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

[Jim_Michaels]

Matt,

Why haven't you PLAYED Friar's Head? You have played the Bridge, Laurel Links, Atlantic, Maidstone, Shinnecock, National. Are you boycotting C & C because you think that others like them TOO MUCH??

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

I haven’t played The Bridge and will stay out of that part of the discussion. What I will say is that I’ve met very few people who have the time and money to go out and sample every golf course that might be worth seeing. Thus, relying on the input of others is quite legitimate for students of golf architecture. It doesn’t represent “following” rather than “forming” one’s own opinion. Rather, it is a practical way to balance love of golf architecture with other priorities in life.

For discussion purposes, I share your view that people unfamiliar with a course shouldn’t have too much to say about it. For those who have played a course, sharing what stands out about the course is usually appreciated – it is the very reason to participate at this website.

FYI, whenever you comment about how other people evaluate a golf course, I always wonder who you are talking about and what makes you think you know how others evaluate golf courses. Isn’t it possible that most people care both about the “look” and how a golf course “plays”?

[DMoriarty]

Matt,

Thankfully, I am not a rater and have no interest in becoming one.  I am much more interested seeing and understanding fewer courses at a more detailed level than I am playing a survey of courses to get the entire lay of the land.  That is why I play the vast majority of my rounds at Rustic Canyon.   Sure, I occasionally venture out to see something new or different, but when I do I am usually overwhelmingly disapointed, as I was at my recent round at TPC-Valencia.  

So for me the question is never really whether I am qualified to discuss a certain course.  I most always am not, so I am perfectly happy to sit on the sidelines when it comes to the discussion of most courses.  

The more compelling question for me is deciding where to play when I do tear myself away from my happy golfing home.  As I said I have limited resources and even more limited time, so this is a very important question, to me.   In making this determination I have no choice but to rely on whatever information I can access;  your posts, Ran's reviews, Doak's Guide, what I know about the architect and developer, the opinions of others I trust.  Of course I filter all this through what I know about each of these sources and through my own value system, and come to some sort of a conclusion.

As far as the Bridge goes, I am not discussing the details of the course, nor am I pretending like I am in a position to judge it, nor am I intentionally "taking sides."  That being said, I am still convinced that this is not a course that I would go out of my way to play.  It just doesnt sound like my cup of tee.  And I assume you agree that it doesnt sound like the kind of place where I am going to learn an significant amount about the intricacies of golf course architecture.  

Again Matt, I dont judge a course by its "look," especially when I have never seen it.

With regard to your comments on Cypress, San Francisco, and The Valley Club, what do you think you would think about them if they were built today?   Is it possible that your high opinion of these places is at least in part on the elevated status of these courses in the Canon's of golf course architecture?   I am not suggesting that you would dislike any of them, but is it possible that you would be more critical of their lack of "intensity" off the tees?  How about their lesser holes?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

With regard to your comments on Cypress, San Francisco, and The Valley Club, what do you think you would think about them if they were built today?  

Do you honestly feel that the above three golf courses could be built to their original or current form in today's environment ?

How fair is it to compare courses built when virtually no permitting or environmental restrictions applied, to courses built today ?

And, even when comparing courses built today, shouldn't one consider the environmental and permiting factors that each was subjected to before making a complete or honest assessment and comparison  ?

I don't know what will happen at Bayberry, but I'd venture to say that NGLA will have enjoyed a design and construction freedom that will be unavailable to Bayberry.  Hence, the land can't be used to its full golf course design potential.

That consideration, the ability to use the land to its full/best design potential, must be considered when making individual comparisons, and the permitting/environmental issues that each project is subject to are of vital importance when making an evaluation or a judgement.

Unless of course, one's mind is already made up  

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

Please help me to understand something when you say you're not taking "sides" but you still feel compelled to be in agreement with people about the merits of the course (lack thereof) even with one person in your neighborhood who broad brushes nearly all Rees Jones courses yet has played so few? David -- puhleeeeeze help me to understand how you are so open minded? David -- time is valuable -- no doubt  -- but so is shoe leather before anyone opines on a course. I may agree with person "x" on a prior course and I may even ask person "x" on a future course that I may play but I don't just assume that person "x" is 100% correct on all the aspects. I don't make inferences based on second hand info. Yes, I agree with you that a composite profile can be attained from several sources but ultimately the only way to know for sure is to go. If you can't do that -- why make comments -- even general ones until one does?

Just like you I have limited time and resources to see courses from differrent parts of the country. But, no matter what has been said, I don't base the BULK of my determination in visiting a course on what OTHERS in fact say. I do it by going there -- playing the course from the tips -- and go from there. Look people can say what they want -- they can base it on aerials or from ailiens who just landed from Mars -- I don't place any long lasting credibility when people comment from second hand sources at best.

David -- regarding your last question -- I have rated and reviewed positively plenty of courses that don't have mega length by any means or that have come out of the classic architecture era (1920's). You must have missed my posts on Forsgate / Banks Course in central NJ and on Fenway in NY, to name just two. I have also posted positive comments on a wide variety of public courses today (including Rustic Canyon -- although I believe the driving aspect is a tad underdone in my mind). Other courses that I have mentioned include Wild Horse in Nebraska which is well done for a course that isn't excessively long and has a creative flair for shotmaking for most of the holes.

I have rated among my personal best a true buffet of different courses. I don't fall into some tight casting of favorites as others try to make me out to be (just the long and longer type courses). I like diversity and I believe the three CA courses you named are superb in their own right. Do they require solid driving of the ball -- in many ways they do. Are they as demanding and as "intense" as say a BB or WF / West? No, but there are other aspects of their designs that certainly make up some, if not all (see CP), of the difference.

David -- I have been reviewing and rating for quite some time and don't fall prey (at least I don't think so) to the hype and noise level that comes with certain courses. There is plenty of "buzz" that comes with different courses and I try to approach all of them with a Missouri (show me) philosophy. I have played a good deal of courses from the classic period (especially from the metro NY/ NJ / CT area) and many times I believe quite a few of them get a real boost because of their pedigree that I don't agree with (see my comments on Maidstone and Shoreacres, to name just two).

Jim Michaels:

There is no boycott on my part of Friar's Head. It's just that to date I have not played the course. I have a heard and read a great deal about the course -- as many have -- and the reviews / comments have been quite glowing. If the opportunity arises for me to play the course I will then opine my thoughts. Not until then.

One last thing -- I have a profound respect for C&C -- they are extremely talented and one of their layouts -- Sand Hills --is among my personal top ten courses.

Jim -- my only comment was that no architect (singularly or tandem) hits home runs with every course. That applies to them and anyone else in the industry and because of that I don't give "brownie points" simply because of the name of the architect -- as I believe some do. There are also people who give demerits to some designers because of their name as well. I review based on what I see with their next effort. Nothing more -- nothing less.

Tim Weiman:

We see things a bit differently. Give you an example -- I'm going to Ireland next week and will play all of the big name courses that are talked about quite frequently here. Until I play them there's really nothing I can say. Do I get input from different sources? No doubt. In fact -- some of the are very credible and many times accuirate -- but not EVERYTIME. However, until I actually experience a course I don't place too much or too little stock in the info. I believe that sort of pragmatism works best.

Tim -- you're last question is interesting. You need to find out from those who value "the look" why they spend so little time discussing the precise shot values you need to succeed when playing. I've read there stuff and often it's the same stuff about how the bunker looks -- is the sand flaired or at the botton -- is it angled in such a way -- etc, etc. etc. They often wax on and on and on about the artiste side of the golf equation. I admire courses that first and foremost pose a wide variety of interesting and fun holes. Golf courses that make you play the widest and deepest array of shots -- both long and short and everything in between. There's also the critical nature of the routing so that all points of the property are used and that from such a routing you are forced to handle a myriad of issues when playing.

I never said "the look" is not important -- I just said it's not the first among equals in my book. It's quite possible for a course to be tremendously successful inspite of it's "look" and still be a winner. Give you a recent example -- Bethpage Black was a superb layout (minus the wretched conditions) before the updating that took place prior to the Open. It didn't have the "look" of say other courses in the area but it played no less demanding and was a joy to play then and now.

[DMoriarty]

DMoriarty,

Do you honestly feel that the above three golf courses could be built to their original or current form in today's environment ?

How fair is it to compare courses built when virtually no permitting or environmental restrictions applied, to courses built today ?

And, even when comparing courses built today, shouldn't one consider the environmental and permiting factors that each was subjected to before making a complete or honest assessment and comparison  ?

I don't know what will happen at Bayberry, but I'd venture to say that NGLA will have enjoyed a design and construction freedom that will be unavailable to Bayberry.  Hence, the land can't be used to its full golf course design potential.

That consideration, the ability to use the land to its full/best design potential, must be considered when making individual comparisons, and the permitting/environmental issues that each project is subject to are of vital importance when making an evaluation or a judgement.

Unless of course, one's mind is already made up  

Patrick,

Addressing each paragraph in order:

1. No.

2. Not in the sense that I think you mean.  But really it depends on the basis and circumstances of the comparision.  For example, your very question is drawing a comparison of the regulatory conditions which existed then with the conditions which exist now.

3.  See the second and third sentence to my second answer.

4.  I am not familiar with Bayberry, but I venture to say that your assessment is likely correct.

5.  I agree.  

 6.  I have no idea to what you are referring.  Who is "one?" His or her mind is made up about what?

Now that I have answered your questions, do you mind explaining what your post has to do with the question I asked Matt, keeping in mind that my question was aimed at determining whether Matt cuts certain historically significant courses slack regarding their ability to challenge golfers off the tee?  

Patrick, if I didnt know better, I'd say you are just trying to be argumentative.

[HamiltonBHearst]

Pat is not being arguementative, notice the smiley  He is just trying to nicely point out the bias in this site.  We are all better for the learning that takes place when we are able to come to grips with our own prejudices. I love his term MFA.Thank you Pat.

[DMoriarty]

Matt, I seem to have hit a nerve.  

I am not passing final judgment on the Bridge because I havent played it even once and am therefore not in a position to so do.  You are correct that the only way for me to know for sure about the Bridge would be to go there and play.  But life isnt that simple, we all have to make decisions about where to spend our precious rounds.  Based on what you said, I feel comfortable with my decision to pass up the course (as if I could get on if I wanted to.) Why does this bother you so?  I cant play them all, nor do I want to.

So I am "taking sides" because I dont find your description of the course as flattering as you do?  Matt, I would have thought that by now you would have figured that I dont feel "compelled to be in agreement with anyone."   Believe it or not, it is possible for me to disagree with you (if that's even what you would call it) of my own volition.  In fact, I am not even considering Tommy's opinion, redanman's opinion, or anyone else's for that matter, except of course yours.  [So I guess if anything I am taking your side, at least as to the way you describe the course.]  I dont even think I am in agreement with this other "side."  They seem to have much to say about the substance of the course, and I am not in any position to agree or disagree.  If I have come to any similar conclusion, it was not my intention and certainly not my compulsion.

Yes, I agree with you that a composite profile can be attained from several sources but ultimately the only way to know for sure is to go. If you can't do that -- why make comments -- even general ones until one does?

This is a fair question but I believe it was answered in my original post on this thread.  As I said in the beginning, my concern isnt necessarily the Bridge, but examining the criteria by which others judge courses.  I have a suspicion that much of what we call bias,close-mindedness, etc. has more to do with different principles and methodologies than it does with actual prejudice.

I could really care less about the bridge, but your description of the Bridge seemed a perfect example.  You described the course in detail then draw certain conclusions.  But even if I accept your description as 100% accurate I still come to very different conclusion.  This is because we value different things in golf courses, or at least this course.  

Let me put it another way.  Say I had played the bridge 50 times and agreed with absolutely all of your observations (as I listed in my post.)  Even then, I cannot imagine that I would think very favorably of the course.    

Or let me put it even another way.  In order for me to think very favorably of the course, it would have to be vastly different from the way you described.  

Think of the Sky Course.  I would guess that we have played it a comparable number of times, and I generally think we would generally agree on the challenges and demands that it presents,  yet we come to very different conclusions regarding the course.  Does this mean I am baised or prejudice?  I dont think so.  Do you?  

Once again, I am not claiming that you automatically dislike courses which arent challenging off the tee.  In fact it is more of the opposite.  I am questioning whether your judgment of courses is at all consistent.  Much of what you say about courses such as the Bridge, Sky, and even Rustic Canyon just doesnt seem to fit with your favorable opinions of other courses.  

For example I think you are stretching a bit when you say that the 3  courses challenge off the tee, at least the type of challenge that you usually praise.  So I am still trying to fit your praise of these courses with some of the others.

[DMoriarty]

Pat is not being arguementative, notice the smiley  He is just trying to nicely point out the bias in this site.  We are all better for the learning that takes place when we are able to come to grips with our own prejudices. I love his term MFA.Thank you Pat.

Mr. Hearst,

Do you retype your "pat" defense of Mr. Mucci or do you just dupe it ad naseum?

Since you are interested, perhaps you could explain to me what Pat's post has to do with my question? Or what it has to do with my "bias," for that matter?

[HamiltonBHearst]

I think Pat is pointing out the fact that perhaps you are comparing apples to oranges when you compare a classic course built with few constraints and the mess that the modern day guys have to deal with.

It is funny how Pat has become a lightning-rod on this site simply for being honest and pointing out the biases of us all.  

Matt Ward takes a lot of heat for having the novel idea that he is better informed to comment when he is actually seen the courses (FH,Ireland).  Amazing.  I did not see many people put up their top fifty.

Matt has contiuosly given hole by hole updates on courses he has visited and the reasons he likes them and for that he is criticized.  I will stick with Matt and Pat because they do not have some sort of agenda.

[Matt_Ward]

David:

The only nerve you've hit is the constant parroting of things based on second hand info. My impression of you is much more of a hands-on assessor of courses. Don't tell me you're falling into the dark side whereby aerials and second hand info is the way to go. David -- my good man -- you need to rejoin the world of personal experiences!

Play The Bridge before telling me or outlining to me why it isn't worth playing. All of this pedantic word play is really not helpful for you because until you do it's really pulling the horse before the cart. If you choose never to play it for whatever reason fair enough, but don't take sides simply because of second hand info and the like. I respect you more for the fact that when you opine on Sky at Lost Canyons and Rustic Canyon, to name just two, because you have played those courses and can therefore offer YOUR opinion and not get the Pravda report from those who have such open minds on Rees Jones and other "most favored" architects.

I have a wider sample size to assess what constitutes quality golf courses. I am not one of those folks who foam at the mouth when they hear that a certain course is designed by one of the "favored architects" here on GCA and then simply reject all others as being not able to "get it." I try to judge each course on an individualized basis without respect to who the architect is. I said before that often I happen to be a tougher critic of courses in my own backyard (NY metro area) than those out in the hinterlands. I do like different styles and I don't believe there's anything wrong with that and frankly if others disagree please do so it's a free country. But tell me why from one's own experience after playing the course. I posted my personal top 50 on another thread and there was a solid mixture (my opinion mind you) of different courses, different lengths, different playing characteristics and yes, different looks. Others were asked to do so and many had parakeet b*lls and declined.

David -- you have not played Valley -- is that correct? Have you played the other two? In my opinion, I'll repeat it once again in case you missed it, the degree of driving skill at the three CA courses is not at the same "intense" meter as say BB or WF West. However, all of the three courses do require proper positioning and there are holes where power can achieve an edge if done correctly. You also have to work the ball at the three CA courses and in my mind -- that's no less important than hitting for power and achieving accuracy as well.

David -- I have a sense of what you look for in a golf course based on your posts. I don't believe we are that far apart -- but I will say this -- areas of emphasis are certainly going to be a bit different and that's healthy because when all the discussion does come forward you can get a much complete picture from people who have indeed played the course(s) in quesiton. I have always believed you to be fair person who doesn't ascribe oneself to the "broad brush" technique favored by some here on GCA. To discuss techniques on how one rates is really silly because we need to apply it to specific courses that people have played and see where we apply what we say we favor and dislike. I see my analysis of courses as being consistent -- when you have actually played them please feel free to let me know where I have erred. My learning cap is on good buddy!

[T_MacWood]

Matt
I had no idea parakeets had testicles. Is that true...do birds have packages?

All this talk of personal top fiftes is fascinating....but I'm still not clear on what you do with it. I understand you aren't a rater....so I'm guessing you don't send it to G.Digest. Do you post somewhere...Jersey golf? An upcoming book? Your refigerator? Can you pick up chicks with it?

And who are these favored architects? And how do they become most favored? What about least favored?

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

I was trying to illustrate that the three courses you mentioned, couldn't be built in their original or current form in today's environment.

That, if an attempt was made to build today, in environmentally sensitive California, with the CCC and all the other permitting and environmental constraints, that those courses would most likely be dramatically different, in their final SITE and final FORM, from their present location and design.

That the leap you ask, is impossible to make.

Bayberry and NGLA are adjacent to one another, they have common borders between them, and share a common border with the bay, but, I suspect that if CBM himself returned to design and build a sister course to imitate and compliment NGLA, external forces beyond his control would impede any such attempt.

I've never played Rustic Canyon, but, do you think that the developer and designer were hampered in their efforts to build the best possible golf course that the land could possibly offer, by permiting and environmental issues ?

What would happen if someone wanted to build holes # 15, 16, 17 and 18 at CPC today ?

I wasn't trying to be argumentative in the least, only asking that you see the inherent flaw in your question, which would predispose or influence the answer.

I was just trying to point out that many modern day courses automatically suffer by comparison because the architect was prevented from designing and building the best possible golf course that the land could yield, and that the classics didn't have those constraints, hence comparisons must be weighted accordingly.

[DMoriarty]

I think Pat is pointing out the fact that perhaps you are comparing apples to oranges when you compare a classic course built with few constraints and the mess that the modern day guys have to deal with.

It is funny how Pat has become a lightning-rod on this site simply for being honest and pointing out the biases of us all.  

Matt Ward takes a lot of heat for having the novel idea that he is better informed to comment when he is actually seen the courses (FH,Ireland).  Amazing.  I did not see many people put up their top fifty.

Matt has contiuosly given hole by hole updates on courses he has visited and the reasons he likes them and for that he is criticized.  I will stick with Matt and Pat because they do not have some sort of agenda.

Mr. Hearst,

If you dont mind so explaining, I am curious how and where I compared "apples to oranges?"  

When I asked Matt what he would think about their demand off the tee if those courses had been built today, it was solely to question Matt about whether he was consistently applying his principles, or whether he was judging certain historical courses by a different standard.  It seems Patrick's post and yours are both wholly tangential to this particular issue.

Just whose bias is Patrick pointing out this time?  If mine, could you please describe the nature of my bias?

Also, just who is it in this conversation that has some sort of agenda?  Again, if me, could you please be so kind as to describe my agenda?  I might find it helpful in focusing my posts in the future.  

And just who is giving Matt heat about insisting that those who have seen the course are better informed to comment?  If me, could you point this part out to me.  And here I thought I was agreeing with Matt on this point . . .

Also, Mr. Hearst, to get away from the Pat-n-Matt show for a minute, what do you think of my notion that many of more hostile and recurring disagreements on this board have more to do with different principles and methodologies than with different perceptions of any particular course?  

[DMoriarty]

Matt, this is getting a little frustrating, for me at least.  I dont think what I am getting at is so difficult to understand, yet you seem to repeatedly ignore the major, indeed the only, point I am trying to make.  

Again, this isnt about the Bridge, it is about different methodologies leading us to different results even though we may both be interpreting the same set of data.  What is so difficult to understand about this notion?

To be blunt and to dangerously mix metaphors . . .
-- you are all wet, off base, and barking up the wrong tree when you accuse me of "constant parroting of things based on second hand info."  
-- Likewise regarding you accusing me of relying on "aerials and second hand info."  
--  Likewise regarding my "tak[ing] sides simply because of second hand info and the like."
--  Likewise regarding my getting "the Pravda report from those who have such open minds on Rees Jones and other "most favored" architects."
 None of this happened.  It is all fiction.  Created by you.  

Please do me a favor, if you are going to continue to make these accusations, back them up.  My words are right there for the picking.  Show me where I have done as charged.  

And please explain to me why you refuse to believe that I am basing my opinion on YOUR DESCRIPTION only.

Matt, I didnt tell you or outline for you why the Bridge isnt worth playing; you told me and outlined for me why the Bridge isnt worth playing.  Everything I said was based entirely on YOUR DESCRIPTION of the course.  Certainly this isnt the second hand reliance to which you refer.

Matt, I get a feeling that your cursory dismissal of "all this pedantic word play" is you giving me the high hat.  That is, I am starting to think that you are intentionally refusing to acknowledge or discuss the only point I was trying to make.  And by the way, I think the phrase is "putting the cart before the horse."    

Please try to understand what it is that I have been saying.  It really isnt a dig at you or even a dig at the Bridges, which I believe is everything you say it is.  

The vast majority of your post is completely beside the point, but here goes . . .
 

I try to judge each course on an individualized basis without respect to who the architect is.

 

See now, I would think this would be counterproductive.  Considering the architect, his style, his history, his other projects, might allow you to better understand what, if anything, he was trying to accomplish.  Again another difference in the way we view golf course architecture.
. . .

I do like different styles and I don't believe there's anything wrong with that and frankly if others disagree please do so it's a free country.

Nothing wrong with liking different styles, but if you refuse to recognize that you are applying different rules to different styles, then your critiques might appear to be somewhat inconsistent and baseless.  
. . .

I didnt post a top 50.  I dont see the purpose of a top 50, at least for me.  Also, my top 50 would probably have well less than 10 courses, based solely on my hope that the courses I have played thus far do not represent the best of the best.
. . .

I see my analysis of courses as being consistent -- when you have actually played them please feel free to let me know where I have erred. My learning cap is on good buddy!

Fair enough. I wonder if you err in ranking Cypress Point and San Francisco as highly as you do. (As I said above, I have not played Valley.  But have viewed the entire course, in person.)  By the standard you often apply, they just dont seem to put enough pressure on the driver.  And I dont mean rewarding a well placed drive, I mean requiring the golfer to hit a great shot off the tee.  For that matter, they don't put much pressure on the longer irons either.   And they are too easy in mild conditions.  Good players who like the challenge of having to hit every shot might become bored at either course.  

But perhaps if you explained to me under what circumstance you apply the "intense meter" analysis and under what circumstances you apply the 'reward positioning' analysis I will better understand how you fit it all together.  

[DMoriarty]

Patrick all very interesting, especially your discussion of Bayberry.  Perhaps it would make a good topic for another thread.  At the very least, I hope you keep us updated on what happens.  

But again, it has absolutely nothing to do with my discussion with Matt.  Your point is entirely unrelated to our discussion. It clarifies nothing.  Look at the context, it is pretty clear that it is a hypothetical; that we are assuming the exact same course only built much later.  I wasnt suggesting that these courses could or couldnt have been built today.  The reality of being able to do so was never a factor.  Matt knows that, and I am sure that by this point you do to.  Yet here we are.  I have duped the entire paragraph for you, but do suggest again that you go back and look at the entire context.
 

With regard to your comments on Cypress, San Francisco, and The Valley Club, what do you think you would think about them if they were built today?   Is it possible that your high opinion of these places is at least in part on the elevated status of these courses in the Canon's of golf course architecture?   I am not suggesting that you would dislike any of them, but is it possible that you would be more critical of their lack of "intensity" off the tees?  How about their lesser holes?  

[DMoriarty]

Patrick I rudely forgot to answer your question regarding Rustic Canyon.  

But first let me say again that I agree with you.  These courses (at least Cypress) could never have been built today.)

With regard to Rustic, I dont know many of the details of what went on with the permitting and environmental issues, but I am not sure that they would have built a better course if they had free reign.  I think the only off limits area was the drainage which runs through the entire property and borders most of the holes on one side or another.  This drainage makes for such a great natural hazard that I would guess they would have left it alone anyways.  I am sure dealing with the regulations was a pain, but not sure that it lead to many significant compromises.  But this may be the exception rather than the rule.  

Unlike others, I dont even mind the environmental "no entry" zones (basically the whole drainage.)  Without limiting entry, I think the natural vegitation would be stomped into oblivion and we would be left with barren ground for most of the year.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,

Also to let you know, Rustic Canyon went through EI faster then any course I have seen built in the time I have been into golf course architecture--leaving out the new slew of courses in Nebraska.

[DMoriarty]

I did read the whole thing.  I thought the excerpt was more comedic.

If you think that is funny, you should read some of my old briefs.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

Where there any constraints placed on the property due to permitting or EI  ?

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

Where's the fiction?

I said The Bridge is a fine course but it doesn't possess the architecturally compelling / significant aspects that you would find at SH or NGLA or a number of the other top 100 courses in the USA. I never said it's not worth playing. You drew that conclusion from the info posted by others. I also tried to provide a balanced sense of what the course has and lacks. That's more than than who are bent on the anti-Rees crusade have been saying about The Bridge or any other Rees Jones course.

I have applied the same consistent methodology in rating courses and frankly it gets rather tiresome to explain oneself over and over again and in great detail on the courses that I have played. If you disagree please do so from your own personal experience IMHO.

You're the guy barking about how you would not be interested in playing The Bridge based on what people have said. Fine. How bout going one step forward and basing conclusions on personal experiences? If you don't have the time or inclination that's your issue. But don't tell me where I'm wrong until you have played the course yourself to draw your own personal conclusions.

David -- nuff with the tap dance -- you have taken sides on The Bridge from second hand testimonials on the course. Common -- enough of the Clintonian sidestep.

David -- I answered your quesitons a bazillion times. I may not have answered it to your satisfaction but I did with all good intentions. What is truly besides the point is this attempt to demonstrate my "inconsistency" and this tie-in to the bombshell you lobbed that I provide "brownie" points or that I am inconsistent simply because of the name value of certain classic courses (i.e. the three you mentioned in CA). I don't do such a thing with any course. If you think otherwise that's your take.

David -- when I visit a course I judge it from the standpoint as it is. Clearly, the architect may have a long record of previous courses and when judged TOGETHER it may give the observer a basis to see how this person's design career has progressed or digressed. I don't walk into a new course and state that since it's designed by person "x" that they receive or have taken away comments one way or the other simply because of the name of the person. Others do that quite well here on GCA regarding Tom Fazio / Rees Jones and other unfavored architects who are convenient bash targets.

David -- I was asked to post my personal top 50 under a thread started by Tom Doak. All of those "brave" types who threw bombs at my listing made sure they didn't post any of their favorite courses -- whether they be 5-10 or 25-50. Nothing like operating from the shadows. It's one thing to say my listing is off base but I'd like those saying such things to post whatever courses they believe to be the best in their mind and state their reasons.

David -- the aspect of driving the ball takes on a number of key skills. I have outlined them several times before and you can read them at your leisure. Placing the ball off the tee is a crucial ingredient and so is having the wherewithal to hit a long ball when needed. The designers of the three courses in question do allow for that and the player is provided with the option to hit different clubs off the tee as needed in order to make the most out of their position for the next shot to be played. Sometimes the best club isn't a driver but another club.

David -- My listing of top courses is a very varied listing. Do you think I was simply going to list Winged Foot West, Bethpage Black and the Ocean Course at Kiawah type courses? I inspect all aspects of a course when playing and the driving of the ball is a big part of that review. I also understand that certain courses aren't going to be a high mark in that aspect, however, they make that up in different areas which can also work as well.

Let me give you one example -- the 8th at Cypress Point is a great driving hole. You can play it aggressively over the dunes on the right and try to venture closer to the green or you can take a more passive (and likely safer route) with a shot to the left. There are a number of such holes at CP and even at SFGC and Valley. Yes, the cumulative yardages aren't that long, but the terrain, routing and mixture of holes is certainly present and worthy of being included in my listing.

David -- you may have different points of emphasis in your course preferences. That's wonderful -- I know of plenty of people who I dialogue with on and off GCA who do and in many cases we share the same opinions on particular courses. This post got started on the merits of the courses in question and I opined on The Bridge without commenting on Friar's Head because I have not played it thus far. I've answered your questions time after time after time -- if you think I have erred -- like I said before -- play the courses and then proceed to tell me where you believe I have been mistaken. My learning cap is on -- is yours?

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward,

Actually, I'm not sure how we do see things differently as far as input from other people. Like you, I don't have much interest in commenting on courses I haven't seen. In fact, I go further and resist commenting on courses I've only seen a few times (e.g., Muirfield Village, Brookside or Firestone).

But, we all have to take input from others when deciding where to spend our precious time and money. So, the key is understanding the background and architectural preferences of your source. These aren't matters of right and wrong, but what each golfer prefers and will find most satisfying.

Take your upcoming trip to Ireland, a place I know fairly well. From all I gather, a place like Dooks - all 6,000 yards of it - is probably not your cup to tea. But, I can think of few more enjoyable places to have a game. Different strokes for different folks.

On the "look" issue, my take is that you place a lot of emphasis on what a few people here may have written or, conversely, declined to comment on. In the real world beyond Golfclubatlas.com, I can't recall meeting too many people that don't care a lot about the "look" of course AND how it plays.

People care about the "look" because golf is a game that stimulates the visual senses in ways other games - e.g., tennis or basketball - do not. Stimulation of the visual senses is part of what makes the game enjoyable, especially for the man stuck behind the desk all too much.

But, golfers almost always also care about how the course plays. For example, if the course is simply too penal, many golfers will lose interest very quickly. Or if a course lacks enough interesting shots that are difficult and tricky to pull off, interest in playing the course may eventually wane.

That's the real world. Golfer's care about how a golf course looks AND how it plays.

Of course, there are golf courses which are so spectacular that many people can't see past the visual stimulation and address substance. Old Head in Ireland may be the best example, although increasing people recognize the course for what it is: stunning beyond imagination, but not blessed with a wealth of good golf.

Alternatively, you can find golf holes that lack any real beauty, but have playing characteristics that make them forever enjoyable. #6 at Ballybunion is a classic example. There is hardly anything pretty about it - unless you like looking at trailer homes - but the little pitch in to the green is always tricky, sometimes unbelievably so.
 

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tim, That was my exact point to Mat regarding the little Billy Bell course in Santa Ana that has no look, no length, only character. It just wouldn't enter Matt's mind at all even for a look, it would be dog sh_t simply because it was without length and lacked any serious shot value for a golfer of his high caliber.

That is why I suggest to Matt Ward "why do you want to go to Ireland? It isn't worth your time--the food isn't your bag and either will be the architecture.

Pat, Not sure of your question because David addressed it earlier, and to reiterate, the EI constraints were strictly at the dry wash and the hillsides.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy & DMoriarty,

The simple question is, was there anything that Gil wanted to do that he was prevented from doing due to permiting or EI ?

[DMoriarty]

redanman,

I think it is entertaining how much emotion this course stirs as well.  Seems like a lot of blood boiling for a course which no one seems to think is really great.  

I personally could not care less about the Bridge.  Just thought it might be a good place to look at motives and methods, instead of just conclusions.  Apparently, I was wrong . . .

Matt,  

"Where is the fiction?"    Among other places, everywhere you accuse me of being influenced by 3rd parties regarding the bridge.
 
Yes, after reading your post I concluded that there are many other courses on Long Island that I rather see than The Bridges.  
   Of course you didnt say this:  This is MY conclusion.  Surely you are not suggesting that I need agree with your conclusions in order to be reasonable.  

My "own personal conclusion" was based on the following, and nothing more:  
--  "From the standpoint of a design that's architecturally compelling / significant The Bridge is not at the highest level."  
-- "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."
--  the "walking aspect of the course is also quite problematic because of the hikes you need to make between certain holes . . . ."
--  "The Bridge has a good deal of man's hand through shaping and the like[.]"
--  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, this is how YOU DESCRIBED THE COURSE.  (You also added something like that the course is somewhat monotonous off the tee; Another strike in my book.) I am merely trusting YOUR observations.   And as you say again and again and again, you have extensive experience judging courses.

Of course my conclusion may be my mistake; an opportunity lost.  But that is the risk we all take whenever we decide to play one course over another.  Like the day a bunch of us were playing Rustic and you chose to go up the road to play Sky.   That was a good day at Rustic with good pins and you might have learned a thing or two about Rustic had you stayed and played the front nine at least.  But that is the way choices work.  Anyways, I am pretty confident my decision is sound.  

But just in case . . . you keep telling me that you know my tastes and understand my approach to viewing courses.  Lets pretend that I am coming to the L.I. never having played there, and I only have time to play 5 courses.  I am asking you for your opinion:
 
--  If I play the Bridge, will I think it a very good course?  

--  Are there more than 4 courses on the island which I would enjoy more?  

--  As a student of architecture, what might I learn from the Bridge?  

I would hate to travel to the East Coast to play a course if there is a very good chance I am not going to love it and learn from it.  That is life of a rater, not my life.  

I've answered your questions time after time after time -- if you think I have erred -- like I said before -- play the courses and then proceed to tell me where you believe I have been mistaken. My learning cap is on -- is yours?

Matt, I did this at the end of my last post.  This is what you referred to as my bomb.  It is hardly a bomb if you ask for it.   Have you played San Francisco since the work on the greens?  Frankly, while I absolutely loved the course, I found many of the greens to me much more tame than I expected.  I thought with the huge fairways, some additional contours in the greens would have put more of a premium on controlling the driver.  [Note my less than positive comments about work done by one of your "most favored."]  It almost seemed like the big hitter could blast away then approach from anywhere.  That is why I questioned your ranking of San Fransisco.  Can you tell me what challenges San Fransisco presents from the tee?

As for the Bridge, I have no way of knowing whether you erred or not.  My concern is with your procedure, not your substance.  You and I have different tests.  What is so controversial about that?