Post by: Mark_Fine on June 21, 2001, 06:27:00 PM
Mark
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 21, 2001, 06:36:00 PM
Ed Carman designed and built Centerton Golf Club in 1962, and owned and operated the course for a number of years.
It is quite good, with some really cool short par fours and some solid finishing holes.
A few years ago, he decided that a private club with an emphasis on fast play might be needed in the market, hence the name "Running Deer". Apparently, one of the criteria for membership approval is the ability to play within something like 3.5 hours.
All Hail!!!!! 
I know that Tom Paul was down there and commented favorably on the very wild green complexes. Another friend of mine played there and enjoyed it considerably.
I'll make a point to add it to my "must-play" list. Thanks for bringing it to light.
Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on June 22, 2001, 08:01:00 AM
Post by: Mark_Fine on June 22, 2001, 01:44:00 AM
Tommy,
These days it's about 50/50 whether someone is a GD panelist or not Believe it or not there are probably only 200 or so that play more than 5 different courses a year (so I am told).
Post by: fred ruttenberg on June 22, 2001, 11:06:00 AM
Post by: Mark_Fine on June 22, 2001, 01:05:00 PM
Mark
Post by: TEPaul on June 24, 2001, 06:59:00 PM
Is #9 the par 5 that has the guarded carry right up to the green and the fairway extending past the green on the left?
Post by: Mark_Fine on June 25, 2001, 04:44:00 AM
Yes. You are limited what you can hit off the tee (even from the tips) unless you try to cut something to the right (the fairway wraps around a large waste area). But there is little reason to go right because you have to lay up on your next shot regardless how far you hit it. Trees screen the green on the right jutting well out to the right edge of the fairway and the green is tucked behind with deep bunkers and hollows guarding the approach. The fairway runs up pretty far up on the left giving the layup shot some buffer room so the golfer can make sure the trees don't come into play. It's a forced threeshotter but at only 500 yards from the tips (461 yards from where most golfers will play it), you have to question the logic?
With some changes, it has the potential to be a great risk/reward closing hole for the front nine! Would love to talk to Ed about it!
Mark
Post by: TEPaul on June 25, 2001, 06:11:00 AM
Ed's son (the pro) spent a bit of time explaining the thinking on #9 to me but I guess I'm getting older and losing my mind because I really don't remember exactly what he said now.
I never did take my committee foursome down to play the course (because it wasn't open) but plan to schedule that anytime now, so I will look closely at that.
If there is no way to get a shot into that green in two shots I guess you really do have to question the conceptual logic of the hole to some degree.
That kind of concept is one that GeoffShac and I have talked about a little. Way back he mentioned that Coore & Crenshaw were interested in the shortish par 5 that put severe demands on a good player to hit the green in two and that they were looking and researching for something that did that successfully to maybe copy or conceptually copy. I got the feeling that they were interested in the concept because it was very rare (or maybe even nonexistent) and as such obviously very challenging to design. In my opinion, #17 Easthampton is actually a successful and brilliant example of this (but using a much different feature concept-not trees).
I really think that to do something like that successfully a designer has to PRESERVE some kind of TEMPTATION for the golfer to hit it in two no matter how heroic it might be. Obviously to block the temptation with trees you can't get over or around is not the way to do it!
What you're saying is #9 Running Deer has to be played in three shots. If that is so then the hole probably will become one dimensional and lose a great "GO" option (with the green guarded in front by hazard).
I'm also interested in this concept (shortish go/no go par 5) but from an historical perspective. I'm completely convinced that Perry Maxwell was "conceptually" copying ANGC's #13 when he redesigned our #7 hole. So as not to blatantly copy ANGC he threw his own little wrinkle into the hole which was to design a very small green right next to a quarry (Rae's Creek) and heavilly bunker all around the green.
The concept was simply to put severe demand on the good player to hit the green in two even if he was inside 200yds. But the demand apparently was TOO great and consequently the "GO" temptation was almost totally lost and good players simply played wide of the green to the right. Because of this one dimensional playability and frustration the hole was never popular with the members and eventually the club redesigned Maxwell's green slightly and even grew trees in the quarry that makes the hole at present even more one dimensional.
Being almost 100% convinced of what Maxwell was trying to do and why he threw in his own little wrinkle (so as not to blatantly copy ANGC's #13), we are now going to take the trees out of the quarry, expand Maxwell's original green space down nearer the quarry and give the green basically the same orientation and playability of ANGC's #13 (a fading orientation from a fairway approach lie that is hooking!!)
All this is really neat conceptual and historical stuff but the point of this story is that Maxwell was trying for a very neat concept and for whatever his reasons (his own green-end wrinkle) he did not pull off the redesign successfully because his tempting "GO" option did not have the proper amount of temptation so the option didn't really work or function and the hole lost it's interest and function.
If there is little or no way to hit #9 Running Deer in two shots it will probably suffer the same fate.
Post by: Mark_Fine on June 25, 2001, 07:02:00 AM
I'll be anxious to hear your's and others comments on the hole after playing it. I played it from the tips and hit driver into the waste area (about 275 give or take from the back tee). I was lucky to be able to get a club on the ball and hit a very good recovery 5I to the lay up area and then wedged onto the green.
Though there are several, the biggest issue I have with the hole are the trees near the green that essentially block any chance of hitting the green in two shots from any angle or distance that you hit your tee shot. The green is tucked in behind them. If you remove the some of the trees, the hole would be improved significantly. It would give the daring player the option to get as close as possible to the left side of the fairway (short of the waste area) and hit a long high fade about 240 onto the putting surface. It's risky going left because it makes your second more difficult if you feel you can't reach the green in two. You'd have to carry all of the waste area on your 2nd shot and probably play a bit of a draw. And note, the waste area is not just sand. It has all kinds of vegatation and you don't want to be there.
Again, right now the hole is similar to #7 at Pine Valley except it is only 500 yards and has fairway wrapping around the right side of the waste area. I smart player even playing from the shorter tees would not attempt to use much of that fairway as there is little advantage. It just brings the waste area and more trees into play. Best to just lay back off the tee.
Post by: Mike_Cirba on September 15, 2001, 10:07:00 PM
There is a LOT going on here...post more tomorrow.
The word that comes to mind...stolen from GeoffreyC...is BOLD.
Post by: redanman/BillV on September 16, 2001, 09:00:00 AM
s so much local knowledge that a visitor cannot possibly play to his handicap (But I did-78 from a combo of Tips and back teees, appx 7050 yds. A few birdies seen including #13.)
An interesting golf course to use that word in its most current use of almost a left-handed compliment. I have rarely if ever seen so many features on a golf course. How well they mesh, potentiate, just go together or clash is the centre of the discussion. Virtually every green is partially to nearly wholly obscured from view by scottis style mounds, every green seems wild for wildness sake. There are more trees inside the bunker lines on this course than on almost all mismanaged Donald Ross Gems together.
1-makes you hope that the course is as good as Tobacco Road which this hole is reminiscent of.
2-Tobacco Road comparison still holds for a while. Odd combination of features. second presentation of the oddly recurring feature of a paired mound and tree in or near the ideal tee shot placement.
3-Scotland Run's contribution to the course. Paired tree and mound to the right. Fairway which half of which is dead flat and half severely slopes to cattails and wetlands.
4-An odd par 5 with a very demanding tee shot for maximum distance and absolutely no strategy or penalty to the second shot. See green description above.
5-Short iron par 3 to a large wild green fronted by wetlands.
6-Fairly conventional hole with recurrent paired mound and orphan tree. See green description above.
7-Unimaginative very wide green fronted by an unsightly pit with wetland characteristics. Good "shot values" due to shallowness of green relatively. No paired tree/mound feature.
8-Fairly conventional mid length par 4. See green description above.
9-An awful hole. There is a huge mounded waste area in hte center of the 3-wood landing area for me from the "Tips" tee. The fairway skirts this in the shape of a question mark (Was Des here?) then taking off at a 135* angle to the left 75+ yards past the middle of the green, direct approach being blocked by 50 ft tall trees. My par came from Driver into the shit, 7-iron, gap wedge, 2-putt. See main green description.
10-Imagine Augusta National bunkering with about 8-10 trees on the right side of the fairway direct approach to the green. "Kick a field goal". The contours of this green were different. Not a bad hole, jsut strange.
11- Stupid. This word was uttered from my lips more times than I can say. 390ish par 4 90* dog leg left (Not originally apparent (More confusing bunkering tha #16 Colleton River-Nicklaus.) If you try to carry the corner left bunker and the trees there, you may hit the blindwater hazard. I elected to hit a 3-iron into the middle of teh fairway bunkered area and hit a 7-iron to a few feet, don't remember if I made the putt as I was trying to figger the hole out.
12-Odd dog-leg R that i played from the LONG WET tees. 50 ft tall trees on a peninsula beg you to carry them to reach the 150 marker on this ?470 hole to have a good angle. Entire fairway was a mirror image "?" with half flat and half sloping strongly to the blind water hazard over the aforementioned trees. There is no line of charm approach angle to this green of the aforementioned description.
Break for lunch
Post by: post prandial BV on September 16, 2001, 09:43:00 AM
13- A demanding long par 3 up to 250+ with a heavily sloped well mounded and large front left bunker. 3-wood to 4 feet helps. There are several spots I can anticipate a golfer putting off this green. THe fact that I made birdie did not influence me in my opinion. Relatively conventional bold hole.
14-A really odd par 5, I hit my driver right near another paired tree and mound, I hit a very low running 2 or 3-iron to a spot where i had to duck hook a 7-iron to the green. Bunkers off the tee are probably unreachable and trees on the left are probably not drive-past-able. See typical green description. Thehole takes a bit of sharp angle left, but you can't drive it far enough off the tee in many instances. Confusing straegy.
15-Straightaway 360-390? par 4 with the best green on the course. No run-up available here as there is to a small portion of many greens, but an oblique ridge across the back is really clever. MOst inspiring hole on the course?
16-Conventional par 3 5-iron or so, two Mae West front mound/bunkers funnel shots, a green that has contours that make sense (Will filter shots, not a common theme). HTe conventionality of the hole was startling to me.
17-Half and half fairway feature again with sign on tee telling you of a 350 yard long water hazard the left side. Mound and solo tree on... you get it, mound surrunded green, 3/4 or more blind. Only visibility is from right side.
18-Even Mark Fine didn't like this 480 yard par 4 with no place to hit the tee shot to approach the green you can't see until 100 yards out. Bunkers and trees inside the line, all the rest.
I admire the effort made on this course, the profusion of features, the break the mold, think out-of-the-box mentality, but sometimes they just don't go together at all. It is like a dissonant modern JAzz piece, but I don't think it is that sophisticated.
I played by myself, had the place to myself once I played through a group on 7, played carrying my own bag, looked at all the features, re-looked and turned down an invitation to join MC and GC yesterday because I felt that I didn't miss much.
Kudos to the effort. There are several fairly conventional holes, several that made me utter stupid aloud to myself and double and triple penalties that are jsut not acceptable to me and my way of thinking. I look at a course to think how players of all abilities would play it and there are not a lot of fun holes there unless you just want to get to the green and putt roller coasters.
I liked 1,2,3,5+/-,16
I abhored 9,11,12 and 18
I generally disliked 10,14 and 17.
Very varied opinions of the same golf course. There is a feeling of a collection of holes and of features.
Sorry that I didn't like it better, I just didn't. I really tried and really, really looked and looked and looked.
I played it a couple of weeks ago and really thought about it. I liked Tobacco Road, which it first reminded me of, a whole lot better as it has a theme, an execution, a mission and a certain level of success as an entity, no matter what criticism you lay at its feet.
BOLD Running Deer is. It needs some work in its present form, though. It strikes me a bit disjointed and full of features for their own sake.
"There are just too many notes, Herr Mozart." -The Emporer in Amadeus
Post by: Matt_Ward on September 16, 2001, 10:02:00 AM
Your assessment of Running Deer is quiye harsh and I dare say a bit unfair.
The 9th clearly has issues in the drive zone but given what Ed Carman did on a number of holes, especially the stretch from #11 thru #13 (holes you didn't find appealing), I think the course is clearly a major effort of accomplishment and would give it a 7 on the Doak scale.
I will be posting more comments to the holes you described later today.
Incidentally, what number on the Doak scale would you give Running Deer?
Don't know if you've played other South Jersey notable courses but would like your Doak number of the following if you've played them:
Twisted Dune
ACCC
Scotland Run
Galloway National
Marriott Seaview / Pines
*and any other South Jersey layout you wish to include.
Post by: Mark_Fine on September 16, 2001, 03:53:00 PM
Mark
Post by: Mike_Cirba on September 16, 2001, 05:33:00 PM
My Doak Scale rating is a 6, but it's tough to rate a course where some holes are an 8 or 9 and others are a 0-2.
I will say this, however...give me a chainsaw and I'll make it a solid 7.
Post by: GeoffreyC on September 16, 2001, 06:20:00 PM
I started out really liking the first three holes at Running Deer very much. While there is some additional very good stuff there (5, 12, 15), there are some really stupid (sorry can't think of a more appropriate word) holes as well. The worst set of par 5's on any course I can remember. Many greens are just wild for the sake of being wild without any connection to the strategy of the holes.
I would give the course a 4 1/2. With a chainsaw it would go up but there are more problems then just trees inside the bunker lines. I'm glad I traveled 2 1/2 hours to see it. It was real fun at times. It had me shaking my head other times. I recommend others go to play there and see for themselves.
Doak scale
4- a modestly interesting course with a couple of distinctive holes among the 18 etc. etc. - RD certainly fits here.
5- Well above average course, but the middle of my scale. A good course to choose if your in the vacinity and looking for a game, but don't spend another day away from home just to see it, unless your in Alaska. RD is NOT above average in my humble opinion.
6- A very good course definately worth a game if your in town, but not necessarily worth a special trip to see it. It shouldn't disappoint you. RD does not fit this category IMHO.
Post by: Mike_Cirba on September 16, 2001, 06:42:00 PM
Glad we were able to get together yesterday to play Running Deer.
We agree so often that it's almost fun to disagree.
But, don't you sort of contradict yourself in first recommending that others get out to see it and then citing the Doak scale definition of a "6"?
You were right on the money with your comment to me that some holes are an 8 and others are a 2. I had to steal it!
It's also difficult to rate a course where there is SOOOOOOOO MUCH going on, and everyone seems to agree that it's very, very bold.
Another comment of yours that I thought was extremely accurate is the course is very "Stranzian". In a world of boring, vanilla courses, is it any wonder that something like Running Deer generates such reaction and debate?
For my taste, it gets a point just for having some balls to create an imaginative course. It gets another for the rough, wild, untamed, "look", and chaotic features that sometimes leave one scratching their head, sometimes looking on in apt admiration, but never leave one bored or apathetic.
Post by: Matt_Ward on September 16, 2001, 07:58:00 PM
I give plenty of credit to Ed Carman in designing a course that as Mike Cirba has described accurately as BOLD!
Are there holes that presently don't work. Yes, there are. I think all of the par-5's are a bit weak and the 9th does need some changes in the driving zone.
But, as a low handicap golfer and someone who hits the ball above average in terms of total length I found Running Deer to be the kind of course that keeps me in check unless I hit the right combination of length and distance. Too many new designs today don't possess that quality.
Keep in mind fellas -- Running Deer is on dead flat land. Very few courses in South Jersey have any real movement with the land (exceptions being PV, Pine Hill, etc) and as a result are a real yawn to play. Running Deer has plenty of movement and for those who complain about the trees I hasten to add gentlemen you are in close proximity to the Jersey Pinelands. Stop the whining -- what do you expect from South Jersey the clear expanse of The Old Course???
When I hear negative comments concerning holes #10 thru #13 I begin to wonder what course people were playing. With the exception of the holes I mentioned I found Running Deer does reward well played shots and does penalize according to the proportion of the miss.
Can people provide a Doak scale number on other South Jersey courses they have played. I don't need numbers on Pine Valley -- that's too easy. Give me a few numbers on recent openings if at all possible. I want to see if people are consistent in their analysis when applied to other courses from the same geographic area.
I see Running Deer as a 7 and I guess my numbers seem high compared to others. I see Running Deer as a different type of course that isn't loaded with all the tried and true formulas that can be some tiring and predictable. Does everything at Running Deer work? No. But, please GeoffreyC give me a break. A 4 rating??? I think too many people may be looking at Running Deer and comparing it to classic designed courses. Gentlemen -- I hope the portofilio of those who rank Running Deer so low isn't solely comprised of rounds played only at Merion, Phillie Cricket and all those Bucks County classics.
Post by: BillV on September 17, 2001, 03:56:00 AM
Deny the existance of the features I listed above and my objections listed, Matt. Sorry I won't get to play with you this week at LCC, but I am going to Indiana if I have to drive as we attack Afghanistan.
This is a course by an amateur architect where one might say "I could do better", but I am not going to do so because I can't design a thing and am not that stupid to fall into that trap.
There are bold intriguing novel features, but it reminds me of the high school senior who goes to buy clothing for an interview and buys a beautiful, boldly striped suit, a boldly checked tattersall shirt of 400 thread per inch fine Italian looming, and a bold Hermes tie, all of which separately are fine, fine pieces of clothing and go together, like, not at all. And he wears old sneakers, or at least the wrong color shoes.
Golf courses are more than collections of features, no matter what else there is in south Jersey. THAT, Matt, is arrelevant to this discussion.
Post by: GeoffreyC on September 17, 2001, 05:14:00 AM
A Doak 6 expects "It shouldn't disappoint you". RD did in too many instances. Even a 5 expects an above average course. There are so many good new courses around that some have to be BELOW average. Too much needs to be corrected at RD. Not to say it can't be done but I'll wait until it is. If the whole course were filled with holes like 1, 2, 3, 15 it would be a solid 7 or more. The Doak scale is not very forgiving as are some of the numbers handed out to magazine audiences where the aim is different.
Matt- Which do you rate higher, Hamilton Farm or Running Deer. I give HF a 6. A very good course worth a visit. Did not disappoint. Ballyowen, a 5 1/2. Very good course with 4 repetitive par 3's. Ocean Forest, a 7. Wonderful golf course. No way RD is on the same log scale as OF. Sorry but we disagree.
Bill gives a perfect analogy of some of the features that don't meld in together just above this post.
Post by: Mark_Fine on September 17, 2001, 05:40:00 AM
But a 4 or 5??? Give me a break guys. What course did you play? I think some of us are forgeting that some of the best courses of all time were done by amateurs or first time architects. I'm afraid this might be an example of where "who designed it" influenced "how good it could possibly be"??
This guy has some vision and you could see it and feel it in many of the holes. Wild for the sake of wild?? Sounds like something people say about Tom Doak's green complexes and it doesn't seem to hurt him??
Let's put it another way, there is as at least as much questionable stuff going on at Inniscrone. Running Deer sits on a far better site.
I just wonder if Gil Hanse did RD would the feelings would be a little different. I can almost guarantee you they would be.
This course is easily a 6-7 in my book.
Mark
Post by: BillV on September 17, 2001, 05:45:00 AM
Go check out Applebrook for Gil on a flat site.
We indeed played the same course. I was perhaps less impressed with my 78? 
Running Deer is solidly between 4 and 5 on Doak's scale in its present state. That doesn't mean it can't get better.
Re-read my clothing analogy, please and thank you.
Post by: GeoffreyC on September 17, 2001, 06:10:00 AM
Inniscrone has in my opinion 3 weak features. The 5th, the back tee on 8 and 10. Perhaps the tee shot on 18 if the wind is blowing in. The rest melds in fantastically well. Its apples and oranges trying to compare the two.
Some specifics. I'd guess at least half of the greens have areas where you need a wedge to get from one spot to another. This should not be a recurrant theme. THe best green on the course I think is 15. THat on is like a stretched out short hole geeen. The horseshoe extends for over half the green with an upper shelf wrapping around the back. Even some of the "normal" greens have funky features. THe 16th has a little collection area back right that runs balls off the green. Normally you might see a chipping area with a drain at the bottom. Here you have a TREE where the drain would be. You could be 18 feet FROM THE HOLE while totally unplayable against the trunk of a tree.
As discussed by Bill as well, the 5's need a lot of work. On 9 both Mike and I manage to hit the "fairway" between the waste area and the right treeline. It was 14 paces wide. We had about 190 into the pin with a forest between us and the hole and an awkward angle to lay up left. SOme reward for going at a narrow area! Similar forest between drive and green on 14 as well.
The area between the bunkers on 18 was 12 paces wide where it turned to the right. I would cut down all the trees right of the bunker and make a split fairway on 18 with some reward for threading a tee shot to the preferred right side. That might make some sense. There are too many places where there is simply no place to drive the ball. It's a good second shot (to 4 pars)course if you could drop the ball down in some landing areas that are awkward to find.
I'll go on if you wish but that's enough for me to mark it down. Running Deer was a thrill seekers delight but not something I want a regular dose of. I'd love to see a skins game there!
Post by: GeoffreyC on September 17, 2001, 06:17:00 AM
On a magazine scale I would give Running Deer a 7 as well. I think everyone should go out and see it. As Mike Cirba stated "In a world of boring, vanilla courses, is it any wonder that something like Running Deer generates such reaction and debate?" Let people see some of the possibilities.
The Doak scale, however, is very specific. I don't have my CG here so perhaps someone could quote what a Doak 7 is and then we can talk about it from there. I gave the 4,5 and 6 definitions above.
Post by: Mark_Fine on September 17, 2001, 07:10:00 AM
No one is every right or wrong (though we all might think otherwise). And unless we played the course again together, we'll probably always have some debate which is fine.
I just didn't view many of the things that you and Bill pointed out the same way. Part of that might be because of our definition of fairness. I'm not hung up on that and golf holes to me don't have to be clear in their strategy and straightford in their design. I've hit what I thought were perfect shots at Pine Valley only to end of 10 feet off the green with an unplayable lie due to tree limbs or bushes in my way. Is that fair, you tell me.
RD demands golf shots of all kinds and at times the margin of error can be very slim. I can't think of too many good courses where that is not the case. There are plenty of tees so if distance is an issue a golfer has lots of choices. Different angles are also offered by different sets of tees. Some of the tees are very demanding but demanding is a "relative" term. It's a fun yet testing course to play and judging from the members I spoke to, everyone was thrilled with the place.
Are there too many trees in certain areas, sure there are. But as one of the guys in the shop said, they come down quickly but it takes a long time to grow them up. Ed is still sorting things out.
Are there some questionable holes out there, yes, but not that many. And the ones that are questionable can easily be modified and most likely will. Think about it, there are no holes out there where you hit a pitch shot, walk down a hill to find your ball and then walk back up the same hill to the next tee?? Those kind can't be fixed very easily.
You're Doak numbers on those other courses are nearly idendical to mine. But this one we are way apart. I think it's the fairness thing.
Mark
Post by: BillV on September 17, 2001, 07:27:00 AM
We should be rating what is there, not what it could be.
Full of interesting things, YES! Very uneven is what it is, too.
I do not discourage anyone from playing it, I will be very interested to play it again if some changes are made. Right now, it is very very uneven.
Post by: GeoffreyC on September 17, 2001, 07:51:00 AM
Do you think Running Deer is currently as good a course as Hamilton Farm? Better than Ballyowen? Better than Royce Brook West? As good as Ocean Forest?
For other modern courses in the NY/NJ area, I certainly prefer RD to Centenial (doak 3) and Mansion Ridge (doak 4) just to name a couple.
Post by: Matt_Ward on September 17, 2001, 08:45:00 PM
As someone who observes the Jersey golf scene as much as anyone in the country let me say that RD is an example of a course that offers an array of interesting holes far beyond the pitter-patter boredom of courses we see today.
You guys amaze me when too often on GCA there are people whining about the lack of imagination and the inability of modern designers to "push the envelope." Wake up gentleman -- RD does push the envelope! Is it perfect? Certainly no.
I think too many people are too wedded to classic designs by the "old time master designers" and as a result grade out harshly new designs. Take a course with the last name of Raynor and Ross and just about all of the GCA contributors will wax on and on that it must be the best thing since slice bread was created.
In the Garden State I view RD as being one of the finest golf courses in South Jersey. Clearly, I would rate the following ahead of it from that area:
Pine Valley
Galloway National
ACCC
Then there are courses where the differences are very tight and would require additional thoughts. They include:
Twisted Dune
Blue Heron Pines / East
Medford Village (the old Sunny Jim's)
Pine Hill
Below RD I would include:
Marriott Seaview / Pines
Sand Barrens (any combination)
Little Mill
Ballamoor
RD is in my mind better than Royce Brook West or East simply because Carman didn't overload the course with a plethora of bunkers as Smyers did. I like a number of holes at Royce Brook but RD has more to offer.
I can't comment about Ocean Forest because I have not played it. One of the few Rees Jones courses I've never played. I agree that Hamilton Farm is a better overall test, but the differences with RD is slight. Hamilton Farm is blessed with a topnotch site and I hope people aren't including a grade because HF has all the amenities and goodies.
As far as Ballyowen is concerned I see RD as being moe strategically demanding and offering a wider range of differences in the holes. Ballyowen needs to return to more of its commitment to links style golf. It's been drifting more to refined country club style. That's why it dropped from our ratings at Jersey Golfer's best public from #1 in 1998 to #3 in 2000.
I urge people to read Ron Whitten's assessment of Ballyowen on his GD Web site.
FYI -- keep in mind Ballyowen is making new changes to the course. There is a new back tee on the already challenging 7th hole. More is in store there.
I agree 7 is a bit high for RD, but anything below 5 is really sticking it to the course. Mark Fine is more closer to what I think is about right -- somewhere between 6.5 and 7.
GeoffreyC thanks for including your grades on other local courses. What about others in South Jersey (don't need #'s for PV)??? Understanding how people grade out other courses gives me critical insight if people are consistent in their numbers.
Thanks ...
mw
P.S. BillV: Look forward to future discussions over a cold beer.
Post by: GeoffreyC on September 17, 2001, 09:09:00 AM
I agree with much of what you say especially about pushing the envelope vs. plain vanella designs. However I ask you honestly here to answer my question about a little less here yielding a better product.
I think that currently there is a huge use of trees as strategic 3-dimentional hazards and that's simply not something I like to see. I didn't like the blind water hazard right over what would appear to be the favored bold line off the tee on 11. The rest of the hole was really fine other than that. I'll just layup short to the outside of the dogleg next time. There seems to me to be too much of that at Running Deer however. What about the tree right at the bottom of the collection area JUST off the green on 16. Instead of generalities about "fairness" or insulting by basically saying we're not objective and we'd like it if it were by Raynor, Ross or Hanse (good company to keep Gil ) please address the specific objections raised by Bill and me!
I made a suggestion for the 18th hole. What do you think about it? Is that tee shot currently reasonable?
As I said, the Doak scale is very specific and I think I am addressing it objectively here without giving brownie points.
Thanks-
Post by: Mark_Fine on September 17, 2001, 09:43:00 AM
I do agree with Matt in that many here often complain about the "same old same old" designs then something comes out that is unique and we nix it.
I honestly believe that "who the architect is" has too much too do with "the credibility" we give a design. If RD was a Rees Jones design vs. a Tom Doak design vs. Ed Carman design the reviews would all be different.
Post by: GeoffreyC on September 17, 2001, 09:52:00 AM
Please, lets not leave it as it stands. No one said they didn't like it or nixed it. I don't like Centenial at all. I don't like Mansion Ridge. Both Bill and I raised a few SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS on individual holes.
Rather than just insulting our objectivity by talking about other architects please answer the SPECIFIC points raised about Running Deer.
Post by: GeoffreyC on September 17, 2001, 10:14:00 AM
You state "Don't get me wrong, it's not perfect (#9 for example needs work) and there might be a few too many bunkers but this is a course with potential."
1- I agree with this statement completely
2- I ask you how many other courses on your vast list get Doak 7's where you also say "this is a course with potential"? Aren't courses where you hand out 7's MORE than just ones with potential?
If you have your Confidential Guide handy please give what Tom says is a 7. I gave out the 4, 5, and 6 definitions above along with my objective reason why I currently think it falls between 4 and 5. Why SPECIFICALLY do you think Running Deer is a Doak 7? I think your giving too many brownie points just for effort and boldness.
Post by: Mark_Fine on September 17, 2001, 10:45:00 AM
I told you, I didn't have the same level of concern as you did on many of the issues you raised. Yes there were trees where I would not have had trees but I didn't downgrade the place as much for that as you seemed to.
I thought the green complexes were excellent and "not wild just to be wild". It was a breath of fresh air compared to many of the new designs being built that I see around the country. You know the saying many of todays architects use, "due to the demand for very fast putting surfaces, we can't use dramatic contours and the greens must be designed flatter". Ed Carman said screw that, we're putting in the contours and keeping the green speeds reasonable. I had great fun playing all different kinds of bump and run shots into them. You had to use your immagination for a change and I don't see that over here that often. Reminded me of shots I have to play in the British Isles.
Were there places on the greens where you were in trouble depending on the pin location, yes there were - too bad for hitting your golf ball in the wrong position. It's like being on the top of the green on #16 at Augusta and the pin in down below. I contend you are "not on the green" you are in a hazard! I had the same problem at Lehigh in our Mem/Mem tourney. I was on the front of the green on #9 and the pin was straight across from me in the back. I was dead and could have stood there all day and not gotten it closer than 15 feet. I actually thought about chipping. Bottomline is that I can't think of one green that I'd consider over the top at RD.
The pond on #11 didn't bother me one bit. It's only blind once and there is plenty of width on the golf course to play on most holes. I never felt claustrophobic.
Yes there were some problem holes as I have said numerous times but only a few. The finishing par five is the one I had the biggest problem with and I've heard rumors that they are already considering changes. Maybe someone closer to the project could chime in on this?
Please don't take any of this personal as it is not meant to be. We just see things differently on this one. It's like the two long par threes at Lehigh - you see them as drop shot 220 yarders and I see them as two completely different holes. #3 is only barely downhill and plays the full yardage (a 5W for me from the tips if I try to carry it on the green). However, you can run the ball on with a long iron or play a wide array of golf shots into that green. Furthermore, the hazard value of the bunkers changes dramatically depending on the pin position (ask Mike Cirba about his bunker shot ). #7 on the other hand has the 80 foot drop and is only a 5I or so and the shot must be carried in the air to the hole. You have to be concerned about the wind coming through the valley.
Again I feel there is a lot of creativity at RD, far more than I see at most new courses. And I disagree that RD is a collection of holes (#3 is the only one so different than the rest). There is a consistent theme running through the entire place.
Mark
Post by: Mark_Fine on September 17, 2001, 10:53:00 AM
Just saw your second post. A 6 - A very good course definitely worth a game if you're in town but not necessarily worth a special trip to see. It shouldn't disappoint you. RD easily meets this criteria and will only disappoint you if you are expecting to see the next challenger to Pine Valley.
A 7 - An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere within 100 miles (I call that 2 hours). You can expect to find soundly designed, interesting holes, good course conditioning, and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.
I think Running Deer clearly falls somewhere in between these two descriptions. As I said, a solid 6-7!
Mark
Post by: Matt_Ward on September 17, 2001, 11:18:00 AM
I'll have a beer with you anytime!!!
My remarks are not meant to be personal and if you thought they are I apoligize.
RD specfics:
Love the tee shot on #18. Is it tight? Yes it is! Does it favor a slight fade to fit it between the bunkers. Yes, it does. What would you expect on a long par-4 finisher.
Check out how fair the 18th at Oakland Hills is? Ditto Oak Hill?
Agree with Mark Fine on the water at #11. You have room to the left -- short hitters should use it or lose the ball. Simple as that. No one says you have to take the more aggressive line of play.
Mark is right about the greens. You don't have the mach 3 speeds you see at other courses. Ed did provide for contours and they are appropriate.
I love the mound that protects the front of the 2nd green! Also, how about the unique shape of the 3rd green.
Geoffrey and BillV, I agree about the par-5's. They're not anything to speak about. I reached all of them in two blows and didn't have much concern for accuracy. The 9th particularly needs plenty of adjustments.
But once again, there is too much focus from those on GCA about "classic designs" and whether "Raynor or Ross, Doak, Hanse, et al" did the following this and that. Guys, just to break some news to you ... there are more people involved with the designing business. Not all good granted, but definitely with different ideas / approaches worth reviewing. I think Ed Carman is one of them. I also believe the club is smart enough to make the necessary adjustments in order to strengthen the good points and improve those areas in need.
What makes RD unique is that it isn't what you've seen before. That in and of itself is worth mentioning.
As far as the tree is concerned with #16 I say make it a point to make note of it and stay away. Does anyone pout about how inane the devil's a-hole is at the 10th at PV? As far as driving area is concerned -- how much room to do you need??? If you want ANGC or Garden City width fairways that's just not the case. I hit the ball a good bit when I connect and I credit Ed Carman with trying to temper the opportunity to literally just "bomb" away from the tee. If anything people should be highlighting RD as an example in dealing with technology and stronger type players.
Just for the record, my opinion of RD is not based on just my game. When I played it 6-8 weeks ago I played with a bus driver friend of mine who is an 18 handicap. He just gushed about the quality of the course and he believed that there are places to land the ball on most holes when a shot is properly struck.
I'm still waiting on "Doak" numbers for the other South Jersey courses I mentioned. I need to know if people are applying the same "criteria" as they deem it to be to a wide range of other courses for consistency. I can't see RD being a "4" unless I can see numbers on other courses in South Jersey where this method of application is also
carried forward. Agree w Mark that RD is a course midway between 6-7.
FYI
GeoffreyC: for what it's worth I agree with you about Mansion Ridge and Centennial. Let's grab that cold brew real soon!
Post by: Slag_Bandoon on September 17, 2001, 12:31:00 PM
Best web site for viewing Running Deer?
Thank you
Post by: GeoffreyC on September 17, 2001, 12:57:00 PM
You make a very good point about reigning in technology. Especially your 43 1/2 inch steel shafted driver
I REALLY liked the first three holes a lot. If the rest of the course was like that I too would give it a 7 OR MORE in a heartbeat.
I'll disagree about the tree just off the 16th green at the bottom of the collection area. Chop it down.
How about the field goal necessary on the right of 10 to get to the green. How about building up the bunker thats right there anyway so the shot is MORE blind and CHOP down the trees. Just a suggestion.
On #11 you are certainly correct about it being blind only once but just by being there it removes a very valid option and it FORCES a layup to the right. No one in their right mind would knowingly force a drive over a bunker guarded behind by water to a VERY NARROW landing area on a diagonal. Just my opinion and I've been wrong before
I'm much more concerned with these (above)and some awkward drives then I am about the greens. I agree about the green speeds and their overall interest but I stand by by comments regarding their connection with the rest of the hole in several cases.
Make some changes like those described and my score would go up to the level of enthusiasm you and Mark show. A Doak 7 calls for "soundly designed holes" and I've given examples where I think they fall short. This can be corrected.
Post by: BillV on September 17, 2001, 01:02:00 PM
A few NJ grades from recent plays. I'm a hard grader. We can't just hand out 7's and 8's left and right.
Hamilton Farm 5-6
Hawk Pointe 5.5
Hollywood 6-7
Jasna Polana 3.5
Metedeconk 6.5 (Very hard to grade as was RD)
Pine Hill 5-5+ (I'll hear squawking on that, too, probably)
Royce Brook East 4-5
Royce Brook West 6 (I don't think there are too many bunkers. There are lots of features on this coourse, too. They harmonize)
Scotland Run 5-
Blue Heron Pines East (Smyers) 5-5+, probably
And Mark
For example, to see some intelligent, appropriate tough green contours, go see Legacy Ridge the next time you're in Denver. It only costs $30. I believe Keith Foster did them for Hills. The best set of modern greens I've seen in a while. Nothing like wild for wildness sake.
Tom Doak: A seven, you have to want to travel 100 miles or more to play or see. I think these ratings are consistent.
Mark Fine really raved about Running Deer. Was I disappointed? Yes. But I also evaluated it on its own merits.
Post by: GeoffreyC on September 17, 2001, 01:06:00 PM
You've been drafted into the National Chainsaw Guard.
General Vostinak I suggest that we give them 72 hours to give us the trees or we go in and take them out.
Post by: Scott_Burroughs on September 17, 2001, 01:10:00 PM
Here's RD's web site: http://www.runningdeergolfclub.com
And here's Applebrook's: http://www.applebrookgolfclub.com/home.htm
My advice for finding web sites: try the obvious first.
Post by: Mark_Fine on September 17, 2001, 02:44:00 PM
You and I are generally in agreement (most of your numbers on the courses you listed are inline with mine). However, to say RD is behind essentially all of these courses you listed (you give it a 4.5) is beyond me. Royce Brook East for example with the same rating????? Not in a million years. Even Steven Smyers would tell you that if he objectively rated both courses. I've played that one a half dozen times (one of my largest customers has a membership there and that is where they take me) and it's in a totally different league.
Mark
Post by: BillV on September 17, 2001, 02:50:00 PM
Stop trying to chastize me for my opinion.
That is my opinion of that course in its current state. If you want to discuss specific design features, fine. But I already gave my opinion on the course as a whole.
Post by: Matt_Ward on September 17, 2001, 03:25:00 PM
I'm grateful I finished school a few years ago because if I had you as a teacher I still might be there. Wow -- you do grade low!
Just for fun -- would you give PV a 10 or do you think it's slightly flawed?? What about Baltusrol? Plainfield? Galloway National? ACCC?
Royce Brook East could never ever be listed in the same manner with RD. Agree w Mark on that 100%.
BillV when you say "we can't hand out 7's and 8's left and right" I wonder who you were referring to?
I've already said that my grade of 7 for RD is high and I believe it would fall to where Mark has already stated. Believe me -- no one is handing out 7 & 8 numbers like candy to kids!
But, in my opinion, grades need to be fair in their application. BillV, I've seen your grades and I appreciate you listing them. I agree with a few of them, but I think Pine Hill is a bit low, ditto Hamilton Farm, ditto Blue Heron Pines / East and I think you could have bumped Hollywood even higher. Doak gave it a 7 years ago before the renovations of Rees Jones. Have you seen Hollywood since then? I think the course is an absolute jewel and worthy of 100 Greatest inclusion by GD.
I commend your marks on Jasna Polana, but see Royce Brook West and Hawk Pointe as too high. Next year The Jersey Golfer will update our rankings for best overall courses in the Garden State and those open to the public. I'll be reaching out to a number of people who have played a wide variety of courses. I'll include you on our survey when it comes out. I'll be prepared to know that like Scrooge you won't be giving Tiny Tim a big turkey! Just joking!
FYI ... just for the record
My grades for Jersey's top ten courses listed in order from last year's article ...
PV - 10
Plainfield - 9 (could be higher / lower pending completion of Gil Hanse renovation)
Metedeconk (First / Third Nines) - 8
Baltusrol (Lower) - 8
Hollywood - 8
Ridgewood (East / West) - 7.5
Galloway National - 7
Baltusrol (Upper) - 7
Forsgate (Banks Course) - 7
ACCC - borderline 7 but not quite
GeoffreyC: Thanks for your comments. I'm ready to bend an elbow together over a brew. Appreciate your comments about possible revision on RD in the future and you're right about a number of points. But, please #11 requires nothing more than a 200-yard shot off the tee down the middle and you'll have no more than a mid-iron at BEST. #12 also provides plenty of room and options if you play it smart.
I agree w Mark that RD has already provided plenty of discussion and I'm sure more will come as the club decides future revisions.
I agree w you that we rate courses as THEY ARE not about potential.
GeoffreyC -- can you provide your numbers on some of Jersey's top courses. The info gives me real insight about how others see them.
Thanks!
Post by: GeoffreyC on September 17, 2001, 04:25:00 PM
As to the 11th, I agree with you but to take away an option in my opinion is a negative. It removes a potential extra dimention to the hole. Especially for match play where you might be 2 or 3 down coming to the 11th.
I have not played all of the courses mention in New Jersey. It was a 145 mile drive each way to get down to the Atlantic City area.
My scores from some of them
Metedeconk - 7 to 7.5 (I wish it were on GW best modern list)
Royce Brook west - 6
Royce Brook east - 4.5 - 5
Jasna Polana - 3
The Knoll- 6 (should be higher)
Pine Valley - 10
Baltusrol Lower - 7.5
Plainfield- 8.5
Hamilton Farm- 6
Hope this helps.
I'd like to get to the Atlantic City area more often and I had a trip(s) for Galloway, Blue Heron Pines and Scotland Run planned but it just fell through. I will see all of them if not this season then certainly next. It's a rich area for GOOD modern courses. Twisted Dunes is on the short list as well. Hollywood is more likely within the next few weeks (closer to home).
Post by: Mike_Cirba on September 17, 2001, 07:01:00 PM
That being said, I'll don the battle armor and jump into the fray.
Running Deer is a throwback; a raw, creative, imaginatively bold effort literally molded out of the flat Jersey pinelands.
At it's best, it reminds one of what golf was possibly like in the 20s before modern notions of fairness and playability took over, mixed with the modern, sculpted, artistic look and daring of a Michael Strantz.
At it's worst, one scratches their head as BillV mentions and mutters, "what the @*($?"
Let's start with the good. First of all, the look is startling and clearly meant to both inspire and intimidate. Fairways generally have a good deal of movement and sometimes, purposeful obfuscation from the tee. The bunkering is raw, wild, untamed, and close to great...no...it is excellent, especially in comparison to so many bland modern bunkering styles. The positioning of the bunkers is close to random in stretches, which I appreciated for its unpredictability. The greens, very, very challenging and running perhaps only 8 on the stimpmeter, are a roller-coaster ride of various imaginative design, though not completely tied into their surrounds, nor consistent with the overall theme. For instance, it's somewhat overkill for a 480 yard par four to play to a green looking like volkswagons are buried underneath!
If it's the mark of a great course to have strong individual holes, RD has quite a number of them. The first three are all imaginative and spine-tingling, the 5th is a great short pitch par three, 7 is an intimidating but still playable mid-length par three, and 8 has a wonderful green complex that offers all kinds of pin-placement options. Heading out the back side, 10 is visually stunning.
Then we get to the most discussed holes here and I'll weigh in my opinion. 11 does have the blind water hazard the Geoffrey and Bill mentioned, and it does make it foolish to attempt to carry the bunker. However, the way the green runs off to almost a peninsula shelf in the back left makes one want to get as close to the green as possible. This is not a hole where you want to have a mid-iron approach. Instead, I believe the play is to challenge the bunker/water complex as close as possible to leave a short iron to another complex green.
12 I believe was outstanding. BillV and I talked about this today, and I understand he played what are known as the "Long Wet" tees on that hole. Simply put, that tee area doesn't work as the angle is totally incorrect. The rest of the tees are further to the left of this left to right dogleg, and effectively creates a cape carry off the tee. If you make the daring carry and keep the ball on the right side of the fairway, you have a preferred angle to the left to right canted green that sits beautifully and intimidatingly above the fairway. At 479 from the tips, it's a potential killer, but also beautiful and thoughtful.
13 is a par three that plays to 246 yards, but to a green nestled behind a minefield of bunkering and mounds to a green that is BRUTAL. Thankfully, we played at 206 yards, and it's intimidating but reasonable from that distance. It's the shortest 246 yard par FOUR I know!
15 is one of the best holes on the course, and a great one to a green with a horseshoe feature that is brilliant. Possibly the best hole on the course, playing the second over a sandy, bunkered pit that is visually awesome and scary.
The majority of the holes are Fun, Inspired, Thoughtful, and Surprising in their imaginative and almost anachronistic shot values.
However...then there are holes like 9, 14, and 18 that are among the worst holes I've ever seen. As Geoffrey mentioned, the landing area between bunkers on 18 is 12 paces wide!! This, on a 477 yard uphill par four!!
You need to fade it slightly, there Matt?? I couldn't hit that area with a wedge?
Seriously, I hit one of my best drives of the day that had a slight draw (I'm lefty), and it two hopped into the left side bunker. From there, I faced an uphill, 200 yard, blind shot with a 60 foot tall tree in the way! AAAARRRRGGGHHHH!
Nine....This is a hole that I took 2-iron from the tee and ended up in perfect position. My options were to hit a 5 iron away from the green to the left, or attempt the 5 iron over a forest as I lay only 190 from the hole. I took the forest route and almost made it, my ball ending just short of the green. I can't describe how bad this hole is in it's present form.
14 is nearly as bad, relying once again on two stands of trees to remove options and dictate play.
The green complexes, while wonderful if looked at as stand alone entities, are not nearly as tied-in to their surrounds as they could be. All sorts of nooks and crannies and fall offs and rises really need to better integrated into the approach areas as well. Bill's comparison to the kid who dresses in a menagarie of styles is somewhat apt here.
The biggest problem at RD, however, is the fact that single trees have been left inside the fairly wide clearings in all sort of odd places. In some ways, they add a sort of Augusta-like beauty, but they are pervasive and ultimately detracting and almost silly. Potentially VERY good holes like the 10th are almost ruined by their existence within the playing areas. They become double, even triple penalties in some instances like the one I mentioned on 18.
The features on the course make RD more than interesting enough. I can't tell you how much the existence of these trees negatively impacted both the vistas as well as the reasonable options that should exist on many holes.
Nevertheless, I believe the good here is SO good that it clearly outweighs the negative by a good margin. Hopefully, the course will continue to evolve, and I will gladly join the all-volunteer chainsaw army to help make this course all that it can be.
I stand by my assessment that it's a 6. It could be a seven with a good deal of thoughtful work.
Incidentally, our other playing partner (also a Golfweek panelist who isn't particularly sophisticated with a computer) emailed me today with his rating. He has played a great number of courses, including every course in NJ. He told me he rates it between 5.5 and 6.5, so I feel that I'm in the right ballpark.
Bottom line...I definitely understand Bill and Geoff's thoughtful critical assessments and negative criticisms, and don't quite feel as glowing as Mark and Matt in the course's present form. Call me a moderate, but I'd recommend anyone travel a distance to play RD and although some holes and features WILL definitely disappoint, there are more than enough good things there to make me confident in stating that the course overall will not.
Post by: Mike_Cirba on September 17, 2001, 07:13:00 PM
I would say that in comparing notes with all who have weighed in here on other courses, we seem to agree much more than we disagree. As noted, some are possibly "tougher" graders than others, and I think generally that one should approach course rating from a skeptical "show me" attitude.
Still, I don't think I heard a comment from anyone who has weighed in that I don't agree with to some extent. I really think that Running Deer is similar to Tobacco Road in the sense that it is so different that it polarizes discussion to some extent, which is probably a good an challenging thing...both to golf and to the rating systems in general.
Great discussion, fellas!
Post by: Matt_Ward on September 17, 2001, 07:34:00 PM
Thanks for your numbers on other courses. I generally agree across the board except as much as I like The Knoll I think your grade of 6 is more about what the Knoll should be rather than what the Knoll is. Just a comment -- but I could be wrong.
What is it with everyone thinking Royce Brook West is so good? I'd like anyone to tell me what course they prefer -- Smyers efforts at RBW or his effort at Blue Heron Pines / East. We at Jersey Golfer had BHP / East as the 2nd best public course in the Garden State just behind Pine Hill.
I know Mike Cirba feels the order should be reversed.
Overall, Geoffrey we've got more in common than I thought. Sure makes those beers taste real good. Let me know when you and Mike might be available to tackle another Charles Banks Course -- Forsgate in Jamesburg!
Mike Cirba:
I'll pull back a bit with my comment on the 18th. I agree Mike it does get a bit narrow (really NARROW) in the drive zone. I crushed a tee shot from the tips and had no more than 175 yards in.
Eliminating some of the trees on the right would help. I think BillV's idea for a split fairway (I think he mentioned this???) would be ideal.
You can pull down a few trees in other places. The big weakness? The par-5's -- they are really "lite" holes in comparison to the others. I really enjoyed the killer stretch of #11 thru #13. You had better bring your "A" game for each of them. I know plenty of people don't share my enthusiasm.
Your absolutely right Mike -- RD has created the kind of discussion that GCA should be about. Mike can you detail your numbers for other Jersey courses -- I'd like to understand how you see the lay of the land in Jersey. Let me know if your up for Forsgate as well.
I appreciate your balance in your review of RD. I thought I was a tough grader but I'm a softy when compared to others. When we mesh it together the consensus seems to be somewhere in between a 6-7 ... probably leaning more towards 6 than 7. RD certainly stirs the blood and it's good for everyone to weigh in with their comments.
More of this kind of dicsussion is needed with other topics.
Post by: Mike_Cirba on September 17, 2001, 07:58:00 PM
I'd love to get together at Forsgate.
As far as my general NJ rankings, I'd be happy to share them privately.
I can tell you that Pine Valley is the best (real shocker, I know!), but you might be surprised by some of my ratings. I'd just prefer not to offend anyone. You know what a wallflower I've been here on controversial issues.
Post by: GeoffreyC on September 18, 2001, 01:36:00 AM
Forsgate sounds great. I'd love to have a game with you and Mike there some time soon.
I knew that the Knoll would get a response. I agree with you too. It just cries out for a restoration. In reality more of a 5 at current state.
It was me who suggested the split fairway on 18. If there were some risky option to go to the right I think it could improve an awkward tee shot. Also, a split fairway is about the only feature not yet used at RD
Post by: BillV on September 18, 2001, 02:58:00 AM
I do give Pine Valley (In my top 5, and that's as much as I'll say! )a good number and Plainfield (IS my number too high?) as well. I actually do give a few 10's! Well-deserved 10's. Courses are logarithmically rated, there are a lot of courses out there.
Mike Cirba
As for #12 at Running Deer, even walking all around the fairway and left rough on that hole I failed to see the drama. When they make other improvemnets, I'll stay away from the LONG WET tees, which if they are so bad, one has to wonder the mind with the logic in ever conceiving them. (Doak's 2 comes to mind, something about drinking a lot of beer in a scramble?
In short, they have work to do at Running Deer. With the double and triple hazards, how is one to play in 3 1/2 hours? The group I played through was driving their carts all over hell and creation looking for a ball, arguing in the middle of the fairway whose ball was who who's and oblivious to all nearby. My play time was near the suggested time and no one was even close to catching me, so fast play isn't occurring. (But that's irrelevant)
As for Smyer's work in the Garden State, I played West all to myself and BHP East nearly to my self (Certainly to my threesome's self) and each again at least once. The green complexes at RB are really good. Take #2, 3, 12, 14 15 just as examples. It suffers a routing glitch at 13-15, but it is minor and the course is very walkable. I didn't find any weak holes. BHP suffers from 18 being a let's get this course back to the clubhouse, but is solid in virtually all 18. I personally give a nod to RB west.
A golf course can't have all banal, weak or disjointed par 5's and rate a 7 or even 6 in my book, just for starters. Who here has sais anything good about the 5's at Running Deer.
Also Matt,
Hollywood and Metedeconk I did give 7's. I had to check. I think Metedeconk is not as well recognized as does Geoffrey.
Post by: Matt_Ward on September 18, 2001, 06:25:00 AM
Saw your comments -- keep in mind that some courses still do well even when par-5's are a bit weak (i.e. Winged Foot West & East, Baltusrol Upper, etc.). How banal / weak are they?
RD needs to clear some trees and possibly add one or two strategic bunkers on some of these holes and I think that would straighten out people like me who will take great liberties unless there is some sort of penalty. Clearing trees is also something for them to do.
I'll chalk up our differences between BHP / East and RB / West as a matter of disagreement. I see BHP / East as a much stronger and strategic course. I do agree with your comment on #18 at BHP / East. It;s just long and an attempt to get you back to the clubhouse.
I also salute your comments on Metedeconk. Too many people have not played the third nine at the course. I think this combo with the first nine is really the best 18 there.
I thank each of you in sharing some numbers (Mike I still want to see yours privately if that's the case!) because it helps me in seeing how consistent (?) each of you are in your grading.
I'm planning on doing a get together at Forsgate the first weekend of October. Probably the 6th for the afternoon. If interested please advise.
mw
Post by: Mike_Cirba on September 18, 2001, 06:38:00 AM
I'm most definitely in for Forsgate. Sounds great!
I'll work up a list of Jersey course ratings to share, as well.
Post by: BV on September 18, 2001, 06:53:00 AM
Post by: GeoffreyC on September 18, 2001, 07:16:00 AM
I thought the 12th at RD was a fine par 4, one of the best on the course after 15. From the left tees it seemed to work very well. The approach shot sets up very nicely and the green was severe but one that tied in to the surrounds.
Post by: Matt_Ward on September 18, 2001, 04:29:00 PM
As soon as I have more info (costs, specific tee times) I'll post a thread specifically to see what interest there is.
Since you guys applied first consider yourselves in.
More to follow ...
*FYI -- Forsgate is located just off NJ Tpke at Exit 8A. About halfway between Phillie and NYC.
Post by: Willie_Dow on September 19, 2001, 05:33:00 PM
I remember Ed Carmen being involved at Buena Vista in So Jersey, somewhere in the late '50's.
A pretty good course which reminded me of Sea View's woods course, before revisions.
Post by: Mike_Cirba on September 19, 2001, 07:09:00 PM
I wasn't aware the Ed Carman was involved at Buena Vista, which was designed in the 50s by William and David Gordon. In my view, it's clearly one of their best courses.
I should have mentioned it during the "Hidden Gems" thread. You're right...it's almost like something one might find in the North Carolina sandhills, with some pretty dramatic fairway bunkering; probably as close to Medford Village (another Hidden Gem) as any course they designed.
I think you'd enjoy a lot of things at Running Deer, Willie. You should make it a point to head on down and I'd love to hear you come in here and share your viewpoints....perhaps as a tie-breaker!
Post by: Mike_Cirba on September 19, 2001, 07:10:00 PM
I already KNOW you'd love the rugged bunkering at Running Deer. It's a great, natural look one sadly sees much too infrequently anymore.
Post by: Joe Bausch on December 23, 2014, 04:47:45 PM
And I thought what the thread lacks is photos of the course. I played there last summer and here is the album I put together:
http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/albums/RunningDeer/
Post by: Joe Bausch on December 24, 2014, 03:39:29 PM
I'm thinking maybe a winter GCA gathering at Running Deer might be in order this season.
All you pea-shooters, get ready to be humbled by the 'antlers'! Did you hear me Timmy and Kris?! ;)