News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Yannick Pilon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Why is Baltusrol a great course? Is it?
« on: July 10, 2016, 09:28:20 PM »
As the PGA Championship is coming, I'm trying to find info on Baltusrol.


I'm surprised how little discussion this course gets on this site, or anywhere else, for that matter.


Most publications seem to agree this course is a marvel of golf course architecture and one of Tillinghast's best courses, but few explain why that is.... Has anybody on here played the course and could offer his take on it?


Any thoughts / info would be appreciated.


YP
www.yannickpilongolf.com - Golf Course Architecture, Quebec, Canada

JWinick

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is Baltusrol a great course? Is it?
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2016, 03:34:28 AM »
I haven't played it, but its unfortunately surrounded by so many amazing courses in the NY-area that it perhaps gets overshadowed.   I have heard mixed reviews from those who have played it relative to its ranking.   

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is Baltusrol a great course? Is it?
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2016, 06:41:51 AM »
Baltusrol is certainly not overshadowed by other courses in the area and is most notable for all of the major championships that have been held there.  Personally, I have found the other Tillinghast courses in the area more interesting such as Ridgewood, Winged Foot and Somerset Hills.  I believe Quaker Ridge is also Tillinghast but I haven't had a chance to play it.  I have also found the upper course more interesting and fun to play than the lower.

Tim Gallant

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is Baltusrol a great course? Is it?
« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2016, 08:44:46 AM »
I really enjoyed my round on the Lower last year and feel that it is a great course. I felt there was good variety in the individual holes, with 2, 3, 7, 11, 15 and 18 all standouts in my mind. The routing is strong, and I didn't feel the monotonous slog that one can often find on championship courses. Additionally, I found the bunkers to be well placed, and the internal contours to be interesting, if not exactly bold.


I would not turn down another opportunity to play there. Given 10 rounds at Somerset Hills or BGC Lower, I would take 7 on SHCC and 3 on BGC.

Jeff Spittel

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is Baltusrol a great course? Is it?
« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2016, 09:37:56 AM »
I think the Lower is an excellent golf course. However, his other designs in the region are so good that Baltusrol may get lost in the shuffle. You'll also hear from some who feel that the Lower isn't even the best course on the Baltusrol property.


 
Fare and be well now, let your life proceed by its own design.

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is Baltusrol a great course? Is it?
« Reply #5 on: July 11, 2016, 09:39:48 AM »
I've played The Lower Course about a dozen times as well as most of the other Tillinghast courses in the area. The Lower Course is a fine test of golf, it just does not garner as much love as his other courses. I am not sure why. It is big and bold and requires good shotmaking and deft putting. What it doesn't require is much imagination, which I love. It is a straightforward course that is an excellent test where players who are on their game can score well. I am not sure how much Tillinghast is left after RTJ's revision. I enjoy the Upper Course more as do many of the members I know. The Upper has more interesting greens and terrain. It is not as difficult as Winged Foot West or as fun as Somerset Hills but it is an excellent course deserving of its high ranking.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Cliff Hamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is Baltusrol a great course? Is it?
« Reply #6 on: July 11, 2016, 11:01:21 AM »
Baltusrol is a difficult, "championship" course.  Green complexes are not its strength and that is a huge minus.  Greens do not have the huge undulations of a course like Oakmont or WFW, but there are subtlties.  It's par 3's are not tremendous, although each is strong in its own way.  No driveable par 4's.  Many long, tough par 4's.  And the two 5 pars at the end are excellent.  17 gets the attention but 18, easily reachable in 2, is my preference.


As a major championship venue it is as good as it gets. The ambiance is at the top. Because of scores the USGA did not approve of, it has not returned since 1993 and to me that is most unfortunate.


Baltusrol has typically yieleded a very exciting tournament with excellent leaderboards.  The most recent major - PGA 2005 was won by Mickleson.  The top 10 had 8 major champions with Thomas Bjorn and Pat Perez the exception.

Jon Cavalier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is Baltusrol a great course? Is it?
« Reply #7 on: July 11, 2016, 01:10:15 PM »
I'm an avid Tillinghast fan and having played all of his courses in the area, I can say this: Baltusrol is a special place, and the Lower Course is undoubtedly a great golf course -- it's just not a great golf course for me.  The championship pedigree of the course is undeniable, which is unsurprising given its difficulty and its gimmick-free nature.  It's long, the rough is deep, the greens are subtle but tough.  Bottom line -- its a course which forces players to hit the shots, and which doesn't give anything away.


For top-tier events fielding the best players in the world, its perfect.  For me, its a brutal referendum on the inadequacies of my game.  Which I why I prefer playing the other Tillinghast designs in the area (Somerset Hills, as an example, is one of my favorite courses anywhere).  But my own preferences (and inadequacies as a golfer) don't detract from the fact that the golf course is excellent.


Additionally, Baltusrol is more than the sum of its two courses.  The clubhouse is amazing -- the collection of artifacts and memorabilia inside is incredible.  The building even smells like golf history.  And Baltusrol is one of only four golf clubs to be named a National Historic Landmark by the department of the interior -- a fact that the golf nerd in me finds quite interesting (Oakmont, Merion and Pinehurst are the others).








« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 08:38:38 PM by Jon Cavalier »
Golf Photos via
Twitter: @linksgems
Instagram: @linksgems

Jeff Spittel

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is Baltusrol a great course? Is it?
« Reply #8 on: July 11, 2016, 02:33:15 PM »
I'm not surprised that Jon nailed it with his assessment. Baltusrol exudes history and the Lower is a fantastic examination of golfing skills. It just doesn't possess some of the bold green contours or quirk/charm of some of Tillie's other designs, famous or otherwise.
Fare and be well now, let your life proceed by its own design.

John Sabino

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is Baltusrol a great course? Is it?
« Reply #9 on: July 11, 2016, 02:41:44 PM »
+1 on Jon's comments, nailed the essence of Baltusrol perfectly. "is undoubtedly a great golf course -- it's just not a great golf course for me."
Author: How to Play the World's Most Exclusive Golf Clubs and Golf's Iron Horse - The Astonishing, Record-Breaking Life of Ralph Kennedy

http://www.top100golf.blogspot.com/

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is Baltusrol a great course? Is it?
« Reply #10 on: July 11, 2016, 05:48:51 PM »
My opinion comes strictly from outside the ropes, and have never played it, but I was less impressed with Baltusrol than say, Winged Foot. 

Specifically, the green contours seemed busy as opposed to some of the longer, broader contours of other courses.  On the other hand, the little bumps and valleys weren't subtle enough to count as micro contours that you couldn't read well.  They just looked small and contrived.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Steve Lapper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is Baltusrol a great course? Is it? New
« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2016, 07:53:00 AM »
 Having played both courses numerous times, I would say they are both excellent, but I'd beg to differ with my photographic friend and say neither are truly great IMO.....if "great" means amongst the very finest examples of its kind.


 The Upper is infinitely more fun to play. It's sloping fairways and canted greens demand premium shot accuracy. The natural elevation changes and positioning along the flank of the hillside provide a far sportier style of play than it's brutish brother, the Lower.


 The Lower (Championship course) lies beneath the Upper, leaving the majority of holes, save for a few, without very significant elevation change. It plays long and relatively tight, although (save for only a handful of holes) not always narrowed by trees. Tee-to-green driving angles are excellent, and not always easily apparent on the box. Approaches are very straightforward and decidedly lack drama.


 Some holes permit ground-game run-ups approaches, but not all. It's definitely plays more as a parkland-style aerial test. Bunker placement is strategically superb throughout the course and effectively accompanies each and every hole. Many of them were cleaned-up, re-drained, and often slightly expanded. Their poa annua greens, though internally nuanced a bit, are for the most part, relatively benign....think closer to Bethpage than Winged Foot, Somerset Hills, or Ridgewood. Over dozens plus plays, I've alway noticed that good putters have a field day on the Lower and certainly struggle more with the Upper's. The finishing pair of holes on both courses are terrific tests of risk-reward.


 The high thick and stiff rough areas provide the greatest defense to scoring and will continue to serve that role for the PGA Championship. In playing a few rounds this season, I can tell you it's as thick and difficult as anything you saw recently as Oakmont, or historically at Winged Foot. NJ's growing season has been very healthy. Presumably, Kerry Haigh and his team will lower the present heights (10-14") by game time, but the density will remain brutal and exceptionally penal to scoring.


The club, it's clubhouse, practice & training facilities, staff and membership are truly great. The place, as others here have mentioned, proudly displays its competition history and memorabilia. The members, for the most part, are extremely friendly and take great pride in hosting major events and internal competitions. Doug Steffen, their long-time head pro is stepping down this year and will likely never be fully replaced. He is amongst the reigning deities of Met Section professionals and has run the club events with equal doses of congeniality and talent.


Thus, I'd agree the club is unquestionably a great club. I'd say the course(s) are undeniably excellent, but just not great. Maybe I'm a wee bit biased towards quirk and sportier tests (guilty as charged), but when measured against other particularly similar big, tough competition courses (i.e Winged Foot, Bethpage, Pinehurst #2, etc...), the others surpass it for total architecture and form.


Cheers!
« Last Edit: July 12, 2016, 12:59:23 PM by Steve Lapper »
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking."--John Kenneth Galbraith

Eric LeFante

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is Baltusrol a great course? Is it? New
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2016, 10:33:30 AM »
The first four holes and last four holes on the lower are wonderful holes.


The first hole is in the same place as it was when golf first started at the Club around 1900.


The second hold actually may become more interesting for the pros and viewers with the advance of technology. It's about 290 to carry the cross bunkers with OB close on the left side.


3 is great par 4, dogleg left that is framed by huge trees and goes down a hill with a stream in front of the green.


4 is interesting because Tillinghast designed it as a short par 3 of only 105 yards I believe. The green is the same but the tee is about 90 yards behind where it used to be.


The second shot on 15 is really nice, up hill to a green framed by big deep bunkers.


16 is beautiful par 3 where part of the mountain is the back drop.


And then one of Tillinghast's bolder ideas, finishing the round with two par 5s that are really great holes. Many say Tillinghast's weakness was his par 5s but i think these two, the 4th at Bethpage Black, and the 3 at Ridgewood are really great holes.


I agree that the greens on the Lower are not as interesting as some of Tillinghast's others. He convinced the membership to destroy their original 18 holes, one of the best courses in the country at the time, to allow him to build the Upper and the Lower. This was the first time anyone in America built 36 holes at the same time. Perhaps Tillinghast opted for less severe greens on the lower because of his lack of experience with such a large undertaking? Maybe he felt more comfortable building 36 contoured greens at Winged Foot because he had already built 36 holes at the same time at Baltusrol.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2016, 11:16:17 AM by Eric LeFante »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back