[Andy Stamm]

Fair enough. I've seen about 4 balls ever lost left on #5 in 10+ years of playing Coffin. And have yet to see anyone go long on #8 to the point of hitting the water between it and 5. 

You should have played with me, I've certainly been in both numerous times!

For us that water left got a lot of play and was at the very least a huge concern off the tee. It made lay up, lay up, wedge the prudent play, which compromised the hole.

One doesn't go over the green that often, particularly on 8 (when playing its full length). But to a pin on the back half with water just behind the green, it was brutal. Short of the ridge and it's not getting up, just long, and it was downhill into the water/mud/junk. So it just meant never taking on the back half of the green, which compromised the hole.

[Scott Sander]

Can I just say that this may be my one of my favorite threads ever on GCA?
Spirited, specific conversation about COFFIN!?  Yay!

'Course I'm hardly objective; I grew up playing the old Coffin as a once-a-year treat.  The best parts of the new version are light years better than the old as I played it, but the old version seems in hindsight to have been more stable and sustainable.  Both versions are absolute ballbreakers.  And to that end, the slope/rating for Coffin -73.7/129(!?)- may be one of the great mysteries of our time.

[John Nixon]

For us that water left got a lot of play and was at the very least a huge concern off the tee.

It's interesting how one's own experiences influence a discussion like this. Since I've never had that big a problem with the water left on #5 I really didn't even remember there's water there when reading the earlier posts about "water on #5". But I'll still stick with my take on the design of the hole - if you can resist swinging out of your shoes from the tee it really shouldn't be that hard a hole.

It's also an unusual course, in my limited experience, in that 2 holes utilize a large tree in the fairway as distinct strategic elements - #1 and #6.

[Nigel Islam]

Sorry I was mixing up 4 with 5. I remember the water left on 5, and it was always in play for us more so than the White River.
Scott, please tell me more about the old Coffin either on the thread or by PM? I'm dying to know more about what it used to be!

[Andy Stamm]

It's also an unusual course, in my limited experience, in that 2 holes utilize a large tree in the fairway as distinct strategic elements - #1 and #6.

I just hate holes where both left and right are dead/hazard. That's the problem with 10 as well. On 5 you can just lay up, but then the hole is a snooze.

On 1 we just ignored the tree, aimed at it and hoped not to hit it. Fairway left would have made it more interesting and of course playing right of it is better, but the one place not to go is the junk right. Just ignoring it, it was very rare to come into play at all.

The tree on 6 is fantastic. It really dictates play and makes you choose an option and execute, although the growth of the trees on the right side of the hole have ruined the safe play right of the tree. And because you're challenging the trunk instead of the canopy, it can be played around more easily/interestingly. I spent a lot of time thinking about how you could keep the hole interesting once the tree dies. I think it's a very interesting use of a tree.

[John Nixon]

I spent a lot of time thinking about how you could keep the hole interesting once the tree dies. I think it's a very interesting use of a tree.

Mr. Sander and I have discussed that topic as well. I don't remember that we came up with anything.

[Nigel Islam]

I always liked 6 for those reasons. Also agree on not liking death on both sides of the hole. I remember 17s green being a very exacting target. I liked the holes on top of the hill.

 I'd be anxious to hear critiques of Riverside, Sahm, South Grove, Smock etc. as well. Not as good as Eagle Creek but at least a couple decent holes in the bunch. I always liked 15 and 13 at Riverside.

[Andy Stamm]

I boycotted Eagle Creek when they destroyed the old routing and Riverside when the destroyed Old Smokey. I do like 15 at Riverside though.

For me Riverside was boring.

I like South Grove quite a bit (despite some real snoozers like 16), and it was generally pretty firm, which was great. 5 is a terrific hole. 15 is pretty sporty too. I like 7,8,10 (another tree hole!), and 17 as well. Too many trees, but they do keep you honest as without them, it would be very easy.

I think Sahm is pretty solid with pretty good, solid, holes, that are challenging without being brutal. 12 is a great hole. 4 and 16 are good, too, but I think they're all pretty solid.

I generally like Shank and Pleasant Run for there old style and quirkiness, but they're spotty. I haven't played the others except Douglass enough or recently enough to remember much.

[Bart Bradley]

I boycotted Eagle Creek when they destroyed the old routing and Riverside when the destroyed Old Smokey. I do like 15 at Riverside though.

For me Riverside was boring.

I like South Grove quite a bit (despite some real snoozers like 16), and it was generally pretty firm, which was great. 5 is a terrific hole. 15 is pretty sporty too. I like 7,8,10 (another tree hole!), and 17 as well. Too many trees, but they do keep you honest as without them, it would be very easy.

I think Sahm is pretty solid with pretty good, solid, holes, that are challenging without being brutal. 12 is a great hole. 4 and 16 are good, too, but I think they're all pretty solid.

I generally like Shank and Pleasant Run for there old style and quirkiness, but they're spotty. I haven't played the others except Douglass enough or recently enough to remember much.

If you are going to praise all those, why not Thatcher?

Bart

[John Nixon]

For me Riverside was boring.

I like South Grove quite a bit

Fascinating. I am of the opposite opinion.  :lol:

To me SG is just one tree-lined fairway after another. #7 utilizes some interesting ground movement. I really like the green complex at #8, and #17 is a good design, but that's about it for me.

The approach to #2 at Riverside is a good challenge. #5, as a pretty good half-par hole gets into my head. #10 is a good very short par 4, though without that big tree short right of the green it'd be way too easy. Old Smokey is what, #13? That one with the approach up the hill? I can never decide if it's a great design or an abomination. Right now it's listed on the card as a par 4, though in the  past it's been listed as a par 5. I am curious to hear what they did to destroy it. And I'd agree that #15 at Riverside is a superior design.

Sahm is good - #12 is indeed a fantastic hole.

Have never played Douglas, Pleasant Run, or Shank. Played Smock a couple of times a looong time ago - don't remember it much. Played Thatcher a few times - meh.

[John Nixon]

Oh yeah, I'd also love to hear Pete Dye's take on his work at Sahm, all these years later.

The other thing about Sahm is that they're currently slated to take out a lot of ash trees due to the ash borer. It will be interesting to see what kind of impacts that has on how the course plays.

[Nigel Islam]

I think 12 at Sahm is a hole that by rights should be terrible but when you play it multiple times is fantastic and quite unique. Pleasant Run is downright dangerous. I like 10 at South Grove as well as 5. Agreed that 5 at Riverside is a solid hole. The green has a lot of slope from back to front if I remember.

[Andy Stamm]

It's been too long since I've been to Thatcher, and I don't remember it.

I concede that South Grove has some real limitations (14, 18 and the trees), but I guess I like it more than most is maybe a better way to say it. I do like the small greens, for example when I played there recently I missed one pin high left to a right pin. I had the easiest of easy chips except that the green is a push up and 2 feet past the hole it would run off leaving no shot. So I weanied the chip well short. That's a common feature out there that I really like.

Old Smokey was a feared ball breaker (and card wrecker) of a hole. Yes, it's 13 and up the hill. It played unreasonably long and the green had a ton of slope. I was nearly impossible to par. As you got to be able to drive pretty close to the green it became easier as the approach was much shorter and the angle in was better. Approaching up the hill from 200 yards was a rea l challenge. It was no great achitectural or strategic masterpiece, but it had a real lore and character to it. It also got you up the hill, and I think was better than putting the green down below and just walking up.

One year I come out to find that 5 was a par 5! It is a good half-par par 4, but as a par 5? If cuttnig the corner comes off, it's driver, wedge. Anyway, who cares, the hole was the same. I come to Old Smokey and it's a par 5, too! We must be soft if after a hundred years with better clubs we need to add a stroke here. But, to be fair it was really a par 6 or so... But when I get to the green they've moved the green back and put in a two level kidney shaped monstrosity that's totally out of tune with the rest of the course. And the middle of the green's narrow enough that you can easily leave a shot on the front of the green that needs to be chipped to the back. Plus, there's no way to know where the flag is until you get up there, so it's just totally random. Anyway, they ruined a memorable and storied if mediocre hole, and there was no chance that it would be put back, so I boycotted. Having Coffin and South Grove next door which I like better anyway cerainly helped with that decision, though.

[Andy Stamm]

Those long flags and uphill blind approaches at Pleasant Run are fantastic, not to mention driving (your golf ball) across the entrance road.

5 at Riverside does indeed have a lot of slope back to front.

10 at South Grove I like, too a good use of the tree on the right and OB left. I don't like all the added trees to the right that make it a pitch out. The big tree that protected the green when it looked so safe over there was much more effective. Plus it's always interesting hitting into a white green!

Losing trees will be interesting at Sahm. I'm not a fan of the ones added to 1. Losing them on 12 will hurt the hole immensely. And trees aren't generally that big of an issue out there.

I would love to hear Pete Dye's thoughts as well. I'm not a fan of some of the more recent stuff like the bunkers on the right of 3.

[John Nixon]

some of the more recent stuff like the bunkers on the right of 3.

Those aren't original? I did not know that. They've been there since I started playing this stupid game just before the turn of the century.

[Andy Stamm]

They were put in shortly before you started playing. There junk beyond them was there and was the danger on that line. I actually don't mind the furthest one up as it's a nice defense against a 'safe' attempt to drive the green.

I think bunkers were added to the fairway at 16 as well, and those I don't like either.

The bunkers left on 2 were added as well as more trees on the right side. I don't like those either.

[John Nixon]

Just so the rest of you get some idea of what we're talking about:

#1 at Coffin. Par 5. Tree sits on the left side of the fairway.


#5 at Coffin. Par 5 from the white tee on top of a bluff.


#6 at Coffin. Could not find a photo.


Rest of the Coffin course tour here: http://www.mangolfmanagement.com/coffin-golf-club/coffin-golf-club-scorecard/

[John Nixon]

They were put in shortly before you started playing. There junk beyond them was there and was the danger on that line. I actually don't mind the furthest one up as it's a nice defense against a 'safe' attempt to drive the green.

I think bunkers were added to the fairway at 16 as well, and those I don't like either.

The bunkers left on 2 were added as well as more trees on the right side. I don't like those either.

All good stuff to know. Thanks Andy.

[Nigel Islam]

I always used to ignore the tree on 1 at Coffin too. That hole usually played into the wind if I remember too

[Josh Tarble]

What do you all think of Maple Creek as well? I think it's interesting because it shows Pete's use of angles. Coud use significant tree pruning but still a valuable play.

[Andy Stamm]

I've never played Maple Creek.

[Josh Tarble]

I've never played Maple Creek.

If you enjoy Sahm, Riverside, etc. it's worth a play.

[Nigel Islam]

I would love to play Maple Creek, Purgatory, Rock Hollow, and Broadmoor, but I go to Carmel at least four times a year without getting to play since 2003. Ugh I wish my brother in law played golf so I'd have an excuse. I would even play Thatcher or Douglas since I haven't played those either.

[Josh Tarble]

I'm not sure why anyone is even mentioning Thatcher or Doulas...I don't really like to be so critical but they are truly just typical munis. Tree line up and back fairways. Poorly conditioned and nothing really noteworthy.

Now Rock Hollow on the other hand is incredible. It is really under the radar.  Some really really good holes and a fun round of golf. I wish it were a bit closer to Indy and I would make it there far more often.

[Scott Sander]

Scott, please tell me more about the old Coffin either on the thread or by PM? I'm dying to know more about what it used to be!

Most of those rounds came when I was a teenager barely aware of anything, much less GCA - so take this with a few grains of salt, and I hope Tim Liddy will see this and correct me where applicable.  Here's what I remember:

-Back then, there were few if any retention areas.  I could not tell you how or how well it drained (I suspect badly), but when skies were clear, it was a much 'drier' course for the most part - your misses went into trees or unmaintained areas rather than water.  I do remember some either really rudimentary or really poorly-maintained french drains all over the place.

-Both the middle-of-the-fairway trees were there, but I only recall the one on #1 coming into play; I think what's now 6 could be played up the left.  The buttonhook fairway on what's now 11 was not as severe - that changed to make room to put 17 at the water's edge.

-And most/all the holes along the riverbanks were farther away from the water's edge.  Much like Riverside, you could totally forget that you were riverside.  Liddy uses the river as a MUCH more prominent element.  

-The back 9 holes on the hill were similar to their present forms and were then as now a very cool change of pace.  (EDIT:  No, I guess they were not the same - just looked at historic aerials and 1971 shows a much different picture!  Still the coolest part of the property, though.)
 
-There was virtually nothing interesting/memorable in or around most of the greens.  And the bunkers were typically 'cheap muni' shallow and bland.  The years had worn away whatever character Mr. Diddel had inititally put in all those decades ago.  What's there now is a huge improvement and not at all similar.

-It was a very challenging test - and a favorite of the wagering set.  I will admit to getting a sheltered suburban kid's thrill out of watching some very high stakes games conducted very much out in the open by men of very menacing countenance.

-They had THE BEST Blennd.  Cold, mixed perfectly.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()