News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« on: December 27, 2005, 03:11:10 PM »
I had the good fortune to be able to see some excellent golf courses on my last trip. Two of which were Rolling Green (PA) and Alpine (NJ), and I have been struggling to determine which is better architecturally. My initial impression after having played RG wet, and walking Alpine was that I thought Alpine was a little better. However, after more consideration I realized I preferred Alpine, because I liked the greens better. That doesn't necessarily mean that Alpine is a better course architecturally, and I've been trying to figure out the pros and cons of the courses as objectively as possible.
    My sincere thanks again to Wayne for inviting us down to play when KBM had a last minute meeting come up. Wayne was a trooper to come out on a wet day at the last minute, with a sore shoulder? no less.
    Overall Rolling Green has a fitting name as the land moves up and down quite nicely as you go around. The greens don't have as much obvious contour in them as I prefer, but Wayne had a great term he used to describe the way the multiple slopes in the green came together. Unfortunately my memory sucks and I forgot how he phrased it. Hopefully he will see this and chime in. I don't feel I got a great sense of the greens on the day we played due to the wet conditions, but I would imagine they can be a handful if you get your ball above the hole much. More to follow.
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2005, 03:35:58 PM »
The standout holes at Rolling Green to me were #'s 5, 10, and 12-14. I didn't feel there were any holes that I would describe as bad. I didn't care much for the number of uphill approach shots (particularly since I play a low ball), I think there were 7. I can see why Patrick Mucci thinks elevated greens are so tough. One other thing I noticed was that #6 and #16, both par 3's are basically the same hole, with 16 being shorter. I think 6 may have been a little uphill off the tee (lack of memory again). Another strength of the course is that the holes move around the property very well with lots of direction changes and good flow. Of the par 5's I liked #9 the best, and #7 probably next.
    Overall, on the Doak scale I would say RG is in the 6-7 range. A 6 being a very good course, definitely worth a game, but not necessarily worth a special trip to see. It shouldn't disappoint you. A 7 is an excellent course, worth checking out if within 50-100 miles. You can expect sound design; interesting holes; good conditions and a pretty setting; if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.
    Keep in mind that this is based on seeing the course once when it was wet.
     Thanks to Mike Malone for taking time away from work to come out and see us a couple of times in the course of our day.
     I would love to hear what others think of Rolling Green. Alpine next.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2005, 03:54:33 PM by ed_getka »
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2005, 03:41:40 PM »
 I hope Noel sees this. I know he is someone who has played both courses.
AKA Mayday

Jason Mandel

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #3 on: December 27, 2005, 03:45:29 PM »
Ed,

I haven't played RG in a few years but I don't think 6 and 16 are anything alike.  I always thought of six as being severely up hill(am i wrong mayday), a classic blind flynn par 3.  

Hope all is well out there on the left coast.

Jason
You learn more about a man on a golf course than anywhere else

contact info: jasonymandel@gmail.com

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #4 on: December 27, 2005, 03:50:16 PM »
On to Alpine CC. Matt Ward took us over for a tour of the property, but due to the weather we didn't play. We did putt on most of the greens.
   Another great rolling piece of property, although I don't feel Tillinghast moved the holes around on this property as well as Flynn did at RG. The course starts right out putting demands on your game with #1 moving gradually uphill to the green. The green feels like a peninsula set off to the left with bunkers guarding it in front, drop off to the left. Very easy to come off your approach and leave it out to the right. #2 is interesting off the tee, doglegging R around trees, but the approach is to a green that seems odd, although I can't quite put my finger on why. I really liked the third hole which I felt was one of the standouts on the course. Although the efforts to gain length by moving the tees back are offset I feel by having to be near some gargantuan new houses that feel intrusive (they don't affect your shot in any way). The movement of the ground on the way to the third green is interesting and the green is quite testing, combined with a slightly elevated approach makes for one of the most challenging holes on either course. More to follow.
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Andy Scanlon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2005, 03:52:21 PM »
Ed,

I haven't played RG in a few years but I don't think 6 and 16 are anything alike.  I always thought of six as being severely up hill(am i wrong mayday), a classic blind flynn par 3.  

Hope all is well out there on the left coast.

Jason


Jason: While I agree that 6 is uphill (as most approach shot are at RG), I would not call it "severely" uphill nor is it a blind par 3.

Ed: I think RG plays quite differently dry vs. wet, especially around the greens.  If you get the chance to play it in different conditions, I'd be interested to hear if you opinion changes at all.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2005, 03:57:42 PM by Andy Scanlon »
All architects will be a lot more comfortable when the powers that be in golf finally solve the ball problem. If the distance to be gotten with the ball continues to increase, it will be necessary to go to 7,500 and even 8000 yard courses.  
- William Flynn, golf architect, 1927

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2005, 03:58:32 PM »
Jason,
   To me they are alike in the sense that you are teeing off across a valley to a green set over into a hillside, and I don't remember the greens being particularly different. I am not saying they are bad holes, just similar. Life is great out here, although I am super busy now that I am homeschooling my older son, so now I have two jobs, and very little time to golf or even practice.
Mike,
    Knowing the course better than any of us what would you say are the strengths and weaknesses of the course? What would your Doak ranking be?
« Last Edit: December 27, 2005, 04:02:09 PM by ed_getka »
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2005, 03:59:43 PM »
 Well !! #6 and #16 are roughly on the same ridge that runs from the property line just left of #6 to the right side of #16 green. The ridge then falls dramatically off to the creek below.

    Part of the genius of Flynn is that only ONE of the many uphill holes has a green  that is blind from the landing area --#15. This is incredible to me based on the property.

   They both have an opening on the left(#16) or left/center(#6). They both have deep bunkers front /right and a bunker or more on the left that are shallower. I'm trying to be helpful here (that is hard for me ;D )

   I have never thought of them as similar, but am interested in Ed's take on the course.

   BTW Ed's    I think Doak himself gave it a 7 and I am fine with that.

    I don't know why I think your name should be "Gene", maybe you should think about changing it for my convenience.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2005, 04:04:39 PM by mayday_malone »
AKA Mayday

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2005, 04:08:04 PM »
Interesting about #6 and 16 being on the same ridge, I didn't realize that. Where is #14 in relation to that ridge?
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #9 on: December 27, 2005, 04:09:08 PM »
Ed,

Thanks for starting this thread, and I apologize in advance for any percieved thread-jacking that my occur on my part! ;D

I will be in the area of Rolling Green CC on Friday and Saturday of this week. I am hoping to get together with any of you folks in that area on Friday. I can call the super at RG at any point, but I will hold off until someone in that area can advise on what/when/where.

There used to be a member from RGCc, an infrequent poster on this site, who's in-laws are members at my course. I'm thinking the last name was French....anyone recall?

Ed, based on your comments I will try to get out on RGCC and check your astute architectural observations!

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #10 on: December 27, 2005, 04:12:14 PM »
Mike,
  I don't get your comment about #15 being the only blind approach. Is my memory that bad ??? What about #1, 4,8,11, 12, 18?
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2005, 04:15:04 PM »
Grandpa Joe,
     I don't know about the astute part, unless that was your clever way to use the first syllable. ;) I look forward to hearing what you think.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2005, 04:16:06 PM by ed_getka »
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #12 on: December 27, 2005, 04:17:52 PM »
Mike,
  I'm glad you clarified the Gene thing, because I was getting lost there for a minute. :)
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Andy Scanlon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #13 on: December 27, 2005, 04:21:19 PM »
Mike,
  I don't get your comment about #15 being the only blind approach. Is my memory that bad ??? What about #1, 4,8,11, 12, 18?


Ed:  I agree that 4 and 12 are pretty much blind approaches. I don't think 1 and 11 are blind (unless you drive the ball to the base of the hill on which 11 green sits).  8 and 18 can be blind depending on from where you hit your approach.
All architects will be a lot more comfortable when the powers that be in golf finally solve the ball problem. If the distance to be gotten with the ball continues to increase, it will be necessary to go to 7,500 and even 8000 yard courses.  
- William Flynn, golf architect, 1927

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #14 on: December 27, 2005, 04:32:00 PM »
 Ed,

    I think it is the best piece of land I have ever seen for a parkland golf course.


     And I  have been to Pine Valley and Merion . Often I have criticized highly rated courses because they have lacked the topographical interest of RG but have significantly higher rankings. This is my main bias because I don't think it is ! (denial)

    The routing is outstanding. The aerial looks like a football.  So, the nines are intertwined with a few  holes along the outside .He was able to use the natural slopes exquisitely. I walk it alot and don't tire . More importantly Flynn seems to lay the fairways along the sides of hills. This creates interesting driving strategy and constant challenging stances for approach shots.

    The flow of the course fascinates me . It builds to the #8 through #15 tough section. I think the finish is a blast ; you can score ,but if you NEED  to score you can really screwup.


    The greens seem perfectly sloped for the elevation. I felt that Bethpage Black suffered in my view because of the interest level of the elevated greens compared to RG.

        I guess one could say there are too many elevated greens if they wanted to find a weakness. You said 7 were elevated ; I count 12+/-.

    When one studies the aerial photo CD that Dave Staebler so painstakingly put together , you see the potential that still exists for the course.

   It is called Rolling Green because you could SEE the rolling terrain from most sections of the course. As we return these views and playability angles more people will put the course where it belongs----firmly in that classic 25-50 . I IM'ed Tom Doak to say if he saw what we have done so far with the trees he might want to rethink that 7.

AKA Mayday

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #15 on: December 27, 2005, 04:35:42 PM »
An interesting side note on Alpine was that a number of GCA'ers discouraged me from seeing it, saying there were better courses to check out. I am not always trying to see the "best" courses when I travel. I was much more interested in seeing as many GCA guys as I could with Fisher's Island being the focal point of the trip. As it was I had a chance to see Matt Ward, Mike Sweeney, Gene Greco, Wayne Morrison, Mike Malone, and Donnie Beck in spite of some pretty inclement weather. Due to schedule conflicts I missed Noel Freeman, Geoffrey Childs, John Lovito, Patrick Mucci, Neil Regan,and Kelly Blake Moran.
    Overall, I felt like the greens at Alpine were more interesting than RG's, but that could just be personal bias as I seem to like greens that have apparent contour more. #10 the controversial hole at Alpine, I thought was very cool and definitely gets quirk points in my book with that UPHILL drive that is right up there with #1 at Painswick over in England.
   My initial impression, as I mentioned, was that I preferred Alpine over RG. However, I gave them both 6's initially, so then I began to try and figure out why I liked one over the other if I rated them the same. Now looking back through my memory 2-1/2 months later, I seem to clearly see a couple more standout holes at RG, and a few more non-descript holes at Alpine that I have trouble remembering.
   I look forward to see both courses again in the future and to see how my opinion changes.
    BTW, at Alpine is it #12 that has had the green redone? And is it #6 or #11 that has the interesting contour in the front left? I'm thinking #11.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2005, 04:43:53 PM by ed_getka »
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2005, 04:43:15 PM »
Mike,
   Thanks for the reply. The aerial you refer to, is that when the course originally opened? I would love to see the difference in trees.
   Another thing that was interesting on my trip was to see courses that have been described as having too many trees and expecting to feel claustrophobic off the tee. That wasn't the case at all IMO. There could certainly be more trees cut back on some of the courses I saw, but it wasn't as bad as I expected.
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2005, 04:45:26 PM »
 I guess I should say more about the "blindness" issue. Because  the greens on  #1-#4-#6-#8-#9- #11-#12 (after a few more trees go)-#14 can be seen from the TEE I don't see them as blind. #12 is rightly blind for a shot in the wrong spot off the tee. It is possible to kill your drive on #11 and #8 and be blind but only Andy and other big hitters have that chance.

  #15 is the only hole where the teeshot does not provide you a glimpse of your NEXT shot to the green.

    To avoid nitpicking I should say that for the amount of elevation change one is afforded ample views of the greens to plot your strategy.
AKA Mayday

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2005, 04:46:33 PM »
Andy,
   Welcome to the site, do you play out of RG? Maybe some of these approaches just seem uphill to me due to my low trajectory ball flight. :)
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2005, 04:48:03 PM »
 Ed,

      We are caught in that "when did you stop beating your wife" syndrome about trees.
AKA Mayday

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #20 on: December 27, 2005, 04:55:42 PM »
 The CD is a compilation of photos from 1926-- the year of our opening, two from the 30's, 1960 , 1975, 1992 and 2000. It also includes the original design by hole and the master plan drawing of each hole.

     For instance, Dave has put on ONE page the original plan for the hole , the chronology of photos from 1926 to 2000, and the master plan. This is a wonderful service to the club.

   He has shown several holes together from 1926. He has done overlays of old fairway widths compared to the present.

    His was a labor of love which I constantly appreciate.
AKA Mayday

redanman

Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #21 on: December 27, 2005, 05:13:49 PM »
I've played both a few times.

No way I'm getting into this one on here.  I'll talk to you, Ed.

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #22 on: December 27, 2005, 05:15:57 PM »
 Ed,

   You asked about the ridge for #14. I guess I would say #14 green sits at the beginning of the rise that constitutes quite a bit of the course, ending at the clubhouse. The tee for #14 sits down the hill a little from the back of #16.

   One gets a chance to walk our wonderful bridge from the #14 tee over the valley ending at the forward tee some ninety yards in length.
AKA Mayday

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #23 on: December 27, 2005, 05:22:40 PM »
 redanman,
   
   I'm surprised at you. This is a forum for frank discussion.. I need to know what you think! There may be some things that have changed since your last visit and I don't know what they are until you speak up.

  I do know that taking trees out of the LEFT side of #15 does not work and taking them out of the right achieves what you want and fits the strategy of the hole.
AKA Mayday

wsmorrison

Re:Rolling Green GC vs Alpine CC A tough call
« Reply #24 on: December 27, 2005, 06:13:39 PM »
Ed,

I'm glad I was able to scramble together something for you to do on a rainy day in Philadelphia.  It was a pleasure to get together with you and play golf, sore shoulder and all.  It isn't getting any better so I think I better have some surgery.

I cannot compare Alpine and Rolling Green since the only time I was at Alpine was at a GCA gathering and there was a foot of snow on the ground.  Though friends whose opinions I greatly respect speak very highly of the golf course.

I agree so rarely with Mike Malone, but in this case I think he's right (random walk theory proved!) about the quality of topographic movement at Rolling Green.  It is about as good as I've ever seen.  Mark Studer, whose been around a lot of great golf courses including his own, thinks it is on a level at or near Augusta (that's National not CC).  That is high praise indeed.

The term I use (I may have stolen it from Ron Forse) to describe Flynn greens is his use of complexities of slope rather than internal contours.  Like a number of classic era architects, Flynn would use external mounding and slopes incorporating their influence in the greens.  Flynn's use of drawn out lines was beneficial to maintenance expense over time and also makes it so the greens blend into the surroundings very well.  But as far as internal contours, Flynn did it very subtly and that adds to the difficulty reading putts.

The number of uphill approaches are actually more than you recall and include 4!!,6,8!!!,9!!!,10,11!!,12!,14,15,17 and 18!.  If there is an uphill nature to 16, it is very slight, certainly less than ten feet.

I like your collection of standout holes but would certainly add 2 for its shot demand off the tee and approach to a beautifully saddled green, 8 for its really interesting tee shot and uphill approach to a very difficult green and also 15 as it is a hole combining strategic demands and pleasing to the eye.  So that is 8 standout holes and 10 real solid ones. I'd say a Doak 7 is about right as it stands today.  With better conditioning (it has been dreadful for 5 or so years) which I expect with the new superintendent and a better tree program (which should be implemented beginning this winter) especially on 7 (and the Morr Paul bunker) and 18 as a better par 4 than a one-dimensional par 5 then it could be an easy Doak 8.

As far as routing, it like all Flynn courses is superb.  It makes great use of the land and the flow of holes and the variety and pace of play is exceptional.

The greens were very wet when we played and that really takes its toll on the strength of the golf course.  Since you prefer internal contours on greens a la Macdonald, Raynor, Tillinghast, etc. the Flynn greens would not appeal to your eye as much as you would like but they remain very challenging to read and thus to score on.  If you remember, the 1st green is very challenging  with its complexities of slope.  One of the hardest putts you'll find anywhere is back left to front right.  I hope you'll come back and see the course in better conditions and continue seeing more Flynn in the area.

As for 6 and 16, they differ in length by about 50 yards from the back tees.  Yes, they do both cross a ravine but 6 is slightly uphill and 16 fairly level from the back.  It is slightly uphill from the members tee.   They both have a severe falloff to the right.  The 6th has multiple bunkers on the right and a single on the left.  The 16th has multiple bunkers on the left and a single one on the right.  The 16th green has been butchered by Shearon and is out of character with the remaining greens on the course.  The 6th green is a lot deeper than it appears on the tee and back pins are 1-2 clubs longer than middle pins.  There should be a tongue of fairway between the bunkers as in Flynn's drawing.  This would make the green seem closer and also allow short spinning approaches to roll a distance down the hill.

As for blind approaches, the only completely blind approach is 15 but you can only see the bottom of front pins on 4,5,8 and 11.  Other greens with uphill approaches each have partially hidden areas.  I like this feature, which is one reason why I love Rolling Green (the course) and also why I can understand why some might not.  To each his/her own.

It is a very challenging course and remains one of the toughest courses in the district.  In 1926 it had a 614 yard uphill par 5 (9) followed by a 245 yard uphill par 3 (10).  These holes remain testers even today.  I'd like to see a 260 tee put in on 10 as in one of the Flynn drawings.

Best regards, Ed.  Hope to see you sometime in 2006!
« Last Edit: December 27, 2005, 06:25:17 PM by Wayne Morrison »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back