Firestone South: GCA's nearest equivalent to a bowling alley. Agree/disagree?

[Greg Smith]

Seems to me like the prototypical "Dark Ages" golf course (circa 1960, right?) and one which spawned imitations as well.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Largely agree. Deadly dull from the TV perspective. Firestone is the poster child to me of what not to do and typical reason why I don't watch the PGA tour.

[Greg Smith]

I did walk the golf course once when I was a kid, but that was long before the bulk of my architectural learning.  I am interested in finding out if there's useful details to Firestone that make it worthwhile -- or is what you see what you get, meaning banality for the most part.  I'm willing, however, to give the place the benefit of the doubt if someone can convincingly vouch for it.

[Ian Andrew]

I walked it with Mike during a practice round for the World Series.


It was the least interesting, well known course, I have seen to date.
Even the 16th did little to generate my interest.


I will say the conditioning was second to none and perhaps that's why players like playing there.
It is an excellent example of how to do tree removal on a parkland property.

[Tom_Doak]

The only reason Firestone ever showed up in the rankings of golf courses years ago were that


(a)  It was hard, and
(b)  The pros who had won lots of money there were fond of it for some reason 


The interesting thing was that I used to think if someone would just rebuild Mr. Jones' set of greens it might improve, but when Jack Nicklaus redesigned the greens +/- twenty years ago, that's when it slipped down and out of the rankings for good.

[Terry Lavin]

The MetLife blimp's overhead view of this course is far from flattering, but it's still a great Tour venue.

[Peter Pallotta]

On television, it seems like golf distilled. At its simplest, a game for 9 year old boys: whack a ball with a stick as far as you can, and every few minutes someone yells "Car!". Once a year it's still fun, for me watching and for the 9 year olds tour pros to play. Jim Furyk is the older brother; he brought the ball, and he's going make sure they don't lose it. Ian Poulter is the kid from around the block, always causing some mischief but you want him on your team. Justin Rose is from the private school and plays wearing a tie. Stenson's the exchange student who eats strange foods, and Bubba has just moved north with his family and does impersonations.
Peter

[Michael Marzec]

Well, I will step forward to defend poor Firestone...


I cannot say much to counter Tom's criticisms or Greg's bowling alley crack. All are true. The holes are quite redundant. I have played the South dozens of times and still find myself trying to remember what the green over that next rise in the fairway looks like. I have to stop, remember what hole it is, and the green pops to mind.


What the course lacks in design aesthetic it makes up for in equal parts brute force and subtlety. It is an extremely difficult test, even from the relatively short member tees. True, the difficulty lies in tight fairways, thick (though no longer excessively long) rough and long, uphill par 4s. But despite the broad similarity of holes, they demand a wide variety of shotmaking. There is sufficient variety in length, fairway slant and green complexes (and, yes, interfering trees) to make you think your way around the course rather than just blast away.


Are there too many trees? Probably. But all but a handful of holes afford you the opportunity to manufacture a creative recovery shot and roll a ball onto the green. Though most of the greens are raised, they are also largely open and accepting of a ground approach.


I would be interested to hear more detailed thoughts from Tom on the greens. There are lots of older members who believe that Nicklaus did the course no favors with his work.

[BHoover]

Being a local boy, I'm inclined to defend Firestone. I do think it could use some tree removal and I think a restoration of the greens would be a great step.

I do think that there is enough room to create shots and shape the ball on almost every hole at Firestone. It was probably better with the old balata ball. But it's still quite playable.

But I noticed on Twitter that Alan Shipnuck dislikes the South Course. That's enough for me to love it.

[JStewart]

I've been watching the Tour play at Firestone forever and I still can't really recognize the difference between most of the holes, particularly the par-4s. It's a shame how dull and monotonous the course lineup has been over the years for the "World Golf Championships". If I were commish, my first order of business would be to start moving the WGC events around a and playing better courses. I'd also rotate the Tour Championship and get it away from East Lake.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You're all morons !
 
Now we're supposed to judge the merits of a course by the way it looks on TV ?
 
The way it looks and lays out from 2,000 feet, as viewed from a blimp ?
 
While only two (2) holes don't run north/south, there are some very good individual golf holes.
 
While my particular preference is for the West course, the South course is not without it's merits.
 
I think the 2nd, 3rd and 4th holes are terrific for the average/good golfer.
I love # 8.
I also like # 16 and # 18.
 
I think the course suffers in that there is a repetitive theme, subtle or blatant.
Holes like 1, 6, 9, 10, to a lesser degree # 11, 13, 14 and 17 have a similar look and feel despite having different topography.
 
There is uphill and downhill movement in the fairways, but, it's hard to detect when watching TV.
 
While the West suffers from some difficult green to tee walks, I love that golf course, and it's the one I would play more often than the South or the North.
 
A lot of golfers that I know prefer the North.
While I enjoy playing it, there's something about the West that I prefer.
 
To a degree, Firestone South reminded me of Quaker Ridge and Ridgewood before the tree clearing programs.
 
Those trees, while majestic, give one the impression of narrow corridors or bowling alley golf as someone suggested.
 
The first time I played Firestone South, the back tees were mowed almost as tight as the greens and they had cups in them such that the pros could practice putting while they waited during the practice rounds and tournament.
 
There are some good holes at Firestone South, but with 16 holes playing in a north/south direction, I can see why some aren't fans of the course.
 
 

[Greg Smith]

Pat:
That's a little of what I was interested in, some exposition on the land movement or something that would reveal good things about the course to me, or maybe some microdetails about the greens.  On its face Firestone looks like one of the worst courses ever, but a golf course is more than its routing or variety.

[Michael Marzec]

Greg:


Pat has done a much better job than I in explaining the unseen challenges of the course. They are, indeed, the subtleties that do not come through on TV.


There is substantial elevation change that TV can never capture. In addition to the uphill/downhill slope, many of the fairways are substantially canted to either side, making it hard to hold fairways or to get a level lie when you do. For example, #4 slopes dramatically right to left, forcing your tee shot to hug the right edge of the fairway if it is to remain in the short grass by the time it comes to a stop. 


Though less severe, the slope on #9 inevitably will take your ball the opposite way. And if you miss the fairway you are faced with a long, uphill shot from the rough to a green with a false front that will reject any shot that lacks full confidence and bunkers that will swallow those struck with less than a square face.


Other holes showcase similar challenges, but on a smaller scale. So, as Pat says, they may all be up and back holes, but they require a multitude of shots to navigate.


And while the greens may not be where they were before Nicklaus changed them, they retain substantial character. Most have substantial back to front slope and very subtle breaks that are hard to see and even harder to remember.


Pat:


You have done a fine job defending the much-maligned South. Next time you find yourself in Cleveland/Akron give me a shout. I'd love to enjoy a round there with you. South, North, West. Or all 3!

[Tom_Doak]

I would be interested to hear more detailed thoughts from Tom on the greens. There are lots of older members who believe that Nicklaus did the course no favors with his work.

Michael:


I cannot express more detailed thoughts about the greens, having only seen the course once, many many years ago.  I saw it with Jones' old greens, and I thought those were pretty unimaginative ... certainly not the equal of courses designed by Ross or Tillinghast or Travis or Maxwell or Macdonald or MacKenzie.  I have only heard about the Nicklaus greens second-hand, but it seems that most people [including Mr. Mucci] feel they are a step backwards from the originals.

[JLahrman]

Michael, I have no doubt there is certainly a lot more to see and learn in person than from watching the course on TV. But that could probably be said about almost every course. It does seem odd that even after seeing this course on TV every year for who knows how many years, it's hard to distinguish between the holes. I'm sure there are all sorts of subtle challenges from hole to hole, but I can remember (from a TV viewing perspective) the holes at Chambers Bay much better than Firestone South, despite watching only a few hours of one tournament there.

Probably just another way to say I agree with you (and the posters whose experience with the course is limited to TV viewing).

My brother played for the University of Akron for two years back in the mid-1990s. I visited him and played the North course but not the South or West. It's been awhile but I do remember enjoying the North.

[Dan Herrmann]

To me, it's the personification of dark ages architecture.   I doubt the course would be built today.   

And I've done more than watch it on TV. I used to play it on 3m's "Thinking Man's Golf".

[Mark Steffey]

i like the card room upstairs in the men's locker.

[Carl Rogers]

Yes, the tube is not a good way to evaluate a course, but as a viewer, there is a mind numbing sameness to Firestone.
As far as narrow courses are concerned, Harbortown & Colonial seem to maintain a high opinion from many.

[Bill_McBride]

Yes, the tube is not a good way to evaluate a course, but as a viewer, there is a mind numbing sameness to Firestone.
As far as narrow courses are concerned, Harbortown & Colonial seem to maintain a high opinion from many.

The tube does offer those aerial views of this back and forth course of straight holes of staggering repetition that generate, for me, absolutely no interest in playing there. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Let me see if I understand this.


Carl and Bill have never set foot on the property, but have decreed that the course isn't worth playing.


Those who would listen to these uninformed, inexperienced opinions would be making a mistake.


As to the complaints about the linear nature, aren't links courses and NGLA linear in terms of their routings ?


Bill and Carl are entitled to their inexperienced opinions no matter how flawed and moronic they may be.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,


There's ample slope in Firestone's greens, just not much in the way of contouring.


I first played there in the late 60's, early 70's and as recent as a few weeks ago.
Unfortunately I don't recall, with any degree of certainty, what the internal contours were like 45 years ago.

[Mark Jackson]

I was wondering when the annual Firestone bashing thread would appear. New year, same criticisms about the mundaneness/repetitiveness of the holes and the primarily north/south routing.


Although it beats me up every time I have played out there, it's always a pleasure having an opportunity to play Firestone. As Pat and Michael mentioned, there are some subtleties to Firestone that may not come out when your only observations of the course are from tv (or from a blimp view). There is quite a bit of elevation change on many of the holes (that is sneaky at times, especially when playing uphill approach shots). The holes beginning at the clubhouse at 1 and 10 make for difficult starts to both nines going uphill. I really enjoy 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 16 and 18 (although the tee shot on 18 is a bit too tight with the tree).


8 has a good tee shot that greatly rewards a well struck drive, although it may leave you with a downhill lie if you don't get it all the way down the slight hill. One of the most interesting aspects of Firestone South is that it's fairways have contours that will repell the ball from the fairway if the correct tee shot is not executed, especially when the course is playing firm. It really puts an emphasis on hitting good tee shots to set yourself up with a favorable angle to the hole or to even stay in the fairway.



We have had pretty favorable weather here in Ohio over the past few weeks leading up to the Bridgestone. For all of the criticism in this thread, there have been no favorable comments about how fast and firm the course played this year. The firm fairways resulted in a lot of extremely long tee shots this week but also created difficulty for players that did not shape there shots correctly to keep the ball in the fairway. The firmness also allowed for the pros to play some beautiful recovery shots when they found themselves in trouble. I spent most of Saturday at the course and was surprised at the firmness of some of the greens for tour standards (I generally think the Tour softens up greens too much for the pros). I don't know how many times I saw a player with a wedge into the green have the ball take a large hop or two before stopping. It was pretty fun to watch in person and not the normal drop-stop-and-spin that we tend to see week to week on tour.

[William_G]

agree...

probably should have just had a Firestone NW and SW, instead of west , north, south and a public 9

[BHoover]

I'm experiencing confusion this morning--I apparently enjoy a course that should not exist.

[Bill_McBride]

Let me see if I understand this.


Carl and Bill have never set foot on the property, but have decreed that the course isn't worth playing.


Those who would listen to these uninformed, inexperienced opinions would be making a mistake.


As to the complaints about the linear nature, aren't links courses and NGLA linear in terms of their routings ?


Bill and Carl are entitled to their inexperienced opinions no matter how flawed and moronic they may be.

If you think there's much in common between the routings of Firestone South and NGLA, you are drifting toward moron status yourself.