Goat Hill (photo tour)

[jeffwarne]

"Low key great fun"
"resists scoring for good players, yet your grandmother and 7 year old son can have a blast"
"Driving and approach width provided and preferred angles important"
"Interesting ground game"
"greens with lots of tilt that provide both curling super fast putts and correspondingly solid strike demanding uohill putts"
"variety of shots and premium on execution"
"variety of lengths and clubs used"
"firm and fast"
"exposed to wind"
"water views"
"Arble test"-clubhouse proximity and intimacy
"1897 pedigree"

This thread is not about Goat Hill.
(and I would caution one NOT to take time out of an invariably tight Hampton's itinerary at the expense of the many other great courses in the area-a lot of the "firm" comes from limited grass and the lies can VERY dicey)
I will add my amateur phone pictures do nothing to highlight the tilt of the greens and surrounds

This thread is more about the essence of architecture-and it also ties into the other thread about "have your tastes changed"

My favorite courses overseas are invariably designed by James Braid.
I rarely know who designed the course before I play it, as I could give a rat's ass about knowing  a Redan from an Eden.(and to add to the contradiction, I love Raynor and MacDonald courses)
My understanding is that generally James Braid laid out stakes for tees and greens,collected his meager fee, and left the details to local laborers.
That would result in a lot of "lay of the land " type courses, with minimal earthmoving, and no doubt a lot of variety and consistency in the details due to practical reasons and cost.
My guess is the Goat evolved the same way.
Is it the ONLY way a course should evolve? of course not-not all terrain is as interesting.

For years NGLA was on no one's radar screen-I remember sending a pretty good player and "well traveled" player to National Golf Links from Atlantic -the THEN gold standard of faux links.
his response-"It's a lot of fun to play, but it's not a good course"

This site spends a ton of time on such classics as NGLA, PV,ANGC.(often negatively)
All courses and their evolution are worthy of study, as is such a gem like Wolf Point, or a wonderful transformation like Southampton.

So if a course meets the 12 criteria listed above, is it not good architecture?
It was mentioned there are thousands of Goat Hills around the country-I would dispute that, but if it's true I am in heaven.


So what defines good-great architecture?
and using this case study

What is Goat Hill lacking?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Clean it up, add some pretty bunkers, have a famous architect "discover" it, and people would be tripping over themselves to say they knew about it before it became known.
Lets hope that never happens.

 

[BHoover]

Clean it up, add some pretty bunkers, have a famous architect "discover" it, and people would be tripping over themselves to say they knew about it before it became known.
Lets hope that never happens.

I don't think anyone has argued for that to happen.  I think some of us who have been, let's say, critical of Goat Hill have said that we wouldn't go out of our way to play it because it doesn't strike us as architecturally significant (or whatever term you want to use).  But, at the same time, we've conceded that it's probably a fun course and there's always room for all types of courses.  Like Josh Tarble, I grew up on a course like this and it was lots of fun, but I would never say that my course had architectural significance.  It was playable, affordable and fun, but folks weren't going out of their way to find it.  Nothing wrong with that.

[Sam Morrow]

Clean it up, add some pretty bunkers, have a famous architect "discover" it, and people would be tripping over themselves to say they knew about it before it became known.
Lets hope that never happens.

 

add a skyline green and you have sticky keyboards

[Don_Mahaffey]

Clean it up, add some pretty bunkers, have a famous architect "discover" it, and people would be tripping over themselves to say they knew about it before it became known.
Lets hope that never happens.

I don't think anyone has argued for that to happen.  I think some of us who have been, let's say, critical of Goat Hill have said that we wouldn't go out of our way to play it because it doesn't strike us as architecturally significant (or whatever term you want to use).  But, at the same time, we've conceded that it's probably a fun course and there's always room for all types of courses.  Like Josh Tarble, I grew up on a course like this and it was lots of fun, but I would never say that my course had architectural significance.  It was playable, affordable and fun, but folks weren't going out of their way to find it.  Nothing wrong with that.

I've been reading that, the "architecturally significant" stuff, and I have no idea what that means. What makes a course architecturally significant?
I think this course is very architecturally significant because of the land and the way the course lays on the land with a minimum of man made intrusions.
I could be wrong, but I think what "bores" people and make them think there is nothing of significance here is because the course doesn't have enough "stuff" scattered about. I believe it is this lack of "stuff" that makes it significant.
Jeff's decrpition of playing the course makes it sound like all sorts of shots can be used, and may be needed here. It sounds like there are very few "signs" leading you around. Where are the aiming points? Where is the framing telling me where not to go? It may not be a great course, but significant? I think it is significant in spades.

[jeffwarne]

Don,

You hit the soul of my post.
I think The Goat is VERY significant architecturally, and would be less so if altered.


If I bought the Goat (never gonna happen-town owned)
and I hired you for say 10 days as as a builder/consultant/architect.
I'd pay your full fee, we'd play the course, play it again,and again, have "lunch"
discuss moving 3 cartpaths away from fronting/flanking greens (my quibble is they route cart traffic TO the green)
Then spend the next 9 days going on "research" field trips to various courses in the area,followed by evening emergency 27's at The Goat where I would attempt to win the fee back (and then some )

Ben
Course record 5 under -guy finished with an ace on 9! (about 30 years ago)
a 14 year old tied it a few years ago but we dispute it as he played winter rules (most do) and that makes a HUGE difference as to what type of pitch can be played to the demanding greens-with no irrigation or fairway maintenance lies can be very dicey.
Our rule at The Goat-no free drops, no touching ball,no gimmes

[Jason Thurman]

I think Goat Hill would be the perfect place for an 8-some (for golf...nothing else). 

Let's hope they don't allow 5-somes, as that would be a sad blight on such a fine corner of the game's spirit.

I'm still waiting for a more detailed discussion of the course's architectural significance. As I said before, I can see that it has fabulous terrain, lots of quirk, and firm "turf." I still don't see much to the architecture beyond that, as photos really don't do a course justice. Perhaps Jeff would be willing to discuss in detail the architectural strategy of one of the course's best holes? I read the brief hole-by-hole breakdown on page 1, but if there's more to it than that I'm happy to read along.

Keep in mind that I am fully convinced of Goat Hill's significance to the game. I believe courses like this embody the soul of our sport, in the same way that many of my favorite neighborhoods are rough-hewn inner city areas with buildings that ooze history and character and a close sense of almost familial community, or tiny towns of under 1000 people in the middle of nowhere with their own culture and unique lifestyle and amenities. The fact that the latter so frequently also feature courses like Goat Hill within a few miles of Main Street is not lost on me, nor is the fact that many of those inner city neighborhoods I love also happen to have extraordinary architecture. I'm not convinced Goat Hill doesn't, but I'm also not convinced that its firm conditions and quirk automatically mean that it does.

Also Jeff, just to be clear, my reference to your marketing knowledge was not intended to imply that you intend to market the course for any reason or have any financial stake in it. I was only referencing the page views this thread was destined to get thanks to your choice of OP.

[Michael Moore]

2. Sag Harbor Golf Course - Water views and cheap beer, made famous in a published book by a Harvard golfer who used it as his home course to play "professionally". I forget the book title, anyone?

The book is called Chasing the Dream - A Mid-Life Quest for Fame and Fortune on the Pro Golf Circuit by Harry Hurt III and, just like Tom Coyne's Paper Tiger describes what happens when a regular guy declares himself to be professional golfer. SPOILER ALERT a good golfer cannot simply decide to earn money playing professional golf and therefore this genre entirely lacks suspense, arc, and many other aspects of good storytelling.

[jeffwarne]

Jason,
We clearly have a different opinion of what is architecturally significant.
If you look at my previous post I list 12 things that I feel are important in judging a golf course.
the Goat ticks all 12 boxes.
I of course as you mention have the benefit of playing The Goat rather than judging it from photos.

I would say my descriptions of how to play each hole and my multiple posts would explain pretty well why I think the Goat has architectuaral significance, but I'll take another stab.
I honestly have a hard time picking a best hole as every hole there presents an abundance of choices (except #9 )on how best to tackle it, and a typical hole will see 4 scratch players hit 4 different shots into a green more often than not.

The choices to a first time Goater are not "all out in front of you"
there's not a hairy bunker that skirting or challenging, will present one with a better line.
there's no obvious risk reward at first glance.

Over time, one learns that on #3,a very benign looking hole from an aeriel, while you'd like to use the 100 yards of width to the right of centerline to hit a big slinger and catch a downslope to try to drive the green, you better drive the green-very few have, or at least get it back to center or you aren't making birdie.
the best line is just inside the left treeline, or even IN the treeline to give one an angle to the severely tilted green.
Like many other holes at The Goat, there is rarely an obvious penalty for a misplaced drive, but over time the guy consistently in the best position off the tee prospers, while the other is left to bemoan his fate at the "unfair" bounces he receives from his poor angles.

On #7, there is a shared fairway on 8 giving 100 yards of fairway, but the hard ground and movement  to the right and a ball "down the middle" of 7 fairway can easily run into the woods on the right . that said, about the only way to get the second shot close to a green running away and sloping right, is to come in from the right which requires a good, long drive left center to allow for the slope but ends up right to right center.
That said I generally choose to just bomb it left and stay in the game as 4 is a good score here, but that leaves  a very dicey blind runup pitch to a green running away across a very cool cutout feature where the green was reverse benched in

#8 may be the best "driveable" par 4 I've ever played.
Driving blind into the face of a steep hill, you can make out a tall tree in the distance which is behind the green.Ten yards right of that is a good line if you carry it about 250.
Short of that doesn't cary the hill and doesn't bounce forward,leaving a blind shot.
There's about a ten yards wide spine one needs to hit to drive the green, otherwise a very dicey pitch has to be played from either side, using the severe downhill slope pictured. A shorter driver has a longer blind pitch, but has a good chance of hitting the spine from 60-100 yards out which will generally propel the ball straight, assumimg the shot has the proper trajectory and weight.

Most of the fun of the Goat is coming over the hill and seeing where your ball ended up-if you know the course well it's quite predictable,but a man can dream ,  a bit less so in spring when they get a bit of grass going or hard rains.

I had Ben post the photos because he suggested I do a photo tour.
i've never met Ben, but he and I engage in quite a few spirited debates offline, which certainly broaden my horizons .
and make me rethink and reformulate my opinions constantly.

I posted pretty detailed descriptions originally.
The Goat is not for everybody, and the poor turf condition can be frustrating to a lower skilled or nonversatile, unimaginative low handicap player, though higher handicaps and juniors usually love it.

I'm just waiting for you to tell me what about The Goat is NOT good architecture.
You noted it features "fabulous terrain, quirk, and firm turf"-a pretty darn good start.
I've posted it's loaded with width, strategy, variety, and options.
What's it lacking?
In this case, let's talk about The Goat as you see it in the pictures, not one of the "thousand" other courses like it.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Jason-

I find it interesting that you choose to take on Goat Hill without ever playing it. Maybe that's part of the game here. I just think you set yourself up for trouble, because how could you even know what its like to try to play, on the 5th hole- a down hill par 3-thats pictured-, a 135 low running shot, short left of the green, in an effort to ride the 5 yard slot that takes you to a back left flag--the green tilts left to right, back to front- with as much severity in the game. The reason you chose that shot---because the prevailing is at your back, and a ball thrown up in that wind might launch your ball into the public road 10 yards behind the green. You also are down 2 facing the most interesting stretch of the course.

I think you're trying to basically take on the "Sheep Ranch" crowd---and you're right, not every low key, off the radar place is "Sheep Ranch". I pressed the crew I was traveling with to check out Chatham Seaside Links in Chatham MA after we were stormed out at Truro. Guess what--it wasn't all that great. When I did make it back to Truro- I thought it was cool--stunning site, but there was some bland architecture out there lacking strategy and variety in the driving and approach shots, and the closing holes were not inspiring. So I am with you as to not bring low key courses front and center simply because they are low key in an era of over done, expensive projects.

But guess what--we checked them out. For me that's the "endless summer" side of golf--.

As an aside, interesting you seem to be positively interested in "rough hewn" neighborhoods with a close sense of familial community, but hope the Goat doesn't allow 5 balls?

Explain to me how a 5 ball is bad for golf? Assuming that the management team DOES NOT ALLOW 5 BALLS ON A BUSY DAY.  

Thanks, enjoying the discussion.
Mike Sweeney

[Peter Pallotta]

Fascinating. While I already noted why I like the place, Jason's questions strike me as sound ones -- and Jeff's answers strike me as valid. Which is to say, on a site dedicated to discussing golf course architecture, and that focuses on the great courses of the world, and that seems obsessed with top-ten and best-of lists of all kinds, it seems clear to me that the way any given golfer interacts with any particular design, and what he experiences in that interaction, and what he values most about that experience, is still a very open and subjective question/subject. More and more I have begun to hold two seemingly contradictory thoughts in my head: 1) I don't have nearly the insight nor intelligence nor learning to proclaim upon any aspect of a golf course's architecture/design or on the quality of the work/talent of its designer, and 2) I know exactly what I'm looking for and enjoy - aesthetically, philosophically, strategically, challengingly, socially, environmentally, and architecturally -- in a golf course, and if I find it I am well (and rightly!) pleased, and so would feel justified in proclaiming upon it endlessly.

Peter

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

You are correct, and I probably shouldn't have used unique as the descriptor.  But I have wonderful memories of my hometown course, the course record is -5 on 2700 yard par 35 with par 5s.  There are severely sloped greens and canted fairways.  There are really weird, quirky holes.  Internal out of bounds.  I could go on and on, but I'd never describe it as great architecture.  That's all I'm saying.

But then what is great GCA? I would say that the most challenging course from a strategic point of view is TOC and the most complete Alwoodley but neither jump out at you the first time you play them as being great GCA. It takes multiple plays to really get them. Is a course laid out on the land with little to no alteration not capable of been great GCA even if it is great to play?

On another not I assume that PV is rated by Tom D as a 10 and I have to say I was blown away by it the two times I played but when I really study the course I am struck by the fact that IMHO it is severely compromised by tree ingression. How is it possible for a course to be both great and therefore a 10 but also so compromised? Or is it that with less trees it would be neither better nor worse but simply different? I think not and for me PV is there for less than it could be.

Guess now I should run for cover before I get shot down for my last remarks though it could have been worse it could have been Merion

Jon

[Jason Thurman]

Jeff, Mike, don’t take my asking for an explanation of the course’s architectural merits as an implication that it lacks them. I believe that what I can judge from photos on a course with so little visual definition is very limited. That’s why I’m asking for your firsthand experience. I don’t intend to challenge you. I just want you to help me understand why I should think about taking the ferry over if I happen to be in the area sometime.

I really don’t understand Brian Hoover’s response that he would “steer clear” of the course, which he seems to have backed off on a bit. I’d be happy to play it with a buddy. But I also think claiming it’s one of the things you absolutely must see before you die is a little much. It looks fun, and I generally agree with Keith that it seems like a place to play and enjoy and not worry so much about architectural study. Any criticisms I’d level at the course itself feel almost unfair, precisely because dissecting courses like this is contrary to their purpose in my mind. It feels like critiquing a young kids jump shot - sure it’s not the embodiment of classical form, but it embodies a lot of joy and love for the game and it makes everyone feel pretty good when it works. There are things to critique, but even a cynical ass like me can see that there’s no value in dredging them.

Brian, Josh, myself, and many others have suggested that we grew up playing courses very similar to this and Goat Hill isn’t all that unique to us. Many have suggested that this looks like a fun place to play, but only Ben and Jeff and maybe one or two others have suggested they’d go well out of their way to play it. Jeff, Ben, would you be willing to discuss the courses you grew up on? I know Ben grew up playing at his parents’ club, which I doubt looks much like Goat Hill. Jeff, where did you learn the game? I suspect Goat Hill might be much more unique to your background than it is to mine, and perhaps that’s why courses like it occupy such a high ground in your eyes. I’d be happy to post some photos of my childhood courses if I get back to them this year. I think anyone who loves The Goat would be likely to find those courses similarly charming. While there’s endless space in my heart for courses like this, there’s frankly very little space for them in my travel itineraries these days. I’d happily stop in if I was on the island, but I doubt I’d take the ferry solely to visit.

Courses like this aren’t special because of their architecture in my eyes. Instead, courses like this are special because they create great memories for the people who play them. My great memories of courses like this simply lie elsewhere, at places where my roots run deep and my own golf history runs thick. They’re like a great inside joke in the sense that they mean a lot to a few and very little to most, and I can respect that sanctity of inside jokes enough to realize that I don’t need to share in all of them to understand why they make the people on the inside happy.

[Jason Thurman]

Jon, you shouldn't get shot down. That was a tremendous post with tremendous questions. I don't have time to respond now, but I will think for a while and plan to respond later.

Mike, regarding the 5-somes, I was kidding. It's an inside joke that many participating on this thread will understand. See my post above for an explanation of why I won't explain it here.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Jason-

Got it on the 5ball deal.


Here's where I think you're off--your lumping in Goat Hill, and unfortunately for you, other places that exist like it, that embody your view on what they are- just because they are low key. I really don't care if you think there's no architectural significance to the Goat--I just don't know how you could possibly make a conclusion based on some bad pictures?

Do you lump in Aberdovey with Sakonnet Golf Club or maybe Misquamicut?

 

MS

 

[Josh Tarble]

But then what is great GCA?

I've been reading that, the "architecturally significant" stuff, and I have no idea what that means. What makes a course architecturally significant?

Jon,

Really, these two questions are the crux of conversation.  I don't think that I can really answer it succinctly and perhaps Goat Hill needs to be seen before being discussed.  I also believe these questions are matters of opinion.  But, my reasoning in thinking about those things I mentioned, and being shown at Goat Hill, are more landforms or products out of necessity (OB or sloped greens). 

To me,  great architecture is combining all of those things to make memorable, thought-provoking golf holes.  Just having landforms suited for golf doesn't mean its automatically a great golf course or hole. 

[Alex Miller]

Josh and Jason,

"What is good GCA?" has changed for me over time. This thread http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42846.0.html and eventually trying my own hand at routing in the armchair contests really changed my opinion on what great architecture is. I like to think I've had a bit of an education, though some of what I had said there still holds water. 

It's as much how little earth the architect is able to move while making the course interesting/fun as anything else really. We may not be able to see it in the pictures of Goat Hill (and I haven't played there either), but the placement of tees and greens, even if that's all that was done really, is probably where 90% (or more) of good architecture comes from. If the course is able to fun and strategic when nearly nothing else has been done, then it is significant and still possesses great architecture. Taking the cross-section of courses that have little to no earth-movement and courses that are fun and strategic does not leave much unfortunately, and I'd imagine in the USA Goat Hill has many fewer peers than say... Torrey Pines.

[jeffwarne]

First of all-Chatham Seaside Links, though somewhat charming, wasn't much architecturally .

Second,
I've played a 17some at The Goat, and regulalry in 8 somes so I guess 5 balls are OK

Jason,
I grew up at Augusta CC preSilva restoration-lots of width, small greens,rolling terrain-next door to ANGC.
in hindsight a fantastic place to learn the game.
My "Goat" was The Patch, aka the Augusta Golf Club, where I learned the hardpan ground game, and being nect to the airport, how to deal with wind. Super firm and fast, the course required a lot of local knowledge and was our high schools's home course. While we all bashed it, I learned a lot about scoring and dealing with adverse conditions, and it was tremendous pllace to learn link's skills, and our team dominated there.
We shot 280 to win our region by 69 shots. While the ground game was alive and well there, it lacked the green complexes of the goat so the tee shot game was more about simply hitting and holding the firm and fast fairways, and less about driving to the preferred place to take on the green's tilt. Different kind've strategy.
and of course we had the annual little spring event just over the fence from the Augusta CC .

At that time I could see little in common with the three courses, and especially with a course like The Goat, but over time I've come to see that(under firm and fast conditions) the ground game and width go hand in hand with tilted greens, and that less tilted greens can provide challenge via the challenge of simply hitting the fairways.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

re: Chatham- I agree. The point was at least we checked it out- and had a good time doing it. What if you passed on Gweedore?

[BHoover]

I've played a 17some at The Goat, and regulalry in 8 somes so I guess 5 balls are OK

I think that's awesome. I actually might be more inclined to want to play a place like Goat Hill if large groups are permitted. I think that makes golf more fun.

But does allowing 5-somes+ detract from the purity of the place, at least in the eyes of some?

[jeffwarne]

I've played a 17some at The Goat, and regulalry in 8 somes so I guess 5 balls are OK

I think that's awesome. I actually might be more inclined to want to play a place like Goat Hill if large groups are permitted. I think that makes golf more fun.

But does allowing 5-somes+ detract from the purity of the place, at least in the eyes of some?

The Goat was never about purity.
Carts are the norm though people walk.
The 17some occurred when the local Goat clubhouse bar crowd decided they wanted to break the course record.
my assistant and I came up upon the group and we were invited to join-great fun.
the Goat is a case study of what happens when a course with reasonable bones is untouched for many years due to no money, and that lack of money leads to very few stupid course changing decisions, though they did plant a bunch of saplings a few years ago that thankfully died (hated to waste the Budweiser )

I do hope that anyone who is considering The Goat recognizes that conditions while ideal for firm and fast, are at best spotty, and the being in a hole is a 50-50 proposition, leading to some interesting lies and bounces, though the ball gets back on the original gravity track pretty soon.

Can you tell it's 21 degrees here with the wind blowing about 30?

[BCowan]

Hoover,

Whatever you do, don't let Jeff drive the golf cart, he struggles at times to keep it on 4 wheels...

[Keith OHalloran]

Jeff,
You have made a good case for the Goat here, and a lot of people seem interested. How about a GCA play day at The Goat? If you get less than 18, we could all play in the same group. We could either stay there, or go to The Corner Bar for bear pulling after!

[Brian Finn]

Jeff,
You have made a good case for the Goat here, and a lot of people seem interested. How about a GCA play day at The Goat? If you get less than 18, we could all play in the same group. We could either stay there, or go to The Corner Bar for bear pulling after!

That is a great idea.  I would like to play it again, especially in light of the great discussion here.  I am sure plenty of NY area folks would be interested.  I will round up as many gca'ers as I can from the Midwest contingent - Hoover, Tarble, Thurman...you in?

[BHoover]

Jeff,
You have made a good case for the Goat here, and a lot of people seem interested. How about a GCA play day at The Goat? If you get less than 18, we could all play in the same group. We could either stay there, or go to The Corner Bar for bear pulling after!

That is a great idea.  I would like to play it again, especially in light of the great discussion here.  I am sure plenty of NY area folks would be interested.  I will round up as many gca'ers as I can from the Midwest contingent - Hoover, Tarble, Thurman...you in?

Sure, preferably if we can all play in the same group...and use Keith's Chevy Volt Spark as our golf cart!