Why is Friar's Head not a Doak 10?

[Tim_Weiman]

A few comments...here we go!

As a player I don't really care how clever or inspired the architect's routing is.  I care about the final result: the walk, and the eighteen holes presented in order.  The walk is an essential part of the experience.  How visually and viscerally stimulating is the environment, and how demanding is the journey, and how is the pacing of play?  Corey Miller and I will have to disagree on the importance of the walk.  I estimate its importance at about 30-50% of my overall golfing experience.  At Friar's Head, you roll off a green a few yards and begin playing golf again.  That is awesome to me; a committed foursome can play a relaxed three and a half hour round of golf there.

Analyzing other aspects of the walk, each nine hole loop essentially starts at the ocean side dune ridge, moves out into the "potato field" and comes back.  The land in the field is not very interesting, with the exception of the 6th hole, in which a large sand or glacial ridge (depending on who you ask) is used to perfection.  The 6th hole is a highlight of the front nine.  You have four hours to play golf, but much of the time is spent walking, talking and sensing the environment.  At Friar's Head, the best is save for last, when you walk into the dunes covered with rare dwarf beech trees.  Another fine feature at Friar's Head is the shifting and considerable winds, which should be considered when evaluating a course.

Friar's Head does not have the most dramatic or interesting walk in golf.  The environment is beautiful, private and secluded, but most golfers would rate the walk at Pacific Dunes or Cypress Point as a superior nature walk, with superior land forms for golf.

"From the first tee to the last green, you experience the very essence of what this land is about..."

--  Tommy

Sigh.  Tommy Naccarato's emotional description of Friar's Head can be distilled to "Friar's Head is a 10 because it is brilliant and I love it so.".  Sorry Tommy, but that phrase sounds like marketing clap-trap.  I loved reading your heartwarming description, but I don't think it answers the question.  Similarly, Mac Plumart's comments are vague and non-committal, suggesting "Friar's Head is great because it's great."  Bart Bradley's opening statement asks whether Friar's Head is a 10.  The fact that Bart made a one sentence opening post and then disappeared is unacceptable.

There are about 35,000 golf courses in the world, which means there are 350 in the top 1% of golf courses.  That's not a fine enough distinction to separate the truly greatest courses, so let's say the 0.1% of courses are given a 10.  That's 35 courses.  Golf Magazine rates Friar's Head as the 32nd best course in the world.  That is very high praise.

When it comes to the golf part of analyzing golf course, I tend to be more mechanical in my analysis, looking for a grand variety of golf holes and golf shots.  Short and long, up and down, left and right, putting variety, bunker shot variety, uneven lies, awkward lies — the list of possible shots should be broad, with a pleasing percentage of possible outcomes.  With that in mind, a couple of global observations about playing golf at Friar's Head:

1.  There are very few downhill approach shots.  The 9th hole offers the only significantly downhill approach.

2.  There are a lot of false fronts at Friar's Head.  Off the top of my head, you could come up short and roll back on 4, 5?, 8, 14, 15, 16 and 18.  I think there are others.  Stone Eagle is a course in my golf universe with a number of false fronts.

3.  The majority of greens slope hard from back to front.  As a result of items 2. and 3., I say Friar's Head has a tendency to yield a lot of long uphill putts, and long uphill chips from tight fairway lies.

4.  There are great opportunities for "rare play" shots from unusual lies in unusual vegetation.  The rare play is one to be savored.

A great way to honor a course's memorability is to create a list of personal anecdotes.  Here's my favorite Friar's Head anecdote.  About ten years ago, I made my first east coast swing for golf, and a friend graciously set up a game for me at Friar's Head.  I arrived early and played by myself with a caddie.  I played rather poorly, and did not communicate well with my caddie.  I returned to the old clubhouse down by the 4th hole, where head professional Jim Kidd greeted me in the parking lot.  I said hello, and then almost immediately begged him for a second chance at the course, which is very unusual for me.  He was kind about it, and said that he, his assistant, and the caddie master were going out in a couple hours, and I could join them.  After lunch, we played as a fivesome, four golfers plus Gus, the dog made famous in Dick Durrance's iconic photo at Sand Hills GC.  As hard as I tried, Gus ignored me all day long, and trotted around the course with his own agenda, though staying clear of the golf being played.  This time we played the back tees, and I played ten strokes better in the afternoon.  On the 16th hole, a short dogleg right, I had about 145-150 yards left to the small sloped green perched high on another sand feature.  Attempting to show off, I said "watch this", or something to that effect, and chipped a low 6-iron which bounced 5 or 6 times and scooted up the hill onto the green, where I two putted for par.  Thank you, friend.  I'll never forget that day.

John,


My compliments. Really good post. I strongly agree with your comment about Bart Bradley's participation in the thread (or lack thereof).


Friars Head may or not be a "10". My experience with the course is too limited to opine. However, I do think it would have been better for Bart to affirmatively state why he believes FH deserves a "10" rather than asking why it doesn't deserve such a rating. Just my opinion on how to best discuss golf architecture.


One other point: I do find Sean's comments about evaluating the FH routing (or that for any course) worthwhile to consider, along with Pat Mucci's rebuttal.


Even with my very limited exposure to the FH site, I do have some - please underline the word some - sympathy for Pat's comment that the routing was "self evident". By this I mean if a non practicing golf architecture junkie saw the site before construction started, he might well have understood the big picture challenge: how to tie together the different parts of the property?


This seems a bit like the big picture for a site like Pebble Beach: one could argue it was "self evident" the challenge was to maximize use of the waterfront property.


By contrast, I don't think the routing for a place like Muirfield or Shinnecock or NGLA or Pine Valley could be considered "self evident".


Having said that, I would be interested to hear Pat's view on whether C&C truly did something special with the routing beyond the obvious challenge I stated above.

[Bill_McBride]

If the routing of Friars Head was "self evident," why did it take Bill Coore multiple visits and many weeks of wandering the property to find a most inventive and effective routing?   I put it with Pebble Beach and Cypress Point as best American routings ever. 

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,


"Best" and "Favorite" are vastly different words. Friar's Head is like a David Lean picture - an enormous achievement in scope and vision that invokes a tidal wave of visceral stimulation. Try watching Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia back-to-back. In similar fashion, trying to absorb the sheer excellence of Friar's Head is almost exhausting - like watching Avatar and Interstellar with the intellectual content of 2001.


I'm not sure I'd want to play Friar's every day, nor County Down. Golf, like cooking, is a form of meditation to me. I do not always crave a firehose of challenging data to assimilate. One needs to psyche up to read Faulkner, where hopping into a Hunter Thompson story is like riding a familiar roller coaster - entertaining as hell, but still comfortable.


My impression of Chechessee Creek was a relaxed wander in perfect concert with its surroundings. Every single element was in proportion without a hint of pretentiousness, gently relaxing into the ground as if its always been there. I agree it has a South London feel - as if the heather of Surrey morphed into pines along the intercostal waterway. Actually, Chechessee might be the Swinley Forest of America. Impossibly elegant, intimate and intentionally understated - without a single trapping of ostentatious bluster.   


In truth, as I get older and face the inexorable reality of an eventual dotage, I'd rather wander into the sunset at a manageable place like Chechessee or Westhampton than endure a reminder the ball flies just a little bit shorter and the hole seems a bit smaller with every passing day.   

Gib, I definitely agree I would prefer Chechessee as a final golfing home place.  It's a gentle walk and elegant as you say.  It doesn't have the Friars Head "wow" factor but doesn't need it to be a fine home course. 

[Tim_Weiman]

If the routing of Friars Head was "self evident," why did it take Bill Coore multiple visits and many weeks of wandering the property to find a most inventive and effective routing?   I put it with Pebble Beach and Cypress Point as best American routings ever.

Bill,


I'm guessing Bill Coore pretty quickly understood the big picture for Friars Head. Also guessing multiple visits were required to make a determination on the best way to tie the property together.

[Bill_McBride]

If the routing of Friars Head was "self evident," why did it take Bill Coore multiple visits and many weeks of wandering the property to find a most inventive and effective routing?   I put it with Pebble Beach and Cypress Point as best American routings ever.

Bill,


I'm guessing Bill Coore pretty quickly understood the big picture for Friars Head. Also guessing multiple visits were required to make a determination on the best way to tie the property together.

That's not the conventional wisdom, which is that Coore spent lots of time wandering.  His use of the par 5 "escalators" to get down to the lower level and back up, twice, was brilliant. 


Read Ran's profile of Friars Head, where he lays out the process and time line of Coore's routing development. 

[Tim_Weiman]

Bill,


Thanks. I will do that and share my feedback.


Tim

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim - I don't want to put words into their mouths (and this will take you/us further afield than we may want to go) but I think the implicit distinction between the Pat-Sean points of view is this: that for Pat, the actual/existing golf course is routed in a satisfying, and indeed an exemplary, fashion -- providing Pat so much of what he expects in a routing that he can call it/judge it to be "self-evidently" excellent. Now, I understand and can appreciate that point of view, but for Sean perhaps (and certainly for me) the judging of a routing is in terms not only of actualities but of potentialities, of what might have been -- the criteria being: of the many possible uses (for the game of golf), via various potential routings, of the site's natural features and contours and qualities/elements, did Bill Coore come up with the one actual routing that was the ideal i.e. that made the best possible use of said features and contours and qualities? And given that criteria, I think, as Sean seems to as well, that only another very good architect, and one with as much familiarity with the site as Mr Coore had, could make an accurate judgement in that regard, i.e. could with any significant degree of validity say "yes, Bill came up with the ideal routing for that site".  In short, the Pat-Sean debate seems to me to be apples and oranges: one focusing on an enjoyable playing experience, the other focusing on the value/lack of value of amateurs making architectural judgements about the quality of (one of many possible) routings. The rub, however, is that I've never gotten the impression that in his scale Tom D assigns his scores from the perspective of an architect, i.e. from what might have been given the site, but instead from the perspective of a golfer (albeit a very architecturally astute golfer), i.e. from what actually exists on the ground as the finished course.
Peter

[Sean_A]

One other point: I do find Sean's comments about evaluating the FH routing (or that for any course) worthwhile to consider, along with Pat Mucci's rebuttal.

Even with my very limited exposure to the FH site, I do have some - please underline the word some - sympathy for Pat's comment that the routing was "self evident". By this I mean if a non practicing golf architecture junkie saw the site before construction started, he might well have understood the big picture challenge: how to tie together the different parts of the property?

Tim

I fear a very high percentage of folks who believe they understand a routing process (especially those that claim it was self-evident) couldn't create a good one in a year of Sundays.  Which means they really don't get it. Hence, my statement that I will leave the assessment of routings to professionals.

Like John K stated, I don't really care about the nuts and bolts of routing...what matters most for me is what is in the ground...but this partially because I know I don't know enough about the routing process of courses to worry much about it.  The quality of the site alone can explain why a great routing results in merely a good course or a merely good routing results in a great course. 

Pietro

I can't speak for Mucci, but you are pretty accurate as to my belief as to a true understanding of a routing. The vast majority of golfers at best have a very supeficial understanding of routings, but that is all that is required unless one is being paid to route a course 

Pat

If you read my posts about courses it will be self evident which courses impress me greatly even I couldn't call them great.

Ciao

[Jon Cavalier]

I'd like to expand a bit here on my initial post and add some of my thoughts about Friars Head.

First, regard the routing - I'm probably not qualified to evaluate the routing of a golf course, and I certainly couldn't lay one out myself. In my photo tour of Old Town (which has one of the best routings I've ever seen), I said something to the effect that "to me, a good routing is like pornography was to the Supreme Court - I know it when I see it." I stand by that, and with that in mind, I feel confident in saying that the routing at Friar's Head is one of the best I've seen in a modern course.

Why? That's a bit tougher for me to articulate, but I'll give it a shot. First, the course traverses two different types of land that couldn't be more difficult. The change is dramatic and stark. But somehow,  and the course transitions from one section of property to another so beautifully that this difference is made an asset, rather than a hindrance.

Second, as with all of the best routings on windy sites, the course tacks back and forth in different directions continually, requiring play through wind from all four corners of the compass. Notably, each of th par 3 holes plays in a different direction.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, is that the course was routed with admirable restraint. The holes that use the more dramatic landscape in the dunes and along the water do so to great effect, and the course is not crammed in such a way as to produce a greater number of more dramatic holes at the expense of the quality of the holes.

Beyond the routing, some of the other aspects of Friar's Head that I find "10-worthy" are:

- the conditions, which are firm, fast and ideal.

- the par 5 holes, which are uniformly exceptional (particularly the second and the thirteenth).

- the par 3 holes, which are as varied as they come.

- the uniqueness of the course and the property -- there is no other course like Friar's Head in the eastern US.

- the practice facility, which is, simply put, the best I've ever seen (while not technically part of the golf course is, it is nevertheless part of the overall experience of the club).

- the facilities, which are also among the best I've seen. To be perfectly honest, I do not care for the look of the clubhouse - I find it to be overdone and don't think it suits the property all that well. But there is no denying that the insides are gorgeous, that the locker room and showers are first rate, that the dining area is beautiful, and that the staff is top notch.

Whether Friar's Head is a "10" or not is better left to people more qualified than me to say. I have a clear bias for classic courses, so it's no surprise that, like Pat, given one round in the area, I'd play National. But I don't think it's fair to take points away from Friar's Head simply because it has great neighbors any more than its fair to knock Bandon Trails because Pacific Dunes is nearby.

In the end, Friar's Head is one of those rare courses that sticks with you long after playing it. It is one of the two best modern courses I've played (Pac Dunes is the other -- after Gib, I'm the second person on this forum who hasn't played Sand Hills).

[Tim_Weiman]

One other point: I do find Sean's comments about evaluating the FH routing (or that for any course) worthwhile to consider, along with Pat Mucci's rebuttal.

Even with my very limited exposure to the FH site, I do have some - please underline the word some - sympathy for Pat's comment that the routing was "self evident". By this I mean if a non practicing golf architecture junkie saw the site before construction started, he might well have understood the big picture challenge: how to tie together the different parts of the property?

Tim

I fear a very high percentage of folks who believe they understand a routing process (especially those that claim it was self-evident) couldn't create a good one in a year of Sundays.  Which means they really don't get it. Hence, my statement that I will leave the assessment of routings to professionals.

Like John K stated, I don't really care about the nuts and bolts of routing...what matters most for me is what is in the ground...but this partially because I know I don't know enough about the routing process of courses to worry much about it.  The quality of the site alone can explain why a great routing results in merely a good course or a merely good routing results in a great course. 

Pietro

I can't speak for Mucci, but you are pretty accurate as to my belief as to a true understanding of a routing. The vast majority of golfers at best have a very supeficial understanding of routings, but that is all that is required unless one is being paid to route a course 

Pat

If you read my posts about courses it will be self evident which courses impress me greatly even I couldn't call them great.

Ciao

Sean,


If I recall correctly, a while back we had a thread addressing the subject of how well we discuss the subject of routing. I'm pretty sure I opined that it was a major shortcoming in the quality of discussion here at GolfClubAtlas.com. Moreover, I think I actually mentioned something very similar to your comments that it is very hard for non practicing golf architecture junkies to intelligently discuss routing.


So, we are largely on the same page. But, I don't believe that means we should altogether avoid the subject. After all, it is central to the entire subject of golf architecture.

[Patrick_Mucci]

To those contesting Friars Head's "10" evaluation, at what point does a course become a "10" ?

When it's ranked # 5 ?   # 17 ?    # 28 ?

At some point, as the ranking trends toward # 1, a "10" has to be awarded.

So, what's that numerical point ?

Patrick:


Let me help clear up your thinking on one point:  a "10" never HAS to be awarded.  It's not a numerical point.
 
Of course it's numerical.
You created a scale, from 1 to 10.
You've awarded courses a "10" rating, ergo, "10's" exist.

Based on twenty years of reaction to my rating scale, I would say just the opposite:  many more people have found fault with my awarding a "10" to one course or another, than have made a good case to award it to another course.

That's irrelevant.
 
If I'm not mistaken, you awarded Shadow Creek a "9"
 
Is Friars Head the equal, better or worse than Shadow Creek.
 
IMHO, Friars Head is far superior to Shadow Creek, although, when you consider the land at Shadow Creek pre-golf course, it's an impressive feat.
 
But, evaluating the two courses on the finished product and their relative playing merits, Friars Head seems vastly superior to Shadow Creek............... to me.
 
Does anyone dispute that ?
 

[Tim_Weiman]

If the routing of Friars Head was "self evident," why did it take Bill Coore multiple visits and many weeks of wandering the property to find a most inventive and effective routing?   I put it with Pebble Beach and Cypress Point as best American routings ever.

Bill,


I'm guessing Bill Coore pretty quickly understood the big picture for Friars Head. Also guessing multiple visits were required to make a determination on the best way to tie the property together.

That's not the conventional wisdom, which is that Coore spent lots of time wandering.  His use of the par 5 "escalators" to get down to the lower level and back up, twice, was brilliant. 


Read Ran's profile of Friars Head, where he lays out the process and time line of Coore's routing development.

Bill,


As expected an excellent write up by Ran. It would be fun to have a beer with Bill Coore and discuss the routing process for Friars Head. I am still of the opinion that there was at least one big picture requirement that became obvious early in the routing process (tying the property together). However, Ran's write certainly makes clear there was another big picture issue: how to utilize the sand dunes with minimal disturbance.


Funny thing. How one enters a large property might influence the routing process for a given course. My first visit to the Inch Peninsula was with the late Arthur Spring and we went straight in. Later when I went back for a second and third visit I walked down the beach for about two miles and got a very different perspective.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim - I don't want to put words into their mouths (and this will take you/us further afield than we may want to go) but I think the implicit distinction between the Pat-Sean points of view is this: that for Pat, the actual/existing golf course is routed in a satisfying, and indeed an exemplary, fashion -- providing Pat so much of what he expects in a routing that he can call it/judge it to be "self-evidently" excellent. Now, I understand and can appreciate that point of view, but for Sean perhaps (and certainly for me) the judging of a routing is in terms not only of actualities but of potentialities, of what might have been -- the criteria being: of the many possible uses (for the game of golf), via various potential routings, of the site's natural features and contours and qualities/elements, did Bill Coore come up with the one actual routing that was the ideal i.e. that made the best possible use of said features and contours and qualities? And given that criteria, I think, as Sean seems to as well, that only another very good architect, and one with as much familiarity with the site as Mr Coore had, could make an accurate judgement in that regard, i.e. could with any significant degree of validity say "yes, Bill came up with the ideal routing for that site".  In short, the Pat-Sean debate seems to me to be apples and oranges: one focusing on an enjoyable playing experience, the other focusing on the value/lack of value of amateurs making architectural judgements about the quality of (one of many possible) routings. The rub, however, is that I've never gotten the impression that in his scale Tom D assigns his scores from the perspective of an architect, i.e. from what might have been given the site, but instead from the perspective of a golfer (albeit a very architecturally astute golfer), i.e. from what actually exists on the ground as the finished course.
Peter

Peter,


I think of Pat Mucci's perspective as the "finished product" perspective. It is certainly a valid perspective and perhaps most important to the vast majority of golfers.


Sean is really addressing another point of view that probably only interests a very small minority: given what the architect had to work with, how well did he really do?


I agree with Sean the second perspective is really hard to judge if one isn't a practicing architect and also isn't familiar with all the details of a property.

[Bill_McBride]

If the routing of Friars Head was "self evident," why did it take Bill Coore multiple visits and many weeks of wandering the property to find a most inventive and effective routing?   I put it with Pebble Beach and Cypress Point as best American routings ever.

Bill,


I'm guessing Bill Coore pretty quickly understood the big picture for Friars Head. Also guessing multiple visits were required to make a determination on the best way to tie the property together.

That's not the conventional wisdom, which is that Coore spent lots of time wandering.  His use of the par 5 "escalators" to get down to the lower level and back up, twice, was brilliant. 


Read Ran's profile of Friars Head, where he lays out the process and time line of Coore's routing development.

Bill,


As expected an excellent write up by Ran. It would be fun to have a beer with Bill Coore and discuss the routing process for Friars Head. I am still of the opinion that there was at least one big picture requirement that became obvious early in the routing process (tying the property together). However, Ran's write certainly makes clear there was another big picture issue: how to utilize the sand dunes with minimal disturbance.


Funny thing. How one enters a large property might influence the routing process for a given course. My first visit to the Inch Peninsula was with the late Arthur Spring and we went straight in. Later when I went back for a second and third visit I walked down the beach for about two miles and got a very different perspective.

Tim, I suspect that the upper holes in the dunes weren't too hard to find, and I figure Mr. Bakst wanted the clubhouse up by the cliffs.  The difficult part must have been creating strong holes down below in the flat area.  To me the pure Coore genius lies in the lower holes and the par 5 holes that take you back and forth from one environment to another.  Mackenzie (or Raynor 😜?) did the same thing at Cypress Point.  Pure genius!

[Patrick_Mucci]

If the routing of Friars Head was "self evident," why did it take Bill Coore multiple visits and many weeks of wandering the property to find a most inventive and effective routing?
 
Bill,
 
I keep hoping against hope that you and the other morons on this site will somehow gain some degree of reading comprehension.  But, alas, my hopes have been dashed again.
 
I previously asked you to reread my prior posts.
I'll ask you again to reread them, paying particular attention to  replies # 44,56, 63, 69 and 70.
 
Also, please reread the following quote:
The quality of the routing over the terrain at Friars Head is self evident
 
I put it with Pebble Beach and Cypress Point as best American routings ever.
 
When you played Pebble Beach and Cypress point, were you able to discern the qualilty of their routings ?
 
I was.
 
And, I'm hoping you were too.
 
So, is one not able to discern the quality of the routing at Friars Head ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

If the routing of Friars Head was "self evident," why did it take Bill Coore multiple visits and many weeks of wandering the property to find a most inventive and effective routing?
 
You must not be familiar with Bill Coore's modus operandi, otherwise you would never ask that question.
 
Why did Donald Ross take 26 years fine tuning Pinehurst # 2.
Why did it take CB Macdonald the rest of his life to fine tune NGLA ?
 
I put it with Pebble Beach and Cypress Point as best American routings ever.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim - I don't want to put words into their mouths (and this will take you/us further afield than we may want to go) but I think the implicit distinction between the Pat-Sean points of view is this: that for Pat, the actual/existing golf course is routed in a satisfying, and indeed an exemplary, fashion -- providing Pat so much of what he expects in a routing that he can call it/judge it to be "self-evidently" excellent.
 
Peter,
 
The routing of the existing course is exemplary in it's use of the dunes and the transitioning of the course from the dunes, to the flats, to the dunes, to the flats and back to the dunes.
 
In addition, the quality of the individual holes within that routing is exemplary.
 
Now, I understand and can appreciate that point of view, but for Sean perhaps (and certainly for me) the judging of a routing is in terms not only of actualities but of potentialities, of what might have been -- the criteria being: of the many possible uses (for the game of golf), via various potential routings, of the site's natural features and contours and qualities/elements, did Bill Coore come up with the one actual routing that was the ideal i.e. that made the best possible use of said features and contours and qualities?
 
Sean's never set foot on the property.
How could he possibly comment on the routing at Friars Head ?
How could he possibly comment on comments related to the quality of the routing at Friars Head ?
He has no basis in fact, no basis for evaluation.
And, I'd venture to say that he was completely unaware of previous routings submitted by other architects.  Routings that were rejected.
 
And given that criteria, I think, as Sean seems to as well, that only another very good architect, and one with as much familiarity with the site as Mr Coore had, could make an accurate judgement in that regard, i.e. could with any significant degree of validity say "yes, Bill came up with the ideal routing for that site". 
 
B.S.
So, no one, with the exception of an architect can judge the quality of the routing at Pine Valley, Seminole, NGLA, Shinnecock, Pebble Beach and CPC ?  ? ?
 
That's pure nonsense.
And, you should know that Sean's comment was intended as a rebuttal to my evaluation, despite the fact that Sean has probably never set foot within 50 miles of Friars Head.
 
In short, the Pat-Sean debate seems to me to be apples and oranges: one focusing on an enjoyable playing experience, the other focusing on the value/lack of value of amateurs making architectural judgements about the quality of (one of many possible) routings.
 
Not at all.
 
It's about one person having in depth experience with the site and the routing and the other person having NO experience with the site and the routing, never having set foot on the golf course.  It's that simple.
 
The rub, however, is that I've never gotten the impression that in his scale Tom D assigns his scores from the perspective of an architect, i.e. from what might have been given the site, but instead from the perspective of a golfer (albeit a very architecturally astute golfer), i.e. from what actually exists on the ground as the finished course.

Peter, I couldn't tell you if Tom's evaluative process is visceral, academic or instinctual.
 
My position is that when you study the land at Friars Head and evaluate the golf course that's been set upon it, one of the first impressions you get is the quality of the routing and the individual holes.
 
Since Sean's never set foot on the property, why would anyone value his opinion concerning the quality of the routing and individual holes at Friars Head ?
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

[quote author=Bill_McBride link=topic=61790.msg1467907#msg1467907
 
 Tim, I suspect that the upper holes in the dunes weren't too hard to find, and I figure Mr. Bakst wanted the clubhouse up by the cliffs.
 
Then why did other "name" architects not find them ?
 
The difficult part must have been creating strong holes down below in the flat area.  To me the pure Coore genius lies in the lower holes and the par 5 holes that take you back and forth from one environment to another. 
 
Mackenzie (or Raynor ?) did the same thing at Cypress Point.  Pure genius!
 
Are you sure it isn't the par 3's at CPC that create the transitions ?

[Bill_McBride]

[quote author=Bill_McBride link=topic=61790.msg1467907#msg1467907
 
 Tim, I suspect that the upper holes in the dunes weren't too hard to find, and I figure Mr. Bakst wanted the clubhouse up by the cliffs.
 
Then why did other "name" architects not find them ?
 
The difficult part must have been creating strong holes down below in the flat area.  To me the pure Coore genius lies in the lower holes and the par 5 holes that take you back and forth from one environment to another. 
 
Mackenzie (or Raynor ?) did the same thing at Cypress Point.  Pure genius!
 
Are you sure it isn't the par 3's at CPC that create the transitions ?

The transitional holes at CPC are 4, 8, 10, 12, 15.  Only one par 3.  That's where you transition from one environment to another.  Into the forest at 4, back into the dunes at 8, etc. 


My history of the routing of FH is pretty much from Ran's terrific profile.  Are you saying other architects worked on a routing?  Which ones?

[Patrick_Mucci]

[quote author=Bill_McBride link=topic=61790.msg1467907#msg1467907
 
 Tim, I suspect that the upper holes in the dunes weren't too hard to find, and I figure Mr. Bakst wanted the clubhouse up by the cliffs.
 
Then why did other "name" architects not find them ?
 
The difficult part must have been creating strong holes down below in the flat area.  To me the pure Coore genius lies in the lower holes and the par 5 holes that take you back and forth from one environment to another. 
 
Mackenzie (or Raynor ?) did the same thing at Cypress Point.  Pure genius!
 
Are you sure it isn't the par 3's at CPC that create the transitions ?

The transitional holes at CPC are 4, 8, 10, 12, 15.  Only one par 3.  That's where you transition from one environment to another.  Into the forest at 4, back into the dunes at 8, etc. 
 
So you don't transition from the forest/dunes to the cliffs on the ocean on # 15 ?
 
On # 3 from the upper dune on # 2 down to the forest on # 4

 
On # 7, from the forest on # 6 to the high dunes on # 8 ?
 
 


My history of the routing of FH is pretty much from Ran's terrific profile. 
 
Are you saying other architects worked on a routing?   
 
YES,
 
I'm surprised that Sean and you didn't know that.
 
Which ones?
 
I'll certainly tell you, but, take some guesses first 

[Bill_McBride]

[quote author=Bill_McBride link=topic=61790.msg1467907#msg1467907
 
 Tim, I suspect that the upper holes in the dunes weren't too hard to find, and I figure Mr. Bakst wanted the clubhouse up by the cliffs.
 
Then why did other "name" architects not find them ?
 
The difficult part must have been creating strong holes down below in the flat area.  To me the pure Coore genius lies in the lower holes and the par 5 holes that take you back and forth from one environment to another. 
 
Mackenzie (or Raynor ?) did the same thing at Cypress Point.  Pure genius!
 
Are you sure it isn't the par 3's at CPC that create the transitions ?

The transitional holes at CPC are 4, 8, 10, 12, 15.  Only one par 3.  That's where you transition from one environment to another.  Into the forest at 4, back into the dunes at 8, etc. 
 
So you don't transition from the forest/dunes to the cliffs on the ocean on # 15 ?
 
From the forest to the high dunes on # 7 ?
 
 


My history of the routing of FH is pretty much from Ran's terrific profile. 
 
Are you saying other architects worked on a routing?   
 
YES,
 
I'm surprised that Sean and you didn't know that.
 
Which ones?
 
I'll certainly tell you, but, take some guesses first 

I listed 15 as one of the transitions.  I think 7 is within the forest "zone," you go back into the dunes with the tee shot on 8.  Your tee shot on 7 actually is from the dune above 6 green up into the forest, then you head back into the dunes on 8. 

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat,


Wasn't Friars Head almost 15 years into the development process before Bill Coore got involved?


Wasn't Tom Fazio one of the architects involved initially?


Didn't Ken Bakst not exactly think to highly of the Fazio routing?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,
 
You and you alone determined what constitutes your rating scale.
 
Extracting ourselves from your evaluations, and understanding that you gave NGLA a "10", I've heard golfers, having finished playing NGLA, state that they don't get the golf course, giving it low marks.
 
Even in your mind, there's an element of subjectiveness rather than absolutes.
 
I don't know what Friars Head is, according to your scale.
 
But, I do know that it's superior to Shadow Creek.

[Patrick_Mucci]

[quote author=Bill_McBride link=topic=61790.msg1467917#msg1467917

I listed 15 as one of the transitions. 
 
I think 7 is within the forest "zone," you go back into the dunes with the tee shot on 8.  Your tee shot on 7 actually is from the dune above 6 green up into the forest, then you head back into the dunes on 8.
 
Bill,
 
# 7 green is a good 33 feet above the 6th fairway and about 27 feet above the 8th fairway, hence, I'd have to classify it as being in the dunes and not in the forest.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Wasn't Friars Head almost 15 years into the development process before Bill Coore got involved?
 
Tim, I don't know the exact time frame.

Wasn't Tom Fazio one of the architects involved initially?
 
Yes

Didn't Ken Bakst not exactly think to highly of the Fazio routing?
 
In the final analysis, he rejected it.