St. George's and quirk, starring Hanse, Pat Mucci, and other GCAers

[Tim Martin]

Will,
I have never played RSG, so it is hard for me to make comparisons. The 17th hole is a great short par 3 with  large false front that runs down into bunkers. The tee shot is a carry over a ravine. The shot is usually only in the 125 yeard area, but it is very exacting as you can not land on about half of a very small green. The back portion of the green is flat, and that is the only safe zone to land on.  I very precise shot, but generally hit with a short iron.
The course is one of the most fun course I have ever played.  

Thanks Keith.  It looks like a great short (short) hole with it's hilltop to hilltop shot to a wickedly sloped green.  I would imagine in any sort of brisk wind (from any direction) it can be a daunting task to keep it below the hole (where I assume you need to be).  The 16th at Sandwich is not a similar hole.  It plays over undulating (but level) ground with no particular slope other than that which bleeds balls into that right bunker that undid T. Bjorn.  It is a relatively benign hole relative to the rest of what is an excellent (and incredibly difficult) course with a number of truly unique golf holes.  Royal Cinque Ports' 4th might be a hole closer in character and playing characteristics to this little beauty - similar yardage, over a little chasm, with a little bit of a false front (no bunkers to clear). 

Dave, there are more appropriate ways to set up your golf games.  I am simply trying to learn more about what looks like an architectural gem through a thread that is meant to do just that.  

Will-The only word I can think to describe Dave`s offer to play St. Georges is gracious. I wonder what is inappropriate about it?

[Will Lozier]

 Will-The only word I can think to describe Dave`s offer to play St. Georges is gracious. I wonder what is inappropriate about it?


Tim,

Fair enough.  Apologies Dave - I wasn't making the connection to this particular course.  I am just wondering who will answer my question about Jay's comparison...someone who is familiar with both courses.  Cheers boys...I'll settle on down!

[David Harshbarger]

Jay,

While your use of the term "expert" in regards to me puts your hole essay in a suspect light, I must thank you nay-the-less, as now that it is on the Internet, it must be true!

Dave,

That is most generous offer to get a group out to your course.  As an expert on golf architecture, I strongly encourage anyone who can find a way out of their other obligations to join you at your gem.

Dave

[John Mayhugh]

but can you speak to the architectural comparison between SG 17th and Sandwich's 16th?

Commonalities:
Both are par 3s
Both have bunkers
Both are on a course with St. George's in its name

Differences:
NY hole is 122, Kent hole is 161
NY hole is across a ravine, Kent hole is across mostly level land
NY green is built up on a pad higher than the surrounds, Kent green is not
Kent green is significantly larger than NY green
NY green has a large false front, Kent green does not
Kent green has a slope on the back right that funnels balls into bunker (note:  this is not a false front)

I cannot see how the 17th at St. George's would remind anyone of the 16th at Sandwich.

St. George's is a wonderful course, and is really unlike anything else that I've played in the US.  It has a charm much like some of the English courses I've played, and I think that is a better description than quirky. When I played it last year, Adam had the course in fantastic condition, and no doubt it's just as good now.  I'm really grateful to Tommy Naccarato for introducing me to St. George's.   Anyone with an opportunity to see it should. 

Some better reading on the course:
http://stgeorgesgolf.com/golfweek.pdf

And a thread with really nice photos:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46293.0.html

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jay,

For me, the ultimate test is:  do I want to go directly to the first tee from the 18th green.

SG's passed that test with flying colors..

It's a course that lures you, with less than subtle signals.

If you don't enjoy golf on this course, you shouldn't be allowed on GCA.com

[Will Lozier]

Jay,

...Although I haven't had time to read the whole article, I have to question your comparison of the 17th at SG with the 16th at Sandwich.  There is no false front at RSG...there is a false edge if you will that feeds balls into the right bunker - this is where Bjorn lost the Open.  16 at SG looks to be a far more interesting hole (and more fun) being 40 yards shorter with a raised green - 17 at RSG is almost sunken on three sides.  I see very little to compare - certainly not "eerily similar" or "brothers".

Thanks John!  I found that part of Jay's article to be completely bogus...  

The most severe (and difficult) false front is at the par-3 17th, 122 yards of sheer terror, almost as visually arresting (and nerve-wracking) as the 17th at Sawgrass. It definitely brings to mind its brother hole, the eerily similar par-3 16th at Royal St. Georges in Sandwich, England. (That’s the hole where Thomas Bjorn left the Claret Jug in the greenside bunker short of the toughest false front on the golf course.)

Like its brother across the pond, the front third of the 17th green at St. George’s is completely false and will ruthlessly roll balls back off the green, down the embankment and into a bunker 10 feet below fairway grade. Then you face the same false front while playing out of the deepest bunker on the course. Good luck with that: let me know how it turns out…

I've not played SG in NY but pics clearly disqualify it from being the "brother hole"...it seems like a better hole judging solely from pics.

[Jay Flemma]

Sorry John and Will, but you're wrong.  Yes, it does play like the 16th because you face the same danger from the front right bunker, a severe false front that win run back down to your feet.

[Jay Flemma]

Jay,

For me, the ultimate test is:  do I want to go directly to the first tee from the 18th green.

SG's passed that test with flying colors..

It's a course that lures you, with less than subtle signals.

If you don't enjoy golf on this course, you shouldn't be allowed on GCA.com

Exactly right...the minute you finish, you want to go back out again.  So glad you and everyone else - except the clones - had a great time and liked the piece.

[PThomas]

Jay,

For me, the ultimate test is:  do I want to go directly to the first tee from the 18th green.

SG's passed that test with flying colors..

It's a course that lures you, with less than subtle signals.

If you don't enjoy golf on this course, you shouldn't be allowed on GCA.com

well said Patrick

[John Mayhugh]

Sorry John and Will, but you're wrong.  Yes, it does play like the 16th because you face the same danger from the front right bunker, a severe false front that win run back down to your feet.

You have no idea what you are talking about.  The 16th green at Sandwich does not have a severe false front.  Have you played the course?  Have you seen the green in person?  

In your article, you say this about the 16th at Sandwich:
"That's the hole where Thomas Bjorn left the Claret Jug in the greenside bunker short of the toughest false front on the golf course.

Here's a youtube video of the bunker that Bjorn had trouble in.  It's on the right side, not in the front.  Watch the video carefully as you may not be able to catch such a subtle difference (right side rather than front) with only a single viewing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpUuFQOa7LA

Your article goes further, stating that "like its brother across the pond, the front third of the 17th green at St. George's is completely false."  There is no false front on the 16th at Sandwich.  Find me anyone that has played there that will agree with you (note: those journalist friends who claimed you can see the white cliffs of Dover from the course don't count as credible sources).

There's nothing wrong with writing about a course you haven't played, but you should at least do some basic research and know what you are talking about before writing.  And when you find out that you're wrong, own up to it.  I won't comment on the rest of your article.  I wouldn't even have read it if not for the title of the thread and this silly argument about false fronts.

[Jay Flemma]

Save it for someone who cares.  You fell all over yourself trying to be insulting to me.  Nobody cares, it's an old and tired act.  Anything else?

[John Mayhugh]

Save it for someone who cares.  You fell all over yourself trying to be insulting to me.  Nobody cares, it's an old and tired act.  Anything else?

Assume this might be directed at me.  Obviously you don't care about being accurate, or you would listen to people and correct your article.  You had the opportunity to learn something and fix your error, but instead you told me I was wrong.  All I've done is provide evidence to support my argument.  If you're insulted by that, then you really shouldn't be posting on an internet discussion group. 

The main point of posting was to correct a factual error in your "article."  There is no false front on the 16th green at Royal St. George's. That's a fact.  I refrained from commenting on any other aspect of your writing as no good would come from that.

[Jay Flemma]

As usual, you are very sure of your errors.  Few people are more wrong, more loudly, more often. 

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Though I haven't played St. Georges since Adam took over as Super, I have played there numerous times in the past and have played RSG a few times. Aside from a common name missing a Royal, that is the only comparison.  The 17th at St. Georges is a short do or die tee shot with a wicked false front.  The 16th at RSG is a 180ish hole with a wicked right side, but plenty of bail out to the left.  There is part of the 15th at St. Georges that has a false right side--not sure if it has been shavedd into the bunker or not, but that was once a popular pin position, so I do know that bunker. 
Aside from a lot of cool mounds, I really do not see a lot of quirk.  Short and tricky--yes, but I think it is a straightforward course fit into a tight property. As for quirk, that would be found at Hampshire where you have some odd shaped doglegs because of the use of big rock formations--a better quality restoration on this course and it would still be a viable club.

[Michael Whitaker]

Jay,

I don't want you to feel like we're piling on here, but I've played both holes and there is not much in common beyond the fact they have a par of three. It's a romantic thought you have presented in your article, and it would be cool if it were true... but, unfortunately it's not.

Mike

[Sean_A]

The 16th at Sandwich slopes back left to front right and it does have a bit of fallaway to the front of the green AFTER the fronting bunkers are carried to a sort of bowl.  The overall effect of the green is to gather at the front right, not repel at the front.  I think its a good hole!



Ciao

[Will Lozier]

Sorry John and Will, but you're wrong.  Yes, it does play like the 16th because you face the same danger from the front right bunker, a severe false front that win run back down to your feet.

Jay,

As John so aptly said, you are clueless.  You have obviously never set foot on that green (course?).  Many, many people who have PLAYED that hole (course) are trying to set you straight (i.e., inform you) and your self-righteousness won't let you make a simple admission of a completely fabricated analogy of golf holes.  I am guessing you thought it would be cool if a great course that you had just played named St. George's somehow had this really similar hole to a notoriously difficult Open course where a well-known bunker catastrophe occurred possibly similar to a fate you suffered with your sorry game - remember I've seen your swing...super flat, probably kept diggin the heal of your SW deep in the sand and the ball ended up back at your feet a few times...oh yeah, just like Thomas Bjorn!  Either that or you really do have no idea what a false FRONT is.  I'll assume the former.  

So, save the "sorry" for when you do what any responsible "writer" would do when they publish such a flawed couple of paragraphs (having only read this excerpt, I am frightened to read the rest), accept feedback and correct your piece.  No one will ever take you seriously until you show some humility.

[Will Lozier]

Save it for someone who cares.  You fell all over yourself trying to be insulting to me.  Nobody cares, it's an old and tired act.  Anything else?

Jay...it is obvious you don't care.  Yet, a "journalist" should, no?  That's the frustrating part.  Nobody was trying to insult you - read my first post!  You insist on taking things personally rather than taking our comments as feedback (actually trying to help you from making yourself sound completely uninformed).  As John suggested, please offer the opinion of another to support your comparison.

[Scott Warren]

I saw the thread title, I expected carnage, I wasn't disappointed. Jay, I would have thought after your previous debacle you'd have retired from writing about Royal St George's.

What John says about the RSG hole is 100% correct and I think he was much more polite in saying so than many others on this site might have been.

Say what you like, the only person who looks a fool is you -- not only when you make these nonsensical claims, but when you then attack folks who point them out.

[John Mayhugh]

As usual, you are very sure of your errors.  Few people are more wrong, more loudly, more often. 

I'm sorry that you feel that way, and surprised that a writer is so unwilling to correct an obvious error.  There's no shame in making a mistake, but your reaction to receiving correct information is bizarre.

[Jay Flemma]

Hey Scott and John, who are you trying to impress?  And why don't you send them to me directly...I'd rspond to you, but I'm tired of answering to lackeys.

[Will Lozier]

Hey Scott and John, who are you trying to impress?  And why don't you send them to me directly...I'd rspond to you, but I'm tired of answering to lackeys.

Jay,

Who are YOU trying to impress by continuously posting your writings on a discussion board?  We are the responders.

Lackey?  Really?  Yet another poorly written piece.  The only thing I am trying to do is be a servant of REALITY.  Answer to me...please!  OFFER UP ANOTHER OPINION THAT SUPPORTS YOUR COMPARISON OF THESE TWO GOLF HOLES!  Still waiting.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Aside from an incorrect comparison of holes, I am still waiting for some deacriptions of St. Georges quirk.  A false front or false side does not make quirk. And there really are not a lot of bind shots compared to even the namesake with the Royall

[Jay Flemma]

Read the article, you'll see the quirk discussion.

[Scott Warren]

Jay,

Are you paid by The Golf Space and, if so, are you paid per page impression?

Just curious.