[Jeff Fortson]

I just recently played a tournament at this course and was pleasantly suprised.  I know I could catch some flak from some of you guys but I really enjoyed "The Monster".  

True, it can measure close to 7800 yards if you wanted it to but I still thought there was plenty of strategy due to large greens which created many different options on how to play each hole.  The water hazards were used strategically and there was very little OB.  

I think this course with a little money poured into it on maintenance could host any type of tour event.

Any comments?

Jeff F.

[Will E]

Jeff,
I totally agree with you. This is a really good golf course and a great course for a tournament. I could see how some on this site may hate it because it does require a few forced carries and is usually soaking wet. Not to mention that it is pretty damn tough and the resort reminds me of a prison.

[ian]

I played it 20 yers ago as a "long hitting" junior. I thought it was nuts even at the blue tees. The funny thing is with todays technology the course would be about right. Go figure. The course was pretty good, just too long, I wonder what I would think now if I went back.

[Mike_Cirba]

Some time ago on this site, I posted a thread entitled "Was the Concord Monster ahead of its time?"

I agree with Jeff that the course is better than most of the derision it takes, and despite its length and difficulty, is not a thoughtless slog in the least.  Instead, it's probably the pinnacle of the style popularlized by Jones Sr. and Dick Wilson, with LONG tees, HUGE greens, lots of water in play (albeit mostly strategically...er..um...Heroically), and little charm or subtlety.

It could clearly host a tour event, and perhaps this is the type of course that tour golf has evolved into.  I don't know that I'd recommend that anyone without some masochistic qualities should head there and play it, but as a genre, it's one of the best of its type and worth seeing for anyone interested in all facets of golf course architecture.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

The Concord / Monster does have a number of interesting holes. My issue is simple one -- the ownership puts tooooooooooo much H20, H20, H20 until you're just about drowning. Enough ...

Joe Lee did a nice job in routing a number of holes but the strategic qualities of the Concord WILL NEVER advance far when you have driver's plugging into the fairway even after dry weather occurs for a few days.

Clearly, a little bit of $$ and sound turf practices can make the Monster one to revisit.

The issue of the Concord is always tied to the health of the Catskills which in real terms has one foot on a banana peel. Unless casino gambling (not gaming) comes through for the region it's glory days are more of a distant memory than a promising future.

[Chris_Blakely]

Is the thread "Was the Concord Monster Ahead of its time?' still availible to read?  If so, do you know around when you posted it?

Also, I believe Joe Finger was the architect, unless when refering to Joe Lee, one was refering to any redesign work that was done their as the course was tonned down a bit from the original 7,800 yard course.

[Matt_Ward]

golfnut:

Thanks for the correction!

[Mike_Cirba]

golfnut;

To be honest, I don't remember but it was probably close to 2 years ago now.  It was probably also on the "Old GCA", whose threads didn't come forward when Ran changed out the software.  

My basic point on that thread was that there are so many modern courses being built in the past couple of years that are tipping out at 7300-7,800 yards (understand some course that John Daly is affiliated with will hit 8,000 soon), that all of the criticism the Monster took (and takes) for excessive length seems to be somewhat unfair.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()