[cary lichtenstein]

Well, wow, double wow!! what a golf course.

Genius, pure genius from an architecture standpoint. Eye candy to the 9's, routing perfect, walkable, everyclub in the bag, variety, flow, challenging, resistant to scoring but not overly so...genius.

Paly it, beg your way on...use up your favors, but you MUST play this beauty!!!!!!!!!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Quassi,

You're effusive in your praise of Friar's Head, but were subdued with respect to the merits of Shinnecock and NGLA.

As much as I like Friar's Head, I have to ask,

Are you trying to get in good with the GCA.com cognoscente ?  

[Anthony_Nysse]

Quassi,
  It's just that Damn good, isn't it!!??!!

[cary lichtenstein]

Pat:

Please use smaller words: cognpsento? I don't know what it means

National: I thought it was marvelous. Definitely in my top 5 world wide. I can not praise it high enough.

Shinnecock left me a little underwhelmed, maybe because it started on the 9th hole, maybe because it just did. Tough course no doubt, championship caliber. National is more sporty, but if you played them both from the same length, with the same narow fairways, National would be much tougher.

I'd rate the National 1, Friars 2 and Shinnecock 3.

[Mike_Cirba]

quassi;

When you come down from Heaven (sounds like a "perfect trip you're presently on), I'd love to hear some details about Friars Head.  

Otherwise, I'm starting to think that perhaps it defies description, something like Sand Hills.  

There aren't many courses where I come here and say, "you just have to play it to understand", but Sand Hills certainly falls into that category with a very few others.  That's largely due to the combination of sensory and strategic overload, which would probably take a 100,000 word essay to begin to describe adequately.  

Are you at a loss for words?  Or, would you care to give it a shot?    

[ChipOat]

quassi:

Re: Shinnecock/National

1)  If you widened the fairways at Shinnecock and eliminated the knee-high rough, SHGC would still be more difficult than NGLA, in my opinion.  To those of us who like a certain degree of difficulty before admitting a course to "Top 10 In The World" status, that is not unimportant.

2) SHGC "starts" on #9???  #'s 5-7 don't impress you??  Geez.

Having said that, National is certainly a Top 5 Golf PLACE on all the planet Earth - no argument.

[Mike_Cirba]

quassi;

I do have to agree with Chip.

I have a tough time accepting the argument that Shinnecock is overrated.  My lord...I could play the front nine over and over without ever being bored.

Holes like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8....I find it difficult to find anything but exhileration and inspiration on that part of the property.

Granted, I love the quirkiness and pure FUN of NGLA more, but to be fair and honest, that's personal preference and nothing at all against the obvious architectural brilliance and challenge of Shinny.

The fact that you've rated Friars Head above it has me amazed and intrigued...

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Chip and Mike, I think you both may have mis-read what Quassi was saying. He was remarking that he started on #9.

[cary lichtenstein]

I didnt mean to denegrade Shinneock. The 6 or 7th, with the water is a wonderful hole, but my sensory appartaus did kick in until the 9th tee. From there on in, I thought it was a wonderful course.

At National, it starts on the 1st tee and never lets up. Yes, the sensory overload is a bit much. At times, I just wants to walk slowly and take everything in. The angles, the colors, the oean or sound, the daring first green...just the whole day.

[GeoffreyC]

Shinnecock Hills over-rated?  

If someone came out and wrote that SH was the greatest course on the planet it would be hard to make an argument against it. It certainly isn't so for the greatest number of golfers but one could say the same thing about Pine Valley.

People have called the first hole the best opener in golf.  Its a teriffic hole with a thrilling tee shot with great angles and a tricky approach (However-I like the opener at Plainfield, Alpine, Yale, NGLA, Pine Valley and even Friar's Head better).

The second is a great par 3. Uphill requiring a long iron and the wind is a great influence.

#3 a bulletproof long par 4 with two testing shots before you get to a tricky greensite.

Oh hell, I'm not going to go through hole by hole but Quassi, I wish you would give us some more detailed criticisms. SH is a bulletproof 10 to me.  I like Darren's analogy in another thread where he says comparison of SH and Muirfield is very flattering to Muirfield.

[ForkaB]

Geoff (and Darren, and Ran, and....)

Muirfield is every bit as great as Shinnecock.  It doesn't have as much eye candy (i.e. elevation), but it is just as interesting and testing a golf course.  A better routing, too.  Neither one deserves to be denigrated in any way as each is a solid 3*** experience.

NGLA, although I might prefer to play there day to day over either other venue, just does quite not measure up to them, as a golf course.

[james soper]

are you still playing the bridge? if so, looking for your in depth analysis of the bridge vs. friars head. cheers.

[THuckaby2]

Geoff (and Darren, and Ran, and....)

Muirfield is every bit as great as Shinnecock.  It doesn't have as much eye candy (i.e. elevation), but it is just as interesting and testing a golf course.  A better routing, too.  Neither one deserves to be denigrated in any way as each is a solid 3*** experience.

NGLA, although I might prefer to play there day to day over either other venue, just does quite not measure up to them, as a golf course.

Oh please.  Yes, all three of these are great.  But NGLA is clearly the greatest of the three.  As a great man recently said, that's my opinion.  It should be yours.

 

Golf is meant to be fun more than it is a test.  If you believe that, my opinion is the correct one.  If you don't, then yes, Shinnecock and Muirfield are superior.

TH

[ForkaB]

Tom

I still dream that I can play.  When I get older, like you, I might too lower my standards............

[GeoffreyC]

Rich

We are talking opinions here and certainly no one is wrong. I loved Muirfield.  Absolutely great set of 1 and 3 shotters. The overall package at SH is in my opinion better. No big deal or put down of Muirfield intended.

You say- "NGLA, although I might prefer to play there day to day over either other venue, just does quite not measure up to them, as a golf course."

I would certainly agree with the day to day part but certainly not that NGLA fails to measure up to them as a golf course.  That's certainly more controversial then Darrens statement that I agreed with.  As a golf course nothing really can exceed the great man made architecture at NGLA (but perhaps for an argument for PV).

These are all opinions of course but details about how SH could leave one less then thrilled form start to finish.

[THuckaby2]

Rich:

I still have a lot of fun playing the game.  When I get older, like you, I'll likely live in the past and think I'm good at this game, lowering my standards to favor "tests" that I can't pass now, and likely never could except in my dreams.  

TH

[GeoffreyC]

Rich you say to Huck  "I still dream that I can play.  When I get older, like you, I might too lower my standards............ "

You can certainly golf your ball and very well but I think perhaps only Jaimie Slonis among us rank amateurs could make that statement. If you think NGLA can't challenge you enough from day to day then ....

[THuckaby2]

GC:

The key word there is "dream".  Rich just has different dreams then the rest of us... but then again, does that surprise you?  

Hey, this is no hassle.  It just comes down to what one is into.  Getting beaten up while trying to slay a dragon, but enjoying the process, even though one is doomed to failure?  That's Shinnecock.  Actually slaying a slightly smaller dragon, but one that breathes just as much fire?  That's NGLA.

TH

[Darren_Kilfara]

I really don't get you guys sometimes. Some people (i.e. Rich in this current thread) get more joy out of shooting score X at a difficult course than score X-minus-5 at an easy course. I mean, every golf course is a "test"; some tests are more difficult than others, and those gradations are factored into course rating, slope and so on. If your sole justification for preferring Shinnecock to NGLA is that the former tests your game more, what you're really saying is that you'd rather make pars and bogeys than birdies and pars, aren't you? It's like, if you were to shoot three-under at NGLA, you'd feel guilty that you would have only shot two-over at Shinny, rather than revelling in a round of three-under at NGLA!

Case in point: I just played in a tournament two weeks ago at Dunaverty, a 4,800-yard par 66 south of Machrihanish with lots of 260-yard par 4s and a 446-yard par 5. I shot a 63 (CSS was 66, so my score was effectively what a scratch player would have shot) and finished second in the tournament. Sure, I wouldn't have broken par at Machrihanish (or just about anywhere else you'd care to name) playing to the standard I played at - but dude, I shot a 63 in a tournament! You think I give a damn about the other stuff? My opinion of Dunaverty is that it's a very fun course which a) is not very difficult at all, relative to par; and b) I'd much rather play than any number of 6,800-yard par 72s with less character and interest around the greens. Why must difficulty come so prominently into one's ranking of a golf course?

Cheers,
Darren

[THuckaby2]

Concur with you completely, Darren.

But I look forward to Rich's reply.  I have a feeling it's gonna be good, and somehow we'll hear that it's not really all about difficulty after all.

TH

[ForkaB]

Darren

Firstly, if you really shot gross 63, with a CSS of 66, you played to a +3, not scratch (and well, done, my man!).  However, I suspect that you shot gross 66/net 63 and you have fallen into that particularly Scottish disease of only speaking of net scores..........

As for what you think I said, read again.  You are wrong.

Geoff

Of course I am not of Jamie Slonis' standard (I assume, never played with the dude) from day to day, but, like Darren, I too can play to scratch, and in fact did so in the last tournament round I played, 2 weeks ago.  I've even beat guys of Jamie's caliber (+2?) over the past few years.  Regardless of these facts, I can still dream, even though a lot of the time I play crap!

My point about NGLA is that it's lots of driver/iron wedge, and I firmly believe that if you don't have to play mid-long irons or woods into more that 1 or 2 greens, a course is just too short for really testing one's game, mediocre as mine (or others) may be.

All that being said, I stand by what I said a few posts earlier that I'd take NGLA as a day to day course if I had to make a choice between the three.  That is assuming, of course, that the clubhouse, which I only saw from the outside, is not too inferior to that of Muiirfield, which I know pretty well.......

Huckster

I think all of us could do OK at Shinnecock if we got there on a day when the stars were in alignment and we'd eaten our Wheaties.  Also, I think all of us could get bitch slapped by NGLA on any old day of the year if we weren't careful.  The issue is not about hard or soft or even what day of the month it is, it's about which course gives good golf, day in day out.  Recognising that my experience is limited, I'll still rank them 1. (joint equal) Muirfield and Shinnecock; 3.  NGLA.

[THuckaby2]

Rich:

OK, fair enough, I understand that.

I continue to disagree, though.  You will recall what our host said that day at Shinnecock:  "all it requires is perfect golf shots."  I think that really does sum it up perfectly... playing from the back tees, anyway.  To me, a course where success can be achieved only with perfection is just not as fun as one where mortals can achieve success, even when they all three do provide great golf, as these do.  I'd add Muirfield to the latter, btw.  So for me, they are all three stars, but it goes:

NGLA 1, SH/Muirfield 2 (joint second)

TH

[Darren_Kilfara]

Rich, the CSS at Dunaverty was actually 63, not 66. (My score was also 63, not 66.) So I played to scratch and not +3. Mea culpa...

As for what you meant to say and what you actually said...what did you mean to say? Saying that NGLA "doesn't quite measure up to (Shinnecock and Muirfield) as a golf course" in and of itself tells me nothing, insofar as I don't know what measurements you use to rank "golf courses". I guessed, because you were talking about day-to-day play (a phrase which usually connotes ease and fun) that you were talking about difficulty, but if you're talking about the overall package, I guess I stand corrected, if perhaps still a little befuddled.

Cheers,
Darren

[DMoriarty]

Quassi,

You're effusive in your praise of Friar's Head, but were subdued with respect to the merits of Shinnecock and NGLA.

As much as I like Friar's Head, I have to ask,

Are you trying to get in good with the GCA.com cognoscente ?  

Shoot . . . I didnt even know that NGLA and Shinnecock had fallen out of favor among the GCA.com cognoscensnenty . . . How come no one told me??  And how come I havent received my super double secret GCA.com Coqunoseencentey Weekly lately?   I havent been put on that probation thingee have I?   Recalled as Left Coast Left Wing Left-Handed Rabble Rouser?   I demand a recount . . . or a recall . . . or a recounted recall!!  Come on guys let me back in the club. . . .

National Stinks! National Stinks! National Stinks!  

There . . . am I back in?  

[ForkaB]

Tom

It was I who said that Shinnecock required "perfect golf shots."  When I said that (privately to him, on the 12th fairway, I think), our host's eyes lit up with that sort of "Eureka" expression that you only get when dentists' brains are taken beyond the purview of root canals and tight skirted hygeneists.  You should have/could have been there, but you were still moping about your "8" on the 11th.......

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()