[mike_malone]

 The variety of shots from tee to green and on the greens makes for interesting architecture to  me. Newport was full of them. Both #9 and #18  were outstanding with uphill approaches to very different greens. The one dimensionality of WFW was dull by comparison.

   Watch next week when Prairie Dunes will be the same kind of fun.

   

[Patrick_Mucci]

The variety of shots from tee to green and on the greens makes for interesting architecture to  me.

Are you basing your opinion on what you've seen on TV or from playing both golf courses a number of times ?[/color]

Newport was full of them. Both #9 and #18  were outstanding with uphill approaches to very different greens.

The one dimensionality of WFW was dull by comparison.
[size=4x]

YOU MUST BE KIDDING ![/size]

If you think WFW is a one dimensional golf course, architecturally, or from the perspective of playability, you OFF by a mile.

WFW has some of the best green complexes to be seen anywhere.

What leads you to classify the golf course as one dimensional or dull ?



Watch next week when Prairie Dunes will be the same kind of fun.
   

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mayday,
I can see how you've been hanging-out with Charlie Logan again, stealing sips from his paper cup.....

I agree with Patrick. the strategy of Winged Foot is world class and if you don't see any vairety in any of the holes, well, your making statements that will be ripped apart!

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

We get it.  You don't like Winged Foot.  Why do you insist on bringing this up with some growing regularity?  While my one visit to the West Course and another to the East (a delightful day with a good man and outstanding club historian) leaves me with less than an expert understanding, I find some flaws in the repetiveness of some featues but feel it is a great golf course and certainly among the top 30-50 courses I've ever been to.  Your one visit is hardly enough to pronounce your decision well-determined.

Have you ever been to Newport CC?  I spent most of a day walking around and studying the golf course.  It has a wonderful golf course and one of the coolest clubhouses in the world.  Wow does that clubhouse sitting on the hill impress.  And yes, the course is also very impressive.  My host's in-laws have been at the club forever and he was able to explain a lot of the history in the clubhouse and on the grounds.  Having the superintendent tour the course with us was a great help as well as were my conversations with Ron Forse, the consulting architect.  NCC, without irrigation and a very low maintenance budget, presents itself firm and fast (when nature allows) and offers a taste of seaside golf that cannot be presented at WFW.

The architecture at NCC allows a variety of approach options, there are a variety of colors and textures not found at WFW as at most inland courses and the fairways have more contouring (as well as some ridges left behind by a Revolutionary War encampent).  You probably like these sorts if features more than the blander coloration and less textured inland WFW with its more severe greens and greenside bunkering.  There is some merit to this notion.  But we are left wondering why you feel that way.  Why don't you go into some detail so we know what you're thinking rather than what you are dumping on?

NCC and WFW are two very different courses.  I do not see how a simplistic statement contrasting the two is of much value, especially since you've seen WFW once and to my knowledge have seen NCC only on TV.  Do you think your comment really carries a lot of weight?  There's no way you can judge green contours from watching on TV.  What do you think RGGC greens would look like?  Certainly not as good as they are.

You don't like Merion much either, so I guess putting Winged Foot West in the same category can't be all that bad.  You do open yourself up to some criticism, but that never bothered you before.  I just wish you'd make some specific points rather than overarching generalizations.

[Tim Pitner]

I haven't played either course, but I will say that, on television, I enjoyed Newport much more than Winged Foot.  Obviously, television is an imperfect way to judge a golf course, but its limitations should apply equally to the two courses.  

[Brad Swanson]

Ditto what Tim said.   To the unwashed masses (myself included) which have played neither course, Newport CC held my architectural interest more.  I enjoyed seeing the greens having room to bump the ball in and the variety of shots that they accepted, vs the repetitive pushed up citadel greens.  
<ASBESTOS SUIT ON>

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick,

Dare I say that you have not played the Winged Foot course that we saw on TV. Therefore, your comments are useless on this thread. Some of the players that played that course during the open expressed that there was no strategy other than to drive it in the narrow fairway. Contrast that with the width of the fairways and the undulations in them that we saw at Newport, and it is clear that Newport was architecturally more interesting.
 

[mike_malone]

 I knew I would hear that tired argument about having played the course. Pat, get some new material.

   Let's take the two back to back par threes on the front nine. Oh! I'm sorry WFW doesn't have such an interesting routing twist. Well, anyway the short uphill 140 ish one is blind for the landing. This is a good use of blindness because you introduce uncertainty for a shorter iron shot. It can make an occasional short hole play more fun. Then there is a downhill 190 ish par three where you now see the entire green. The contrast is alluring.


    While I agree that features aren't as sharp on TV one can see HOW THE COURSE PLAYS!.There were many more interesting putts shown. The speed seemed to allow boldness but if you screwed up like Inster did you got embarrassed. The shots to and around the greens were varied.


     The bunker placement and variety was significantly more interesting than WFW. My U.S. Open program showed grass faces on WFW bunkers in some earlier pictures. Wouldn't there be more variety in shots from these bunkers than the steep white faces they have now? It adds to the similarity of the course. Just one more overly protected green !

   I thought this was a discussion board. I just have a problem seeing WFW as "great". When I compare it tee to green to other courses that are very good it falls short. Yale leaves it in the dust with a vast array of shots from intriguing tees to huge multifaceted greens.



    I mean first you hit the tee ball. What's going on that grabs your attention ? Then you are often confronted with a recovery shot or one from an unfavorable side of the fairway. How much is going through your mind? Then around the green or on it you face different challenges. What do I do now?

   Interesting architecture is all about keeping me from being bored with similar challenges throughout the round. The challenges at WFW seem few and quite repetitive compared to other stellar courses.

     I can't understand why you guys get so upset about criticism of WFW 's architecture .


   

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Garland,
Your right. Patrick probably hasn't played the graduated rough version of Winged Foot. But I do know that he has played the same Poa-infested Winged Foot that I have experienced, which in all sincerity, wasn't nearly as manicured, and much tougher when just off of the fairway. We're talking anywhere from four to five to six inch roughs just off of the fairway. It wasn't graudated either. it was straight fairway and then a little taller grass and then R-O-U-G-H.....

This is the problem when people DON'T know the course, even though they look at it on TV and know-it-all.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I knew I would hear that tired argument about having played the course.

Now it sounds as if you've been hitting on Charlie Logan's crack cocaine.

GET OFF OF THE DRUGS!!!! IT'S KILLING ME!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Garland, You are right about one thing though, Much of the architecture has been dumbed down by narrowed fairways which have been narrowed further and further over the years. I was looking at an image of Winged Foot from the Open in the 80's to the one tha tthey just finished having there and I was literally puzzled how narrow they could get the golf course. There is little doubt hte architecture of Winged foot has been challenged--by the elimination of many different lines to the hole in an effort to negotiate those superb greens.

However, to think that Winged Foot is less interesting because of a US MEN'S OPEN, compared to a WOMEN'S US OPEN, well, you miss the point completely of what A MEN'S US OPEN set-up is all about.

I don't like it anymore then you do, but the fact is that unless the governing body does something about it, as well as the manufacturers intent on one thing, showing whose got the biggest balls, well these historic courses will have to revert to a tricked-up set-up, thus making the courses harder in an effort to prevent people from--GASP!--making par.

This is what has become of our grand Sport.

[Garland Bayley]

Tommy,

It wasn't the graduated rough that I was referring to. It was the significantly narrowed fairways. I realize perhaps that my comment was a bit pithy, but that is why I referred to the width at Newport.

Remember, the US Open is that special event where they protect the rough with bunkers in case you had any idea you might want to hit it in the rough.

[mike_malone]

 Tommy,
    We might as well close down gca.com if only those who have played all of these courses can comment on comparative architectural merits. Even if one HAS played a course you hear the argument that you need to do it more times to have a respected opinion. While I'm not put off by that nonresponsive kind of argument I think many are discouraged and don't post.

    Can you tell me what the elevation change is on the front nine at WFW ?  I would find that information valuable. Is  the relative lack of elevation change the reason for the building up of the greens?  It looks very similar from hole to hole to me and many others.

  The attempt to make it hard is what I feel hurts the architecture because to make practically every shot hard is to diminish the luck factor and the multiple choices that make golf fun.


   

 

 

[Ted Kramer]

I've only seen both on tv.
If I had to choose one to play based on what I've seen it would be Newport CC without question. NCC looked pretty close to, and I know that tv can't tell the whole story, my vision of perfection . . .

That golf course sitting hard by the ocean looked to me like as a good a links course as could possibly exist here in the States. I'm certainly not well travelled when it comes to the finest golf courses in the country, but as of this weekend NCC is VERY high on my list of "would love to play" . . .much higher than WF.

-Ted

[Geoffrey Childs]

Newport is among the few places that I REALLY want to visit. It looks to be superb.

That said, Winged Foot is also fantastic.  Trying to compare how the women play vs. the elite men and the required course conditions and setup is absurd.  The women play a game we can relate to while the men simply do not.

What I find fascinating is that AW Tillinghast is responsible for both of these courses.  We had a "discussion" of the styles (multiple to my eye and only two to Tom MacWood) of AW Tillinghast and one can see in spades the differences in greens (their height above the fairway (WF) or extensions of the fairway - Newport, QR), their contouring and especially the use of bunkering both greenside and cross bunkers that differ between the two courses.  

[Garland Bayley]

I knew I would hear that tired argument about having played the course. Pat, get some new material.
...

It is a tired argument, unless backed up by an insightful analysis.

Why doesn't Patrick sort the holes into short, medium, long, par 3, 4, 5 and give a comparative stategic analysis of apples to apples.

What I've read from Tom Paul on this site would seem to indicate that Patrick is incapable of such an insightful analysis. Come on Patrick, prove Tom wrong.

[Ted Kramer]

Newport is among the few places that I REALLY want to visit. It looks to be superb.

That said, Winged Foot is also fantastic.  Trying to compare how the women play vs. the elite men and the required course conditions and setup is absurd.  The women play a game we can relate to while the men simply do not.

What I find fascinating is that AW Tillinghast is responsible for both of these courses.  We had a "discussion" of the styles (multiple to my eye and only two to Tom MacWood) of AW Tillinghast and one can see in spades the differences in greens (their height above the fairway (WF) or extensions of the fairway - Newport, QR), their contouring and especially the use of bunkering both greenside and cross bunkers that differ between the two courses.  

Great point about AWT's styles. It is was his ability to "do it" in different ways makes him my #1 architect of all time. Having played Ridgewood and Bethpage Black, it is amazing to imagine that the same man is responsible for Newport.

And your point about the difference in the necessary course set-up between the men and women is also very fair. My guess is that all things being equal I would tend to prefer the courses set up for the women as that USGA Men's US Open routine just isn't my thing.

-Ted

[Brad Swanson]

Wait, maybe my opinion carries a little more weight than the average GCA TV viewer because I watched them both in glorious 55" HD. .  

Opinions are like arseholes...

Cheers,
Brad

[wsmorrison]

If the second of back to back par 3s (played in the tournament as the 5th, normally played as the 14th) is downhill, it is negligible.  However, I think the green may even be a little above the tee though completely visible.

Anybody is free to comment on the architectural merits of different courses, despite a lack of on site experience.  But to make comparisons with little or no experience has to be a bit ridiculous if it is to be taken at all seriously.  While you certainly have the right to do so, imagine what some experts must be thinking about such an ill-informed exercise.

The look of Newport is far different than Winged Foot and most on here would agree it is superior.  The playability of the two courses are different as well due to architecture, soil structures and maintenance practices.  Again, the appeal of Newport may supercede that of Winged Foot by many on this site.  

I can see why you'd like the 9th and 18th at Newport as they are similar to holes you have on your home course.  However, there is no doubt that both are great courses.  One appeals to you more than the other and that is fine.  More architectural interest?  That is subjective.  Until you support your statement with reasons, and the lack of elevation change is not enough, then I think your comments are not defendable.  There are a lot of flat holes at Newport.  I can think of a dozen great courses on flat land.  Some of my favorites by Flynn are/were on very flat land.  Flynn's bunkering and mounding at Boca Raton South may be my  favorite example of all in creating interest on flat land.

Compare the greens at Winged Foot West with those at Newport.  You cannot because you don't have first hand knowledge.  You may be able to make subjective generalizations but they are of little value in and of themselves unless they initiate discussions by those with a deeper and broader understanding of the courses in question.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Dare I say that you have not played the Winged Foot course that we saw on TV.

You dared wrong.
And, with over 50 years of experience playing WFW under a wide variety of conditions and setups, I think I'm more than qualified to comment on the golf course.

Therefore, your comments are useless on this thread.

No, my comments are right on target, however you have a point with respect to Mayday Malone's comments being useless.

Some of the players that played that course during the open expressed that there was no strategy other than to drive it in the narrow fairway.

Can you identify the players who expressed that view ?

What did they say about the greens ?

In over 50 years of experience at WFW I NEVER heard anyone classify the greens as dull or uninteresting.

How many times have you played the golf course ?

Contrast that with the width of the fairways and the undulations in them that we saw at Newport, and it is clear that Newport was architecturally more interesting.

WFW's fairways undulate as much or more than the fairways at Newport.

It's obvious that you don't know what you're tallking about.

Have you ever played Newport ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

 I knew I would hear that tired argument about having played the course. Pat, get some new material.

I forgot, you're the architectural guru on courses you've never played.  Certainly, an opinion drawn from a flawed, incomplete or non-existant data base must be taken for what it is....... worthless.

Let's take the two back to back par threes on the front nine. Oh! I'm sorry WFW doesn't have such an interesting routing twist.

Since when does the sequence of the holes determine the architectural merit of the golf course ?

Does Merion have that feature ?  Shinnecock ? TOC ?

Well, anyway the short uphill 140 ish one is blind for the landing.

It is not 140 yards and it's not blind.
Perhaps you missed the elevated rear tee.

This is a good use of blindness because you introduce uncertainty for a shorter iron shot. It can make an occasional short hole play more fun. Then there is a downhill 190 ish par three where you now see the entire green. The contrast is alluring.

Are you sure that you can see the very front of the green on the second par 3 from the tee ?

And which tee, the one immediately by the clubhouse or the one far down below and in back of that tee ?

While I agree that features aren't as sharp on TV one can see HOW THE COURSE PLAYS!.There were many more interesting putts shown.

That has to do with hole location and random luck.

The speed seemed to allow boldness but if you screwed up like Inster did you got embarrassed. The shots to and around the greens were varied.

Like the 6th at WFW ?

The bunker placement and variety was significantly more interesting than WFW.

Would you care to go over a hole by hole analysis so that you can identify where bunker plancemen and variety was significantly more interesting than at WFW ?

My U.S. Open program showed grass faces on WFW bunkers in some earlier pictures.

I guess we'll have to start to judge courses by their programs and/or club books

Wouldn't there be more variety in shots from these bunkers than the steep white faces they have now?

Like at Merion ?

It adds to the similarity of the course. Just one more overly protected green !

You need to see and play the courses before making general statements about them.

I love Newport, I think it's a wonderful, sporty golf course.
Unfortunately, Mother Nature didn't do the tournament any favors.

But, for you to say that WFW is dull or uninteresting means that you can't see the architecture through the rough.

I thought this was a discussion board.

It is.
But, when you make idiotic pronouncements that you want us to accept as The Gospel, I have to take exception to them and expose them for what they are......  Fraudulent.
They're statements with little or no basis in fact.

I just have a problem seeing WFW as "great". When I compare it tee to green to other courses that are very good it falls short.

Have these other courses you reference been especially prepared for a U.S. Open ?

If they were, would your comparison be altered ?

Yale leaves it in the dust with a vast array of shots from intriguing tees to huge multifaceted greens.

How are the tees at Yale intriquing ?

How would you describe the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th greens at Yale ?  Multifaceted ?

How about # 16 and # 18 ?   Multifaceted ?

I mean first you hit the tee ball. What's going on that grabs your attention ? Then you are often confronted with a recovery shot or one from an unfavorable side of the fairway. How much is going through your mind? Then around the green or on it you face different challenges. What do I do now?

Then you don't understand WFW and can only view the golf course and the architecture from a U.S. Open perspective.

Interesting architecture is all about keeping me from being bored with similar challenges throughout the round. The challenges at WFW seem few and quite repetitive compared to other stellar courses.

Which courses ?

And, which courses that are presented for the U.S. Open ?

How many times have you played WFW ?

How would you compare your approach shot on holes # 1, # 2, # 3, # 4, # 5, # 6, # 7 and # 8 ?

How would you compare the approach shots at:
# 10, # 11, # 12, # 13, # 14, # 15, # 16, # 17 and # 18 ?

If you thin, they're similar, you just don't get it.

I can't understand why you guys get so upset about criticism of WFW 's architecture .

It's simple, because the criticism is flawed and invalid.
Yet, you hold your views out as if they are irrefutable, despite the fact that you're mostly unfamiliar with the golf course, other than reading your program and watching selected and limited camera angles on TV.

Try playing a course a few times under a variety of conditions, and then offer your personal views.  It carries more weight.


   

[Garland Bayley]

...
How many times have you played the golf course ?
...
Have you ever played Newport ?
...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

I can understand your wanting to deflect the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.  
It must be embarrassing to you.
You've never seen either course in person, yet, like Mayday, you're ready to offer your expert opinion, or counter those of someone with extensive experience with both golf courses.
That's reckless idiocy.

You have no context in which to evaluate the discussion, so rather than admit you don't know the first thing about either course, you attempt to deflect the core issues relevant to the discussion in order to hide your ignorance.

Wayne,

Mayday isn't discussing, he's telling you that he's made a pronoucement about the architectural merits of two golf courses based on limited TV exposure and a U.S. Open program, and that that pronouncement must be accepted as The Gospel, even if it isn't.

WFW and Newport are two wonderful golf courses.

# 5 at Newport may be one of the most strategic holes in all of golf.  I love everything about Newport except too much rain.

But, to declare that WFW is dull and uninteresting is going a bit off the deep end, a skill that Mayday seems to have perfected and continues to specialize in.

Tommy Naccarato,

If one can't understand the differentiation in course "set-ups" for a Men's and Women's U.S. Open, and they view the respective presentations as being universally applicable, well, they're beyond your help, but, I do appreciate your efforts.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tommy,
    We might as well close down gca.com if only those who have played all of these courses can comment on comparative architectural merits. Even if one HAS played a course you hear the argument that you need to do it more times to have a respected opinion. While I'm not put off by that nonresponsive kind of argument I think many are discouraged and don't post.[\quote]

Mike,
to make a thoughtful analysis, you have to play the course. There is just no other way around it. especially a course like Winged Foot, where the complexities are part of the strategy. POINT IN EXAMPLE: Can you tell me how the green breaks on any of the holes and how that relates to the strategy from the fairway at Winged Foot?

There is no way on God's Green Earth you will be able to answer it. You can appreciate both of these courses for their history, their uniqueness, even their clubhouses but unless you play them or walk them and study them, a thoughtful analysis is futile.

I know this because I have played at Winged Foot twice. I've been given the $100.00, not $.10 tour with one of it's most passionate, if not most knowledgable members. If it wasn't for that tour, a lot of the great architecture would have passed me by like a ship in the night. the very same ship that your on that has never reached harbor!

   

Can you tell me what the elevation change is on the front nine at WFW ?  I would find that information valuable. Is  the relative lack of elevation change the reason for the building up of the greens?  It looks very similar from hole to hole to me and many others.

Mike, the lowest point of elevation I believe is towards the Northwest portion of the property (for the West Course) At one time it used to flood out there towards the 4th green and I'm told that the club with Tillinghast, sacrificed a very interesting green there because of it.  This is close to the area of where the creek winds it way around a few of the golf holes., as well as some interesting rolling movement on -- the most dramatic on the course--occurs.

The build-up fo the greens occure as this was the way to make the greens interesting, to be able to give them their twist and turns. I've said this before, and some don't really care to realize this, but with Winged Foot, the greens are like a non-elevated stage or set of a theater. You walk into the approach and it all sort of starts to make sense, you get to the back of the green and you see this rather tall fall-off, but if you walk off of the back and look at the base of the complex itself, it's like being backstage of a theater where you see all of the stuff that holds the set together. In this case, you can see how the green shifts and slopes it's balance to get the breaks in the green and how it all relates to the approach from the fairway.

(I can only hope this makes sense.)

While the holes may not be memorable to you, they would be if you were fortunate to experience the challenges of the course. I myself will freely admit I have so much more to learn from Winged Foot. It's a wonderful school of golf architecture. I also suggest that if you should ever enroll into it's architecture, then do take note to enroll in Professor Regan's class. It is mind-altering.

 

The attempt to make it hard is what I feel hurts the architecture because to make practically every shot hard is to diminish the luck factor and the multiple choices that make golf fun.

Once again, this is the problem with trying to judge the course from a cathode ray tube or in some cases LCD screen. How can you judge this if you haven't even been on the property to see the scale?

Winged Foot is fun, but you will get you rear-end kicked good and hard from it, especially if the course itslef reads Golf Club Atlas and sees how you dissed it!

However, if you don't have the tools to go with it there is the East Course which is in my thoughts, even more enjoyable because it maintains all of the factors you have listed above and more. While I have only played a few holes on the East Course many of the holes in the pitch dark--which was a kick by the way!--I can say in all due honesty that I was thrilled to really see just how good the architecture was there too also.

[mike_malone]

Pat,

  I wish you would shed more light than heat.I might answer a question or two but your barage is just too much like work.

   Tommy,

       I'm glad you loved WFW. But, I missed the answer to the amount of elevation change. You may see those complexes as special. They look much like most courses I have seen. Strategy from the fairway? There is so much trouble it only makes sense to just try to get it somewhere on the green. I see this fear factor as a weakness. If the average golfer can't BELIEVE he can hit some shot of his choosing than that is less interesting architecture as far as I am concerned.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()