be quirky. In the end, as Matt Ward constantly reminds us, you have to see the place. JNC, Kevin, to the Rossmobile!!!

Both  Glens Falls and Taconic have big elevation changes but in my mind they are not as rapid and more uniform width wise?  The downhill par 3 at Leatherstocking is quite similar to the 9th at Taconic, I don't think either are good holes just put something in the routing I guess?.    I guess most of these older style courses are "quirky" due to the limited earth moving equipment available when they were designed and Glens Falls certainly has it's share of quirky in more than one hole, Taconic less so.  Don't get me wrong I think Leatherstocking is a terrific place, fun and enjoyable course I just don't see it being any "better" than any of the others listed or more that I could add.

Dan

[Ronald Montesano]

I like the downhill par three at Leatherstocking...it has so much width and enough depth to the green to accept a good to great shot.  This contrasts with the one at Taconic, which is longer, steeper and has less green width.

I do believe it is on the same level as Taconic.

Matt, to answer your question, I think that Leatherstocking is a wonderful 16-hole course. I think that 16 and 17 detract from the other holes. They are nice, resort holes that I could find on a number of nondescript courses. If we want to elevate Leatherstocking above its current perch, we need a biarritz or redan 17th and something funky after the big drop off 16. Therefore, I find it situated very well in terms of rankings, but I hope that it gets more recognition in the coming days.

[Tom MacWood]

Willie Tucker called Leatherstocking one of the finest inland courses in America.

[Ronald Montesano]

Mother Tucker?

[Matt_Ward]

Again, I'll say this -- when some folks advocate that the course should be more "widely regarded" -- I have to ask -- isn't it listed among different ratings now? There are a number of even better classic courses that fly completely off the radar and really have a good bit more to say regarding their own lack of visibility.

I like Leatherstocking for what it provides but I don't see it being anything more than where it is rated now. There are deficiencies as others have mentioned. A good layout to play when in the area but not something that would be the prime focus for a visit if the travels require more than 200 miles to get there in my mind.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TMac,

I read this snippet about Tucker:

"With the care of the links of the Century Country Club at White Plains, the Wykagyl Golf Club at New Rochelle and the O-te-sa-ga layout at Cooperstown, as well as having charge of the rebuilding of the Hudson River Country Club course, it doesn't seem as though William Tucker, links architect, will have many idle moments this season."

Any idea of what he did? Could he have been assisting Len Rayner, or vice versa?

[Matt Bosela]

I had the pleasure of playing Leatherstocking this past Sunday afternoon and was quite impressed with the place.

The course sits on some dramatic land and if I was to think of a comparable course, the closest I can come up with that I've played is Lookout Point in Fonthill, Ontario, a Walter Travis design.  Both courses feature splendid topography and similar green surrounds, with fall-off areas and tiny little droplet mounding.  I'm not sure if Travis and Emmet ever worked together but there certainly were a lot of things that seemed familiar to me at Leatherstocking.

The course does have some quirky routing, no doubt a necessity due to limited available land but I always enjoy and appreciate a blind shot or two and how can you not find an approach like the one on the par five 11th to be anything less than exhilarating?

The conditioning was above average considering the terrible spring weather seen in the Northeast and the greens rolled true.  I played with a couple of locals and while they gave me a knowing smile when I told them how much I enjoyed their course, they quickly followed it up by saying "How about we keep this our little secret?  We like having the course to ourselves!".

Is this a top 100 course in the US?  No it's not.  However, it's certainly a wonderful little layout that can be enjoyed by every level of player and one that I would definitely try to see again if I was anywhere in the vicinity.  

I took plenty of photos while there and will happily start a photo tour if anyone is interested in seeing more of this gem.

[Ronald Montesano]

Lazy man's photo tour is here:  http://s46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/Leatherstocking%201/

I'd love to see what you have, Matt.

[JNC Lyon]

Matt,

Thanks for the review on Leatherstocking.  I'm glad to hear you enjoyed the place!  It really is tucked away in Central New York, with a funky name providing some mysticism to draw the visitor in.  It is one of my favorite golf courses, if you hadn't realized it already!

I wanted to comment on some of the recent reviews of Leatherstocking, where I see a detachment between the comments about the golf course and the final verdict on the golf course.  Folks seem to give Leatherstocking rave reviews in terms of things like "fun,"  "intimacy," "use of land," and "quirk."  However, when it comes time to judge the course against others, the opinion is "well, it's a nice course that everyone will enjoy, but it is not top 100 material." 

Why is this?  It seems that these qualities of fun, charm, and universal playability make the course ideal, not just a course worth seeing.  These qualities are timeless in a golf course, and they allow the course to age brilliantly.  I know that many reviewers here see these qualities in Leatherstocking but refuse to place among the great courses.  I get the impression that many folks want to avoid rating Leatherstocking for a few reasons: it is short, it allows for scoring, and it has a warmth that the austere championship tests typical of the "Top 100" lists cannot hope to replicate.  Maybe I am in the small minority here, but I much prefer a course with great warmth and charm than one that beats the hell out of me, no matter how many majors that brutal course has hosted.  Maybe we should reconsider how we rate courses, and we should place the courses that we actually enjoy ahead of the courses we think have the championship challenge that is, in reality, only relevant to a very small group of golfers.

[Sean_A]

JNC

Perhaps some folks differentiate between top 100 architecture and fun/playable architecture.  I know I do because for top 100ish I try to consider the good players (scratchish) and the high capper.  A truly top 100 course (with the odd exception) has to be a good test for the scratch player without the course going into trick up mode.  Of course, we can debate all day as to what a good test is and each will likely come up with their own answer.  Thats why the top 100 in the US could be top 200 without much difficulty.

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

TMac,

I read this snippet about Tucker:

"With the care of the links of the Century Country Club at White Plains, the Wykagyl Golf Club at New Rochelle and the O-te-sa-ga layout at Cooperstown, as well as having charge of the rebuilding of the Hudson River Country Club course, it doesn't seem as though William Tucker, links architect, will have many idle moments this season."

Any idea of what he did? Could he have been assisting Len Rayner, or vice versa?

Tucker was a grass and turf specialist in addition to be an architect. He described what he did as 'agrostology'. He also did some construction work.

[JNC Lyon]

JNC

Perhaps some folks differentiate between top 100 architecture and fun/playable architecture.  I know I do because for top 100ish I try to consider the good players (scratchish) and the high capper.  A truly top 100 course (with the odd exception) has to be a good test for the scratch player without the course going into trick up mode.  Of course, we can debate all day as to what a good test is and each will likely come up with their own answer.  Thats why the top 100 in the US could be top 200 without much difficulty.

Ciao

Sean,

I understand a ranking that takes both good players and weaker players into account.  Unfortunately, I think many top 100 lists feature a large number of courses that are a test for the low handicapper (a small percentage of the golfing population) but make no allowances for the high handicapper (a large percentage of the golfing population).  On the flip side, I see comparatively few courses that are enjoyable for the high handicapper (a large percentage of the golfing population) but not a great test for the low handicapper (a small percentage of the golfing population).  How is a course that is good for 20% of golfers (or even less sometimes) better than a course that is good for 80% of golfers.

Besides, I doubt the low handicapper would go really low on a course like Leatherstocking because of the quirk, the wild land (most approaches are from uneven lies), and the greens.

[Sean_A]

JNC

Tradition in rankings is strong thing to kill.  I don't have an answer for you other than to continue enjoying the courses you do.  You seem to rate highly the courses which provide the fun factor more than the test and there is nothing wrong with that, but most guys will kowtow to the long created canon of rankings.  That tells us at least three things.  One, there must be something to these sacred cows.  Two, there is far more subjectivity involved in judging gca than most would like to admit.  Three, most guys won't go on a public limb with some courses.  They will rank them if they don't like them because they don't want to be seen as foolish. 

Maybe you need to change the system from the inside and get on a panel.  If you aren't terribly interested in doing this, it may prove to be instructional.  I would join a panel if invited.  There is no way I would ask or make enquiries.

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

TMac,
Thanks for the Tucker info.

JNC,
Once you extract a dozen or so courses from the GW Classic Courses list (like PV, WFW, Oakmont, etc.), the reputations of those that remain are not built upon brutality or beatings.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Besides, I doubt the low handicapper would go really low on a course like Leatherstocking because of the quirk, the wild land (most approaches are from uneven lies), and the greens.

I would have to disagree with this statement. If memory serves there isn't a par 4 longer than 400 yds., and the 5s are between 460 and 540. That's a bunch of chip shot approaches for the pros, and low 60s and high 50s would be the norm once they got familiar with the greens.

[Sean_A]

Besides, I doubt the low handicapper would go really low on a course like Leatherstocking because of the quirk, the wild land (most approaches are from uneven lies), and the greens.

I would have to disagree with this statement. If memory serves there isn't a par 4 longer than 400 yds., and the 5s are between 460 and 540. That's a bunch of chip shot approaches for the pros, and low 60s and high 50s would be the norm once they got familiar with the greens.

Jim

I don't think we were talking about the pros.  As the pros can tear up anyplace on any given day there is no point in referencing pros when talking about gca difficulty.  I don't know Leatherstocking, but I do suspect that scratchish players can have their way with Leatherstocking under daily play conditions.  However, to me, that is not a good enough reason not to rate the course highly if the case is that in more playful weather or if the greens can be pinned in troublesome spots (not much effort to crank up the difficulty) then par is a good score. 

Ciao

Ciao 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sean,
Leatherstocking has a senior pro-am (club pros) event and you will see some mid-60s from the top scorers.

I wish there were more course like LGC. It may be overlooked, but I just don't think it's been underrated.   

[John Foley]

Matt _ I'd love to see your photo's - in all my rounds there - most times I don't have a camera and the few times I do - not that greeat for taking pics.

BTW - Why is Matt Ward a guest??

[paul cowley]

I'm a little late to this thread, but I owe a lot to Leatherstocking GC.

All my early golf was on fairly bland Muni's...when I first played this course I was probably about 12 or 13 and after about 5 holes it started to click that something very different was going on here...cross bunkers...blind holes...elevated greens and just fun and interesting holes and contours...and by the time I finished the last sequence of holes I was hooked about golf and the design challenge...and remain so.

It is and will always be one of my top 5 courses anywhere.

I don't agree that the course's length should be the ultimate arbitrator of its greatness, and I will start a separate thread tomorrow based on this premise.

[Matt Bosela]

Since there seems to be some interest, I'll post a bunch of pictures here sometime later tonight.

[Matt Bosela]

I contemplated starting a separate thread for this photo tour but there's been so much in the way of good discussion here that it would be wrong to break it up.

Leatherstocking tops out at 6401 yards and is a par 72 (35-37).  For the sake of this tour, all yardages provided are from the Green Tees (tips).

1st Hole - 340 Yards Par 4

A bit of a breather to start, with a short par four that runs straight away with only a right fairway bunker to contend with.  However, the character in the greensites shows itself right at the outset, with Emmet's flat-bottomed and grass-faced bunkers protecting a slightly pushed up putting surface.







2nd Hole - 392 Yards Par 4

A very strong mid-length two-shotter, with a fairway that slopes sharply from left to right.  The approach is hit over a dry depression area to a green set up on the hillside with deep bunkers protecting both sides in front.  Shots coming up short will be blind to this elevated green.  Good golf hole.





3rd Hole - 200 Yards Par 3

The 3rd is a very solid par 3 that runs slightly downhill to a green that best accepts a left-to-right ball flight.  There is a series of small bunkers that protect the direct line to the green on the front right but the green is open in the front left, allowing for running approaches.

[Matt Bosela]

4th Hole - 513 Yards Par 5

There is a road that runs down the entire right side of the hole, causing a bit of stress off the tee.  However, there is plenty of room to bail out to the left and the real strategy comes into play on the second shot, which must skillfully avoid a number of well-placed fairway bunkers, including two of the center-line variety.  From there, the third shot is hit to a green well-protected by bunkers left and all putts slope toward that left side. 









5th Hole - 396 Yards Par 4

A pretty hole with an interesting greensite but perhaps a hole that would benefit from some strategic tree removal.  A mid-length dogleg left par four that requires a draw over or around trees protecting the left side of the fairway.  The green sits in a nice corner of the property, with more trees protecting the left side of the green and rendering a left greenside bunker practically useless.  The putting surface itself slopes sharply from back to front. 





6th Hole - 362 Yards Par 4

The tee shot is played from in front of the clubhouse patio and it's an awkward one, as you need to hit a left-to-right shot around or over some mature trees that protect the players from wayward tee shots from the adjacent 18th hole.  The approach shot is hit to easily the smallest green on the golf course, one that falls off severely on the right and at the back into bunkers.  A tough little harlot!

[JNC Lyon]

Good pictures Matt.  Some features I love on the first six holes:

The two-tiered green at 1, with the higher tier on the left.

The road crossing at 2 in front of a very difficult elevated green.  Why is Leatherstocking tougher than the yardage?  All of the longest par fours also play uphill (2, 7, and 10).

The wild 3rd green up against the stone wall on three.  A very classy long par three.

The echelon bunkering on 4.  This is a thrilling golf hole to play, and it is one of my favorite short par fives in golf.  Longer hitters will hit short clubs in here but will have to contend with a very difficult green.  For everyone else, the hole is a total blast.

The green tucked back in the corner on 5.  This is a very intimate setting for a greensite.  This is a cool hole, but it is one of my least favorites on the course--shows you how good Leatherstocking is.

The short carry bunker on 6.  I just love this routing, where the player starts at the house, plays up the escarpment, across on 3, down on 4 and 5 until nearly reaching the lakeshore.  This bunker is also a target on 18, and I believe marks the ideal line off the 6th tee.

The pushed-up 6th green with a false front.  The golfer who is not careful with his second shot will likely miss this tiny green, where an up-and-down is difficult from all sides.  This green is simple, old-fashioned, and loads of fun.

6 is one of the lowest points on the golfer course, and the golfer does nothing but go up for the next four holes.  What a thrill! I can't wait to talk about the next set of six.

[Matt Bosela]

Great comments JNC!

7th Hole - 404 Yards Par 4

As JNC said, the next few holes climb well uphill and the 7th is a brute.  The fairway is slightly offset from the tee, favouring a left to right shot.  Left off the tee is pretty much dead due to trees lining that side of the fairway.  If you do get into trouble off the tee, you'll be faced with clearing a well-placed fairway bunker that sits less than 100 yards in front of the green.  Otherwise, the main difficulty at the 7th is the uphill second to a green with a significant false front and a huge depression area in the front right.  Par is a good score here!







8th Hole - 375 Yards Par 4

A dogleg right that starts downhill off the tee and features a blind landing area.  The landing area falls off sharply to the left but there is plenty of room through the fairway and there is also a well-placed tree that might block out your approach.  The green is long and narrow with some nice subtle undulations, with bunkers flanking the right side and a fall-off area to the left.









9th Hole - 186 Yards Par 3

You cross over the main road to play the next four holes and the uphill 9th is a really scary tee shot.  Right is not an option, as the road runs down the entire length of the hole and the green falls off sharply in that direction as well.  Left is fine and you can actually get a little help off the hillside, with many balls kicking right onto the green.  I was told that a lot of work has been done to this greensite in recent years to make the hole easier and I can attest to its penal nature.  Missing short left is really the only option, as anything right or long is a certain bogey, or worse.

[Matt Bosela]

10th Hole - 384 Yards Par 4

A midlength dogleg left par four where many will opt for a fairway wood off the tee, as the landing area falls off quite a bit to the right, requiring a precise tee ball.  There is more room than you think on the right but the approach is best made from the fairway to a green perched at the highest point on the property.  Bunkers surround the entire putting surface and the green falls off severely at the back, with the possibility of long approaches sailing out of bounds.  The contours on this green are quite interesting - a really good golf hole.









11th Hole - 560 Yards Par 5

By far the longest hole on the golf course but one that plays significantly downhill, especially near the approach.  Trees run down the entire right side so you need to favour the left with a fade off the tee.  This hole is a three-shotter for most but you'll want to hit your layup as far as possible in order to get a view of the green, which sits well below fairway grade.  A running approach might work in firm, summer conditions, as the fairway slopes sharply downhill and from right to left.  The green is protected by bunkers left and one solitary bunker at the back right.







12th Hole - 137 Yards Par 3

A little dropshot par three to a very wide green that is surrounded by small bunkers.  To be honest, I wasn't a fan of the bunkering here and feel that a single wraparound, Raynor-styled bunker would work better.  The bunkering was just too busy for me but I'm sure many others will disagree.