The Bridge at Bridgehampton and/vs. Friar's Head

[Mike Worth]

Mr. XXX1:

Dude.

Could you please stop with the double negative questions?  It's getting difficult to understand what you're saying or asking.  In your last post you used "not" or "isn't" 3 times.  Does a negative cancel a negative, therefore making a positive?

Translation please?

[XXX1]

The sentence was fine.

I wanted to know why you apparently don't tolerate an opinion of Hidden Creek less then Top 100 in the US.

Enjoy it as a member. If you don't have a financial interest why do you care so much if someone thinks its excellent but not in the Top 100?

[Mike Worth]

Mr. XXX1.

Thanks for re-writing the sentence - it's much clearer now.

If you will please note, others on this site (such as Mike Cirba and Geoffrey Childs) have not held Hidden Creek in as high regard as Golf Magazine.  You should also note I haven't attacked their opinions, and I've chatted with them in a civil tone about their views.  So by my own words/actions on this site, I've already shown I can "discuss" and disagree with other's opinions.  

My problem with Matt Ward is his incessant assertions that panelists have conflicting interests, that some architects get a "pass" (read Hidden Creek), and still other courses get a better ranking just because they are in geographic proximity to other ranked courses (read Maidenstone).  While he has discussed the architectural merits of Hidden Creek, I believe that in his mind, he feels there must be other factors that cause it to be recognized.

The difference between Cirba/Childs and Matt Ward is they are not as entrenched in their positions and are willing to discuss.  Matt seems intent on lecturing and complaining.  

[Michael Dugger]

SS1 merely pointed out that this was a thread about L.I. golf courses.  He wondered why Hidden Creek was brought into the mix and his only conclusion was so that Matt Ward could bash it some more.  I'm not gathering he's adverse to criticism of the course, just not on this thread

[Mike Worth]

mdugger.

Thanks for reminding me - that was the original point of my first post in this topic to Matt Ward.

Sometimes you can't see the forrest, etc, etc, etc  

[Michael Dugger]

SS1

I think you've "stayed the course" for the most part, it doesn't take much for these threads to go off on bizarre tangents.  

Especially when negative comments are being slung.

[Matt_Ward]

SS1:

Let's clarify a NUMBER of mistatements you have made.

First, I don't need to hype Jersey Golfer. People who read the publication want to get information that's not bought and paid for through advertisers.

Second, you are a MEMBER of Hidden Creek so without question you have a conflict of interest. Nothing like credibility when it counts!

Third, I'll repeat it again -- there are people here on GCA who have conveyed "most favored architect" status to a number of past and living architects. Why duck the truth? Oh, I see --the issue is why someone like me raises such a relevant topic in the first place? That's a great bait and switch tactic. The issue is that many people don't say this because there too busy wondering if they curry favor with others on GCA for a possible future invite to such and such club. I get e-mails plenty of times from people offline saying the same thing because it's so painfully obvious. I'll say this again in the event you don't understand -- I enjoy playing superior courses and I don't doubt for a second the design skills of Ben Crenshaw & Bill Coore. Sand Hills is among my personal top ten courses I have ever played. Just DON'T FORGET THIS -- even Babe Ruth didn't hit home runs with every swing. And neither does C&C or any architect. I said clearly that Hidden Creek is a solid double (using baseball speak).

Fourth, I played Hidden Creek (I was invited along with other reviewers) and offered a reasonable reiew of the course. Frankly, I could care less what you think because you are nothing more than a 19th hole member who doesn't want to hear anything that isn't glowing about his home course. In my mind your homer outbursts speak for themselves.

Fifth, I've been playing golf for 35 years and have played everything worth a dam in NJ. I've played all the key courses numerous times and I frankly stated that Hidden Creek is not a top 100 course in the USA and further added it isn't top 10 in NJ. Do you know how good the golf is in NJ. Ever hear of Montclair GC (#2 & #4), Forsgate / Banks Course, Hollywood, et al. Just because I don't toe "the standard line" means that Ward is screwed up in some way. I served for 17 years as a panelst for Golf Digest and have played no less than 90 courses among their top 100. I also offered the names of the courses that I believed to be better within the Garden State. If you want to challenge my assessment do yourself a big favor and pipe down with all the personal BS and put your choices out there for the world to see. Wait a second -- I forgot -- it's better to trash Wad because you simply like to blow smoke.

I also understand that when people say a course is top 100 in the USA -- I have a very clear idea on how high that benchmark is. Do you? A course can be exceptional as Hidden Creek is and just because Ward is not falling over himself with compliments about the course makes me out to be someone who's against the course and its members. What utter rubbish!

Sixth, I keep an open mind and when I return to courses I note what's there and see if it's different or simply reinforces what I said initially. I said that Hidden Creek is a fine course and a worthy addition to the Garden State golf scene. Just because I didn't genuflect and parrot the words yo want me to say is too dam bad. I've been invited to return to Hidden Creek and play the course and I'l be sure to see what, if anything, I missed the first time. If that happens -- I'll be sure to write that in the magazine.

If you don't like opinion that's fine. But you are dead wrong that I have some sort of personal agenda in my comments. I just feel very strongly when people list courses as top 100 and in fact there not IMHO. The fellow raters I played with that day will say the same and have.

Tommy:

Let's be really honest OK -- how many Rees Jones courses have you ever played? No, Emperor -- not the aerial reviews you specialize in but the nitty gritty in actually playing them. You've used Sandpines and Torrey justifiably as poor efforts by Rees and guess what -- I agree. That's right -- you heard it from me. I've also posted on other Rees Jones courses and said the same when it merits it because I've played them and can be fair in stating such conclusions. This bit of "let's dump on Rees" is so painfully apparent it really shows me the true colors of those who post on that subject regarding their "open mind."

Tommy -- you personify the folks who place utmost priority in the "look" of a course. Nothing wrong with that except golf is still fundamentally about hitting golf shots and then juding whether or not a golf course is capable in maximizing the varied skills you need when playing IMHO. Golf -- first and foremost, is a game of shotmaking prowess with all the clubs and the a-r-t-i-s-t-e elements that you wax on about are really a secondary factor (please see my example on food presentation / food taste). We see it differently -- nothing wrong with that mind you, but lay off the BS about my in ability to assess courses properly according to your narrow definition.

If people don't like my take on The Bridge I could care less. I frankly don't think much of these esoteric little courses with their 3-4 holes of quality and the rest being pedestrian efforts. Some people really get off with the sporty and quirky golf courses that exist. Hey -- if that's your bag knock yourself out. If you've paid attention Emperor -- the peasants (i.e. me) have gone through the Empire of courses in the USA and highlighted those that aren't just long and wrong. You must have missed my posts on places such as Hollywood (which GolfWeek --the panel you're on -- had the course at #57 two years ago and then dropped altogether this time around -- good call? ) and Forsgate / Banks Couse, to name just two. My selections of courses is not the doctrinaire stuff of let's just follow the classic rainbow and close our eyes to any other possibility. I've traveled enough within the USA and have highlighted time after time the quality within modern golf architecture and the many designers today who are capable in producing vintage golf courses (see the info on places in New Mexico as just one example).

Also, I said that The Bridge is among my personal top five on Long Island and I placed it after the likes of SH and BB and would include NGLA, The Bridge and GCGC among that grouping. I also added I could not comment (and have not) about Friar's Head untl I play it.  I've also stated that The Bridge does not have architecturally compelling / significant elements you find in other courses -- The Creek and Piping Rock, come to mind as two examples -- but that the course still has enough beef / muscle and qualities to test you throughout the round. Hell, if people see it differently more power to them. But, let's also realize that a number of these "classic" courses also have weaknesses and when people only chime in about a few holes and then make the leap that the course is such a masterpiece I have to find a chair before I fall down from all the laughter.

Tommy -- If you want to lob another personal grenade my way please feel free to do so. I'll be out on the golf course looking to find the next marveous course to write about instead of just talking about how only the most favored architects really understand the game.

[T_MacWood]

Matt
I think you forgot #7:

Seven, everything I say is just one man's opinion and its quite possible I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

[DMoriarty]

Havent played any of the courses mentioned, and have nothing to say about them specifically, so I am wondering whether this post will be considered biased.  I do live in the same metropolitan area as Tommy and enjoy his company and opinions, so perhaps I am just another minion in the Empire . . .  .

Anyway, I think what may be going on here is that Matt has much different criteria for picking "best" courses than many others on the site.  

Matt when I read your long post on the second page, and take everything you say at face value, I cant help but wonder what you think sets this course apart as a quality course.
--You readily admit that, "from the standpoint of a design that's architecturally compelling / significant The Bridge is not at the highest level."  
-- You "concur with those who have said that the site, while clearly scenic, doesn't have the sophistication or maximum design aspects you would see with other more noted courses on the east end of the island."
--  You acknowledge, that the "walking aspect of the course is also quite problematic because of the hikes you need to make between certain holes . . . ."
--  You "don't doubt that The Bridge has a good deal of man's hand through shaping and the like[.]"  
--  And you set aside a discussion of the mounding which has been previously discussed.  

So what then makes this course top five in Long Island?  From what I can tell . .
--   The bridge is a demanding test of golf, plays to its 7300+ yardage, and deserves its 76+ rating.
--   The Bridge is especially demanding off the tee.  
--  The course is in marvelous shape, the greens are firm, fast, and tough to hold with anything but a crisply hit iron.  And George Tiska does a great job of keeping them that way.  
--   The 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 13th and 15th are good holes, among others.  
--    Just because it isnt great doesnt mean it is terrible.  

Matt, it seems your main emphasis is that it is a demanding test, especially from the tee.  From our other discussions, I take this to mean that the golfer must hit the ball both a long ways and accurately to hope to have success on this course.  As you know, I for one think that this type of "demanding test" criterion is highly overrated as and indicator of the quality of the golf course.  

Moreover, the negatives which you acknowledge are very important to me.  For example, I generally prefer courses which are architecturally compelling and significant.  

Now, I have no reason that I know of to be biased against Rees Jones-- I have played very few of his original courses and very much liked Bethpage and MPC Dunes after his work.  Also, I have heard that he is a very thoughtful man who legitimately cares about golf architecture.  Plus, I have heard he is a member of both Maidstone and National yet has not altered them signficantly if at all, which if true, might say something about his respect for classic architecture.    

But, frankly, taking your description at face value, if I could play any five courses on Long Island (but only those five), I would most definitely not play this course.  In my opinion, your description isn't very positive at all, and gives me little reason to want to play the course.    

Does this mean I am biased or unreasonable?  Remember, I am accepting all of Matt's observations as true.  

[Matt_Ward]

Help me out -- aren't you the guy who understands golf courses from looking at aerials and never has played courses that he analyzes.

Speaks volumes for your credibility.

[T_MacWood]

Matt
I was just joshing you.    

Everyone's entitled to their opinion...you, me, everyone. For some odd reason you seem to think your opinion is a little more significant....thats the way somes across the Internet any way.

But from my point of view...which is admittedly rooted in the thoughts of old guys like Hutchinson, Darwin, Colt, Simpson, Behr, MacKenzie, Fowler, etc (most favored brilliant minds of golf)....you've got some pretty strange thoughts and ideas. But to each his own.

[Mike Worth]

Matt Ward.

My, my.  I don't know where to start.  Perhaps with a suggestion - whatever underwear your wearing - it's too tight - you might want to consider heading to JC Penny's and buying something that fits.  Clearly your panties are in a bunch over this.

MY ORIGINAL topic was your obsession with Hidden Creek.  How about answering the first, most basic question:  Why do you feel the need to bring up Hidden Creek in a thread concerning two courses on Long Island?  It would have been logical to answer that question before you launched into your version of "War and Peace".  One can only conclude that your non-answer to this point means you really are obsessed, just as I said.  If you want to debate architectural merits, then start a "Hidden Creek" thread, and I'll participate, discuss, and point out your weaknesses and what you missed.  

No one doubts you've played alot of courses and for a long time.  I've never questioned that.  What is in question is all the other points I brought up and that you continue to confirm in your responses.  You know, complaints about "other factors" -- then claiming these "factors" have no impact on your views.  Sorry, but that doesn't pass the common sense test.  If you're surfacing these issues, then they weigh on your opinions just by the fact you mention them.

And I've said all along that I'm a member at Hidden Creek and therefore my views are parochial.  So what.  Others have engaged me in quality discussion on the architecture, setting, etc of the course.  I'll allow those comments to stand on their merits as opposed to your characterization.  Conversely, most of your commentary on Hidden Creek has not been about architecture, but rather has been devoted to biased raters, bonus points for geographic location, and the secret Top 100 list for most favored architects (I will point out that Tom Doak correctly notes that Coore and Crenshaw have a whopping 2 courses in the top 100 - you're right, they are well on the way to monopolizing the entire list).  

Then, true to form, you say that everyone is against you, announce that you've played more golf in New Jersey than God himself, and declare your NJ Top 10 list as if had the weight of a Papal Bull.  While I can admit I have't played all the top courses in NJ (I have played 1/2 of your personal top 10), the point isn't how much golf you played, but the fact that you are so closed-minded about the entire thing.   I'm challenging your methodology !!

With regards to NJ Golfer Magazine, I read the edition with your Hidden Creek review, and I got something like 5 back issues a couple of years ago.  The one thing I remember about one of those back issues was the article about the Plainfield restoration and how the picture and caption of the restored 4th hole didn't match --- a fine editing job there.  And if memory serves, doesn't NJ Golfer solicit advertisements?     Doesn't that make the publication "bought and paid for by the advertisers"?

Lastly, before you go to bed tonight, and when you say your nightly prayers, remember to face toward Egg Harbor Township and bow or genuflect  

[Mike_Cirba]

I should stay out of this, but if Matt has a bug up his arse about HC, and the fact that it's been rated a Top 100 course by Golf Magazine, I would be he's basing that assessment on the following;

I personally know nine people, including Matt, who have played Hidden Creek.  Of those, only one believes it to be a Top 100 course.  

Everyone else feels that it's a very good, very fun course that is a treat for the members, including SS1.  We just don't feel it's quite as good as those who love it.  

No biggie...just a real surprise to some of us, and a very pleasant surprise for the club, I'm sure.

[Mike Worth]

Mike Cirba.

Well, those are very sane, low key comments.  I didn't detect the hint of a Papal Bull from you.  Hope you get a chance to come back and play it again  .

 

[Matt_Ward]

SS1:

I have said a number of times my concerns about the architecture at Hidden Creek -- you either have not read it or simply have amnesia.

The issue of Hidden Creek came in from another source on thsi thread -- I did not initiate it.

Second, regarding advertisers I don't know what you know or don't know about publishing but at Jersey Golfer we don't pull punches on our feelings on golf courses simply because so and so advertises with us. We've lost accounts simply because they think most magazines are whores that will print editorially anything that ties into their rosy assessment of their facility. We have never done that -- and have no future plans to change and we have been in business for 13 years.

The botton line SS1 is that you just don't like the fact that I told you plain and simple (no less than Mike Cirba, Geoff Childs, et al) that Hidden Creek isn't a top 100 course. When you hear those words from me you take g-r-e-a-t umbrage because I don't mince words or play footsy with you. I understand perfectly well how deserving a course needs to be for top 100 status. Do you?

I asked you before -- once again you wimped out -- to name your best courses in NJ and I'm sure Hidden Creek would be listed among them. Let me know where and why? I'll say it again because when people like you hear me say that Hidden Creek isn't a top 100 course you (and others) take it to mean that I abhor the place or think it's a trash layout. Never said that at all. I concur with what Mike Cirba said about what it offers and realize that's a plus to the Jersey golf scene which is littered with many exceptional layouts. You should go play a few and find out for yourself.

David M:

There's more to The Bridge than its opponents let on. David, you know as well as I, that many people here on GCA have only played a small sampling of Rees Jones courses but chime in from the cheap seats in left field and pontificate about how the Rees Jones course they played (usually it's a sample size of 2-3) was really horrible. Therefore, anytime the name Rees Jones comes up it becomes instant fodder to repeat like a parrot why Rees Jones doesn't "get it" nor ever will. This is utter BS and for someone who has an open mind I'm sure you can see that my original comment about "most favored archiect" situations apply to certain people here. I don't rate architects -- I review golf courses and there have been numerous instances where a Rees Jones course has not receievd from me some "automatic" glowing review as so many people try to tar me with.

I like The Bridge -- with reservations stated -- and I also stated that a number of the well known "classic" courses that everyone talks about on the Island have a number of marvelous holes sprinkled through their layouts but there are quite a few pedestrian holes that are simply filler -- please understand the comment I just made doesn't refer to SH, NGLA, BB and GCGC. Of course -- people only mention the well known holes and I was quick to point out the dunes holes at Maidstone are well done but let's not forget about the rest of the course. If people are going to apply the total 18 analysis to The Bridge -- please do so for the other courses that are often giving a free pass because it's the "in" thing to do or that they are designed by "x" person who is revered here on GCA.

There's also another BS aspect to how people stereotype me on GCA. I have introduced and taken quite a few people within my "neck of the woods" to courses that are not some monster like courses that have little going for them except for distance and difficulty. I have also listed quite a few courses among my personal top 50 that are not long but are totally ingrained with a superb routing and well balanced set of holes.
You might have missed my inclusion of Valley Club of Montecito as one such example.

Just recently I spearheaded a meeting and golf at the Banks Course at Forsagte CC in Jamesburg, NJ. The course opened in 1931 and is one of the gems in American golf even though the course barely goes over 6,700 yards and sports no more than a 129 slope and I believe a course rating of 72. There are numerous other examples I can also cite.

David -- do me a big favor -- analyze the people who simply favor "the look" aspect and ask them what are their thoughts on how a course plays -- how well does the course ask the player to work the ball -- to hit it high and low -- to handle uphill, downhill and sidehill lies when called upon. Too much focus on GCA is spent on "the look" because people forget that playing golf is about golf shots that are linked together through routings that ebb and flow and call upon the player to handle a myriad of situations. Plenty of these same people also argue the courses's merits just from aerials -- what a good way to review a course.

One last thing -- there are architectural aspects at The Bridge that are very good. You spin that with the word "negatives." I try to be fair in the assessment of all courses I go to. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze -- you have people extolling the virtues of other courses like God almighty actually blessed them and they N-E-V-E-R admit ANY deficiency but are quick to say that when I suggest such a thing then it only bolsters their case. Does The Bridge merit inclusion among America's 100 best? No -- it does not. When I use the terms "compelling" and "significant" I am using the highest standards once can apply when compared to courses of that quality (i.e. SH, NGLA, BB, GCGC, to name just four) and others of national prominence. On that score The Bridge doesn't have that richness in detail, however, it still has enough to be a fine course. You think from hearing from these folks that The Bridge was some sort of BS course that's just about difficulty and nothing more. Far from it.

David, I understand -- or at least I think I do -- what you look for in a golf course. Likely, you and I will be on different sides on a review of certain courses. I do enjoy courses that have an edge to them in regards to tee game intensity. I believe the tee game is central to the playing of the game and when a course doesn't have that element but overdoses on other parts to make it's case I then believe something is missing. I don't believe in sheer difficulty being the sole ingredient but there needs to be aspect to a course that can sometimes make the player feel "uncomfortable" on certain tees during the playing of a round. I also like the idea that a tee game aspect needs to make the player work the ball from time to time.

David -- you need to hold judgements on courses until you play them. If you want to base judgements on whether you would play a course by the value of how it "looks" then never go to places like The Bridge or those similar to it. We likely view golf courses differently but to stereotype me as being in favor of only type of course is patently false.

[Mike Worth]

Matt Ward.

You're just plain wrong.  I appreciate bluntness.  But you have biases and won't admit it.  So please don't tell me what it is I don't like about your verdict on Hidden Creek.I think it's already clear you and I don't think alike.  How could you possibly know what I don't like.

Glad you've changed your description of NJ Golfer from a magazine that doesn't advertise, to one that is better than the rest because it isn't swayed by advertising dollars.

I have read your assessment, review, and posts on GCA about Hidden Creek.  The overall theme of your review is you weren't "wowed" by it.  Quite frankly, the terms "solid double" and "solid addition to the NJ golf scene" aren't really compliments especially in light of the glowing comments of others.  

I suspect that this has as much to do with the fact you played the course before it opened (something you neglect to note in all of your write-ups) as it does with all the stuff you missed.  And of course, your self-documented consipiracy theories come into play too.  Hey - here's a new theory for you to consider on how Hidden Creek made the Golf Magazine Top 100 list - It was Colonel Mustard, in the Library, with a Lead Pipe  

You have decreed that Hidden Creek is not even a Top 10 NJ course, yet you played it one time before it was opened - and somehow claim to be open minded at the same time.   That's remarkable.  

And once again, I'm not going to get into a top 10 pissing match with you.  I've already said I've personally played 5 of your top 10 NJ courses.  From my perspective, I don't pass final judgement on a course until I've played it a few times.  Judging from how many time you said you played NJ courses, I thought you were of the same philosophy, except when it comes to Hidden Creek, where you did a "hit and run" review based on one playing in early spring, before the course was open.  

[Mike Worth]

"The issue of Hidden Creek came in from another source on thsi thread -- I did not initiate it. "



Matt - I take issue with this statement from your above post. I just re-read the entire thread and I cannot find where you are responding to anyone about Hidden Creek.  It sure looks like you initiated the discussion and criticism about Hidden Creek.  

[Matt_Ward]

SS1:

I was invited by the ownership and it's not my responsibility when the course is deemed ready -- the course did open 2-3 days later. I've stated that several times -- how bout paying attention to what I say? If the course wasn't ready then hold on people / raters coming to play it until it is. I also stated -- please pay attention -- that if / when I return I'll review what I saw the first time (please note the holes I did mention in the review -- it was more than the vague generalities you cite me as saying) and if there are things that merit a second article I'll be glad to say so. It won't be the first time this has happened.

You see SS1 -- I do keep an open mind. I have no bias against Hidden Creek -- that's pure BS. You throw that grenade forward and I won't be stuck in that nonsensical game. I reviewed the course based on what I saw when I played it. So did Cirba, Vostinak and Martin when they were there with me. If I'm in error so are they.

Last I checked -- others in my group (Cirba, Vostinak, Martin) also played and RATED the course based on their initial play with me. So do yourself a big favor don't lob bromides about when I was there. If the course was not ready then raters should have been told to hold off and brought in when it was. If someone invites me to a Broadway show I make an assessment of what is performed when I was there. If they are not ready then don't let the audience in -- simple as that.

SS1 -- Jersey Golfer calls it as it sees it. We don't whore around for ad dollars and then tie the editorial to an advertorial product -- that's how readers get duped. That bait and switch tactic is carried out by a ton of regional pubs and truth be told a number of national ones as well. If people don't like the contents so be it but it won't be because we don't separate the editorial from the advertorial.

I'll say this again -- where's your top ten New Jersey list? If I am soooooooooooooooo flawed please help educate me on what you see as the best in the state. I played the course with an open mind -- if you don't think so -- I could care less because then you don't know me as an individual and as a golfer.

I'm the same person who posted the glowing review (and richly deserved I might add) on Blue Heron Pines / East and also named the 10th at Hidden Creek as one of the best 18 golf holes in the state in a column I wrote -- I guess I should have withheld the inclusion of the 10th because I only played the course one time.

Did you miss that part?

I can send you the magazine issues if for some reason you conveniently forgot or if you never saw them in the first place. Oh, one other thing -- of course, because Ward doesn't parrot the party line about Hidden Creek being a top 100 course let's lob the tired "bias" bombshell around. Puhleeeeeze!

[Mike Worth]

No, you shouldn't have withheld HC #10, you simply should have added more holes.  

You may have posted a wonderful review of BHP East, but saying that Twisted Dunes is better is, well, twisted (LOL).   I guess the high tension power lines buzzing on the back nine went to your head  

[Mike_Cirba]

SS1;

I hope to visit Hidden Creek again in the near future, as well, but I must tell you that most of the people who I know (and 8 of the 9 participate here regularly) that have played it have done so after Matt, Bill, and I did.

As always, I'll be certain to keep an open mind.  I also hope we can keep the discussion on a high, respectful level.  

[DMoriarty]

David

1-Moderately, NO! and NO!
2-NO!
3-Yes
4-yes, maybe, maybe,maybe, maybe
5-absolutely!

PAy more attention.

redanman-  You may want to read my whole post and not just the numbered part.  I was paraphrasing Matt Ward's comments about the course, not expressing any opinion one way or another.  

Speaking a paying attention . . .

[DMoriarty]

Matt,

Sorry to take so long to reply.  I was away for the weekend.  

I didnt post above to get involved in the general disparagement of others' opinions (positive or negative) of Rees Jones' architecture; nor do I wish to critique his original work. As I have said more than once, I dont have enough experience with his courses to so do.

Rather, I was wondering if many of us are coming into these discussions with irreconcilable differences regarding the principles one should use when critiquing golf courses, or a single golf course.  

For example, even when I accept as true everything you say in defense of the Bridge, it still doesnt sound like a top quality course to me, by my standards.Regarding your opinion of the other courses on Long Island, I have no basis to discuss any of this-- the only Long Island course I have played is Bethpage Black.  

Regarding how people stereotype you on GCA, it is again beside the point.  I am talking about your opinions about one course, the way you expressed them.  I dont think that could possibly be considered 'stereotyping.'  [At some point it might be interesting to discuss on what basis you find the Valley Club to be a great course, and whether that opinion is consistent inconsistent with some of your other critiques.  But if you dont mind, I'd like to save that for another day.]

Your advice regarding looking past "the look" is well taken, but again, I miss its relevence here.  I am not even sure I know what "the look" is, so I doubt I could even begin to judge courses based on it.  

As far as me 'spinning' your description as "negatives" I dont think that is the case.  You said all the things listed, some more than once, and they are all negative.  If you really think anything on the negative list is really a positive, then our opinions regarding courses are even further apart than I thought.  

I find it odd that you would back away from previous statements regarding the lack of compelling or significant architecture at the Bridge.  You downplayed the architecture more than once in your previous thread, so it seems a bit late to revise your opinion.  But again, I will take you at your word-- you werent dissing the architecture, only distinguishing the Bridge from the truly great courses; plus you find enough architectural merit so as to think that it is not just another long hard course.  

David, I understand -- or at least I think I do -- what you look for in a golf course. Likely, you and I will be on different sides on a review of certain courses. I do enjoy courses that have an edge to them in regards to tee game intensity. I believe the tee game is central to the playing of the game and when a course doesn't have that element but overdoses on other parts to make it's case I then believe something is missing. I don't believe in sheer difficulty being the sole ingredient but there needs to be aspect to a course that can sometimes make the player feel "uncomfortable" on certain tees during the playing of a round. I also like the idea that a tee game aspect needs to make the player work the ball from time to time.

Matt, here we get down to it.   I think I understand what you look for in a course, as well, yet I dont think that what you call "tee game intensity" is a very important component in quality golf courses.  In fact, I tend to knock courses which repeatedly demand this type of intensity as lacking subtlety.  I also knock them because they often are unenjoyable for a large segment of the golfers.

And again, I dont follow how you could believe this and still consider courses like Cypress Point, San Francisco, and The Valley Club (seen it but havent played it) to be quality courses.  But maybe that would be better addressed on another day.

David -- you need to hold judgements on courses until you play them. If you want to base judgements on whether you would play a course by the value of how it "looks" then never go to places like The Bridge or those similar to it. We likely view golf courses differently but to stereotype me as being in favor of only type of course is patently false.

Matt, I dont judge courses before I play them, but I am discriminate about which courses I play.  I dont have unlimited time or money, so I must pick and choose wisely, sometimes based on the opinions and descriptions of others.  I reiterate,  your description of the Bridge makes it sound like a course I might want to play on rare occassion if it was local, but based on your description I cant imagine going very far out of my way to play it.  

So again, I ask you point blank:  Am I being biased in the way I approach golf course architecture?  Am I wrong to take your description of the Bridge at face value and to avoid the course based on your description?

[Mike_Sweeney]

I have been away for two weeks, yet it is good to know that things have not changed at GCA, and Rees still draws the most viewing !!

After only one round at FH, I can't yet say that it sits in the same league as National and Shinnecock, but I do think that it sits comfortably with Maidstone, an amazing statement for such a young course. The Bridge just is not in this type of category, but still a very nice course that was a letdown from what could have been. The routing appears to have been maximized for views first and golf second, but can we blame Rees for something that was probably requested by the owner?

It will be interesting to see FH in 25 years when a "hurricane" or two has cleared out some of the trees along LI Sound and opened up some of those vistas.

[Happy Gilmore]

Mike,

   I don't want to be a nitpicker, but the probability of a Hurricane doing the tree work on the northern bluffs of FH is really low. On the other hand, the chances of a Nor'easter is a whole lot better.....I'm personally torn about ever seeing that.

All for grandma,

Happy

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

My good man -- I have ALWAYS STATED here and elsewhere that the only way -- the ONLY LEGITIMATE WAY -- to determine the merits of any course is to actually play it. I can't speak for you -- nor you for me -- but you need to play The Bridge before deciding to "take sides" (in a nice way of course  ) on this topic.

Too much time and energy is spent on "the look" because few people really take the time -- AND EXAMINE -- how the course P-L-A-Y-S. Read Tom Doak's opneing intro to "Confidnetial Guide" and you will see where he places his primary emphasis when reviewing a course -- I quite agree with that.

I never discuss the merits (lack thereof) of any course until I play it. I don't base opinions on second hand information (even from well informed people) or certainly from aerials. I play the course -- from the tips and go from there. I also play courses with a mixed bag of handicaps and assess the qualities of the course from other's perspective -- contrary to those who think I only assess based on how the course treats my game.

Now -- when I said the aspect of architecturally compelling / significant aspects from The Bridge are not at a high level I said that in the context when compared to its more illustrious neighbors -- SH and NGLA, to name just two. You do admit you have only played one LI course -- a heavyweight indeed with The Black -- but I know I have played everything else(save for Friar's Head) at least twice and in some cases multiple times. I also think it's important to point out that in my initial survey of The Bridge the aspects I noticed on the second visit were likely missed by me. For those out there WHO NEVER ERR please excuse for being human.

Let me also mention David that there are people here on GCA who make broad-brush comments on certain architects (good and bad ones they prefer) but the actual playing portoflio of these people making the statements is quite narrow. The evil duo of Rees Jones and Tom Fazio are two that come quickly to mind. People need to assess each course individually instead of throwing forward tired cliches of what they see wrong with every course designed by architect "A" or architect "B" when the reality is they have seen such a small sampling size and usually don't understand how that architect might have evolved from earlier works.

David -- I have listed my personal top 50 when others have balked and you can see a wide range of courses -- from the classic school to the more modern. I have placed Cypress, SFGC and Valley Club because they are truly gifted courses that are more than just "the look" -- they do provide a well balanced set of holes that call upon the player to play a wide variety of shots without question.

Not all of them are tee game "intense" but they have other aspects that are worthy all the same. I do place an emphasis on the tee game aspect because driving the ball is a top priority in my mind. That doesn't mean courses have to be beasts where distance is the only factor. I have said this before that working the ball on command (left-to-right and right-to-left) and being able to hit it high and low along with being straight and having the ability to power the ball at key times is an essential aspect that needs to be tested.

Golf is not just about does the bunker have a certain "artistic flair." I don't doubt for a second that "the look" is a big part of a design in giving a course a distinct appeal from others but first and foremost is the playing of golf shots and how the architect forces the player to play the widest variety one can during the round.

The Bridge is solid on the aspect of making the player play a high level of shots throughout the round. I do agree that the aspect of tee game variety is somewhat limiting because most players will have to automatically pull the driver out (especially when played from the tips) on most holes -- with a few exceptions -- one being the 4th.

In regards to the comments I made dealing with architecturally compelling aspects that are significant it is clear IMHO that The Bridge lacks the detailed matching of the course with the property. There are clear aspects at The Bridge where man's hand is clearly seen and for those who OD on "the look" this will clearly fuel their fire against Rees. The other aspect that hurts The Bridge is the abrupt nature of uphill and downhill holes. The course doesn't weave easily among the rugged terrain and the walk for the players is not an easy deal by any means. Again, when I say these comments I am placing them with a surgeon's analysis for details. The Bridge is a straightforward no-nonsense layout. It lacks the ease with using the land and the careful routing of taking one through the property without causing much strain can be taxing for some. If you're looking for a course that seduces you -- The Bridge is not the kind of course. One needs to make a short ride to NGLA for that kind of experience.

On the flip side is a golf course that will reward properly played shots and conversely will penalize those who fail to deliver. You do have to work the ball off the tee from time to time and the approach shots must be handled with dexterity because a number of the targets are elevated. This is where the detractors of The Bridge develop amnesia because the primary focus is always "the look." The course plays quite fair

David -- you and I are not that faaaaaaaar apart as you might think when reviewing courses. I do believe that more emphasis on how a course "plays" needs to be factored in with less of a top priority to how a course "looks." Golf is about golf shots and in being tested thoroughly throughout the round. It is not simply about how the course is "presented" like a food dish but ultimately how it "tastes" (Plays).

I like The Bridge and it's one of my personal favorites on the Island. For others who see it differently that's great. But let's try to focus on the quality of shots one has to play rather than the touchy-feely components that are certainly part of the experience but are more of a support function than a primary one IMHO. In simple terms David -- you don't make broad brush assertions but if you take the positions of others without sampling the course(s) in question then you are simply following rather than FORMING your own opinion. You and I will likely have different areas of "emphasis" but all in all we are not that far apart -- at least I think so.