[JNC Lyon]

I played Crag Burn Golf Club in Elma, NY a few weeks ago for the third time.  Every time I play it I am more impressed with the course.  However, the holes that stand out the most to me are the 3rd and 11th, both of which are excellent short fours. 

3 is the more drivable of the two as a dogleg left, where a bunker at the corner beckons the player to gamble towards the green.  The green itself is the most wild on the course, with back left portion falling away behind the left greenside bunker.  The optimal position to approach the green is always in the opposite side of the fairway from the pin.  This means that the play to fire at the green from the tee is often foolhardy. 

The 11th is a bit longer and is not drivable.  However, it contains a line of charm which makes the hole stand out from others of its length.  From the elevated tee, the player sees a fairway to the left, a sea of bunkers to the right, and a flag waving in the distance beyond the sand.  The player is lured into bombing a driver over the bunkers to leave a mere flip to the green.  However, this is a foolish play, as the golfer is left with a poor angle to the pin unless the hole is cut on the extreme right side of the green.  Ultimately, most pin positions dictate that the player drive safely to the left with a rescue club.  The green requires a forced carry and also possesses wild interior contours, with a huge ball catching the pulled wedge second shot. 

Both short holes provide the most strategy and interest of any hole on this RTJ Sr. gem.

My question is, why did Robert Trent Jones build so few great short fours as the ones outlined above?  Spyglass Hill famously contains two great ones out in the dunes, but many of his other name courses rely on brute strength for the challenge.  I know Trent Jones was often more focused on penal architecture to maximize difficulty, but no one is going to argue that Crag Burn is made easier by the presence of these two short par fours.   So why wasn't Trent Jones interested in great gambling short fours to match up with his great gambling par fives (the collection of fives at Crag Burn is also superb)?  Would he have been more highly regarding amongst golf architecture historians had he built more of these holes?

[Ronald Montesano]

Crag Burn was built in the late 1960s/early 1970s (opening in 1972), during Trent's kinder, gentler years.  It may have been a turning point for him.  He also built Glen Oak around the same time (it was Ransom Oaks, a private course north-east of Buffalo...now public).  Glen Oak has very good short fours, including perhaps Trent's best anywhere, number 7...here's a link:
http://glenoak.com/CRStage.cfm?Page=Hole%207&CAT=Hole&MainNav=True

Good stories on 3 and 11 at Crag Burn...a long-hitting, anonymous fellow I know, well-oiled at the time, told Gary McCord "you guys aren't so long."  McCord, also liquored up, said "get in the fast (or some other f word) cart" and they drove out to #3, 340 from the tips.  McCord said "hit driver on the green," back in the days of persimmon and rubber bands.  My bud hit a weak slice out there about 250.  McCord turned it over, right to left, onto the green.  He then looked at my empty-bowled pal and said "you guys have no idea how good we are."  I love #3.

On #11, former director of golf Lonnie Nielson (now on the Champs Tour with Eger, et al.) never aimed at the bunkers on the corner/green beyond on the 90-degree dogleg right.  The green is so well protected and so diverse (four different quadrants and water hard right...maybe the best green Trent ever built!) that no play with less than a full club in is viable.  Lonnie aimed at the clubhouse and trusted his short irons to bring him home.

The par five holes are not brutes, either.  Numbers 14 and 16 are top-notch gambler's delights, as is #8.  Number 2 is a beast upon which Scott Verplank once bestowed platitudes.  Crag Burn is a special place.

[JNC Lyon]

Do you think Crag Burn would be more highly regarded in the ratings without these short fours to take away a bit of the difficulty?  Why is a place like Firestone South so highly regarded by good golfers while Crag Burn goes entirely unnoticed? 

Does the lack of great short fours outside of Spyglass and Crag Burn keep RTJ from being highly regarded in places like this website?

[Ronald Montesano]

1.  I don't believe that #3 and #11 could possible take away from Crag Burn's recognition factor.  I would attribute it to the fact that 90% of the GCA faithful have NOT played the course.  Show of hands, please...how many of GCA have heard of and how many have played Crag Burn in East Aurora, New York?

2.  The short par fours begin to balance the image of monster-builder that RTJ seemed to cultivate.  It seems that he mellowed with age (until Roger Rulewich started building all the courses) and his final solo designs had a greater playability to them.  When I look at a course like Bristol Harbour in central New York (also finished in 1972, the same time as Glen Oak and Crag Burn) I see what others disregard about Senior.  Here's a throw-away from one of their hole descriptions:  "Just another great Robert Trent Jones dog-leg carved out of the Bristol Hills. "  That means that one dog-leg is indistinguishable from the next, or that all his holes dogleg and reduce options, especially on the short par fours.  Trent typically and brutally narrowed his shorties (through sand, water, or woods) as they approached the green, eliminating the drive-the-green option for the stronger player and doing the same for the approach shots of the average and weaker players.

2A.  Another of his courses that I played two years ago, the Heather at Boyne in Michigan, lacks a single short par four.  At Threetops, also in Michigan, his 15th hole claims to be driveable; at 363 it had best be downhill to afford that option for most!

3.  Number three is a tremendously-balanced hole from tee to green.  It is played through close quarters, with the trees on both sides and the bunkering never too distant from a fanned or pulled driver, but with ample fairway space to accommodate any sort of lay-up.  The second shot is the key, as the green is so tiny (letter-opener size for the postage-stamp crowd), so crowded by bunkers, that any lateral deviation results in a trip to the beach.  With the gentle fall-off to the back-left portion, the putting surface offers at least four unique pin positions.

4.  Number eleven, I'll admit, I did not fully appreciate until this year.  Unlike the front nine, which winds its way through the woods for the most part until it emerges partially at eight and completely at nine, the majority of the back is played on the moor, at the mercy of the winds.  Eleven is a good driver hole from any tee as the big club tends to bore more and hold its line better.  The fairway is wide in the direct line to the clubhouse and will accept less-than-perfect strikes, although angle and distance home will be affected.  As indicated before, I'd rather have a full club in, so the idea of an awkward pitch up (with less spin on the shot) holds no attraction for  me in competition.  The closer you get to the far edge of the fairway, the better the angle in.  The green itself is something to behold and the water along the left is always closer than you imagine.  Most balls that miss left find their way to Davy Jones' Locker.  With the bucket left-front, the ridge along the right edge of the green, and three flattish hole options front right, back left and back right (although this last one falls off), two or one-whacking your way around this carpet means you've struck an especially-accurate approach or you are cool and collected with the flat stick.

[Matt_Ward]

JNC Lyon:

I've played Crag Burn twice and like it very much.

The issue is a simple one -- exposure.

Many people who come to The Empire States think golf is only played in the immediate NYC metro area.

Olde Kinderhook just outside Albany faces a similar lack of attention for what it offers -- ironically it's done by RTJ's son Rees.

Place Crag Burn on the beaten track of notice and it would register higher than it does now. The sad part about people on this site -- it's often the herd mentality that draws attention to the same band of courses. Ask people to venture off that predictable and favored path and the likelihood of then doing so becomes problematic at best.

[John Foley]

I'll second Matt's comment - it just gets no exposure outside of Western NY.

Even inside Western NY, Craig Burn & Monroe are the two best courses which almost no-one talks about outside the well traveled golfers who belong to a private club. Many may have heard - but very few have played.

[Ronald Montesano]

John, especially when someone labels it "Craig Burn"!!!!

Seriously, though, my friend, you are correct.  It doesn't receive the attention it should.  I think that a state amateur would elevate it to another echelon of recognition, as would a minor USGA championship.  However, I'm not certain that the membership has any need to court the NYSGA or the USGA.

The other thing about Crag Burn is the flatness of the course.  The only elevation drops at all are at the southeast corner of the property, where the 11th and 13th tees sit.  There is no pitch and roll to the fairways, just slight cants and perhaps a weave or two.

In all honesty, it reminds me of the comments that Jack made after working with Tom at Sebonack.  It was like someone opened the old man's eyes to another way of doing things, after all those years.  Unfortunately for Trent Senior, I don't believe that anyone completely opened those eyes. 

Crag Burn has greens of 8+ on a Doak scale, but the fairways' lack of imagination leaves them at a 6 at best.  The bunkering would probably be an 8 as well, given their rustic, unkempt look.

Just curious. did you play it when the fescue was high or cut down?  It makes a huge difference, a night-and-day difference.  Talk about amber waves of grain!

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

One of the really disappointing aspects with the so-called "expert"panels whether they be Digest, Golf Mag or Golfweek is how a number of courses can be overlooked.

Crag Burn and Olde Kinderhook -- both in The Empire State are good examples of this. One can even add Monroe to the mix as well.

I can name other examples of this type in other parts of the USA. The sad part is how so many courses in the metro NYC area get a fair amount of spillover vote for inclusion in national assessments simply because they happen to be in the same neighborhood of the more noted and deserving courses.

Crag Burn is rather unique because it flies in the face of your typical RTJ course. I played the layout twice, as I previously mentioned, and candidly it is good enough to be a bit higher than so many others that are already placed ahead of it. This is one course correction, no pun intended, that should be changed because the course is certainly deserving of such acclaim.

[JNC Lyon]

Additionally, both courses seem to go unnoticed because of the low profile nature of the clubs.  Crag Burn could easily host a big tournament, as length and space are no problem.  However, I doubt the membership, who is only concerned with golf and not media recognition, would ever support such a thing.

Crag Burn is so refreshing as a modern design for me because of its strategic nature.  Out of the non-par three holes, only 4 , 10 and the second shot on 18 are at all lacking in strategic options.  For an architect so famous for his penal school revival, RTJ shines here as a strategic mastermind.

[Ronald Montesano]

Lyon,

I'll take a stab at taking #4 off the list.  Play it tight and right along the trees and have a shorter iron in (and the ability to fly it stone dead to the hole) albeit at an angle to the narrow, three-tiered green.  Or, play it out safely left and come in straighter but longer.  The way the fairway swales in front, you could bounce one in from about fifty yards out, making the play from the right trees an option.

I agree on #10.  Hit it straight and far, hit it straight and far again, hope you're not putting from back to front or front to back.  What a confusing ridge it is that runs through that green!!

How perfect would 18 be if he had built up the right side of the fairway near the green to create a redan effect.  As it is, shots fall off to the right, leaving a delicate pitch back toward the water.  That green is darned tough to hold, especially downwind as it tends to play.

[JNC Lyon]

Lyon,

I'll take a stab at taking #4 off the list.  Play it tight and right along the trees and have a shorter iron in (and the ability to fly it stone dead to the hole) albeit at an angle to the narrow, three-tiered green.  Or, play it out safely left and come in straighter but longer.  The way the fairway swales in front, you could bounce one in from about fifty yards out, making the play from the right trees an option.

I agree on #10.  Hit it straight and far, hit it straight and far again, hope you're not putting from back to front or front to back.  What a confusing ridge it is that runs through that green!!

How perfect would 18 be if he had built up the right side of the fairway near the green to create a redan effect.  As it is, shots fall off to the right, leaving a delicate pitch back toward the water.  That green is darned tough to hold, especially downwind as it tends to play.

The deal with four is that I see no incentive to drive it down the right.  It might make sense if the hole were 450, giving a significant distance advantage to hugging the inside of the dogleg.  However, as it stands the hole is just under 400 from the tips (although they are lengthening it slightly), so a longer shot in simply means a 7 iron instead of a 9 iron.  Going left in the bunkers doesn't appeal to me either so hitting it straight is the only other option.  I think the hole is different at 350, where the long hitter is tempted to take over the trees to leave a flip to the green.  I do love the saddled, tiered greensite.  I just don't see the hole as being all that strategic. 

I have no problem with the hole being penal as a change of pace after the first three holes, strategic gems all.  I also like the testing second shot to 18 as a good way to end the round.  The golfer has to make two confident swings with the irons coming down the stretch to win a tight match.  This is a theme you see at many Golden Age courses (18 at the Country Club for one, with strategy off the tee and an uncompromising approach into the green).  I agree a redan-style second shot would have opened up many options, but the current second shot is excellent in its own right.

Crag Burn contains plenty of great strategy, but the penal holes, while not the best on the course, balance these options perfectly with the occasional tough test.  RTJ's problem was that he built too many of these penal holes on most courses, ruining their 'change of pace' effect.

[Ronald Montesano]

I just realized that we haven't discussed what I consider the most unique hole on the course: #9.  A 90-degree dogleg left around a water tower/faux grain elevator, with bunkers framing the drive area, but not in the traditional way.  As those who have played it know, the first portion of the fairway runs about 280 straight out, then disappears into the rough bordering the first fairway.  This portion of the drive zone is framed by two cross bunkers on the left and one long waste/dune bunker on the right.  The conservative player takes this route and hit a mid-iron over the cross bunkers to the two-tiered green.  The swashbuckler aims between the left bunkers and the water tower and, when successful, lands in the emerald oasis little more than 90 yards from the flag.  I've played holes with cross bunkers before, simple not positioned relative to tee, fairway and green like these.

[JNC Lyon]

9 is a fantastic golf hole.  It is definitely one of my favorites on the course, and the club continues to improve it by taking out trees and adding a right greenside bunker.  I feel it may not be as unique for RTJ as 3 and 11.  RTJ designed some excellent multi-route holes (Dorado Beach, Las Brisas).  The old silo left over from the horse farm is what gives the hole its unique character.  It makes superior substitute for a stand of trees that might instead guard the inside of the dogleg.

[Ronald Montesano]

You mention the removal of trees and the addition of the bunker.  They are excellent steps.  The one issue that the membership struggles with is the fescue grass (mistakenly referred to as heather by many who play at Crag Burn.)  It is so dense that it is as penal a hazard as water.  Unlike water, it does not play as a lateral hazard, so stroke-and-distance are the typical penalty.

Thinking about #10, the uphill nature of the hole might be one reason it lacks strategic options.  It is difficult to provide assistance when gravity works against you.

What is your opinion of the par three holes (5, 7, 12 and 17)?  How would you rate them against each other and against the RTJ Senior body of work?  How do they add to or detract from the course's worth?  I have my own thought and will share them with you.

[JNC Lyon]

You mention the removal of trees and the addition of the bunker.  They are excellent steps.  The one issue that the membership struggles with is the fescue grass (mistakenly referred to as heather by many who play at Crag Burn.)  It is so dense that it is as penal a hazard as water.  Unlike water, it does not play as a lateral hazard, so stroke-and-distance are the typical penalty.

Thinking about #10, the uphill nature of the hole might be one reason it lacks strategic options.  It is difficult to provide assistance when gravity works against you.

What is your opinion of the par three holes (5, 7, 12 and 17)?  How would you rate them against each other and against the RTJ Senior body of work?  How do they add to or detract from the course's worth?  I have my own thought and will share them with you.

Honestly I am not a huge fan of the par threes at Crag Burn.  5 is solid on its own as a par three with some redan characteristics around the pond.  However, when combined with the other water par threes at 7 and 12, the hole loses some of its interest and originality.  I am not sure why RTJ built three par threes that are so similar.  The green complexes all have great interest on each of the par threes. My problem is that the tee-to-green strategy is basically the same on 5, 7, and 12.  The player faces the options of hitting the green, missing in the water on one side, or hitting into a bunker on the other side.  None of these three holes are bad, but they just don't match up with the rest of the course.

17 is by far my favorite par three on the course.  Trent Jones resisted the opportunity to build a fourth water par three, instead opting to lay out a neat par three from mound to mound.  The greensite here isn't as original as 3 or 11, but it is nonetheless beautifully presented.  Its subdued but solid nature late in the round is something current architects could learn from.

The main quality that makes a set of par threes great is variety.  There must be a variation in the appearance, hazards, length, and strategy of each of the par three holes.  I play a lot of golf at Seven Oaks in Hamilton, NY, another Upstate NY gem.  The par threes here contain a great amount of variety.  The 2nd is an uphill pitch to a nasty green.  The 8th is a downhill mid-to-long iron to a massive two-tiered green.  11 is a fairway wood to a razor thin green.  14 is a mid-iron to a very shallow green, the left half of which is hidden behind a mound.  Therefore, although Crag Burn is far and away the better golf course, the par threes at Seven Oaks are stronger as a group do to this diversity.

The fescue changes the nature of the course quite a bit.  I have played it once with the long grass up and twice with the grass cut back.  Although the native grass is highly penalizing, it is only close to the line of play on a few holes.  9 is hole where it is particularly present, but in this case I think it adds a lot to the decision of playing to the left or right fairway.  Overall, the fescue lends great character to the course, although it is not the key factor in making it great.

[Ronald Montesano]

I agree on the par three holes overall, although I am not as big a fan of 17 as you...perhaps because I have yet to hit the green in well over 20 attempts.  It is easily the most exposed to the elements, although 12 comes close.

12 plays more redan-esque than 5.  I think that 7 is the least attractive and least functional of them all.  It plays slightly uphill and given the watery grave short and right, should have more bail-out on the left for a hole of its length.  There is a new back tee that will now take it to about 200 yards in length...crazy!

I'd like to see 17 play a bit more downhill from tee to green and I'd like to see the reverse Redan in effect on 7.  12 and 5, in my estimation, are nearly perfect par three holes but, as you say, far too similar.  Even in his kinder, gentler phase, RTJ Sr. couldn't resist the complete carry over water!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()