[Paul Gray]

A simple, hopefully uncontroversial question (although I can see the arguments already   ):

To be absolutely clear, is the land for holes 1 to 5 and 9 to 11 actually links land or not?

[Ally Mcintosh]

A simply, hopefully uncontroversial question (although I can see the arguments already  ):

To be absolutely clear, is the land for holes 1 to 5 and 9 to 11 actually links land or not?

Presume you mean 1 to 5 and 12 to 17?

A lot of that land has clearly been used for farmland but that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a sand layer somewhere underneath. The dune ridges just inside are quite big so I think it unlikely that this land (all the way back to the rise) didn't have a links nature at some point in the past... I'd guess more low lying undulations with different vegetation (less marram, more heather for example) existed before it was ploughed under....

Think Kingsbarns (at least partly) for dune land turned to farmland and then re-created...

Still - no doubting that a few of these holes will be built on what is currently flattish arable land...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ally,

Close to 40 years ago I brought 15 friends to NGLA and Shinnecock, with play at Shinnecock in the morning and NGLA in the late afternoon when there were no caddies available.

None of them had ever played either course previously.

They all pretty much understood Shinnecock.
They felt that there was some unique holes, like 9,10 and 11, but that it was pretty much in keeping with the courses they had played, just better.

NGLA was a different story.

About 1/4 of them complained that the course was completely unfair, with blind and highly unusual holes.
Another 1/4 said that they didn't know how to play many of the holes, but thought they'd fare much better with repeat play.
Another 1/4 said that they thought there was something unique and special about the course
The other 1/4 thought it was the neatest course they had ever played.

The opinions of the individual holes seemed to reflect how each golfer scored on those holes.

I never heard one complaint about a hole that a guy birdied !

The complaints seemed to follow score.

The higher the score, the more complaints.

The first four holes left them in a tizzy

Golfers tend to view architecture "solely" through their eyes, and how features affect then, to the exclusion of how features affect other golfers.

Hence, when I hear complaints about a particular hole,  am I really hearing objections based on the golfer's lack of understanding of the hole or based on their inability to score well on the hole, which just might be related to their lack of understanding of the hole ?

Quirky holes tend to produce the loudest outcries.

I don't know if that's a bad thing.

I forgot which great ODG said it, but it was words to the effect that a controversial hole was a good thing.

If architects didn't create holes that were unique or quirky, think how boring golf courses would be.

On that day 40 years ago, holes like # 3 were vilified, yet that hole is one of my favorites.

Now, I've not played the hole Bryan pictured and castigated, so I can't offer my thoughts, but I don't think that criticism of a hole by a few people is indicative of that hole's lack of architectural and playing merits...............unless of course the complainant is one of those who thinks # 3 is a terrible hole, especially when judging from an aerial

[Adam Lawrence]

I've played the hole, and it's the one on the golf course that completely doesn't work imo. There's absolutely no reason that anyone would ever take the right hand route. It is much further, and the only advantage is that it gives you a view of the green, which you can't possibly reach.

Meanwhile the left fairway narrows to about 20 yards between a lost ball wetland area and some lost ball rough at just the point a decent drive for most will finish.

The green site is wonderful, but the tee shot is completely flawed.

[Mark Pearce]

I don't have much to add, never having played the course, but what a pleasure to read real, reasoned and sensible debate on a course (courses) that had previously been the subject of some rather more acrimonious discussion.  It does make me feel that I should make the effort to get up to Balmedie to have a look for myself sometime this year.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I've played the hole, and it's the one on the golf course that completely doesn't work imo. There's absolutely no reason that anyone would ever take the right hand route. It is much further, and the only advantage is that it gives you a view of the green, which you can't possibly reach.

Meanwhile the left fairway narrows to about 20 yards between a lost ball wetland area and some lost ball rough at just the point a decent drive for most will finish.

The green site is wonderful, but the tee shot is completely flawed.

Adam,

What tweaking would make it work ?

[Paul Gray]

Ally,

Yep, 12 to 17. Misread on my part (insert putting analogy joke as appropriate  ).

Thanks for the info. Very much appreciated.

[Niall C]

I agree with Adam's assessment of the 10th with the exception of the green complex. It's yet another green with a dry moat round it and the internal contours of the green aren't of the same quality as the other holes. Also being surrounded by tall, near vertical dunes I find fairly oppressive. Also standing on the tee I wasn't really aware too much what was being asked and could see no reason why I would want to play up the right, even after the caddy explained what the right hand fairway was for. It just didn't look viable.

All in all, I suspect that this hole is less of a brave attempt at something different as Ally suggests and more a compromise to get from A to B. IMO the big weakness in the routing.

Niall

[Niall C]

  "What's interesting to me is that a great many (dare I say super-majority?) of very knowledgable and otherwise impartial critics who have walked the property or played the course have come away with very positive reviews. The likes of Brad Klein, Joe Passov, Geoff Shackleford, David Baum,  Jerry Tardeand Peter Dawson have all agreed that it is an excellent course.  Darius Oliver, while the most critical of all the reasonably described experts,  thought it was "beautiful property" and had "obvious quality." All of the aforementioned found some faults (as did I), and none waxed as effusively as Trump has. I suspect these guys have collectively played way more courses around the world than most of those you allude to. As pained as it might be for some who despise the Donald, the fact is that the course is pretty impressive."

Steve L

The above is from your earlier post in response to one of mine. How impartial are you when you've been comped ? What makes all these guys experts and the rest of us not ? Not doing them down but what makes their opinion more worthy than others on here ?
I have played the course and would suggest that quite a lot of the critical comments from some of those that haven't do stack up. I'd also measure myself up against any of the guys you list above with the exception of Dawson. Anyone who redesigns TOC clearly knows more than me 

Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

Thing is Niall, you can always get from A to B by getting the dozer out. With regards to the greensite, the designers made a conscious decision to leave the cloaking dune in front of the green hence meaning many approaches are completely blind. They could have removed or softened it.

I'd be surprised if this hole was shoehorned in to make the routing work. That dell must have been crying out for a greensite. I just think it didn't work out quite as well in reality. Plus I agree on the drive. If they could just engineer a little widening after the bunker on the direct route and a little lengthening on the alternate fairway, the hole could play pretty well.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Now, I've not played the hole Bryan pictured and castigated, so I can't offer my thoughts, but I don't think that criticism of a hole by a few people is indicative of that hole's lack of architectural and playing merits...............

I said a few posts ago that:

I hope you (and Pat) aren't salivating for more holes like this one.

I'm not sure how you can get from that statement to your statement that I "castigated" the hole.  At worst I inferred a shortcoming in the hole.

If you read the 2008 thread you would know that I was questioning the dual fairway which offered no obvious advantage on the right side.  It wasn't any more roomy nor did it offer any opportunity to get closer to the green.  This much was obvious to me from the plan and is obvious from the aerial now.  I think it is quite appropriate in this discussion group to comment or critique a course plan or hole design.  Obviously, what gets built might be different and also might play differently than what is drawn up on the 2D plan.  In this case, four years later, some of our respected colleagues found that it played about the way it looked on the plan - not very well in respect of the dual fairway.

Vis-a-vis how it might be tweaked, Ally has offered some suggestions that sound reasonable, although you'd have to be a very long ball hitter to get further out on the right if the fairway was extended. It might work if the tees were moved up in conjunction with lengthening that side. 

One wonders why, given that they moved a lot of dirt, that they just didn't fill in the wetland.  It couldn't have been sacrosanct given what else they were allowed to do to an environmentally sensitive site.  If Hawtree wanted a dual fairway, he could have created it after filling. 

I guess, from the plan and aerial, I don't get how the strategic concept of a dual fairway hole was supposed to work here.  The shorter, presumably higher risk path is left, but that gets the green blocked out by dunes.  The right side is a bit longer, but get's you a clearer view of a green that a handful of people in the world might be able to reach (300 yards off the deck).  And the risk of going right appears about the same as going left.  So, it doesn't really fit with the usual risk/reward scenario of a dual fairway hole.

I don't believe that you have to have played the course to be able to make these kind of analytical comments about a design.  So feel free to respond.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

So, if I have you as my guest or have you comped when you play NGLA, ANGC, PV, Shinnecock, CPC and Sand Hils, you can't be objective and you can't give those courses positive reviews ?

Certainly you're correct in pointing out that the desired "arms length", or independent perspective is compromised, either subtlely or overtly when being comped is an inherent part of the program.  There's a degree of quid pro quo, but that doesn't mean that it's not a terrific course.
I don't think that being comped should disqualify the opinions of those being comped.

Is this any different than if a member invites you to his course and you rate it ?
Isn't there an implied quid pro quo ?

Is it any different from Tom Doak inviting Brad Klein, Steve Lapper and others to the Rennaisance Cup at courses he designed.
Bandon, Streamsong this year ?
Yet, I haven't heard anyone, including you, cry "foul" over Tom's promotion of his course/s.
So why does Trump get singled out ?

How is Doak's role any different from Trump's ?

I don't recall any outcry when Steve Wynn comped and/or wined and dined raters on his way to a top ten ranking.

[Niall C]

Patrick

I've never heard of Steve Wynn, don't know anything of Tom D's Renaissance Cup so its never been on my mind to make comment. Likewise I've never played any of the courses you listed but if....

OK, seriously, I think its going to have some bearing on how you view a course even if only by a fraction. The same goes if you get a cheap rate, or are taken on by a member or its just a cheap course to play, sub-consciously I think you are more inclined to take a beneficial view. Like I say about some of the smaller, cheaper, less well known courses in the UK compared to the Open rota type courses, you're more likely to just enjoy the former whereas you tend to judge the latter. I think all that has a bearing on your mood as you step onto the front tee, and that in turn will have some bearing on your viewpoint however slight.

That's not to say Steve L and the guys listed wouldn't call a clunker of a copurse for what it is. They just might not call it for being a total clunker  .

Now about, your kind invite for me to play NGLA, would I need to take a caddy ?

Niall

[Niall C]

Thing is Niall, you can always get from A to B by getting the dozer out. With regards to the greensite, the designers made a conscious decision to leave the cloaking dune in front of the green hence meaning many approaches are completely blind. They could have removed or softened it.

I'd be surprised if this hole was shoehorned in to make the routing work. That dell must have been crying out for a greensite. I just think it didn't work out quite as well in reality. Plus I agree on the drive. If they could just engineer a little widening after the bunker on the direct route and a little lengthening on the alternate fairway, the hole could play pretty well.

Ally

That's one hell of a cloaking dune ! You may be right that they could have shifted it, I'll bow to your practical experience but it strikes me as being a sizeable job when there might be easier/better solutions. I'm suggesting a solution is needed as the hole really doesn't work. Where I think it doesn't work is the cloaking dunes and the required angle these create for access into the green. To an extent the right hand fairway is a red herring. Neither do I think the hole has been shoehorned in, on the contrary I think the problem might be too much length wih the angle as I say.

I suspect only the very longest hitters could get there in two while everyone else is playing for the approach in. I suspect for some, depending on the conditions, this might mean a couple of dunts with a 5 wood or a rescue club. Or for other shorter hitters it might be driver, wood, wedge and then another a short/mid iron to the green. To my way of looking at it, its the angle created by the left hand fronting dune that is the problem. Perhaps a shorter straighter hole would allow more flexibility to the hole. Of course that might mean a longer walk from 9th green to 10th tee or alternatively making the 9th a par 5 (from memory its a decent length par 4).

Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

Niall, that would have been a very small job to take down that fronting ridge - a days work with the right equipment... But they chose not to and instead preserved the natural ampitheatre greensite and with it a lot of blind approaches.... Perhaps if the green had been a little more receptive... As it is, I tend to agree with you that it doesn't quite work for long approaches. Just a shame the ampitheatre wasn't half as big again and then it could have been excellent... and brave...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

I've never heard of Steve Wynn, don't know anything of Tom D's Renaissance Cup so its never been on my mind to make comment. Likewise I've never played any of the courses you listed but if....

Same general principle.... Quid pro quo

OK, seriously, I think its going to have some bearing on how you view a course even if only by a fraction. The same goes if you get a cheap rate, or are taken on by a member or its just a cheap course to play, sub-consciously I think you are more inclined to take a beneficial view. Like I say about some of the smaller, cheaper, less well known courses in the UK compared to the Open rota type courses, you're more likely to just enjoy the former whereas you tend to judge the latter. I think all that has a bearing on your mood as you step onto the front tee, and that in turn will have some bearing on your viewpoint however slight.

Let's say that those who recently were guests were favorably inclined to be generous with their assessments.
The first question you'd have to ask, is to what extent did they enhance their opinion?
Minimally, moderately or dramatically ?

I think you'd have to dismiss "dramatically" as they'd look very foolish when others subsequently played the course and I'm fairly certain that Brad Klein, Steve Lapper and others don't want to look foolish, that they pride themselves on peer respect and their credibility.

So we're left with minimally or moderately.

Knowing Brad, Steve and others, I'd have to lean toward minimally.
So let's say that they embellished their opinions minimally to less than moderately.

That would still leave the course with a very high assessment from a variety of diverse sources.


That's not to say Steve L and the guys listed wouldn't call a clunker of a copurse for what it is. They just might not call it for being a total clunker 

I don't think they'd compromise their integrity by labeling a clunker as a great golf course.
They'd lose all respect and credibility.

Now about, your kind invite for me to play NGLA, would I need to take a caddy ?

No, your tee time is 1:15 am next Sunday, so you're all set.


Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

I've never felt the inclination to say nice things about a course just because I've been comped... (as I was when playing Trump)...  In fact, it's sometimes the opposite because I don't give a course enough respect when I know that I've essentially no expenditure to recover in kind.

I can understand that if you get the red carpet treatment from a whole host of nice staff then it's hard to write bad things... But I try to shy away from that anyway, preferring to arrive and leave by cover of dark.

If I'm comped in the form of playing with a member then that's a little different. Generally I'll enjoy the experience more and that can give a slightly rose-tinted view. And often I won't overly-criticise a course because I think it rude and disrespectful to the member who took me out. Won't stop me being objective in an understated way though.

[Niall C]

Patrick

I wouldn't quibble over anything you said in your response, apart from the Sunday tee-time. I think we agree, any outside influence such as being comped is minimal and none of the guys are going to sell the jerseys because they got a free game of golf and dinner. My response to Steve was really addressing the idea that we don't know what we're talking about, meaning anyone who hasn't played the course and doesn't have a blog/website/or written a book.

Mark Pearce hasn't played it, and as far as I know doesn't have a golf blog/website or written a book, and yet he hit the nail on the head when he described it as a dramatic landscape with flat fairways, or words to that effect. What they have built is a big solid modern course. Nowhere did I feel that they had laid the course out over the existing landscape and in fairness I suspect that would have been hard to accomplish on the whole.

That doesn't make it a bad course but neither does it make it a great one either. It's just that it would have been nice though to see some of the dunes nosing into the fairways a bit more with a bit more contour elsewhere on the fairway. Likewise others made the comment about the bunkering and having seen it first hand, quite a few of the holes are way over bunkered IMO and as well as the number of bunkers, a bit of variation in shape wouldn't have gone amiss. All of which can be improved by tweaking, however the 10th I fear is more problematic.

Niall

[Niall C]

I've never felt the inclination to say nice things about a course just because I've been comped... (as I was when playing Trump)...  In fact, it's sometimes the opposite because I don't give a course enough respect when I know that I've essentially no expenditure to recover in kind.

I can understand that if you get the red carpet treatment from a whole host of nice staff then it's hard to write bad things... But I try to shy away from that anyway, preferring to arrive and leave by cover of dark.

If I'm comped in the form of playing with a member then that's a little different. Generally I'll enjoy the experience more and that can give a slightly rose-tinted view. And often I won't overly-criticise a course because I think it rude and disrespectful to the member who took me out. Won't stop me being objective in an understated way though.

Ally

Agreed. See me response to Patrick.

Niall

[Niall C]

Now, 5 pages into it, let me discuss Balmedie II. As I haven't walked the actual routing I will limit myself to general comments regarding the severe dog-legged holes and the split level and island fairways. How well are these going to work on a links course ? Anyone who plays a lot of links golf knows well that due to the wind a hole can play a driver, 3 wood, 5 iron on one day, while just a drive and a pitch the next.

As a consequence, on traditional links courses, apart from carries off the tee and the odd burn to be carried, they tend to be designed in such a way as to be fairly flexible eg. open approaches to greens, generally straight fairways with room to run the ball. Looking at the design for Balmedie II, I can imagine that players might be forced into a lot of lay ups due either breaks or severe turns in the fairway. I think it was Tom D who made the comment of how plans of old courses tend to look very dull in comparison to modern ones with their fancy shapes but that on the ground the older courses were much more interesting with more movement. I'm paraphrasing from memory.

Looking at the plan and the contours, hole 13 looks a good example.

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

Almost every great golf course was fine tuned from the day it opened.

Do you think fine tuning will take place at Trump or that it will forever remain static ?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Now, 5 pages into it, let me discuss Balmedie II. As I haven't walked the actual routing I will limit myself to general comments regarding the severe dog-legged holes and the split level and island fairways. How well are these going to work on a links course ? Anyone who plays a lot of links golf knows well that due to the wind a hole can play a driver, 3 wood, 5 iron on one day, while just a drive and a pitch the next.

As a consequence, on traditional links courses, apart from carries off the tee and the odd burn to be carried, they tend to be designed in such a way as to be fairly flexible eg. open approaches to greens, generally straight fairways with room to run the ball. Looking at the design for Balmedie II, I can imagine that players might be forced into a lot of lay ups due either breaks or severe turns in the fairway. I think it was Tom D who made the comment of how plans of old courses tend to look very dull in comparison to modern ones with their fancy shapes but that on the ground the older courses were much more interesting with more movement. I'm paraphrasing from memory.

Looking at the plan and the contours, hole 13 looks a good example.

Niall

Niall - I agree. I think long sweeping curves work much better than specific dogleg turning points which is a more modern design style that came about with the rise in target golf in my opinion.

[Niall C]

Niall,

Almost every great golf course was fine tuned from the day it opened.

Do you think fine tuning will take place at Trump or that it will forever remain static ?

Obviously it will change and I hope it does. If I was making the "tweaks" I would concetrate on losing some of the bunkering and perhaps put in some more contouring in the fairways. I'd also see if I could introduce a few more off-set tees to put a bit more angle into some of the holes if that doesn't sound counter intuitive to my earlier post above.

The bones of a very good course are there, that's for sure. The big weak point IMO is still the 10th but I suspect that will need more than a tweak.

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

Without constructive criticism, progress is impossible, or at least, very slow moving.

I'm sure, with repeat play, feedback such as yours will resonate with Hawtree and the course will be fine tuned.

If someone is a perfectionist, and I believe Trump is a perfectionist, it's in his best interest to fine tune with an eye toward improvement.

An architect's ego can be his greatest asset and it can be his Achilles heel.

Architects who can come to grips with the fact that they may not have gotten it 100 % right the first time, improve their courses with time.

Ross did, Macdonald did, C&C did and I'm sure that they won't be the last ones fine tuning after opening day.

[Niall C]

Patrick

It will be interesting to see if Hawtree is given the licence to tweak it and whether Trump would be happy to do so in any case after making such a big splash of the course being the greatest in the world etc. It's interesting and good to see though that Trump has stuck by Hawtree and his (former) associates for the second course.

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()