Ron Whitten's review of Friars Head & Hidden Creek

[loyal_servant]

Thus, the emperor has spoken.  Now go all ye subjects to the throne and spread his word;  announce the full declaration of his prose, including the F-bomb!  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I've awoken from my slumber, and I cansay that I don't think I have ever had a more sound sleep in my life.

Nothing but the mosty happy dreams imaginable.

Gotta go. Its raining, on Long Island, and there is this golf course waiting for me called Friars Head.

And I hope there is a heavy fog.

BTW--Whatever you do, whomever and whatever it takes to get to see this special links, like the Nike slogan--"Just Do It!"

I'll be thinking of all of you today. Especially you Ron Whitten.

[T_MacWood]

I'm not sure I understand all the criticism. The article appeared to me to be a tribute to Coore more than architectural review. I don't read Golf Digest often, but my impression is RW has very few opportunities to write about golf architecture--which includes evaluating new and old courses and profiling current and past architects. If he chooses to slip in a brief profile/tribute to Coore on his critique column--I don't have a problem with it. Coore deserves it. Wouldn't it be difficult to write a thorough analysis of either course (much less both) in the space provided--so all things considered focusing on the designer may not have been a bad thing. His breif discription of the courses were very positive...his criticisms were minor (I don't consider his scorecard observation as criticism) and unrelated to either courses golfing merit.

Whitten very rarely posted on GCA to begin with...so I'm not sure he has stopped posting. I doubt the reason his posting has slowed (or stopped all together) has anything to do with any questions about Bethpage. I thought he expressed his opinion clearly and supported it with good research. As far as I know there is no information that provides positive proof one way or the other. Its all an educated guess. There is information to support the case of both men (his article was definitely shaded toward Burbeck). I don't recall any unnanswerable questions that drove him away. To be honest I'm not sure any of would even know who Burbeck was if not for his article. It is also interesting to note that this year GD credited both Burbeck and Tillinghast as the architects in their top 100.

[Nigel_Walton]

Apparently, Tom, he does get the opportunity to write quite extensively on the Golf Digest website about Architecture.

http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/critic/

There is really no excuse for this drivel. The article is about Ron Whitten. Neither Friar's Head nor Hidden Creek get the kind of architectural discussion that is present in most of the articles one can access on the link I have provided.

And, by the way, I found his "I find it hard to be objective about Bill Coore" comment to be a backhanded complement to Bill's work, at best. I would think that most architecture fans would have little trouble objectively identifying the quality of Cuscowilla, Sand Hills, Hidden Creek, Friar's Head et al regardless of whether or not they were acquainted with the principals.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Tom ,

There is a follow up article in this months MetGolfer called "Never in Question" by Bob Trebus and Philip Young about the Golf Digest article. In a nutshell, the article can be summed up by its final sentence, "But until there is tangible proof that Burbeck's contribution amounted to anything more than what we have cited, AW Tillinghast must remain the architect of record."

It is not online yet, but should pop up in a day or two in the June issue at http://www.mgagolf.org

[A_Clay_Man]

TomH- I never knew it was hush hush. As a matter of fact unless someone clearly denotes something as "Qt" I feel free to spread the information. I know Tim Wieman has a different idea on the disemination of info but I respectfully disagree. Sure, for anybody (but us dilatante's) one might have industry reprecussions but I feel strongly enough that the telephone and the internet's justification for existence is educational. Should those with info choose not to disclose it, it does nothing to educate those without.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Mike,

I believe that Philip Young you cite is "Phil the Author" who occasionally posts on GCA.

[THuckaby2]

Adam:

I was told by one of the principals directly that it was indeed hush-hush.  But since Tommy himself has now posted, I guess they just wanted HIM to have the first word!

No hassles, mi amigo.

Tommy - if and when you see this - EXCELLENT dropping of the F-bomb and extremely appropriate.  Interesting also, during one of my rounds at Sand Hills, I told our host I was in a "purple haze of joy."  Funny how special places like this make this happen, huh?  

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom MacWood:

My disappointment about the Whitten article was that he really didn't have much to say about the arcitecture of either Friar's Head or Hidden Creek. The part about Bill Coore is fine. I agree he deserves recognition. But, why waste time on things like the scorecard? Who really cares about that?

Anyway if you meant to express that Golf Digest really isn't much of a source when it comes to golf architecture, then I agree with you. Come to think of it, I'm not sure we have anything here in the States as good as the Aussies have with Neil Crafter's publication. Too bad.

Adam Clayman:

I doubt our views on the dissimination of information are really that different. I'd like to share as much as I can, but there are times when confidentiality needs to be respected. If you don't accept that, then people will quickly lose trust and not share information with you in the first place.

Not long ago a friend made arrangements for us to spend a day with someone working on a potential golf course project. The site involved was fabulous, almost beyond belief. My friend summed things up this way: "With all the superlatives that have already been used to describe golf sites, what word can we possibly use to describe this place?".

Believe me. I would love to write about the site! But, it is still in the permitting stage and the developers feel publicity could only complicate the process. Given that a lot of time and money has already gone towards this effort, why shouldn't I  honor their request to avoid a report on Golfclubatlas for the time being?

If this site ever moves beyond the permitting stage, there will be plenty to write about. But, the timing just isn't right. I'd rather keep my mouth shut now and hope that the permitting effort is successful, than "educate" people and inadvertently throw a monkey wrench into the whole thing. If you like the idea of building golf courses on sites that are incredibly blessed, then I doubt you would handle the situation differently.

[RJ_Daley]

Tommy, I simply am giving my impression about one non-architectural aspect of the article that strikes me as a bit silly regarding the yardage on the card.  I can't help it if the article wasn't "purely about architecture".  I haven't one scintilla of a doubt about the actual merits of the golf course design and construction there at FH, even if only from the batch of B&W pictures that I captured off of the GCA write-up and are now permanently playing as a slide show on my screensaver.   And, when I play a nice course I have never seen before, I always get a yardage book and use it and save it as a rememberance along with as many pictures as I can get.  

Tommy, We are all glad you are having this specially good f-bombing time.  I can't wait until you provide us with a real architectural analysis and maybe if we are lucky, some new pictures.  Remember, good architectural writing, and pictures is all 90% of us GCAers may ever see and know of the place.  So, it is particularly incumbent upon you to share what you experience.  Perhaps that was Wind and Darwin and their peers greatest purpose in their fine writing; to inspire, entertain, inform, and let us live vicariously through their keen observations.  But, if there are warts, and something is off, a great writer will make that known too, even if in the most subtle or professionally kind sort of descriptive.  The writer's credibility and talent is lost if one can't express a description of the good and the not so good.  I don't believe that a golf course exists that doesn't have a blemish somewhere and that something doesn't strike you as contrary to what you like.  

I may not like a scorecard that is as you describe it, or perhaps upon using it I would.  It has nothing to do with the design, but it may still rub me the wrong way.  I can say similar things about my beloved Wild Horse.  I hate the ubiquitous use of golf carts by everyone from youngsters playing 9 holes to big tough sodbusters and athletes.  Although, I am sure the pro loves the extra coins that the cart rentals bring in.  It also has nothing to do with the architecture, but I can write about it and share my impression.  I think that Sand Hills may have benefited from a few more feet of surrounds on a couple of holes, and I feel I can say that without disparaging the overall merits and unique quality of the place.  I can say that new tees added at Wild Horse on #12 are stupid and totally take away the greatness of the hole, and I refused to play them last weekend, going to the real teeeven though not marked for play because they are perfectly set.  

So Tommy, we await a masterpiece of a write-up about your experiences at this rare opportunity you have been offered to enjoy what appears to be another milestone in GCA.  Perhaps RW will avert his eyes, but Herb WW amd Bernie D are watching.

[eckstein]

Is the article in MetGolfer available yet?

[tyelder]

Good courses always rise to the top. Let's quit being cheerleaders.  

HC and Friar's Head are both good courses. Top 100...I don't know... One maybe is and one probably isn't... If FH doesn't receive top new course this year. Does it really matter? Based on the pictures, I would love to play it whether it's ranked 1st or 5th and if it is ranked 5th, I'm sure I would enjoy the courses ranked 1-4.  

[Paul_Turner]

Looking at that picture of the 4th at Hidden Creek, the criticism of the cart path is completely nit picky and hardly insightful.

[George Pazin]

bumping

With all the talk of the good ole days, I thought I'd revisit some old threads.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Unfortunately, the link to Ron Whitten's article is no longer valid. In fact, none of his review library is available online.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The cart path on # 4 at HC no longer exists in its original location.

It goes to the right of the hole.

[George Pazin]

I guess my memory must be slipping, I don't remember a single cart path on the entire course - just one wonderful hole after another, one of my favorite golf memories of the past few years.

Sorry the links don't work, Steve, I'll see if I saved the original.