Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Bart Bradley on September 16, 2015, 09:54:22 PM
-
Played Friar's Head today. Awesome. I think it should be a 10. Discuss.
Bart
-
Easily one of the best modern courses I've ever played. Behind only Pacific Dunes for me, and barely so.
If I were playing Devil's Advocate, I suppose I'd argue that some of the holes like the first, fourth, eleventh and twelvth aren't quite as great as the others (in reality, I think they're still very solid), or point to the fact that the course has a bit of a split personality (I actually enjoyed the differences between the dune and field holes).
Bottom line - it is unquestionably a fantastic modern golf course.
-
Who says it isn't ?
Great course, great practice facility, great par 3 course, great clubhouse.
Sounds like a 10 to me.
-
Looks like a good course: http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/friars-head/
I'd give it at least a 9.5 until such time as I'm invited to play there.
-
Delete
-
Hey Bart,
I consider the question of whether Friar's Head deserves a "10" is one of the great potential debates.
Unlike Jon Cavalier, I think the 4th hole is sublime, and some of my favorite holes are among the least heralded, for instance the 2nd, 8th and 13th holes. A couple of my less favorite holes include ones often cited as great, including the 5th and 9th holes. The 10th and 15th holes are among my favorite holes I've played.
Tom Doak defines a 10 course as follows:
10. Nearly perfect; if you skipped even one hole, you would miss something worth seeing. If you haven’t seen all the courses in this category, you don’t know how good golf architecture can get. Call your travel agent—immediately.
I think you can argue that the 18th hole features an awkward tee shot, and that the 12th hole is a bit mundane, but if you skipped them, you would be missing something. How do these holes compare to the less interesting holes at other "10" courses?
The best argument against giving Friar's Head a 10 is the large section of property without much natural contour. For me, it's a close call.
-
Played Friar's Head today. Awesome. I think it should be a 10. Discuss.
Bart
Bart,
Can you tell us why FH is a 10?
-
Hey Bart,
I consider the question of whether Friar's Head deserves a "10" is one of the great potential debates.
Unlike Jon Cavalier, I think the 4th hole is sublime, and some of my favorite holes are among the least heralded, for instance the 2nd, 8th and 13th holes. A couple of my less favorite holes include ones often cited as great, including the 5th and 9th holes. The 10th and 15th holes are among my favorite holes I've played.
Tom Doak defines a 10 course as follows:
10. Nearly perfect; if you skipped even one hole, you would miss something worth seeing. If you haven’t seen all the courses in this category, you don’t know how good golf architecture can get. Call your travel agent—immediately.
I think you can argue that the 18th hole features an awkward tee shot, and that the 12th hole is a bit mundane, but if you skipped them, you would be missing something. How do these holes compare to the less interesting holes at other "10" courses?
The best argument against giving Friar's Head a 10 is the large section of property without much natural contour. For me, it's a close call.
While that is the definition of a Doak 10 as described in the confidential guide, i don't think its quite as black and white. The old course which is a consensus Doak 10 (a score i agree with) in the newest confidential guide, despite the acknowledgment that holes 9&10 really don't fall into the "if you skipped even one hole, you would miss something worth seeing" category, however the guide goes on to state that the other magnificent holes more than enough go on to make up for 9&10. If the raters were to strictly follow the description given then the old course would not be able to be a 10. Similarly Royal County Down gets a 10 from two of the four authors (Mr.Doak gives it a 9), despite its less than world class finishing holes.
So by that logic even with a weak hole or two, friars head could still absolutely be a 10.
-
Friar's Head is a great course. It wasn't built yet the last time The Confidential Guide was published, so I won't formally give it a rating until Volume 3 comes out a year from now. I have played it three times, but all of those were before the clubhouse was completed and the trees on 16-17 were removed.
That said, I do not give out a lot of 10's, nor do my co-authors. And campaigning for one is certainly not the way to get one. You can find fault with any hole if you really try.
-
Because it is a knockoff.
Mayday, a knock off of what course?
There are a number of excellent holes at Friar's Head but I thought the highlight was the four par 5 transition holes that take you down from the dunes (2 and 11) and back up again (7 and 14). The latter pair were very strong holes.
-
Friar's Head is a terrific golf course and a 9 would be more than fair.
-
Played Friar's Head today. Awesome. I think it should be a 10. Discuss.
Bart
Bart,
Can you tell us why FH is a 10?
+1
We (including me) all too often substitute a mathematic conclusion/opinion for "frank discussion."
I think of all the "great" 6's and 7's I've played and could really use some help in justifying why any course is 3 to 4 points "better."
This reminds me to resume my thread on Lawsonia Links.
Bogey
-
Played Friar's Head today. Awesome. I think it should be a 10. Discuss.
Bart
Bart,
Can you tell us why FH is a 10?
It is far, far easier to identify things you don't like than things you do. Often things you don't like are specific holes or features but it's become clear that individual holes and features don't make a great golf course (the whole sum of its parts argument). As a result, we get legitimate but cop out terms like 'strategic' or 'varied' to identify what makes a course great. The actual analysis of what makes a course great requires an excellent architectural eye, a great memory and the ability to articulate what you've seen.
-
Played Friar's Head today. Awesome. I think it should be a 10. Discuss.
Bart
Bart,
Can you tell us why FH is a 10?
It is far, far easier to identify things you don't like than things you do. Often things you don't like are specific holes or features but it's become clear that individual holes and features don't make a great golf course (the whole sum of its parts argument). As a result, we get legitimate but cop out terms like 'strategic' or 'varied' to identify what makes a course great. The actual analysis of what makes a course great requires an excellent architectural eye, a great memory and the ability to articulate what you've seen.
Well said Mark. A great course has to be more than the absence of bad things. It is also easy to focus only on individual holes, when in reality the flow of whole course is much more important.
-
One of the best attributes of Friar's Head is the speed of play. Greens and tees are close to one another, with the exception of the 14-15 transition, so golf is (should be) played fast there.
-
The tees and Greens may be close to one another relative to many modern courses but I don't find them particularly cozy relative to many of the classic era courses in the Met area that are 6300 yards and never had expansion room. I would guess those courses may actually play faster also.
You can give FH a 10 for many reasons, that is not one of them.
-
I love Friar's Head but if Sand Hills is a "10", which I truly believe it is, then I have a tough time saying Friar's Head is as good as Sand Hills.
-
What's wrong with it being a "Bradley 10"? I would take that scale quite seriously, although that shouldn't make a difference one way or the other.
I think Tom is/was more mathematically inclined and logical than I am, so he used a kind of numeric formula for his scale, with supporting parameters (e.g. no holes to be missed) that gave the impression of approaching the "objective". But what I think Tom was trying to quantify/describe was actually a feeling, a subjective experience -- i.e. that of transcendence.
If Friar's Head provides Bart with what is, for him, the golfing equivalent of a transcendent experience, then it is indeed a 10 on the Bradley Scale -- and as valid for him (and who else should it matter to?) as Tom's scale is to him.
To paraphrase the Andy Warhol saying: "In the future, everyone will have his own Doak Scale, for 15 minutes".
Or to imagine a grumpy Tom: "Oh for goodness sakes, get your own damn scale and then you can give whatever the hell you want a "10" and finally stop bothering me about it every time C&C builds another course!. Man, my mom was right: she used to say 'Tommy, I'm not sure this "scale" thing is a good idea', but I didn't listen!"
-
Played Friar's Head today. Awesome. I think it should be a 10. Discuss.
Bart
Bart,
Can you tell us why FH is a 10?
+1
We (including me) all too often substitute a mathematic conclusion/opinion for "frank discussion."
I think of all the "great" 6's and 7's I've played and could really use some help in justifying why any course is 3 to 4 points "better."
This reminds me to resume my thread on Lawsonia Links.
Bogey
Bogey,
No offense to Bart, but you and I are on the same page. It does me or other readers little good to know that someone considers a course a "10". Much more important is articulating exactly what makes it so. A "10", after all, is in the rare air and it would be far better to know why someone rates it this high than the mere score itself.
By the way, I saw Friars Head for a few hours during construction and had the pleasure of meeting Bill Coore. Definitely a unique property and interesting challenge to tie the different parts of the property together.
Would enjoy seeing the finished property.
-
You can find fault with any hole if you really try.
Tom,
I think that's a great point that's often forgotten
-
I have played FH a couple of times and have to agree that it definitely approaches a 10 and partly because of the brilliance of the holes that are on the flatter part of the property - those that use the dunes are certainly great but I view the flat part to be more challenging to design outstanding holes. (I was somewhat reminded of them at Colorado Golf but not quite as good.)
I remember Tom saying that when they were doing Old MacDonald, Mike Keiser felt very strongly that they had to have a hole that would get the golf out to the water and a view of the ocean which they did very well and certainly adds to the experience. Would it have been possible to do that at FH?
-
In the unofficial GCA world rankings, tabulated in 2009, Friar's Head had an average score of 8.4. That placed it tied for 27th in the world. Highest score it got was 10; low was 6. Standard Deviation was 0.9.
So back then our group considered it about mid-way between an 8 and a 9. At least one person gave it a 10; at least one person gave it a 6.
Those scores that seem real low always interest me. Pinehurst #2 and Chicago GC both got at least one score of 4, e.g. So did Camargo. Assuming these are legit scores, what turned off those raters so much?
-
???
A ten is a ten is a ten .
Not many or any exist , so it has to be a once in a lifetime experience.
-
In the unofficial GCA world rankings, tabulated in 2009, Friar's Head had an average score of 8.4. That placed it tied for 27th in the world. Highest score it got was 10; low was 6. Standard Deviation was 0.9.
So back then our group considered it about mid-way between an 8 and a 9. At least one person gave it a 10; at least one person gave it a 6.
Those scores that seem real low always interest me. Pinehurst #2 and Chicago GC both got at least one score of 4, e.g. So did Camargo. Assuming these are legit scores, what turned off those raters so much?
Did that score put it ahead or behind Holston Hills in that poll?
-
Mac, Holston Hills averaged 7.8, which put it in a tie for 54th. Its high was 9, its low was 6. Fewer raters at HH: 17 vs 29 at FH.
Here's the link:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42368.0.html
-
???
A ten is a ten is a ten .
Not many or any exist , so it has to be a once in a lifetime experience.
Okay, fair enough -- but then what happens after a guy plays Pine Valley more than 100 times?
-
[quote author=PPallotta link=topic=61790.msg1467525#msg1467525 date=1442587449
Okay, fair enough -- but then what happens after a guy plays Pine Valley more than 100 times?
He dies happily.
-
Guy walks into a doctor's office, says, "Doc, you got to help me: playing Pine Valley is a once in a lifetime experience, and I've just played it. What should I do?". Doc says, "Hmm - maybe take two aspirins and hook me up with your member?"
-
I know an older gentleman who had played all of the Top 100 courses in the country EXCEPT for Augusta National. One summer he ended up playing with a member who advised him that come next season he was invited to come play.
Unfortunately, the member died a few weeks later.
-
Guy walks into a doctor's office, says, "Doc, you got to help me: playing Pine Valley is a once in a lifetime experience, and I've just played it. What should I do?". Doc says, "Hmm - maybe take two aspirins and hook me up with your member?"
Thank you. Thank you. I'll be here all week.
P2
;)
-
How cool would it be if someone actually responded to the thread with comments about Friar's Head?
Jon Cavalier did, John Kirk did, Bill McBride managed to.
There might actually be some discussion of the course, as opposed to the criteria Tom had in mind or some other such highly important matter...
-
How cool would it be if someone actually responded to the thread with comments about Friar's Head?
Jon Cavalier did, John Kirk did, Bill McBride managed to.
There might actually be some discussion of the course, as opposed to the criteria Tom had in mind or some other such highly important matter...
True, but my understanding is that Friar's Head isn't the easiest course to access, nor are the courses that Doak rated as 9s and 10s -- the relevant courses, it seems, in which to further the debate on this.
I've been roundly criticized at times on this forum for making judgements about courses that, although depicted on this discussion board with extensive pictures, I have not played. It seems that much harder to add anything to this discussion -- and I'm guessing others might feel the same way -- with an initial one-sentence post that wonders why such-and-such isn't a 10....
-
Phil, I know your reflex is to disagree with me, but judging by the comments, there are plenty of people who posted who have actually played the course.
Screw the nitpicking of the wording, discuss the course.
-
Well, the two most interesting observations on this thread have been by Messrs. Rafkin and Saltzman, and I can't tell whether either one has played the course.
-
I have been lucky enough to play Friars Head a few times and it is spectacular. Not sure how I would score it on Tom's scale, but I would drop everything at another invite, and I would play it at the expense of several other east end courses. Those things make it a 10 to me.
-
I have played FH and it is top notch but if had a choice for one round between the two I would pick Sebonack.
-
I have played FH and it is top notch but if had a choice for one round between the two I would pick Sebonack.
Any specific reason?
-
Anybody else find the scorecard annoying and the clubhouse not fitting in?
I'm all for minimalism and neat little features like that but to me having no info other than par on the card took away from the anticipation of "what's next" and was trying too hard to be different.
And the clubhouse...you have this awesome place that is all about it's private understated nature and they built a giant over the top structure that looks like it should be at Trump place.
To answer the original question of the thread, to me, those are all factors in what makes a golf experience a 10 or not. That and I thought that 12 was a poor hole and the tee shot at 18 needs to be changed somehow.
Loved the course, but not a 10 for this golfer.
-
Friars Head is an elite course. No question.
Whether it is a 9 or a 10 or whatever is personal taste. Keith answer really gets to the reason we apply ratings...to judge quality and worthiness of playing there. Keith had played it a bunch, but would still drop everything to play it again. That's a sign of a quality course and a great experience.
I've been lucky enough to play there once. I thought it was truly great. The only Coore and Crenshaw That is "better" in my book is Sand Hills, but, to be fair, I am gaga over Mullen, NE. And simply being there is magical to me.
Like Keith, if I was invited to play Friars Head again, and only Friars Head, I'd immediately make plans to fly in from ATL.
I don't do Doak Scale ratings, but that should give you a good idea of how highly I regard the course.
-
What stands out about this thread is how poorly the case is made for Friars Head being a great course.
That is not to say it isn't a great course. Just saying the case hasn't been made here.
Based on the posts in this thread, it seems like we are just giving Friars Head the benefit of the doubt because someone we like - Bill Coore - did the course.
Makes me wonder if posts would be different if some no name - maybe a guy named George Crump - did the course.
I shouldn't be surprised. Golf architecture writing isn't easy.
-
You don't need to make a case or defend Friars Head as being great. Because it is. Plain and simple.
-
You don't need to make a case or defend Friars Head as being great. Because it is. Plain and simple.
Mac:
Notice I didn't say FH isn't a great course. I just said nobody made the case in this thread.
A bunch of golf architecture junkies and nobody has made the case.
Interesting.
-
I've thought a lot about Friars Head and how it compares to Sand Hills... just the course, not the clubhouse... which is too opulent for my taste at Friars Head.
I'd love to see you guys do a matchplay comparison between the two. Both courses are magnificent and I'm not sure which one would win. Of all the C&C courses I've played Sand Hills and Friars Head are the two that have made the most impact on me.
If Sand Hills is a 10 Friars Head can't be far behind, if at all.
-
Tim,
I am far from a writer or golf critic, but here are my thoughts. First, somehow driving through the gates seems to take you to a different place. I just feel like I am off LI when I play there and totally secluded, which I like. I also like the variety of holes, and terrain. They have a par 4 where you can try and drive it and make double, and a par 4 where I can not make it in 2 but make par. The course features a wide array of greens as well, some undulated, some with tilt, all with interest. I can only judge a routing by how walkable the course is, and Friars is a great walk. Cresting the hill to see the clubhouse is amazing, and walking along the deck as the day winds down can not be beat.
Sorry that I am not the type of guy that will be invited to contribute to TCG, but those are my personal thoughts on it.
-
You don't need to make a case or defend Friars Head as being great. Because it is. Plain and simple.
Mac:
Notice I didn't say FH isn't a great course. I just said nobody made the case in this thread.
A bunch of golf architecture junkies and nobody has made the case.
Interesting.
Tim
Friars Head makes the case for itself, starting with the routing.
The course transitions from the dunes to the flats to the dunes to flats and finally back to the dunes in wonderful fashion.
There's not a weak hole on the golf course.
The par 5's, perhaps the hardest holes to design, are outstanding.
The par 3's are good with # 10 being an outstanding par 3.
The par 4's are diverse and very strong.
As I stated, the terrain, routing and individual holes are outstanding.
Did I mention the putting surfaces ?
They are outstanding with more than ample contour, shape and slope.
Friars Head passes my ultimate test, in that I want to go straight to the first tee as I walk off the 18th green.
-
I was fortunate enough to play Friar's Head in October last year on a perfect day. For me it's not a 10 or a 9 but don't get me wrong I still love it, it's just not one of my favorites. I will admit to not remembering the course in great detail, usually I'm pretty good with that (for example, Crystal Downs I remember every hole like it was yesterday). However, a lot of the holes there (back to FH) which I found very good were not memorable for me. I also felt that there were quite a few similar tees shots elevated tee down to the fairway. The green complexes were excellent and I enjoy the look and feel of the links like courses. However, it also slightly bothers me when a course looks like a links course but perhaps lacks the firm and fast playing conditions of a links. FH was in perfect shape in October but quite lush in my recollection. Some love that of course but I tend to lean away from that. I personally give it an 8. Which from the sounds of it will be asking for abuse here. Although there are not that many 8's out there. I like both Sand Hills and Bandon Trails better even though Bandon Trails is also an 8 for me. Sand Hills a 9.
I went back 3 days later to have dinner at Friar's Head. I was quite impressed with that but found it a shame that we were only 3 people with an entire waiting staff serving us. Sure it's a bit surreal to have the entire place for yourself and super exclusive, it was a wonderful evening, a 9 out of 10 ;-). Food was fantastic, pre dinner drinks by the fire, special place. It would of been a 10 experience had the place been a little livelier.
-
Who cares if a course is a 9 or 10? Everyones fascination with The Doak Scale is creepy. Everyone says Friars Head is awesome, I've never played it but I'd love to see what makes everyone so happy.
-
You will get no abuse from me, David. You gave your opinion after playing the course and gave reasons. The ratings are all based on personal taste and you said what you didn't like about the course. But did give it an 8, which is a darn high rating.
Discussions boards are about discussion.
-
You don't need to make a case or defend Friars Head as being great. Because it is. Plain and simple.
Mac:
Notice I didn't say FH isn't a great course. I just said nobody made the case in this thread.
A bunch of golf architecture junkies and nobody has made the case.
Interesting.
Tim
Friars Head makes the case for itself, starting with the routing.
Friars Head passes my ultimate test, in that I want to go straight to the first tee as I walk off the 18th green.
Pat:
If you invited to the Hamptons to play 1 round of golf, which do you choose?
I've played FH 3 times and its great and I look forward to going back but if I get to select one course, it's going to be NGLA.
-
Joel,
That's a tough standard. In the neighborhood, you've got some of the very best courses in the entire world.
NGLA would be my pick too...but I'm sure Shinnecock would get votes too. And you've got Maidstone, Sebonack, and quite a few other gems.
-
Joel,
My choice would be NGLA, but that doesn't mean that its neighbor, Shinnecock, isn't a 10
-
Joel,
My choice would be NGLA, but that doesn't mean that its neighbor, Shinnecock, isn't a 10
Well they both are in my book.
-
You don't need to make a case or defend Friars Head as being great. Because it is. Plain and simple.
Mac:
Notice I didn't say FH isn't a great course. I just said nobody made the case in this thread.
A bunch of golf architecture junkies and nobody has made the case.
Interesting.
Tim
Friars Head makes the case for itself, starting with the routing.
The course transitions from the dunes to the flats to the dunes to flats and finally back to the dunes in wonderful fashion.
There's not a weak hole on the golf course.
The par 5's, perhaps the hardest holes to design, are outstanding.
The par 3's are good with # 10 being an outstanding par 3.
The par 4's are diverse and very strong.
As I stated, the terrain, routing and individual holes are outstanding.
Did I mention the putting surfaces ?
They are outstanding with more than ample contour, shape and slope.
Friars Head passes my ultimate test, in that I want to go straight to the first tee as I walk off the 18th green.
Pat,
Nice to see someone actually take a shot a defining what makes FH so special. But, I have to disagree with your comment that Friars Head "makes the case for itself".
Isn't it in the spirit of this discussion group (or perhaps the entire site) for the writer to make the case for the course?
-
Tim,
As you and I have discussed so many times in our many conversations both on the phone and in person, the subject of golf course architecture is so vast and large. You've taught me a great deal in those conversations of just how one needs to express themselves and I'm going to do my best to express myself here, granted my opinion is jaded and biased and as always, I have no problem admitting it that I do play favorites when it comes to Friar's Head and its all because of of the unique kinship I have with this special place. Much like St. Andrews, The National Golf Links of America, Rustic Canyon and Santa Anita Golf Course, I fit to these places like a glove and as I drive into these places, my heart beats with anticipation and excitement. I'm at my best as a person when I'm at these special places, and when it comes to Friar's Head, its both a blessing and a curse to know this course with such intimacy--most of my rounds out there have ben played when there was not a single soul out there with exception to myself-it was just me and this holy ground. Overdramatic's? Why yes! I allow myself that as it is the best way to describe something you love so much, yet my curse is that I have to think about it from afar and think about it often because of not being able to be with it everyday being that it competes with my other mistress, Los Angeles. Home. A place I love equally as well!
But enough about me, more about the golf course!
I agree with Pat and that the routing of Friar's Head speaks for itself, simply because it would take a deaf, dumb and blind person not see how special the place really is on one trip only! This is no ordinary land and in some cases it would take a filmmakers imagination to understand what this land has been through; how it was created; how it got its name; the generations of one family that owned it, farmed it, hunted on it and even relaxed on it during hot summer days while picnicking on the beach. when your out there viewing or playing the entire course or the first time you see where one architect took days, weeks, months walking the land trying to figure out how he could make it work as a golf course with not a template used to guide or help him, because each of the golf holes at Friar's Head is unique to themselves that work for that initial routing, plus he was given the ability to refine, which is a very important word in golf course architecture.
From the first tee to the last green, you experience the very essence of what this land is about and yolk cover its history I was describing early while playing it. There is no repetition at Friar's Head, at least none that I have ever found. There might be a repetitive use of go-to shots that work best for a golfer, but that's on the golfer, not the land because in each instance each shot requirement is different on every hole. I love to get into talk about the one shot holes on this course, because most that have a critique about the course seem to not think very highly of the 4th and 12th holes, when it in fact, they are brilliant. ALL of the par 3's are of different character which is what GREAT one-shot holes should be all about Everyone of them plays in a different direction uses different land; plays at different elevations with their varying lengths and most to greens that have more varying and different character similar to a Stanley Kubrick movie!
As stated about the par 5's--it is so hard to design a great par 5, but Friar's Head does it four times! And, in each instance, the challenge presented is unique for each shot. Regarding the two-shot holes, all of them are of varying character-and most creativity, as some of them using God's hand and others being created by the hand of man in the lower "potato field" holes, which may even be the best holes on the course from a competition standpoint.
I'm going to close here and just say that for me Friar's Head is a "10" and it has nothing to do with the amount of people in the dining room nor how well one can't remember golf holes as good as these ;)
-
Tommy - for me, that's a particularly good post and a relevant one. Yes, you described/outlined the various "elements" (e.g. engaging par 5s, strong 3s, a variety of 4s etc); but your language and emotions suggest that you gave it a "10" -- for you -- for a range and sum total of personal and subjective "experience"; and that, to me, is as exactly it should be.
As you know, I have not played many great courses (only one that anyone would rate higher than a 5 o 6), and so my opinion on such matters means little. But the one "10" I've played is not for me a "10", even though it is for Tom D -- and while, like you, I'm sure that Tom could list all the "objective" reasons and architectural "elements" for him considering that course a 10, I'd suggest that there are very real -- and very subjective/experiential -- factors involved in that number as well.
Peter
-
I’ll agree in principle with the Big Man here - the caveat being I’m seemingly the only person on this board who has never been to Sand Hills, despite spending a day and evening with Dick Youngscap in Hawaii - after playing The Plantation.
Some years back, Goodale wrote me a lengthy email asserting that Friar’s Head was superior to NGLA because the course had no obvious flaws - and the putting surface contours were actually superior to the kingdom under the Magic Windmill.
I’m not sure I would go that far, but my father - who saw it all twice - had to be talked out of joining Friar’s Head (by Mom - cooler heads prevailed). This was before the clubhouse was built and the “pro shop” was in a temporary pre-fab. We started on (I think) the 6th hole, so I have never been quite clear on the pacing.
When I think it through (putting aside the gaping hole in my resume), of the 12 or so C&C courses I have played, Friar’s Head sits at #2. What puts it at a legitimate “9” is the course avoids the one Achilles heel endemic to most of their work: an awkward, convoluted par-5. I can hear the shrieks from the fanboys, but them be the facts.
#14 at Cuscowilla, #16 at Bandon Trails, #18 at Saguaro, #9 at Kapalua - otherwise stunning achievements with an annoying, impossible hole. I might be accused of a bias against uphill par-5’s, but Petitioner’s “Exhibit A” is #18 at NGLA. I don’t absolutely hate #18 at Yale either, but there will be the inevitable j’accuse I have Bahto’s blinders on; #18 at Creek Club is like an after-dinner puke at the French Laundry, so I’m somewhat inoculated against the Kool-aid.
Tommy is correct, the set of par-5’s at Friar’s Head are in the comparative conversation with Muirfield (East Lothian, not Jack’s magnum opus) - which is the highest compliment I can muster this morning. The golf course also shrieks naked sex appeal and reminds me of Bandon Trails in the way it wanders through several environments seamlessly. Fantastic routing on the order of Cypress Point. No Joel (I can hear your snort of laughter), not with insanely beautiful cliff-to-cliff shots, but in the seamless way you might explore the land with a faithful dog.
What is my favorite C&C course, even beyond Friar’s Head?
Chechessee Creek.
Anybody agree?
-
Tim,
Some things, architecturally, are self evident.
Routings being one of them.
The routing of Friars Head, over that terrain is a 10 in itself.
Now, you have to evaluate the individual holes within the context of the terrain and routing.
As I stated, the par 5's are really outstanding.
Clearly a "10" group.
Ditto the par 4's.
As to the par 3's, # 10 is spectacular.
The other par 3's are very solid, not a weak hole in the bunch
Tommy's point regarding directional diversity is well taken.
In order for a golf course to be a "10", it's not necessary for every hole to be a "10"
-
Tommy,
Nice to see you join the thread. I was wondering if that might happen.
As a reply, I see no problem with affection for a particular golf course and would have no worries about "bias". The real task here - if one wants to assign a course a lofty "10" - is describe what makes a course special and what makes it different.
Put another way, what would you say about a course if speaking to someone who has never seen the course or the property. Also, what would you say if the reader had no idea who the writer was or what his creditials were to write a course review.
It takes a gift!
Three people stand out. First, I have to credit Ran. His course reviews leave one feeling they have come to know the course even if one has never seen it. I think, also, that Ran manages to address both the GCA crowd - well traveled golf architecture junkies - and golfers who might not yet have had the good fortunate to travel widely, but have the bug to do so.
Tom Doak certainly deserves mention. The Confidential Guide is a classic and it is the antithesis of the coffee table book. It is about the writing not about pictures. More importantly, Tom resisted the frequent pattern of hole by hole descriptions. Instead, he focused on sharply addressing what what stands out about a golf course and, of course, with the Doak scale, how far out of one's way one should travel to see a course.
Finally, I have to mention Jim Finegan. Though he does include a fair amount of hole by hole descriptions, Finegan simply did it much better than anyone else. There is a love and passion that comes through that really does make you want to jump on a plane to follow in his footsteps.
But, back to Friars Head. My time there pales in comparison to yours, but it didn't take long to decide there were two main challenges for the architect:
1) how to tie the different parts of the property together?
2) how to make the holes on the less interesting land worthwhile holes?
Honestly, I didn't think too much about "repitition" and am happy to hear your assessment on that scale. Also, I gave no thought to the quality of the greens - I just assumed they would be very well done.
I did sense the Par 3s would all be different, even given the incomplete state of the course when I saw it. Also, I did sense the Par 5s might play an interest role from an overall routing perspective especially. It is more common, I think, to use Par 3s to transition from different parts of a property.
Would you agree this feature is something unique about Friars Head? Do I have that right?
Again, good to see you chime in. Hope all is well.
Tim
-
Tim,
To better understand your perspective, how many times have you played Friars Head ?
-
Tim,
To better understand your perspective, how many times have you played Friars Head ?
Pat,
As I noted above, my time at Friars Head is limited to one visit for a couple hours during construction. That was sufficient to understand the character and uniqueness of the property and the importance of the routing plan tying the different parts of the property together. It also was sufficient for me to concur with Tommy's comment about the lack of repitiveness in the layout of each hole.
Besides that, I was fortunate to see some of Ken Bakst's photography. It is some of the best documentation of a golf course I have seen. The black and white pictures, among other things, brilliantly capture the contour of the greens. Ken's pictures are simply fantastic.
One visit to a golf course during the construction phase is not sufficient to make distinctions when we are in the rare air of deciding between Doak scale 8 or higher. However, Friars Head scores very high points in my book based on the property. Based on my travels, it stands out as having its own unique character and that is one of the biggest reasons to jump on a plane, IMO.
Having said all that, I don't think even one site visit - much less playing a course multiple times - is critical to evaluating the quality of WRITING about any given course. To the contrary, not even seeing the golf course or the site might be an advantage in determining whether the author's description adequately captures the character of the course.
Being widely travelled and well read on golf architecture matters might be more important to evaluating the writing about a particular course than actually playing the course. Supposing, for instance, I had played Friars Head one hundred times and it was my favorite course in the world. Does that really lessen the challenge of producing a quality description of the course?
I don't think so. Golf architecture writing isn't easy.
-
I’ll agree in principle with the Big Man here - the caveat being I’m seemingly the only person on this board who has never been to Sand Hills, despite spending a day and evening with Dick Youngscap in Hawaii - after playing The Plantation.
Some years back, Goodale wrote me a lengthy email asserting that Friar’s Head was superior to NGLA because the course had no obvious flaws - and the putting surface contours were actually superior to the kingdom under the Magic Windmill.
I’m not sure I would go that far, but my father - who saw it all twice - had to be talked out of joining Friar’s Head (by Mom - cooler heads prevailed). This was before the clubhouse was built and the “pro shop” was in a temporary pre-fab. We started on (I think) the 6th hole, so I have never been quite clear on the pacing.
When I think it through (putting aside the gaping hole in my resume), of the 12 or so C&C courses I have played, Friar’s Head sits at #2. What puts it at a legitimate “9” is the course avoids the one Achilles heel endemic to most of their work: an awkward, convoluted par-5. I can hear the shrieks from the fanboys, but them be the facts.
#14 at Cuscowilla, #16 at Bandon Trails, #18 at Saguaro, #9 at Kapalua - otherwise stunning achievements with an annoying, impossible hole. I might be accused of a bias against uphill par-5’s, but Petitioner’s “Exhibit A” is #18 at NGLA. I don’t absolutely hate #18 at Yale either, but there will be the inevitable j’accuse I have Bahto’s blinders on; #18 at Creek Club is like an after-dinner puke at the French Laundry, so I’m somewhat inoculated against the Kool-aid.
Tommy is correct, the set of par-5’s at Friar’s Head are in the comparative conversation with Muirfield (East Lothian, not Jack’s magnum opus) - which is the highest compliment I can muster this morning. The golf course also shrieks naked sex appeal and reminds me of Bandon Trails in the way it wanders through several environments seamlessly. Fantastic routing on the order of Cypress Point. No Joel (I can hear your snort of laughter), not with insanely beautiful cliff-to-cliff shots, but in the seamless way you might explore the land with a faithful dog.
What is my favorite C&C course, even beyond Friar’s Head?
Chechessee Creek.
Anybody agree?
Gibby, Chechessee Creek might the most low key excellent course I've played, and reminded me in many ways of the wonderful belt of heathery courses south of London. Still, I can't agree that it's in the same league as Friars Head, which I thought had some memorable holes where CCC is a series of one solid hole after another without one that rings your bell like 6, 7, 10, 14 or 15 at Friars Head.
-
First, hardly anybody is qualified to opine on the routing. One must be intimate with the project and the archies work on the project to have any sense of the why the routing is as it is. Even then, I am not sure pronouncing a routing self evident is wise. For the layman and outsider I can buy the idea of generally thinking the course uses the features pretty well or the walk is very good or there is little walking between greens and tees. But for an outsider to declare a routing is self evident is for nearly everybody a very foolish thing to pronounce.
I have never been to Friars Head, but the subject of a 10 is always interesting. I think Pietro is spot on with with a score for each individual. The actual architecture can only take a golfer so far. I actually think 9s and 10s are as much about one's relationship/understanding/admiration for a course as the excellent architecture. Whatever it is that makes people really fall hard for a course is the difference. I have yet to come across a course like this, but I suspect the closest I have come is with North Berwick.
On a more personal level and more importantly, I truly believe that all a course need be is good enough. Greatness in design is not the be all and end all of golf. That is self evident when we prefer A to B even though we know that B is a better design.
Ciao
-
I'm going to close here and just say that for me Friar's Head is a "10" and it has nothing to do with the amount of people in the dining room nor how well one can't remember golf holes as good as these ;)
Tommy,
With all due respect, thanks for thinking of me in your closing arguments. However, just to be crystal clear, I had hoped that what I wrote was clear enough. I certainly did not and do not consider the clubhouse or restaurant as part of my evaluation of the course or any course for that matter. This is why I put it last as another positive note, even mentioned that the restaurant experience would of been a perfect 10 had it been a little more lively. That does not mean that in my opinion the course would be a 10 if the restaurant was busier.
As to the remembering of specific details of the course, some courses like the example I gave already in Crystal Downs, or even NGLA, Merion, Cypress, Shinnecock etc to name a few just have routings that are simply easier for me to remember (based on a single visit) as the holes seem to stick out as varied and unique for ME. This is simply one of the aspects that I personally find adding to my opinion of a great course. Right or wrong as that may be in your far more experienced and respected opinion.
I can give you another example, the Old Course I've now played a few times, I still struggle to remember all the holes, no it's not my favorite either however, it's growing on me with each play as I learn more about it and develop that appreciation. I'm not saying FH would not have a similar effect, as I like it much more than I did the old course on the first play. But I doubt I will have that many opportunities in life to go back there as you have been fortunate enough to have had. Either way it's a great course, one of your favorites understandably.
-
Sean,
You may not be qualified to opine on the quality of the routing, but I am.
The quality of the routing over the terrain at Friars Head is self evident, but then again, how would you know otherwise, as you've never set foot on the property.
So for you, any pronouncement about the quality of the routing would be foolish.
Whereas, having visited the project during and after construction, with and without Ken Bakst, and having played it numerous times, I'm more than qualified to assess the quality of the routing.
As to your statement regarding the preferring of A to B when B is a better design, could you provide five (5) real world examples
First, hardly anybody is qualified to opine on the routing. One must be intimate with the project and the archies work on the project to have any sense of the why the routing is as it is. Even then, I am not sure pronouncing a routing self evident is wise. For the layman and outsider I can buy the idea of generally thinking the course uses the features pretty well or the walk is very good or there is little walking between greens and tees. But for an outsider to declare a routing is self evident is for nearly everybody a very foolish thing to pronounce.
I have never been to Friars Head, but the subject of a 10 is always interesting. I think Pietro is spot on with with a score for each individual. The actual architecture can only take a golfer so far. I actually think 9s and 10s are as much about one's relationship/understanding/admiration for a course as the excellent architecture. Whatever it is that makes people really fall hard for a course is the difference. I have yet to come across a course like this, but I suspect the closest I have come is with North Berwick.
On a more personal level and more importantly, I truly believe that all a course need be is good enough. Greatness in design is not the be all and end all of golf. That is self evident when we prefer A to B even though we know that B is a better design.
Ciao
-
Patrick, instead of just saying the routing of Friars Head is a great routing, can you tell us WHY you think it's a great routing?
(FWIW I have played Friars Head and agree it's a first rate routing but I'll enjoy hearing your reasons. Thanks)
-
Sean,
You may not be qualified to opine on the quality of the routing, but I am.
The quality of the routing over the terrain at Friars Head is self evident, but then again, how would you know otherwise, as you've never set foot on the property.
So for you, any pronouncement about the quality of the routing would be foolish.
Whereas, having visited the project during and after construction, with and without Ken Bakst, and having played it numerous times, I'm more than qualified to assess the quality of the routing.
As to your statement regarding the preferring of A to B when B is a better design, could you provide five (5) real world examples
First, hardly anybody is qualified to opine on the routing. One must be intimate with the project and the archies work on the project to have any sense of the why the routing is as it is. Even then, I am not sure pronouncing a routing self evident is wise. For the layman and outsider I can buy the idea of generally thinking the course uses the features pretty well or the walk is very good or there is little walking between greens and tees. But for an outsider to declare a routing is self evident is for nearly everybody a very foolish thing to pronounce.
I have never been to Friars Head, but the subject of a 10 is always interesting. I think Pietro is spot on with with a score for each individual. The actual architecture can only take a golfer so far. I actually think 9s and 10s are as much about one's relationship/understanding/admiration for a course as the excellent architecture. Whatever it is that makes people really fall hard for a course is the difference. I have yet to come across a course like this, but I suspect the closest I have come is with North Berwick.
On a more personal level and more importantly, I truly believe that all a course need be is good enough. Greatness in design is not the be all and end all of golf. That is self evident when we prefer A to B even though we know that B is a better design.
Ciao
Pat
Nobody could accuse you of being modest. Lets just say I won't be asking you to assess routings. Instead, I will rely on the opinions of people paid to create routings. Even amongst professionals, I suspect few would be as arrogant as yourself.
Ciao
-
Here we go... another potentially outstanding thread being turned into a contentious pile of crap just so someone can beat their chest.
Not even blocking someone's posts makes the situation better as their comments appear in any quoted reply. :(
-
Bill,
"Best" and "Favorite" are vastly different words. Friar's Head is like a David Lean picture - an enormous achievement in scope and vision that invokes a tidal wave of visceral stimulation. Try watching Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia back-to-back. In similar fashion, trying to absorb the sheer excellence of Friar's Head is almost exhausting - like watching Avatar and Interstellar with the intellectual content of 2001.
I'm not sure I'd want to play Friar's every day, nor County Down. Golf, like cooking, is a form of meditation to me. I do not always crave a firehose of challenging data to assimilate. One needs to psyche up to read Faulkner, where hopping into a Hunter Thompson story is like riding a familiar roller coaster - entertaining as hell, but still comfortable.
My impression of Chechessee Creek was a relaxed wander in perfect concert with its surroundings. Every single element was in proportion without a hint of pretentiousness, gently relaxing into the ground as if its always been there. I agree it has a South London feel - as if the heather of Surrey morphed into pines along the intercostal waterway. Actually, Chechessee might be the Swinley Forest of America. Impossibly elegant, intimate and intentionally understated - without a single trapping of ostentatious bluster.
In truth, as I get older and face the inexorable reality of an eventual dotage, I'd rather wander into the sunset at a manageable place like Chechessee or Westhampton than endure a reminder the ball flies just a little bit shorter and the hole seems a bit smaller with every passing day.
-
A few comments...here we go!
As a player I don't really care how clever or inspired the architect's routing is. I care about the final result: the walk, and the eighteen holes presented in order. The walk is an essential part of the experience. How visually and viscerally stimulating is the environment, and how demanding is the journey, and how is the pacing of play? Corey Miller and I will have to disagree on the importance of the walk. I estimate its importance at about 30-50% of my overall golfing experience. At Friar's Head, you roll off a green a few yards and begin playing golf again. That is awesome to me; a committed foursome can play a relaxed three and a half hour round of golf there.
Analyzing other aspects of the walk, each nine hole loop essentially starts at the ocean side dune ridge, moves out into the "potato field" and comes back. The land in the field is not very interesting, with the exception of the 6th hole, in which a large sand or glacial ridge (depending on who you ask) is used to perfection. The 6th hole is a highlight of the front nine. You have four hours to play golf, but much of the time is spent walking, talking and sensing the environment. At Friar's Head, the best is save for last, when you walk into the dunes covered with rare dwarf beech trees. Another fine feature at Friar's Head is the shifting and considerable winds, which should be considered when evaluating a course.
Friar's Head does not have the most dramatic or interesting walk in golf. The environment is beautiful, private and secluded, but most golfers would rate the walk at Pacific Dunes or Cypress Point as a superior nature walk, with superior land forms for golf.
"From the first tee to the last green, you experience the very essence of what this land is about..."
-- Tommy
Sigh. Tommy Naccarato's emotional description of Friar's Head can be distilled to "Friar's Head is a 10 because it is brilliant and I love it so.". Sorry Tommy, but that phrase sounds like marketing clap-trap. I loved reading your heartwarming description, but I don't think it answers the question. Similarly, Mac Plumart's comments are vague and non-committal, suggesting "Friar's Head is great because it's great." Bart Bradley's opening statement asks whether Friar's Head is a 10. The fact that Bart made a one sentence opening post and then disappeared is unacceptable.
There are about 35,000 golf courses in the world, which means there are 350 in the top 1% of golf courses. That's not a fine enough distinction to separate the truly greatest courses, so let's say the 0.1% of courses are given a 10. That's 35 courses. Golf Magazine rates Friar's Head as the 32nd best course in the world. That is very high praise.
When it comes to the golf part of analyzing golf course, I tend to be more mechanical in my analysis, looking for a grand variety of golf holes and golf shots. Short and long, up and down, left and right, putting variety, bunker shot variety, uneven lies, awkward lies — the list of possible shots should be broad, with a pleasing percentage of possible outcomes. With that in mind, a couple of global observations about playing golf at Friar's Head:
1. There are very few downhill approach shots. The 9th hole offers the only significantly downhill approach.
2. There are a lot of false fronts at Friar's Head. Off the top of my head, you could come up short and roll back on 4, 5?, 8, 14, 15, 16 and 18. I think there are others. Stone Eagle is a course in my golf universe with a number of false fronts.
3. The majority of greens slope hard from back to front. As a result of items 2. and 3., I say Friar's Head has a tendency to yield a lot of long uphill putts, and long uphill chips from tight fairway lies.
4. There are great opportunities for "rare play" shots from unusual lies in unusual vegetation. The rare play is one to be savored.
A great way to honor a course's memorability is to create a list of personal anecdotes. Here's my favorite Friar's Head anecdote. About ten years ago, I made my first east coast swing for golf, and a friend graciously set up a game for me at Friar's Head. I arrived early and played by myself with a caddie. I played rather poorly, and did not communicate well with my caddie. I returned to the old clubhouse down by the 4th hole, where head professional Jim Kidd greeted me in the parking lot. I said hello, and then almost immediately begged him for a second chance at the course, which is very unusual for me. He was kind about it, and said that he, his assistant, and the caddie master were going out in a couple hours, and I could join them. After lunch, we played as a fivesome, four golfers plus Gus, the dog made famous in Dick Durrance's iconic photo at Sand Hills GC. As hard as I tried, Gus ignored me all day long, and trotted around the course with his own agenda, though staying clear of the golf being played. This time we played the back tees, and I played ten strokes better in the afternoon. On the 16th hole, a short dogleg right, I had about 145-150 yards left to the small sloped green perched high on another sand feature. Attempting to show off, I said "watch this", or something to that effect, and chipped a low 6-iron which bounced 5 or 6 times and scooted up the hill onto the green, where I two putted for par. Thank you, friend. I'll never forget that day.
-
Patrick, instead of just saying the routing of Friars Head is a great routing, can you tell us WHY you think it's a great routing?
Bill,
I already offered an opinion on what makes the routing so strong.
There are other reasons, but, first, please read my prior offering, then comment on it.
Thanks
(FWIW I have played Friars Head and agree it's a first rate routing but I'll enjoy hearing your reasons. Thanks)
-
As to your statement regarding the preferring of A to B when B is a better design, could you provide five (5) real world examples
First, hardly anybody is qualified to opine on the routing. .
I have never been to Friars Head
[/quote]
Pat
Nobody could accuse you of being modest.
Depends upon the subject.
We're all ignorant, just on different topics.
One of yours is Friars Head.
Lets just say I won't be asking you to assess routings.
I really don't care what you will or won't be asking me to do.
But, when it comes to Friars Head, I'm certainly far more qualified than you.
Are you aware that other architects submitted routing plans prior to C&C ?
Instead, I will rely on the opinions of people paid to create routings.
No one cares about who you rely upon.
Even amongst professionals, I suspect few would be as arrogant as yourself.
Maybe the subject of routings is beyond your ability to comprehend.
I'm certainly qualified to assess the quality of the routing at Friars Head.
That fact that you're not is obvious
[/quote]
-
Just wanted to thank those who fleshed out their thoughts. That's more of what I sought.
1. There are very few downhill approach shots. The 9th hole offers the only significantly downhill approach.
That's enough to make it a 10 in my book, without ever having even played it... :) Thanks John Kirk for an excellent post.
-
John Kirk,
Nice comments.
But, as in your citing of Tommy's comment, isn't it common for a golfer to view a course in the context of his personal round/experience, rather than stepping back as a disinterested observer ?
I always thought that the 16th hole would be better served by having the tee on top of the dune, rather than cut into it, ala # 17 at NGLA.
Per you criteria, you must have been blown away by the walk from # 14 green to # 15 tee, upon being confronted by the stunning vista presented on # 15 tee.
I don't know if you've been back recently, but the walk from # 15 green to # 16 tee is now........... breath taking.
It's almost like being on a suspension bridge, versus the old inland path.
I've often wondered, what our opinions of a golf course would be if we played in a dense fog where only the hole being played could be viewed.
Your comment about Friars Head being ranked 32 in the U.S. certainly speaks volumes as to the quality, relative or absolute, of the golf course.
To those contesting Friars Head's "10" evaluation, at what point does a course become a "10" ?
When it's ranked # 5 ? # 17 ? # 28 ?
At some point, as the ranking trends toward # 1, a "10" has to be awarded.
So, what's that numerical point ?
Michael Whitaker,
I didn't start the hijacking, Sean did.
Sean,
Please answer the question where you stated that you'd rather play course B over course A, where Course A has a superior design. Can you cite five real life examples ?
-
Patrick,
I have to leave for a few hours. I'll respond to two or three of your comments then. Thanks.
-
To those contesting Friars Head's "10" evaluation, at what point does a course become a "10" ?
When it's ranked # 5 ? # 17 ? # 28 ?
At some point, as the ranking trends toward # 1, a "10" has to be awarded.
So, what's that numerical point ?
Patrick:
Let me help clear up your thinking on one point: a "10" never HAS to be awarded. It's not a numerical point.
Based on twenty years of reaction to my rating scale, I would say just the opposite: many more people have found fault with my awarding a "10" to one course or another, than have made a good case to award it to another course.
-
A few comments...here we go!
As a player I don't really care how clever or inspired the architect's routing is. I care about the final result: the walk, and the eighteen holes presented in order. The walk is an essential part of the experience. How visually and viscerally stimulating is the environment, and how demanding is the journey, and how is the pacing of play? Corey Miller and I will have to disagree on the importance of the walk. I estimate its importance at about 30-50% of my overall golfing experience. At Friar's Head, you roll off a green a few yards and begin playing golf again. That is awesome to me; a committed foursome can play a relaxed three and a half hour round of golf there.
Analyzing other aspects of the walk, each nine hole loop essentially starts at the ocean side dune ridge, moves out into the "potato field" and comes back. The land in the field is not very interesting, with the exception of the 6th hole, in which a large sand or glacial ridge (depending on who you ask) is used to perfection. The 6th hole is a highlight of the front nine. You have four hours to play golf, but much of the time is spent walking, talking and sensing the environment. At Friar's Head, the best is save for last, when you walk into the dunes covered with rare dwarf beech trees. Another fine feature at Friar's Head is the shifting and considerable winds, which should be considered when evaluating a course.
Friar's Head does not have the most dramatic or interesting walk in golf. The environment is beautiful, private and secluded, but most golfers would rate the walk at Pacific Dunes or Cypress Point as a superior nature walk, with superior land forms for golf.
"From the first tee to the last green, you experience the very essence of what this land is about..."
-- Tommy
Sigh. Tommy Naccarato's emotional description of Friar's Head can be distilled to "Friar's Head is a 10 because it is brilliant and I love it so.". Sorry Tommy, but that phrase sounds like marketing clap-trap. I loved reading your heartwarming description, but I don't think it answers the question. Similarly, Mac Plumart's comments are vague and non-committal, suggesting "Friar's Head is great because it's great." Bart Bradley's opening statement asks whether Friar's Head is a 10. The fact that Bart made a one sentence opening post and then disappeared is unacceptable.
There are about 35,000 golf courses in the world, which means there are 350 in the top 1% of golf courses. That's not a fine enough distinction to separate the truly greatest courses, so let's say the 0.1% of courses are given a 10. That's 35 courses. Golf Magazine rates Friar's Head as the 32nd best course in the world. That is very high praise.
When it comes to the golf part of analyzing golf course, I tend to be more mechanical in my analysis, looking for a grand variety of golf holes and golf shots. Short and long, up and down, left and right, putting variety, bunker shot variety, uneven lies, awkward lies — the list of possible shots should be broad, with a pleasing percentage of possible outcomes. With that in mind, a couple of global observations about playing golf at Friar's Head:
1. There are very few downhill approach shots. The 9th hole offers the only significantly downhill approach.
2. There are a lot of false fronts at Friar's Head. Off the top of my head, you could come up short and roll back on 4, 5?, 8, 14, 15, 16 and 18. I think there are others. Stone Eagle is a course in my golf universe with a number of false fronts.
3. The majority of greens slope hard from back to front. As a result of items 2. and 3., I say Friar's Head has a tendency to yield a lot of long uphill putts, and long uphill chips from tight fairway lies.
4. There are great opportunities for "rare play" shots from unusual lies in unusual vegetation. The rare play is one to be savored.
A great way to honor a course's memorability is to create a list of personal anecdotes. Here's my favorite Friar's Head anecdote. About ten years ago, I made my first east coast swing for golf, and a friend graciously set up a game for me at Friar's Head. I arrived early and played by myself with a caddie. I played rather poorly, and did not communicate well with my caddie. I returned to the old clubhouse down by the 4th hole, where head professional Jim Kidd greeted me in the parking lot. I said hello, and then almost immediately begged him for a second chance at the course, which is very unusual for me. He was kind about it, and said that he, his assistant, and the caddie master were going out in a couple hours, and I could join them. After lunch, we played as a fivesome, four golfers plus Gus, the dog made famous in Dick Durrance's iconic photo at Sand Hills GC. As hard as I tried, Gus ignored me all day long, and trotted around the course with his own agenda, though staying clear of the golf being played. This time we played the back tees, and I played ten strokes better in the afternoon. On the 16th hole, a short dogleg right, I had about 145-150 yards left to the small sloped green perched high on another sand feature. Attempting to show off, I said "watch this", or something to that effect, and chipped a low 6-iron which bounced 5 or 6 times and scooted up the hill onto the green, where I two putted for par. Thank you, friend. I'll never forget that day.
John,
My compliments. Really good post. I strongly agree with your comment about Bart Bradley's participation in the thread (or lack thereof).
Friars Head may or not be a "10". My experience with the course is too limited to opine. However, I do think it would have been better for Bart to affirmatively state why he believes FH deserves a "10" rather than asking why it doesn't deserve such a rating. Just my opinion on how to best discuss golf architecture.
One other point: I do find Sean's comments about evaluating the FH routing (or that for any course) worthwhile to consider, along with Pat Mucci's rebuttal.
Even with my very limited exposure to the FH site, I do have some - please underline the word some - sympathy for Pat's comment that the routing was "self evident". By this I mean if a non practicing golf architecture junkie saw the site before construction started, he might well have understood the big picture challenge: how to tie together the different parts of the property?
This seems a bit like the big picture for a site like Pebble Beach: one could argue it was "self evident" the challenge was to maximize use of the waterfront property.
By contrast, I don't think the routing for a place like Muirfield or Shinnecock or NGLA or Pine Valley could be considered "self evident".
Having said that, I would be interested to hear Pat's view on whether C&C truly did something special with the routing beyond the obvious challenge I stated above.
-
If the routing of Friars Head was "self evident," why did it take Bill Coore multiple visits and many weeks of wandering the property to find a most inventive and effective routing? I put it with Pebble Beach and Cypress Point as best American routings ever.
-
Bill,
"Best" and "Favorite" are vastly different words. Friar's Head is like a David Lean picture - an enormous achievement in scope and vision that invokes a tidal wave of visceral stimulation. Try watching Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia back-to-back. In similar fashion, trying to absorb the sheer excellence of Friar's Head is almost exhausting - like watching Avatar and Interstellar with the intellectual content of 2001.
I'm not sure I'd want to play Friar's every day, nor County Down. Golf, like cooking, is a form of meditation to me. I do not always crave a firehose of challenging data to assimilate. One needs to psyche up to read Faulkner, where hopping into a Hunter Thompson story is like riding a familiar roller coaster - entertaining as hell, but still comfortable.
My impression of Chechessee Creek was a relaxed wander in perfect concert with its surroundings. Every single element was in proportion without a hint of pretentiousness, gently relaxing into the ground as if its always been there. I agree it has a South London feel - as if the heather of Surrey morphed into pines along the intercostal waterway. Actually, Chechessee might be the Swinley Forest of America. Impossibly elegant, intimate and intentionally understated - without a single trapping of ostentatious bluster.
In truth, as I get older and face the inexorable reality of an eventual dotage, I'd rather wander into the sunset at a manageable place like Chechessee or Westhampton than endure a reminder the ball flies just a little bit shorter and the hole seems a bit smaller with every passing day.
Gib, I definitely agree I would prefer Chechessee as a final golfing home place. It's a gentle walk and elegant as you say. It doesn't have the Friars Head "wow" factor but doesn't need it to be a fine home course.
-
If the routing of Friars Head was "self evident," why did it take Bill Coore multiple visits and many weeks of wandering the property to find a most inventive and effective routing? I put it with Pebble Beach and Cypress Point as best American routings ever.
Bill,
I'm guessing Bill Coore pretty quickly understood the big picture for Friars Head. Also guessing multiple visits were required to make a determination on the best way to tie the property together.
-
If the routing of Friars Head was "self evident," why did it take Bill Coore multiple visits and many weeks of wandering the property to find a most inventive and effective routing? I put it with Pebble Beach and Cypress Point as best American routings ever.
Bill,
I'm guessing Bill Coore pretty quickly understood the big picture for Friars Head. Also guessing multiple visits were required to make a determination on the best way to tie the property together.
That's not the conventional wisdom, which is that Coore spent lots of time wandering. His use of the par 5 "escalators" to get down to the lower level and back up, twice, was brilliant.
Read Ran's profile of Friars Head, where he lays out the process and time line of Coore's routing development.
-
Bill,
Thanks. I will do that and share my feedback.
Tim
-
Tim - I don't want to put words into their mouths (and this will take you/us further afield than we may want to go) but I think the implicit distinction between the Pat-Sean points of view is this: that for Pat, the actual/existing golf course is routed in a satisfying, and indeed an exemplary, fashion -- providing Pat so much of what he expects in a routing that he can call it/judge it to be "self-evidently" excellent. Now, I understand and can appreciate that point of view, but for Sean perhaps (and certainly for me) the judging of a routing is in terms not only of actualities but of potentialities, of what might have been -- the criteria being: of the many possible uses (for the game of golf), via various potential routings, of the site's natural features and contours and qualities/elements, did Bill Coore come up with the one actual routing that was the ideal i.e. that made the best possible use of said features and contours and qualities? And given that criteria, I think, as Sean seems to as well, that only another very good architect, and one with as much familiarity with the site as Mr Coore had, could make an accurate judgement in that regard, i.e. could with any significant degree of validity say "yes, Bill came up with the ideal routing for that site". In short, the Pat-Sean debate seems to me to be apples and oranges: one focusing on an enjoyable playing experience, the other focusing on the value/lack of value of amateurs making architectural judgements about the quality of (one of many possible) routings. The rub, however, is that I've never gotten the impression that in his scale Tom D assigns his scores from the perspective of an architect, i.e. from what might have been given the site, but instead from the perspective of a golfer (albeit a very architecturally astute golfer), i.e. from what actually exists on the ground as the finished course.
Peter
-
One other point: I do find Sean's comments about evaluating the FH routing (or that for any course) worthwhile to consider, along with Pat Mucci's rebuttal.
Even with my very limited exposure to the FH site, I do have some - please underline the word some - sympathy for Pat's comment that the routing was "self evident". By this I mean if a non practicing golf architecture junkie saw the site before construction started, he might well have understood the big picture challenge: how to tie together the different parts of the property?
Tim
I fear a very high percentage of folks who believe they understand a routing process (especially those that claim it was self-evident) couldn't create a good one in a year of Sundays. Which means they really don't get it. Hence, my statement that I will leave the assessment of routings to professionals.
Like John K stated, I don't really care about the nuts and bolts of routing...what matters most for me is what is in the ground...but this partially because I know I don't know enough about the routing process of courses to worry much about it. The quality of the site alone can explain why a great routing results in merely a good course or a merely good routing results in a great course.
Pietro
I can't speak for Mucci, but you are pretty accurate as to my belief as to a true understanding of a routing. The vast majority of golfers at best have a very supeficial understanding of routings, but that is all that is required unless one is being paid to route a course :D
Pat
If you read my posts about courses it will be self evident which courses impress me greatly even I couldn't call them great.
Ciao
-
I'd like to expand a bit here on my initial post and add some of my thoughts about Friars Head.
First, regard the routing - I'm probably not qualified to evaluate the routing of a golf course, and I certainly couldn't lay one out myself. In my photo tour of Old Town (which has one of the best routings I've ever seen), I said something to the effect that "to me, a good routing is like pornography was to the Supreme Court - I know it when I see it." I stand by that, and with that in mind, I feel confident in saying that the routing at Friar's Head is one of the best I've seen in a modern course.
Why? That's a bit tougher for me to articulate, but I'll give it a shot. First, the course traverses two different types of land that couldn't be more difficult. The change is dramatic and stark. But somehow, and the course transitions from one section of property to another so beautifully that this difference is made an asset, rather than a hindrance.
Second, as with all of the best routings on windy sites, the course tacks back and forth in different directions continually, requiring play through wind from all four corners of the compass. Notably, each of th par 3 holes plays in a different direction.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, is that the course was routed with admirable restraint. The holes that use the more dramatic landscape in the dunes and along the water do so to great effect, and the course is not crammed in such a way as to produce a greater number of more dramatic holes at the expense of the quality of the holes.
Beyond the routing, some of the other aspects of Friar's Head that I find "10-worthy" are:
- the conditions, which are firm, fast and ideal.
- the par 5 holes, which are uniformly exceptional (particularly the second and the thirteenth).
- the par 3 holes, which are as varied as they come.
- the uniqueness of the course and the property -- there is no other course like Friar's Head in the eastern US.
- the practice facility, which is, simply put, the best I've ever seen (while not technically part of the golf course is, it is nevertheless part of the overall experience of the club).
- the facilities, which are also among the best I've seen. To be perfectly honest, I do not care for the look of the clubhouse - I find it to be overdone and don't think it suits the property all that well. But there is no denying that the insides are gorgeous, that the locker room and showers are first rate, that the dining area is beautiful, and that the staff is top notch.
Whether Friar's Head is a "10" or not is better left to people more qualified than me to say. I have a clear bias for classic courses, so it's no surprise that, like Pat, given one round in the area, I'd play National. But I don't think it's fair to take points away from Friar's Head simply because it has great neighbors any more than its fair to knock Bandon Trails because Pacific Dunes is nearby.
In the end, Friar's Head is one of those rare courses that sticks with you long after playing it. It is one of the two best modern courses I've played (Pac Dunes is the other -- after Gib, I'm the second person on this forum who hasn't played Sand Hills).
-
One other point: I do find Sean's comments about evaluating the FH routing (or that for any course) worthwhile to consider, along with Pat Mucci's rebuttal.
Even with my very limited exposure to the FH site, I do have some - please underline the word some - sympathy for Pat's comment that the routing was "self evident". By this I mean if a non practicing golf architecture junkie saw the site before construction started, he might well have understood the big picture challenge: how to tie together the different parts of the property?
Tim
I fear a very high percentage of folks who believe they understand a routing process (especially those that claim it was self-evident) couldn't create a good one in a year of Sundays. Which means they really don't get it. Hence, my statement that I will leave the assessment of routings to professionals.
Like John K stated, I don't really care about the nuts and bolts of routing...what matters most for me is what is in the ground...but this partially because I know I don't know enough about the routing process of courses to worry much about it. The quality of the site alone can explain why a great routing results in merely a good course or a merely good routing results in a great course.
Pietro
I can't speak for Mucci, but you are pretty accurate as to my belief as to a true understanding of a routing. The vast majority of golfers at best have a very supeficial understanding of routings, but that is all that is required unless one is being paid to route a course :D
Pat
If you read my posts about courses it will be self evident which courses impress me greatly even I couldn't call them great.
Ciao
Sean,
If I recall correctly, a while back we had a thread addressing the subject of how well we discuss the subject of routing. I'm pretty sure I opined that it was a major shortcoming in the quality of discussion here at GolfClubAtlas.com. Moreover, I think I actually mentioned something very similar to your comments that it is very hard for non practicing golf architecture junkies to intelligently discuss routing.
So, we are largely on the same page. But, I don't believe that means we should altogether avoid the subject. After all, it is central to the entire subject of golf architecture.
-
To those contesting Friars Head's "10" evaluation, at what point does a course become a "10" ?
When it's ranked # 5 ? # 17 ? # 28 ?
At some point, as the ranking trends toward # 1, a "10" has to be awarded.
So, what's that numerical point ?
Patrick:
Let me help clear up your thinking on one point: a "10" never HAS to be awarded. It's not a numerical point.
Of course it's numerical.
You created a scale, from 1 to 10.
You've awarded courses a "10" rating, ergo, "10's" exist.
Based on twenty years of reaction to my rating scale, I would say just the opposite: many more people have found fault with my awarding a "10" to one course or another, than have made a good case to award it to another course.
That's irrelevant.
If I'm not mistaken, you awarded Shadow Creek a "9" ;D
Is Friars Head the equal, better or worse than Shadow Creek.
IMHO, Friars Head is far superior to Shadow Creek, although, when you consider the land at Shadow Creek pre-golf course, it's an impressive feat.
But, evaluating the two courses on the finished product and their relative playing merits, Friars Head seems vastly superior to Shadow Creek............... to me.
Does anyone dispute that ?
-
If the routing of Friars Head was "self evident," why did it take Bill Coore multiple visits and many weeks of wandering the property to find a most inventive and effective routing? I put it with Pebble Beach and Cypress Point as best American routings ever.
Bill,
I'm guessing Bill Coore pretty quickly understood the big picture for Friars Head. Also guessing multiple visits were required to make a determination on the best way to tie the property together.
That's not the conventional wisdom, which is that Coore spent lots of time wandering. His use of the par 5 "escalators" to get down to the lower level and back up, twice, was brilliant.
Read Ran's profile of Friars Head, where he lays out the process and time line of Coore's routing development.
Bill,
As expected an excellent write up by Ran. It would be fun to have a beer with Bill Coore and discuss the routing process for Friars Head. I am still of the opinion that there was at least one big picture requirement that became obvious early in the routing process (tying the property together). However, Ran's write certainly makes clear there was another big picture issue: how to utilize the sand dunes with minimal disturbance.
Funny thing. How one enters a large property might influence the routing process for a given course. My first visit to the Inch Peninsula was with the late Arthur Spring and we went straight in. Later when I went back for a second and third visit I walked down the beach for about two miles and got a very different perspective.
-
Tim - I don't want to put words into their mouths (and this will take you/us further afield than we may want to go) but I think the implicit distinction between the Pat-Sean points of view is this: that for Pat, the actual/existing golf course is routed in a satisfying, and indeed an exemplary, fashion -- providing Pat so much of what he expects in a routing that he can call it/judge it to be "self-evidently" excellent. Now, I understand and can appreciate that point of view, but for Sean perhaps (and certainly for me) the judging of a routing is in terms not only of actualities but of potentialities, of what might have been -- the criteria being: of the many possible uses (for the game of golf), via various potential routings, of the site's natural features and contours and qualities/elements, did Bill Coore come up with the one actual routing that was the ideal i.e. that made the best possible use of said features and contours and qualities? And given that criteria, I think, as Sean seems to as well, that only another very good architect, and one with as much familiarity with the site as Mr Coore had, could make an accurate judgement in that regard, i.e. could with any significant degree of validity say "yes, Bill came up with the ideal routing for that site". In short, the Pat-Sean debate seems to me to be apples and oranges: one focusing on an enjoyable playing experience, the other focusing on the value/lack of value of amateurs making architectural judgements about the quality of (one of many possible) routings. The rub, however, is that I've never gotten the impression that in his scale Tom D assigns his scores from the perspective of an architect, i.e. from what might have been given the site, but instead from the perspective of a golfer (albeit a very architecturally astute golfer), i.e. from what actually exists on the ground as the finished course.
Peter
Peter,
I think of Pat Mucci's perspective as the "finished product" perspective. It is certainly a valid perspective and perhaps most important to the vast majority of golfers.
Sean is really addressing another point of view that probably only interests a very small minority: given what the architect had to work with, how well did he really do?
I agree with Sean the second perspective is really hard to judge if one isn't a practicing architect and also isn't familiar with all the details of a property.
-
If the routing of Friars Head was "self evident," why did it take Bill Coore multiple visits and many weeks of wandering the property to find a most inventive and effective routing? I put it with Pebble Beach and Cypress Point as best American routings ever.
Bill,
I'm guessing Bill Coore pretty quickly understood the big picture for Friars Head. Also guessing multiple visits were required to make a determination on the best way to tie the property together.
That's not the conventional wisdom, which is that Coore spent lots of time wandering. His use of the par 5 "escalators" to get down to the lower level and back up, twice, was brilliant.
Read Ran's profile of Friars Head, where he lays out the process and time line of Coore's routing development.
Bill,
As expected an excellent write up by Ran. It would be fun to have a beer with Bill Coore and discuss the routing process for Friars Head. I am still of the opinion that there was at least one big picture requirement that became obvious early in the routing process (tying the property together). However, Ran's write certainly makes clear there was another big picture issue: how to utilize the sand dunes with minimal disturbance.
Funny thing. How one enters a large property might influence the routing process for a given course. My first visit to the Inch Peninsula was with the late Arthur Spring and we went straight in. Later when I went back for a second and third visit I walked down the beach for about two miles and got a very different perspective.
Tim, I suspect that the upper holes in the dunes weren't too hard to find, and I figure Mr. Bakst wanted the clubhouse up by the cliffs. The difficult part must have been creating strong holes down below in the flat area. To me the pure Coore genius lies in the lower holes and the par 5 holes that take you back and forth from one environment to another. Mackenzie (or Raynor 😜?) did the same thing at Cypress Point. Pure genius!
-
If the routing of Friars Head was "self evident," why did it take Bill Coore multiple visits and many weeks of wandering the property to find a most inventive and effective routing?
Bill,
I keep hoping against hope that you and the other morons on this site will somehow gain some degree of reading comprehension. But, alas, my hopes have been dashed again.
I previously asked you to reread my prior posts.
I'll ask you again to reread them, paying particular attention to replies # 44,56, 63, 69 and 70.
Also, please reread the following quote:
The quality of the routing over the terrain at Friars Head is self evident
I put it with Pebble Beach and Cypress Point as best American routings ever.
When you played Pebble Beach and Cypress point, were you able to discern the qualilty of their routings ?
I was.
And, I'm hoping you were too.
So, is one not able to discern the quality of the routing at Friars Head ?
-
If the routing of Friars Head was "self evident," why did it take Bill Coore multiple visits and many weeks of wandering the property to find a most inventive and effective routing?
You must not be familiar with Bill Coore's modus operandi, otherwise you would never ask that question.
Why did Donald Ross take 26 years fine tuning Pinehurst # 2.
Why did it take CB Macdonald the rest of his life to fine tune NGLA ?
I put it with Pebble Beach and Cypress Point as best American routings ever.
-
Tim - I don't want to put words into their mouths (and this will take you/us further afield than we may want to go) but I think the implicit distinction between the Pat-Sean points of view is this: that for Pat, the actual/existing golf course is routed in a satisfying, and indeed an exemplary, fashion -- providing Pat so much of what he expects in a routing that he can call it/judge it to be "self-evidently" excellent.
Peter,
The routing of the existing course is exemplary in it's use of the dunes and the transitioning of the course from the dunes, to the flats, to the dunes, to the flats and back to the dunes.
In addition, the quality of the individual holes within that routing is exemplary.
Now, I understand and can appreciate that point of view, but for Sean perhaps (and certainly for me) the judging of a routing is in terms not only of actualities but of potentialities, of what might have been -- the criteria being: of the many possible uses (for the game of golf), via various potential routings, of the site's natural features and contours and qualities/elements, did Bill Coore come up with the one actual routing that was the ideal i.e. that made the best possible use of said features and contours and qualities?
Sean's never set foot on the property.
How could he possibly comment on the routing at Friars Head ?
How could he possibly comment on comments related to the quality of the routing at Friars Head ?
He has no basis in fact, no basis for evaluation.
And, I'd venture to say that he was completely unaware of previous routings submitted by other architects. Routings that were rejected.
And given that criteria, I think, as Sean seems to as well, that only another very good architect, and one with as much familiarity with the site as Mr Coore had, could make an accurate judgement in that regard, i.e. could with any significant degree of validity say "yes, Bill came up with the ideal routing for that site".
B.S.
So, no one, with the exception of an architect can judge the quality of the routing at Pine Valley, Seminole, NGLA, Shinnecock, Pebble Beach and CPC ? ? ?
That's pure nonsense.
And, you should know that Sean's comment was intended as a rebuttal to my evaluation, despite the fact that Sean has probably never set foot within 50 miles of Friars Head.
In short, the Pat-Sean debate seems to me to be apples and oranges: one focusing on an enjoyable playing experience, the other focusing on the value/lack of value of amateurs making architectural judgements about the quality of (one of many possible) routings.
Not at all.
It's about one person having in depth experience with the site and the routing and the other person having NO experience with the site and the routing, never having set foot on the golf course. It's that simple.
The rub, however, is that I've never gotten the impression that in his scale Tom D assigns his scores from the perspective of an architect, i.e. from what might have been given the site, but instead from the perspective of a golfer (albeit a very architecturally astute golfer), i.e. from what actually exists on the ground as the finished course.
Peter, I couldn't tell you if Tom's evaluative process is visceral, academic or instinctual.
My position is that when you study the land at Friars Head and evaluate the golf course that's been set upon it, one of the first impressions you get is the quality of the routing and the individual holes.
Since Sean's never set foot on the property, why would anyone value his opinion concerning the quality of the routing and individual holes at Friars Head ?
-
[quote author=Bill_McBride link=topic=61790.msg1467907#msg1467907
Tim, I suspect that the upper holes in the dunes weren't too hard to find, and I figure Mr. Bakst wanted the clubhouse up by the cliffs.
Then why did other "name" architects not find them ?
The difficult part must have been creating strong holes down below in the flat area. To me the pure Coore genius lies in the lower holes and the par 5 holes that take you back and forth from one environment to another.
Mackenzie (or Raynor ?) did the same thing at Cypress Point. Pure genius!
Are you sure it isn't the par 3's at CPC that create the transitions ?
-
[quote author=Bill_McBride link=topic=61790.msg1467907#msg1467907
Tim, I suspect that the upper holes in the dunes weren't too hard to find, and I figure Mr. Bakst wanted the clubhouse up by the cliffs.
Then why did other "name" architects not find them ?
The difficult part must have been creating strong holes down below in the flat area. To me the pure Coore genius lies in the lower holes and the par 5 holes that take you back and forth from one environment to another.
Mackenzie (or Raynor ?) did the same thing at Cypress Point. Pure genius!
Are you sure it isn't the par 3's at CPC that create the transitions ?
The transitional holes at CPC are 4, 8, 10, 12, 15. Only one par 3. That's where you transition from one environment to another. Into the forest at 4, back into the dunes at 8, etc.
My history of the routing of FH is pretty much from Ran's terrific profile. Are you saying other architects worked on a routing? Which ones?
-
[quote author=Bill_McBride link=topic=61790.msg1467907#msg1467907
Tim, I suspect that the upper holes in the dunes weren't too hard to find, and I figure Mr. Bakst wanted the clubhouse up by the cliffs.
Then why did other "name" architects not find them ?
The difficult part must have been creating strong holes down below in the flat area. To me the pure Coore genius lies in the lower holes and the par 5 holes that take you back and forth from one environment to another.
Mackenzie (or Raynor ?) did the same thing at Cypress Point. Pure genius!
Are you sure it isn't the par 3's at CPC that create the transitions ?
The transitional holes at CPC are 4, 8, 10, 12, 15. Only one par 3. That's where you transition from one environment to another. Into the forest at 4, back into the dunes at 8, etc.
So you don't transition from the forest/dunes to the cliffs on the ocean on # 15 ?
On # 3 from the upper dune on # 2 down to the forest on # 4
On # 7, from the forest on # 6 to the high dunes on # 8 ?
;D ;D ;D
My history of the routing of FH is pretty much from Ran's terrific profile.
Are you saying other architects worked on a routing?
YES,
I'm surprised that Sean and you didn't know that. ;D
Which ones?
I'll certainly tell you, but, take some guesses first ;D
-
[quote author=Bill_McBride link=topic=61790.msg1467907#msg1467907
Tim, I suspect that the upper holes in the dunes weren't too hard to find, and I figure Mr. Bakst wanted the clubhouse up by the cliffs.
Then why did other "name" architects not find them ?
The difficult part must have been creating strong holes down below in the flat area. To me the pure Coore genius lies in the lower holes and the par 5 holes that take you back and forth from one environment to another.
Mackenzie (or Raynor ?) did the same thing at Cypress Point. Pure genius!
Are you sure it isn't the par 3's at CPC that create the transitions ?
The transitional holes at CPC are 4, 8, 10, 12, 15. Only one par 3. That's where you transition from one environment to another. Into the forest at 4, back into the dunes at 8, etc.
So you don't transition from the forest/dunes to the cliffs on the ocean on # 15 ?
From the forest to the high dunes on # 7 ?
;D ;D ;D
My history of the routing of FH is pretty much from Ran's terrific profile.
Are you saying other architects worked on a routing?
YES,
I'm surprised that Sean and you didn't know that. ;D
Which ones?
I'll certainly tell you, but, take some guesses first ;D
I listed 15 as one of the transitions. I think 7 is within the forest "zone," you go back into the dunes with the tee shot on 8. Your tee shot on 7 actually is from the dune above 6 green up into the forest, then you head back into the dunes on 8.
-
Pat,
Wasn't Friars Head almost 15 years into the development process before Bill Coore got involved?
Wasn't Tom Fazio one of the architects involved initially?
Didn't Ken Bakst not exactly think to highly of the Fazio routing?
-
Tom Doak,
You and you alone determined what constitutes your rating scale.
Extracting ourselves from your evaluations, and understanding that you gave NGLA a "10", I've heard golfers, having finished playing NGLA, state that they don't get the golf course, giving it low marks.
Even in your mind, there's an element of subjectiveness rather than absolutes.
I don't know what Friars Head is, according to your scale.
But, I do know that it's superior to Shadow Creek. ;D
-
[quote author=Bill_McBride link=topic=61790.msg1467917#msg1467917
I listed 15 as one of the transitions.
I think 7 is within the forest "zone," you go back into the dunes with the tee shot on 8. Your tee shot on 7 actually is from the dune above 6 green up into the forest, then you head back into the dunes on 8.
Bill,
# 7 green is a good 33 feet above the 6th fairway and about 27 feet above the 8th fairway, hence, I'd have to classify it as being in the dunes and not in the forest.
-
Pat,
Wasn't Friars Head almost 15 years into the development process before Bill Coore got involved?
Tim, I don't know the exact time frame.
Wasn't Tom Fazio one of the architects involved initially?
Yes
Didn't Ken Bakst not exactly think to highly of the Fazio routing?
In the final analysis, he rejected it.
-
[quote author=Bill_McBride link=topic=61790.msg1467917#msg1467917
I listed 15 as one of the transitions.
I think 7 is within the forest "zone," you go back into the dunes with the tee shot on 8. Your tee shot on 7 actually is from the dune above 6 green up into the forest, then you head back into the dunes on 8.
Bill,
# 7 green is a good 33 feet above the 6th fairway and about 27 feet above the 8th fairway, hence, I'd have to classify it as being in the dunes and not in the forest.
I wholeheartedly agree.
-
I don't think the routing for a place like Muirfield or Shinnecock or NGLA or Pine Valley could be considered "self evident".
NGLA's routing may have been more 'self-evident' than you suggest. CBM says he found an ideal Alps hole on the site... and then looking back saw the setting for a perfect Redan. The Road Hole was easy to duplicate, he says. Overall he placed the templates first. That may have molded much of the rest of the routing.
In fact, IIRC Patrick Mucci says CBM routed nearly the entire course over those first few days of exploring. I don't agree -- think that requires a pretty tortured reading of CBM's writing -- but I do agree the templates came first and probably set the structure for the entire course.
I wonder if using lots of templates simplifies/shortens the routing process. In under ten years (1917 on), according to CBM, Raynor routed and built 100 to 150 courses. 10 to 15 a year, possibly more. And Raynor was not much of a golfer, if any. It seems to me that walking onto the property knowing what a number of holes will look establishes kind of a fledgling blueprint for the entire course. Can any architects comment on this?
About whether Friar's should be a ten: technically, Friar's is a 10 on the Doak scale if and only if Tom says it is. It's his scale and ratings. Only he can say which courses are tens and which are not.
If we assign our own Doak-style ratings to courses, the first issue is defining exactly what a ten is. Tom gives his guidelines. But they are pretty general. He doesn't always follow them himself.
Does a ten mean one of the world's top ten courses? Top twenty? Or could we have hundreds of 'tens', if the courses were simply good enough?
Tom has something like 13 'tens.' If you think Tom should give Friar's a 10, you're pretty well saying he must consider Friar's as one of the world's 14 best golf courses. Never played or seen it, so I can only go on what I read. The members of GCA who took part in those unofficial rankings in 2009, did not place it that high, at least as a group. While it did get at least one 10 rating, the average score was 8.4. That put it in a tie for 27th place, along with WFW, TCC Composite, Sandwich and Highland Links.
-
One other point: I do find Sean's comments about evaluating the FH routing (or that for any course) worthwhile to consider, along with Pat Mucci's rebuttal.
Even with my very limited exposure to the FH site, I do have some - please underline the word some - sympathy for Pat's comment that the routing was "self evident". By this I mean if a non practicing golf architecture junkie saw the site before construction started, he might well have understood the big picture challenge: how to tie together the different parts of the property?
Tim
I fear a very high percentage of folks who believe they understand a routing process (especially those that claim it was self-evident) couldn't create a good one in a year of Sundays. Which means they really don't get it. Hence, my statement that I will leave the assessment of routings to professionals.
Like John K stated, I don't really care about the nuts and bolts of routing...what matters most for me is what is in the ground...but this partially because I know I don't know enough about the routing process of courses to worry much about it. The quality of the site alone can explain why a great routing results in merely a good course or a merely good routing results in a great course.
Pietro
I can't speak for Mucci, but you are pretty accurate as to my belief as to a true understanding of a routing. The vast majority of golfers at best have a very supeficial understanding of routings, but that is all that is required unless one is being paid to route a course :D
Pat
If you read my posts about courses it will be self evident which courses impress me greatly even I couldn't call them great.
Ciao
Sean,
If I recall correctly, a while back we had a thread addressing the subject of how well we discuss the subject of routing. I'm pretty sure I opined that it was a major shortcoming in the quality of discussion here at GolfClubAtlas.com. Moreover, I think I actually mentioned something very similar to your comments that it is very hard for non practicing golf architecture junkies to intelligently discuss routing.
So, we are largely on the same page. But, I don't believe that means we should altogether avoid the subject. After all, it is central to the entire subject of golf architecture.
Tim
I am not suggesting that routings be ignored in discussions. Having experienced the mass misunderstanding with the terms penal and strategic I think it is helpful if we were all on the same page as to what is being referred to when "routing" is used. For many years I have made my position clear. When I use routing it refers to the walk, green sites, use of natural feautures and the variety created by the use of these features. I think this is very superficial because the work is already in the ground for our inspection...after all the conceptual development with all thei inherent constraints is complete. This superficial aspect is good enough for my purposes because I am really only interested in the final product. I make this stark distinction about routings to give archies the benefit of the doubt rather than lay blame at their feet. There may be very sounds reasons out of the hands of an archie as to why a course is not to my liking or I fail to understand why things are as they are. So its fine to bash the final product, but not necessarily the archie unless one is intimate with the project and has experience routing courses.
Ciao
-
But, as in your citing of Tommy's comment, isn't it common for a golfer to view a course in the context of his personal round/experience, rather than stepping back as a disinterested observer ?
I always thought that the 16th hole would be better served by having the tee on top of the dune, rather than cut into it, ala # 17 at NGLA. Per you criteria, you must have been blown away by the walk from # 14 green to # 15 tee, upon being confronted by the stunning vista presented on # 15 tee.
I don't know if you've been back recently, but the walk from # 15 green to # 16 tee is now........... breath taking.
It's almost like being on a suspension bridge, versus the old inland path.
I've often wondered, what our opinions of a golf course would be if we played in a dense fog where only the hole being played could be viewed.
Your comment about Friars Head being ranked 32 in the U.S. certainly speaks volumes as to the quality, relative or absolute, of the golf course.
Hi Patrick,
I broke what I feel is a cardinal rule of behavior, evaluating people rather than golf courses. I apologize to Tommy Naccarato, Bart Bradley and Mac Plumart for lashing out. It's a reflection on my mood.
No, I have not seen the new path between #15 green and #16 tee. No club I'm aware of works harder at continual improvement of its golf course.
It was actually ranked #32 in the world, not the U.S. It's way up there in the ratings.
If we had to play in a dense fog all the time, golf would be 54% less enjoyable.
-
One other point: I do find Sean's comments about evaluating the FH routing (or that for any course) worthwhile to consider, along with Pat Mucci's rebuttal.
Even with my very limited exposure to the FH site, I do have some - please underline the word some - sympathy for Pat's comment that the routing was "self evident". By this I mean if a non practicing golf architecture junkie saw the site before construction started, he might well have understood the big picture challenge: how to tie together the different parts of the property?
Tim
I fear a very high percentage of folks who believe they understand a routing process (especially those that claim it was self-evident) couldn't create a good one in a year of Sundays. Which means they really don't get it. Hence, my statement that I will leave the assessment of routings to professionals.
Like John K stated, I don't really care about the nuts and bolts of routing...what matters most for me is what is in the ground...but this partially because I know I don't know enough about the routing process of courses to worry much about it. The quality of the site alone can explain why a great routing results in merely a good course or a merely good routing results in a great course.
Pietro
I can't speak for Mucci, but you are pretty accurate as to my belief as to a true understanding of a routing. The vast majority of golfers at best have a very supeficial understanding of routings, but that is all that is required unless one is being paid to route a course :D
Pat
If you read my posts about courses it will be self evident which courses impress me greatly even I couldn't call them great.
Ciao
Sean,
If I recall correctly, a while back we had a thread addressing the subject of how well we discuss the subject of routing. I'm pretty sure I opined that it was a major shortcoming in the quality of discussion here at GolfClubAtlas.com. Moreover, I think I actually mentioned something very similar to your comments that it is very hard for non practicing golf architecture junkies to intelligently discuss routing.
So, we are largely on the same page. But, I don't believe that means we should altogether avoid the subject. After all, it is central to the entire subject of golf architecture.
Tim
I am not suggesting that routings be ignored in discussions. Having experienced the mass misunderstanding with the terms penal and strategic I think it is helpful if we were all on the same page as to what is being referred to when "routing" is used. For many years I have made my position clear. When I use routing it refers to the walk, green sites, use of natural feautures and the variety created by the use of these features. I think this is very superficial because the work is already in the ground for our inspection...after all the conceptual development with all thei inherent constraints is complete. This superficial aspect is good enough for my purposes because I am really only interested in the final product. I make this stark distinction about routings to give archies the benefit of the doubt rather than lay blame at their feet. There may be very sounds reasons out of the hands of an archie as to why a course is not to my liking or I fail to understand why things are as they are. So its fine to bash the final product, but not necessarily the archie unless one is intimate with the project and has experience routing courses.
Ciao
Sean,
We are in agreement. I will only add that I wish we could intelligently discuss routing from a project perspective rather than merely the final product, but as we both recognize that is very, very difficult, if not impossible for us to do.
Tim
-
I will only add that I wish we could intelligently discuss routing from a project perspective rather than merely the final product, but as we both recognize that is very, very difficult, if not impossible for us to do.
Tim
Tim: I'm generally with you -- nothing to me is harder about figuring out how to asses a course's standing (or worth, or ranking, or numerical value on a well-known scale) than routing. And I'm extremely skeptical of those who say a course's routing is "self-evident." While I think there may be some corridors, or kinds of holes (like CBM finding a perfect spot on NGLA's terrain for a Redan), that are self-evident, I just think it's counter-intuitive to say stringing 18 holes together in a coherent and playable fashion is self-evident. Bill Coore might be the single best "router" of courses, based on reviews here and things I've read elsewhere, and he spends weeks on site assessing the terrain.
I do think --just to throw out a side tangent -- that you can have a course with very good-to-outstanding holes (even a majority of them) and still feel the course was poorly routed. Two prominent courses in Wisconsin fit that bill.
-
For a club that fairly begs that people not communicate about it in the blogosphere (even positively), FH has sure drawn a lot of chatter in this thread. I just loved it. I loved the variety of holes, the quirky couple holes, the dramatic holes and the great greensites. I loved the vibe. What I didn't understand at the time was the genius of the routing. I had a chat with Bill Coore about the routing of Bandon Trails that included a discussion of the routing of FH and it was only then then I understood the transition from potato field land to duneland at FH and the transition of duneland to forest at Bandon Trials. The emotional ebb and flow of these transitions, upon reflection, show me the true genius of the architectural work at both courses. Not that the folks at FH want us to talk about it! ;D
-
Hi Patrick,
I broke what I feel is a cardinal rule of behavior, evaluating people rather than golf courses. I apologize to Tommy Naccarato, Bart Bradley and Mac Plumart for lashing out. It's a reflection on my mood.
Nobody's perfect all of the time. ;D
No, I have not seen the new path between #15 green and #16 tee.
Then you're in for a real treat when you return.
It's rather stunning.
No club I'm aware of works harder at continual improvement of its golf course.
I believe that Ken is a perfectionist and a believer in paying attention to the details.
It was actually ranked #32 in the world, not the U.S. It's way up there in the ratings.
If Tom Doak gives Shadow Creek a "9" how can Friars Head not be a "10" ? ;D
If we had to play in a dense fog all the time, golf would be 54% less enjoyable.
John, I know plenty of people who play golf and go through life in a fog. ;D
-
Tim: I'm generally with you -- nothing to me is harder about figuring out how to asses a course's standing (or worth, or ranking, or numerical value on a well-known scale) than routing. And I'm extremely skeptical of those who say a course's routing is "self-evident." While I think there may be some corridors, or kinds of holes (like CBM finding a perfect spot on NGLA's terrain for a Redan), that are self-evident, I just think it's counter-intuitive to say stringing 18 holes together in a coherent and playable fashion is self-evident.
Phil,
Given the property lines and the early discovery of the Redan, Alps, Road, Eden and Sahara holes, along with the two clubhouse locations, how was NGLA's routing not self evident ?
Do you, and others, think, that upon playing a course you can determine the quality of a routing ?
Bill Coore might be the single best "router" of courses, based on reviews here and things I've read elsewhere, and he spends weeks on site assessing the terrain.
I do think --just to throw out a side tangent -- that you can have a course with very good-to-outstanding holes (even a majority of them) and still feel the course was poorly routed. Two prominent courses in Wisconsin fit that bill.
-
When reading Rans review, it looks like finding #16 was the key to making those last 4-5 holes work thru the dunes.
And Ran gives the impression it took several months to do so...
-
Pat,
I just want to make sure I understand your comment about the routing of NGLA being "self evident". As Jim Nugent also suggested, once the "template" holes were discovered, the routing process was completed fairly quickly.
So, by "self evident" do you mean no other significantly different routing plan was possible?
-
Pat,
I just want to make sure I understand your comment about the routing of NGLA being "self evident". As Jim Nugent also suggested, once the "template" holes were discovered, the routing process was completed fairly quickly.
The template holes were discovered during Macdonald's initial visits/rides on the property.
The property lines were staked out soon after.
Given the narrow sliver configuration and the natural and artificial boundaries, the routing was almost a routing by default.
So, by "self evident" do you mean no other significantly different routing plan was possible?
In the case of NGLA, in a Macro sense, yes
-
Pat,
I just want to make sure I understand your comment about the routing of NGLA being "self evident". As Jim Nugent also suggested, once the "template" holes were discovered, the routing process was completed fairly quickly.
The template holes were discovered during Macdonald's initial visits/rides on the property.
The property lines were staked out soon after.
Given the narrow sliver configuration and the natural and artificial boundaries, the routing was almost a routing by default.
So, by "self evident" do you mean no other significantly different routing plan was possible?
In the case of NGLA, in a Macro sense, yes
Pat,
Thanks. Nice to get a clear, concise answer.
To expand the "self evident" discussion a bit, would you also say that courses like Pebble Beach, the Ocean Course (Kiawah), Caso de Campo, Whistling Straits, etc., also rank high in terms of "self evident" routings?
-
Tim: Are you serious or just jerking Pat's chain?
-
John, apology accepted but not necessary.
The main point I was trying to get across, which obviously I didn't do well, is it doesn't matter if someone types up a nice post on an Internet website in regards to Friars Head. Whether or not someone takes the time to do that or not, the course is still very good, at a minimum.
I'm glad people have done so, but it doesn't change what's there in the ground. It's a special place regardless of what someone says online.
People who've played it know that. People who haven't played it won't get it by simply reading about it.
That's what I was getting at.
-
Tim: Are you serious or just jerking Pat's chain?
Jerry,
I'm serious. My thesis is: while we should probably always be skeptical about a routing being "self evident", certain properties lean for more in this direction than others.
For example, let's consider two Pete Dye courses in Kohler, WI: Blackwolf Run and Whistling Straits. With the former I can't imagine someone arguing the routing is even remotely close to "self evident". Not so with Whistling Straits. WS is really just another version of the Ocean Course. It is far less unique than Blackwolf Run and, IMO, the property by the water offers fewer routing choices than BR.
Personally, I am more fascinated by courses where the options for routing are more varied, e.g., a property like Sand Hills.
-
Tim,
I think the are you serious part refers to Whistling Straights. You do know that land was completely flat when he started and all those hills and terrain were created from nothing. Not exactly what I would call a "self evident" routing. Its far more similar to Shadow Creek, which was also created from nothing, than somewhere like Friars Head or CPC.
-
Tim,
I think the are you serious part refers to Whistling Straights. You do know that land was completely flat when he started and all those hills and terrain were created from nothing. Not exactly what I would call a "self evident" routing. Its far more similar to Shadow Creek, which was also created from nothing, than somewhere like Friars Head or CPC.
I am well aware of the process of creating Whistling Straits and certainly understand your reference to Shadow Creek. However, I would still maintain it is comparable to other waterfront properties where the routing task was basically just to maximize use of the waterfront. The earth moving was just details, IMO.
-
I think Terry's comment is relevant here. He played FH and Bandon and was impressed by the golf and moved by the experience, but the "Aha" moment re the routing (and its critical role in creating both the golf and the experience) only came when Bill Coore talked about/explained it all. And that's from a well travelled, architecturally astute and smart golfer. Which is to say, maybe the sign that a routing really works and serves its purpose exceptionally well is that no one even notices it until after the round is done.
Peter
-
Peter,
I'd disagree.
A golfer, and especially an architecture buff, should be able to make an intelligent analysis of the routing upon completion of play.
One of the most skilled practitioners when it comes to analyzing a golf course after just one play is Ran Morrissett.
His powers of observation, and detailed macro and micro analysis is proof positive that you don't have to be an architect to perform an accurate analysis.
Others require repeat play in order to perform their analysis.
How many have played Sand Ridge, the Snead Course and Firestone West ?
What was your impression of those routings after your first play ?
-
Pat,
FYI, I am more familiar with the design and routing process for Sand Ridge than any other golf course in the world having spent quite a bit of time on site during construction (>25 days).
I think it is fair to say that Sand Ridge is a text book example of why evaluating a golf course routing from a "final product" point of view can yield a very different perspective from the "project view". This is basically due to the nature of the property which includes about 360 acres and about one third wetlands (which kind of sit in the middle of the property).
As the routing process unfolded, increasingly there was a lot of pressure to minimize disturbance of the wetlands and this dramatically changed the routing plans, arguably from better to worse, IMO. One thing many members and visitors note is the long trek from the 9th green to the 10th tee. Not bad for someone in a cart, but annoying for the player walking.
But, that is just something easy to spot. More important is the lost utilization of property features due to the environmental directive. Several cool holes were lost, IMO.
Once you accept the directive regarding intrusion into the wetlands, I'm actually fine with the routing of the back nine. Not so much for the front side.
That aside, I am a fan of what Fazio called "view slots" - the removal of trees around certain areas of the wetlands that permits what years ago I described as the "kaleidoscope". Seeing the same land from different perspectives and angles. That Fazio got right, IMO. It is especially nice late summer and early fall as the colors change.
-
I agree, Patrick. Yet many of us who think ourselves architecture buffs aren't able to make an intelligent routing after play.
In thinking of an example where this community (or part of it) has missed the importance of routing, I realize that in order to make an assertion I must be implying that I think myself that much smarter than many. And yet that's the only way forward in this case... ;D
The most relevant example and glaring one in my mind is Dismal River White. (This is merely an example. If you want to debate me on the merits of that routing please start a new thread.) Dismal White is a horrible, horrible routing. Made even worse by the opportunity missed on a pretty remarkable property. I swear I'm not taking shots in order to spur up that discussion, but Dismal Red provides a pretty good contrast. To me the courses aren't comparable as it appears Tom Doak considered the land the course was to be built on to such a greater extent than Jack did. Or at least did that much better of a job.
A small, small example in the White vs Red experiences- you are likely to take a cart out to both 1st tees, so it doesn't really matter that the White is farther out than the Red. But the land you drive on to get to them, what a drastic difference! For the Red you drive past the driving range down the entrance road, which is cut into a steep hill and not ideal for golf, though beautiful.
For the White, you drive through sets of dunes, also past the range. But while doing so I could not help but think "why am I driving past such fantastic land for golf?" There are easily 3 to 4 golf holes just sitting there that could be as good as anything on the White. And even though there's nothing currently on the land, it was readily apparent to me that there were more than enough holes in the White's routing ("holes in the routing", that that how you will) that could be dismissed for the potential in those dunes. Oh well...
After playing a golf course, I find myself assessing the routing by asking why a course went the direction it did. What features/shots were included by going a certain way and how a potentially challenging feature has been avoided. With the exception of a few holes on the White course, I'm still perplexed. And since the routing is inclusive of all 18 holes as 1 whole, a failure of the routing means a course is likely to fail overall in my eyes.
Some of the best routings I've played are ones that deal with a difficult geological/topographical feature while not making it too hard on a golfer. The most obvious examples are Stone Eagle and Bandon Trails, but their challenges were so extreme I don't think either could ever create as perfect a walk as a Cypress Point or Chechesee Creek (which I've not played) because the routing test wasn't ace-able in the first place. They're both 90/90 of what was possible, while Cypress is 100/100.
So is there a 100 routing out there on the Friar's Head site? Sounds like it from some of the comments, but I have not played and like Patrick, really think that (at least when discussing routings) allows for an irreplaceable expertise when discussing a course, let alone its routing.
-
Tim: My recollection of the Ocean Course is that most of it was created because the land was so low that if it wasn't built up it would constantly flood - in fact, a good percentage of it was and still is wetlands. When they filmed Bagger Vance there they built a hole for the movie on the condition that they put it back to its natural state after filming. They also moved the 18th green so that you could see the water. I think it is a great course but I cannot put it in the same league as FH in the area of routing which looks as if the holes were there and Bill Coore just found them.
-
Tim,
I'll be back later, but you'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to detect the environmental impediments at Sand Ridge.
-
Tim,
I'll be back later, but you'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to detect the environmental impediments at Sand Ridge.
Pat,
That may be. However, having the opportunity to spend lots of time on site with access to key project team members does leave a big impression. For example, it allowed me to ask "why didn't you do this" kind of questions and actually get answers.
Perhaps my memory is faulty, but I recall being told there were as many as 25 different routing plans done and many quite different than the final plan. Behind most of the iterations were compromises related to the wetlands.
Not totally sure, but I [size=78%]think some of the pressure came from Bill Conway, the founder, and not just permitting authorities. Based on his experience in mining, Bill was just sensitive to the environmental issues and wanted to get that right as much if not more than, say, finding two or three more quality holes.[/size]
-
Phil,
Given the property lines and the early discovery of the Redan, Alps, Road, Eden and Sahara holes, along with the two clubhouse locations, how was NGLA's routing not self evident ?
Do you, and others, think, that upon playing a course you can determine the quality of a routing ?
Patrick: I can't comment on NGLA, having not played it, and it's been a while since I read CBM's book, so I can't recall details on his writings about it.
I do think one can sense the quality of routing having played and seen a course. In an interesting way, to me, I think very good routings stand out as obviously good routings right away; on the other hand, it takes repeated plays and visits to a course to see how a routing might not be optimal.
To use an example close to home: Milwaukee CC stood out as a very good routing the first time I saw it. Repeated visits to Erin Hills confirm, for me, its routing at times is askew.
-
Tim,
I think I see part of the problem, and it's one of context.
My series of replies, especially # 's 2, 44, 56 and 63 have to be viewed in terms of continuity rather than isolation.
Let me try to string them together for you.
I stated the following:
# 2
Great course, great practice facility, great par 3 course, great clubhouse.
Sounds like a 10 to me.
# 44
Friars Head makes the case for itself, starting with the routing.
The course transitions from the dunes to the flats to the dunes to flats and finally back to the dunes in wonderful fashion.
As I stated, the terrain, routing and individual holes are outstanding.
# 56
Some things, architecturally, are self evident.
Routings being one of them.
The routing of Friars Head, over that terrain is a 10 in itself.
Now, you have to evaluate the individual holes within the context of the terrain and routing.
# 63
You may not be qualified to opine on the quality of the routing, but I am.
The quality of the routing over the terrain at Friars Head is self evident, but then again, how would you know otherwise, as you've never set foot on the property.
So for you, any pronouncement about the quality of the routing would be foolish.
Whereas, having visited the project during and after construction, with and without Ken Bakst, and having played it numerous times, I'm more than qualified to assess the quality of the routing.
[/
My statement regarding routing/s was a statement made in the context of an existing course.
Certainly the CC of York provides proof to the contrary on undeveloped land.
When you play a golf course, and you are aware of the property lines, you can assess, when you walk off the 18th green, the quality of the routing.
It's self evident.
The quality of the routing is self evident at Friars Head, NGLA, Seminole, Pebble Beach, CPC and a myriad of others.
You also know when a routing is lacking, irrespective of the reasons as to why it's lacking (permitting, owner, money, other).
Hope that helps.color]
-
After several hours of thinking about it (not constantly), I asked myself the same question, Why is this not a 10?
I tried really hard to find something wrong with the golf course. I thought maybe the fairways of 2,3, 13 were flattish and maybe hole 12 sticks out oddly, but must call BS on myself for looking so hard. I'm not that good an evaluator to be so nit picky.
The course was firm, fast, fair, and fun. It's pretty much as good as any course I've ever played.
-
After several hours of thinking about it (not constantly), I asked myself the same question, Why is this not a 10?
I tried really hard to find something wrong with the golf course. I thought maybe the fairways of 2,3, 13 were flattish and maybe hole 12 sticks out oddly, but must call BS on myself for looking so hard. I'm not that good an evaluator to be so nit picky.
The course was firm, fast, fair, and fun. It's pretty much as good as any course I've ever played.
Steve,
Thanks for bringing this thread forward. It’s almost ten years old and not one I remember despite making numerous posts in it.
Enjoyed seeing Tommy and Pat Mucci. Thanks again.
Tim
-
Having been fortunate to play there several times over the years, it is in my top 10 favorite courses to play. The course has great strategic value. It can be set up fairly easy and really difficult simply by various pin positions. The greens are wonderfully undulating. My best success began with great positional driving, since the caddies give you the pin positions on the tee, and suggest were the best angle of attack is located; and I oftentimes found those areas. Best of all, the recovery shots are challenging, but very possible, and sometimes involve playing away from the target and working the ball across green slopes back to the hole. Of course, I am biased about the 8th being the best par 5 anywhere, since I have made an albatross with a 250 yard driver off the deck into a two club wind, plus an interesting eagle from the sand right of the green, that I called with 50 feet left for it to go in!