Hudson National...Very Good Fazio

« **on:** September 06, 2003, 09:07:31 PM »

Okay Everyone,

I am going to go out on a limb and report to all that after a 2 day Invitational, I am very favorably impressed with Tom Fazio's Hudson National Course in Croton-on-Hudson. It is a players course with very few weaknesses and considerable strength. The course is beautifully maintained (with some issues), posesses' lightening fast greens and very good strategic considerations.

While typical Faz in many spots multiple tee boxes, stupid fingered bunkers, and artifically narrowed fairways, there are no typically redundant holes and the routing makes maximum effective use of the hilly and beautifully scenic terrain. It is a "player's" course that tests nearly every facet of one's game. The greens are fast, firm and considerably canted with subtle undulation but little, if any, of the signs of having been artificially built-up and envisioned.

The fingered bunkers are absolutely dumb and lead to many grossly unfair lies and penalties. That is undeniably my biggest gripe. One can miss a shot by a small margin, land in a greenside bunker and be forced to play backwards for no apparent reason (other than, as told to me, to preserve Fazio's aesthetic). The membership (led by some fairly decent players) realizes this and is working hard to pressure Fazio to relent and cut the digits out.

The 18 is marked by one of the tougher first and last holes I've seen around the Northeast. Gtg....more later.

PS.....For The Beaver...I played with your friend "Eddie Haskell" and we almost won!

« **Reply #1 on:** September 06, 2003, 09:22:03 PM »

While not my favorite course, I believe Fazio did a good job on a very tough piece of property (are there any good parcels left on either coast?).

Not quite mountain terrain, but steep hillside + narrow valley would be a good description, I think. Imagine trying to build Baltusrol 50% on the side of Baltusrol Mountain and 50% on 1/3 the property of the Upper Course.

Like Baltusrol, the space constraints for the range at Hudson National are minimized by having players hit uphill. It works pretty well IMO.

« **Reply #2 on:** September 07, 2003, 06:43:17 AM »

Eddie Haskel must have been pretty desperate to play with the slaps, the world just gets smaller and smaller. Question for Eddie, who is a member of 2 fine courses, how can you play HN when you could be at XXXX?

« **Reply #3 on:** September 07, 2003, 08:30:23 AM »

I only rode around Hudson National, didn't have a chance to play it the day I was there. So, should I withhold comment?

chipoat: There is at least one EXCELLENT parcel of land left on the east coast. Hopefully in a month or two I'll get to tell you more about it.

« **Reply #4 on:** September 07, 2003, 09:50:21 AM »

Tom,

Please don't withold comment...having at least seen the property, you are more than qualified (and entitled) to comment. I just thought it was fairly good for a Faz.

I pray you are looking at replacing JN at the "On the Peconic" property.

« **Reply #5 on:** September 07, 2003, 09:51:07 AM »

For Brad,

Eddie spends enough time at both!

« **Reply #6 on:** September 07, 2003, 12:51:50 PM »

...tom,
whether you should hold your comments depends more on if you were able to ride the fairways [then yes] ,or cartpaths only [i would say no]......i find that the fazio group does such a good job hiding cartpaths that its very hard to get a feel for the course if one is not playing and just doing a drive thru..........do you agree....

« **Reply #7 on:** September 07, 2003, 01:25:25 PM »

One thing the Faz may be best at is hidding cart paths, harder to do when you aren't moving all that dirt.

« **Reply #8 on:** September 07, 2003, 02:17:32 PM »

slapper:

Let's cut to the chase OK -- where do you rate Hudson National in terms of two things ...

1). Westchester County

2). New York State

Puhleeeeeeze, no dodge ball or Clintonian word games. As Joe Friday said -- "just the facts."

P.S. Help me out with one last thing -- are they still overdosing the course with man applied H20?

Thanks ...

« **Reply #9 on:** September 07, 2003, 02:32:47 PM »

Slapper, is it better than The Bridge?

« **Reply #10 on:** September 07, 2003, 02:39:16 PM »

Hey Larry --

Don't be bashful -- feel free to post your estimation of the courses in some sort of pecking order!

Or is that one "bridge" you don't want to cross.

« **Reply #11 on:** September 07, 2003, 05:51:40 PM »

Slapper,
In the interest of equal time, please no Bush-league word usage either.

Did the course have enough STRATEGERY?

Did you MISUNDERESTIMATE its quality??

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

« **Reply #12 on:** September 07, 2003, 06:17:16 PM »

top courses in metro ny. neither hudson nor the bridge makes top 20.

no particular order: shinny, national, maidstone, friar's head, garden city, bethpage, winged foot (both), quaker ridge, plainfield, baltusrol (both), somerset hills, piping rock, the creek, meadow brook, yale, fairfield, mountain ridge, century, fenway, deepdale, westchester (and that's 23!). Maybe they are part of the next echelon.

« **Reply #13 on:** September 07, 2003, 08:05:41 PM »

Slapper;

How would you compare Fazio's "fingered" bunkering at Hudson National against Hurdzan & Fry's similarly frilly bunkers at Hamilton Farm?

Generally, I like to see bunkers that play "inconsistently" and unpredictably, and I think all of that movement in a bunker can yield that result. I recognize that both Fazio, as well as H&F do it mostly for "artistic" purposes, but would you agree that they can result in some challenging functional difficulties as well?

Wait a sec...am I defending Tom Fazio?

I must have my BIAS switch turned off!

« **Reply #14 on:** September 07, 2003, 09:36:39 PM »

Does Hudson still have the carriage that took you from the par three green up that massive hill to the next tee (about between 3 and 4 or so?)

?

« **Reply #15 on:** September 07, 2003, 10:10:49 PM »

Okay...Here we go

...

Matt,

Seeing how you are the editor of a publication and the English language represents great difficulty for you,

I'll put it into quantitative form. I do put Hudson Nat'l in (in Westchester) behind the obvious: WFW, WFE, QR, Fenway,Westchester CC, and maybe its nearby southern neighbor Sleepy Hollow, but ahead of Trump, ahead of Wykagyl, Century, Old Oaks, Metropolis, etc... FYI...Mother Nature seems to have done most of the H2O job this year I'm told, but I'd likely think they prize their greenery up there and they have to water those greens to keep them as colorful and slick as they appear.

I really don't care or "give a damn" enough to complete every list for the state, county and borough.....I'll leave that to you (so you have something to do).

Brad, you'll have to tell me if my "don't give a damn" was Teddy Roosevelt enough!

Yes...IT IS BETTER than THE BRIDGE!. It has a much better set of memorable holes and equal or better vistas. It is also way more fun to play and slightly easier to walk.

Jim,

Is this course better than or equal to those on your list??? I don't know, but I would venture to say it plays better than Century and maybe?? Mountain Ridge. Just My Opinion.

Mike,

Good Question! But the real answer requires differentiating the frilly, but fair (other than plugged lies..and that is more a question of type of sand) vs. stupidly designed and unfairly penal. The former are playable in almost every place while the latter often left unplayable downhill lies with no effective backswing positions.....definitively unfair and excessively penal. I don't mind being faced with the daunting prospect of having to make a up-and-down to save par for a missed or errant shot, but I loath the notion of having a slight greenside miss turn into a 2-4X for no legitimate reason other than to preserve the designer's aesthetic. No doubt both H&F and Faz like their looks, but putting in inappropriate "fingers" that stunt one's backswing and give the player NO choice but to go sideways or backwards is stupid in my book. I too love the like of PV's #10's Devil's A....e and Witche's C..t as well as TOC's Road Hole bunker,etc...., but those are well advertised to avert and are not redundant all over the place. I obviously prefer vertical fingers as opposed to horizontal. Many places feel as if Faz slotted a "church pew" into side of a green.

Bias...Schmias...I'm RARELY a fan of the Faz....heck, I don't even love Shadow Creek or Wade Hampton, but Hudson plays well and makes great use of the rolling hillside. For example, it is much much better than a Maroon Creek, built on similar style terrain.

Paul,

Yes, the cart bus is still there(as it should be for the caddies so as not to kill them too early), but other than that severe hill, the other green to tee walks are not too onerous.

Hope that answered all of you for now...I'm sure it doesn;t satisfy Matt, but will anything??? At least I now know what I can get him for Christmas: a Thesaurus!

« **Reply #16 on:** September 07, 2003, 10:16:55 PM »

I hope my memory is serving me right, before I pose this question!

Anyone know which GCA.com-favored archie worked with Team Fazio on this project?

I'll send him an email to try to confirm, otherwise I might edit this to oblivion!

Joe

« **Reply #17 on:** September 07, 2003, 11:52:43 PM »

Joe,
I think that guy had something to do with Kingsley as well!!

« **Reply #18 on:** September 08, 2003, 08:42:41 AM »

I played Branton Woods yesterday for the second time, and I played with a Hudson National member who has a weekend home 5 minutes from Branton. He is not too into architecture, his main comparison was the views were better at Hudson because of the Hudson River. I am scheduled to play Hudson National for the first time at the end of the month, and I am curious if there are any comparisons between the two. It is my understanding that Eric Bergstal was the construction manager at Hudson, and he was the architect and developer of Branton.

PS. Branton really grew on me the second round, not sure if it is the 25th best course in NYS, but it is definitely worth consideration. Here is a Ron Whitten review:

http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/critic/index.ssf?/courses/critic/brantonwoods.html

« **Reply #19 on:** September 08, 2003, 08:50:15 AM »

Mike,

I've not yet played Branton Woods (though I've heard good things) so I can't make any comparison. Bergstol is indeed one of the early founder/builders of Hudson Nat'l and has clearly gone on to big golf projects. Everyone I know up there admires Eric.

I am feeling somehwat vindicated to learn that Mr. De Vries might have had a hand in HNGC.....it clearly isn't pure (and limited) Fazio.

« **Reply #20 on:** September 08, 2003, 09:34:17 AM »

Slap

Hudson National had very little sense of memorability to me. I can recall about 4 or 5 holes. It was a solid effort and well done for the property but I would not trade a round at

Sleepy Hollow for HN- wow, not even in the same ballpark IMHO

Century- thinnk of the walk in the park difference between these two and its not a contest. Century has a very good set of greens, good variety and bunkering.

Its in the same category as Branton Woods. If Branton Woods had better green surrounds (they are way too artificially flattened ala Architects Club) it would be much better.

« **Reply #21 on:** September 08, 2003, 09:48:01 AM »

Geoff,

I usually find myself in near 100% agreement with you, but on this one, I'll beg to differ. I grew up playing my high school golf at Sleepy Hollow and rememeber it well. I think it's best holes are way better than HN's and its lesser holes, weaker. I would likely give the very slight nod to Sleepy, and mostly for tradition and architecture points.

Century doesn't do it for me. Yes, its green's are good, but HN's are really better and truer. There is more undulation, but less size differential and less general interest. It's bunkering is good, but still ordinary. The style of bunker is preferable to HN's, but the strategic placement at HN is stout and way more strategic.

All just My Opinion.

« **Reply #22 on:** September 08, 2003, 10:10:44 AM »

Steve

No problem. Funny that I remember the great soup at the halfway house at HN better then many of the holes. I found it "a chore" to get through the round (for lack of a better term) whereas I always enjoy the walk at Sleepy (must be our congenial host at SH

). Courses like SH and Century flow very well and this makes for enjoyable golf. HN seemed like a collection of holes without that flow. I should get back to play it again.

All just my opinion too.

« **Reply #23 on:** September 08, 2003, 10:33:09 AM »

Geoff,

Too warm for soup this past week

. You make a very good point about flow. HN does not possess the flow that SH does. It doesn't flow like Century either. Your observation is asute...that is what misses a little at HN. The sequence of holes at HN work very well, but don't flow as easily as those other courses. Good point!

I too think you might want to play it again.

Slap

« **Reply #24 on:** September 08, 2003, 11:02:58 AM »

Dr Childs: I am in full agreement here with you as Sleepy Hollow is one of the better walks in golf though i question the congenial host comment, have you been playing the course with somebody else? I would rate Hudson 5-5.5 on Doak scale and I would certainly rate Sleepy higher. Sleepy would be significantly higher with the right kind of restoration, one which would highlight the quirky aspects of the course rather than making it into a "championship" course.

Slapper:A few things to consider about Sleepy relative to Hudson:

How would you rank the five par 3's at Hudson against the four at Sleepy? Arguably none of the Hudson short holes are better than any of the SH set.

Are ANY of the greens at Hudson as interesting as #'s 2,5,6,7,11,15,16

Sleepy also has a lot of cool stuff going on in the fairways like #'s 8,9,13

Sleepy has a lot of good solid holes with really no particularly weak holes nor any particularly spectacular holes. Though #16 is one of the most spectacular views in golf. #8 is highly regarded but needs more penal bunkering restored along with some trees knocked down to make the fantastic elephant hump in the fairway relevant again.

Hudson's bunkering is clearly more pleasant to the eye than the Rees Jones special at Sleepy which I often describe as the "golf architecture version of the 1970's leisure suit".

Perhaps a more thourough analysis is in order soon with you and DR. C and anyone who might have some good stories about The Beaver.

News:

Steve Lapper

ChipOat

brad_miller

Tom_Doak

Steve Lapper

Steve Lapper

paul cowley

larry_munger

Matt_Ward

larry_munger

Matt_Ward

Brad Swanson

Jim_Michaels

Mike_Cirba

Paul Richards

Steve Lapper

Joe Hancock

Anthony_Nysse

Mike_Sweeney

Steve Lapper

GeoffreyC

Steve Lapper

GeoffreyC

Steve Lapper

corey miller