[Connor Dougherty]

"should require thought and strategy throughout the round" "2nd, 14th, and 17th" "can (important for context)put driver in your hand"  "laying up with an iron/wood is a very reasonable and safe option"

Is deciding to hit it long or short enough thought and strategy to be architecturally sound?
Three holes definitely don't qualify as throughout. What other holes require thought and strategy?

In my opinion yes. Both plays have their advantages and disadvantages. That was meant to be a brief example, but holes that promote great thought and strategy: 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17. The other holes are more penal in design but still require great thought to play, particularly their par 3's. The best option isn't always evident at these holes. I would go into more depth but that would take an entire thread on it's own.

I see that you traveled through DC.  Did you see any courses here?  I certainly wouldn't expect any of them to crack your list, would just be curious which (if any) you played and what you thought.

Carl,
I did get the chance to play Congressional's Blue course and see the Gold. I thought both were good, probably not in the class of courses listed but interesting nonetheless. They've kept the mowing lines from the US Open in an effort to save on maintenance costs, which does detract from some of your options on holes off the tee. The other thing is that it's a great course for the member but their bunkers are not ideal for a US Open. They're really shallow and placed in the landing areas for those guys. I left convinced that the reason the tour guys were able to tear it apart during the 2011 Open was not because the course was so soft (although that did help) or that they moved up the tees on some of the holes to account for that, but because they were taking dead aim at the inside of fairways and not being penalized when challenging a bunker too much.

Count me as one of the few on this site who likes the 18th hole though. It's unnatural, but platy of the golf course is and the hole plays well. I don't know if I would build anything like it myself though.

The Gold does not get enough credit. In my brief tour I thought it had the potential to be better than the Blue.

[Garland Bayley]

"should require thought and strategy throughout the round" "2nd, 14th, and 17th" "can (important for context)put driver in your hand"  "laying up with an iron/wood is a very reasonable and safe option"

Is deciding to hit it long or short enough thought and strategy to be architecturally sound?
Three holes definitely don't qualify as throughout. What other holes require thought and strategy?

In my opinion yes. Both plays have their advantages and disadvantages. That was meant to be a brief example, but holes that promote great thought and strategy: 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17. The other holes are more penal in design but still require great thought to play, particularly their par 3's. The best option isn't always evident at these holes. I would go into more depth but that would take an entire thread on it's own.

Almost all low budget, narrow courses make you decide to hit it long or short. So almost all low budget, narrow courses are architecturally sound?

[Bill_McBride]

"should require thought and strategy throughout the round" "2nd, 14th, and 17th" "can (important for context)put driver in your hand"  "laying up with an iron/wood is a very reasonable and safe option"

Is deciding to hit it long or short enough thought and strategy to be architecturally sound?
Three holes definitely don't qualify as throughout. What other holes require thought and strategy?

In my opinion yes. Both plays have their advantages and disadvantages. That was meant to be a brief example, but holes that promote great thought and strategy: 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17. The other holes are more penal in design but still require great thought to play, particularly their par 3's. The best option isn't always evident at these holes. I would go into more depth but that would take an entire thread on it's own.

Almost all low budget, narrow courses make you decide to hit it long or short. So almost all low budget, narrow courses are architecturally sound?

Do you make this stuff up?

The only reasons you would hit short on a narrow course are (1) you want to lay up to a distance you prefer, (2) you want to lay up short of a hazard, or (3) you hit your 3-iron straighter than your driver.   These are strategic choices.  

I'm no logician, but I think that's a false syllogism you just employed.  

[Tom_Doak]

     For those of you who don't know, I spent this summer studying golf courses, much like Tom Doak did after his sophomore year of college, and got to see a lot of places in the US I didn't even dream of seeing or playing.

Connor:

Just don't forget what I did the summer after my junior year of college ... I worked 80 hours a week in 95-degree temps on the construction site of a top-100 golf course [Long Cove].

[Connor Dougherty]

    For those of you who don't know, I spent this summer studying golf courses, much like Tom Doak did after his sophomore year of college, and got to see a lot of places in the US I didn't even dream of seeing or playing.

Connor:

Just don't forget what I did the summer after my junior year of college ... I worked 80 hours a week in 95-degree temps on the construction site of a top-100 golf course [Long Cove].

Tom,
If all goes well hopefully I'll be in a similar position come the end of this year (whether that's in freezing rain or blazing heat!)

And that's actually a great place for me to transfer topics a bit to which courses I missed that I wish I saw. Obviously there are a lot of places I missed in the US, and in those places, courses worth seeing. I'm going to restrict this list to courses which I didn't see in places I made it to. We'll start with the course you just mentioned above.

Long Cove: I had approval to see the course but they one day I was down there, after finishing up at Harbour Town, black clouds came over us and the wind, torrential rain, and lightning came down around me. In the words of the Terminator, "I'll be back"
Sand Hills: I think part of it was I talked to the wrong people, part of it was a bunch of us were out there, but I only got to see the course from Ben's Porch. That was enough to give me goosebumps.
Erin Hills: I'm starting to hear more great things about the place and I wish I had made it up there.
Shoreacres: Since this summer had so much emphasis on Raynor and MacDonald it felt a bit ridiculous to not see this course, but I'm hoping to be back in Chicago in the future (we have family friends there which makes it a bit easier to visit). This seemed like the most important course I missed in Chicago, but I do want to see the Medinah courses and Cog Hill when I go back as well, which I missed.
The Dunes Club (MI): Weather was not my friend, as rain and thunder plagued the day I was in New Buffalo
Kingsley Club: A favorite on this board! I found myself rushing to Pittsburgh in order to make it for my tee time at Oakmont, so I never got the time to have a look around Kingsley, I sadly had the same fate for several other courses in Michigan, including UM's course, Barton Hills, Harbor Shores (which had greens that looked unreal from the highway), Greywalls, and Arcadia Bluffs. Oregon plays in East Lansing in 2015, maybe I'll make it a trip!
Fox Chapel: Inconvenient timing with a club event.
Courses in Philadelphia: There's too much in Philadelphia to see. Merion headlines the list of courses I missed, but along with that, Rolling Green, Lehigh, Philly CC, and a few others I can't think of at the moment. Half my dad's family still lives in the area (my dad actually was a caddie in high school at Torresdale-Frankford) so I anticipate getting more chances to check out the area.
Courses in Ohio: On the trip I learned of NCR and I'm now intrigued, but that hardly the only course I missed. The Golf Club was busy going through their renovations but that's number 1 on my list of places to go back to there. Muirfield Village was busy getting ready for the President's cup. Scioto said no but I hope to change their minds in the future! Ohio's got a few courses I'd like to see.
Pete Dye Golf Club: Course looks amazing. Don't know when I'll ever be back in West Virginia (although I did think that the state was one of the the most beautiful states in the US) but I hope to be.
Yeamans Hall: I've always been intrigued by the posts made on this site about the golf course but unfortunately they were busy while I was in the area. I find interesting courses on flatter pieces of land very intriguing, much like Talking Stick or the Country Club of Charleston (the latter being a course I will feature later).
The Dunes Club (SC) Undergoing renovations while I was there.
Boston/Providence golf courses: Miscommunication kept me from seeing The Country Club and Myopia, and it shouldn't come as a surprise that the courses on the Cape were less receptive. I think during another time of year I'd get to see more of the tracks up there. As for Providence, I have a friend who goes to Brown who raves about a few of the courses out there, particularly Newport Country Club, so I'd love to see that.
Fishers Island: Can't say I was surprised they turned me down.

Now, before I go into the NYC area courses, I have to explain a complication which led to me missing the opportunity to check out a few courses. While touring Piping Rock with the head professional in a golf cart, my phone slipped out of my pocket and was lost (it would be found 7 days later and shipped home). This resulted in me missing out on seeing a few courses as my phone was my primary and only form of contact with said clubs, most notably Quaker Ridge and Southern Hills. With the phone being my GPS, it also made driving around a nightmare. So, outside of those two, here's what I would have liked to have seen:

Hollywood: I've heard so many good things about it through people on here that I've been dying to see it myself.
Baltusrol: After calling them a few times I never heard back from them. Then I lost my phone and all hope was lost.
Apawamis Club: Ran out of time in the area
St. George's Club: It's featured on the front page right now and I felt like I was underexposed to Emmet's work
Just about every Long Island Club: The ones further out by the Hamptons were closed off while I was there (which courses out there would you not want to see?), but I really hope to see Garden City before I die. Nassau intrigues me as well. But really, there's too many courses in this region to list.

[Jason Thurman]

It sounds like a great summer. Of course, no matter how much you see, there's always a lot that you miss.

In Wisconsin, I definitely recommend you get back to Erin Hills. Did you get to Blue Mound or MCC in Milwaukee? I had plans to play both fall through earlier this spring, but I intend to get back to them someday. Both look and sound like wonderful courses.

In the Cincinnati area, I really like Hyde Park as an example of what a thoughtful sympathetic restor/renovation can do. I also think Clovernook is a must-see for anyone interested in Langford's work since it stands out as one of very few relatively unchanged but also well-preserved (conditioned) course in his largely bastardized catalog. Of course, Cincinnati isn't that far from Indianapolis (the best public golf city in the US), Lexington (one of the best places for value golf in the US, and also home of one of the most under-the-radar Ross classics in the world), Columbus (loaded), and Cleveland (loaded with high end courses AND great values). You could spend a lifetime just playing courses in Ohio.

Hell, I might even recommend visiting Fox Run in Northern Kentucky on your next trip to Cincinnati. It taught me a lot about architecture, though I'm not sure exactly what. Try to imagine translating the WB Yeats poem "The Second Coming" into a golf course and you're on the right track. By the time you get to 17 and 18, there's no doubt about it - the falcon has flown too far away and can not hear the falconer. Things fall apart, the center cannot hold, and mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. Thankfully the blood-dimmed tide stays behind that giant earth dam on the way to the 18th green.

You can't fully appreciate a life of Camargos and Oakmonts if you never play an occasional Fox Run.

[Michael Moore]

What other holes require thought and strategy?

GJ -

If I were on the first tee at Oakmont, I would be thinking about how important it was to hit a long, straight, great-looking tee shot right out of the gate, I would be thinking about whether I was up to the challenge of this world-class golf course, and I would be thinking about how great it would be to reach the first green in regulation. How's that?

[Garland Bayley]

"should require thought and strategy throughout the round" "2nd, 14th, and 17th" "can (important for context)put driver in your hand"  "laying up with an iron/wood is a very reasonable and safe option"

Is deciding to hit it long or short enough thought and strategy to be architecturally sound?
Three holes definitely don't qualify as throughout. What other holes require thought and strategy?

In my opinion yes. Both plays have their advantages and disadvantages. That was meant to be a brief example, but holes that promote great thought and strategy: 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17. The other holes are more penal in design but still require great thought to play, particularly their par 3's. The best option isn't always evident at these holes. I would go into more depth but that would take an entire thread on it's own.

Almost all low budget, narrow courses make you decide to hit it long or short. So almost all low budget, narrow courses are architecturally sound?

Do you make this stuff up?

The only reasons you would hit short on a narrow course are (1) you want to lay up to a distance you prefer, (2) you want to lay up short of a hazard, or (3) you hit your 3-iron straighter than your driver.   These are strategic choices.  

I'm no logician, but I think that's a false syllogism you just employed.  

Connor,

Are there other strategic reasons you hit short at Oakmont than the three Bill gives, which I understand him to be saying are applicable on all narrow courses?

[Connor Dougherty]

The only reasons you would hit short on a narrow course are (1) you want to lay up to a distance you prefer, (2) you want to lay up short of a hazard, or (3) you hit your 3-iron straighter than your driver.   These are strategic choices.  

I'm no logician, but I think that's a false syllogism you just employed.  

Connor,

Are there other strategic reasons you hit short at Oakmont than the three Bill gives, which I understand him to be saying are applicable on all narrow courses?
[/quote]

That I can think of no, but the difference is on a short narrow hole executing the shot that is the safe play is a far more difficult task. If executing the "safe shot" is almost as difficult as pulling of the risky play then who would go for it.

But that's not all of the strategy present at Oakmont, just for those 3 holes that I listed earlier (2, 14, 17). The other hole feature other forms of strategy. Some reward ball placement by making those on the weaker side of the fairway blind shots. The contours in many of the greens make ball placement on them critical to one's success there. The tilted green at the 5th promotes shot shaping but doesn't require it.

[Garland Bayley]

The only reasons you would hit short on a narrow course are (1) you want to lay up to a distance you prefer, (2) you want to lay up short of a hazard, or (3) you hit your 3-iron straighter than your driver.   These are strategic choices.  

I'm no logician, but I think that's a false syllogism you just employed.  

Connor,

Are there other strategic reasons you hit short at Oakmont than the three Bill gives, which I understand him to be saying are applicable on all narrow courses?

That I can think of no, but the difference is on a short narrow hole executing the shot that is the safe play is a far more difficult task. If executing the "safe shot" is almost as difficult as pulling of the risky play then who would go for it.

I'm not sure what you what you are getting at here. Expand on your thoughts?

But that's not all of the strategy present at Oakmont, just for those 3 holes that I listed earlier (2, 14, 17). The other hole feature other forms of strategy. Some reward ball placement by making those on the weaker side of the fairway blind shots. The contours in many of the greens make ball placement on them critical to one's success there. The tilted green at the 5th promotes shot shaping but doesn't require it.

What I get from this is that variation in the tilt of the greens is another requirement to be architecturally sound. I have asked about Oakmont in the past, and most opinions I have gotten tended to indicate that the narrowness makes other things, such as ending up with the blind shot you mention inconsequential.

[Connor Dougherty]

That I can think of no, but the difference is on a short narrow hole executing the shot that is the safe play is a far more difficult task. If executing the "safe shot" is almost as difficult as pulling of the risky play then who would go for it.

I'm not sure what you what you are getting at here. Expand on your thoughts?

Basically, if it is as difficult to execute a shot with my driver as it will be my 3 iron, why would I ever hit the 3 iron? Outside of preferring that club there's no reason to use it off the tee. In the examples cited on 2, 14, and 17, the shots that can be made with 3 iron or hybrid are much easier to execute than one with the driver. That's what brings the aspect of strategy to the equation in those circumstances.

But that's not all of the strategy present at Oakmont, just for those 3 holes that I listed earlier (2, 14, 17). The other hole feature other forms of strategy. Some reward ball placement by making those on the weaker side of the fairway blind shots. The contours in many of the greens make ball placement on them critical to one's success there. The tilted green at the 5th promotes shot shaping but doesn't require it.

What I get from this is that variation in the tilt of the greens is another requirement to be architecturally sound. I have asked about Oakmont in the past, and most opinions I have gotten tended to indicate that the narrowness makes other things, such as ending up with the blind shot you mention inconsequential.

Tilt in greens is not a requirement but certainly a way in which a course can be architecturally sound. Off the top of my head Bethpage Black is like this. But I want to focus on the latter portion of this question because I think it's interesting and could lead to some good discussion. The course is not overly narrow, but it's not wide either, so picking sides on the fairways is a rather difficult task, one that can be only accomplished consistently by good golfers. It's part of the reason why I wouldn't recommend anyone with an index higher than 10 to be a member, it's so difficult to end up in the spots that you want to be in. However, it's this quality that made me state that I would play Oakmont for the rest of my life if I had the time to do so, because if you can end up in the right spots consistently there, you can do it anywhere. It's great practice for the game.

It's also why I left thinking that Oakmont was the best US Open course on the rota. For those guys, even when the USGA is setting it up, I imagine the course has to be fascinating. I had the same feeling for Winged Foot West.

[Garland Bayley]

Connor,

How do you explain that the last US Open winner at Oakmont either made no effort to, or was unable to hit the "right spots" on the fairways?
I doubt the runner up had much success with that either as he is renowned for driver inaccuracy.

[Mark McKeever]

Connor, add the Philadelphia Cricket Club to your list for your next trip..   

There's a thread that highlights the incredible restoration work.


Mark
 

[Connor Dougherty]

Connor,

How do you explain that the last US Open winner at Oakmont either made no effort to, or was unable to hit the "right spots" on the fairways?
I doubt the runner up had much success with that either as he is renowned for driver inaccuracy.

I was 14 during that Open so I have little memory of it. I also did not watch much of it and was not as into golf course architecture at the time. But looking back over it, if I had to guess, Cabrera went +5 because of the USGA setup exasperating the difficulty of the golf course with thick rough, firm conditions and ridiculously fast greens (I played the course when the greens were running at 11 to 11.5, whereas they usually are at 13).

As for Tiger? Well, Tiger may very well be the best recovery player of all time save for Seve, and back then, with the flagstick, was deadly.

[Jason Thurman]

Strategy is more about positioning than simply "hitting fairways." It's about understanding angles and playing to the proper side as opposed to just hitting it down the middle.

The general criticism of the US Open is that the narrow fairways and deep rough remove strategy and make it a contest to see who can drive the ball the straightest.

With that in mind, the fact that Cabrera won while hitting under 50% of fairways hardly proves anything about the course's strategic options. If anything, the fact that a US Open crowned a winner who DIDN'T merely drive the ball down the middle consistently makes an argument that the course has MORE strategy than most, since it could be hypothesized that Cabrera won by playing angles well regardless of whether that put him on short grass or not. Furthermore, Cabrera had a lot of balls run into the rough after bounding a few dozen yards down the fairway. He was pummeling it that week and frequently propelled further by the ground contours. Isn't offering ground game yardage bonuses for players who hit the correct spots part of the strategic school of design?

[Jim Nugent]

One reason Cabrera won was Oakmont's greens were too difficult.  No one putted all that well on them that week: the course negated a big advantage of the great putters, and acted as an equalizer for guys like Angel, who were not noted for their putting.  I think even Angel made a remark about this.    

Tiger's 3rd round at that Open was most revealing.  He hit 17 greens, and every fairway but one. Yet he only shot 69.  He was one of the best putters in the game then, but he couldn't handle the greens.  

Hogan wanted to make putting less important by enlarging the cup.  Ironically, another way, coming from the opposite end, might be to make the greens real hard.  

[Garland Bayley]

Or, maybe bomb and gouge is the correct strategy for US Opens at Oakmont. I highly doubt Cabrera was hitting the proper locations on his drives and "that Cabrera won by playing angles well".

And if bomb and gouge is the winning strategy, then there is no need to praise Oakmont for strategy.

[Connor Dougherty]

Or, maybe bomb and gouge is the correct strategy for US Opens at Oakmont. I highly doubt Cabrera was hitting the proper locations on his drives and "that Cabrera won by playing angles well".

And if bomb and gouge is the winning strategy, then there is no need to praise Oakmont for strategy.

But the fairways were narrowed and the rough was at long lengths, either ridding of those positions or making them the only target.

Grading courses based on their US Open's is a bad idea. The US Open is based on a golfers ability to survive, not to use strategy to defeat your opponents. See Merion this year.

[BCowan]

Kids telling you Muirfield Village is One in ohio, lol.  Muirfield shouldn't even be in the top ten or top 20!

Inverness
OSU
Camargo
Scioto
Kirtland
Canton Brookside
Moraine
the Golf Club
Double Eagle
Sylvania CC

I worked on the 05 Oakmont renovation (labored with mexicans).  Oakmont has ambiance, i don't care for the green structures.  I prefer more saucer like surfaces #2, Inverness, Grosse Ile

[Connor Dougherty]

Alright so hopefully I avoided the appearance of fishing for invites with that last list, so I'll move the discussion to which golf courses I thought don't get enough respect, whether that be in the public eye or on this site. Playing/seeing these courses are the most fun because you truly feel like you're discovering something, and the difference in opinion between you and a large group of people, particularly when it's so positive, is a great feeling.

So, where do I begin?

Dismal River Nicklaus: One of my favorite golf courses that I played over the summer, and it was one of the funnest courses I played. I'll let what others have said in previous threads speak for the course, but it was a fantastic place.

White Bear Yacht Club: They're are some ridiculous greens there and some of the holes, like the 14th, are unreal. But the rolling landscape and the tumbling fairways made it one of the most memorable inland courses I saw on my trip. The members were also incredibly courteous and inviting to me and extremely proud of their golf course. Each one I met seemed to have their own personal story about the work Tom Doak and Jim Urbina did there.

Lawsonia: Well I don't think I have to convince too many people on here that Lawsonia is great, but so many standard golfers, even those in Wisconsin, haven't heard of it, and I just don't understand how that's possible. It's both cheap and a wonderful, wonderful golf course. I do think that a few cart paths are in awkward places, particularly behind the 7th and 14th greens.

Twisted Dune: I was so glad I saw it while I was out on the Jersey shore, I thought it was even better than those on this site gave it credit for. It reminded me a bit of Tobacco Road but a little toned down. Of the public offerings on the Jersey Shore this is one of the best.

French Creek: Really imaginative golf course and it's much different from any golf course I've seen. It's a great place for any architect to study as there's several ideas Gil had there that I think could be implemented, some which could be implemented anywhere (like the sweeping false front on 2) and some ideas that could be put in on private courses (like the green on one and the location of the 2nd tee aside the green.

Mid Pines: I didn't see it before the restoration, but the finished product is incredible. I left there thinking that the course was the second best in the Pinehurst area, but much closer to the hallowed #2 than people give it credit for

Yale: I direct anyone who disagrees or wonders why this is here to the "OMG Yale" thread started by Tom Doak

Old Sandwich: I read an interview with Ben Crenshaw where he thought that Old Sandwich was one of the courses that didn't get enough respect and I agree with him. One of the knocks on C&C seems to be that their courses are very similar, but that was exactly what I liked about Old Sandwich: Most of the holes seemed very unique to C&C. And the holes that did seem similar to other C&C holes were still fantastic.

Boston Golf Club: I mentioned it earlier and i think it would be rated higher if it had the history of a place like Pine Valley.

Bethpage Red: It may not be as great as the Black but I thought it played pretty well, and there are a few holes, particularly some of the par 5s, that play really well.

Fenway: I mentioned it earlier, but I stress that we don't talk about it enough. It's a fantastic golf course and the restoration has turned it into one of the classic Tillinghast layouts.

Honorable Mentions: Piping Rock, Winged Foot East, Congressional Gold, Kiawah, Tobacco Road, Stonewall Old, Skokie (which I feel like my thoughts on change each day), Clear Creek Tahoe

[Sean_A]

Connor

I too think Mid Pines is far better than the pleasant walk folks usually ascribe to it.  I was taken aback at how good the course is.

Ciao

[Connor Dougherty]

I too think Mid Pines is far better than the pleasant walk folks usually ascribe to it.  I was taken aback at how good the course is.

Ciao

I actually thought that Mid Pines would be a fantastic place to take hickories out, although I don't own any.

[Chris_Hufnagel]

I too think Mid Pines is far better than the pleasant walk folks usually ascribe to it.  I was taken aback at how good the course is.

Ciao

I actually thought that Mid Pines would be a fantastic place to take hickories out, although I don't own any.

I agree with that - Mid Pines was a lot of fun with hickories and as I was playing I kept thinking that I wouldn't enjoy the course as much with modern clubs.

With that said, I was a little surprised as how wet Mid Pines played a few weekends back - lots of damp areas around the tees and green surrounds - my golf ball picked up mud on many occasions.  This is contrasted against #2, which I played the day before, which was dry, firm, and fast...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()