Trump National Bedminster

[Bill Shamleffer]

THIS IS ONLY ABOUT THE GOLF COURSE


I like what I see of this course while watching the US Women's Open on TV tonight.  Also, it appears to be draining well.


Has anyone been at the tournament this week to add some thoughts about this course?
How about some thoughts from anyone who has played this course before?

[Tommy Williamsen]

I played the course the year it opened. My recollection of individual holes is fuzzy. I do remember some of the oar threes which I thought were very strong. The terrain was gentle rolling hills and the tee shots generally were not too demanding the shots into, around, and in the greens were more demanding. We were the first group out and the greens were nothing short of excellent. I went there not wanting to like the course but left wishing I had a half million dollars to join.

[Carl Rogers]

The holes in the middle of the back nine are interesting.  The last 3 holes are very cliche.

[Carl Rogers]

With respect, Tommy, if money and opportunity presented itself, wouldn't you want to join Pine Valley, Cypress Point or Royal Melbourne?


18th hole set up, what is the point of a 3 shot par 5?

[David Wuthrich]

I thought it was one of the better Trump courses, for what that is worth!

[Tommy Williamsen]

With respect, Tommy, if money and opportunity presented itself, wouldn't you want to join Pine Valley, Cypress Point or Royal Melbourne?


18th hole set up, what is the point of a 3 shot par 5?

Of course. There are a hundred courses I'd join first. It was a bit of overstatement to say "I liked the course."

[Steve Lapper]

With respect, Tommy, if money and opportunity presented itself, wouldn't you want to join Pine Valley, Cypress Point or Royal Melbourne?


18th hole set up, what is the point of a 3 shot par 5?

Of course. There are a hundred courses I'd join first. It was a bit of overstatement to say "I liked the course."

  I live nearby and was at the tournament (my daughters were volunteers). All-in-all it was a classic presentation on a pristinely prepared course. With large greens, and even larger bunkers, the course was straight forward and gave the players plenty of fairway width to work with. The girls played from approximately 6700yds and are highly accurate, only occasionally finding the rough off the tee. They had little little problem getting to the greens, yet once there had issues trying to read the myriad of micro-breaks found on those monstrous putting surfaces. 

 What was truly perplexing was the USGA set-up. It may have been "classic," but it sorely lacked imagination and most all risk-reward. Even the players expected to find one semi-drivable short par 4 (#'s 2, 6. and 13 would've worked) and a potentially reachable par 5 (#1, #15, or #18). Neither appeared on even a single day! It was a rote exercise that yielded only multiple bogey blow-ups as the tournament's best hole-by-hole stories. Too bad IMO, as the tournament would've been better served with at least some architecturally-induced excitement!


  With the usual staccato-like Fazio tees (multiples stacked on each hole) there were plenty of opportunities to play a drivable par 4, or risk-reward par 5. That never happened!! Sure, it rained hard on Friday and this was Ms. (Shannon) Roullard's first Open set-up, but she was outright blandly conservative and lacking in ANY imagination when choosing tees and pin locations. In short, the USGA fails to get it.

[Kalen Braley]

I'll admit, it certainly didn't translate on the tellie to look like anything special, much less a wish list course....

[Tim Martin]

I like the golf course and agree that 18 in particular would have been a great go/no go par 5 that could have created a lot more drama especially on Sunday.

[Ian Mackenzie]

I watched it for about 30 minutes on Sunday between flipping back to the PGA Tour and also that silly event in Lake Tahoe.
Lousy, cool Sunday in Chicago where most courses were still closed following the 8"+ of rain last week.


My observations:


1. It was an "Open venue in name only" bearing little resemblance to past set ups or courses.
2. It was built up for sure before the event but, when the day arrived, it turned out it was mostly bluster and could not live up to false and pandering expectations.
3. The rough had an odd blonde coloring as if man-made; indeed VERY strange for a course of that vintage.
4. The greens had a fake orangey hue as if the super wanted to cover up its faux-facade. Surfaces were slick, but left the player wondering if they were about to be cheated.
5. The more a player complimented the venue, the better they played. Very weird.
6. The fairways and mid-section of the course were generously wide, almost obese or bloated, as if the super fed it a constant diet of McDonalds, KFC and Dominos instead of growth regulators.
7. It lacked any sort of strategic conviction whatsoever and seemed to exist solely to seek praise from viewers and players.
8. There was a wide vein of disingenuousness that pervaded each and every hole turning Fazio's best intentions into afterthoughts to be replaced by a new (unwelcomed) hyperbole and "alternative facts" about the GCA's original vision.
9. It seemed to want to cater solely to about 30-35% of the population and did not transcend across all levels so that it may be considered great one day. Instead, it isolated the few who believed in the new dogma and sought to divide one and all for its own self-serving benefit - much like courses with very high slopes and rating try, yet fail, to do every four years or so.

[Will Lozier]

I watched it for about 30 minutes on Sunday between flipping back to the PGA Tour and also that silly event in Lake Tahoe.
Lousy, cool Sunday in Chicago where most courses were still closed following the 8"+ of rain last week.


My observations:


1. It was an "Open venue in name only" bearing little resemblance to past set ups or courses.
2. It was built up for sure before the event but, when the day arrived, it turned out it was mostly bluster and could not live up to false and pandering expectations.
3. The rough had an odd blonde coloring as if man-made; indeed VERY strange for a course of that vintage.
4. The greens had a fake orangey hue as if the super wanted to cover up its faux-facade. Surfaces were slick, but left the player wondering if they were about to be cheated.
5. The more a player complimented the venue, the better they played. Very weird.
6. The fairways and mid-section of the course were generously wide, almost obese or bloated, as if the super fed it a constant diet of McDonalds, KFC and Dominos instead of growth regulators.
7. It lacked any sort of strategic conviction whatsoever and seemed to exist solely to seek praise from viewers and players.
8. There was a wide vein of disingenuousness that pervaded each and every hole turning Fazio's best intentions into afterthoughts to be replaced by a new (unwelcomed) hyperbole and "alternative facts" about the GCA's original vision.
9. It seemed to want to cater solely to about 30-35% of the population and did not transcend across all levels so that it may be considered great one day. Instead, it isolated the few who believed in the new dogma and sought to divide one and all for its own self-serving benefit - much like courses with very high slopes and rating try, yet fail, to do every four years or so.

Funny and accurate! Thanks Ian!

[Steve Lapper]

I watched it for about 30 minutes on Sunday between flipping back to the PGA Tour and also that silly event in Lake Tahoe.
Lousy, cool Sunday in Chicago where most courses were still closed following the 8"+ of rain last week.


My observations:


1. It was an "Open venue in name only" bearing little resemblance to past set ups or courses.
2. It was built up for sure before the event but, when the day arrived, it turned out it was mostly bluster and could not live up to false and pandering expectations.
3. The rough had an odd blonde coloring as if man-made; indeed VERY strange for a course of that vintage.
4. The greens had a fake orangey hue as if the super wanted to cover up its faux-facade. Surfaces were slick, but left the player wondering if they were about to be cheated.
5. The more a player complimented the venue, the better they played. Very weird.
6. The fairways and mid-section of the course were generously wide, almost obese or bloated, as if the super fed it a constant diet of McDonalds, KFC and Dominos instead of growth regulators.
7. It lacked any sort of strategic conviction whatsoever and seemed to exist solely to seek praise from viewers and players.
8. There was a wide vein of disingenuousness that pervaded each and every hole turning Fazio's best intentions into afterthoughts to be replaced by a new (unwelcomed) hyperbole and "alternative facts" about the GCA's original vision.
9. It seemed to want to cater solely to about 30-35% of the population and did not transcend across all levels so that it may be considered great one day. Instead, it isolated the few who believed in the new dogma and sought to divide one and all for its own self-serving benefit - much like courses with very high slopes and rating try, yet fail, to do every four years or so.

That might have been just enough for our most beloved to have pulled the handle for him???

[Eric LeFante]

With respect, Tommy, if money and opportunity presented itself, wouldn't you want to join Pine Valley, Cypress Point or Royal Melbourne?


18th hole set up, what is the point of a 3 shot par 5?

Of course. There are a hundred courses I'd join first. It was a bit of overstatement to say "I liked the course."

  I live nearby and was at the tournament (my daughters were volunteers). All-in-all it was a classic presentation on a pristinely prepared course. With large greens, and even larger bunkers, the course was straight forward and gave the players plenty of fairway width to work with. The girls played from approximately 6700yds and are highly accurate, only occasionally finding the rough off the tee. They had little little problem getting to the greens, yet once there had issues trying to read the myriad of micro-breaks found on those monstrous putting surfaces. 

 What was truly perplexing was the USGA set-up. It may have been "classic," but it sorely lacked imagination and most all risk-reward. Even the players expected to find one semi-drivable short par 4 (#'s 2, 6. and 13 would've worked) and a potentially reachable par 5 (#1, #15, or #18). Neither appeared on even a single day! It was a rote exercise that yielded only multiple bogey blow-ups as the tournament's best hole-by-hole stories. Too bad IMO, as the tournament would've been better served with at least some architecturally-induced excitement!


  With the usual staccato-like Fazio tees (multiples stacked on each hole) there were plenty of opportunities to play a drivable par 4, or risk-reward par 5. That never happened!! Sure, it rained hard on Friday and this was Ms. (Shannon) Roullard's first Open set-up, but she was outright blandly conservative and lacking in ANY imagination when choosing tees and pin locations. In short, the USGA fails to get it.

Fazio had it right the first time with the short par 4 as the 17th hole that was at the course 3 years ago. It needed a couple tweaks to better entice the players to go for the green, but a slightly more welcoming drivable short par 4 17th would have been better than playing 2, 6, or 13 up in my opinion. I don't think those three holes set up great as drivable par 4s and I think the 17th hole is a much more dramatic place in the round to have a drivable par 4.


Park had a one shot lead standing on 17 tee and would have had plenty of length to go for the green. She probably would have laid up with the lead but Choi and Feng would have been able to hit driver if the hole was playing 240 and try to make eagle.

[Eric LeFante]

With respect, Tommy, if money and opportunity presented itself, wouldn't you want to join Pine Valley, Cypress Point or Royal Melbourne?


18th hole set up, what is the point of a 3 shot par 5?

Of course. There are a hundred courses I'd join first. It was a bit of overstatement to say "I liked the course."

  I live nearby and was at the tournament (my daughters were volunteers). All-in-all it was a classic presentation on a pristinely prepared course. With large greens, and even larger bunkers, the course was straight forward and gave the players plenty of fairway width to work with. The girls played from approximately 6700yds and are highly accurate, only occasionally finding the rough off the tee. They had little little problem getting to the greens, yet once there had issues trying to read the myriad of micro-breaks found on those monstrous putting surfaces. 

 What was truly perplexing was the USGA set-up. It may have been "classic," but it sorely lacked imagination and most all risk-reward. Even the players expected to find one semi-drivable short par 4 (#'s 2, 6. and 13 would've worked) and a potentially reachable par 5 (#1, #15, or #18). Neither appeared on even a single day! It was a rote exercise that yielded only multiple bogey blow-ups as the tournament's best hole-by-hole stories. Too bad IMO, as the tournament would've been better served with at least some architecturally-induced excitement!


  With the usual staccato-like Fazio tees (multiples stacked on each hole) there were plenty of opportunities to play a drivable par 4, or risk-reward par 5. That never happened!! Sure, it rained hard on Friday and this was Ms. (Shannon) Roullard's first Open set-up, but she was outright blandly conservative and lacking in ANY imagination when choosing tees and pin locations. In short, the USGA fails to get it.

Fazio had it right the first time with the short par 4 as the 17th hole that was at the course 3 years ago. It needed a couple tweaks to better entice the players to go for the green, but a slightly more welcoming drivable short par 4 17th would have been better than playing 2, 6, or 13 up in my opinion. I don't think those three holes set up great as drivable par 4s and I think the 17th hole is a much more dramatic place in the round to have a drivable par 4.


Park had a one shot lead standing on 17 tee and would have had plenty of length to go for the green. She probably would have layed up with the lead but Choi and Feng would have been able to hit driver if the hole was playing 240 and try to make eagle.


The current 17th played difficult and Park made a great birdie there, but its not as memorable as other holes there in my opinion.

[Steve Lapper]

Eric,


  I beg to differ with your assessment. The previous iteration of 17 was indeed a fun hole that had potential to be drivable, however it's placement as 17 was vexing for any professional-level tournament. I believe Trump was told by both the USGA and the PGA that a 290-320yd hole that if not driven would be a 6-iron then wedge was unsuitable for a closing hole to any kind of pro event. In fact, I once spoke to Tommy Fazio Jr. (nephew) and his explicit marching orders were to build a far sturdier par 4.


  #2 or #13 would both have worked very well for the women. # 6 would likely need a wider neck, but also could've worked. The original USGA set-up had #13 as drivable from the existing women's tee. It's green is one of the hardest on the property and allows for all kinds of strategic optionality. Instead, the ladies banged it from where the normal Men's tees are, up the hill on the sharp dog-leg. Boooring!!

[Eric LeFante]

Eric,


  I beg to differ with your assessment. The previous iteration of 17 was indeed a fun hole that had potential to be drivable, however it's placement as 17 was vexing for any professional-level tournament. I believe Trump was told by both the USGA and the PGA that a 290-320yd hole that if not driven would be a 6-iron then wedge was unsuitable for a closing hole to any kind of pro event. In fact, I once spoke to Tommy Fazio Jr. (nephew) and his explicit marching orders were to build a far sturdier par 4.


  #2 or #13 would both have worked very well for the women. # 6 would likely need a wider neck, but also could've worked. The original USGA set-up had #13 as drivable from the existing women's tee. It's green is one of the hardest on the property and allows for all kinds of strategic optionality. Instead, the ladies banged it from where the normal Men's tees are, up the hill on the sharp dog-leg. Boooring!!

Thanks for the insight Steve. I see what you are talking about on 13, it's 260 yards from the ladies tee with a clear view of the green. Since you mentioned it, I can't think of too many 17th holes that are drivable par 4s (TPC Scottsdale, Oakmont)

[corey miller]

I think the venues should be picked for their merit.....For the ladies, at most great venues, I am sure the proper tees already exist just tee it up from the Mens member tees or the mens back tees.  I saw a women's USGA amateur event at my club that would have been perfect from the member tees but then folks from Far Hills would not have had the opportunity to suck down steaks and wine while fretting over the validity of a who a center-line bunker 350 yards from the tee might hurt.



All this who hits what shot to what spot at a certain time in the round is so USGA....For the women, great course should be relatively "turn-key".