Hidden Creek Golf Club first impressions....

[Jimmy Muratt]

I had the pleasure of playing Hidden Creek Golf Club in NJ yesterday.  The course definitely lived up to expectations.  It played hard and fast and the greens gave me fits all day.  Some of the possible pin positions are fantastic.  There are numerous false fronts and collection areas around these huge greens and some of the contours make two putting very difficult.  

A few of my favorites:

#3  interesting angles created, especially for the lay-up to avoid the huge quarry pit to the right, a great par 5
#4  spectacular par 3 that played 210 into the wind.  I was just on the collar pin high right and ran my chip by about 10 feet, the speed of the green down the slope is tremendous.
#8  I really enjoyed this hole.  It played into the wind so my tee shot ended up about 30 yards short but this green is no bargain.  It has some severe contours and fall-offs.
#11  a great short par 3.  It was playing 117 up the hill but the green is tiny and has a severe slope from back to front.  I was about 15 feet behind the hole and putted it right off the front of the green.  There are some very tricky pin positions on that green.  It represents everything a great short par 3 should be.
#15  dogleg left that allows you to cut the corner and have a short iron in if you pull it off.  Another large green with severe undulations.  

Hidden Creek is definitely a shot makers course and rewards the player who can work the ball both ways.  It would take many rounds to pick up all of the nuances of the course.  A very enjoyable round of golf and highly recommended.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Briefly, as I have to run out, I played it in 44 degrees, cold windy weather on the Friday before Easter, and I loved it. The ball bounced all over the place. Greens were in great shape, and the staff is also very very pleasant. I commented to a friend that C&C really know how to build fun golf courses. Favorite course at The Shore, but I have not played ACCC since the Doak revision or Galloway National.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jimmy V:

What features at Hidden Creek reward players who can work the ball both ways?

[Jimmy Muratt]

Tim,

The thing is about Hidden Creek that is appealing is that anyone can play it, but in order to put yourself in the best position to attack the flags, it is very beneficial to be in certain parts of the fairway.  The greens are so large that if you are attacking from the wrong angle or with the wrong flight, you can easily end up with a 50 or 60 foot putt.  

Just on the back 9:
Holes 10, 15, and 16 play much easier if you can draw the ball off of the tee.  
12, 13, and 17 all benefit from a fade to get in the best positions to go at the flags.

And I'm not even talking at going at the pins.  With these large greens, if a flag's tucked on the left side behind a bunker, it helps you greatly to be able to aim at the fat side and play a slight draw in there.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Tim,

I do think that Ran's write-up of Hidden Creek is one of the best, but to add in the direction of your question, look at # 2. C&C gives you options to play the ball all three ways with this fairway bunker.



1. You can play a draw around the bunker and between the next bunker;



2. You can play a 225+ shot over the bunker;

3. You can play the slice around the bunker.

Depending on the pin position and wind of the day, you can play the hole a different way each day.

Thus it is not only a hole by hole strategy, but also hole within a hole. There is lots of room out there at HC, so even though it is built in the pine trees, it plays very open.

As my only other C&C course to date was Sand Hills, I was thinking that I would not really love the course. I grew up summers at The Jersey Shore, so I know most of the courses down there. I was not disappointed at all. I am not trying to compare it to Sand Hills, but it is very "fun" to play similar to Sand Hills. It makes me want to attend the BC vs Notre Dame football game next Fall, and skip the tailgating and maybe even the football game to play another C&C course.

[Tom_Doak]

Jimmy,

Was there anything you didn't like about the course?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike Sweeney,

Those are great looking photos that you chose to post,
but, they prompt me to ask, is it the look that you fell in love with, or the golf course, its strategy and the fun involved in playing it, or a combination, or all of the above ?

[Mike_Sweeney]

Patrick,

Those are Ran's photos from his review and trip, which looks like it was in mid-summer. I played two weeks ago so I did not see the "look" in these pictures. For this early in the season, it had the maintenance meld that Tom Paul talks about and the greens were in great shape. I played very well that day, which I am sure helped my view of HC. However, there was a number of options off the tee and into the greens. My sense of C&C after only two courses is that they really sweat the small stuff. GCA gets accused of loving minimalism, but I really think it is more an appreciation for the details rather than bold or in your face type of earth moving architecture.

For example, when I walked up to the 4th hole which is HC's version of a Redan hole, my thought was "okay I know how to play this hole (ie the 13th at Yale)".


I left my tee ball short in the opening, and it was only then that I could see how much slope and movement there was in that green (the picture does not really show it), especially since the pin was deep left. Ran comments in his review how the trees were cleared behind the green, and he is correct, as it gives the hole a big feel.

I could see how some better players might need some more challenge, but again for my game it worked.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike;

There were a lot of things that I really loved about Hidden Creek, but honestly felt that the most engaging and stimulating holes were over by the 12th hole.

I was so impressed with the way the course built up in interest and intensity up to that point, only to be left a little flat by the remainder of the back nine.  

Don't get me wrong...the holes certainly have an interesting subtlety and playability that wear well, I'm certain, but I saw nothing after 10,11, and 12 that approached their impressive level of greatness as individual holes.

For instance, you mentioned #15 as one of your favorites.  In what I saw as a disappointing exception to C&C's attention to detail that you pointed out, I drove through the fairway into the long "target" bunker along the right side.  Upon entering the bunker, I was shocked to find that my approach was completely blocked out by overhanging trees.  It seemed to me that this type of double-penalty is simply inconsistent with the design philsophy that C&C are so well known for.

My overall impression is that it's a really fun and playable member's course, with some great holes and interesting greensites.  I'd also imagine the members must have some really fun and strategy filled matches.    

[TEPaul]

My feel and sense is that Coore & Crenshaw look at this golf course as a bit of a variation from the norm. They recognize there may not be much modern wow factor to the golf course and they didn't intend it to be such, I think. They do feel, I believe, that when the course is up to it's intended design intent and maintenance meld it will be one that may be harder to score on than most will at first recognize. My sense it is that Coore feels that there should be some real scoring subtlety at Hidden Creek. I feel fairly safe in saying, though, that they're a bit concerned that the golf course will be as well understood by general players and members as they want it to be and hope it can be.

Naturalism and coloration was intended to be a large part of the design. Subtely in scoring was too.

Remarks like a tree potentially blocking a recovery shot from a bunker, such as the remark about a bunker on #15, Coore & Crenshaw probably look at as amusing. Doak probably does too. I think both look at things like that as incidental and certainly not something that should be remedied due to architectural "formulaics". And it should be said that neither of them are unaware of that situation.

Hidden Creek probably isn't a golf course for everyone's taste. It will be very interesting to see who likes it and why and who doesn't. It will be very interesting to see who scores well on it, and how and why.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

I find it very interesting that the bunker/tree situation on 15 is intentional, or at least something that C&C didn't seek to change.  I generally enjoy out of the box, unusual features, and I'm always looking for things that are "different", and creatively distinct.

In this case, however, I'm not sure that I agree that this "gotcha....oh...and gotcha again" feature is sympathetic to their general philosophy of permitting interesting recovery shots.  Having to blast out sideways with no go at the green from less than 150 yards just doesn't seem to me to be the type of inspiring shot their courses normally encourage.

Again, I'm getting into the fine details here, and don't mean for my particular comments to reflect negatively on the superb general playability of the course for all levels of players.

[ForkaB]

Tom P

All you can talk about is "score, score, score!"  What is Hidden Creek?  Surely not one of those "card and pencil mentality" sort of tracks.........

[AWTillinghast]

Tom Paul;

Having to blast out sideways with no go at the green from less than 150 yards just doesn't seem to me to be the type of inspiring shot their courses normally encourage.

Mike, I am surprised at this response based on your history of posts which I have enjoyed.  So here’s my question:  What’s the difference between that bunker at HC, where you had to play out sideways because of a tree, and the following:

1.  A deep pot bunker in the middle of the fairway at 150 yards that precludes you from going for the green?

2.  A bunker like the left greenside bunker at PVGC #5 where it is so narrow at the far end that the best play and sometimes the only play is often to putt back down into the front of the bunker?

3.   Numerous bunkers at St. Andrews where sideways and backwards plays are the recommended and even only plays.  Remember Nicklaus’ 10 for failing to take his medicine?

Just curious.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mr. Tillinghast...Sir;

Nice to hear from you and hoping that the antique business is booming during this "retro" period.  

I'm also a big fan of yours, so let me explain my thinking and hope I can make sense.

I defend penal bunkers because once someone knows the severe character of the bunker in question, one generally knows it's best to avoid them, altogether.

But, even in the examples you mentioned, one generally has some options.  I've seen players pull off heroic shots from 150 or less from pot bunkers...usually their degree of recoverability relates to how close to the face one's ball has rolled.  That type of variability and inconsistency is to me part of the fun and interest of bunkers.  

You could almost relate your examples to include any bunker in the world where one might have their ball plug under a lip, or some other type of unfortunate situation.  

However, in each and every one of these cases, one is dealing with the particulars of the bunker hazard itself.  If the bunker on the far right of the 15th at Hidden Creek was built in such a perilous fashion as to often dictate a sideways blast-out, I'd have no issue with it at all.

However, to take away the option of going for the green entirely through trees blocking the approach doesn't seem to me to be the type of architectural feature I generally applaud or admire.      

[redanman]

Interesting to see Mr Paul and Mr Cirba's posts back to back.  Different takes on one of C&C's "_______" works.

As  for Hidden Creek, I have to admit that I agree with a lot of comments here from different people.

I generally like how the course was executed.  Much of the back nine did nothing for me and I looked and looked and looked to see if I was missing something.  I like to go back and forth with TEP about these guys, but every course by C&C is not some Michelin *** masterpiece, but their courses are all pretty much worth seeking out, just a matter of degree as to how hard to search.  

#11 probably was my favorite on the course as it combined several things that are often missing anymore.  Uphill par 3 and short par 3.  Just a really fun hole that hitting the green with a nice little gap wedge shot is not a guarantee of a par.  A truly rare hole.

#3 is a very fine strategically flexible par 5, no description can do it justice.  

I was really underwhelmed by the "redan-like" par 3 that everyone seems to love.  

#5 par 4 with a 70 yard wide fairway that really plays about 15 yards wide is brilliant but the the hole really plays so many ways.

#8 I looked and looked and looked and it is less than it appears even though we played a front pin that had a lot of character, there is a real "feel good " nature to the hole where really good drivable holes have a sinister hidden character to them.  I just couldn't find it there other than the green contours. Speeds play i guess, not a bad thing.

#9 is a fabulous par 5 as I hit it fringe over in two with an iron.  Simple strategies I suppose, I expected more. Second time around the second shot strayed right into bunkers and I got it.

#10 has some wonderful options and a really good green.

#12 has some really nice character, great use of land.

#13 is dropped in from outerspace, intended for another course, an unexpected change of pace.

#14 I couldn't decide of the green was brilliant or blase, but it must be brilliant based upon a second look. Nice deception here and the change of pace from 12 to 13 to 14 in their lengths and look is very interesting.

#15 underwhelmed me and the green did not seem to have a lot of tie in to the fairway and the tee shot.  Each separately was pretty good, but it didn't gel and I laughed at Mike C's misfortune in the F B.  Not usually do C&C bunkers need a tree's help to defend the green.  At second look, the hole has the most demanding drive even more unforgiving than number 13.

#16 struck me that they forgot to add something.

#17 could be real fun if it were as hard as glass.  I haven't played the course that way yet.

#18 is a real throwback to match play golf.

All in all I am most inclined to echo Mr. Cirba's final assesment, maybe I originally expected more.  It is truly a great member's course, it will provide a definite home advantage in GAP matches!, but maybe I was led to believe that there was more out there than there was.  But then again, what do you gain from making such a course 7500 yards?

I need to go back and look again*, I was in the neighborhood last week and couldn't find the place and I didn't have a map with me! so Hidden is a good name.

It is a nice change from the usual typical "new" course, but a good example of "The Look" overshadowing the degree of substance.  But maybe no one ever intended it to be "Best of Show", but it is pretty damn good.

Visiting GAP teams, look out.

*second visit, added comments, more impressed.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike Cirba,

Many on GCA have condemned the double hazard nature of a bunker with trees blocking an approach to the green.

And now, TEPaul defends it because C&C did it.

If it was anyone other modern architect, I suspect that he would be critical of the feature.

AWT,

For whatever reason, golfers accept the sometimes punitive nature of bunkers, but when trees encroach within a bunker and impede ones swing or become a barrier, preventing the advancement of the ball, one would have to question the placement of the bunker or the decision to leave the trees as a blocking barrier.

[AWTillinghast]

Messrs Cirba & Mucci:

I have not yet played HC, so I don't want you to think that I am defending either it, this bunker or C&C generally, becasue I'm not.  I was just surprised that Mr. Cirba was a member of the I Hate The Double Hazard, Tree in the Bunker Society!  

I just don't see them that way.  I despise formulas and I just find these types of circumstances part of the vagaries of the game.  Without such vagaries, the game would be far less interesting and adventuresome in my humble opininon.  I wouldn't want to find these types of bunker/tree situations too often on any course, but I just don't see a problem with them appearing from time to time.  Also, I would rather have found myself in that bunker as described by Mr. Cirba than a water hazard - both are one shot penalties but I would probably end up with a better shot after coming out of the bunker than playing from the fringe of a water hazard and I won't have lost a ball, saving myself $3.50!  

I suspect Mr. Cirba has learned a lesson and now knows how important it is to avoid that bunker on the 15th at HC next time he plays!  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

AWT,

I suspect that if a water hazard was at the point that Mr Cirba found his ball, that he would have layed up short of that hazard, and avoided it. But, from the tee, there was no way of telling that being in the bunker would leave him with no shot to the green.

Why the need for a bunker, if balls hit to that location can't be advanced toward the green to begin with.

[AWTillinghast]

I suspect that if a water hazard was at the point that Mr Cirba found his ball, that he would have layed up short of that hazard, and avoided it. But, from the tee, there was no way of telling that being in the bunker would leave him with no shot to the green.

Why the need for a bunker, if balls hit to that location can't be advanced toward the green to begin with.

1.  If a hazard, water or bunker, doesn't ever tempt you to flirt with it, and laying up and avoiding it is always the play, then I would have to say that there's something wrong with that hazard!  

2.  Mike was obviously blind to the severity of this particular hazard on his first play, but he won't ever be blind to it again!
I don't have a problem with that, do you?  Isn't that the charm of certain golf courses?  In fact, read what redanman said about members having a real home course advantage.  If everything was obvious on the first play, then this wouldn't be the case!

3.  Why the "need" for the bunker?  Who said anything about need?  When it comes to great architecture, rarely does everything come wrapped in nice neat packages!  

[Mike Worth]

I'm normally a lurker on this site.  However, being a member at Hidden Creek, I wanted to weigh in.

First, I don't generally agree with Mike Cirba's observations about the course letting down after #12, though I used to have similar thoughts.  If you're involved in a match play event, I would contend that the final holes are actually the most exciting.  For example, par can be considered a good score on 14 and 16 and par can be a winning score in a match play event.  Also, a good player expects to birdie 17, and many times, a score of more than birdie can result in losing the hole.  Although 18 is not an "in your face" kind of hole, and not overly long, I have come to believe it is a good finishing hole, especially given the green complex.

I left #15 out of the para. above because some seem to have "picked" on this hole.  One of the things you try and prevent doing here is hitting a long straight drive because the hole is a dog leg and if you hit it too far (and straight), your 2nd shot is blocked out by the trees, unless you can really work the ball left to right.  If you hit too far you go in the aforementioned bunker and are further blocked out by the trees.  In my mind, it's sort of a double penalty, but so what.  In a recent GAP match, I was in that bunker and hit a 170 yard cut 5 iron to 15 feet and won the hole to even our match at that point.  Some may see an unfair double penaly, but I took great joy in hitting that shot, knowing that when I hit my drive I screwed up and it was my fault my drive was in the bunker.  Similarly, I saw someone on this forum criticize the articifial "knob" placed by the architects in the middle of the 6th fairway.  The criticism was that the knob wasn't natural.  Again, so what :-).  Everyone knows it's there and it has to be avoided because it is located precisely where a normal person will drive the ball, so one has to work the ball around this very small terrain feature.  

Regarding TEPaul's comment about some wondering "if the members get it", i can tell you every member I know "GETS IT".  Members know how difficult it can be to score on this course, especially if you get the ball in the wrong place on a fairway and are then forced to hit to an undesirable part of the green.  The course has already proved to be difficult to score on as we hosted a Pro-Am event featuring 20 pros from across the region and Northeast, and the winning pro score was +2.  This was on a day when the wind was not a major factor, but the greens were hard and fast.  Keep in mind the fescue wasn't very high at the time either, making the course a bit easier to play.  

And the course has proven to be a significant advantage in the GAP; local knowledge is very helpful with the greens!

[corey miller]

Aren't we getting a little formalic here?  I generally do not like the double hazard Mike talks about either. However, this is a double hazard that i am sure C&C are aware of and thus it was intended and perhaps should be analyzed as such. Most of the double hazards we see are the result of someone(not a archie) walking around planting trees with no regard to the implications.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

SS1,

First, you have to understand that Mike Cirba is a lefty, so he's different from most of us to begin with, and the things he says can't be taken seriously, especially if TEPaul agrees with him.

With respect to TEPaul, I tried to explain earlier, on another thread, that he is one of only three remaining individuals who are still members of the Flat Earth Society.  Hence, he's against anything with curvature, mounds, knobs, etc., etc..

Please discount any comments they might make regarding architecture or golf, and especially your golf course.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mr. Tillinghast;

My views and Patrick's are not exactly similar.  I believe that anything you throw into the context of the bunker hazard...depth, long grass plantings, trees, homicidal children, quicksand, snakes, or fires of hell is fair game....within the hazard!

In the case of the bunker in question, there is no question that I wouldn't challenge it in the future.  Frankly, there is no advantage to challenging it.  It lies on the outside of the dogleg and acts as a "catch bunker" to prevent balls from rolling into the trees, as seen below;



Ok...yes, I got burned once and on any future playing I would club down to ensure that I stayed short of rolling through the fairway on the dogleg left, 410 yard hole.  

Fooled me once, not twice.  

Actually, in looking at this other pic from the preferred left side fairway angle, there is an advantage to laying up short left from the tee.  



So, instead of a hole where one can "challenge" a risky bunker to gain advantage, we have one where a straight ball running through the fairway gets double-penalized.  

If the approach shot is going to be blocked by trees from the bunker, why not just let the ball roll into the trees anyway!?  Same difference!

Can anyone explain to me why this is a good golfing feature?

[Mike_Cirba]

By the way, I think this is an excellent discussion of detailed architectural features and their playability.  

SS1 as a member brings up some good points, and if you recall, I did say earlier that I'm sure the members have some really interesting and strategic matches out there, so no one here is disputing that in the least.

However, he brings up "scoring", as in the course is subtly difficult to "score" on.  I agree with him, but tend to evaluate courses on other things, as well, primary among them being, "do the holes inspire one with consistently interesting and challenging shots?"  

I think our respective opinions only differ by degrees as relates to the features and our individual ways of approaching that analysis.

[TEPaul]

SS1 said:

"Regarding TEPaul's comment about some wondering "if the members get it", i can tell you every member I know "GETS IT".  

SS1;

They didn't say they were hoping the members of Hidden Creek "get it". They only said that they hoped that the members would understand what they were trying to do there and would enjoy that.

MikeC:

The bunker/tree thing on #15 to me is probably an example of how many of us on here get far more doctrinnaire about things in architecture than architects such as C&C, Hanse and Doak do. I recall a tree on #8, I think, at Pac Dunes where if you were in the wrong part of the bunker you might have a problem with your swing because of the tree. On My God how awful!

Pat seems to assume that I'm as adamant against trees on golf courses as redanman and Chip Oat are. I'm definitely not that adamant.