[GeoffreyC]

Wow- we even flushed out John.  I think we need LOTS more threads like this one.

I have not played traditional Heathland courses but I have played Ganton, Woodhall Spa, Alwoodley and Moortown. In my opinion HC can't touch the first two in quality, probably equal to Alwoodley and better then Moortown.  

No argument that great work was done there.  I think you all over react to comments on a course that very well could finish in the Top 100 modern list for Golfweek.  That's fantastic when you realize just how many courses have been built since 1960.

John- Lets take your example of the 15th hole. Its a dogleg left with plenty of room in the fairway at the turn point.  Of course if you leave it out to the outside (right side) you will be left with a longer shot.  That's simple math. However lets look at the photo



There is no hazard to challenge on the inside of the dogleg. The bunker guards the outside of the dogleg and as Mike Cirba pointed out (and I went over to check during my day there some time after Mike) there are trees that BLOCK the shot to the green from the bunker. That's a no no in my book. So you can hit into the right fairway bunker leaving the longer shot and in a hazard and be blocked out from a shot to anything but the left fringe or chipping area.

HC is a teriffic course but in my opinion it is not among the best 100 golf courses in the US. Out of respect for Ran's opinion I will try my best to get back to see it again.

 

[Mike Worth]

Mr. Childs.

With respect, while there may not be a defined "hazard" on the left the key to the hole is to cut the dogleg off.  The risk is if you hook the ball or hit the ball too far left you can be left in the rough or worse in the woods.  As you point out a ball hit too straight (not hooking or cutting the dog leg) and too far (long) leaves a poor 2nd shot that might be blocked out by the trees.  I STRONGLY DISAGREE that you are blocked out if a ball is in the right faiway bunker.  That bunker is 167 out from the green.  It is not penal and I have personally hit the ball on the green from that bunker, hitting a cut shot.

[Mike_Cirba]

There is no reason on the 15th to hit enough club to reach the far right bunker.  And yes, if the hole is cut on the right half of that green there is no play from the bunker either, as the trees block that route.

Instead, it seems to me that the play is to hit something favoring the left side, but not so long as to run into the far bunker.  Such a drive would leave something looking like this;



Frankly, if I were to play the hole again (and I certainly hope to do so), I would never challenge the dogleg, nor would I take driver from the tee unless a strong breeze was against.  I'd try to lay back down the left side to about 170 yards.  Trying to do anything else is really not worth the effort when there is a very playable, fairly routine shot one is left with by laying back.

[GeoffreyC]

Mr. SS1

When there are more risks on the outside of the dogleg it is logical that everyone is going to play down the left side (or try to).

I'm glad you agree that a 167 yard CUT (for you righties) shot AROUND THE TREES IS REQUIRED to hit the green from that bunker. Thank you and please read Dunlap White's fine article on that subject in the IN MY OPINION section of this website.

[Mike_Cirba]

When I think of this Hidden Creek debate, I'm reminded of the question that I think Tom Doak brings up in his Confidential Guide as a barometer of a "great" course.

How many holes have shots that would inspire and excite the golfer to want to try them over and over?  How many shots get the adrenaline pumping as well as engaging the brain?

It's a truly creative, clever course, no question.  It's been described as a course where a player makes a 5 instead of a 4 and wonders what happened.  I agree.  

But, is it a course that inspires and excites the other senses, including the nervous system?  

What does one feel standing on the 14th tee, for instance?  Or the 15th and 16th?  

I get the clever subtleties.  Now tell me what I missed.

[GeoffreyC]

Mike- That was my original point and a good reason why I favor The Kingsley Club.

[Mike Worth]

Geoffrey.

Again I disagree.  Being a normal righty golfer  , I feel there are more risks in attacking the dogleg on the left.  As I posted back when I first signed up for this forum, to be in the right hand bunker means your are too far right and too long.  After multiple playings of the hole, I think you'll agree that it's riskier to play left and aggressive.  There is sufficient room right to avoid the bunker.  In short, it's a tigher driving hole than you might think.

As several people have posted, not sure why it is such a big deal to be "in jail" from that right bunker.  I'll add one other thing.  Another time I was behind (short) of the right hand bunker, but along the same direction one would have to take to hit to the green.  at about 180 yards, I easily carried OVER the trees and onto the green.  Perhaps if you had a low hooking shot in your golf bag you'd appreciate the right fairway bunker on 15 more  

[Jim Franklin]

Folks -

I enjoyed the 15th hole as I hit a nice 3wood left of the bunker and had a 9iron left. My playing partner tried to cutoff the dogleg and posted a 7. He caught a tree and kicked in the woods and then caught a branch on the way out. I also like the 17th as a good match play hole and let's face it, most of us are playing match play when we play.

[GeoffreyC]

SS1- I disagree.  See Mike Cirba's post.

What makes you think I was in that bunker? I went over to look based on Mike Cirba's observation that he posted here LONG before I went to play HC.

What makes you think I don't have a low hook?  If you asked Ran he might say that's the only shot I have  

I'll say it again- Trees don't belong directly between a hazard and the target. It's the same for classic courses that have planted too many and it applies to new courses and even C & C courses  

[Mike Worth]

Mike Cirba.  I've seen probably 200 drives hit on #15 and I have NEVER seen a ball driven into the far bunker on the right side of 15.  I've seen some close (maybe 5 or so).

Not to add fuel to the fire but when I hit my cut shot out of the bunker, my ball ended up on the right side of the green.  

[Mike_Cirba]

SS1;

I'm not sure I understand your contention about the long-right bunker on 15.  You yourself say you've been in it (as I was), but then say that of the 200 drives you've seen there you've never seen one in it?  

Could you explain?  Thanks..

p.s. I'm enjoying this discussion and I wanted to thank you for sharing your opinions here.  

[Mike Worth]

Let me explain - sorry if I confused.  There are 2 bunkers on the right side.  One is closer to the tee than the other.  I thought you were talking about a well struck ball hit along the correct line of flight for that hole that goes all the way throught the fairway and rolls into the fairway bunker on the right side FARTHEST from the tee.  That bunker is about 120 out from the middle of the green and this is what I thought you meant by far bunker.

As to your comment about inspiring shots, all I can say is play the course again.  
As others have said, HC is not in your face, it grows on you.  This is not a "hit" against the course but it is worth noting that KC is routed over more severe terrain, so the inspiring shots you speak of may be more easily observed in a single playing at KC than at HC.  But they definitely exist at HC.

Mr. Hurricane - a 9 iron into the 15th - very impressive.  Are you related to Matt Ward

Geoff Childs.  So in saying that "Trees don't belong directly between a hazard and the target", are we talking about a formula here?

[GeoffreyC]

SS1- in this case YES - a formula is appropriate.

See every chipoat "stupid tree" discussion in the archives and please read Dunlap White's excellent article.

[Mike_Cirba]

SS1;

Thanks for clarifying.  

Yes, I'm talking about the "far" bunker that can be seen in the picture Geoffrey posted, out at the end of the fairway.  

In many ways, I'd say the correct play is to use that almost as an "aiming bunker", but being careful to club down so as not to drive "through" the fairway into it.  Would you agree?

I do hope to play Hidden Creek again, and I will certainly be on the lookout for things I may have missed.  Thank you for your thoughts.

By the way, aren't 10, 11, & 12 superb holes??  

[Jim Franklin]

SS1 -

Not related to Matt, but probably hit it further .

[Mike Worth]

Mike.

This will have to be my last post for a while as I have a visitor arriving, then I'm off to Hidden Creek for our annual Member-guest.

As I said, I've never seen a ball hit into that bunker, though I've seen a couple just in front of it.  Longer hiiters will take a 3 wood from the tee and even if you were overclubbed with a driver, the line of direction to that bunker has to be PERFECT.  Themore likely result is hitting a driver into the woods.  That can be a good aiming point but the goal is to draw the ball.

Yes, 10, 11 and 12 are great holes.  In fact, they are all great holes.  

[Scott_Burroughs]

Mike,

I think SS1 means the far LEFT bunker (through the trees) in the pic Geoff posted.


Geoff,

"Trees don't belong directly between a hazard and the target"

Do you really mean ANY hazard or just a bunker?  I can cite numerous examples of trees in the way of the intended target between a hazard (such as a pond, creek, ditch, wetlands, etc.) that is off the fairway or before a dogleg around trees.

[Mike_Cirba]

SS1;

Hit them well in the member-guest!  Enjoyed the discussion!!  

Thanks.  

[Matt_Ward]

Mike Cirba hit the nail squarley on the head -- Hidden Creek comes alive in a big way during the middle holes of the design (I also liked the par-5 3rd and par-3 4th) -- but after the 12th what happens?

The layout does have above average holes from #13 through #18 but the issue of being in the top 100 goes FAR BEYOND having above average holes.

Is HC really better than The Kingsley Club. Answer -- no.
Is HC really better than Olde Kinderhook. Answer -- no.
Is HC really better than Black Mesa. Answer -- no.
Is HC really better than Paa-Ko Ridge. Answer -- no.
Is HC really better than Ocean Hammock. Answer -- no.

None of the above courses I just mentioned were listee by Golf Magazine. I'm not saying that any of the above should be in the top 100 but IMHO they are all superior to HC and would be in my top 100.

The issue with Hidden Creek is that you have DIE-HARD FANS of Crenshaw & Coore who can't seem to get the idea that no architect or tandem hits home runs with every design and I have to add this -- I do enjoy their work immensely but they don't get a free pass simply because of past successes.

Hidden Creek is a wondeful addition to the Jersey golf scene but it is woefully ignorant for people to start placing the course way ahead of other gems that exist in the Garden State IMHO.

The top 100 is an ELITE GATHERING of courses that are as near bulletproof as one can find. Yes, they might have tiny flaws but on the whole they represent the absolute finest in golf design. Hidden Creek is a plus by any defintion no doubt -- but in my time in seeing / reviewing courses I don't see how people can successfully argue that the course is #72 in the USA. That's a big stretch and if you really analyze hole for hole and compare them to the ones I just mentioned -- not even mentioning places such as Fenway, I don't see where the beef is for such a case IMHO.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I played HC two weeks ago and went away think that C&C hada hit a triple--but not a home run.  The course is like a symphony that flows with the climax beginning with 10and ending with 12.  It then repeats s theme similar to the first few holes.  Kingsly Club is a home run built on land that may not have been best suited for golf.  The routing is genius and the second shots demanding.  I suspect, however that , HC is more palatnle to the masses.  TKC probably does not appeal to as many.  I could play them both all year and be happy.

[Mike_Cirba]

tommy;

I think you're analysis of HC is spot-on, and I love your analogy of C&C having hit a "triple".  

 

[GeoffreyC]

Tommy

I too agree with your analogy.

I'd still like to know what's not suited to golf about the Kingsley site   The shot values derived from the movement of the land and the variety of greensites seems to be pretty ideal if the architect takes advantage of them.  Mike Devries did just that to his credit.  

I hope at some point Mike could come on here and give us his take on the raw site of the Kingsley Club.

[Mike Worth]

Matt Ward.

By your own quote, now the raters are "woefully ignorant ..... to start placing the course way ahead of other gems that exist".   Ignorant seems to be a strong word to be saying about those whose votes acutally count    

Again I must observe, you seem as much or more irritated at things not even related to architecture or the setting of the course, such as Coore/ Crenshaw "getting a free pass".  And quite frankly, your posts still have the feeling "of a woman scorned", as if you think you should have been consulted prior to Golf Magazine placing any New Jersey course on the list.  

Not sure where all this anger comes from about Hidden Creek being on the list of top 100 courses.  When did you play the course?  Was it during the blizzard this past February or something?  I know if I would have played in February, I would be irritated, too!

Finally, I hope all this back and forth helps the NJ Golfer Magazine.  It is a fine publication and circulation can only increase with the publisher on the warpath.

[Matt_Ward]

SS1:
 
Help me out here -- aren't you a member of Hidden Creek? You would not have any sort of bias in favor of your club would you now? What warpath are you speaking about? I've seen all the key courses in NJ and believe my opinion has some merit -- at least to me it does. Also, I'm not the publisher but the editor. Also, I did mention that I believe I have an open mind and when matters have warranted I do write updates when I return to courses that I believe merit them. Lastly, I played the course in May of last year with three members of the GolfWeek panel -- not in February.  

I don't need to follow the trends of the major magazines and the large herd of people who are identified as panelists. From my experience I would say that no more than 25% of the panelists I have met really understand golf architecture and travel the nation consistently to make the kind of "national" judgements you see being rendered. Many of the 75% of the rest of the panelists are usually regional in nature and there are quite a few who have serious conflict of interest issues.

SS1, I don't have anger against any course -- you need to re-read where I posted that previously. What angers me is not Hidden Creek but panelists who should be really studying and visiting the courses of quality that have been missed IMHO. I named a number of these courses and let's also be a bit fair because I did in my review of Hidden Creek in Jersey Golfer I stated the course as a solid double (using baseball metaphors) but it's not a home run design. Unfortunately, you have panelists IMHO who are simply following the trend that says if C&C did a home run layout at Sand Hills and likely Friar's Head (I have not played it) then everything they do ergo is also great. I don't buy that about any architect or tandem. Why? I judge courses on their own merits and go from there. I don't give "name designers" extra points because of previous designs. Simple as that. That's not anger as you describe it -- I see that as being prudent and fair.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

First of all, you are not going to "prove" that Hidden Creek is or isn't deserving of its spot.  That's a matter of opinion, and there are others besides yours.

Second, a lot of the courses which you use as examples could not have qualified for the GOLF ranking this year because they wouldn't have enough votes yet, positive OR negative.  You should encourage panelists to go see them ... but not criticize them for how they vote on courses they have seen.

Third, I don't follow the logic that GOLF Magazine panelists give certain architects a "free pass."  Hidden Creek puts the grand total of Coore & Crenshaw courses on the list up to two.  I've only got one, as does David Kidd.  

The GOLF list is perhaps overpopulated by Dye-Nicklaus-Fazio-Jones courses, but then so are all the other rankings.  And maybe they're the big names as a RESULT of those courses, instead of the courses being the result of their names.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()