Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Ran Morrissett on July 28, 2002, 07:05:27 AM
-
Something special happened while Hidden Creek was being built.
From the routing to the tree clearing to the green and bunker construction to the grow-in, everything kept falling into place. The right people were always on site making the right decisions each and every time.
The end result is what seems like an aura of perfection about this newly opened Coore & Crenshaw course as it is hard to imagine any course being better thought out or constructed. In some ways, it reminds me of Swinley Forest, which I have always considered as perhaps the perfect inland course for a lifetime of play. As with Swinley, there are courses that are longer and harder but few are more enjoyable for a game time and time again.
Set on 750 acres with no homes or outside intrusions, C&C's routing highlight the finest natural land forms on the site, which is surprisingly rolling for south New Jersey. But the hand work of the architectural features is what really highlights the sophisticated effort that was made here. Just look at the photo of the bunker that obscures the right side of the 2nd green and you may well agree that the attention to detail is extraordinary.
Bill Coore, the last man in the world to point the spot light on their work, started murmuring to the owner toward the end of the project, "You know, Roger, this course really is turning out well." There is no higher praise.
Cheers,
-
I'll tell you something that's sort of interesting in my opinion that Ran said in the beginning of the Hidden profile. He said that Coore (and Crenshaw) signed to do the project after Coore walked the site for three solid weeks and that that's longer than most architects spend on site to build a course.
It may be true that's longer than most archtiects spend on site building a course but to get Bill and Ben (who actually are in the habit of signing on at separate times when they individually become convinced of the validity of the project and that they're each on the same page with the owner and vice versa) three weeks is not long at all for them. You just ask some other owners about how long it can take Ben and Bill to look over a property before agreeing to do the project and for both to sign on and how much time particularly Bill might spend analyzing a site before signing on.
If you check around, three weeks on site and three weeks after first seeing the property may actually be close to record time for them. I bet a large part of that was that they already knew Roger Hansen!
If we ever got to do the Ardrossan Farm project for Gulph Mills and I believe Ben and Bill would have finally agreed to do it but getting them to sign on (after a good deal of analysis on Bill's part) may have taken a solid year or two!!
All those good things tend to happen when an architect basically sticks to a schedule of only two courses at one time max!
-
Wow. Great stuff, Ran. Thanks.
-
I don't think I've ever wanted to visit and STUDY a new course as much as Hidden Creek, strictly based on the photos I've seen of the place and the opportunities I've had to talk with James Duncan about the course and its lay out.
Duncan "ran the job" for Coore & Crenshaw and derseves some recognition for his contributions to the lay out of Hidden Creek and its construction... along with guys like Jim Craig and Jeff Bradley, and the other usual suspects of course.
Wow, those Bradley bunkers in the Course Profile photos are about as good as they get, or so it seems.
Hats off to Roger Hansen too. It takes an intelligent owner who understands the process and procedures for a course like Hidden Creek to become a reality as well.
Great stuff!
-
Tom,
Working for a committee of one is a huge plus and C&C have had that luxury at several projects including SH, FH and here. In this case, the "committee" even flew down and toured Rockport CC fifteen years ago (!) so it's safe to say that there existed a shard mind set between the owner and architect for an extended period of time.
Jeff,
I agree and HV rewards close study. We can cry all we want and go on and on about the Golden Agers but C&C's hands-on approach with a talented and dedicated crew is the zenith of great architecture.
Cheers,
-
In a real effort in current architectural analysis concerning how today's golfers generally regard architecture and how they react to various kinds of architecture, Hidden Creek is a really good example although unfortunately some of the reaction to it is pretty depressing and does in fact show where golfers' appreciation is (or I guess I should say isn't).
I think both Coore and Crenshaw and Roger Hansen too realized there was a good likelihood that Hidden Creek could be a misunderstood course architecturally.
And with some people they were right. Some people who have played the course (and some members) have said the holes are not memorable enough (not enough WOW), the holes are not that distinct from each other, that the fairways are too wide and there isn't enough to think about off some of the tees. These same people also say many of the greens are extremely large and consequently that results in too much 3 putting and such!
Is there a single reason not to be completely depressed over these kinds of reactions? I can't think of a reason not to be depressed over those kinds of reactions. It tells me how far removed modern golfers have gotten from what once was and what is again some very sophisticated golf architecture.
Sophisticated in the fact that the course doesn't really show you a lot strategically unless you really pay attention and look at it closely and probably feel the ground, the scale and the dimensions. Hidden Creek is definitely not a golf course that's high on "road mapping"!! This will be a course where on many holes it won't be good enough to just figure out what you have to the middle and play accordingly--you'll have to do a bit more thinking than that.
And Hidden Creek is a fairly low profile visual design that will be much about the ground game in all kinds of aspects--that is definitely what C&C, Duncan, Hansen, Riggs et al are gearing towards.
Also like some of the other interesting courses that have been built recently including Applebrook and probably Rustic Canyon ultimately are second shot and/or approach shot designs. Not a lot of individual or solely incremental shot requirment in and of itself, in the absolute, particularly off some of the tees!! So many golfers today have come to expect to have to solve a major problem on every shot only in and of itself with sometimes just one dimensional execution! In this regard so much of what is perceived as strategy is only in individual shots and doesn't relate well enough to the progression of shot strategies as golfers advance down golf holes. Courses like Hidden have some of the best in progressive strategy--the kind where strategies and particular choices sometimes seem to have no real meaning occasionally on a shot or in some area but on study and experience have great meaning but only as they relate to what comes later which of course today is not well understood or even recognized.
The reactions of some are depressing but I'm going to give those that don't seem to understand it or appreciate it at this point enough credit and I'm going to believe that eventually they're going to figure out the reasons why they're constantly 3 putting or making bogie or worse is not about the golf course but about what they are NOT seeing and understanding about the golf course because it just doesn't happen to be as obvious as they've come to expect it to be.
I have no idea how Roger or the club might accomplish this but I would encourage all those members and guests who play the golf course who have any strength at all to play the course from the back regardless of what their handicaps are.
I would very much encourage the same thing at Applebrook. One of the weaknesses of Applebrook, in my opinion, is the difference in total card length between the tips and the next set of tees is 500+ yds. And that differenc is way too much. Strong golfers are playing the course from the middle tees simply because they think their handicaps dictate they should and they're getting the wrong impression of the course. The clubs should make them play from the tips or set new tees and tee block somehow only 150-200 yds different from the tips!
-
Ran,
Special individuals are usually responsible for the concept and creation of special golf courses.
People like Roger Hansen, Lowell Schulman, Ken Bakst, Mike Keiser, Dick Youngscap and Steve Wynn make it possible to turn a dream into a reality.
They commit their ideas, time, effort and finances to help insure the success of the project.
They are to be praised every bit as much as the accomplished architects who transform the dream into a special golf course.
Hopefully, individuals like Roger Hansen and the golf course he created will inspire others to pursue their golf course dreams.
-
It's nice to read about a firm that sets such high standards for itself, and then follows through on them.
With regard to Tom Paul's mentioning of the gap between
back and regular markers being so great at Applebrook, I was
surprised to hear that. But he is right: 6285 vs 6830, close to
550 yards. I'd be curious to hear how that difference came about, because I think it's more pronounced than at a typical Hanse design. I'd agree that that disparity is pretty significant.
Nice job on the write up, Ran.
-
I enjoyed the write up very much. I read it before playing the course today and I found myself looking for the features you mentioned. I agree with Tom Paul that the course does not have the WOW factor that many other courses in the area have. However, the course is just fun to play and becomes more so each time I go there.
I disagree with Tom Paul about playing the back tees. They are just too difficult for some of us.
-
Fred,
I agree with you that Tom's insistence to play the back markers at HC is curious - not much joy for a guy who drives it 225 yards on such holes as 6, 10 and 12 from the back - perhaps Tom will further explain his thinking?
The difference between mid and back markers are HC is ~400 yards (6872 vs. 6485) with 100 yards of that being in the two par fives on the front.
Indeed, who really cares where tee markers are? As with most courses, the ideal set-up is generally a mixed set.
Cheers,
-
Rejoice! No water hazards. I guess they Hid the Creek real good. The place looks heavenly. Great report Ran.
-
Also many thanks to Dan Proctor,Dave Zincan(sorry Dave about spelling of last name) and the tremendous work done by the labor crew. These guys seem to miss out on the accolades that are throne about by individuals who have probably never touched a rake or shovel in their entire existance. Not to say that the owners,architects and their crews of artists don't deserve the praise for their works, let the praise trickle on down to the whole group of men or women that participate in creating such masterpieces as Hidden Creek.
-
I had the good fortune to play Hidden Creek this afternoon.
Partly because several participants on this site enjoyed the privilege of seeing Friars Head during construction, that course has experienced a fair amount of talk (and with good reason!). As a result, Hidden Creek, which was built at the same time as FH, has come in somewhat under the radar, but I hope the course will now receive its due, as it is outstanding.
The setting is terrific, set among 750 acres to ensure that nothing will intrude on the proper playing of the game.
The course may well be the most consistent Coore and Crenshaw course I have played. What is everyone's least favorite hole??? Tough question!
The pacing and variety of holes are tremendous. The course "flows" quite well, with the stretch of 10-12 particularly interesting (475, 120, 465).
As Ran keeps reminding me, I have never played Swinley Forest, yet I imagine the overall "look" of several holes at HC is similar, particularly the 15th.
Overall, Hidden Creek is a strong success at fulfilling its role -- as an enjoyable and fun course for members and their guests to play time and time again. How can you ever grow tired of the holes (e.g., 4, 8, 11) and their varied greens?
Favorite holes: 4, 8, and 10 (with the 10th as my favorite), with 3, 11, and 12 a hair behind.
-
The course looks like a hell of a lot of fun -- the appreciation of Nature and craftsmanship is apparent. How thick is the fescue? The 4th looks fabulous, as does the 11th, how would you evaluate the par-3s as a group?
-
WOW!!!-------------Golf as it was meant to be! Phenomenal pictures and write up Ran! C&C and their fabulous crew deserve the highest architectural kudos possible! Oh, to have this type of course here in Chicago. As I travel a lot for business on the East Coast I hope to have the good fortune to possibly play it someday!----Thank you also Roger Hansen for having the vision to create something special and enduring for future generations of golfers to appreciate and enjoy!!!!!!
-
Tom,
Taken as a set, the one shotters are very diverse, requiring something like a three wood, five iron, pitch, and three iron into the 4th, 7th, 11th, and 14th respectively.
The 7th is noteworthy in that it was the one "create something from nothing" hole and C&C did a great job of doing just that. I wish I could have got a decent picture of it but never did so there is not one in the course profile.
The 4th is destined to be the most famous hole on the course (I suppose) and is my favorite long C&C one shotter that I've seen. For no good reason, the 11th reminds me a little of 15 at Kingston Heath.
Cheers,
-
I think these pictures are spectacular AND the course looks fantastic, but...... just let me ask one question -
What would the comments/impressions be if the bunkers were grass faced and the roughs were long green grass? Most of these pictures feature the bunkers and tall grass, it's hard to see the actual strategy of the individual hole.
My opinion, I think the playing conditions would be similar but the visuals and aesthetics would be reduced and most would be touting this as an average course.
-
Great profile, congrads to all involved, that quarry feature on the par 5 looks awesome! Sure looks like a FUN, interesting course to play over and over again in different wind conditions.
Roger, what are the normal wind conditions on the site? Can anyone comment on how the green contours compare with FH's?
-
Bye,
If it was green grass everywhere, the course would no doubt lose visual appeal and its loose connection with the rustic heath courses.
If the playing corridors were narrow, some of the holes couldn't exist/play the way they do as playing angles/strategy would be lost. The player weighs risk/rewards on every full shot on the course with the possible exception of the 18th tee ball where not but so much is gained by being on either side of the fairway unless the hole is back left or front right.
However, even with green grass and narrow corridors, the excellent routing would exist and raise the course above the norm.
Still, built by a different architect, the end result of Hidden Creek could have been average as you suggest: many an architect would have headed for the lower portion of the property to get to the wetlands at the expense of using the more interesting land forms on the upper portion, a general lack of strategy generally exists at 90% plus of tree lined courses, the lack of contrast via the fescues would have cost the course its unique visual appeal, and I can see a course with USGA greens that are more rigid in appearance and whose surrounds aren't nearly as conducive to the ground game.
That were lots of reasons why this could have been just another course; fortunately, such is not the case :)
Cheers,
-
Ran,
Thanks for the response. Regarding the rootzone mix issue, is it my understanding that they built the greens with "unimproved" native material and then created their differing seed lines as they saw fit?
Believe me, the bunker pictures will be in the hands of one of my contractors this week. A picture is worth a thousand words!
-
I played Hidden Creek at the end of May with Jeff Bradley. I found the course to be perfect for the setting, and from what I gathered, perfect for the members. The fescues were just starting to brown out a bit. I thought that every green complex was diffeerent from the ones before it and after it.(What about the back swale on #2? ;D) Nothing looks forced there and it appears to have been there for a while. I think that Ross or Raynor would be in love with HC. There are options galore on almost every hole, ie-#2, #8, #12, etc...I love #11...what a cool par 3. Doesn't have to be long to be a tough par. I really hope that this course sneeks up in the rankings for Best New. I hope that it stires some of the same discussions that Chechessee did down south. Chechessee was so different and just fit the site, I think that the same thng is going to happen at HC. AWESOME JOB C&C
-
How does the course compare to the heath courses? Are the mounds behind 4 green in keeping with the rest of the course?
Is 8 green in a punchbowl what was dug out?I have played a goodly number of courses in New Jersey but don't recall seeing one like this either in the state or in the north east. Why wouldn't other clubs encouarage the same "look" or is it expensive to maintain? Thank you for any answers.
-
KClarke,
The 8th green doesn't sit in a manufactured punchbowl ala something like the 4th at Fishers Island or the 7th at Camargo, though I can see from the picture how that's easy to think. Rather, the green starts some 10-20 yards past the brow of the hill but there are no containment mounds/walls behind the green or to its sides.
The mounds behind the 4th green are probably the biggest on the course and in this case, they consist of where the gravelly, sandy soil was pullled back before C&C filled in the green complex with the clean sand, so form follows function to a certain degree.
In a unique touch, similar with the heath courses, there are random piles of dirt scattered across the course that were dropped and played with (I think Dave Axland said) by a rubber tire loader (in fact, there is one such pile just behind the 4th tee). You tell me what you think of it based on the picture from the 4th tee but I think it looks great.
As for Hidden Creek vs. the heath courses, it stacks up hole for hole with most that I've seen, including the famous Sunningdale Old, while exuding the same effortless charm and rustic appeal as a place like West Sussex or Swinley Forest. Plus, given how hard C&C and the boys worked on site, Hidden Creek lacks the odd clunker like the 9th at West Sussex or further afield, the 16th at Woodhall Spa.
Cheers,
-
Ran,
Great profile of a special place. Did you get the feeling that this was the type of site that most architects would have written off as ordinary, but which they will now add to the list of great sites Coore and Crenshaw seem to keep accidentally stumbling upon and merely doing what any other architect would have done? :)
Geoff
-
That looks phenomenal in pictures, and great profile, Ran. Almost a book! Anyone...where is it exactly, and how far from Pine Valley?
-
Why did I say members of Hidden Creek or Applebrook who are strong should play from the back tees?
Maybe because those are the very same members or critics who have said those courses are easy, not that interesting, not fun or challenging!
Those are the same members who should definitely experience what it was like to play some of the best and most challenging architecture from yesteryear without the titanum, v-1s that didn't exist back then.
Either that, or I'm just wrong!
-
Tom;
I think what those members are really saying, particularly about Hidden Creek, is that the course doesn't have the "dramatics", or "eye popping visuals" that have become de rigeur on most courses today, despite the rugged looking bunkers we all appreciate.
Yes, it's subtle and yes, it's very sophisticated....almost Rossian in concept and execution. And there is a LOT of really good stuff going on, particularly through the first 12 holes.
However, I must admit that I've been thinking about this one for a couple of days, and what keeps coming to mind is Dr. Mackenzie's lament after respected golfers kept coming through Cypress Point without mentioning a single word of criticism.
"What's WRONG with it?", he wondered aloud.
Listening to the glowing plaudits on this website, and personally believing that both Coore and Crenshaw, as well as Roger Hansen are realistic and receptive enough to want to hear more than a constant drumbeat of praise, I'd offer the following.
If great art requires intelligent criticism to remain healthy, then I think we are being a bit negligent here.
Is Hidden Creek the "perfect" course? Why do so many of the positive comments contain the qualifier, great "members" course? Is there anything that might be changed or rethought? Do all of the holes and concepts play as well as they were conceived? What is the strategy involved in holes like 1, 6, 16, or 18?
The only words I heard questioning anything at HC were Archie's a few weeks back wondering where the risk was in the risk/reward short par four 8th hole. He was correct in his assessment, I believe.
How about the mounds, such as the large one fronting the 2nd hole, which are obviously man-made and rather unnatural looking, or those crossing the 5th and 16th fairways?
Are all of the greens suitably sized and contoured for the approach lengths, and the type of shots required to hit them, or might some like the 14th be a bit too contrived and depth-perception-elusive?
Why does one also find themselves behind trees on the 15th hole if you drive through the fairway into the bunker at the far end? Isn't that a form of double jeopardy?
I've played HC, and enjoyed it a great deal. As I said, there are a LOT of superb things going on, and it's a very different style golf course that SHOULD be heartily applauded on many levels. However, I believe these are fair and realistic questions I'm raising, and they were shared by the other members of my foursome, who ranged quite a bit in scoring ability, but all of whom have considerable experience and insight into course architecture.
I also think that if we are to be fair to the architects as well as the owner, we should not paint the place with such a broad brush of overwhelming praise that we lose sight of the fact that many golfers will not quite understand it, nor is it completely beyond the pale of constructive criticism by those who do.
-
There seems to be no question that Hidden Creek is a fun, subtle, golf course with a low-key visual presentation that exemplifies the kind of courses we all enjoy seeing.
However, given the fairly flat sight, the lack of forced carries and other dramatics, and the lack of blatantly obvious strategies on many holes, I guess what I'm asking above from others who have played the course is this;
While stimulating the mind, and the eye, does it also quicken the pulse and cause a rush of adrenaline at times as all great courses do?
And if so, where does it stand in the company of the many other highly-regarded New Jersey courses like PV, Plainfield, Baltusrol, Somerset, Ridgewood, etc.?
-
Mike C:
I too enjoyed Hidden Creek and believe it's a wonderful addition in raising the level of courses in and around the immediate Atlantic City area.
As someone who has studied and seen much of Jersey golf for over 30 years I cannot say that Hidden Creek is in the league of the heavyweight courses you mentioned: Plainfield, Baltusrol, Ridgewood, Somerset Hills, etc. etc.
The depth of courses in the Garden State is, as you know, very compelling and extremely competitive. Would Hidden Creek make the top 40 overall courses in the state? Clearly. Would it make the top 20? No, in my opinion.
In order to further discussion I've enclosed my review of Hidden Creek which appears in the latest issue of Jersey Golfer as well as the ratings scale we use. I hope this will help stimulate a much broader analysis of the course.
HIDDEN CREEK GOLF CLUB / EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP
Tel # (609) 909-2990
6,872 Yards / Par-72
Course Rating – 72.5 Slope - 131
RATINGS GUIDE NUMBER - 6.5
Give developer Roger Hansen credit for dogged determination. When Blue Heron Pines / West was being conceptualized Hansen wanted the talented architectural duo of Ben Crenshaw, the two-time Masters champion, and his partner Bill Coore to design the course. The result? Hansen was politely turned down. Why? The tandem believed the proposed property was lacking in real quality.
Hansen had solid success with BHP / West and opted to have a companion public 18. He turned once again to Crenshaw & Coore and was rebuffed for the same reason. After success in building two quality public 18-hole courses -- Blue Heron Pines will host the USGA Public Links next year, Hansen moved ahead with his desire to build a third course – this one private. Again -- he turned to Crenshaw & Coore. The result? A third time charm. Hidden Creek is the first New Jersey layout for Crenshaw & Coore and Hansen’s wait has paid off with a quality result.
Crenshaw & Coore are selective about the sites and clients they work for. They don't overextend themselves with numerous projects that can drain attention and result in pre-fabricated designs. What's their best design to date? Without question – Sand Hills in Mullen, Nebraska. Many architectural critics, including this writer, believe it is among the 2-3 finest courses to come into existence in the last 25-30 years.
The Crenshaw & Coore philosophy is to minimally alter what nature has provided. However, the natural topography of South Jersey is rather nondescript. There are exceptions though and Hidden Creek is one of them.
Hidden Creek is a design that doesn't beat you over the head with idiotic clutter and mindless obstacles. The layout is not a blowtorch design – it seeks to entice you – seduce you – bring out passion for the next shot – the next hole. What you do find is artfully created putting surfaces that ebb and flow without resorting to savage contours.
Among the better holes is the par-3 4th at 222 yards. Hitting from an elevated tee the hole has elements of a redan with a slightly sloping green that falls from right to left. The player can avoid a huge bunker that protects the left side but missing too far right will put pressure on your recovery. Crenshaw & Coore simply say - "here's the hole - show me what you've got."
Holes #8 through #12 are uniquely varied and wonderfully done. The 8th is a drivable par-4 of 300 yards from the tips. If you can carry a tee ball over a centrally located fairway bunker about 260-270 yards you get a favorable downhill roll to the target. Not a great short par-4 but one that maximizes the "fun" element for all types of players.
The 9th is a solid three-shot par-5 with the exception of the longest hitters. The sight line is indeed a challenge as the tee shot needs to hug the right side to open up the angle for one's second. One can then hit a long iron or wood that must avoid a series of fairway bunkers sprinkled down the right side.
The par-4 10th at 476 yards features a slight turn to the left and the fairway will propel a tee shot that can carry to the down slope. Overcook the tee shot too far left and a savage small bunker will pick your pocket. The approach shot must also be gauged correctly as the green falls away. When the pin is placed in the front third the ability to get close will require a jeweler’s touch indeed.
A clever change of pace happens at the 11th. A devilish short par-3 of 121 yards plays slightly uphill to a green perched on a natural rise. The green appears smaller from the tee – but it’s a bit larger than you think.
The 12th is arguably the most demanding hole on the course. The 467-yard par-4 has a well-placed fairway bunker that angles into the driving zone. You can avoid it by hitting a shorter club off the tee but your second then becomes longer. If you dare play it boldly by squeezing a tee shot between the bunker and the tree line that pinches in from the right.
Hidden Creek is not a winner in all senses. Some of the bunkering is out of place or over the top in its demands. A good example being the two fairway bunkers on the uphill par-4 15th hole. The first is within range of the tee with overhanging tree limbs that doubles your penalty. The second bunker is only in play if your name is Jason Zuback -- the long drive expert. Ditto the right fairway bunker on the 10th. The fairway bunker located in the heart of the 2nd fairway also could have been placed a bit further down the fairway forcing better players to think about its meaning.
The weakest hole among the closing stretch is the 16th -- it's 470 yards from the tips and straightaway, however, it possesses little meaningful character. Nonetheless, Hidden Creek succeeds in being what it was meant to be -- a quality member’s course. The range of holes fits nicely for all handicap levels.
Galloway National and the restored Atlantic City Country Club have been the private clubs of choice in the area. The addition of Hidden Creek makes for an interesting trio. Roger Hansen’s tenacity paid off in getting Crenshaw & Coore. Is Hidden Creek a smashing home run? No. It's a solid double and one to keep on your radar screen if an invite comes your way.
Ratings Scale
10 - Flawless.
9 - Nearly perfect.
8 - A must play go now!
7 - Superior – clicks on all cylinders.
6 - Solid layout – never boring.
5 - Play when time permits.
4 - Average
3 - Needs attention to various details
2 - Major upgrades needed
1 - Flawed and forgettable
0 - A mess
-
Geoff,
Funny that you would say that - I thought of Rustic Canyon while I was playing Hidden Creek and of an architect sitting in his office looking at a topo map for both sites and not in the least understanding either site's amazing potential.
Matt,
Your post is why this is a great Discussion Group. You have different criteria from many that post here and you take the time to express your own conclusions. The same criteria that makes you question if Hidden Creek is in the top 20 in New Jersey is the same criteria that leads you to say that The Bridge is in the top three courses on Long Island - and that gives you a unique perspective on the world of golf course architecture, for sure. If we all thought the same, I would shut down the DG today.
Matt/Mike,
Neither of you appreciate the 16th? The fact that the mounds are on a left to right diagonal and if the player plays down the narrowing, right side of the fairway that he gains an advantage of a club or two shorter into the green doesn't count? The fact that the green is one of the wildest on the course with its high middle spine coming in from the left doesn't give this hole character? I think Roger is still laughing how my first putt from 50 feet ended 25 feet away from the hole!
Mike,
What is the strategy of the 1st hole? You mean other than the best angle in is down the tree line on the left? Yes, there is a wide fairway but the further right one goes, the more problematical the right greenside bunker becomes. Doesn't that count as strategy? A wide fairway with a prefered side from which to attack seems a wonderful ploy, specially for a 1st hole. I thought it turned out great and I know that it is one of James Duncan's very favorite holes on the course.
As for the bunker that fronts the 2nd green, C&C intentionally tried to capture the manufactured features of the heath courses in certain spots. Look at pictures of how some of the bunker walls rise out of the ground at Walton Heath and you'll appreciate part of the mind set that the Boys were in as they built Hidden Creek. In fact, closer to home, they went to Garden City GC during the construction process of HC to study the abrupt features/bunker walls on that course.
And don't you think that the ever increasing severity of the right to left slope 250 yards from the 8th tee on the left of the hole will send a ball or two into real trouble (i.e. the man who takes a mighty swipe for the 8th green will end up wishing that he hadn't)?
Gentlemen,
A LOT of time and thought went into the design of each hole at Hidden Creek by extremely talented people - offering critical analysis after ONE ROUND is tricky business indeed.
Isn't it ironic how we as a group praise architects that spend tons of time on site tweaking the natural features and then we rush out after one round offering a critical assesment of their work?
::)
Cheers,
PS For the record, I find Hidden Creek both dramatic and eye popping. Standing on the 4th tee or the 16th and 17th tee with the setting sun breaking through the pines would make anyone pause to soak in the beauty. It is a world class course, full stop, a dream come true in every respect, and one of the 2/3 best constructed courses I've ever seen. I cry that there is nothing like it here in Southern Pines.
-
Ran:
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. A few points to make.
First, I never said The Bridge was in the top three on LI. I did say I would put the course in my personal top five from what I have played on the Island and I believe I've played all of them of note with the exception of Friar's Head and Easthampton. Clearly, others disagree with such a lofty inclusion and as you say that's what makes GCA so facinating. I agree.
Second, when you say people have made critiques on Hidden Creek, or any other course for that matter, based on one visit I have to ask -- how many times have you played the course? Is there a specific number before one can post comments -- both pro, con and in the middle? The reason why I say this is because Tom Doak did much of the same thing for the large bulk of courses he reviewed in Confidential Guide and other writers of key major golf pubs do the same.
Ran -- I've learned in plenty of situations that first impressions usually make lasting impressions. It's not a guarantee of course, but I don't think one should discount it either.
Third, I have to scratch my head when you place the course in such elite standing. Are you saying that Hidden Creek is in the same league with Sand Hills? Pac Dunes? In my mind, the two courses I just listed are easily two of the finest new courses that have come on line in America in the last 25-30 years. You'd put Hidden Creek in that company. Interesting -- but I respectfully disagree.
Hidden Creek is a wonderful course and I salute Roger Hansen and the Crenshaw & Coore partnership for a job well done. But let's place things in perspective -- New Jersey is a very competitive state and there are a number of outstanding courses here in my home state.
I don't doubt the C&C design team took great care and diligence in their work. That's a plus to their ability to really provide a hands-on creation that few people at the top of the design business actually do.
But I stand on what I saw and what I wrote and I can easily say Ran we emphasize different areeas of importance in design. I would be most curious to know where you would rate Hiddeen Creek in NJ? Is it ahead of Baltusrol? Plainfield? Your beloved Somerset Hills? Hollywood? Are you saying Hidden Creek is among the top five in the Garden State?
Thanks ... ;)
-
I too would second what Ran Morrissett said about the critiques of Hidden Creek and that the divergence of opinions is a good thing.
In my opinion I side much more with Ran in his evaluation of Hidden Creek and the "reasons" for some of what's there and how it all works, than I do with Matt Ward, for instance.
Matt very well may have some single barometer of criteria in his mind for what makes any course really good--I don't know that but his evaluations of courses and his natural inclination to put them in a number order and rate them against each other would lead me to suspect such a thing! And that's just fine--since Matt Ward is a dedicated rater!
The first thing to understand about a Coore and Crenshaw golf course or the way they seem to approach their business is first and foremost they seem to look for the opportunity to get into courses that are different (and certainly from each of the others they do) in some way.
To Bill Coore, anyway I'm coming to realize "difference" in golf architecture is a very good thing--"difference" in his courses and difference in the work of others too. So, it's important to understand how C&C seem to want to work across a spectrum of design that involves difference to them!
Some can and may say to see the handmade detailed rugged look of any C&C course's bunkering gives away their "style" and that may be true to an extent--but I know for a fact that Coore would consider doing a golf course with no bunkering at all if he felt he found the right site. I thought that site might have been Ardrossan Farm and I proposed a bunkerless course to him there but he said he felt Ardrossan was a great site for "some really good bunkering" (his words)--so what do I know?
You can talk about the fact that although all the bunkering at HC is handworked and ruggedly grassed some of the bunkering at Hidden Creek pops right out of the ground (that's basically the very first indication that a bunker is not a natural land formation, BTW). That's surely true of #13! and #2's right side bunkering down by the green.
So why did they make it to pop right out of the ground like that which looks quite unnatural? For a very good and well thought through reason that basically has to do with the entire theme of the golf course.
They decided at that site to pay tribute to the early "heathland" style! They fully understand that early "heathland" style was quite rudimentary in it's sophistication and conctruction techniques and that the creation of a bunker originally in the "heathlands" was to dig the fill and pile it right there in a formation that created a popped up bunker shape. That's why Coore said early on that the bunkering at HC was going to be "ridgy" like the early "heathland" look!
Bunkering in those days in that area were simple rudimentary representations of the linksland's natural bunkering and in the heathland style they never meant to make it a completely natural "mimic" as say a MacKenzie did about 25-30 years later whent the art of architecture and really "natural looking features" had advanced and evolved light years in sophistication and technique to almost copy the exact look of all things natural!! The pinnacle of that effort, to me culminated at Cypress Point and the almost indistinguishableness of those bunker features with nature itself. The early "heathland" style had not come close to that sophistication and it shows still today!
C&C are certainly knowledgeable enough to know that the "style" they were paying tribute to (the early "Heathland" style) had not come close to reaching that kind of architectural sophistication--but they went with a tribute in New Jersey to that early "heathland style" anyway!
Both Coore and Crenshaw don't even flatter themselves by pretending to know everything. Bill knew he probably was no real expert on the detailed look and feel of the early "heathland" style and that's one of the primary reasons James Duncan was picked as the project manager at Hidden--James is European and knows those kinds of courses and their styles better than C&C do or at least that's what they figured.
Also the sophistication of the architecture of Hidden Creek and the strategies involved are basically the ground itself and the variability of how it reacts and how golf balls react to it at any particular time.
Coloration and the ground game are two of the primary themes of the golf course and how the strategies work and the variableness of them probably won't be found--even architecturally--in a single playing--matter of fact they're sure of it and I agree!
The ability to score on that course will be interesting too. For that the ground is all important (and the spectrum of scoring will show it)--so it might seem easy one day and very difficult the next.
That's a very sophisticated premise on which to construct a course and it's architecture in my opinion! And the payoff to that is the greens themselves--many (but not all) are big and you probably need to consider them in very definite sections to do well on that course in certain conditions. Much of the strategic consequence of Hidden is probably in the greens themselves. One new member is not happy that he 3 putted Hidden about nine times one day. What he needs to do is understand why he did that!! That's going to require him to begin to understand the architecture of that golf course and its subtlety and sophistication better.
But there's no "modern Wow" on that golf course! There wasn't ever supposed to be any! There wasn't any "modern Wow" on some of the early heathland courses.
So I don't have a single issue with Matt Ward if he thinks the course may be lacking something. That's his opinion and his good right to think that.
But I like the golf course for the very reasons that I think Coore and Crenshaw do--it's different--subtely different and its that way on purpose!
And I'm very glad I went down there so often when it was under construction. It's great to see courses under construction--certainly as interesting as playing them and it's extremely interesting to talk to the architects about what they're thinking and trying to accomplish. If I hadn't done any of that Hidden Creek may have taken me a bit by surprise but understanding what they did and why was another great part of continuing architectural education!
-
Hidden Creek is perhaps a lot like Sarah Jessica Parker? Lots of way cool features, but not even a "solid 7". ;)
-
Ran/Tom Paul;
I listen to both of your well-stated opinions and I feel a bit silly taking issue with you after enjoying Hidden Creek so much. I think we're talking about the difference between really, really good and highly sophisticated vs GREAT and "world class", and I have to tell you that my opinion is closer to Matt Ward's on this one.
Yes, there are quite a number of things out there that are unique, and yes, I understand what C&C and crew were trying to achieve. But, just because they achieved their goal of trying to capture the essence of some of the golf features found on heathland courses doesn't mean that it's an equal of Walton Heath or Sunningdale.
I can tell you that our group spent a LOT of time looking at each hole and despite what you might believe, I really think that we did "get it". Between the four of us, we've probably played somewhere in the range of 1,500 courses worldwide, including one fellow who's played 99 of the top 100 in the US, and another who's played about 300 more courses than I have.
In Ran's case, I don't understand how he can play Mid-Pines, or Pine Needles, for instance, and then claim "I wish we had something like this down at Southern Pines."
Please let me reiterate that I really, really like Hidden Creek a great deal, and think everyone involved deserves nothing but plaudits and certainly it's a course that's an excellent addition to New Jersey golf and the members have a really FUN golf course....
But...I'd like to hear where people would place it among NJ courses.... Not because I am so hung up on rankings, per se, but if we're claiming something is world class, then tell me how it ranks against Plainfield or Somerset Hills, for instance.
-
MikeC:
I'm certainly willing to admit that my tastes or evaluations in architecture might be slightly different, different or even quite different than Matt Ward's or yours. I'm in no way saying or implying that Matt Ward or you don't know what you're talking about in architecture--of course you both do--we just might have a different feeling about certain courses, types of courses, styles, components of them or whatever.
But I want you both to know that not once--not one time in two years on this site have a gotten into comparing Hidden Creek or any other course to the rest of the courses in New Jersey, the nation or the world.
When I hear things like a course is a "solid 7" (Hidden Creek on this thread) I sort of scratch my head not because I may not agree with whatever a "solid 7" may be--I just frankly don't know what that really means nor do I care and probably never will.
I know what Hansen and Coore and Crenshaw were trying to do out there in Egg Harbor and I think they did it admirably for what they all believe that golf course is for. If they all believed that they wanted to try for an absolute "world class" course they very well may have done something different than the tribute to the "early heathland style" that they did out there--and did very well, in my opinion.
But I try to look at what a course is for and whether the owner and architect accomplished what they set out to do! I think they did that extremely well at Hidden Creek and I think they did what they set out to do with the Easthampton course too, certainly they did with Friar's, although if someone tried to compare Easthampton to a "world class" course they'd probably get blank stares from Ben and Bill.
I like Hidden Creek a helluva lot for what it is and what it was intended to be--a really good tribute to the early English "heathland style" in New Jersey.
I've always read what others say and I watch with amusement as they throw around this ranking and rating stuff and words and comparisons like "GREAT" and "world class" and I'll continue to let others do that without much participation on that from me.
Certainly in the latter category ("world class) I would not hestitate to concur with most others on the status of courses like Pine Valley, Riviera, Shinnecock, Oakmont, RCD, Port Rush, Cypress etc!
But given all that I'd be more than willing to discuss or debate what anyone may say is "wrong" with or "lacking" about Hidden Creek in what they wanted to do with that golf course.
And Mike, I'm not going to play or ever see 1500 golf courses worldwide or 99 out of the top 100--whatever validity that may have. I'm just interested in understanding as many of the ramifications of architecture as I can, particularly the concept side of it, the prinicples behind those concepts and certainly good restoration.
-
Fine comments from Mike (Part of his aforementioned "group", BTW) and Tom.
Hidden Creek is a beautiful example a propos the thread comparing raters to whookers :o . Mr. Hansen is a wonderful man, he has had built a wonderful golf course which he well knows is not a top 100 golf course, (Tom Paul, don't even worry what that means). I didn't tell him that I thought his course was the #3 course in New Jersey, but I did rave about many a thing. What was done at Hidden Creek was marvelous. But let's have some intellectual honesty here.
Whether one really gets excited about the details or the routing or the overall experience and can separate this wonderful sense of well-being and calm brought on by all of this is what distinguishes a rater (Or if you prefer, my good friend, Mr. Paul, a critic-meaning one who is critical or can criticize) from a fan of a particular school, style or movement.
I can't wait to play Hidden Creek again and again, and the back nine of Easthampton again and again, but if we just fall into the abyss of a C&C love fest here, intellectual honesty is lost.
Maybe an honest thought to be addressed here is "Compare and Contrast Blue Heron Pines East and Hidden Creek". Maybe this is the GCA open book mid-term exam. In doing so one may arrive at a state of inner calm and peace realizing that the two courses extremely well fill their nitches and needs, but neither cracks the heirarchy of the New Jersey elite..
My hat's off to Roger Hansen, he is probably closest to living the dream that many have here. (Owner/Father :) , Builder of several fine golf courses, giving much to the game, member of a top 100 course, too-and ready to build more courses if he wants to), but he is also a realist and knows the perspective on all of this, having no pretensions.
Another example before I go, I discussed The front nine of Easthampton after I walked it and before I played it with someone and told him "This may be what I was hoping to see at Pine Hill". After later playing it I was much more impressed with the back nine at EH which showed more skill in design out there in the field (Yeah, yeah, I know the whole story there so don't tell me about the inherited routing.... I know more off that story than most of you do ) point being that the features no matter how good they are don't make the whole greater. Andrew Bernstein once posted a thread about Forest Creek on just that.
So few courses really have it all fall into place. Are there 10, 20? 50? in the world that really do? There are really very few, that's why they are so special. Also this is why an architect of hte prominence of Fazio is so disappointing to hear making statements such as "I will build 150 top 20 golf courses in the next 10 years" (The exact quote is mercifully fading from my memory and I no longer awake crying in the middle of the night recalling that comment) :'( .
The point of knowledgeable people seeing and criticizing the very best golf courses and pooling their opinions is to understand the consensus of greatness. The tops of all the lists show all the same faces, only hte order is different.
-
Tom;
I feel uncomfortable using comparisons, as well. Hidden Creek is a very good course, wonderfully integrated on good land, completely consistent with its intentions, and a heckuva LOT of FUN to play!
And I know you never compared it to other courses, except perhaps to point out similarities, or examples that were used as inspirations. But, others here did, and they compared it favorably and even in terms of superiority to some pretty heady company!! (i.e. Sunningdale Old, Swinley Forest, etc.)
That implies that it's among the Top 100 courses in the world, out of the gate, and I think that's a bit overstated, despite its considerable attributes.
-
It is an interesting phenomenon how the conversation on a golf course inevitably seems to turn to ranking it.
To answer Matt's specific question, yes, I of course would have Hidden Creek in the top five in New Jersey, and yes I place it in the same broad category as West Sussex and St. George's Hill, which I place among the world's top 100, but...so what?
Much depends on how successful Jeff Riggs is over the next several years in developing hot (fast and firm) playing conditions. If the course becomes soft and slow, much of the strategy goes out the window (but given the decision makers in place, and given how it was constructed, there is ZERO chance of that happening).
Far more interesting to talk about the features and holes than its ranking. Ben Crenshaw's folks seem to agree as they created a link to the course profile on his site www.bencrenshaw.com , which is very gratifying.
For instance, Matt writes, "The fairway bunker located in the heart of the 2nd fairway also could have been placed a bit further down the fairway forcing better players to think about its meaning."
Let's talk about that instead (fyi the bunker is 225 yards to carry from the back tee on this 370 yard hole and the bunker is uphill from the tee).
My response is that the bunker was cut from a slight ridge in the fairway, which tapers out as you go further up the fairway. Thus, they could have manufactured a bunker from nothing ala the abrupt one in front of the 2nd green (which Mike doesn't seem to like) or they could have followed what nature gave them. What would you have done as the architect? Ignore the existing landform and create something from nothing or do what C&C opted to do?
Cheers,
-
Ran,
I'm anxious to play Hidden Creek, and will be doing so in September, but, have you been bonding with Matt Ward ?
TOP FIVE (5) in New Jersey is a very strong recommendation. Tell me the other four courses you include so that I can understand which remaining courses you feel it displaces.
BV,
I think you touched on a very good point, intellectual honesty, and the need to avoid excessive adulation and excessive condemnation. The need for true objectivity.
Matt, TEPaul, Ran, Mike, & BV,
How much of an impact on your assessment is the fact that this golf course just came into being, or the WOW factor based on your tastes ?
-
Ran:
Please help me understand your comment previously posted:
"It is a world class course, full stop, a dream come true in every respect, and one of the 2/3 best constructed courses I've ever seen. I cry that there is nothing like it here in Southern Pines."
What are the other 2/3 best construced courses you've ever seen? Are you placing Hidden Creek at the level of a Sand Hills or Pac Dunes? You say Hidden Creek is among your top five in Jersey. If you could provide for me and others your personal top ten I'd like to see where everything goes. Your listing will likely reflect your own personal tase, as it should, and as mine did with Long Island when I rated The Bridge very highly. I'm still living that one from a few other GCA notables. ;D
As an FYI -- Tom Paul hit the nail on the head concerning my function. I rate courses -- as a result of that I try to assess NOT ONLY the merits of the course in question, but how it stands in comparison to other first rate architectural efforts. The readers I write for in New Jersey are a very sophisticated lot and would want nothing less. The bar, as I'm sure most would agree, in the Garden State is quite high.
Clearly, just the fanfare of having Crenshaw & Coore golf course in New Jersey is going to create some powerful buzz because of their previous successes -- most notably Sand Hills. However, such a record can also have a downside because many who have played that course may be thinking "another Sand Hills" is always in the offing. As we all know -- masterpieces aren't produced like everyday McDonald's hamburgers.
Hidden Creek is a wonderful addition to the Jersey golf scene -- particularly in the immediate Atlantic City area. However, let's not forget two other private clubs of distinction are already there --Galloway National and ACCC. What I think would be interesting is a in-depth critique of these three since I'm sure many will do such comparisons and contrasts in the years ahead. In my mind for what it's worth -- Galloway is in my top ten in the Garden State.
Latly, Ran mentioned about making critiques based on one visit. I'll ask again -- how many visits should be carried out if one is deemed insufficient? Don't many course reviews really happen with just one review? Clearly, one can always go back and see how things have progressed, matured, etc. As a writer I've done that with many Jersey layouts and when I hear that certain things have taken place I make return visits. A case in point but unrelated to Hidden Creek -- the tremendous reconditioning effort that went into NJ National since '01. The resolve in that case kept NJ National among the top ten public courses in the state. So in essence -- a rating is an ever evolving assessment. But, for me that snapshot in time does take place when I visit the course initially.
Pat:
Since I have visited so many courses over the years the "WOW" factor is really less of an issue. I've heard so much hype over the years that I try to downplay whatever I have heard UNTIL I've played the course in question. This keeps me from being major league disappointed when the hype doesn't match the reality. The only two courses of note where the hype was clearly exceeded by a visit includes Bandon Dunes, Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes, to name just three.
On the unknown side I have visited places where little was known about the course but came away trremendously impressed -- two cases in point -- The Kingsley Club in Michigan and Paa ko Ridge in New Mexico.
-
BV
I'll be more than happy to "compare and contrast" Hidden Creek and either Blue Heron if you really think that's what it takes to show some intellectual honesty in golf architectural analysis. Frankly, I'd rather discuss the holes of Hidden Creek themselves (if Hidden Creek is the subject) and talk about the architecture of those holes and how those holes and the course function and play.
Frankly, I've already done that to a degree and explained my critical and architectural feelings about the width of bunker placement on a section of #3, the efficacy of architecturally enhancing the left side of #8 etc.
Before I do that again at some point, I do want to thank you for explaining what an architectural critic is and what an architectural critique is, as well as the distinctions in knowledge and analytic ability between a rater and a fan of a particular school, style and movement.
I also want to thank you for reminding me I don't have to worry about what a top 100 course means, although I hadn't planned on worrying in the slightest about what that meant. So far the only thought I've had on that is whether those who are raters and those national golf magazines that do the rating have much idea on how to form a consensus of what that means.
It seems to me by their own admissions the raters have numerous ideas about what that means and are often quite perplexed that the managers or editors or whomever puts the lists together don't seem to share or even understand many of their ideas--and vice versa.
If I saw a business run that way I'd have to say; "That's a helluva way to run a business."
I'm not in anyway attempting to minimize my own personal opinions about the way courses in this country or this world are rated by those entities (magazines) doing those ratings. I don't agree with the way it's done, I don't agree with many of those who are doing it and I've never hesitated to say that there has to be a better way to analyze golf courses and their architecture. I've even supported what, in my opinion is, a more efficient and benefical method or concept. Frankly, I thought some of the articles on architecture from the old days by the likes of Tillinghast, Hunter or Behr were some of the most benefical ways of educating others in architectural appreciation. Far more so, in my opinion, than todays magazine rankings!
I'm interested in your sentence; "The point of knowledgeable people seeing and criticizing the very best golf courses and pooling their opinions is to understand the consensus of greatness."
I don't really want to argue semantics with you, BV, but that sentence seems to me a bit like a dog's tail chasing the dog. It seems to me like an effort to figure out how to form a consensus of opinion of architectural quality or even greatness rather than how to identify one which has always managed to have been formed on its own somehow!
How did PV or Cypress or Pinehurst #2 ever manage to become instantly identified for the quality of their courses and architecture before panels of 800 raters were fomed by magazines?
In my opinion, good architecture, great courses and their architecture had a way of identifying themselves in many and various ways long before we had the apparent benefit of rankings, ratings and lists from national golf magazines. And I believe both now and in the future that quality architecture has that same ability to identify itself without the assistance of those ratings and their raters.
This is most definitely not to take away from the interest and fun many of us fascinated by architecture have in discussing all it's pros and cons of bunkering, greens, holes and courses.
People not so interested hopefully might lurk on this site or contribute to better form their own opinions on holes and courses from what they see and read on here. That's of course a good thing. And I'm in no way advocating that my opinions on the lack of necessity of rating is the only way--I do realize most on here don't agree with my feelings--and that's OK with me.
There's nothing really wrong with discussing if a bunker on Hidden Creek's #15 is placed incorretly because it may only come into play for Jason Zubak or my grandmother! It's interesting to us but probably somewhat limited in effective or benefical consensus. In fairness to C&C's intentions at Hidden Creek, I would however, like to clarify the reason a bunker like the one right of #2 green appears somewhat unnatural (in the opinion of MikeC). In other words there's a very good reason it appears that way.
But that minutae aside, there was a remark related to me by Geoff Shackelford by a public player at Rustic Canyon that I put a lot of stock in regarding architecture and a consensus of its quality. He apparently sheepishly said to GeoffShac; "I hestitate to say this but I didn't find the course as difficult as I thought it was supposed to be but I had so much more fun playing it than I thought I would".
That kind of remark and opinion is so much more valuable, I believe, to a really accurate understanding of the consensus of quality of a particular golf course and its particular architecture (and architectural intention) than all of the apparent knowledgableness of raters and ratings (and us) and their presumptions of what's good or great. And that kind of remark has a way of extrapolating much more effectively and accurately--just as it always has!
And at Rustic Canyon, as I've heard, that extrapolation of very positive opinion has happened--and that to me is what consensus of opinion of the quality of archtiecture is all about.
That kind of opinion and consensus, I'm sorry to say to you, BV, is more important, I think, than what the raters and ratings or you and I say about the golf course or the minutae of it's architecture. Credit goes to Hanse & Co and Shackelford for creating the best of what they intended to do and all the rest about how it stacks up to everything else in California, the country, the world, the top 100 or what may constitute great or world class is semi meaningless!
That's the way I look at it anyway and I do realize that you have other opinions.
There's something else about the rating world, BV, or maybe just your individual approach to it I would very much like to know more about.
You do say that playing a golf course many times is in fact a better way to appreciate and understand it. I certainly would not disagree. In that vein, relating to this particular thread on Hidden Creek (and Easthampton), you mention you're looking forward to playing Hidden Creek and the back nine at Easthampton many many times.
Congratulations on joining the back nine at Easthampton and Hidden Creek G.C.! Because if you haven't done that and you think that your roll as a rater deserves continuous access to those clubs, I would tell you I'm not much in favor of that rating attitude either and might remind you that neither club is probably that interested in your ongoing analysis and evaluation of it.
-
Pat:
I don't understand your question about Hidden Creek just coming into being or the WOW factor at all. Clarify please.
-
BV,
I think you touched on a very good point, intellectual honesty, and the need to avoid excessive adulation and excessive condemnation. The need for true objectivity.
BV,
How much of an impact on your assessment is the fact that this golf course just came into being, or the WOW factor based on your tastes ?
My opinion, which is not one of the ones that brings this course to the top of the heap right away, is based upon what all my opinions are based upon. There are lots and lots of things that I like and I cannot give the course a "Solid 7", which I think is the best way to describe it.
And TEP, my continued access to any course is not dependent on my being a rater, so please don't make such inferences. Ever.
If I want to play a course because I enjoy playing it that is my business, but it does not affect my objective opinion of it. Very simple e.g. : I love playing NGLA and I think it is architecturally on the extremely short list; I enjoy playing Maidstone any day, too, but it is not on the extremely short list. They are not in the same "tier", and that is how it works for me.
Also, I don't think I am implying that the tail chases the dog. What makes great courses great is what one searches for in courses new to one's own personal consideration, perhaps I didn't make that clear enough. THe extremely short list is extremely short, I'll stand by that and how that list relates to all courses. Personally, I don't have a list like Ran where he says he will always prefer to play #197 that 198 on his list. (Sorry Mr. Morrissett if I am mis representing or mis-quoting you). Once I am past a very short list which is private to me (And is not necessarily 1-2-3-4-5..., courses come in bunches for me as to their merit for study.
TEP, I am sure with all your time on your hands and your superior typing skills, you will rebut every crossed "T" in my response, but I have to be done now and may not be back for a week to these pages. ::)
Extrapolating a line from the first post on the thread, being enjoyable for a round again and again does not make any particular course........ or..... or ...... save enjoyable for a game again and again. Maybe Ran has been misinterpreted, but I can't type very well, so I am done, severly chastized for my criticism of C&C. 8) :P
-
BV:
I'm not going to rebut every crossed T in your posts--it's not that big a deal. I just wanted to express my feelings about your opinions of Hidden Creek and rating and ranking--that's what discussion is all about, don't you think--someone says something and someone else responds? I sure do have a lot of time on my hands and I do type fast and post too much on here but if that's a problem for you I'd advise you to do the same as I advise others who have found that bothersome or whatever--just ignore it.
I'm happy to know you don't use the rating process as access to golf courses. That's something that's a bugaboo with a lot of people--certainly not just me. The ones it's really a bugaboo for is the members that are often INDIRECTLY used for access which is not much considered by those trying to gain access.
I see nothing wrong, though, with contacting a member directly if a rater wants access and I see nothing at all wrong with a rater calling a club and asking if he can play to rate the course. Both can certainly say no directly. I do know that if I was either a member or someone at the club who controlled access I wouldn't let such a thing become a constant access thing for the sake of rating. Every club is different that way and that's just fine.
BV, clearly I would be interested in discussing any aspect of architecture on here with you, be it a course, hole, bunker, green, fairway, tree, whatever.
But I'm not so interested in discussng architecture by debating what someone means when they solely say something like "intellectual honesty" or "bias" or "C&C are one's fairhaired designers" at the expense of truly objective analysis without explaining exactly why they are saying such things.
And as to why you might favor a course or a group of courses as the "greats" on some "short list" architecturally I have basically zero idea why you feel that way.
As to the reason I have no idea I'd have to point you to your last post and the paragraph under the quote that starts with "In my opinion"....
I can see from that paragraph that your opinion is based on all your opinions and that's based on what you like etc which is lots and lots of things and all that adds up to the reason that you cannot give Hidden Creek a "solid 7" (whatever that is). Unfortunately I don't have the slightest idea what any of that remotely means regarding what your opinions of golf architecture are.
That sounds to me like saying; "My opinion of that is because of my opinon of this, which I like very much and that all adds up to less than a "solid 7". That's no different than saying my opinion is this way because that's the way it is.
But anyway, don't worry about it because as Ran mentioned differing opinions are just fine and part of the dynamic of this site. It would be nice to know what your opinion is though not just that you have one.
I do know in no uncertain terms that you apparently do not like trees on any golf course even ones that may be naturally treed sites. While I accept your opinion on that I sure do disagree with it if it pertains to all courses and all archtiecture.
And the beat goes on!
-
(http://www.playthewolf.com/images/photos/allphotos/d8363.jpg)
Speeking of WOW factor, I think Matt may have forgotten Wolf Creek which he places in his Top 50 in the USA. That is the beauty of this site, you have all sorts of opinions and plenty of people who like to rate things.
To be honest this constant rating of top 5 in the State or top 25 in State or 6 or 7 on the Doak scale takes away from thoughtfully discussing the architectural merits of a golf course like Hidden Creek or The Bridge or Wolf Creek.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that is what a rating is - an individual's opinion. I'd rather know what the site is like, what are the interesting natural features that the architect inherited. And how did he incorporate his design with the site. What are the most interesting challenges of the design - are they thought provoking and do they exhibit variety. Did the architect leave his own dictinctive style or artistic flair? What is the character of the green complexes, which are major factor in all outstanding golf coures?
There have been thousands of words written on The Bridge, but there was more architectural insight contained in the first few paragraphs of the Hidden Creek profile than all the hundreds of posts ever written on The Bridge.
-
I can only comment on the photos and I can certainly see the heathland resemblance in the bunkering and the low profile greens which look to be extensions of the fairway (in the main).
The course does look less open than even the heavily tree lined heath courses (i.e Sunnigdale Old) and more heavily bunkered than most English heathland courses. Roughly, how many bunkers are there at Hidden Creek?
-
Tom MacWood,
I think you have to differentiate sites that are hostile to golf courses and sites that are conducive to golf courses.
I also think you have to differentiate architects that would reject designing and building a golf course on a site from those that would design a golf course on that same site.
The picture you posted looks to me to be a hostile site,
one that C&C would reject. It wouldn't be fair to compare Hidden Creek with the course pictured in your post. Nor would it be fair to discuss their merits relative to one another.
The discussion on the merits of a golf course should be site specific, with the pros and cons of the site considered.
-
Pat
I agree every course should be judged on its individual merits and the site may be the most important ingredient. When seeing a course for the first time I try to learn as much as I can about the nature of the site (sometimes easier said than done). Every site is unique and the architect must choose his direction based on the site (that is one of the reasons I dislike the term minimalism). It is interesting to see how architects approach difficult sites like Whistling Straits or Kapalua or Shadow Creek or Wolf Creek or Cape Breton. I love what Thompson did at Cape Breton - all 11 kilometers of it.
I'm not fan of architects over-shaping a good site (Nantucket) and I'm not a fan of architects going minimalism on so so sites (Notre Dame). Neither course is bad, but neither is inspiring either.
-
I have played Sand Hills. I visited Friars Head when the course was being shaped, and I was fortunate to play Hidden Creek last week. I have also visited Austin Golf Club and East Hampton. It is clear that Coore and Crenshaw make golf courses the old fashioned way. They find them. They do do a lot of shaping, yet at the end of the project it is impossible to see what was there originally, and what was not. I like that.
Another element that is very important to their work is taste and sensibilities. They know how to achieve a natural look about which other designers do not have a clue. Look at the edging of their bunkers, or the little piles of dirt strewn about Hidden Creek. Manmade randomness is difficult, if not impossible.
Because of their construction techniques and design methods, I place C&C with the great designers of the “Golden Age”. When you visit Hidden Creek, you are at a special place. The work is great. The design is great.
It is World Class.
Also…
This is a course that is challenging and playable for everyone.
-
Robert:
That's a really wonderful post and not because I'm a fan of Coore and Crenshaw. Yours is just an extremely understanding and fundamental way of explaining the principles and nitty gritty detail of what it takes to do golf architecture in a sensitive and basically natural way. It wouldn't matter to me who you were describing, if any designer worked the way you outlined I'm all for them!
-
My oh my, I've opened a can of worms....
My apologies if I've taken this thread too far afield, but after reading everyone's take, I'd like to post a few thoughts..
First, I NEVER meant to get into a whole ratings discussion, and would have MUCH preferred to discuss the pros and cons of the architecture of Hidden Creek. It was only when others mentioned comparisons to some of the generally ackknowledged greatest courses in the world and Ran made the comment that he wished that Southern Pines had something of similar quality (the Pinehurst area being one of the absolute meccas of great courses) that I had to weigh in with questions about the "perfection" of the course, simply to manage expectations as well as provide a slightly differing view based on my impressions.
Second, I didn't mention the number of courses played by our foursome as some bragging point. I mentioned it in reaction to Ran's asking how many times we played Hidden Creek, and wanted him to know that our group was rather well experienced, and not likely to be wowed by either the name of the architects, or other factors other than the course itself. We all liked it a great deal, and to a person agreed that anyone joining the club would find a golf course that they could play over and over and have fun and challenge each time. THAT is quite a statement, and indicative of the quality of the course. However, we each also thought the course reached it's pinnacle at the 12th green, and never gets quite so good again after that.
Everyone in our group was also well aware of the minimalist style of C&C, and enjoyed the fact that the architects largely used "what was there" in their fashioning of golf holes. There is a subtlety that wears well at HC, and we also had nothing but plaudits about the hand-worked bunkering, which is superb as the pictures on this site clearly prove. However, there were some other features that stood out somewhat obtrusively as clearly man-made, such as the large mound I mentioned on the right-front of the 2nd green, or, the rough mounds on the 5th and 16th. While I am and was aware of the Heathlands theme, I can't say that they ended up looking particularly well integrated or naturally flowing, although I must admit a real fondness for the 5th hole, which is clearly a "deceiver".
But, I think the original reason I posted is obvious in my first post. The course profile on this site, as well as the first several posts on this thread, were extremely laudatory, and made many wonderful points about the positives of the course, as well they should have.
However, I asked a number of questions on my post, because I truly don't believe that we learn all that much without debate and consideration of every angle and opinion.
Coore & Crenshaw (as well as Mr. Hansen) had the courage and vision to build something "different", unusual, and somewhat unique. That's to be applauded, certainly, but it isn't as though it's a course that many will understand immediately, nor is it a course that is somehow beyond the pale of architectural criticism.
I'd really like to keep the discussion to the course itself, because there is a LOT to learn and discuss in doing so. I hope that some of the somewhat personal "digs" I've read in subsequent posts will cease, and we can keep the discussion informative and above board. For instance, I personally am not much for the "wow factor", and comments that try to paint those who might find some valid criticisms of the course as some type of yahoos looking for visual stimulation are a bit much to take. Similarly, comments that paint the course's fans as somehow "biased" are insulting, as well.
-
MikeC:
That's a good level headed post--as yours always are!
I don't see that a single contributor to this thread has mentioned the absence of a "wow factor" at Hidden Creek as a negative of the course or that it's lacking in some way because it doesn't have any modern "Wow".
Frankly, the dedicated lack of any "wow" factor is well known there and a known asset at Hidden Creek. The only "wow" is supposed to be in the natural "color contrast" which is probably the second theme of Hidden Creek. That's what I was told anyway.
The primary theme is obviously the basically low profile "heathland" look very much combined with really firm and fast conditions "through the green" and greens surfaces designed for a surface firmness (greens) that ideally would be tipped so far as to make the runup and ground game option almost the most reliable option even for really good players.
Imagine that! Greens that don't "pitch mark" and only lightly "dent" to the aerial shot. Those kinds of green surfaces don't hold well and consequently begin to encourage good players to discard their standby aerial option and look for other choices.
I doubt many of us have truly seen a modern course both designed and slated to do just that! That to me is what Hidden Creek can be and ideally is intended to be by the designers. Just think through the designed approaches of almost all the holes and that becomes apparent.
It should be understood here and now that much of the architecture and design of Hidden Creek is to meld into that all important maintenance factor of firm and fast in those areas and to those degrees. C&C understand that and are dedicated to it there and even more so Jeff Riggs and also Roger.
You've mentioned a few times the man-made and probably quite "unnatural" look of the bunker short right of #2 and the mounding on #5 and #16. Frankly, I would add to that much of the fairway bunkering on #13 and many of the other holes.
You should understand that's not an oversight! That's not a mistake! That's a dedicated, and I might add pretty gutsy move on the architects' part to create a true tribute to the early "heathland" look of England.
Those early "heathland" courses had bunker features that were very man-made looking and consequently not natural looking because those early heathland courses were the early architects first forays into trying to use the original linksland (natural) bunker feature as a design element in the heathlands--an area to which the bunker feature was clearly not natural.
Actually those early heathland courses were the very early architects first attempts to create couses in areas other than the linksland. One might legitimately say that was architecture's first attempt at total architectural (manmade) creation!
The way those early bunkers were constructed and the way they looked was often rudimentary and simplistic. Turf and dirt were dug out and piled generally in front of the bunker cavity from which it came. As such those early bunkers FACES popped out of sometimes level ground and created what Coore called a "ridgy" look. The ridginess was solely the creation of man and looked like it--certainly not very natural looking--as nature made the original linksland dune bunkering, for instance!
Again, that's a gutsy move on their part and done only as a tribute to the early "heathland" architecture. We all certainly know that Coore and Crenshaw can create extremely natural looking bunkers almost anywhere but in this case they weren't trying to do that.
I too would like to talk about the architecture of Hidden Creek without the constant comparison of how and where the course fits in with other courses in the state or nation but others are just naturally inclined to do that as they seem to be first and foremost raters and not architectural analysts of individual course architecture.
But I would certainly like to discuss Hidden Creek in and of itself, if you would.
I said once before that I feel that hole #3 in the second shot landing area should have the left side bunker scheme enhanced or added onto to shrink in that second shot landing area at that left bunker scheme against the quarry bunker right. I think that landing areas is a bit too geneous and shrinking it in would generate far more thoughtful options and choices on the second shot to lay up short of that area, or fly over it or try to thread a much narrower needle on the ground.
And as you might remember I feel that the left side of fairway #8 should be enhanced with something (bunkering, rough ground, whatever) to force conservative golfers into consideration of other options or at least to create more intensity if using that large and conservative left side fairway option.
Much of my architectural criticism on holes has always seemed to be to either intensify certain options to balance them better with other options that might not be so well noticed or used.
Options create interesting strategies and options and strategies are best when they come into a bit of a balance in the minds of players and create some degree of quandry. Holes that have obvious and a commonly used and one dimensional strategy are not the best or most interesting, in my opinion.
Unless of course they happen to be for variety and get into the category of a hole like #16 which is primarily low on options of gaining the green in two and high on strict demand of distance shots to achieve the green and a regulation par number.
C&C are pretty well known for these extra long par 4s that are even intensified by routing them into the prevailing wind.
Holes like that are good too because they make a golfer deal with the prospect of no practical GIR unless pulling off two of their alltime best and most creative shots (this is a lot of Flynn's principle) and if not then only being left to figure out the best way to "sneak up on that hole" for a par number anyway--ala the real European super-long wind related par 4s!
-
Tom MacWood:
Thanks for reminding me about Wolf Creek because I have not forgotten what I said regarding the merits of the course. When I first played the course (February '01) I was indeed thoroughly blown away by the sheer imagination and will to get a course built in such a hostile environment as Pat Mucci so accurately describes.
Let me also point out Tom that I have been back to Wolf Creek two times since with my most recent visit this past May to see how things are progressing and I was disappointed by the lack of detail in the conditioning area. Many of tees were not cut properly, the greens were shaggy in spots and there was no less than two tees at the championship position that needed extensive regrading and finishing.
As I said in one of my previous posts on this thread the process of rating is a never ending item. My initial impression of Wolf Creek and the manner by which it achieves supreme interplay with the existing site, the quality of its general routing and the mixture of holes is truly mind boggling. I say that from the numerous visits I've made over the years to a wide range of courses across the USA.
At the same time given the present state of affairs at the course I would without hesitation lower its standing until such time as these matters are rectified. Please understand that, in my mind, conditioning does play a significant contributing factor in bringing out the architectural aspects originally intended.
Yes, Tom, I too wish to discuss the architectural merits or lack thereof of the courses mentioned on GCA. However, ratings are an indispensable aspect of that discussion because it permits people to place in some sort of "context" where things stand. When I look at a golf course I don't just look at "that" course I try to see how it stacks up against others I've played. Clearly, the merits of a course need to be analyzed thoroughly in itself and I agree that's been done for the most part with Hidden Creek on this post. All the other aspects you mentioned -- the integration of the site, interesting features, etc, etc. have been brought out in my posts when I describe a course (see my review of Hidden Creek above in case you missed it). I don't do a quick "up" and "down" but provide detail.
But just keep in mind when Ran says top five in New Jersey I'd like to get more info on the others he puts in that company and when he says 2/3 best ever constructed I'd also like to understand the other courses he is linking to that statement.
Finally, I've played my fair share of courses through the years not to be swayed by pre-hype fanfare and not go ga-ga with the so-called WOW factor.
-
Matt,
By well constructed, I mean by physically how well built the course is, from the clearing and the deliberation over which trees stayed/were felled to the handwork lavished on the bunkers to the non-USGA green complexes that encourage a ground game to the grow-in with the irregular fescue lines to the minutia of scattering a little piles of soil here and there, the end result is one of unusual craftsmanship.
The above takes TIME, talented people and money, and this project had all three with one advantage of the painstaking process being that the course now enjoys an instant maturity about it - look at the 30 pictures in the course profile and tell me if you don’t agree.
In terms of # of times a critic needs to play a course to gain an appreciation, he might play it once and see all or he might play it 100 times and never get much from it. Getting to speak at length with the owner re: his thoughts and those of C&C, speaking to the Green Keeper, and speaking with the Project Manager as well as another member of the C&C design team was a HUGE help to me in beginning to understand this project.
For instance, Mike, you have mentioned in several posts that some of the mounds don’t look natural. Well, the Project Manager is the first person to tell you that they’re not supposed to! Ala the abrupt bunker walls on flat heath holes like the 4th at Walton Heath (and some of the features at Garden City GC), some of the features at Hidden Creek aren’t meant to be integrated into nature in the same manner as for instance their bunker work at Sand Hills. Capturing some of this abruptness was a first for them and they relished the opportunity of challenging themselves and creating something different and unique (or at least that’s what they told me).
We all ask architects to spend a lot of time on site in an effort to maximize the subtle nuances of the landforms/features. Hardly seems fair that we ask so much from them while we in turn rush to critique their work after just one round under one set of playing conditions. That's the way it goes, I suppose :( but C&C was doing something when they spent all that time on site: I say that they were giving each hole character.
As to where Hidden Creek fits into New Jersey, I just don’t see why that matters or is even of interest. However, so as not to duck the question and to answer in Doak parlance, there is one 10 in New Jersey and to my mind, no 9s (an example of 9 being Royal Dornoch and there are no RD’s in NJ). There are several 8s and lots of hidden gem 7s like Mountain Ridge and Hollywood (until the Club lets Rees put back in Travis’s central hazards and diagonal bunkering to create the strategic interest within the many straight holes). Who knows how good Ridgewood can be once – or if – 800 trees are removed? I place Hidden Creek in the 8s with other great favorites like Somerset Hills and Plainfield.
Finally, as for my comment re: the courses in the sand hills of North Carolina, every course here is tree line to tree line green grass. There is no visual contrast against the pines on the same order as there is at Hidden Creek via the fescues. I am not saying that fescues need to be used here but let's not mask the sandy soil either - the courses could and should be more reflective of their sand hills setting.
Cheers,
-
Tom Paul;
I'm really glad we're having this discussion, because it's helping me sort out my own impressions of Hidden Creek. You used the word "intensity" in your post, and it hit me that perhaps this is where I find Hidden Creek somewhat lacking.
Most great courses have any number of shots where the intensity factor is high, largely because of the shot requirements, or perhaps even the "perceived" shot requirements, that cause psychological turmoil in the golfer. In that respect, Hidden Creek appears somewhat benign.
Now, I'd be the last to argue that par isn't defended pretty well AT the greensites there, and the fact that everyone there intends to keep the course firm and fast will certainly go a long way towards turning up the lights on the architectural features in a way that will accentuate those defenses.
However, there are not many shots out there where one stands on the tee, or in the fairway, and immediately recognizes that exacting requirements lie ahead. Perhaps it lulls one into a false sense of security at times, and that's all good stuff, but at some point I was hoping to see more variety in the challenge, and "intense" holes have a way of doing exactly that. Is there a full shot that would have one "white knuckling" it out there?
Ran/Tom;
I do and did understand that the bunkering and mounding was meant to emulate the heathland "pop-up" style of the earliest courses there, but visually, I'd prefer something more in the vein of Ganton, for instance, or Garden City, which Ran mentions.
MANY of the bunkers at HC look really, really good, as the pictures on this site clearly indicate, and I don't think they look particularly artificial or contrived. However, a handful of features did stand out as abrupt, and almost unnecessarily so.
I wonder if all of us played the course without knowing a thing about the design intentions, or the architects and owner's wishes, or even who designed it at all, or the maintenance goals, whether we'd be so readily accepting of those "pushup" features, or whether we'd wonder why they were created?
-
Mike,
Is it white-knuckle property? If it isn't, then C&C aren't likely to create a white-knuckle shot but that doesn't mean that a hole like the 4th isn't still a WOW (!!) hole, at least to me.
Before I spoke with anyone other than the Head Professional, I played the front nine and my first words - even before saying hello - to Roger Hansen upon meeting him at the turn where "That front right bunker on 2 has to be one of the world's all-time great bunkers!" He then told me about seeing Coore on top of it, pulling chunks of turf off here and there and everybody really getting into its creation.
Pretty cool stuff and as I know you appreciate, nothing beats such a hands-on approach.
Cheers,
-
I'm looking forward to getting out to Hidden Creek in the near future. Until then, I am enjoying this discussion. Its what this site is all about.
Ran- Ridgewood did take out at least 500 trees (so I was told) this past winter. Its a wonderful course but it will never be an 8. Nor will it ever be in the same company as Quaker Ridge, Fenway of Winged Foot East.
-
MikeC:
These last numbers of posts are really beginning to get to the nub of things--they really truly are! This could be some of the best in depth architectural post discussion I've ever seen on Golfclubatlas!!
You ask what would we have thought of the course and specifically that "ridgy" bunker look (that is not intended to look particularly natural) if we had never had the opportunity to speak with the architects about it and what they were visualizing and attempting to do there?
That's the ultimate question, isn't it?
For me, clearly, I never would have understood it and probably would have thought for some strange reason they had simply failed to do what I thought they generally do so well, construct architecture that is about as good as can be found at mimicing and melding into true nature and its look!
And failing to understand what they were doing there I probably would have been disappointed that they had failed to live up to what I'd come to expect of them (from what they'd done elsewhere).
Even when at first told about the "ridgy" look I really didn't understand the half of it. He said too "a tribute to the early heathland look" but I've never been there so I have only a vague idea of what that meant and less of an idea of the exact rudimentary construction and look of some of the early "heathland" features.
Little by little I've come to understand the import of it all and what they really meant by a "tribute." In retrospect, the choosing of James Duncan as the project manager was a very clever move on C&C's part and makes more sense the more you think about it. One has to get to know Duncan too--he's a highly brilliant man, in my opinion, and incredibly sensitive to just this kind of architecture and the detail of it despite the fact it may have many vestiges of the rudimentary!! (If I didn't know Duncan and he put on a coat and tie I swear I would think the guy was a young don at Oxford or Cambridge!).
Anyway, having heard and yes learned all this I consider it just another part of a really good continuing education in golf architecture.
That's definitely not to say I buy into it because Coore/Crenshaw/Duncan simply explained it and I tend to buy into anything and everything they say--not at all.
It's that in a case like this (a project like this) what they are saying and trying to do has a true beauty to it! To really understand where they're coming from and trying to do is a beautiful tribute and understanding of not just classic architecture but the evolution of the entire art of architecture!
When you look closely at that evolution you see the things those early guys were doing and even though they may have tried to mimic real nature, really wanted to mimic true nature they knew they couldn't because of the limitations of the art and construction practices and the exigencies at that early time. By the way, NGLA itself is just a blowaway study of that early transitional time of great golf architecture (for the playing of the game) which was about to transition to truly nature mimicing art and features but simply had not at that time--1909-1910!!
This evolution from the less than natural man-made architecture to the truly natural man-made archtiecture (best evidence Cypress) is hard to put your finger on although it's clear that the profession's ability to do it increased by leaps and bounds between say 1910 and the late 1920s!
Anyway, C&C understand this completely and although they are able to make architecture that is as natural looking as can be which probably would have made the likes of Park, Hutchison, Fowler, Colt, Alison etc swoon, they know that those men as much as they wanted to could not do that and they are paying tribute to what they did back then by what they made at Hidden Creek.
Now, how cool is that? That's not only an appreciation of the classic golf course and even the Golden Age because they're paying tribute to those early guys who were struggling to get there but couldn't for obvious reasons.
Does all this stuff leave you with any doubt why some of us admire the likes of Coore and Crenshaw so much?
Again, to me, Mackenzie hit the pinnacle of really making golf features look like nature (Cypress), a pinnacle never reached before, but even he knew his limitations to go even farther.
Those old guys wanted to go farther though with nature's look! They dreamed of a time when the art could somehow make all of golf architecture look like nature (a truly elusive dream when you consider what Behr said about the inherent unnaturalness of tees, fairways and greens, the three necessities of golf, and yes, even that old and odd golf vestige--the linksland bunker feature and its inherent unnaturalness to many part of the world).
I think if those old guys could wake from their graves they would definitely turn to the likes of C&C, Hanse, Doak etc, as the ones to ultimately realize their early dreams of total naturalness in all of golf architecture somehow!
And I have no doubt someday C&C may try for that elusive dream somehow but not this time at Hidden Creek. There they decided to pay tribute to some of those early guys for understanding their own limitations of that time but still being able to visualize that elusive dream in golf architecture.
This golf course in many ways is just a tribute to the evolution of architecture at a particular time complete with many of the vestiges of the limitations of that time.
In a strange way it's not much different from the early career theme of Pete Dye. Pete became not just fascinated with the natural aspects of Scottish courses but most particularly with the early architects' rudimentary attempts to create those representative linksland early architectural features, the highly manufactured and man-made looking "sleepering" and such! That highly man-made element was what he brought back and used in his early architecture! Interesting, isn't it?
Keep it going--this is a great discussion. But just a caveat--"natural looking" is good but let's not throw a blanket of "naturalness" on everything or it might limit us from really understanding the true evolution of architecture and what any particular time was really like!
And also Mike, you said you'd have preferred the bunkering style of say a GCGC (also very early and basically man-made looking) at Egg Harbor instead of what they did there.
Not me Mike--that would have really been out of place, in my opinion (and obviously theirs), at Egg Harbor. I was down there completely preconstruction and the natural site felt more like the Heathlands by a mile than the original Hempstead Plain of of GCGC.
I'd like to get into a discussion of that "intensity" thing too, but later. Why that wouldn't work all that well at Hidden, in my opinion, I'd love to talk about.
Hidden feels to me like a site for super low clarity on strategic dictation. Very much a "false sense of security" golf course.
For "high intensity" I think you need architecture with slim margins for error, sharp transitions from the good to the bad.
Hidden just feels like it should be the opposite to me, but honestly, how ironic can it be and how complex too that the other NJ course that also apparently was conceived and created as a representation of "heathland" golf, Pine Valley, has some of the highest "intensity" in the world and also some of the slimmest margins for error!
All just more evidence of the ongoing fascination of golf architecture and it's interesting evolution!
-
Mike,
Is it white-knuckle property? If it isn't, then C&C aren't likely to create a white-knuckle shot but that doesn't mean that a hole like the 4th isn't still a WOW (!!) hole, at least to me.
Ran,
Let's see...sandy subsoil in a forest of mature evergreens and decidious trees, all on spacious land that is considerably more rolling and naturally interesting than one might to expect to find in south Jersey...
Why does that sound vaguely familiar? ;)
I'm half teasing, of course, because the intent of Hidden Creek was considerably different than that other well-known course from that state. Interestingly, though, would you agree that the most nerve-wracking shot is probably the short pitch to the par three 11th?
I would have really liked to have seen more intensity of that type required on other approach shot, particularly.
-
MikeC:
You're good but this time you really are failing to pick up on some of the distinctions and nuances that contribute to interesting architecture and what a particular place and time really means if one can get back and imagine it without what came after.
Although admittedly, you're half teasing, drawing an analogy between the natural preconstruction site of Pine Valley and the natural preconstruction site of Hidden Creek isn't even close--not remotely close in one extremely important aspect.
Sure both are South Jersey, both sandy, both piney, both apparent representations of early "heathland" golf architecture but the topography of one is vastly different from the other! And that's key!
Even looking at the fact that both are 'Heathland' representative one should not get too doctrinaire about that particularly when viewed in the perspective of that early heathland time and place.
The early American architects, Crump, MacDonald, Wilson, Fownes, went back over there and studied not just the linksland but the heathland too for their inspiration and concepts.
Today they would have a vast array of places and styles to draw from for inspiration but not then--at that time basically there were just those two!! And that is so important to consider!
They really weren't into exact copying either--just pulling basic concepts to varying degrees and applying them to what they found over here--if they could have done more--if they had the ability to move more earth and really copy, maybe they would have but they couldn't do that so it never happened that way!
It's also so important to know, I think, the real historical importance of the English heathland architecture in the evolution of things. The importance is it was really the first foray into total golf architecture and the first departure of the game from the original Scottish linksland--that clearly was NOT total golf architecture (not totally manmade)! The Linksmen even pooh-poohed the attempt in the heathlands as not real golf because it all had to be made--the opposite of which (the wholly natural golf aspects of the linksland) was considered the very essence of golf at that time for its reliance on basically just nature in the beginning!
But Willie Parks proved them wrong in the heathlands with his homerun course, a massive undertaking for that very early time, and the others, Colt, Abercrombie, Fowler, etc followed and pulled off respected architecture in the heathlands eventually even gaining the respect of the Linksmen.
So the point is although "heathland" representative, both Pine Valley and Hidden Creek have real differences as did many of the other early American courses that were "heathland" representative, despite the fact all were total architectural creations--vs the very fundamental that the origninal linksland courses were not!
The differences in elevation changes and how those elevation changes actually are and were between Hidden and Pine Valley are the key and the reason for PV's "slim margins for error" ("white knuckle") vs the far more gradual transitions both topographically and otherwise of Hidden all the way into what might be called a "false sense of security" theme at Hidden--almost the opposite of PV.
Hidden really only has one hole of notable elevation change--#4 while Pine Valley has so much of it and often dramatically so all over the course.
In the PVGC archives there are indications from Crump and others of the fact that although PV was basically a "heathland" representation--(Crump really studied Sunningdale)--that PV was a remarkably different concept solely for it's radical topography which interestingly was stated in that early writing (PV's archives) as vastly different topographically than most everything else in South Jersey.
So although only half teasing be very careful of your analogies because there are very important distinctions (like topography) both then and now!
-
Ran
In conversations about various golf courses we almost always come down to your asking me- Yeah Geoffrey but where would you rather play day in and day out. Where would you have more fun on a regular basis.
So Ran- before I find out for myself at Hidden Creek I will ask you among the following wide variety of Modern courses which if any would you pick to play regularly before Hidden Creek?
Rustic Canyon
Wild Horse
Victoria National
Ocean Forest
Plantation Course
Inniscrone
Beechtree
Sand Hills
Pacific Dunes
Thanks
-
This cliche about what course would you most like to play everyday is interesting but personally it isn't all that representative of my feeling of overall quality of architecture.
I'm just fascinated and blown away by Oakmont but I wouldn't want to play it everyday. I like a challenge as much as the next guy, I guess, but I'm not into self flagelation yet. I love Pine Valley too but I don't know about playing it everyday. Same for Merion. On the other hand, I have gotten a little bored now and then on my own course, Gulph Mills, when I used to play it practically everyday.
From that list my pick right now would be Rustic Canyon.
-
Tom- I have this conversation with Ran all the time and he will always ask me if would rather play XXX then Bethpage and if so why do I think more highly of Bethpage then XXX.
I'm certainly going to see Hidden Creek for myself as soon as possible. I was supposed to go with the Cirba/Ward/Vostinak group but it was in conflict with a wedding I had to attend.
I think the fun factor isn't the greatest way to analyze architecture just because courses like Pine Valley, Oakmont, Bethpage, Winged Foot West etc. just beat you too hard on each shot. However, I think by examining WHY a course like Cruden Bay, Rustic Canyon and others like them are so much fun to play then valuable lessons can be learned about site selection, maintenance and strategy. I'd really be curious to learn which of the above modern courses by the likes of Doak, C & C, Hanse, Fazio and Rees Jones Ran and others like Mike CIrba, Bill Vostinak and Matt Ward would rather play on a regualr basis then Hidden Creek.
-
Geoffrey;
I'd like to see Cuscowilla and Chechessee Creek added to your list for Ran's "where would you rather play" exercise.
Tom Paul;
I was half teasing Ran, who claimed that the land was not conducive to "white knuckle" golf, but my poking had an element of truth. For instance, what's so special about the topography at Garden City (Hempstead plain), which is rougly about as rolling as Hidden Creek, yet contains any number of shots where intimidation rears its fearsome head. Yet, conversely, many elements of Garden City can be rightfully called "minimalist" in design, so it's not as though Emmett and Travis had to force "intensity" into the design.
So, yes, I know I stretched the point to include Pine Valley, which is MUCH more rolling than Hidden Creek or Garden City, but more importantly, also has a different "design intent" than HC. Roger Hansen was not looking to create something that will test the best golfers in the game with a strict and penal examination ala George Crump or William Fownes.
I've re-read your last two posts a few times, and one thing I think I have to agree with and admire philosophically is the almost "Luddite" approach used by C&C & Duncan on this project. I frankly don't think a lot of people are going to understand it, and I still would argue that the lack of intensity is going to be viewed as weakness by many (I just view it as lacking some necessary variety in shot requirements).
I think your own mention on bringing a bit of intensity to the preferred bail out areas on a few holes like #8 tells me that you see some of the same problem.
However, in an age where machines can build courses out of deserts that look like Oregon rain forests, this total eschewing of technology is a pretty revolutionary and subversive idea!! Viva la revolucion!
Think about it. They decided to play homage to the first inland courses and to do so, they essentially "pretended" as though they did not have the technology available to do much more than rudimentary features, while leaving the rest of the course in largely untouched fashion, as the Woking's of the world were originally built.
If someone tells me that they did this work with mules, hand plows, and lots of empty flasks I think they'll jump up about 10 points in my book! ;)
-
Wildhorse is on the Next Fifty list, so he apparently hasn't played it yet. I'm not sure if he's played Victorial National either, the course write-up might be John's. What about Ocean Forest?
As usual, I'm probably wrong.
-
Mike- Other then Pac Dunes and Plantation (which Ran goes GAGA over) I choose courses that I have played and those I thought Ran had played. I wasn't sure about him playing Wild Horse. I wanted to get a feel for the true level of his enthusiasm from a point of reference I could relate with.
-
MikeC:
I'll get into that discussion of "intensity" or a "high intensity level" some other time but that's not really what I meant to say about either of my recommendations for Hidden Creek either on #3 Or #8 when I said "to add a little intensity on #8".
What I meant by that on #8 is someway of "balancing the available options in the mind of a player" and frankly that could probably be done with a low level of intensity anyway. I've never even played Hidden Creek and for all I know the green itself and the approach to the green from over on the far left of the fairway may make that option one that's not that appealing anyway. But if that's not true I think something should go on the left of the fairway to balance the choice of other options from the tee!
I'd say the same thing about the bunker scheme to the right of the green end at Applebrook's #10 because it looks to me like players would rarely use that far right fairway option so the way to get them to use it more is to shrink down the fairway space on the option of laying up right in front of the green. Doing that will get them to look elsewhere more readily (like right).
GCGC is a great looking course and architecture--very unique really, probably due to it's antiquity but it is not the kind of course I would say has a "high intensity level".
To me a real "high intensity level" is when you're sort of on edge all day for no particular reason except that any minute you feel something might go drastically wrong. In Philly those to me are PV, HVGC and Merion!
Most Ross courses I know are quite low on intensity level simply because Ross used the "sense of false security" so well with lots of rope off tees and designing basically second shot courses that are so subtle even at the green ends players can make bogie or worse (even with pretty good shots) and still not be real sure what went wrong!
I think of Hidden Creek as much like that kind of Ross theme--most of the risk and reward is at the green and green-end anyway although even there it can be super subtle!
I know that there may be plenty of golfers who won't understand Hidden Creek and might not appreciate it but in a discussion of architectural quality I really hate to say it but I don't care that much about them not understanding it at first, as contrary as that may sound.
For the course to really be what it's designed to be it has to have those conditons that make it extract shots subtly and that's firm and fast maintenance--C&C know that and so do Riggs and Hansen.
Coore thinks Hidden is going to be harder to score on than Friar's Head when it's in the condition it's designed for!! Looking at those two courses I find that absolutely amazing to contemplate that fact but I'm sure he has a much better feel for that than I do.
And if Hidden does start to extract those shots from golfers subtly it's going to get their respect and appreciation eventually! It may take a while but if golfers continuously lose shots that aren't bad one but maybe not that well thought out, eventually they're going to figure out something's going on and that it must be in the golf course.
On the other hand there are plenty of members at my course that have been making the same mistakes in judgement for decades and still haven't figured out what's going wrong!
One guy who's been there forever, I gave a brief explanation a few years ago of the subtle strategies of the holes and he came back and said: "That's amazing, I'm playing no better but scoring much better and am having a real ball with a renewed outlook of what this course is all about! What did you call that--tactics?"
"No, I told you we call it strategy. It might be subtle around here but it's there as you found out!"
-
Tom,
You know me, and you know that I LOVE holes like 12 at Rustic Canyon, for instance, where the strategy is a combination of vague/misleading from the tee, and par is protected at the green.
I love it even if only a small percentage of golfers coming through that hole ever understand why they don't quite score as well as they feel they should on the hole. I think that type of architecture is very sophisticated and non-obvious, and I'm all for it as a modern feature.
But, one of the things that makes Rustic work so well in my opinion is that, yes, it has those type of holes, but also has holes with greater intensity and shot demands, such as the par three 6th, or the drive on the 14th, or the approach to 16. This leads to a variety, balance, and even excitement during stretches that provides a wonderful blend overall.
By contrast, SOOO many of the holes at HC are of the subtle, non-obvious variety. As a theme, that's certainly valid, and I would agree that half the fun is discovering the choices and strategies over time. However, I'd still contend that without a few places where the noose is tightened, so to speak, it becomes the mental difference between a friendly game of chess with your wise old grandfather, and a game of chess where your psychotic opponent is going to kill you if he wins.
Put another way, I love mind games, but enjoy having the emotions and adrenaline at work, as well. :)
-
TEPaul,
When you walk a golf course and don't play it,
It's difficult to gain the feeling of intensity.
Observing deep bunkers is quite different from having your ball go in them and not being able to extract it. That experience, creates fear, fear of finding another bunker, especially an abundance of invisible bunkers that litter the site.
GCGC may start off on the benign side, but its personality changes rather abruptly.
Its resistance to scoring creates intensity.
Fearsome deep bunkers create intensity.
Deep rough creates intensity
Sloping greens create intensity.
The wind creates intensity.
The combination of the above create intensity.
You have an OPEN invite to play GCGC anytime you want,
just don't get too intense on me ;D
-
Pat:
A course like GCGC I doubt would create a really high intensity level feeling in me--it's just not really that type of aura. And by saying that I don't mean a thing about the quality of its architecture--I love the course and I admire it a lot--it's quite different in and of itself from most anything I know in many ways. Wind, deep bunkers, sloping fast greens etc, I've seen them all in many different presentations but that's not it.
I'd have to think more about what it is that does that to me where I'm on edge all day although I could be playing great. GCGC could be beating the hell out of me score wise and I doubt I would feel that way there but who knows.
Sometimes I wonder if it isn't some kind of claustrophobia somehow but Merion I feel that way and I think I do too at Royal County down and they're open, so go figure.
Maybe it's the prospect of serious "others" that does that to me and that might be something that I feel when I can't figure well what might happen even if I do what I think is right. Maybe courses I can't read the architecture on too well do it to me--not real sure.
I think viscerally anyway I was always good at "reading" golf courses and when I think I read something right and execute right and things go really wrong it makes me very edgy. Merion's always done that to me, PV and Huntingdon Valley too. Sure there are places at NGLA like that too.
Not Maidstone, not Shinnecock and not even Oakmont, that's all very apparent and not really so hard to read--there tough sure but when you do something right on those courses you generally don't get surprised (except on #11 Shinnecock--maybe #7 too).
I'm not too certain what I mean--I'll think on it more.
MikeC:
Enough on Hidden--I think you just have a particular feeling about the place--and maybe you just need that "intensity level" more than I do. When I mention it it isn't something I have to have to really appreciate and respect the architecture it's just something that happens to me on some courses. Mostly what it does to me is make me "hang on" (to the club) and unable to really let it "flow".
But maybe I'm making too much of this. You have to understand I've played a lot of those courses that do that to me in some really good stroke play tournaments and it can be so nerve-racking compared to other course even in stroke play tournaments. Stroke play tournament golf really is a different cat and some courses really make me edgy ("high intensity level) when playing that on them!
I doubt I would feel it at all on them in recreational golf though!
-
Another interesting architectural discussion
-
Had the pleasure of playing 36 at HC yesterday and found this great thread when poking around. Worth the time to read the whole thread.
Really interesting course and I definitely get the ‘second-shot course’ distinction. I found the greens very difficult to read and repeated plays would allow for a wonderful education. The greens create a need for more precision off the tee than is obviously apparent. Definitely a course worth going back to.
More OT, the conditioning and the club experience was all that. The fairways could have been a little firmer for my tastes, but overall the course played very well.
-
I have played well over half of Bill and Ben's courses, but somehow have never gotten to Hidden Creek.
-
The key to the routing IMO is the use of the limited elevation movement on a pretty flat spot. I especially thought the back 9 made great use of the little ridge that holds the 11th and 15th greens is very well done.
The front might be a little more unique with very wide fairways while the back has more places to get in trouble off the tees.
On a maintenance note I thought the native was everything it should be, wispy with playable shots. However, a lot of the bunkers had very overgrown gunch around them. Having a two or three yard patch of lost ball/unplayable separating bunker and fairway seemed a bit too disproportionate for my taste.
-
I have played well over half of Bill and Ben's courses, but somehow have never gotten to Hidden Creek.
One of my favorites of there repertoire!
-
Sort of a vapid response of mine with no explanation…
Hidden Creek is my kind of “Golf Land’. So walkable but interesting enough features that were exposed by a mastermind of Golf Routing. The best way to play Hidden Creek is from the green back while standing on the tee. Every great strategy and challenge to the pin is exposed. It’s Coore & Crenshaw 101 and their talents are seen every where, mind you also inspired by James “The Duke” Duncan who led the construction for them. He brings this English Heathlands touch that has you thinking that you’re missing the good things in life by not seeing Sunningdale!
The 8th green is simply brilliant…. The 8th hole is a hole you could play for the rest of your life! Oddly, it was the subject of some (imho) horrible critique from Ron Whitten, who along with Stephen Kay were publicly critical (on this website and in Golf Digest) because of a incredibly cool looking access road that came into view from the tee, that was dressed in natives. When Ron’s critique was questioned here, he reacted harshly and I don’t think he ever participated on Golf Club Atlas ever again…
With its solitary, centerline nose bunker in the center of the fairway; ingenious fairway shaping to a brilliant green with a buried Woolley Mammoth buried in its off-center, a slew of different lines or paths to the hole become evident! You just want to go right back to the 8th tee and go again!
For those of you fortunate for an invite, take it! A wonderful place to golf your ball!
-
Thanks for the detailed response, Tommy!
A hole-by-hole tour of Hidden Creek from 2015 is here:
http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/HiddenCreek/index.html (http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/HiddenCreek/index.html)
-
HC is one of those courses where you add up your score you think to yourself, "I should have shot X shots better." I played with Jim on Saturday and I am sure he thought that. It has some greens that can make you just look silly if you do not 1. read them properly, 2. strike the ball properly. First timers should take and listen to a caddy. I am sorry I didn't get one for Jim. He had to rely on my poor memory and poor green reading skills[size=78%].[/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]HC is brilliantly routed. It keeps you off balance. As you play the course it is difficult to know where you are in relation to the holes you just played. Bill Coore walked the property for three weeks before he and Ben agreed to build the course. The terrain was all trees and undergrowth. I would love to had followed him around just to see how he does his job. There is lake but it does not come into play. I wonder how many other architects would have ignored it. It is a course to be enjoyed. [/size]