[Brad Tufts]

To clarify my argument, I'm basically saying that the Members layout makes more sense than the Composite.

The only score on which the Composite wins out is difficulty.

[Patrick_Mucci]

To clarify my argument, I'm basically saying that the Members layout makes more sense than the Composite.

The only score on which the Composite wins out is difficulty.

Agreed

[Jim Franklin]

I have played the composite course and loved. I liked the way they made a 4 into a 3 and then combined two holes to make a long 4. I thought the flexibility to be able to do that was special. It is certainly something you cannot do at most courses. Count me as a fan of TCC.

[Dan_Callahan]

I'm not sure why the addition of a few holes from an adjoining course to form a composite is being viewed like it's some of bastardization. For years, folks on here have complained about classic courses being redone (new tees, new bunkers, tighter fairways) simply to test the best players in the world once a year or, in some cases, once every 10 or so years. Or they've complained about how modern courses need to be built at ridiculous lengths in the hopes of attracting big tourneys, adding huge amounts of money to the construction costs and annual maintenance. All while knowing that the average golfer will play from 6,300-6,700 yards.

TCC, it seems to me, has come up with an ingenious solution. They have very creatively incorporated holes from the Primrose to create a difficult championship test. They have added significant yardage without causing any harm or unfortunate changes to the main course that is played by members 99% of the time.

[George Pazin]

TCC, it seems to me, has come up with an ingenious solution. They have very creatively incorporated holes from the Primrose to create a difficult championship test. They have added significant yardage without causing any harm or unfortunate changes to the main course that is played by members 99% of the time.

Perhaps you could put together an opinion piece on what makes it so special and unique, for those of us who haven't had the pleasure. Seems like an interesting topic; if not an opinion piece, at least maybe a thread with some overheads and diagrams.

Thanks, I'll hang up and listen.

[Steve Lapper]

I'll go ahead and ask the basic question:

"What makes David Fay well-enough qualified to make a course assessment on a complex and nuanced course like TCC?"

The guy was a good administrator and knowledgable about the rules. His resounding legacy was to push the USGA back to public venues for the Opens. He's never evidenced any special skill for understanding golf course architecture and it was on his watch that the organization cemented it's alliance with the modern ball. His bias was clear and definitive back then, what makes anyone think he's since changed?

I really enjoy TCC and think it's place among its architecturally significant peers is solidified by both it's presentation across its property and the relatively small greens that elegantly fit perfectly into the lines of play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm not sure why the addition of a few holes from an adjoining course to form a composite is being viewed like it's some of bastardization.
Because that's exactly what it is.
And it's not just the addition of a few holes from another course, it's converting a par 4 to a par 3, eliminating the 9th and 10th holes, playing # 11 after # 8, then abandoning the 12th hole after playing # 11 , but having to walk it anyway.
Then you play # 13 as # 10.
The 11th hole is a par 4 that's a combination of the 1st and 2nd hole (a par 4 and a par 3)from another nine.
Then, the 12th hole is a par 5 converted to a par 4 (3rd hole other nine)
Then down the hill for the 13th hole (4th from the other nine)
Then back to the regular course for 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.

And you don't think that's the most convoluted, contrived course imaginable ?

For years, folks on here have complained about classic courses being redone (new tees, new bunkers, tighter fairways) simply to test the best players in the world once a year or, in some cases, once every 10 or so years. Or they've complained about how modern courses need to be built at ridiculous lengths in the hopes of attracting big tourneys, adding huge amounts of money to the construction costs and annual maintenance. All while knowing that the average golfer will play from 6,300-6,700 yards.

And that means what when it comes to TCC ?
Is it your contention that TCC hasn't been lengthened ?

TCC, it seems to me, has come up with an ingenious solution. They have very creatively incorporated holes from the Primrose to create a difficult championship test. They have added significant yardage without causing any harm or unfortunate changes to the main course that is played by members 99% of the time.

You could say the same about Baltusrol, Winged Foot, Olympic and Bethpage, but they didn't mongerlize and co-opt holes from other courses

TCC without gerrymandering the course doesn't present a sufficient test for the best golfers in the world as the courses above do.

[Mark Steffey]

ouimet won on the members course.   why would it have been so awful to have the kids play that course on this go-around?  only one rd of medal play anyhow, the rest of the week is match play.

[Dan_Callahan]

It's only convoluted if you're trying to keep track of where the routing was changed to create the composite. If you're just out there playing a round of golf, it isn't convoluted at all. As I said before, I was at the US Am with a friend who had never been to TCC. He's someone who has played many of the great courses in the US and Scotland and he had no idea where the member's course stopped and the Primrose holes were added. The flow is pretty remarkable. (And as for walking past the 12th, we're talking about a tiny 130-yard par 3. It's not a very onerous walk. It's not like some courses the pros play where they need to be driven from green to tee because the walk is so long.)

Of course I'm not contending TCC hasn't been lengthened, as have practically all classic courses that want to continue hosting elite tournaments. What I am pointing out is that TCC has found a way to add length without messing with the integrity of the course members play most of the time. I find that to be a more palatable solution than constantly extending tee boxes farther and farther back and adding new bunkers farther down the fairway. Obviously, you don't think that's a good solution to the distance problem. That's fine.

As for changing a par 4 to a par 3 at the 2nd,  it plays that way for members who are playing from the tips as well. Par drops from 71 to 70. Rather than seeing that as a negative, how about applauding the brilliance of the design that is capable of that kind of flexibility? It's a very cool par 4 and a really tough par 3.

[Dan_Callahan]

Seems as though a number of the best amateurs in the world are pretty impressed with TCC. Here are a few Tweets by those playing in the US Am:

Max Homa: “What a course!”

Tyler Falk: “TCC was a great track!”

Rufie Fessler: “That was the most pure and toughest test of golf I’ve ever seen.”

Neil Bautista: “The Country Club was the real deal. Most awesome test of golf I’ve ever seen.”

Justin Thomas: “The Country Club is the real deal and very hard.”

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan,

What did you expect them to say ?   That it was a dog track ?  Not worthy of a competition ?

Are these competitors experts on GCA ?

How many times have you played TCC (all three nines)

Do you have a personal connection with TCC ?

Look, it's a wonderful course (every nine), but, the composite course is convoluted, an artificial presentation that should be discouraged.

Seems as though a number of the best amateurs in the world are pretty impressed with TCC. Here are a few Tweets by those playing in the US Am:

Max Homa: “What a course!”

Tyler Falk: “TCC was a great track!”

Rufie Fessler: “That was the most pure and toughest test of golf I’ve ever seen.”

Neil Bautista: “The Country Club was the real deal. Most awesome test of golf I’ve ever seen.”

Justin Thomas: “The Country Club is the real deal and very hard.”

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's only convoluted if you're trying to keep track of where the routing was changed to create the composite. If you're just out there playing a round of golf, it isn't convoluted at all.

You must be kidding.

How often have you played the composite course ?

You don't think the walk from the 11th green to the 13th green, skipping the 12th hole is convoluted ?

Or that the combination of the first two holes on Primrose doesn't strike you as odd with the 1st green sitting there in front of you.

The combination hole is unique and challenging, but with the 1st green clearly in your sights, aiming for the 2nd green doesn't exactly evoke continuity.

Ditto for observing the 9th and 10th holes that are are out of play, or the change on # 2.

As I said before, I was at the US Am with a friend who had never been to TCC. He's someone who has played many of the great courses in the US and Scotland and he had no idea where the member's course stopped and the Primrose holes were added.

Then his powers of observation are to be questioned.

How could he not see the 12th hole completely out of play ?

The flow is pretty remarkable.

The flow is better than other composite courses I've seen

(And as for walking past the 12th, we're talking about a tiny 130-yard par 3.
It's not a very onerous walk.
It's not like some courses the pros play where they need to be driven from green to tee because the walk is so long.)

I don't care about other courses that the Pro's play, there's a clear disconnect.

Of course I'm not contending TCC hasn't been lengthened, as have practically all classic courses that want to continue hosting elite tournaments. What I am pointing out is that TCC has found a way to add length without messing with the integrity of the course members play most of the time. I find that to be a more palatable solution than constantly extending tee boxes farther and farther back and adding new bunkers farther down the fairway. Obviously, you don't think that's a good solution to the distance problem. That's fine.

"Distance" per se, wasn't the reason that the composite course was created.

The 9th and 10th holes are rather bland for the best players in the world, # 2 and # 12 probably considered pushovers, and the same goes for # 1 and # 2 on Primrose.  So by eliminating #'s 9 and 10 and substituting others, the average competitive quality of all the holes improved.
Ditto for combining # 1 and # 2 on Primrose.
Converting # 3 on Primrose to a par 4 is now a common practice, so I don't have a problem with that.

Converting # 2 from a par 4 to a par 3 ?
They had to because it was a weak par 4 for the best players in the world.

The composite course is creative, but, I don't think it's deserving of all of the accolades because it's incredibly artificial in it's existance.

As for changing a par 4 to a par 3 at the 2nd,  it plays that way for members who are playing from the tips as well. Par drops from 71 to 70. Rather than seeing that as a negative, how about applauding the brilliance of the design that is capable of that kind of flexibility? It's a very cool par 4 and a really tough par 3.

There are lots of courses that could take a nice short par 4 and convert it to a hard par 3.
I don't see that move as deserving of "genius" status.

And, to attribute David Fay's opinion to a vendetta or a "stick up his ass" or claiming that it's one of the dumbest statements ever, is wrong.
It's just his opinion and you have no business attributing his opinion to reasons that justify your opinion of his opinion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

ouimet won on the members course.   why would it have been so awful to have the kids play that course on this go-around?  only one rd of medal play anyhow, the rest of the week is match play.

Mark,

I think that's a valid question.

As a response to that question, I can understand someone stating that the "original" course doesn't provide a sufficient challenge for these kids.

TCC is a terrfic golf course in either form, but, I don't think that composite courses, especially ones significantly contrived, should be given equal status with 18 hole courses in their natural form.

[Dan_Callahan]

I had no expectations that anyone would say anything. But on Twitter, young people (which describes a majority of those playing in the Am) seem to feel free to express their opinions whether they are positive or negative. Yet I didn't come across a single negative Tweet. And the positive Tweets were effusive.

I have no idea if they are experts on GCA. Is David Fay? Am I? Are you? What does it matter? They are observations made by very experienced golfers who have seen lots of courses. Nothing more, nothing less. Just thought it was some relevant info in a thread about David Fay's belief that TCC is the most overrated of the great courses.

I've played TCC a grand total of three times. Up until my first play last summer, my impressions of the course were anecdotal (the course hosted the Pippy O'Connor golf tournament that some of my players competed in, and they got beat up pretty good) and what I saw on TV. I have to admit that before my first round, I had very low expectations based on how difficult I heard it was. In my mind, difficult meant long and narrow and lost balls everywhere. What I found instead was one of the best courses I've ever seen, a tremendous balance between challenging and fun.

I wish I had a personal connection to the course, but sadly, I don't.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I had no expectations that anyone would say anything. But on Twitter, young people (which describes a majority of those playing in the Am) seem to feel free to express their opinions whether they are positive or negative. Yet I didn't come across a single negative Tweet. And the positive Tweets were effusive.

Dan,

You don't play in a USGA event and knock the hosting course.
It doesn't matter if you're 15 or 65, it's poor etiquette.

I have no idea if they are experts on GCA.
Is David Fay?

I'd say that he has a depth of experience that far transcends yours.
He's been around golf and golf courses, at the highest levels for decades.
I believe he was Frank Hannigan's personal choice to succeed him.
While I might not always agree with David, I wouldn't dismiss his opinions so casually

Am I?

I can't speak for you, but, you never played the composite course.

Are you?

I'd say that I"m reasonably astute.

What does it matter?

Credentials have their merit.

They are observations made by very experienced golfers who have seen lots of courses.

First, most of them are high school or college students, hardly men of the architectural world.
Second, they're not observations, they're accolades made by guests of TCC and the USGA.
Third, they're comments made in public, not private, and there is a distinction


Nothing more, nothing less.
Just thought it was some relevant info in a thread about David Fay's belief that TCC is the most overrated of the great courses.

I agree with you in that it's a good thread, I just think you shouldn't be so dismissive of, or characterize David Fay as you did.
The man was the Executive Director of the USGA for decades.

I've played TCC a grand total of three times. Up until my first play last summer, my impressions of the course were anecdotal (the course hosted the Pippy O'Connor golf tournament that some of my players competed in, and they got beat up pretty good) and what I saw on TV. I have to admit that before my first round, I had very low expectations based on how difficult I heard it was. In my mind, difficult meant long and narrow and lost balls everywhere. What I found instead was one of the best courses I've ever seen, a tremendous balance between challenging and fun.
As I stated, I also think it's a terrific course and club, but, I don't value composites as much as you do.
They're artificial and shouldn't be compared to regular 18 hole designs.

Just so you know, I love Ridgewood, all three nines, but, am equally critical of their composite course.
It's a hybrid, a mongrel, just like TCC.
TCC composite just gets more accolades, probably because Ridgewood is new on the block.

I wish I had a personal connection to the course, but sadly, I don't.

Ditto

[Dan_Callahan]

Look, my characterization of David Fay is obviously hyperbole. I'm sure he knows way more about golf architecture than I do, and I'll bet he's a very smart and decent guy. And I know that much dumber assessments have been made about golf courses.

However, he was the president of the USGA, a nonprofit that's supposed to promote the game of golf. "Based on a shared love and respect for golf, we preserve its past, foster its future, and champion its best interests for everyone who enjoys the game."

Being so publicly critical of TCC by calling it the most overrated of the great courses ... I just don't see how that is championing the best interests of the game. This is a course, like many, many others, that has hosted numerous USGA events. For Fay to turn around and blast the course seems meanspirited. Which is why I think there must be more going on. But I could very well be wrong. Just speculation.

It's also possible that I'm expecting the David Fay of today to act with the same tact as he would have when he was president of the USGA. However, in his current position as an employee of Golf Digest, perhaps he needs to make controversial statements to sell magazines and earn his keep.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan,

David Fay's comment was confined to the composite course, YOU seemed to expand it far beyond the hybrid course

[Dan_Callahan]

If that's what's come across, I apologize for not being clear. While I think the main course is incredible in its own right, I've only been talking about the composite. I'm not trying to expand beyond Fay's comment.

[Jud_T]

Dan,

Is it really that controversial to say that a course is say a top 50 course rather than a top 20?  You're still splitting hairs between .0005 and .0002 % of all courses.  It's like giving it a 7.5 instead of an 8.5, well within the realm of normal preference and disagreement.  It's not like he said the place would be better served if they plowed it under and started over. 

[Steve Sayre]

I never thought I'd dare comment on a YaBB God's post, but:

"It is so contrived that it has no place amongst courses in their original/normal/natural form."

IMO, this comment is both ridiculously provocative and flatly unsupportable. You may not like the TCC championship layout, but it really is original, normal (I think, though I am not exactly sure what that means) and quite natural.

And the champ holes you don't like are "grotesque"? "Circus characters?"  Wow.  Wish you could get to Brookline for the weekend. I honestly don't think you'd leave with those impressions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve,

I've played TCC a number of times hence I don't understand why my opinion would change over the weekend.

I think TCC is a marvelous golf course, all three nines, I'm just not a fan of composites, especially gerrymandered composites.

As to being original, what would you call any hybrid ?

Ridgewood and Upper Montclair can make the same claim, but, a composite is an imposter and doesn't belong in any comparison of a "natural" 18 hole course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()