News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Robert Mercer Deruntz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Stanwich Club (picts)
« on: September 26, 2007, 07:59:05 PM »
There seems to be strong positive and negative opinions on this course.  Without a doubt, it can be the toughest course in Metro-NY.  The club just completed a Fazio upgrading that beefed up the yardage to 7446 yards.  The level of conditioning is about as good as it gets in metro-NY,  which is saying quite a lot.  The pictures, which are not my best, do not really show the hillyness of the layout.  The greens are among the most severe I have ever played, and Fazio softened a few of them.  Yesterday, a player in my group had a 45 footer with somewhere around 20 feet of break!
















Pat Howard

Re:Stanwich Club (picts)
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2007, 08:11:04 PM »
Maybe it's just my computer, but I can hardly see any of the photo's. They are VERY bright, even after I tried turning the contrast and brightness of my screen way down.

-Pat

Robert Mercer Deruntz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Stanwich Club (picts)
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2007, 08:17:24 PM »




This is the par 3 13th.  The green used to be a pure upsidedown L shape.  At the point in the L is an undulation which segregates the back left of the green fron the long portion.  In a Metropolitan Open several years ago, my ball landed about 10-12 feet from the backleft hole location, but on the wrong side of the undulation, and spund back 60 feet.  In the prescense of about 15-20 members and over the vociferous objection of one, I executed a flop shot.  A superintendants horror, I took a good 14 inch divot that flew into the left bunker--very fortunately the shot ended up inside the leather--there was no other way to get the ball on the back left portion--and I was really upset about the 60 foot spinback from the tee ball.  Needless to say, there is still some mention of this shot in the club!

This is an interesting risk/reward hole that used to involve a carry over giant willow trees on the tee ball.  The trees were a deciding factor in the US Mid-Am final.  One pro characterized this changed hole as Fazio in Florida meets Greenwich, Ct.  The fairway bunkers do look kind of Fazio Florida style.










Joe Perches

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Stanwich Club (picts)
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2007, 10:22:27 PM »

I always enjoy your photo postings of courses I don't get to see in person Robert.  Thanks.

I didn't see many other holes that used this meandering stream.  There's a pond and 1 other hole I think.  Is the pond and stream manufactured or natural?  If it's natural, do you think the course made best use of it?

Robert Mercer Deruntz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Stanwich Club (picts)
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2007, 11:19:36 PM »
Ithink the stream is natural, though it could have been built when the course was layed out.  I have a feeling that a course like this could not be built today--the 13th through 16th, and tee shot of 5th are on a built up and drained swamp.  I think the 16th could have been an all world hole if the architects had used the stream--it only comes into play for high handicapers.  As for the 2nd and 17th--I can attest that it comes into play.  I was in the damn hazard and had the pleasure of viewing someone on the second dropping a ball as well!

Eric Morrison

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Stanwich Club (picts)
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2007, 06:29:28 AM »
Wow! They use a lot of topdressing on that course! ;)
It is what it is.

Robert Mercer Deruntz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Stanwich Club (picts)
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2007, 08:38:05 AM »
One of the biggest missed oportunities occurres on the par 3 16th.  The way the stream meanders around the green very much mimics  the great 11th at Merion.  This could have been a spectacular green complex had it imitated the 11th at Merion.  As stated earlier, the stream only affects high handicap players--this is a serious missed use of a great hazard.

Robert Emmons

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Stanwich Club (picts)
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2007, 08:43:39 AM »
RMD...Is there a first cut of rough, or just fairway and primary...Thanks...RHE

Scott Witter

Re:Stanwich Club (picts)
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2007, 08:57:16 AM »
Robert:

If it was one of the toughest layouts in the NY Metro area, I wonder why the club/Fazio group felt it was necessary to lenghten it to 7,400 yds +?  :-\

If the putting surfaces are so challenging to begin with, were all of the bunkers we see in the photos existing, or were more added to make it more challenging?

It 'appears' that the course could benefit from some tree management to open up some interesting playing angles and create more options given other design 'improvements'...perhaps this is upcoming.

Could be me.... but many bunkers look VERY similar with a center tongue.  The land looks very appealing and I would think other bunker shapes and characteristics could have worked well. ???  I think I have seen this before in other Fazio work  :-\  

Robert Mercer Deruntz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Stanwich Club (picts)
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2007, 11:23:51 AM »
Scott, you have hit the nail on the head--generic Fazio bunkering.  I do believe that a couple of greenside bunkers were added.  Fairway bunkers were added to holes, 2, 5, 7,9,10, 14, 16.  I played in the past Met Open and Met PGA, and a few assistant events over the years, but cannot be certain about every new greenside bunker.  However, I do remember a few greens having no bunkered sides that were actually worse misses because of the rough and green slope.  The two side green bunkering becomes redundant after a while.  Also, the bunkers are all deeper than previously. There is a first cut of rough.  This course is built to have trees, so I really don't have an issue in this regard.  However, the first hole probably shouldn't have too many because it appears as though it was a risk/ reward almost drivable hole.  The rebuilt greenside left bunker takes this option completely away.  
    I have a feeling that this was done because of Winged Foot.  Stanwich has always tried to emerge from the shadows and be considered WF's equal.  They even have an inter-club match and several members belong to both clubs.  Also, there are many golfers who believe that greatness is equated with simple toughness--Stanwich was in the original Golf Digest rankings!  

Scott Witter

Re:Stanwich Club (picts)
« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2007, 11:42:55 AM »
Robert:

"This course is built to have trees.."  Could you explain what YOU mean by this?  I 'think' I understand, but I am interested in your thoughts.

I have no problem with making bunkers deeper...all things being equal and considerations given to members, other recovery options and everything else that goes along with the tee or approach shots...but did so many need to look SO similar?!

There are clear similarities to Winged Foot not only in the course, but also to the 'architect' responsible for the 'improvements'.  I suspect the shared members were largely responsible for the named architect...there are clubs in the Pittsburgh PA area who also feel they are destined for greatness because of hiring Fazio and his touch to Oakmont :-\

peter_mcknight

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Stanwich Club (picts)
« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2007, 12:06:24 PM »
Mr Deruntz...

Would you be so kind as to post the hole by hole yardages of the new 7446 yard tees?  That would be great to identify which holes were extended since the Mid-Am.

When the Gordons designed the course, did the club's founders ask for a "man-sized" course?  I'm more than a little curious how the Stanwich Club turned out to be much better than the Grace Course or Weyhill at SVCC.  To this day, I remain disappointed at the Gordons effort at Weyhill considering the amazing piece of land they were given.

Also, what do you think of the Gordon double dog leg par 5?  There are 2 each on the Grace and Weyhill and are just average at best as par 5s.

Robert Mercer Deruntz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Stanwich Club (picts)
« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2007, 08:04:45 PM »
Stanwich yardages:

 1   373
 2   415
 3   376
 4   247
 5   534
 6   462
 7   459
 8   236
 9   633
     -----
     3735

10    397
11    446
12    495
13    198
14    526
15    445
16    172
17    616
18    415
      ------
      3710
     --------
      7445

For such small severe greens, this is quite a lot of distance.

Robert Mercer Deruntz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Stanwich Club (picts)
« Reply #13 on: September 28, 2007, 08:57:43 AM »
To answer the question, why is this course made to have trees:  It is made to have trees because there are significant areas where the trees are much older than the golf course.  And a significant number of the trees look like they are somewhat in the same age category as the golf course.  This makes me think that a lot of the trees were planted at the direction of Gordon.

BVince

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Stanwich Club (picts)
« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2007, 12:19:18 AM »
To compare this course to Winged Foot is unfair, but that being said this course is all about quality.  I am fortunate to have played this course a few times, and I bet the added length actually made it better.  I am interested in seeing how some of the holes play now.  The conditioning has always been superb and the layout is interesting.  The bunkering is wonderful and the greens have character. I would recommend keeping an open mind to this course as it is a great place to play if you get the opportunity.
If profanity had an influence on the flight of the ball, the game of golf would be played far better than it is. - Horace Hutchinson

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back