Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Jay Flemma on November 21, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
-
Quirk - it's what's for dinner! Thanks to all who helped out.
http://jayflemma.thegolfspace.com/?p=4028
From the article:
“There are a lot of downhill approaches at St. George’s and I really like that. I don’t know why we don’t see more of that now,” Hanse noted. When asked if perhaps Emmet was simply designing into the teeth of the most dramatic features of the property to create the most dramatic golf holes, he agreed.
“That’s exactly what the best architects do to build the best courses,” he stated. “You have to make the best use of the landscape, and at St. George’s there are quite a number of excellent downhill approaches. It’s that variety that is one of the reasons why St. George’s is such a unique and excellent club.”
-
+1
-
You get a nice slice in there David. You and the boys had great observations about the "learned discussion." :)
Plus I properly used that word:):)
-
Jay,
St. George's looks like a real gem which you've gone to great lengths to detail - otherwise, I doubt if I would have ever heard of it - so thanks to you and your friend Mike! Although I haven't had time to read the whole article, I have to question your comparison of the 17th at SG with the 16th at Sandwich. There is no false front at RSG...there is a false edge if you will that feeds balls into the right bunker - this is where Bjorn lost the Open. 16 at SG looks to be a more interesting hole (and more fun) being 40 yards shorter with a raised green - 17 at RSG is almost sunken on three sides. I see very little to compare - certainly not "eerily similar" or "brothers". Did Patrick or Gil make the same comparison?
Also, as far as the course itself, I would think St. George's in Toronto would be a better course to draw parallels to as far as look and design features.
Cheers
-
Just about as much fun as one can have without the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders involved. The panoramic view you have out over the golf course from the deck is as good as it gets. If St. Georges is quirky then I am a quirkaholic with no desire to take the cure.
-
Thanks guys. BTW-that "Mike" is Mike Whitaker!!
-
Jay - I'm glad I pointed you in the direction of St Georges. It is an outstanding course and deserves more recognition.
As for your article: I never in my life thought I would see Greenville SC, Pat Mucci, and "vulva" mentioned in the same story. I don't quite know what to say... I'm truly speechless! :o
-
Best of all, it's Pat Mucci's vulva! ;D
-
Best of all, it's Pat Mucci's vulva! ;D
Awesome...but can you speak to the architectural comparison between SG 17th and Sandwich's 16th?
-
I think both the concept - and most certainly the effect - are the same...balls rlling off the green into bunkers...then the same thing happening over again!!!
-
One of the most fun things I thought St.George's demonstrated was the wonderful, creative, and effective use of blindness. Superior effort here.
I agree the restoration here is impressive. It goes to show when have a tree management program and work on restoring playing surfaces ... you can go a very long way towards making a fun course even better. Clearly, more has taken place, but those two aspects contributed greatly.
Let's not forget Adam Jessie and his team here doing a great job in bringing this gem back into the limelight as well.
-
Way to dis' Stanley Thompson and our friends to the north.
-
St George's should be a case study on what can happen to a golf course when they get good advice (Gil Hanse) and a president that has the willingness to press forward (John Ammerman). There were many times that the tree removal was met with reluctance, and the new mowing patterns were a bit controversial at the beginning. In the end, John Ammerman knew that it was the right thing to do, and pushed forward, the course, is much better as a result, and the membership should all be happy.
-
Who wants to play sat?
Saturday: Partly sunny, with a high near 57
-
Who wants to play sat?
Saturday: Partly sunny, with a high near 57
If the Donald can swing by and pick me up at 'Nova in the copter, then up to East Setauket, I'm there. ;D
-
Joe doesnt he capitalize the the "T" in "the"?
but there is a helipad right there at the hospital
-
Dave,
A well stocked limo is fine with me.
-
Steve
how do you define "well stocked"?
-
Dave,
The usual ;D
-
I'd love to, but I'm home w/family, but soon:)
-
I think both the concept - and most certainly the effect - are the same...balls rlling off the green into bunkers...then the same thing happening over again!!!
Jay,
You drew far stronger comparisons in your article and lamely back up those comparisons here. Since this thread has managed to turn into nothing more than small talk, I'll bow out now. It is a shame because the course seems well worth some real debate.
Keith & Patrick,
Thanks for your comments about the course. They have been the only things said that I've been able to glean any information from. If you have more to add, I'll rejoin the discussion. Do you two have any comment on Jay's comparisons with RSG?
-
Will,
I have never played RSG, so it is hard for me to make comparisons. The 17th hole is a great short par 3 with large false front that runs down into bunkers. The tee shot is a carry over a ravine. The shot is usually only in the 125 yeard area, but it is very exacting as you can not land on about half of a very small green. The back portion of the green is flat, and that is the only safe zone to land on. I very precise shot, but generally hit with a short iron.
The course is one of the most fun course I have ever played.
-
Let's not forget Adam Jessie and his team here doing a great job in bringing this gem back into the limelight as well.
Glad to see Adam Jessie there and doing well. I believe he was on GCA.com a long time ago as a student at Colorado State, worked here in the Denver area and then caught on at Shinnecock as an assistant. Sounds like a successful career has been launched.
-
Keith- spoken like a true architectural expert
Doug- of course he is suffering the slings and arrows of a fickle membership but I for one think he is doing a great job
Will- werent you also engaging in small talk by pointing out that the thread "has managed to turn into nothing more than small talk"
well thanks for bowing out at any rate
-
Will,
I have never played RSG, so it is hard for me to make comparisons. The 17th hole is a great short par 3 with large false front that runs down into bunkers. The tee shot is a carry over a ravine. The shot is usually only in the 125 yeard area, but it is very exacting as you can not land on about half of a very small green. The back portion of the green is flat, and that is the only safe zone to land on. I very precise shot, but generally hit with a short iron.
The course is one of the most fun course I have ever played.
Thanks Keith. It looks like a great short (short) hole with it's hilltop to hilltop shot to a wickedly sloped green. I would imagine in any sort of brisk wind (from any direction) it can be a daunting task to keep it below the hole (where I assume you need to be). The 16th at Sandwich is not a similar hole. It plays over undulating (but level) ground with no particular slope other than that which bleeds balls into that right bunker that undid T. Bjorn. It is a relatively benign hole relative to the rest of what is an excellent (and incredibly difficult) course with a number of truly unique golf holes. Royal Cinque Ports' 4th might be a hole closer in character and playing characteristics to this little beauty - similar yardage, over a little chasm, with a little bit of a false front (no bunkers to clear).
Dave, there are more appropriate ways to set up your golf games. I am simply trying to learn more about what looks like an architectural gem through a thread that is meant to do just that.
-
Will,
I have never played RSG, so it is hard for me to make comparisons. The 17th hole is a great short par 3 with large false front that runs down into bunkers. The tee shot is a carry over a ravine. The shot is usually only in the 125 yeard area, but it is very exacting as you can not land on about half of a very small green. The back portion of the green is flat, and that is the only safe zone to land on. I very precise shot, but generally hit with a short iron.
The course is one of the most fun course I have ever played.
Thanks Keith. It looks like a great short (short) hole with it's hilltop to hilltop shot to a wickedly sloped green. I would imagine in any sort of brisk wind (from any direction) it can be a daunting task to keep it below the hole (where I assume you need to be). The 16th at Sandwich is not a similar hole. It plays over undulating (but level) ground with no particular slope other than that which bleeds balls into that right bunker that undid T. Bjorn. It is a relatively benign hole relative to the rest of what is an excellent (and incredibly difficult) course with a number of truly unique golf holes. Royal Cinque Ports' 4th might be a hole closer in character and playing characteristics to this little beauty - similar yardage, over a little chasm, with a little bit of a false front (no bunkers to clear).
Dave, there are more appropriate ways to set up your golf games. I am simply trying to learn more about what looks like an architectural gem through a thread that is meant to do just that.
Will-The only word I can think to describe Dave`s offer to play St. Georges is gracious. I wonder what is inappropriate about it?
-
Will-The only word I can think to describe Dave`s offer to play St. Georges is gracious. I wonder what is inappropriate about it?
Tim,
Fair enough. Apologies Dave - I wasn't making the connection to this particular course. I am just wondering who will answer my question about Jay's comparison...someone who is familiar with both courses. Cheers boys...I'll settle on down!
-
Jay,
While your use of the term "expert" in regards to me puts your hole essay in a suspect light, I must thank you nay-the-less, as now that it is on the Internet, it must be true!
Dave,
That is most generous offer to get a group out to your course. As an expert on golf architecture, I strongly encourage anyone who can find a way out of their other obligations to join you at your gem.
Dave
-
but can you speak to the architectural comparison between SG 17th and Sandwich's 16th?
Commonalities:
Both are par 3s
Both have bunkers
Both are on a course with St. George's in its name
Differences:
NY hole is 122, Kent hole is 161
NY hole is across a ravine, Kent hole is across mostly level land
NY green is built up on a pad higher than the surrounds, Kent green is not
Kent green is significantly larger than NY green
NY green has a large false front, Kent green does not
Kent green has a slope on the back right that funnels balls into bunker (note: this is not a false front)
I cannot see how the 17th at St. George's would remind anyone of the 16th at Sandwich.
St. George's is a wonderful course, and is really unlike anything else that I've played in the US. It has a charm much like some of the English courses I've played, and I think that is a better description than quirky. When I played it last year, Adam had the course in fantastic condition, and no doubt it's just as good now. I'm really grateful to Tommy Naccarato for introducing me to St. George's. Anyone with an opportunity to see it should.
Some better reading on the course:
http://stgeorgesgolf.com/golfweek.pdf
And a thread with really nice photos:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46293.0.html
-
Jay,
For me, the ultimate test is: do I want to go directly to the first tee from the 18th green.
SG's passed that test with flying colors..
It's a course that lures you, with less than subtle signals.
If you don't enjoy golf on this course, you shouldn't be allowed on GCA.com ;D
-
Jay,
...Although I haven't had time to read the whole article, I have to question your comparison of the 17th at SG with the 16th at Sandwich. There is no false front at RSG...there is a false edge if you will that feeds balls into the right bunker - this is where Bjorn lost the Open. 16 at SG looks to be a far more interesting hole (and more fun) being 40 yards shorter with a raised green - 17 at RSG is almost sunken on three sides. I see very little to compare - certainly not "eerily similar" or "brothers".
Thanks John! I found that part of Jay's article to be completely bogus...
The most severe (and difficult) false front is at the par-3 17th, 122 yards of sheer terror, almost as visually arresting (and nerve-wracking) as the 17th at Sawgrass. It definitely brings to mind its brother hole, the eerily similar par-3 16th at Royal St. Georges in Sandwich, England. (That’s the hole where Thomas Bjorn left the Claret Jug in the greenside bunker short of the toughest false front on the golf course.)
Like its brother across the pond, the front third of the 17th green at St. George’s is completely false and will ruthlessly roll balls back off the green, down the embankment and into a bunker 10 feet below fairway grade. Then you face the same false front while playing out of the deepest bunker on the course. Good luck with that: let me know how it turns out…
I've not played SG in NY but pics clearly disqualify it from being the "brother hole"...it seems like a better hole judging solely from pics.
-
Sorry John and Will, but you're wrong. Yes, it does play like the 16th because you face the same danger from the front right bunker, a severe false front that win run back down to your feet.
-
Jay,
For me, the ultimate test is: do I want to go directly to the first tee from the 18th green.
SG's passed that test with flying colors..
It's a course that lures you, with less than subtle signals.
If you don't enjoy golf on this course, you shouldn't be allowed on GCA.com ;D
Exactly right...the minute you finish, you want to go back out again. So glad you and everyone else - except the clones - had a great time and liked the piece.
-
Jay,
For me, the ultimate test is: do I want to go directly to the first tee from the 18th green.
SG's passed that test with flying colors..
It's a course that lures you, with less than subtle signals.
If you don't enjoy golf on this course, you shouldn't be allowed on GCA.com ;D
well said Patrick
-
Sorry John and Will, but you're wrong. Yes, it does play like the 16th because you face the same danger from the front right bunker, a severe false front that win run back down to your feet.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The 16th green at Sandwich does not have a severe false front. Have you played the course? Have you seen the green in person?
In your article, you say this about the 16th at Sandwich:
"That's the hole where Thomas Bjorn left the Claret Jug in the greenside bunker short of the toughest false front on the golf course.
Here's a youtube video of the bunker that Bjorn had trouble in. It's on the right side, not in the front. Watch the video carefully as you may not be able to catch such a subtle difference (right side rather than front) with only a single viewing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpUuFQOa7LA
Your article goes further, stating that "like its brother across the pond, the front third of the 17th green at St. George's is completely false." There is no false front on the 16th at Sandwich. Find me anyone that has played there that will agree with you (note: those journalist friends who claimed you can see the white cliffs of Dover from the course don't count as credible sources).
There's nothing wrong with writing about a course you haven't played, but you should at least do some basic research and know what you are talking about before writing. And when you find out that you're wrong, own up to it. I won't comment on the rest of your article. I wouldn't even have read it if not for the title of the thread and this silly argument about false fronts.
-
Save it for someone who cares. You fell all over yourself trying to be insulting to me. Nobody cares, it's an old and tired act. Anything else?
-
Save it for someone who cares. You fell all over yourself trying to be insulting to me. Nobody cares, it's an old and tired act. Anything else?
Assume this might be directed at me. Obviously you don't care about being accurate, or you would listen to people and correct your article. You had the opportunity to learn something and fix your error, but instead you told me I was wrong. All I've done is provide evidence to support my argument. If you're insulted by that, then you really shouldn't be posting on an internet discussion group.
The main point of posting was to correct a factual error in your "article." There is no false front on the 16th green at Royal St. George's. That's a fact. I refrained from commenting on any other aspect of your writing as no good would come from that.
-
As usual, you are very sure of your errors. Few people are more wrong, more loudly, more often.
-
Though I haven't played St. Georges since Adam took over as Super, I have played there numerous times in the past and have played RSG a few times. Aside from a common name missing a Royal, that is the only comparison. The 17th at St. Georges is a short do or die tee shot with a wicked false front. The 16th at RSG is a 180ish hole with a wicked right side, but plenty of bail out to the left. There is part of the 15th at St. Georges that has a false right side--not sure if it has been shavedd into the bunker or not, but that was once a popular pin position, so I do know that bunker.
Aside from a lot of cool mounds, I really do not see a lot of quirk. Short and tricky--yes, but I think it is a straightforward course fit into a tight property. As for quirk, that would be found at Hampshire where you have some odd shaped doglegs because of the use of big rock formations--a better quality restoration on this course and it would still be a viable club.
-
Jay,
I don't want you to feel like we're piling on here, but I've played both holes and there is not much in common beyond the fact they have a par of three. It's a romantic thought you have presented in your article, and it would be cool if it were true... but, unfortunately it's not.
Mike
-
The 16th at Sandwich slopes back left to front right and it does have a bit of fallaway to the front of the green AFTER the fronting bunkers are carried to a sort of bowl. The overall effect of the green is to gather at the front right, not repel at the front. I think its a good hole!
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff114/seanrobertarble/ROYAL%20ST%20GEORGES%20GC/114.jpg?t=1278504491)
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff203/bsdesign/Royal%20St%20Georges/Hole16.jpg)
Ciao
-
Sorry John and Will, but you're wrong. Yes, it does play like the 16th because you face the same danger from the front right bunker, a severe false front that win run back down to your feet.
Jay,
As John so aptly said, you are clueless. You have obviously never set foot on that green (course?). Many, many people who have PLAYED that hole (course) are trying to set you straight (i.e., inform you) and your self-righteousness won't let you make a simple admission of a completely fabricated analogy of golf holes. I am guessing you thought it would be cool if a great course that you had just played named St. George's somehow had this really similar hole to a notoriously difficult Open course where a well-known bunker catastrophe occurred possibly similar to a fate you suffered with your sorry game - remember I've seen your swing...super flat, probably kept diggin the heal of your SW deep in the sand and the ball ended up back at your feet a few times...oh yeah, just like Thomas Bjorn! Either that or you really do have no idea what a false FRONT is. I'll assume the former.
So, save the "sorry" for when you do what any responsible "writer" would do when they publish such a flawed couple of paragraphs (having only read this excerpt, I am frightened to read the rest), accept feedback and correct your piece. No one will ever take you seriously until you show some humility.
-
Save it for someone who cares. You fell all over yourself trying to be insulting to me. Nobody cares, it's an old and tired act. Anything else?
Jay...it is obvious you don't care. Yet, a "journalist" should, no? That's the frustrating part. Nobody was trying to insult you - read my first post! You insist on taking things personally rather than taking our comments as feedback (actually trying to help you from making yourself sound completely uninformed). As John suggested, please offer the opinion of another to support your comparison.
-
I saw the thread title, I expected carnage, I wasn't disappointed. Jay, I would have thought after your previous debacle you'd have retired from writing about Royal St George's.
What John says about the RSG hole is 100% correct and I think he was much more polite in saying so than many others on this site might have been.
Say what you like, the only person who looks a fool is you -- not only when you make these nonsensical claims, but when you then attack folks who point them out.
-
As usual, you are very sure of your errors. Few people are more wrong, more loudly, more often.
I'm sorry that you feel that way, and surprised that a writer is so unwilling to correct an obvious error. There's no shame in making a mistake, but your reaction to receiving correct information is bizarre.
-
Hey Scott and John, who are you trying to impress? And why don't you send them to me directly...I'd rspond to you, but I'm tired of answering to lackeys.
-
Hey Scott and John, who are you trying to impress? And why don't you send them to me directly...I'd rspond to you, but I'm tired of answering to lackeys.
Jay,
Who are YOU trying to impress by continuously posting your writings on a discussion board? We are the responders.
Lackey? Really? Yet another poorly written piece. The only thing I am trying to do is be a servant of REALITY. Answer to me...please! OFFER UP ANOTHER OPINION THAT SUPPORTS YOUR COMPARISON OF THESE TWO GOLF HOLES! Still waiting.
-
Aside from an incorrect comparison of holes, I am still waiting for some deacriptions of St. Georges quirk. A false front or false side does not make quirk. And there really are not a lot of bind shots compared to even the namesake with the Royall
-
Read the article, you'll see the quirk discussion.
-
Jay,
Are you paid by The Golf Space and, if so, are you paid per page impression?
Just curious.
-
RMD,
I thought the 4th green complex was an excellent example of quirk.
The front mounding combined with the double fronting, stacked bunkers, combined with the moat bunker surrounding the castle/green.
The "Tube" fairway, the dual shared fairway, the shared bunkers flanking adjacent holes.
I think you could probably identify elements of quirk on just about every hole, with the exception of # 1.
It would be hard to imagine someone walking off the 18th green, thinking that the course he had just played was pretty much like every other course.
Unless of course, you're one of the dolts. morons, cretins and/or imbiciles named "Mark" ;D
-
Jay,
Are you paid by The Golf Space and, if so, are you paid per page impression?
Just curious.
MY BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH ANY OF MY PUBLISHERS ARE NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. NEITHER IS WHATEVER ARRANGEMENT I HAVE WITH RAN ABOUT POSTING HERE. IS THAT IN ANY WAY UNCLEAR?
-
RMD,
I thought the 4th green complex was an excellent example of quirk.
The front mounding combined with the double fronting, stacked bunkers, combined with the moat bunker surrounding the castle/green.
The "Tube" fairway, the dual shared fairway, the shared bunkers flanking adjacent holes.
I think you could probably identify elements of quirk on just about every hole, with the exception of # 1.
It would be hard to imagine someone walking off the 18th green, thinking that the course he had just played was pretty much like every other course.
Unless of course, you're one of the dolts. morons, cretins and/or imbiciles named "Mark" ;D
The tube fairway I assume you mean is 12?
Well 1 has quirk too...it has reverse camber and a severe false front.
-
... Few people are more wrong, more loudly, more often.
The perfect description of Jay.
-
Quirk: --an abrubt twist or curve, a peculiar trait : indiosyncrasy: an accident, a vagary
The interpretation of quirk in regards to St. Georges is obciously very subjective. The 4th green conplex with the moat bunkering and the fescue mounds guarding the entrance is very well done, but I don"t see it as quirky but in character with what Emmet designed. False fronts and false sides, falloffs, ect were very common to his designs. Mounds--common to his designs. St. Georges is a great course that uses the terrain wonderfully, but when viewed in relation to Hampshire or NLE Briarcliff is quirk light at best. Play the 3rd and 8th at Hampshire and you will find quirk
-
Like others who posted on this thread, I don't see the similarity of the 17th at St George's with the 16th at Sandwich.
Perhaps Plainfield's 11th is a better comparision, with the false-front, tiny putting surface and deep fronting bunkers.
Or, perhaps the best thing to say is that the 17th at St George's is a fantastic short par-3.
Quirk is a word often used to describe St George's. I suppose the number of blind shots may lead one to call the course quirky. I'd call the course fun, though.
Variety is such an important part of making a golf course interesting to play over and over, and that is where St George's shines.
-
The closing stretch at St. George's is really something special. I'd call the course a "must play" just to see that finish.
-
Mac,
If you were a member of St George's and did not have much time, you could play 1,2,3 and then 11 to 18, or even walk right to the 13 tee and play in. Either way, great little loops in the evening.
-
Keith
that is what I often do In fact St Georges has many such loops
1-3 then 18(if really pressed for time); 1-7 then 18; 1-10 the 18; 13-18; 15-18; and of course you can finish at 12 or 14 then hop up the hill to the house
I think all of the potential loops are attest to a spectacular routing
-
Keith
that is what I often do In fact St Georges has many such loops
1-3 then 18(if really pressed for time); 1-7 then 18; 1-10 the 18; 13-18; 15-18; and of course you can finish at 12 or 14 then hop up the hill to the house
I think all of the potential loops are attest to a spectacular routing
St. George's is now in my top 5 favorite courses to play on Long Island
although that's a list that can change at any time ;) ;D
By "closing stretch" Mac do you mean 10-18? because I thought they were all pretty special
-
Jeff,
I am pretty sure Mac was referring to 12 to 18, but having spoken to him, that is not a slight on any hole out there.
And as for your changing list of five favorites, maybe you can make it your tag line? This way we can keep up in real time? ;D
-
Keith,
Is Shelter Island consodered Long Island? ;D ;D ;D
If so may have to make it a top 6 ;)
The green on #10 at St. George's is awesome (I still want to go back and bang one off the wall)
11's no slouch
-
Jeff,
If you are willing to consider a course west of the canal,I am willing to let you consider Shelter Island as well!
-
Jeff,
If you are willing to consider a course west of the canal,I am willing to let you consider Shelter Island as well!
Keith,
Many of my current favorites are west of the canal
-
Jeff...
Yep, the entire course and the back nine is very good. But I think these holes are something extra special.
Here is 13...
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/StGeorges13.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/StGeorges13frombehind.jpg)
Here is 15...
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/StGeorges15II.jpg)
17...
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/StGeorges17II.jpg)
and 18.
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/StGeorges18.jpg)
-
Quirk: --an abrubt twist or curve, a peculiar trait : indiosyncrasy: an accident, a vagary
The interpretation of quirk in regards to St. Georges is obciously very subjective. The 4th green conplex with the moat bunkering and the fescue mounds guarding the entrance is very well done, but I don"t see it as quirky but in character with what Emmet designed.
RMD, you can't view the architecture at St George's, solely in the context of Emmet's work, which tends to be generally quirky.
You have to view it in the broader context of general architecture, and the work at St George's is definitely "quirky"
False fronts and false sides, falloffs, ect were very common to his designs. Mounds--common to his designs. St. Georges is a great course that uses the terrain wonderfully, but when viewed in relation to Hampshire or NLE Briarcliff is quirk light at best.
If Hampshire is quirkier than St George's that doesn't mean that St George's isn't quirky.
The entire course is quirky.
Play the 3rd and 8th at Hampshire and you will find quirk
My dad and I won the MGA Father-Son at Hampshire, but, that was in another century.
-
I think the great stretch runs from 13-18; really good stuff.
I wonder if the rolling terrain on the right side of 12 could be mowed at fairway height?
-
Thanks, Mark. I fixed it.
-
I wonder why there's a bunker far left on the approach on 13? No one would be aiming near there would they? And if you hit it there, do you really deserve a 40 yard downhill sand recovery?
-
Mark,
While I understand what you feel about the hill on the right of 12, I am suprised that you don't consider it a great hole. It has always reminded me of the 14th at Shinnecock, which I also love. Even with the rough, your ball will usually bound down off the hill into the fairway. The second shot is demanding, and I think the green is very good. Do you have some photos?
-
David,
I don't think it is that far off the green, but it is on the way to the next tee. Perhaps it is there to make sure people do not go in that direction?
-
If all it took was a bunker to keep my ball going in that direction...
-
I wonder why there's a bunker far left on the approach on 13? No one would be aiming near there would they? And if you hit it there, do you really deserve a 40 yard downhill sand recovery?
Dave,
I actually double crossed it and ended up in that bunker on the left. Its a stout par 4 and I remember having a pretty long way in. I do remember having do deal with tree branches on the bunker shot which I think bothered me more than the location of the bunker.
Mark
-
Jeff,
I am pretty sure Mac was referring to 12 to 18, but having spoken to him, that is not a slight on any hole out there.
And as for your changing list of five favorites, maybe you can make it your tag line? This way we can keep up in real time? ;D
I agree! 12-18 is all fantastic! It's a long closing stretch...as yogi B would say, "it gets late early out there:)"
-
Like others who posted on this thread, I don't see the similarity of the 17th at St George's with the 16th at Sandwich.
Perhaps Plainfield's 11th is a better comparision, with the false-front, tiny putting surface and deep fronting bunkers.
Mark, I immediately thought of Plainfield's 11th as well, but is it possible that Shinnecock's 11th is the better comparison?
Mike
-
Can you post some pix please? It would be cool to see. I'll seeing everyone from St G's this weekend:) Boys, give me a call to catch up:)
-
Jay,
Can you now see the lack of similarity between the SG's #17 and Sandwich's #16? Curious if we have convinced you yet.
Cheers
-
You guys need to lighten up on Jay. His writing either enlightens or amuses - the world could use more of both.
Jay, thanks for introducing me to St. Georges, though I'm compelled to ask: If Mucci's answer to every architectural question is "Mountain Ridge" is he really an expert?
Mike