[Steve_ Shaffer]

Kyle,

My mistake. Did Renn work for the Gordons?

[Jed Peters]

Matt,

I can understand why you would say the Grace is dull. But my guess is that it was rated as a top 100 course at a time when that style was much more in vogue. Plus, it was always SUPERBLY maintained, I think far better than most private clubs. I can't prove that, but I remember playing it in the 80's, walking down the first fairway, and thinking "this is like hitting a golf ball off my mother's dining room carpet." Know what I mean? So tight yet soft, WAY too nice to be hitting a golf ball on

But try playing this course from the Black tees in club championship qualifying...and you won't call it dull

It is a perfectably acceptable third course!

If you gave a C&C access to re-do weyhill, holy crap that'd be a good course.

[Matt_Ward]

Bill B:

I can understand what you said -- but believe me, I always play from the tips and frankly I have even played from behind the hedges on a few courses of note.

The issue with turf quality has ZERO / NADA to do with any thing architecturally. Frankly, there are a number of NJ courses that can easily wax the Grace Course in terms of overall compelling architecture and they've never received so much as a sniff of attention.

The Grace is a brawny layout -- certainly long for the average player and it's just the same rendition of hole after hole after hole. I certainly think Eugene Grace and the mega facility that is Saucon Valley played a major role in the course being rated in the first place.

Bill, you said it best -- the Grace is the 3rd course there -- behind the likes of the Old and Weyhill.

[Bill Brightly]

Matt,

You asked why it was rated in the top 100 in the 80's, and I suggested the conditioning was a major reason. You think those ratings were purely based on architecture?

It is brawny in places but certainly not repetitive. Not sure how you came to that conclusion. The stretch of holes from the strategic par 5 10th through the par 3 14th is not brawny at all, requiring accuracy, not length. All the par 5's require thought and have a really good element of risk-reward. The greens are big with tilt, not a loy of movement, but with high green speed they are chellenging and fair. It is a good, not great, golf course. Any course with a good Eden can't be all bad! 

[Matt_Ward]

Bill:

If you check out the rating criteria from years back for Digest you'll see conditioning was much less the key item -- although I don't doubt people amplified it as they saw fit.

Bill, for God's sake -- architecture needs to be the first among equals when all other elements are considered.

Somehow I don't see the style of Gordon / re: Grace Course fitting in with so many other courses of true compelling architecture. Grace reminds me of such brawny layouts like Bellerive, Firestone / South, Medinah #3, etc, etc. You also have land that is quite ho-hum and not really special when held against the likes of Old and Weyhill.

Bill, the issue for a top 100 placement is not that it is simply "good" -- but that it provides something that is truly above the best of the best. Grace is not that good -- have you played HV or been to a few of other interior Phila courses. In years past they didn't even get a sniff from the Digest ratings. Grace has its moments -- I didn't say the course was a dog -- but the issue is about top 100 placement.

On the Doak scale for me -- Grace would be no more than a 5 -- anybody seeing it as a 7 or higher needs to really see more golf -- especially in the Keystone state for a comparison purpose.

[Bill Brightly]

Bill:

Bill, for God's sake -- architecture needs to be the first among equals when all other elements are considered.

No argument from me, I agree that architecture should be #1. I was merely trying to explain why I thought it was rated that high 25 years ago. I also think that style was much more in vogue in the 80's. Many of the bunkers on the Grace course are immense. I think there may have been a "wow" factor when raters first saw it. Just a guess.

[Matt_Ward]

Bill:

What the Digest ratings show -- is how a course, once rated, can remain far beyond the time it should have been there to start with.

Grace is a relic of a time -- long since gone. The architecture elements simply have not carried forward in time well. Have to say one of my major disappointments was playing there after hearing so much about it previously.

[Matt_Ward]

One of the more interesting elements on the Gordon discussion is how a certain design style can simply lose its momentum as time passes. No doubt the Gordon style -- the big greens with even larger traps -- was emblematic of a few people designing at the same time he did.

Clearly, that style has waned over the course of time and many people -- with few exceptions -- are calling for its return.

What can be learned from this? The passage of time really is the indicator of true greatness.

[Dan Herrmann]

Matt,
That's well put.

I remember a course in Grand Island, NY - River Oaks, designed in the 70's by Von Hagge.  It has all the elements of 70's architecture (artificial, tons of faux mounds, big flat greens)...  Stuff you wouldn't see today.

[Matt_Ward]

Dan:

Thankfully, there has been a desire by many clubs to bring back to life those elements which were originally part of their make-up.

so many were changed during the 50's and 60's in order to reflect the given hand that was called in and few clubs at that time really understood why their original layout was so good to start with.

credit the work of people like Ron Forse, Ron Pritchard, Gil Hanse, et al -- who have been diligent in bringing back to life so many clubs that made such ill-informed choices.

Dan, there are a few Gordon layouts of note -- some are on the pennsy side of the delaware -- on the jersey side i have always been a fan of a place like buena vista.

[Dan Herrmann]

Matt - I'm sure there are good Gordon designs.  I probably played a clunker.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()