Hidden Creek Golf Club first impressions....

[Mike_Sweeney]

Rich and Tom,

If you want to see some really interesting writings by Robert Hunter, go to http://www.deaddisc.com/GDFD_Robert_Hunter.htm

Most of these were written while on drug's in the 60's during the Grateful Dead's peak of counter culture popularity in San Francisco.

Golfing and Grateful Dead in San Francisco, if it was somehow the same person, he certainly had a good time out there.

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Mike

I don't think this is the same Robert Hunter that Tom P venerates, but I must have seen your guy on stage more than a few times as I saw the Dead often at the Fillmore, Winterland, etc. when I was at Stanford in the 64-68 period.  Like most of the 60's I don't really remember too many details from that era......

[TEPaul]

MikeS:

Not the same Robert Hunter we're talking about. The Robert Hunter we're talking about was a sometimes partner of Alister MacKenzie on the West Coast in the 1920s and 1930s, and unfortunately he breathed his last in 1942.

But if he was some kind of inspiration to the California counter culture of the 1960s and particularly the Grateful Dead I'm sure the fact that he'd been dead for about 20 years made little or no difference. Maybe the band was even grateful he was dead too--that certainly seems logical to me. Did the Grateful Dead sing about elaborate bunkering or labor relations in the 1930s?

[T_MacWood]

Rich
You are obviously not much of a Dead aficionado....Hunter did not perform with the band....he was their lyricist.

[TEPaul]

redanman asked:

"Tom
So, you would never suggest intolerance of others methods or opinions, would you?"

redanman;

Of course not--no way--absolutely never. I'm the most tolerant guy in the world even about golf architecture. I can't imagine how you could've missed my core philosophy about these things but apparently you have missed it so I'll state it for you again;

"Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone."

Since I'm such a tolerant, laissez faire and accomodating guy of other's opinions I see no reason at all they shouldn't do and say anything they please.

However, that applies to me too so I see no reason at all why I shouldn't call them an idiot if I feel their opinions are idiotic. The thing that astounds me is how completely some people take personal offense at that and even so much less than that.  

For instance, yesterday a guy from Hidden Creek called me condescending and anal because I answered something he asked me about in some way he didn't care for--and most saw rpurd, who unfortunately isn't on this site any more, who took to calling me TEAsshole (I see that this suite cleaned up what I said here. I said rpurd took to calling me TE as hole--not TEJerk. I had no idea golfclubatlas had a new automatic politically correct feature. It must be the result of what rpurd used to call me) because I asked him to explain why Ron Prichard was ruining bunkering across the Northeast.

But hey, that's OK, everybody should have their own opinions and feel free to express them.

That even includes Pat who's wrong 98% of the time requiring me to call him an idiot 98% of the time. And Rich is practically the same way--a complete devil's advocate and contrarian forcing me to imply what he says is idiotic an awful lot.

But I love both those guys. What are friends for anyway but to tell their friends the brutal truth? If friends don't tell friends that, who will?  

[Mike_Cirba]

Damn...

And here I thought we were having one of the most detailed, sophisticated, and interesting discussion on a golf course's individual architectural features that I can recall in months.  

I was ready to ask how people view the 16th hole, which I found to be a dull slog, and then move onto the 5th, which is stunningly original and complex and one of the subtly greatest holes I've seen.  

Oh well...

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Sorry about that--so back to Hidden Creek's architecture.

#16--a very tough long hole into the prevailing wind and made even longer than it is that way which is somewhat of a C&C trademark apparently on at least one of their holes. It may not look like the sexiest hole out there but it's a good one and in a good spot for variety and demand. I disagree that the hole is a slog. It's just a high demand/shot testing par 4 hole if one is interested in GIR. if not the options of recoverying for a four anyway are fun and multi-optional. This is the type of hole a William Flynn would build if a client gave him a real "green light". The cross feature mounds and such are actually more form than function as that was a natural drainage run and that was an interesting thing to do with it. The entire green set-up is big but good and a green that sort of traditionally matches a hole that length.

#5 I too think is a brilliant and unique looking hole and one that gives added variety to the course. Not a bunker on it and a very long and interesting basically run-away green , making club selection interesting with a wonderful right greenside ridge and chipping area if you miss with complex recovery possiblities (back over the ridge). The mounding in front of the green is unique and makes for some interesting choices of setting up visibility or not.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

#16 has to be my least favorite hole at Hidden Creek, a ramrod straight, long (475) par four that goes slightly downhill from the tee to a fairway that is interrupted by broken ground, rough, and mounds at 285-310 yards, and then goes uphill to a green that is open in the front, but which is difficult due to a center-high feature rolling off somewhat on all sides.  

It seems to me that the drive is sort of mandated, unless one wants to attempt the 310 yard carry (not in my bag, nor in most of the members, I'd assume).  The idea is to drive it as far as you can, without exceeding the 285 limit.  The hole location might determine what side of the fairway one wants to favor, but there is really not much in the way of green to fairway preference orientation.  

The approach is the typical 200+ yarder to an uphill green, which as mentioned, is totally open in front to accommodate the running approach.

It's not a hole that one would point out as particularly creative or inspiring, despite the interesting green contours.  The hole, while lovely due to the rough overall "look" of the course, ultimately fails to stir the blood or offer creative options to any great extent.



Number five on the other hand, is brilliant, and not in any way that's particuarly obvious from the the tee.  It's only after playing the hole that one realizes the number of options and temptations that have been built in, and in retrospect, the dynamic way it will change it's demands every day depending on the wind, the hole location, and the firmness of conditions.  

It relies on a very simple concept...once again, a diagonal strip of broken, rough ground coming into play in the landing zone.  Unlike #16, however, this one works brilliantly due to the right to left cant of both the predominant landforms, as well as the reverse of the broken ground.  There are no bunkers on the hole and it doesn't need any.  

One seeking to lay up short wants to favor the right side, but that means laying quite a ways back for a flat lie and an almost blind second.

Another play might try to squeeze it further down the left, but rough and a wooded area serve to squeeze in that route, complicated by the ground running towards them.  

Finally, one can try to carry all of this, but trying to control that shot with the ground and green past the rough area running away from the golfer, is a very risky shot.  That shot is not really possible from the back tees at 395 yards, but is an option for a long driver from the member's tee with firm conditions and a good following breeze.

The green is almost 50 yards long, running away, so there is a paramount advantage to being able to see the approach shot.

From the right side, it looks something like this;

[Jimmy Muratt]

Going back over my round this past weekend, I was thinking about the short par 3 11th hole.  This is really one of the best short par 3's that I have played.  It is unlike many short par 3's in that it is uphill, which is a nice departure from the usual drop-shot short par 3.  When I played it was also downwind, so the breeze and uphill cancelled out.  It also has one of the best greens on the course that is also the smallest.  The green is very narrow with a severe slope back to front and a false front on the front right corner of the green.  You do not wanna be above the hole here.  

Just a great hole.   A fun par 3 that is playable by all, but still has teeth if you take it for granted.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jimmy;

The stretch of 10-11-12 sticks out in my mind as superb.  

The 120 yard 11th is a gem, and I'd only add that it provides balance, variety, and adds notable character to the course.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

Dr. Katz, your attending physician has advised Rich Goodale, myself and others, that it is important for your therapy that you are led to believe that you are right and we are wrong
98 % of the time.

In the interest of advancing your long term recovery, we are willing to accept our theraputic role, and your perception of us, as idiots.

We have also done our best to perpetuate the myth you cling to about Coore & Crenshaw being architects.
Don't you know that they're just another comedy team ?
Like Tom & Jerry
Laurel & Hardy
Martin & Lewis
Rowan & Martin
Abbott & Costello

Coore & Crenshaw are just their stage names, adopted after drinking cases of C & C Cola.

The alleged design of golf courses attributed to them was actually done by Charles Coody & Chevy Chase, the real
C & C boys.

[David_S]

My first impression of Hidden Creek when I played it last Fall was it was the best new course built in and around the Philadelphia area in the last 10 years, surpassing Galloway National.  

I played it for the second time today.  I've changed my mind.  I think it is the best new course built in and around the Philadelphia area since Huntingdon Valley.

[RJ_Daley]

Obviously, I never played HC, but looking at the bunker work reminds me of some other course... hmmm... let me see now...
could it be Wild Horse!  That first picture Mike posted from Ran's write-up, of the convex or inverted bunker green side of #2 HC is very similar to the fronting one at WH #5.  Yet, this one is reportedly a Bradley-Coore collaboration, rather than Axeland Proctor.  The one element I think appears from all the pictures on the write-up to be missing at HC is more fairway movement or frequency of elevation variance for more exciting placement to desired LZs to gain prefered lies.  Yet, the number of bunkers, and the more elaborate appearing routing seems to counter balance the relatively flat nature of the course.  It is amazing to look at the write-up pictures and consider the synergies of creative people like Bradley and Proctor and Craig all doing their thing.  Could someone post HCs course and slope rating and member and back tee yardage.  Thanks...

[TEPaul]

RJ:

Interesting that you said you think HC needs a bit more 'movement' in some of the fairways to make various lies more interesting. The overall site down there is pretty flat (except #4) and they actually did put movement into some fairways in particularly LZs. Matter of fact they thought about that and worked real hard on that, particulary #18. Not sure if Coore (and Duncan) is completely happy with the way #18 fairway turned out in and around the various LZs on that hole.

But there were two ideas that they obviously wanted to remain within when putting movement in some of those fairways;

1. That it won't really look like they'd done it.
2. That the speed of the course "through the green" would definitley magnify that 'movement'.

redanman;

Coore & Crenshaw understood and expected golfers such as the one you played with to say that about that golf course. That's why they said they hoped the members and such would understand the course--ie they didn't intend to put any "Wow" factor into it--that some golfers sort of demand today. Whatever real "visuals" there are there were supposed to depend on a sort of melded naturalness to that site and to also depend on a rather dramatic "coloration" scheme. The growing of fescue rough areas like that course has (which is most of the color constrast scheme they wanted) is a bit risky in that area and a climate like Hidden Creek.

And the "pop-up" bunkering, particularly on holes like #2 and #13, which I thought was kinda odd for them is most of what they think gives the course its "heathland" tribute look.

But anyone who really appreciates natural looking bunkers (wholly made by an architect) could hardly help but admire the bunkering in that photo of hole #11, for instance. That's about as good as it gets if one appreciates natural looking golf bunkers.

I really do think Coore & Crenshaw are terrific architects certainly in the best today but I don't glorify everything they do as Pat says. At HC there're a few things I wish they'd done a bit differently on a few holes.

I'm particularly adamant on the second shot LZ on #3. I think that left side bunker set should be tweaked to include at least one more bunker inside the fairway squeezing in that second shot LZ from the left with the big quarry bunker on the right. I'd have liked to see them do something with the front of #1 green, not in contour just in the way they created the front outline of that green so that it'd be far more deceptive to the approach shot. I'd have liked to see them bring the front left bunker on #4 farther away from the green but make it look like it was right up against the green (as it actually is). I'd have liked to see them use more fairway width on the left side of #6 and to have done something a bit different down the left side of #8. And oddly #7 is the only hole out there that doesn't grab me in some way like all the rest of them do.

But overall, my feeling about Hidden Creek and I think theirs too is it's a course that'll have a lot of subtelty to it when it comes to scoring, particularly when it's fast. That's a large part of the point of it and the overall design of it. A lot of golfers are going to be hitting what they think are good shots that aren't going to work out like they think they should or even will, particularly to and on the greens. To score as well as one can on that course is going to take a real experience factor, I think. Some golfers, even members have been losing shots here and there and not really understanding why and some of them have gotten pissed off with that. But to me that's the sign of a subtle course and architecture--and I believe the architects feel that to be true there too. But they didn't intend a large "wow" factor to the course. And again, some golfers don't like that and it leads some to say; "Where's the meat?"

[Mike Worth]

Wow.  That was impressive.  I had to come up for air after reading that last post.  I guess this is what Jeff Silverman meant by a "full blown thesis" when he wrote about GCA a while back.

All in good fun, right Mr. Paul :-)

But some serious questions/thoughts.

1.  IMO, nothing wrong with front of #1 green.  Altough I'll say the false front grabs you once and you never let it happen again.

2.  What would you do with the left side of #8?

3.  How much more room on the driving area of #6 would you like to add?  That fairway is already 50 yards wide, and there are ample choices and strategies for playing the hole.

4.  Finally, we get feedback at the club on what the criticisms of the course are (when there are criticisms, that is)  I've never heard "there is no wow factor, it didn't grab me, I don't get it".  The most common criticism I"ve heard is that it's too short.  I've heard that remark 2nd hand from 3 scratch golfers.  I don't agree with it, but that's what I"ve heard.  While I've heard visitors moan and complain about the greens, they understand the green size and contours are integral in the design of the course.  At the risk of having my sentence
parsed by Mr. Paul, those golfers that comment on the size of the greens and the length of some of their putts "get it"  :-)

[RJ_Daley]

I would like to see C&C and supporting cast do one course on land such as HC with the greens surrounds and greenside bunkering in the Royal Melbourne or Metropolitan theme, just to see how they come out on that.  HC appears in the photos as do the other C&C courses, to not utilize the surrounds in a maintenance meld of wide subtly moving areas of hummocks and hollows with short cut fescues.  I'd like to see Bradley or the Bunkerhill boys do the exacto knife edge greenside bunkering like the Australian tradition.  It seems to me that HC would have been a good place to try that.  Bradley comes close to a semi-Australian style with a George Thomas flavor at Cuscowilla, particularly greenside #10.  But, still there it appears the collars of greens are mowed in the traditional fringe and American rough surrounds, and they don't have the sharp edged greenside bunkering.  Dave and Dan obviously have that Thomas style of fingered capes and bays and rolled over lips in their bag of tricks from their work at restoring Riviera, and I even saw flashes of the technique at Sinaloa.  Hidden Creek has the right look in the fairway bunkering, but I think it would have just been interesting if they would have thrown in the wide surrounds, exacto knife greenside bunkering and geeen cut mowing right up to the bunkers.  But, I'm not sure if they could get an American Superintendent to buy into it.  Of course they (C&C) may not even want to do that style.  But, I for one would love to see them do it, and HC looks like it could have been a place to have a go at it.  

[Holyhead_ferry_1]

I read your little ditty about old style features on a golf track.
It is very difficult getting a client or even an established country club to buy into the Old World look that you and the rest of our esteemed readers and critics advocate.
The styles of the old world are surely but slowly making a comeback. Now then I'm realy going to upset some folks here!
I have many pals that are and I work with them every day of my life, The "Superintedent" today are becomming  premadonnas, they and some committees are ruining the game with green speeds and maintenance practices that are killing classic courses and the design of new ones. To qualify this, in your statements that steep banks and bunker features are not as common place as they where in the great designs, the maintenance equipment now available to the greenkeeper dictates what they and how they maintain a golf course. They or some  want to sit on a ride mower all the time. The older courses demand a different style of maintenance to that of the newer courses.

So in design with the greenkeeper/superintendent being envolved sooner, the client relys on the 'supers' requests and design suggestions which is fine but at the end of the day does Pete Dye really think about the maintenance of his bunkering when he's in full flow or did Ross or  MacKenzie in their designs. The Idea here is that, forgive me as an architect, is to create a field of play for golf not a soccer field for golf devoid of what the great courses of the 20 century are about.
I and the others in my profession should be advancing design and not submitting to machines to make life easier for the select few.
Comments please
Regards
Ian

[Mike_Cirba]

RJ Daley;

Interesting that Hidden Creek owner Roger Hansen has a nearby course by Steve Smyers at Blue Heron Pines East that has bunkers that are similar to those at Royal Melbourne.  

While they don't quite cut into the very edge of the green's vitals as those at RM do, they are similar in depth, shaping, and style.

THe course is hosting the USGA publinx this year, so its visibility and reputation should grow.  It's a very fine course on a formerly flat site.

[hp@hc]

The info on Hidden Creek pertaining to the golf course is

Member Tees    70.5/127   6485 yards

Championship Tees   72.2/131      6872 yards

A course that is designed to be enjoyed by it's members, not endured.  Probably the most walkable golf course in the US, another tribute to traditional style golf.  Kudos to C&C

[RJ_Daley]

Ian MacAlister, I love your work on the Titelist commercials, keep up the good fight!

I whole heartedly agree that the courses are being designed for the machines and the super's inclination of ease of maintenance.  I respect the super's job, and do believe they are a key element in the overall health and popular enjoyment of the game.  It is tough for them to manage budget costs on one hand, and do a maintenance meld that requires more hand work and time on the other.  But, aren't there trade-offs that can be negotiated?  For instance, too many designs have too many superfluous bunkers.  They may be multitudes of amoebas with just the right turning radius of lips and fringes and not too steep faces for the riding mowers, but too many of them none-the-less.  Wouldn't it be better to keep the bunkering to vital and key strategic areas with less but better placed ones, in order to save time.  Also, wouldn't it be better to not strive for the lightening speeds, and pristine over manicured turf conditions, and spend more time on the maintenance meld that could offer the classic features that simply aren't being incorporated due to superintendents input about ease of maintenance?

Ian, how do you feel about the Hidden Creek green surrounds?  Would wider surrounds cut to apron-fairway length be easier or harder to maintain?   I think they would actually be easier tgo maintain than the standard roughs and collars if done right and would add another dimension to the play.