Eastward Ho!, not feel good...

[Mike_Cirba]

Jack Nicklaus has been quoted as saying his long-distance eyesight is so bad that he hasn't seen a ball land in decades.  Even his vaunted almost-hole-in-one to the 16th at ANGC in 1986 was something he felt he hit exactly as he wished, but couldn't see the result as the ball rolled just off the lip and finished four feet away.

By Rich's definition, Jack is unable to get any visual feedback from the course, and thus could never learn a thing about how to strategically attack the holes.

To Jack Nicklaus, every hole is "blind".  

Ironically, we're probably talking about the greatest tactician the game has ever known, given Jack's ability to surgically dissect a course and play to his strengths and "game of the moment".  

That alone tells me it's the result that's important...not the ability to watch it unfold, necessarily.  

[ForkaB]

Mike

I was thinking of Jack as I wrote what I did.  I've never been a Nicklaus fan.

Rich

[George Pazin]

Eastward Ho almost defies description. I had the opportunity to drive by the course last summer & was astonished at the severity of the terrain. It's a real life rollercoaster. I've played some severe terrain in western PA - it's practically all we have - but this blew away anything I've seen. It was so severe that if kept too firm, I'd think the ball would always roll down to the bottom edge of the fairway. Ran's profile seems to indicate they've found the magic meld to utilize the contour without making it silly. I'd think most modern golfers would likely find the course unfair.

[Dick_Sayer]

Eastward Ho should simply be enjoyed for the beauty of its location, and I think I took as many pictures as I hit golf shots the day we played it.  It's simply a wonderful venue to play the game of golf.

Dick

[Paul_Turner]

Rich

I thought you liked Painswick?

[ForkaB]

Paul

Of course I do.  Painswick is the epitome of a course which you can fully enjoy (and play well) even without any specific "knowledge" of all the humps and hollows.  This is all I'm trying to get at on this thread.  I hope that a clever fellow like you hasn't made the cardinal error of believing what Tom Paul fantasizes I was saying rather than what I actually said....

[TEPaul]

Rich Goodale said:

"I think that the key to enjoying courses with a lot of "movement" is developing an eye for recognizing variations in topography, in a generic sense, and then playing accordingly.  This is very different from a requirement to have specific "knowledge" of a course to make it enjoyable or to be able to play it well.  Courses that require such knowledge are deficient, IMHO."

And then he said;

"Tommy Armour was wrong.  Blind holes are always blind.  The worst thing about them is you never get to see the neat bounces that you benefit from (or are punished by) once you "know" how the hole plays."

Paul Turner asked Rich;

"Rich
I thought you liked Painswick?"

Rich said:

"Of course I do.  Painswick is the epitome of a course which you can fully enjoy (and play well) even without any specific "knowledge" of all the humps and hollows.  This is all I'm trying to get at on this thread.  I hope that a clever fellow like you hasn't made the cardinal error of believing what Tom Paul fantasizes I was saying rather than what I actually said....

Rich:

Amazing! It appears to be you who fanatizes about what you actually write when in fact anyone can see what you say one minute compared to the next isn't even close--remarkably contradictory in fact! You clearly have an inability to see the blind bounces and rolls of the humps and hollow of a course like Eastward Ho! (as we all do) and seem to say you don't like that blindness, but then you have some strange ability to see through the ground and visually detect the bounces and rolls of the blind shots at Painswick or else you do like that blindness? That's very clever indeed--also known as contradictory.

Or, alternatively maybe you like and accept blindness on one course and not another course. Or maybe there's more to it than just that!

[ForkaB]

Tom

Are you enrolled in Rich Goodale 101 at your local Community College and trying to write a term paper?  If so, let me know and I'll give you some hlep.

Cheers

Rich

[TEPaul]

Rich said;

"Tom
Are you enrolled in Rich Goodale 101 at your local Community College and trying to write a term paper?  If so, let me know and I'll give you some hlep.
Cheers
Rich"

Rich:

Why would I do that? I finished kindergarten about 55 years ago. I might look up my old Kindergarten spelling teacher, Miss Dull, for you, though. She may be dead by now but I doubt that would matter.

But thanks anyway, I really do love you, ya know?

[ForkaB]

Young Tommy

I'm sure Miss Dull must have taught you that "hlep" is just the present pluperfect of "shlep.

[Michael_Stachowicz]

Eastward Ho's undulations make for great strategy.  You find yourself playing to the areas with level lies and a view of the next shot.  

17 was metioned.  It is a great par 5 that is reachable if you play the terrain correctly from high polateau to high plateau.  But if you stray, you can be in a swale that is 20 feet deep.  It is still fairway, you can still play your ball, but it becomes a much more difficult hole without being penal.

15 is a great par 3 that is 177 yards, here nothing is hidden.  The challenge is having to guts to hang the ball out over Pleasant Bay and let the wind bring it back in.

As I was telling Steve Curry after the round, I feel that this course makes you think from the tee.  There is alot of mystery to unravel as you play this course time after time.  That being said, it is uncomfortable being on tees where you don't know what is going on with the hole.  Courses that get high ratings and good reviews these days seem to be the ones where the enitre hole is there to see in front of you.  You feel like you can launch it because you can watch the ball for its entire flight.

I guess each kind of course has its place just like Jazz and Pop, Guiness and Zima......  

[TEPaul]

MichaelS:

Good post, particularly this;

"There is alot of mystery to unravel as you play this course time after time.  That being said, it is uncomfortable being on tees where you don't know what is going on with the hole.

and this;

"Courses that get high ratings and good reviews these days seem to be the ones where the enitre hole is there to see in front of you."

There's so much said in those two statements, I think. They're generalizations but I think they're accurate ones about what once was generally acceptable, maybe even prized, and what isn't much any longer and what is expected today. I suppose, in a way, it says something about the diversity in golf and architecture but it is depressing to think that a course such as Eastward Ho! would be viewed by any golfer today as even the slightest bit unacceptable due to its topography, areas of blindness, mystery etc!

[Steve Curry]

I like the mystery!  Is that the bottom line, why some "good" golfers don't like courses like Eastward, the mystery?  I suppose the places my swing takes me lends to my appreciation of the gorgeous terrain at Eastward Ho.  I think there needs to be an acceptance of this kind of mystery to help maintain the challenge.  We need to stop forcing the game into a test tube.


Steve

[TEPaul]

Steve:

Probably good players particularly don't like surprises and if you can't see everything you tend to get surprised or at least you're able to say you were.