Baltusrol Lower

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have played Baltusrol maybe a dozen times, both the Upper and the Lower.  I love the place.   I reeks of golf and golf shoes.  The Upper Course is defined by the mountain and inspired greens and routing.  It is fun,quirky and at times unfair on the greens.  I love it.  The Lower course is long, unimaginative for the most part(I love 3,4,8, and 17).  Yet it always ranks high in the rankings and every decade holds a US Open and now a PGA.  WHY?  No on e seems to love it.  No one even seems to respect it.  What's the deal?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy,

How is the course unimaginative ?

For ease of discussion purposes, let's just start with the first four holes, and then we'll move on to the others.

Tell me how those four holes aren't imaginative ?

I think they're very interesting and challenging irrespective of the tees you play from.

[Matt_Ward]

tommy:

I would not rate the Lower in the upper league of America's best courses but the layout, as redanman has indicated, still requires solid shotmaking concerns through and through.

No, it doesn't have the scenic appeal of a good many other "great courses" or the no nonsense approach you see with Winged Foot / West and Oakmont, but the Lower still has enough of a balance to still be "relevant" for consideration as a major championship site. Clearly, the '05 PGA will say plenty on this subject.

I would rate the Lower between 75-100 in my personal listing of courses in the USA and I agree with you that the Upper does indeed have a bit more style and terrain changes to be a bit more appealing from a visual sense but the muscle and  demands of the Lower stlll reign supreme IMHO.

[Cliff Hamm]

Baltusrol does not get the respect it deserves.  It is a very straight forward golf course without tricks. What you see is what you get.  Yes, the scoring has been low in the past 3 Opens.  Short rough and slow greens.  The greens are a bit flat and it does not have a super stretch of holes.  I agree not top 10 but top 30 and maybe high teens absolutely.  It is unique in not being a parkland course nor a links course.  It begins and ends with trees with 9 through 14 being especially open, links style holes.  It won't beat you up but continues to be a great test.  

As to holes 1-4 all are quite solid.  One a par 4 for the pros.,  Shows you how times have changed Dean Beaman hit a 5 wood in '67 here.  The 2nd perhaps quirky by today's standards with cross bunkers at 240 or so.  The third a great par 4 - long, but downhill, tough drive, dog leg, etc.  The fourth one of the world's great par 3's.  What's not to like?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy,

?

[ChipOat]

Baltusrol isn't under-rated but it does seem over-criticized, at times.

My gripe is that a number of the greens that are at "ground level" are also somewhat uninteresting IMO (e.g. #'s 1 & 3).  Pine Valley has a bunch of ground level greens but most seem to have more to them, somehow (e.g. #'s 1,5,6,9,12,13,16).  Plus they're at Pine Valley.

I do think #4 is over-rated as "one of the world's great par 3's".  It's a wonderful hole, but one of the world's finest??  That's a stretch IMO.

Plus a couple of the holes through the middle are on flat-ish property that makes them look pretty generic and could be most anywhere.

#18 ought to be shortened and given a wider fairway to the right in the landing area IMO.  Then it might be a killer par 4 finisher that asks for a dangerous drive down the left side for a shorter approach with a better angle - my kind of hole.

I think #17 is actually under-rated.  Good 3 shotters are tough to build and, while not terribly strategic, #17 is better than (for instance) #7 at Pine Valley in terms of demanding 3 really good shots from most mortals.  Not quite like #16 at Olympic or #15 at Pine Valley (what is?), but still not spoken of in the same sentence often enough IMO.

The Lower Course is a bona-fide championship layout but not quite up to a Winged Foot or, even, Quaker Ridge.  It gets criticized for that way too much, it seems to me.

Couldn't they put a few greens from the Upper Course down below?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Sorry to have been an absentee thread starter.  It seems to me that there are basically two ways to look at the lower course.  The first is as a championship venue.  I think the lower course is exciting as a  U S Open course.  I will never forget the battle between Nicklaus and Aoki in 1980.  The 2005 PGA should prove to be enjoyabel to both play and watch.  The course yields both birdies and bogies.  

I guess I was more thinking of it as a course for the club player.  Pat, I think the first four holes are th most enjoyable.  One is a reachable paar five, even for a skinny 56 year old norwegian.  Both the tee shot and the short into two are demanding and call for some imagination and committment to the shot.  Number three requires a very good drive in the fairway  even to think about going for the green.  My wife almost aced number four and while there are many holes similar, the undulations on the green and the bunkering make it unique. In some ways I'm surprised that I started a negative thread like this, it normally is not my style.  Ithought of it a couple of weeks ago when someone asked us to rank a number of Tilly's courses.  For the most part the lower course came out very near the bottom of the list.  After replaying a number of my rounds in my head I probably mispoke (mistyped?) that the course is unimagainative.  I think it is routed well and I like the green complexes.  So what's my problem?  Even at my age I like to play and walk 36 holes when I play.  I finish the first round and can't wait to play the course again.  Not so at the lower.  I remember Nicklaus saying the Cypress Point makes you want to play golf while Spyglass Hill make you want to go fishing.  I don't feel that strongly about the Lower Course but I don't ever seem to be excited about playing it.  I don't feel that way about other U S Open Courses like Oakmont or WFW or Olympic, and I love Olympia Fields. As difficlut as Oakmont is I can see how people love it and love to play it.  I don't hear that same kind of feeling toward the lower course.  Maybe it is because it lost some of its Tillinghastness.  I just came back from the Philly Cricket Club and found Tilly's couse there stunning, even though I could tell they had monkeyed with some of the bunkers.  Sorry to ramble on so much but I still wonder if the lower isn't missing some ingredient.  Is it? Or is it just me?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chipoat,

Are you feeling okay ??

The 1st and 4th green at PV are far more docile than any of the greens at Baltusrol.

Almost every green at Baltusrol has some good slope to it.
# 17 is probably the exception.

Tommy,

Could you now review holes #'s 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 with respect to "unimaginative" ?

Thanks.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Pat,

I recall the 5th green at PV as being rather tilted from back to front, reflecting the rule of thumb for playing the hole:  "never be past the pin", so as to have uphill shots in.

[david h. carroll]

Scott--I too remember #5 green at PV being pretty severe...balls roll off the front and the rear of the green is steep.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott & Dcarroll,

The 4th green falls away in the front as it emerges, seemlessly from the fairway.  But, it is a big green and does not present much in the way of a putting challenge when compared to # 3 at Baltusrol or other greens at PV.

[ChipOat]

Patrick:

I agree that #1 green at PV isn't severly contoured.  What I was referring to in terms of "having something to it" is what happens if you miss - especially long, right or left past the middle.  #4 at Pine Valley is a ground level green that isn't quite so interesting.

As to #5 green at PV - are YOU feeling OK??  Except for the very front, that green is ungodly fast - especially putting from back/left to front/right.  You've obviously always played the hole superbly else you would have experienced the same terror that others have recounted in the bar afterwards.

Even Tom Paul would agree with me on that one.

[david h. carroll]

chipoat--as to #4 at PV, I couldn't disagree more....the subtlety of the slope from front down to the back is incredible...I've never seen a first timer at PV leave a putt from front to back short of the hole and usually it's a good 6-10ft by...then they get that what the f was that look on their face!!

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Chipgoat:

#1 at PV has a wonderful little hog back at its front, and there are numerously little subtlies that announce:  "Pay Attention or you're in for a long day!"

#4 at PV has a wonderful roll on the right side front as well as the paranoia of hitting the parking lot/pro shop with your 2nd (Or 3rd).  In addition, the complex @ #4 has the most ferocious holly tree bush left of the green for the overcompensators.  Granted that the green is not enormously sloped, but two putts is never a certainty.

#5 is terrific when firm.  Kitten in a room full of dobermen pinchers:  Tuned in and puckered.

Baltusrol's green's fall away from the mountain

KLP

[Patrick_Mucci]

KLP,

The upper's greens tend to fall away from the mountain, but not the lowers greens, which fall in different directions.

Holes that are nearer to the upper tend to fall away from the mountain, but the other greens fall in a random pattern.

Greens #'s 1, 4, 7, 13, 14, 16 and 18 at PV aren't severely contoured, nor do they pose a severe test.

Two putts are never certain anywhere, especially on huge greens.

What elevation disparity does the hogback on # 1 green that you allude to, total ?

Chipoat,

You should immediately recognize the if TEPaul agrees with you...... that you are wrong  

With respect to # 1, I would agree that disaster awaits a missed green left, right or long.

The putting surface on # 2 at Baltusrol lower is severe.
#'s 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, and 15 are no slouches either.

Some have put forth a theory on Baltusrol that the appreciation for the course has been diminished or lost due to backlashes against the club and staff.  Some may have been rankled by what they perceived as an elititst attitude on the part of members and staff when they visited the club, and took their miffed feelings out by downgrading the golf course.

The golf course is outstanding.
It may be that the greens and surroundings aren't quite as difficult as Winged Foot, hence it's diminished by comparison.  But, how many courses have the greens and green surrounds possessed by Winged Foot ?  

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Patrick -

Agreed that Baltusrol Lower's greens should merit more discussion/explanation that I dismissed with a one liner.

#1 at PVGC's little swale is less than a foot, but it presents a wonderful obstacle if the pin is up front.  Agree with your point on PVGC except #7, 16 which is triple tiered and 18.  #7 and #18 are tilted to some extent, but uniform in slope.  These two offer the speed/amount of break variable in the back to front that make a challenge.

Overall, IMHO, Baltusrol deserves more compliments.

KLP

[Patrick_Mucci]

KLP,

It would be interesting to see a chart listing the square footage of each green at PV and Baltusrol.

Many of Baltusrol's greens seem very large and I wonder if some of the breaks and contours aren't lost in the scale of the greens.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Patrick -

Agreed, especially in light of PV's 8th.  Could we count the right hand greens on both 8 and 9.  I driven the right one on 8 with the "Dreaded straight ball."

KLP

You bet I took a drop!  Made 4.

[Matt_Ward]

chipoat:

I concede your statement concerning the comparsion between the Lower and WF / West. But Quaker Ridge? Help me understand how you made that leap? Doesn't QR really get a much needed boost from being in the same neighborhood as Winged Foot?

Just keep in mind Baltusrol Lower has been tested at the highest levels of competition -- can't see how a one-time Walker Cup and metro area events stacks up with that but I may be reading the tea leaves of championships too much when compared to architectural features. Help me out with your thinking -- thanks!

[Paul_Turner]

Haven't played Baltusrol.  But interesting comments on PV's greens.  I played them at their slowest, so it was difficult to get the right feeling for their contour, but using a bit imagination, I thought they would be a pretty severe test at moderate/fast speeds.  Here's a pic of the 16th green (Ran's), looks like pretty complex contour to me.



Only the 14th seemed mild in contour.

[Patrick_Mucci]

P_Turner,

The 16th green you depict is rather large, and doesn't have any severe contouring.  You can be 20 feet from the hole and have a benign putt.

You didn't find the 1st and 4th greens at PV to be relatively flat ?

How would you compare the contouring on # 16 at PV to
the contouring at # 1, # 3 and # 6 at NGLA ?

Would you say that # 16 is rather benign when compared to
# 1, # 3 and # 6 at NGLA ?

[ChipOat]

Matt Ward:

My judgement on Quaker Ridge is a subjective, qualitative personal opinion that is clearly arguable.  I've only played it once but I remember being more impressed with the green complexes than B'rol Lower (which I've played circa 6 times).

Basically, I don't really care for ground level greens unless they have some REALLY interesting things going on.

It's a personal BIAS of mine.

[Paul_Turner]

Patrick

I haven't played or seen NGLA.  Just seen pics.

I guess it's just depends on your definition of severe.  Perhaps the 16th at PV isn't "severe", but I reckon that most putts offer plenty of difficulty on that green.  It's very difficult to show green contours with photos, but Ran's photo shows plenty of contour.  The only place I see a relatively benign putt is from back to front, closest to the lake.

The 4th is milder, but it's far from flat. It has a kind of quadrant of contours.

The 1st still has moderate contour.  Certainly not severe, but also far from simple.

Again, I haven't seen Baltusrol, but if all of the greens on the Lower are more contoured than the 16th at PV, then they must be a tough set indeed.  

How do the contours at Baltusrol compare with those at NGLA?  From pics, I imagine those at NGLA are much more severe.

The greens at PV are largish, but they aren't exactly Bandon Dunes size.  How do they compare with those at Baltusrol?

[Patrick_Mucci]

P_Turner,

The back of # 16 at PV is severe, but mostly unpinable.

Baltusrol Lower's greens have slope more than contour, although greens like # 3, 4, 7, 12 and 16 have some contours.

I posed the question of square footage to KLP.
Many of Baltusrols greens seem large, but I'd hold off final judgement until I actually got the measurements.

Some of NGLA's greens are more contoured in more limited space or smaller square footage greens, hence they appear even more contoured.  But other greens at NGLA, like # 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 17 and 18 don't have substantive contours, rather more subtle contours and slopes.

I've tried to photograph various greens and they never seem to reflect the look or feel of the greens.
However, I've seen computer generated models that do an excellent job of conveying slope and contour.
If anyone knows how to access those programs it would be an enormous benefit to this site.

[Cliff Hamm]

I believe the Baltusrol's greens average 6,500 sq ft.  I don't know the average for PV.