Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Tommy_Naccarato on March 07, 2004, 11:04:20 AM
-
After Pete L. displayed some pictures of this course the other day, I felt it was time I finally got off my duff and posted some, including a color aerial I got from Mapquest before they shut down their access to the Global Explorer.
Here is a golf course that I feel gets little if any talk or deserving praise, and while its obvious with some of the more affluent nearby private clubs, I can't help to think that if I lived on Long Island, I would probably be frequenting Tallgrass alot.
This is a once flat turf farm, which Gil Hanse dug out a depression and created a feature that is reminiscent of a quarry wall that runs a great length throughout the property. This gave him the fill to create greensites and other movements, as well as other surrounding areas where he created some beautiful bunker work that is reminescent of a Heath or Moorland course in England.
The greens are of great interest, and when there last June, after being literally drenched for months with snow and rain, the course was in phenominal shape. It was raining even while I was there, but it didn't stop the people from playing on a Wednesday morning, as the course was packed with people. Some fo them I talked to play there as much as three or four times a week, they love it that much.
Sometimes here on GCA we talk of architects who were given flat sites and created something out of nothing. What Gil and Co. did here is nothing short of a miracle, when one sees the amount of movement in comparing it to the property that surrounds the entire area that was just like it before it was a golf course.
I know of a few GCAers who have visited here, but little is said of just how good the course really is.
for me, it brings back memories of a Moorland or Heath course like Sandy Lodge, and the holes are totally fun and strategic
(http://home.earthlink.net/~sandybarrensjr/Tallgrass%20Before.jpg)
Tallgrass in the grass.
(http://home.earthlink.net/~sandybarrensjr/tallgrass.jpg)
#1 Green
(http://home.earthlink.net/~sandybarrensjr/MVC-003F.JPG)
#2 Approach
(http://home.earthlink.net/~sandybarrensjr/MVC-004F.JPG)
#3 Approach
(http://home.earthlink.net/~sandybarrensjr/MVC-005F.JPG)
#4 Redan
(http://home.earthlink.net/~sandybarrensjr/tallgrass%20%234.jpg)
#6
(http://home.earthlink.net/~sandybarrensjr/tallgrass%20%236.jpg)
#10
(http://home.earthlink.net/~sandybarrensjr/tallgrass%20%2310.jpg)
#11
(http://home.earthlink.net/~sandybarrensjr/tallgrass%20%2311.jpg)
#12
(http://home.earthlink.net/~sandybarrensjr/tallgrass%20%2312.jpg)
-
Tommy Naccarato,
It's a good question.
Pete L informs me that the golf course is a public facility in Shoreham, New York, and that it's quite a good golf course.
I intend to visit it this spring or summer.
I also don't understand why Applebrook doesn't get more recognition as well.
Perhaps some who have played the golf course can give us their assessment. Do you know what the total acreage is ?
-
Pat,
I found myself when looking at this aerial, asking the same question because its not on a lot of acreage, yet, it seems as if there is ample space between most of the holes as well as there if any of them are close, one is elevated over the other.
It reminded me of looking at the use of land MacKenzie had when looking at the photos of the N.L.E. Bayside in New York.
I will find out exactly how many acres though. Does anyone want to take a guess?
-
Tommy-I will give you the guess 95 acres. For a really wonderful job that Gil did on very very limited acreage, look at the new nine at South Fork GC in your new summer home of Amagansett. ;D
-
Tommy, this really does look like a fun course. I'm curious about the drainage. Where does the water go from that major depression which you can best see in the hole #11 photo? The only Gil Hanse course I've played to date is Rustic Canyon so I'm favorably disposed to his design style. I'm playing his Craighead course at Crail in May and look forward to a look at that. How accessible is Tallgrass to out of town visitors, i.e. sleeping in the parking lot?
-
Corey,
If you need to get ahold of me, I'll be staying with the Speilberg's! 8)
Panhandle Bill,
I'm sure if you call the club and tell them your coming from out of town, special accomadations could be made. It doesn't seem like the same type of Rustic "I can't get through to them" crowd, but I can see why so many would want to play here all of the time. I mentioned to the head pro that we should in the future have a Rustic vs. Tallgrass Ryder Cup and his eyes lit up!
So are you going to take a guess on the acreage?
Meanwhile I'll find it out right now.
-
Not surprising, but very impressive photos. I regret I didn't have time to visit Tallgrass when I was on Long Island last fall. I look forward to my next opportunity.
I'd like know what the budget for Tallgrass was? If that was a dead flat turf farm, it appears there was quite a bit of dirt moved around and played with. Any idea Tommy?
-
Just got off the phone with Jim Wagner, and he's going to find out all of the details.
-
Tommy,
The Spielbergs live in Easthampton, about $ 10,000,000+
from the Atlantic Ocean. ;D
-
Tommy, if you could post a scorecard, it would be easy to scale off a hole on the aerial and calculate the dimensions in square feet / 43650 = acres. Without that assist, I'll guess it's 700 yds x 1000 yds = 144 acres.
-
Pat, Whats a few Mil here or there amongst friends? :o
Bill, I would suspect that to be pretty close. I lost the scorecard I had from there, unless there is one on Long Island Golf.
Also, Tallgrass features one of the most innovative cart paths I have ever seen--its in the bunker! The huge one that flows along the 11th hole.
Also notice the old road that is on the South end of the Before aerial, was utilized as a bunker/waste area for the 5th.
-
Tommy,
205 acs.
$55 before 2 o'clock, $48 after 2 , $35 after 4.
-
Redanman,
Actually, it's on Apaquoge (sp?) Way, which is $ 10,000,000+ from the ocean front properties.
-
WOW!
-
Thanks for the info Jim.
Its funny, when your out there, it doesn't look anything close to that many acres at all. Have you played it?
Les, is that WOW about the golf course or the price of East Hapton real estate? :o
-
Tommy,
Can you compare and contrast Tallgrass with Rustic Canyon? Some of Tallgrass's green surrounds look similar to Rustic.
-
tallgrass is on my list (and has been) of places to play.
hanse did do a very nice job at south fork cc fitting 9 new holes into a small space.
-
David,
The contrasts are similar in the ideals of play: wide fairways offering all sorts of options and a wide use of natural contour and man-made contours that look totalaly natural. The greens are really good, but I would give the edge to RC there everytime.
Just to let you know, I can usually spot earthmovent with little or no problem. It wasn't until I captured the image yesterday off of Terraserver that I found out that the quarry-like walls were in fact man-made by Gil & Co. This is one of the great qualities you can see in great natural architecture--where you can't notice what is and isn't man-made.
The main difference between the two in their dress is that Tallgrass has many areas of tallgrass abounding the place not unlike Rustic has/had beore the fire with it vast native fauna. I also think you could play this course everyday and not get tired, but I also say that about Friars Head, and if given the choice, you can find me down straight down the road over there! :) (But I think you knew that already!)
-
Tommy, are #6 and #12 both short 4's? They look REALLY short if so, and very inviting with trouble around the greens.
-
I've played Tallgrass 6 times, 3 times in competition. It is a fantastic course and one of the reasons I can't wait for KPIII so I can play Rustic.
#6, #10, #12 are all short par 4's and theoretically reachable. #6 is the most reachable.
If you haven't played here and you have the opportunity you MUST play it. It gets little press or accolades and I think it deserves much more praise.
#4 is Redan-like but not quite as angled or severe as most.
#17 is a semi-blind 200+ yard par 3 with a fantastic green.
#16 is a great dogleg right par 4 with a great green complex.
THe only eyesore and out of place thing on the course is the drainage lake on #15 the par-5.
Play this course.
Jeff F.
-
Da Tomasso -
Haven't played there yet, but I have tried to (unfortunately, it keeps some pretty distracting company out there).
Is there a tee for #11 close 10 green? Looking at it from the air, it would seem a perfect spot for one as it would set up all sorts of interesting strategy. It would seem that it would force the really aggressive player to carry the huge hazard on the left for as long as he can muster in order to get a view of the green (and not have to carry either bunker or faux quarry wall). You see what I'm talkin' bout?
-
Also Pat & Redanman -
Technically Georgica Pond is in Wainscott, and I'm not certain if Pat thinks Georgica fronting property is more or less than oceanfront prop. if he thinks less, he's more crazy than I thought.
$35 mil. will get you a nice spread on Georgica, and the kind of speedy drainage that haunts a golf course superintendent's dreams. ;D
-
Sean,
The 11th tee is about 30 to 40 yards away from the 10th green due south.
#10 green is fantastic and has probably the smallest bunker I have seen in New York defending the front left corner. 10th green is thin and long with steep drop offs on each side. It's a really neat grren.
Jeff F.
-
Tommy,
When I first played Tall Grass, I had never heard of Gil Hanse, yet the greens and bunkering gave this feeling of being at Merion. I started to do some research and saw that Bill Kittleman was a consultant to his company, and the pieces started to fit. I would rank it Top 5 of public LI behind Bethpage Black and Red, Montauk and competing with LI National. Mr Ward tells me I need to see Spring Lake however.
My guess is 130 acres, similar to Merion, but it never feels cramped out there.
Basically Gil Hanse and I believe Rodney was on on-site person, took a sod farm and dug out a big V type of wedge or boomerang along 2,3 and over to 11 (see long skinny bunkers)to create some elevation. It is a pretty interesting concept, and probably alot cheaper than moving the dirt on a hole by hole basis.
A couple of issues:
At 6500 yards, it is shortish and must be played from the back tees, but a couple of the distances get ackward especially 17 a Par 3. Maybe a 1 or 2 too many short 4's.
1 is a little too easy par 5.
6 a short reachable Par 4, not sure if the green is big enough to really go for it.
10 again the green is too skinny to hold a driver, but the layup off the tee is typically a 6 iron short and right of the fairway bunker for the best angle in. 12 however is a great short 4 to go for the green.
16 lines up ackwardly off the tee, and they had to put in a white OB stake in the rough right as too many players were going down 17 to cut off the angle.
If you go in the Tall Grass which has been cut way back, it typically swallows them up, which can be slow on a public course.
My business partner's office is nearby, so that is a frequent choice when we have a "board meeting".
-
Sean,
I thought for sure you would have played this one. As a public daily fee, I cna't think of much better out there, but like you said--the other stuff out there tends to make one put the blinders on when traveling the expressway.
Mike,
What was it Captain Thomas said about a soft opener? But yes, I'm sure there are a lot of people putting or eagle on that green. I wonder how many of them end up with par? ;D
You are correct, after talking to Jim Wagner earlier today he informed me that Rodney was the guy on this one. Hopefully if Rodney is by a computer tomorrow he'll chime in.
Looking at all of these pictures makes me want to them to get started on their Sandhills project ASAP! AS I said before, I think from a standpoint of a really cool looking and fun golf course Tallgrass fits the bill.
-
SPDB,
The cost of property on Apoquoge Way is less expensive then oceanfront property, but I'm only speaking from personal involvement, what's your source ?
Mike Sweeney,
Let's meet and play there one day in late April or May.
-
SPDB,
The cost of property on Apoquoge Way is less expensive then oceanfront property, but I'm only speaking from personal involvement, what's your source ?
Mike Sweeney,
Let's meet and play there one day in late April or May.
Patrick,
If we get SPDB to play with us, will we make it past the 2nd tee? ;)
-
Mike Sweeney,
It depends on how late he is due to his appointment with an Easthampton Real Estate Broker.
I intend to get in at least 18 holes, maybe 36.
Based on your having played the golf course numerous times, why do you think this course hasn't gotten more recognition ?
-
Pat,
1. It is just that much farther from The Hamptons (than LI National) that it gets more traffic on the way out and back on Friday's and Sunday's. It is tough because so much of their traffic comes on 10-12 weekends during the summer, that they struggle out there during the week to keep the course filled.
2. Most of my old buddies that I played with @ LI National still preferred LI National mainly due to the shortness of Tall Grass.
3. The management team was originally a company from Texas, now I believe it is run by the sod family who are not golfers.
4. I think that 90+% of the golfers don't care about what we care about. My guess is that many Long Island golfers will now want to play Friar's Head due to GW !!
-
Mike Sweeney,
But, Friar's Head is private, Tall Grass is public.
So why is it the Rodney Dangerfield of Eastern LI Golf ?
-
Tommy,
I played this course with Michael Sweeney and because of his recommendation. I loved it. In fact, I was so surprised by the creative holes on a super average piece of property that I called a fellow GCAer from the course to tell him to change his plans for the next day and to get himself to this gem. I am convinced that it is only a mater of time until enough people play this course and we see it's profile rise. I think Tall Grass may get a little lost in the weeds due to the fact that is surrounded by courses with worldclass reputations.
The course is a little shorter than most new course, however, the land limitation probably served to better the course as Gil had to overcome this limitation - perhaps as Ross did at Wannamoisett. Regardless, the end result is a very walkable 18 holes that never feel repetitive or tired. There is strategy, great bunkering and wind.....not a bad combination.
The 1st hole is an easy par five, but it feels like an old fashioned warm-up hole with a green complex that consistently steals par from many players...ala NGLA.
I also loved the gamble you face on the 4th tee. Whether or not to go for this uphill par 4 with one swing and risk the severe bunkers....I loved the hole, it certainly gets the blood pumping.
Anyone GCAer who makes it a point to play on LI each year should make the effort to see Tall Grass. I for one can't wait to make plans to see more of Gil's work.
-
Sometimes here on GCA we talk of architects who were given flat sites and created something out of nothing. What Gil and Co. did here is nothing short of a miracle, when one sees the amount of movement in comparing it to the property that surrounds the entire area that was just like it before it was a golf course.
Nothing short of a miracle...The propaganda machine and GCA rater network is at it again. If they got Kingsley to 22..how far can this course be behind. They just need to dilute the votes of the locals...who are obviously blinded by the more expensive and private venues. I think Tommy took a course in the Fazio 200 top 20 courses theory of recognition..or respect so to say.
-
As I recall Tallgrass and LI National were underway roughly the same time. Both owners, particularly LI National excavated large quantities of sand, and exported it off property to sell. Subsequently, local towns put restrictions on how much if any material could be exported off the property. At the time sand may have been a hot commodity for construction. I think LI National was something in the magnitude of 500,000 cy that was shipped off site but I could very well be wrong. It really complicated the approval process for other projects because the exportation really pissed off some locals. But, the owners mde money on selling the material which probably paid for the courses.
-
JakaB,
I would agree that evaluation of a golf course should only be made after playing it, and not based on viewing aerials or ground level photos.
But, it does seem that very little is heard about this golf course. I found this same strange silence with respect to Applebrook, hence my curiosity was peaked.
Kelly Blake Moran,
I don't understand the locals position with respect to the exportation of soil.
If a house is built, and a foundation dug out for the basement and/or lower flaors, towns, for centuries have been permiting the exportation of that soil.
Why the sudden change of heart ? What harm is done ??
-
Patrick,
Kelly's observations were also in the Town of Riverhead for LI National and I forget the Town that Tall Grass is in. Think what is coming in the Town of Southampton
A local SH friend recently told me about the recent approvals for Bayberry, Tom Doak has mentioned something about a couple of weeks a Board meeting is coming. I think they are in fantasy land in terms of what has yet to pop out at Bayberry. I certainly could be wrong, but history (Easthampton, The Bridge) suggest otherwise. ???
Gotta run.
-
Pat,
When you are exporting a large quantity of material off site that means several trips back and forth by large dump trucks. So their objections would be based upon traffic. Removing several hundred thousand CY from a site is far more than a few basements
Also, regarding some opposition I can only explain by saying that some locals just don't appreciate someone coming in and making money next door to them. I think they resent what they preceive to be wealthy developers getting wealthier. When you really look at the large number of people employed on a project, and the jobs created after the project is done it amazes me that people think the only person that benefits from a large scale projects are the "evil developer." Stop there for a second, and I think it is valid to point out that there is nothing wrong with a wealthy person getting wealthier.
In some instances you have blue collar people excercising their "Michael Moore" tendencies to distrust the big money developer and try to shut down the project that if approved will employ and enrich blue collar people. I do not think some people think it through. Now they may oppose based on other grounds, fine, but I have heard it many times, "why the hell should we let these guys come into our community, develop our farm land, make a ton of money and split." Well, you go talk to the equipment operators that work for the excavation company in your community and tell them you oppose them making money, because that is what you are saying. And you can multiply the blue collar workers that will be on that project well beyond equipment operators.
-
Mike, They don't think its long enough? Do you think this attitude is because of the popularity of Bethpage Black and its bruttish-tough moxy that may be dictating this need for length?
I do know this for sure, if Tallgrass is anywhere here in SoCal, its going to be packed because its:
-Unique design
-Somewhat affordable cost to play
-Isn't on the side of a hill
-It looks to be pretty challenging
Look at it this way also.
If you were on the Monterey Penninsula playing all of those great courses, and someone told you, "Hey! Have you ever checked out Pacific Grove?" You would probably think they were a loon until you got out there and saw some pretty fun, unique and natural feeling golf--given its on a realy cool point with the wind and ocean smell dictating the moment. But what would the avg. NY golfer think of it in regards to length?
While Tallgrass doesn't have an oceanfront property working for it in overdrive, I do think the golf is just as fun, and to me, 6500+ yards at par 71 is still a nice length for a public facility. In fact, I would rather be playing a full 18 holes at Pacific Grove or Tallgrass anyday in comparison to say Pelican Hill, which has the length; the big classy clubhouse and all of the immenities that most O.C. Golfers that can afford to play it, need.
Jonathan, I shared your same attitude when there last June. I was really surprized just how cool this place really was and in consideration to the courses I had played that week, especially the course I was playing later that day, I think that was a pretty good thing!
JakassaB,
Better take another Zoloft this morning. Please do know we all love you, but hate you for not seeing or realizing it.
-
Just my 2 cents, but having played both Appplebrook and Tallgrass, I'd say this:
Tallgrass isn't overly long, and there are some nice features out there, some nice variety and a chance to hit alot of different shots. Tallgrass doesn't really beat you up at all, it's a course to go have fun for a day in a place (Long Island) where there is not much public golf. Top 100 course, I don't think so, but I don't think that was the objective of the developer.
I don't know why Applebrook doesn't receive more consideration for top 100 by any of the Golf Magazines. It's a fun, sporty course with alot of challenging holes. If I had to offer a criticism (on a scale of 1-10, this would be a 2), I'd say that #1 and # 10 could be longer, and I've always thought 2 of the par 3s (#5 and #17) seemed a bit too similar. #7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18 are great holes that really challenge you. Some pretty good short par 4s in #2, #3 and #12 too.
-
Mike, They don't think its long enough? Do you think this attitude is because of the popularity of Bethpage Black and its bruttish-tough moxy that may be dictating this need for length?
Tommy,
I don't think it is length of course as much as too many short fours, again in their opinion. In a 10 dates at Tall Grass vs LI National (the public's National vs Shinnecock) I would take 6 at TG and 4 at LIN. My friends would probably be 7 and 3 the other way.
By the way under the radar is okay for me as I really do not want to sleep in my car to play Tall Grass ;) It was great when BB was sort of a sleeper.
-
David Kelly:
The difference between Rustic Canyon and Tallgrass is quite wide. Those who are big fans of the Moorpark layout will not see the level of overall sophistication and detail that you see there. RC has the better overall routing and the greater array of holes. There are a few greens of serious caliber at Tallgrass -- I really like the hump just in front of the par-3 17th, but people need to also highlight a number of limitations as well.
Tallgrass is on a very ordinary site -- a former sod farm if memory serves. Gil dressed the course up quite well given the limitations of the terrain but if one wants to see better public layouts on the Island there are several of them IMHO that are a good bit better -- and I'm not basing that on the absence of length.
P.S. Mike S. -- you're absolutely right about two things -- the horrific pace of play -- they could place Sunday NY Times at a number of holes to keep you busy before you zzzz -- sadly that's a fact on most LI public courses and the need to play from the maximum tips in order to add some real spice. One other thing that should help the course is the growth of the roughs in order to provide a striking contrast between the grasses. This will also keep people from taking liberties off the tee like the par-4 16th and the par-4 18th, to name just two.
One other recommendation that I would make for those who can gain access and it's relatively nearby is Kelly's work at Laurel Links -- there are a few greens there that truly require great care when playing them.
-
I didn't know they had limited play by raters at Applebrook - I have not heard that one. My previous impression was that Applebrook was accessible, being just outside of Philadelphia, and that it would be pretty simple for a rater to see it.
-
SS1;
Au contraire.
I have a good rater friend who's played every course in the state of New Jersey and close to 1000 courses overall who has not been able to arrange a game (and no, it's not Matt) at Applebrook.
It's a superb course.
-
I think Matt played Applebrook. That's what I'm told. Maybe the club doesn't want the attention. That's possible too.
-
Some more thoughts...
Tallgrass isn't necessarily long and doesn't have the views of water or other eye pleasing features. What it does have are some of the best green complexes of any public course in NY and tons of strategic value. Lots of decisions to be made here.
When comparing Tallgrass to LI National I would choose Tallgrass 9 times out of 10.
I have reason to love LI National as I got past Local Qualifying for the US open there in 2001 but I found it to be extremely penal. Over-the-top penal. There are very few choices to be made at LI National. It's the kind of place where you feel like your being dragged behind the back of a pickup that is driving 50mph. You're just holding on for dear life.
Tallgrass is a far superior golf course if you are looking to enjoy a round of golf with opportunities to play well, regardless of your skill level. Those that are more masochistic will like LI National more as it can deliver the kind of pummeling they enjoy.
Jeff F.
P.S.: By the way is #14 at Tallgrass Gil's version of a "Short" hole? It's a really neat par-3 with a very interesting green complex. I always wondered if that is what he was going for in that hole.
-
Glad to see Tall Grass get some respect here on GCA. Tommy's right, if this course were located in So. Cal. it would be overrun, guess you East Coasters are lucky to have your hidden gems uncrowded. There are many similarities between Rustic canyon and Tall Grass: like severe trouble just over the green, the steep fall off behind the 295 yard 6th and the nasty little pot bunker just behind the 9th green make golfers think twice about attacking a back pin there. I think that having a strateic driveable par 4 on each nine is an asset not a liability. The 14th hole is another example of having the guts to build a 125 yard par 3, very similar to the 8th at RC. Here's a shot of the 14th, 143 yards from the back tee:
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/339%3B99%3A%3B23232%7Ffp58%3Dot%3E232%3B%3D8%3A9%3D%3C2%3C%3DXROQDF%3E23234%3B4%3B2%3C942ot1lsi)
-
Tallgrass is a v. good tract that doesn't get the recognition it derserves. It combines fun (my wife and I played the short par 4 12th in a combined score of 5) and a solid design (the short 3 par 14th and hidden green on 17 are two features of note). I've played it 3 or 4 times in varying conditions and somehow leave the course feeling a little flat (pun intended) in part because of what I would call a lack of framing to many holes. The surrounding area is so flat that some of the course gets washed out. Unlinke LI National, very few large mounds were built and no internal trees exist, thus there is little to prevent the eye from simply wandering off the canvas toward the horizon. #18 seems to be a perfect example as it is very difficult to even pick a line of play off the tee.
-
I havent played Tallgrass or Applebrook, so I cant comment on whether either deserves more respect. But if Gil Hanse's other designs are similar stylistically to Rustic, then he is at a substantial disadvantage when it comes to garnering acclaim from the traditional sources.
Subtle. low profile features and understated design dont necessarily show well upon one viewing. And, while regulars have years to figure these things out, raters generally have one quick play. Usually while they are on their way to bigger and flashier things.
The raters think they can figure all this stuff out in one look, but this of course is just further evidence of the problem.
-
David;
In fairness, I think you might want to say "some" raters.
I have a different take.
Rustic Canyon is probably the most conventional of Gil Hanse's courses I've played. His courses at Inniscrone and French Creek contain any number of holes that are extremely different, somewhat controversial, and much more geared towards match-play mentality than the card and pencil approach.
I've heard ratings of those courses differing by as much as six full points among various raters who've seen them. They are loved by many (and most here) and hated by others.
I think his adventurous style is refreshing and intriguing.
-
Concur completely, David - only I don't think many raters, if they are honest, have the arrogance to think they can fully figure out courses like this in one look. Unfortunately though, one look is often all they have, and thus courses like this shall continue to be at a disadvantage in the ratings. I'm not sure if anything can be done to fix this, other than have these courses just be content in what they are: much loved by their regulars, if not fully understood by course raters.
-
The raters think they can figure all this stuff out in one look, but this of course is just further evidence of the problem.
They all do? Where do you come by this opinion?
-
The scope of the terrain and the greater variety / challenge of holes at Rustic Canyon is clearly beyond Tallgrass IMHO. Tallgrass has its moments but they are far less comprehensive than what you see at Rustic Canyon.
I don't doubt that Tallgrass should get more respect (as Tommy initially suggested), however, there are other public courses on Long Island (namely Bethpage Red and Montauk Down, to name just two) that get even less respect and fanfare.
-
Mike,
I think that not so long ago, I or someone else suggested that it was not possible to really understand a great course in a one or two plays, but I dont recall any raters agreeing with this premise. I cant remember where it came up though . . . Maybe it need be brought up again.
In the meantime, I happily correct myself. I certainly dont mean 'all raters,' but instead mean 'some raters' . . . or perhaps 'many raters' is a fair assessment?
Unfortunately though, one look is often all they have . . .
One look is all they have? I didnt know the magazines prohibited raters from seeing a course a second, third, fifth, or hundredth time. Interesting.
. . . courses like this shall continue to be at a disadvantage in the ratings. I'm not sure if anything can be done to fix this, other than have these courses just be content in what they are: much loved by their regulars, if not fully understood by course raters.
Interesting again. You admit that the ratings system fails when it comes to identifying quality subtle courses, and your solution is . . . leave the sacred ratings alone and tell the courses to just get used to being constantly overlooked and underappreciated. Well at least you have your priorities straight.
And lets not forget how your approach will encourage future architecture. I can here the subtle architects now: "Well . . . no matter how good your course, it will likely remain in obsurity, repeatedly overlooked in favor of the latest flash in the pan. On the positive side, if anyone ever finds your course they are likely to enjoy it-- if they have the brains to ignore what they read and decide for themselves."No wonder the developers are beating down the doors of those who can build a subtle and relatively inexpensive design!
-
Blasbe1,
If you want Framing, well then I can assure you Gil isn't going to be your man unless its natural framing and he happened to cut it into dunes, trees or something. See Inniscrone if you want SOME (Not alot) of framing. Its very low key in the framing department.
Personally, I think Gil has great vision in capturing the aura of a site, and while many can get there fill of framing and containment and all of that ilk from commercially popular designers like Tom Fabio, Rees Jones, etc. This is what sets them apart from being artistically popular, and this is why I elevate guys like this to the highest plateau--anything else, well it just wouldnt be golf to me.
And yes, it takes a lot more then just one look at a course that is artistically designed compared to one that is like pre-manufactured or packaged with a label on it. They either "get it" or "they don't get it."
-
They all do? Where do you come by this opinion?
David, I didnt say all, but was rather treating the rater/ratings as a whole. After all, isnt this what the magazines do.
I am willing to bet you the ten bucks I owe Gavin that that the majority of ratings are based on one play or less.
-
David;
What I was challenging was your premise that (all) raters cannot notice and appreciate subtleties and non-obvious strategies in a one-time visit.
I think it depends on the person, their experience, their eye, and their understanding of the game and its architecture. I'm not saying that everything will be fully understood, but one will at least understand that there are multiple questions to be answered.
Conversely, there are any number of people who wouldn't get it on a 20th or 5000th visit, raters included.
Not everyone is a Sam Snead who called The Old Course a cow pasture on his first visit.
I recall a number of us "getting" the 12th hole for instance, on a single visit and vociferously defending it here from those who called it blah and featureless.
I also recall defending the strategy of a tee ball down the left on the 11th, and how it would open up the green to hole locations on either side of that green, which is hardly apparent.
-
David:
Of course nothing in any rules prevents any course rater from seeing any course multiple times.
But realities of life, and the many courses some either want to see or are assigned to see, dictate that most of the time one look is all they get.
There's just no practical way any course rater is going to see a course like Rustic the multiple times it requires to get even close to full appreciation of it. Look at yourself - I believe you've said you are still learning the course, and you must have played it 150+ times by now. At what number of plays would you say you were qualified to "rate" it?
And so what would you expect of course raters: 10 visits? 20? 50? You must be able to understand the impracticality of this.
In any case, I'm not saying it's RIGHT nor is it MY APPROACH (jeez, if my approach were all that mattered, Rustic would be rated way higher than it is now) - I'm saying that's the way it is. I've also always concurred with you that the ratings process is flawed and given way too much importance. But it's there, and seems to be there to stay, and I even though your complaints here have great validity, I'm at a loss as to how it could be done better so that these types of courses get more attention, which they surely do deserve.
Let me repeat that: I agree with you that courses like Rustic don't get their just due, due to the way the ratings system works. I'll repeat it again, for emphasis, I agree with you that courses like Rustic don't get their just due, due to the way the ratings system works. Should I say it one more time?
But it's the way it is, for worse or for better.
Your recommendations to fix it?
TH
-
Mike,
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.
I agree that there are the very few out there who really have the eye for identifying quality, and recognizing the existence of interesting questions yet to be answered. Yet on the other end of the spectrum there are raters who primarily keep their focus on their game, and have little peripheral understanding of the subtleties of the course unless their golf ball happens to stumble over one.
The problem, as I see it, is that many raters would place themselves closer to the former extreme than the latter. Surely you've met your share of raters who overestimate their ability to fully comprehend based on a brief viewing?
-
Mike,
A few months ago, I posted some pictures of the club Mike Golden had joined since he moved down here, and this is a perfect example of how someone (me) can discount something so fast on one visit, yet not see it or understand it without a more thurough look.
This place is on a site that I would call not conducive to golf, yet, it has evolved into a fun course to play--so much that I can hardly wait for a return visit ust to see more of what I missed. I myself discounted this place many times I have stopped by there for a look before, during and after construction some years ago in the 80's and I have to tell you, this guy to me is a unsung hero for what he built there. He knew the site was so bad that he was going to have to rely on Quirk as the deciding factor and there is nothing that one could remotely call anyting like it in Southern California.
In fact, I'm still not sure if I have seen what I saw! (If that makes sense) I'm not sure if I even like it a whole lot, but the thought of it has piqued my interests to see it again because I had a blast playing there.
That being, this course will never ever see the light of any Top 100, 200, 300, 400 rating or ranking and frankly, I don't see that being a problem at all--in fact I see it as only a positive!
Why?
Because the course simply grabs my attention and entertains me! It makes me laugh just how fun this game can really be on any given course if the designer wasn't trying to control YOU the golfer, but more expose the elements of a site that make it fun and exciting, and needs no number to prove itself.
-
Tom, you are a rater-- and glad to be one-- so it is your approach.
No need to underscore the realities of your approach. I am aware of them.
Your response to all the critiques seems to be to accept the status quo, no matter how absurd the results it produces: At some point, shouldnt we question whether the 'but this is the only practical way of doing it' approach is doing anything positive at all? If the system is broke, and you cant fix it, then why not scrap the system? Or at least stop pretending that it is accomplishing something that it isnt.
At what number of plays would I be qualified to rate Rustic? No number will make me qualified because I lack the sufficient level of expertise and experience to place Rustic on a relative scale of quality.
But this isnt about Rustic. For all I know Rustic isnt in the top 500. It is about why subtle courses might not get the recognition they deserve.
My recommendations to fix it? Scrap the system, as is. Start over with fewer raters. Maybe as few as one or two who sign their names to the ratings and explain their reasoning.
Even with its lack of breadth and need of an update, is there any rating system out there nearly as helpful as Doak's Confidential Guide?
-
David;
How did Tom Doak come up with the most "helpful" rating system since almost every review in that book is based on a single visit? ;)
-
Mike C
Inniscrone? "I've heard of raters scores differing by as much as six full points by raters that have seen them".
Not being a rater I find this hard to believe. Are people really giving Inniscrone 2 & 3's?
-
Mike,
I guess Tom might be one of those talented few.
If his book has a flaw, would you say that this is it?
-
David:
That all makes great sense to me. Yep, scrapping it and starting over might be the ideal thing for courses, and golf course architecture. Please understand that once again, I agree with you.
Our difference is that I see very little, if any, chance that your suggestions - as right as they are and as good for golf as they are - have any chance of being put into effect. Thus since I am very interested in the good of the game I love so much, I am searching for ways to change the system in place now that DO have a chance of happening... and thus my posts here. My thoughts are all based on this - practical changes.
And I really don't see any. So maybe you're right, the only real answer is to scrap it and start over. But if that's not gonna be done, well... what other alternatives are there?
TH
ps - sorry if I hurt your GCA street cred for agreeing with you so much. Others have chastised me for this! ;D
pss - I for one have never claimed that ratings do anything other than sell magazines... again, more agreement with you there, friend.
-
Mike,
I guess Tom might be one of those talented few.
If his book has a flaw, would you say that this is it?
David;
My point is that any course rating system is only going to be as good as the quality, knowledge, and experience of the raters involved.
Even Tom Doak says in his book, "If you agree with 80% of what I say here, chalk up the rest to individual differences in taste and opinion".
So, I would submit to you that yes, it's possibly easy to think on a theoretical level about what an ideal rating system would look like, and suggest changes, but practicality is often much different. Even Tom Doak readily admits that he can't get around and see courses as he used to and there are only so many Doaks around.
That's why, when we were going back and forth in the interminable thread on ratings, I asked people to displace 20% of the Top 50 of the modern and classic listings.
If the lists are so wrong, and so fundamentally faulty, that should have been an easy exercise.
I would also submit that the best thing any publication could do to try to get the most valid list possible is to seek out raters who know and understand and have a passion about what they are looking at. This is a continual process and although the system isn't perfect by any stretch, it's one that I would contend is pretty accurately representative of what's out there, by and large.
-
Mike just gave a very valid "improvement" that could be made - perhaps more careful consideration as to who becomes a rater - a suggestion working within the practicalities of today. Well said.
Of course my issue there is that the only raters I know seem to be the ones who post here... and these sure aren't guys that need to be replaced!
;D
-
Hi guy's long time no comment, I have been reading with interest the comments. As an architect, many of us like Gil have to have a thick skin because of so called golf raters and golf mag lists of top one hundred this and that.
The sad thing is as I have said before is that an architects reputation can be made or destroyed by so called experts.
Case in hand. Donald Ross Soceity. I walked a Ross Course with a Ross expert making coments to the commitee of the said course.
I had obtained copies of Ross's original layout to which 98% of the course was built to his design. The comments that where made where scandlous and raise the question," What to we need such bodies most of whom Self appointed experts, ruining genuine Ross courses because they like the sound of their own voices".
Architects have constraints put on them that the average joe blow does not understand. Closing the barn door after the horse has left is easy. Hinesight is 20/20 gentlemen, my advice is do your homework before you comment.
Think before you write. Gil does some good work I enjoy playing his layouts because I can score well. that's the sign of a good course to score well and be punished if you fail to meet the challenge. That is the mark of a good course, fair to all golfers.
Anyway keep the faith guy's interesting read's.
Regards
Ian
-
One other thing that my partner reminded me of today, is that Tall Grass drains really well, so it is a nice place to play early in the season when it is soupy at other courses.
http://www.tallgrassgolf.com/
-
Mike, Great point. When I was out there it as raining and the course was still crowded with a tournament waiting behind it. The course was still playing much faster then expected for a course that had a short two and a half weeks before had been in a foot of snow and had also been rained on quite frequently just after that. The course was still in really GREAT shape.
-
Also, I thought the food in the clubhouse was quite delictable!
-
Tommy:
"Personally, I think Gil has great vision in capturing the aura of a site, and while many can get there fill of framing and containment and all of that ilk from commercially popular designers like Tom Fabio, Rees Jones, etc."
I don't see how you can conflate framing and containment, as you stated framing can be natural, dunes, brush, trees, hillsides, etc.
Once you turn a sod farm upside down, I think you raise the bar on what "framing" would be considered natural and what would be considered "contained." ("This is a once flat turf farm, which Gil Hanse dug out a depression and created a feature that is reminiscent of a quarry wall that runs a great length throughout the property.")
I do not question the merits of the design, on the contrary I find the green sites and fairway bunkering to be outstanding . . . I did, however, find that the tract underwhelming. My explanation for that is based in large part on the utter lack of uniqueness to the property itself, it's flat and everything around it is flat.
So to answer your question, I think that Tallgrass is LI's Rodney Dangerfield b/c the site lacks inherent quality. Gil Hanse has created a fantastic course that is fun to play, but you can't simply plop that kind of design in the middle of nothing and expect that it will live up to it's design potential. Unique topography is what seperates a good sound designed course and a great course.
Tallgrass is not great for that reason alone (and perhaps only for that reason).
-
Tommy Naccarato,
I don't think Bethpage's length has anything to do with Tall Grass. Few play Bethpage from the tips. And, the courses are far enough removed from each other that I don't think that Tall Grass lives in Bethpage's comparative shadow.
Mike Sweeney,
I understand that at one town meeting, residents who lived on Sebonic Road felt that they should get free memberships to Sebonic Golf Club. Others felt that there should be no digging or excavating as they might disturb the bones of buried Indians. Then someone asked why they didn't object to digging and excavating when their homes were being built, because similarly, they may have been disturbing the bones of Indians buried on their property. That's the kind of objection that could stop a project dead in its tracks, a hypothetical objection, with no factual support from the objector.
There are many stories regarding local opposition that would probably cause most developers to lose their hair and spirits. Hopefully, the project will proceed post haste.
I still haven't heard why Tall Grass doesn't get more recognition.
Matt Ward,
Laurel Links should be another golf destination for those interested in Eastern Long Island golf, especially on the North Fork, which is very interesting in many ways.
-
I believe the name of the club will be Sebonack.
-
Mike,
I am not suggesting that Mr. Doak get out there and start rating courses. I dont want to go out on a limb, but he might achieve some success if he instead sticks to his current day job.
What I am suggesting is that the magazines consider the characteristics of useful books like Doaks.
David;
My point is that any course rating system is only going to be as good as the quality, knowledge, and experience of the raters involved.
I disagree, but in the opposite direction: I dont think that the magazine ratings are nearly as good as the quality, knowledge, and experience of the raters involved.
A problem as I see it is that the current systems lead to 'least common denominator rating.' The best raters may have a unique perspective and an ability to find greatness where others dont. But the rest dont. So you have swings of as many as 5 or six points, to use your description. And the low ratings more than cancel out the high ratings of the better raters. In contrast, courses which are decent, unobjectionable ,and within the status quo will probably end up with a tighter spread of decent scores, none of which significantly pull down the average.
Another way to look at it is by reference to the old computer addage: Garbage in, garbage out.
Think about it. The raters have a whole spectrum of views on what makes a golf course good. Sure they are given criteria, but at least in GW's system they can throw all that out when assigning the final score. Plus, even within the criteria, there is plenty of room for subjectivity.
For example, lets say that Rater A and Rater B both rate course X. Rater A knocks the course because there are very few spots on the course where the golfer has an even lie. Rater B might rate the course highly for the exact same reason. Two raters reaching polar opposite conclusions based on the exact same data. Same thing could happen with wide fairways, penal bunkers, undulating greens, fast greens, trees, water, bunker tyle etc. Rater A could give a low rating and Rater B a high rating, despite that they might completely agree on the non-subjective characteristics of the raw data.
So then the magazines average these scores with the others . . . But what is their justification for so doing? For an average to mean anything, dont we need like data within the sample? Rater A and B have entirely different valuation criteria, so arent we trying to average two numbers which shouldnt even be on the same scale? Arent the ratings necessarily comparing apples and oranges? Dont we need a tighter grouping of criteria before we can start averaging.
One may agree with Rater A or Rater B, loving it or hating it. But it makes no sense to assume the course is average and middle of the road, just because the strongly polarized views cancel each other out. Averaging renders both ratings meaningless.
A real world example, only slightly modified: A local website invites readers to rate the playing conditions at various courses. Softness/firmness of the greens is one of their categories, but they dont specify whether soft/firm greens are good or bad. So two readers could submit dichotomous scores based on the exact same fact. And the ratings are rendered meaningless. What good are such ratings? (In reality, the website likes soft and dislikes hard. Still useless to me.)
That's why, when we were going back and forth in the interminable thread on ratings, I asked people to displace 20% of the Top 50 of the modern and classic listings.
I thought this is a fair challenge, but I doubt there are many non-raters who have played enough of these courses to do what you suggest. For example, I've played less than 10 of these courses (8 I think) so it would be difficult for me to displace 20.
But even with these 8 there are serious flaws.
A few examples: Pumpkin Ridge Ghost a top 100 course? How can this be? What separates this course from the pack? What stands out? Sure it is generally inoffensive and unobjectionable, but what is there of true quality? I played it three times and hardly remember a hole. I dont even think it as good a course as that public course in Portland. What is it, Blue Heron or something?
Bandon Dunes the third best modern course in the country? Third best? Yikes.
And Friar's Head eight places behind it? Does anyone who has played both of these courses really think that Bandon Dunes is a better course than Friar's Head? Inconceivable. I've looked at GW's criteria and cant imagine giving Bandon a higher or equal score on a single one (I'm not considering conditioning, because as written I think it is stupid and have no idea what to do with it.)
Manele Bay a top 100 course? Dont get me wrong, I've enjoyed many rounds at Manele Bay. It has a couple spectacular tee shots (different directions from the same tee) and great views throughout, but it is truly a course which is solely dependant on Ocean location for its recognition. The course is all holes running on the same axis, terraced up a hillside. There is some width and potential strategy, but this is neutralized by the built up greens designed to catch balls from anywhere. Generally not all that impressive once you get away from the Ocean.
Even though this isnt 20% of the entire list, it isnt really a great performance considering how few of these courses I know.
-
It is obvious to me that golf course architectures purpose is to serve the raters. We have devolved to a point where the merits of architecture are based upon how well it addresses the rating system. Are we about to embark upon a period where the criteria for golf course architecture will be crafted by the rating systems? If so, then I think the trend of raters and magazine editors becoming architects and design consultants will definately be in the interest of the owner's whom seek favorable ratings. We will make architecture serve the rating system. The direction of this thread is sad, and disheatening. All Hail the Mighty Rater!
-
David;
I generally agree.
So, if I can summarize accurately, you're not against ratings per se, but believe that some tweaks need to be made of a statistical nature to create more accurate outcomes.
Personally, I've always felt that statistical outlier scores should be either thrown out, or a standard of deviation determined and then possibly factored in some way (it's been a LONG time since my stats class).
However, I'm not sure that's a perfect system either. For instance, doesn't it say something meaningful if one course gets all votes in a range of 5 to 6, while another gets votes from 8 to 2?
By definition, the latter course is more controversial on some level, probably takes more chances, is probably more inherently different architecturally than the norm, and someone playing there might love it or hate it. How would you suggest that type of thing gets factored in?
But, those type of tweaks aside, I still believe that it comes down to the quality, knowledge, and experience of the raters.
One of the things that has been criticized on here is the Raters Outings, but those are efforts to get raters together in one place to discuss these types of things, and learn about exactly what is meant by some of the criteria you mentioned above. I've learned things and I think it helps everyone understand more about the process. For instance, I think people generally tend to rate everything about a point too high (especially when you consider that there can only be 100 courses in the Top 100), so you end up with bulges of scores that are too similar instead of a more stratified sample. But, like any system, as long as people are working to make it better, and experienced, knowledgeable people are doing the rating, then the system will improve.
As an aside, I think Bandon Dunes is rated too high, as well and think it probably should be somewhere around 30. However, I'm only one person and evidently a whole bunch of other raters who've played there think it's better than I do.
Who's to say that they aren't right and I'm wrong?
-
David:
That is also well-reasoned, makes sense and illustrates well some of the issues with the system as it is. But again, how will you effect the changes you suggest? What magazine, or other organization, is going to find these super-raters with the time, inclination, and wisdom to carry this out? How will you convince the current magazines to do away with the systems they have in place now / or change the perception in the golf world that these rankings matter?
See, I have no problems with the WHAT going on here (though I expect Mike and perhaps others will continue to debate you - and as you see, Mike did - our posts crossed and I am adding this after the fact in a modification). In Geoff's book, and in your posts here, each of you have clearly illustrated the problems with ratings systems as they are done now.
What I want is the HOW. That is, HOW are you going to effect fixes/changes?
And my assumption is it can't be done. But I am absolutely open to ideas and in fact clamoring for them....
But if it can't be done - this wholesale wiping out of the current system and replacing it that you suggest - what CAN be done, practically, to make this more fair for all courses, with ratings and rankings that more correctly reflect the proper reality and act for the good of golf and not the opposite?
I think you make a good start with:
"What I am suggesting is that the magazines consider the characteristics of useful books like Doaks. "
Can you flesh out mechanically how this would work? It sounds intriguing to me..
Kelly: the answer for you is to change perception of these ratings and rankings. As time goes on and more acclaim gets given to the Sand Hills', Pacific Dunes', Rustic Canyons, Wild Horses and others like it in the golf world, the worm will turn. Golf perceptions are an ever-changing thing... hang in there, man.
TH
ps to Dave - I didn't know you got to play Friar's Head - very cool! But you know what? I talked to two people who have played both Bandon and FH and did indeed prefer the former to the latter, overall. So how inconceivable is it? It is to you, and it sure is to me - I think they're insane, from what I hear about FH - and remember I really like BD - but to me this goes to show that there remains no "correct" opinion when it comes to assessment of golf courses. People look for so many different things... and as Mike said, who's to say we are right and they are wrong?
-
Great to see this thread morphing into another raters circle jerk! I've never seen nor am likely to see Tallgrass, so this is much more enlightening. ;)
I think KBM has it right. Let the raters decide how to design the golf courses BEFORE they are built. Let us know before they are open to play what their ratings are and a lot of harnd wringing, kerfuffle and Ran's cyberspace can be saved.
This is, in fact, the way that the world of fine wine is going, as I pointed out a year or so ago. There is a guy who can chemically test wine en primeur and predict the Parker rating 3-5 years out with incredible accuracy. All Dr. Klein and Mr. Whitten and whoever the guy is today at GW need to do is tweak their "systems" to make them just a little bit more predictive than analytical. Since they are all going in this direction anyway, this should not be too hard a thing to do, should it?
-
Rich:
"Kerfuffle"?
Great word. ;)
I'm more than ready to stop the circle jerk, btw. Allowing the last word is just not one of my strong suits. But dammit, I shall try. ;D
TH
-
Alright, that's enough!! Rich is now using words that common folks can't even look up.... ;)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kerfuffle
-
Try this, Brian
http://www.quinion.com/words/weirdwords/ww-ker1.htm
-
Great to see this thread morphing into another raters circle jerk!
Rich;
What other mechanism but "ratings" presently exists to give Tallgrass the "respect" Tommy claims it's not getting?
-
Mike
Our collective and unconditional love. :-*
-
Mike
Our collective and unconditional love. :-*
Exactly, Rich. So, we get about 500 of us on here saying it's great and to use your terminology, "circle jerking" ourselves about it.
The folks at Tallgrass will be so pleased. ;)
-
Mike
I'm disappointed that this thread has so little to say about the golf course and so much to say about abstract concepts/arguments about "rating." Maybe this anomaly actually answers Tommy's iniital question. Maybe Tallgrass doesn't get enough respect becuae "raters" are spending too much time looking into their and their fellow raters' navels adn not enough time really thinking about what makes any golf course "respectable."
Let me put it another way. Would Rodney Dangerfield rank in the top 100 on a list of "Classic" comedians? If he didn't (which is very possible, depending on how you composed the rating panel and set and weighted the criteria), does that mean that he hasn't gained "respect" or even doesn't deserve "respect?" I think not, at least from me.
-
Mike,
I think it would take much more than 'tweaks of a statistical nature' to fix the system.
For example, throwing out outliers most likely wont help and might hurt. I just cant imagine the sample sizes are big enough to justify throwing away the outliers. Doing so anyway reaks of manipulation. Plus, it may well be that the better raters sometimes have the outliers, and it seems a shame to throw away their scores.
Standard deviations might give off the aura of science, but unless we are dealing with data based on a system of similar valuation, the numbers are still worthless. Plus, my guess is that if we went to standard deviations, we'd find that we have hundreds of courses which are statistically inseperable.
What's the message to your readers when courses with a tight range of 5s and 6s (or 6s and 7s-- I dont know your scale) makes the list. "No one had strong feelings about it one way or another. Never mind that noone loved it. Noone disliked it therefore it is one of the top courses in the US." Hardly a ringing endorsement and hardly aimed at identifying anything other than the courses at the high end of the mediocrity scale.
As far as the course with the 8s and 2s, a portion of the readers would probably greatly benefit from knowing that some of your raters absolutely loved the course. Likewise, other of your raters might benefit by knowing that others hated it. That is, if the likes and dislikes were explained. But to average the numbers renders everyone's rating meaningless, and especially neutralizes those that on the high end (the low enders have kept the course off the list, which is what they wanted.)
By definition, the latter course is more controversial on some level, probably takes more chances, is probably more inherently different architecturally than the norm, and someone playing there might love it or hate it. How would you suggest that type of thing gets factored in?
As I suggest above, fire almost all the raters, and have those that still rate explain themselves.
Raters Outings: I too think they are a good idea, except that they give the outing locals an unfair advantage over the rest. As I suggested earlier, have them at well-established courses which are unlikely to be hurt or helped by the rating. The raters could benefit without skewing the scores in favor of the courses which hold the events.
Regarding Bandon, I understand that a whole bunch of raters must have liked the course better than you. You looked very carefully at the course, and you know it isnt the third best modern course in the country, and I'll take your opinion over their opinion. As you say, the ratings will only be as good as the raters, and here we have a good example of where the raters are perhaps not quite as good as they might be.
Who is to say that you are right and they are wrong? Let me put it this way, if they are 'right' and you are 'wrong' then there is something wrong with the ratings criteria. Call me elitist or biased or whatever you want, but there is something wrong with a system which calls Pumkin Ridge Ghost an elite course, and which cannot distinguish the difference in quality between Friar's Head and Bandon Dunes. (Dont forget, I like Bandon quite a lot, but come on!)
___________________
Tom, how many times are you going to post: 'well, the system isnt going to change?' How many times are you going to ask me how I would improve the system, only to dismiss the suggested changes as impossible? How many times are you going to ask me to 'flesh something out' only to later agree with it while dismissing it yet again?
Give me a break. I've said what I would do. If the magazines wont take my advice, that it certainly their perogative.
As for people preferring BD over FH, you make my point for me. The ratings dont work. They dont identify better golf courses over worse.
-
Mike
I'm disappointed that this thread has so little to say about the golf course and so much to say about abstract concepts/arguments about "rating." Maybe this anomaly actually answers Tommy's iniital question. Maybe Tallgrass doesn't get enough respect becuae "raters" are spending too much time looking into their and their fellow raters' navels adn not enough time really thinking about what makes any golf course "respectable."
Let me put it another way. Would Rodney Dangerfield rank in the top 100 on a list of "Classic" comedians? If he didn't (which is very possible, depending on how you composed the rating panel and set and weighted the criteria), does that mean that he hasn't gained "respect" or even doesn't deserve "respect?" I think not, at least from me.
Early on there was quite a lot to say about the course, but how much can you say about a course which most have probably never heard of, let alone played? You dont need the ratings to bolster your opinions, but unfortunately the insecure industry does, the the ratings are a vital component of 'respect.'
I am not a rater, so I should be automatically disqualified from the raters' circle jerk, shouldn't I? If you dont like this circle jerk, I am sure you can find one which suits you better.
-
Tom, how many times are you going to post: 'well, the system isnt going to change?' How many times are you going to ask me how I would improve the system, only to dismiss the suggested changes as impossible? How many times are you going to ask me to 'flesh something out' only to later agree with it while dismissing it yet again?
Give me a break. I've said what I would do. If the magazines wont take my advice, that it certainly their perogative.
As for people preferring BD over FH, you make my point for me. The ratings dont work. They dont identify better golf courses over worse.
David:
1. I've posted this repeatedly because I wasn't sure of your answer, that is, your suggested improvements. So from the above, I gather that the answer is scrap all the ratings and start over with these few super-raters who justify their answers? That's cool. But for the sake of argument, and the good of golf, let's say this isn't going to happen (a very rational assumption, wouldn't you say?). In that case, isn't it worthwhile to look for more practical improvements? And I keep asking for such because I'd love to hear some from you, because I do value your opinions very much and would love some further creative thinking. If this is as far as you want to take this, than that's cool also and we can leave it for dead, which will likely please a lot of people! ;)
2. If people prefer BD to FH, who's to say they are absolutely wrong? Why are opinions such as these subject to absolutes? The people who said this are very respectable and knowledgeable. Their opinions are necessarily wrong? Those who prefer FH to BD are necessarily right? While from everything I hear it would also appear clear to me that FH is the superior course, well... I'm never going to have the arrogance to suggest that my opinion is absolutely right against that of someone else. I just can't understand this. And I read what you wrote to Mike... how do you KNOW that any of this is necessarily right or wrong?
See, I can someone calling BD the 3rd best modern course in the country, also... even if I don't agree, I don't think it's absolutely, certainly WRONG to say it....
Help me out here. What am I missing?
TH
-
Hi Dave
I re-read all of this thread before I made my offending post and, sorry, but IMO there really wasn't much important said about the course after Tommy's iniital post.
Continue to participate in the circle if you wish. It is your right. I shall excuse myself, for now.
Rich
PS--thanks for that other recent thread that unwittingly proved that all golf holes are "strategic!" ;)
-
David,
Rich brings up the obvious observation that this discussion has degenerated into a discussion of ratings/raters, and you tell him to find another thread? Threads that actually discuss golf courses, and not their ratings are becoming an endangered species on this board, and I suspect a number of people who posted on this thread were relieved to find the board settling back into its normal activities....until you hijacked it with ratings discussion.
I think the more sensible course of action would be for you to find a rater circle jerk on which to post your thoughts, and not occupy a thread for that purpose and tell others to get out.
-
Sean - your post there hit me hard. My apologies for my participation in this.
David - I remain interested in your answers, as I am very sincere in what I say above. But maybe we should do this by IM? While I do understand that "respect" does tend to mean ratings, well... this thread is supposed to be about Tallgrass and we have moved way beyond that.
TH
-
Can raters be objective and impartial when discussing the rating process ?
-
Patrick - modification - I did have something on here but please do check your IM now. I really do think this has gone on long enough on here, but I would like to answer your question.
TH
-
I am as guilty as anyone here for being a part of the "rater" debates going on in here lately. However, the thread I debated on was about the Golfweek ratings system. This thread is about why Tallgrass gets no respect. I think it's funny that many "raters" in here think respect has to do with being on some silly list in their magazine. I think the question Tommy was posting was why don't more people talk about it here, not why isn't it a Top 100 Modern.
Let's talk about the golf course.
#1 A rather scorable opening par-5. No real trouble off the tee unless you blast it way right in the fescue. Green is protected by a deep bunker dead center in front of the green. It's reachable in two with a long iron for big hitters. Birdie is very attainable.
#2 Fantastic strategy off the tee. Fairway bunker right. If you hit it in the bunker or short of it you have a blind approach. The further left you hit the drive the more the angle of the green becomes difficult to approach. The aggresive play would be to hit a drive as close to the fairway bunker as possible to set up the optimal approach. Green drops off left, right and behind and the green itself has a slope in the middle that appears to make it a small two tiered green. Par is a good score here.
There..... I started it now someone else pick up where I left off and let's talk about Tallgrass.
Jeff F.
-
Jeff,
Tommy said "nothing short of a miracle" if this is on a 5.5..what kind of hyperbole does he give 8, 9's and 10's...If Tommy is going to be a rater and openly try to influence other raters...he should keep his head about him. If he does not think a course should be on the list why not be as clear as he is when not talking about friends or business partners.
I will never have a problem with raters and their comps if they take the responsibilities that come with the opportunity. And that goes with Don't be a whore if you ain't given the score.
-
JakassaB,
It amazes me that I can see how smart I am to see how dumb you are.
-
I work about 20 minutes from tallgrass & have played it at least 25 times. The course is sporty & often plays differently because the treeless plot is subject to becoming very windy. I enjoy playing the course but it's simply too short to ever be a great course. You can play many of the par 4's without a driver, which isnt necessarily a bad thing, but it just can never be a true championship caliber course. There are about 6 terrific holes (2,4,5,8,10,11,17) and the open nature of the layout promotes a pretty fast round which is a wonderful thing. The green fee is pretty stiff IMO ($65) before 2pm & I've heard the course will soon go private. I actually enjoy Great Rock in Wading River a bit more, john
-
Hi Rich,
Long time no banter. Glad you enjoyed the other thread. Your contributions would have made it much much better, I am sure. I thought the early conversation on this thread was somewhat informative, if a little off topic. I've an idea. Instead of hurling insults, why dont you lead us in an important discussion of why Tallgrass doesnt get more respect?
__________________________
David,
Rich brings up the obvious observation that this discussion has degenerated into a discussion of ratings/raters, and you tell him to find another thread? Threads that actually discuss golf courses, and not their ratings are becoming an endangered species on this board, and I suspect a number of people who posted on this thread were relieved to find the board settling back into its normal activities....until you hijacked it with ratings discussion.
I think the more sensible course of action would be for you to find a rater circle jerk on which to post your thoughts, and not occupy a thread for that purpose and tell others to get out.
SPBD
I cant imagine that Tommy is disappointed in the flow of his thread. He asked why the course didnt get more respect, and I offered a possible answer. Others disagreed and we proceded to have a civil discussion about my answer. That is until Rich interrupted by hurling insults.
If Rich really wanted to talk about the question posed, he could have and should have done so. Instead he decided to muddle our discussion; a discussion which a few others and I thought was worth having.
That being said . . . by all means lets talk about why Tallgrass doesnt get the respect that Tommy thinks it deserves, excluding my theory of course. Perhaps you and Rich can get us on that track? Or should I say on a track which you and Rich deem more to your liking?
_____________
Come on Huckaby, are you man or mouse? You know that our discussion was and is about why courses like Tallgrass don't get the respect they deserve. Come out from under the table and face the scorn. It only hurts for a minute.
__________________________
Patrick. I think it depends on the rater. Many have proven they cant, but Mike can, I think, now that the sting has worn off.
________________________
Mr. Umpstart: How long must a course be before it can be considered a great-- excuse me-- a respected course? Is it not possible to have a "championship caliber course" with a few par 4s that one can play with irons?
-
Sorry, Dave, but I don't really have a clue about the question posed by Tommy since nobody (with a few, shortly fizzled out suggestions) has really tried to explain the relative qualities of Tallgrass. Possibly it's becuase so few people have played it, and some of those are people who haven't played comparable courses (e.g. Rustic Canyon, I assume).
I'm laearning much more on Barney's "65 Courses" thread, because it is forcing us to actually think about golf courses and their compositions in both the absolute and relative sense. If you have to, for example, make a choice as to which #4 is "better" between NGLA and Sypglass, you really have to think about what it is that makes up the quality of a golf hole and how much each of those holes is (or isn't) great.
Can somebody out there (Tommy?) who has played both Tallgrass and some other comparable course do a "Match Play" and tell us how they score the match, and most importantly why, on a hole by hole basis? This might be a learning experience, at least for me.
-
DMoriarty,
I think the answer to Tommy's question can only be realistically addressed by those who have actually played the golf course, especially those who have played it often.
Unfortunately, I have to disqualify myself, as I have no frame of reference. Hopefully, I'll get out there in the late spring or early summer.
I'd be interested to hear more from Mike Sweeney and others who are familiar with the golf course.
Johnnyjumpstart,
Would you classify the golf course as "sporty"
I don't classify Maidstone or NGLA as "Championship" in the PGA Tour Pro category, but nonetheless, challenging courses for the Amateur Golfer. Does Tall Grass fit that description ?
-
Rich,
I have not played Rustic, so I will do a hole by hole of Tall Grass (Hanse, the public National Golf Links) vs LI National (RT Jones III, the public Shinnecock, actually it is closer to Atlantic)
Hole #1 TG a short 5, LIN a 400ish 4, LIN goes 1 up. It has some awkwardness off the tee, but a nice second shot into an open green that can be bounced in. A prinicpalish nose placed bunker before the green. TG simple par 5 reacable in 2, nice green.
#2 Both are longer par 4's uphill sort of blind shots. TG wins with a nice green complex where balls run off the shaved surface if you don't hit a good one. Even.
#3 Shorter 4's 3 wood off the tee. Both require precise shots into the greens. Even
#4 TG great redanish par 3, LIN very awkward par 5 with 230ish iron layup off the tee, could be better if he gave you a real chance to hit over the chasm to the fairway, but it does not work. TG +1
# 5 TG medium 4 Have to lay up to stay short of chasm, great shot into great uphill green. LIN overshaped par 4 TG +2
# 6 There will certainly be debate on this one. LIN - 175ish downhill reverse redanish, 2 level putting surface. TG very short 4 that you really can't go for, so 6 iron off the tee. LIN wins, TG +1
#7 LIN short 4 iron off tee, thread some trees not crazy about the green. TG mediun 4 not much going on, weaker holes at both, call it even TG +1
#8 TG medium Par 3 visually intimidating, crowned green good hole. LIN okay mediun Par 4, TG +2
#9 TG par 5 with directional bunker in fairway which narrows as you get closer to the green. LIN Par 3 160ish okay hole, TG gets a slight edge to go +3
-
Pat
I really think you are onto something on that last post. Maybe waking up at 5am has a positive effect on your brain! ;)
Perhaps, if we want to "rate" golf courses, and do so recognizing the incredible variety of those pieces of land that are "golf courses," how about rating each course in three categories:
1. Ability to identify and challenge the best players in the world
2. Ability to challenge and interest reasonably competent golfers (single digit handicap and below?)
3. Ability to provide enjoyment and challenge to higher handicap players.
Under this regime, Pine Valley might remain #1 on list 2, but be only #25 or so on list 1 and outside the top 100 on list 3. NGLA might be top 5 in category 2, out of the top 100 in category 1 and #1 on category 3. Pebble Beach might be top 5 in category 1, top 50 in categories 2 and 3. And so on......
From the little snippets I hear on this thead about Tallgrass itself, I might conclude that the course was well outside the top 100 in category 1, maybe a 100-300 course in category 2 and possibly top 100 in category 3. Pretty much like what I read about Rustic Canyon.
Thoughts?
PS--Thanks, Mike. Our posts crossed. Since you know the place, and have some affection for it, why do you think it does not get enough respect?
-
#10 LIN - I love this Par 5, possible to get there in 2 but prevailing wind typically prevents it. Directional, principalish nose bunker for second shot. TG short 4 can't hold a drive on the green so 6 iron off the tee. LIN wins, TG +2
# 11 LIN Very nice 3 over water 160ish, steep bank in front, interesting green and collection area behind the green. TG very nice 4 dunes right, sand left, nice green, can be blindish with bad placement of tee shot. Both good holes, even TG +2
#12 LIN - some may like it, but ackward 4 with water right short and long left off tee, then green sits over water. Just doesn't work for me. TG Driveable par 4 fun hole to go for it. TG +3
#13 LIN - Lake right off tee, uphill shot to green that falls away, sorry but blow it up and start over. TG - nice buker at angle to clear on mediun 4 tee shot good hole TG +4
#14 LIN - great long 200ish downhill par 3. TG short well bunkered par 3 but LIN get the nod, TG +3
15 LIN - uphill blindish shot to a downhill green, not my favorite. TG Par 5 downhill tee shot water right off tee, not a great hole, but it beats LIN 15, TG +4
16 LIN - He forces you to hit a draw around a tree that he left on purpose. Long 4. Second shot into green surrounded with Irish type mounds (big ones). Some may not like it, but it is a real 4 and I do. TG as mentioned earlier the driving area has a strange alignment, nice second shot to nice green with room to the right to bounce it in. Tee shot is too screwed up, LIN wins, TG +3
17 LIN another long 4 on a tough closing 3 holes. Some may not like the shaping of the fairway, with a fall away to right. TG 17 - 200ish par 3 green is blindish with crown fairway at 170 - bounce this one in to the right of the flagstick which you can see the top half. Call it even. TG +3
18 TG, not crazy about the tee shot, need to play a fade off the tee, which is my shot, but it just doesn't set up well for me. Nice shot into interesting green. LIN long Par 5, need a big one off the tee, very shaped fairway that some may not like, but the ball can roll to a bunch of positions. 3 shot hole, LIN wins the last hole to finish TG +2.
-
PS--Thanks, Mike. Our posts crossed. Since you know the place, and have some affection for it, why do you think it does not get enough respect?
At the end of the day, I would only "Rate" it a Doak 5 similar to Southampton GC. If you stick SGC or Tall Grass on Hilton Head Island, they go to a 6. On the East End of Long Island most probably think 4 or 5. Let's tell it like it is, when I can play the "Big Ones" out there, I drive by them just as fast as every one else :D.
Then again, what the hell do I know. I don't think St Joe's is the #1 team in the nation. ???
-
Rich,
I've always had my own categories for golf courses.
They are:
Championship
Sporty
Membership
Each category has sub-sets, but I don't want to get into that at this point.
With diverse purposes, I don't think you can lump all courses into one ranking category, and agree with you on this point.
I was up at 4:00 am, but business emails come first, GCA.com postings second....... on certain days.
-
Come on Huckaby, are you man or mouse? You know that our discussion was and is about why courses like Tallgrass don't get the respect they deserve. Come out from under the table and face the scorn. It only hurts for a minute.
__________________________
;D ;D ;D
Good one, Dave. But this fish isn't taking that bait. I've said what I have to say, and in all sincerity I am interested in your answers/suggestions, beyond just "scrap the whole thing." If that's all you have, then fine... but I'd think a creative, devoted guy like you could come up with more. My feeling is this is best handled by IM or over on the Egghead thread, where you have been directly challenged, but hey, whatever you wish. I just do remain interested in your thoughts.
Mickey Mouse Huckaby
-
Patrick,
What impact would your classifications have on ratings? In other words is a "great" championship course better than a "great" sporty course which is better than a "great" member course?
I would think Ross' Holston Hills CC would be a great member course that rates highly, for example.
Mike
-
Mike,
The ultimate test, or ranking, for me is:
Do I want to go back and play there again, how soon, how often and would I want to be a member there ?
One way to illustrate that relates to my first time playing Maidstone.
I was staying at my hosts house in Easthampton for the weekend with my children and a friend. Our plans called for us to play in the morning, have lunch, stop and shop for charcoal briqquetes and other Bar-BQ paraphenalia then go back to his house for a Bar-BQ.
We both played exceptionally well that morning with a nice breeze, holed out on # 18, looked at each other, nodded, walked a few paces to the 1st tee, and teed it up for another
18.
Upon arriving home, we were not greeted by happy faces.
And, I dare say the dispositions were worse.
Looking over the sea of scowls, I said,
"Is this the greeting we get trying to make everyone happy ?
Is this the way you treat men who took the time and effort to drive the length and breadth of Long Island looking for charcoal briquettes, only to come up empty handed ?"
But, we knew this was the reception we'd get, the price for another round. But, the play of Maidstone, the second time, addresses all of my criteria for determining merit, or rating/ranking in my own mind, which, is the only one that is important to me.
So, I say to you, that preference is subjective and self directed, and each golfer must establish their own personal criteria. However, the magazines do that for you, and if you become a rater, you must accept their categories, their system. It would be chaotic if every rater adopted their own criteria, so one standard must be maintained.
I view the magazine ratings with interest, and make my personal observations regarding each golf course that I've played.
To each his own, unless you accept the King's schilling or its equivalent, and then you must do the King's bidding.
-
Wow.
I am flabbergasted. I'm not speechless, because that is impossible ;), but that is one fantastic post there by Mr. Mucci.
In my mind, all talk of ratings and rankings should just be referred back to that post. The whole issue simply cannot be assessed any better.
So thank you, Patrick. As one who does accept the King's schilling and do a little bit of his bidding, all I can say is that it's not difficult, nor is giving the King the answers he requests, as he asks specific questions. But when it comes to making choices of what courses to cash in marital capital for, what courses are worth going into debt for, what courses are worth getting on one's knees for... well... the King's questions sort of get at that, but not really. That remains unique to each individual, whether doing the King's bidding or not.
So I too view the magazine ratings with interest, do the King's bidding as instructed, but also make my own choices based on my own criteria, which is amazingly similar to yours.
The only tiny problem with all this is how seriously the rankings are taken in the golf world... even though the best way to view all this is exactly how you say.... how can one change the perception out there, bringing it in line with your very wise, very sane way of looking at this?
TH
-
I view the magazine ratings with interest, and make my personal observations regarding each golf course that I've played.
[/b]
No further questions your honor ... the defense rests. ;)
Ps: Patrick - the aforementioned charcoal briquette story may lead to a whole new topic, I am sure we all have our "charcoal" golf-related stories
-
Tom Huckaby,
Agreeing with my positions usually takes a circuitous route,
ala TEPaul, or it can come in the form of an epiphany, like yours, but over time, the results are the same, some just have sharper learning curves ;D
-
Patrick:
TOUCHE! Love it. I'll go with the slow learning curve for myself, on top of the epiphany.
My only regret is this is happening outside of the watchful gaze of Tom Paul. His rebuke/rebuttal to both of us here would be well worth reading.
;D
-
Pat
Perfect reply.
In fact, I think it jibes with Ran's perceptions of great courses (not that I can speak for him). He has always said to me when arguing ;D about a great golf course that it needed to have great golf holes first and foremost. After that he always would ask where would you rather play a round of golf regularly or become a member. Golf is supposed to be fun too. That I think is part of the reason Ran would rank a Maidstone ahead of a Muirfield or a Bethpage Black. Its really hard to argue with that perception and I hate it when he uses that trump card.
To keep somewhat within this discussion this is one reason I really like Gil's body of work from Craighead to Inniscrone to Applebrook to Rustic Canyon they are fun to play and have great golf holes on them.
-
Geoff Childs,
I don't want to speak for Ran either, but I believe that we're both on the same wave length with respect to the ultimate test for a golf course.
-
Rich asked ... "Can somebody out there (Tommy?) who has played both Tallgrass and some other comparable course do a "Match Play" and tell us how they score the match, and most importantly why, on a hole by hole basis? This might be a learning experience, at least for me."
Fair enough since I have played both courses.
I'll start with a match-play assessment ...
1st hole -- RC 1 Up ... RC has the better overall hole in this match against opening par-5's -- RC at 541 and TG at 521 yards recpectively. You have a more demanding tee shot than TG and the option to go for the green in two has a bit more at-risk elements than it's LI counterpart. Also the green is a bit more demanding.
2nd hole -- Hole halved (RC still 1 Up) ... Both holes are demanding -- RC plays 457 yards / TG plays 424 yards. RC has its famous "bath tube" bunker to conmtend with and the green has a good share of contours to keep you honest. Tallgrass is equal to the task.
3rd hole -- TG wins hole (Match even) ... The 3rd at TG is 419 yards is quite good because the tee shot and green are both good. The 3rd at RC is a fine short par-4 but the demands for the tee shot are not as compelling for a hole of this type.
4th hole -- TG wins hole (TG goes 1-up) ... Fine redan like par-3 at TG -- the 3rd at RC features a fine putting surface but the greater challenge resides with TG.
5th hole -- RC wins hole (Match even) ... the par-5 5th at RC plays 535 yards and is a wonderful risk'nreward type hole. The green is perfectly shaped and positioned to defeat all but the most pure of plays. The 5th at TG -- a short par-4 of 375 yards is quite ordinary.
6th hole -- RC wins hole (RC goes 1-up) ... superb par-3 at RC which plays 216 yards with a fall-away green that makes any frontal pin placement a real chore to get close. The 7th at TG is a driveable short par-4 under the right conditions but the strategic aspects are really quite plain IMHO.
7th hole -- Hole halved (RC remains 1-up) ... Both are par-4's -- the 7th at RC is 330 yards and features a 220 yard drive over an angled ditch like area. The 7th at TG plays 405 yards but is also rather ordinary.
8th hole -- Hole halved (RC remain 1-up) ... Both are fine par-3's -- RC at 127 yards and TG at 186.
9th hole -- Hole havled (RC remains 1-up) ... Both are good par-5's and they each have unique putting greens that don't give away E-Z birdies without some effort.
10th hole -- RC wins hole (RC goes 2-up) ... Short par-4 at TG is merely pedestrain type hole. The 10th at RC is a straightforward par-5 of 572 yards but the green is again the key because it is nicely angled and is quite deep.
11th hole -- RC wins hole (RC goes 3-up) ... RC features a 435-yard par-4 that has a devilish green -- especially when the pin is cut deep left. The 11th at TG is 384 yards and has a number of features between sand and contour movement but the greater demands rest with the hole from Moorpark IMHO.
12th hole -- Hole halved (RC remains 3-up) ... Both are short par-4's -- RC at 340 and TG at 323 yards. Not much of a difference between them in my book.
13th hole -- RC wins hole (RC goes 4-up) ... Good par-4 at TG playing 418 yards that features a well-placed fairway bunker but the overall intricacies are with the par-5 13th at RC which is 555 yards. The fairway bunker there and the delicious green make for a more challenging and fun hole.
14th hole -- RC wins hole (RC goes 5-up) ... Superb long par-4 at RC plays 480 yards and the downhill dog-leg left tempts you to cut-off a bit more yardage than is prudent if you're not careful ... the fall away green is also well done. The short 143-yards par-3 at TG is well done but just a notch below what you see at RC.
15th hole -- TG wins hole (RC goes 4-up) ... Solid three-shot par-5 for most people at TG with hole playing 541-yards. Must watch out for H20 and plenty of sand. Uphill par-3 at RC is simply an OK hole -- the overall demands are just not as thorough as the other par-3's.
16th hole -- Hole havled (RC remains 4-up) ... Two tough long par-4's -- RC at 479 and TG at 472 yards. The 16th at TG would be the better hole if / when the high fesuce grasses come in on the right hand side of this dog-leg hole. The 16th at RC is also good because of the nature of how the green is shaped.
17th hole -- TG wins hole (RC goes 3-up) ... A battle between two part-3's -- RC plays downhill to 189 yards and TG is 217 yards. TG takes the hole because of the neat hump that serves to make the approach even more daunting. TYhe player has to decide either to bounce or fly the ball directly into the target.
18th hole -- RC wins hole (RC goes 4-up) ... Interesting dog-leg right at TG at 418 yards but the green lacks the fire to serve as the finale. The 18th at RC is 460 yards and requires the player to hit a very well played slider tee shot that can follow the fairway. The green is also the better of the two with a myriad of different contours.
I'll follow-up with a breakdown of hole groupings (e.g. par-3's, par-4's and par-5's and additional comments on overall terrain and routing.
-
From what I've seen the seventh hole at Rustic Canyon has definitely been "halved".
-
Matt,
Great match.
I wasn't fortunate to play Tallgrass,only a tour, but I liked what I saw. Match play would then be an impossibility for me in this regard.
But as far as dramatics, of course I love Rustic. There is something about being out in the canyon in the late day that does this to me. In relation to Tallgrass, I like the Moorland feel of the place. The bunker left of #3 reminds me of something one would see in Hutchinson's British Golf Links, in fact, the whole course reminds me of something in Great Britain, circa 1896. I think thats what they were going for too.