The ultimate "driving" experience

« **on:** November 26, 2003, 07:12:32 PM »

In looking back at this year I had the pleasure in going to Ireland for the first time in my life and I have to say that playing County Down and Dunluce at Portrush have to be among the finest golf experiences I have had in golf.

What made it so?

Primarily, the driving aspect is so thoroughly tested at both courses. Too much of American golf has focused on the desire to turn putting greens into putt-putt shows. You see courses in the State that are now featuring multi-level greens akin to the chess board that Spock played in "Star Trek."

I have always personally believed that driving the ball is the consumate art in golf. Why? It is the first shot -- the defining shot. The shot that determines your available strategic options. The driver is also the most demanding and most difficult club to hit consistently. In my mind -- you show me a great driver of the ball and I'll promise you that person is a top shelf golfer.

Both CD and Dunluce maximize the demand on the ability of the golfer to also "work the ball" when needed. I don't doubt technology has added to the length one can hit the ball but both courses didn't rollover simply because someone can hit the ball a long ways.

The only tweak I would make to Dunluce is the desire to widen the course just a tad. When you have 20-25 yard fairways with wind whipping through at 25-30 mph and haylike rough / gorse waiting to grab your ball I think it's a tad bit of overkill.

After playing both courses I can honestly say they are among the top 10 courses I have ever played. Ballybunion beguiles you with its charm and flow but it doesn't have the tenacity and completeness you find with the other two.

Royal County Down and Royal Portrush are the ultimate tandem in driving skill. When someone says they are driving the ball better than they ever have -- I would urge them to play those two layouts. Within four hours you will soon find out if your assessment is accurate.

« **Reply #1 on:** November 26, 2003, 07:47:56 PM »

Matt,

I couldn't agree with you more on Portrush. Even with no wind, if you don't bring your A-game off the tee you can basically expect a VERY LONG round of hunting for balls in grass that looks like it hasn't been mowed in 3-5 years.

I'm not sure I'm as convinced about RCD. Granted you can't spray it all over because of the density of the gorse on many holes, but you can drive it above average at RCD an be in good shape. You just need to get used to the many blind tee-shots. At Portrush, you need to be both straight and long. Length is not necessarily a premium at RCD as 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 13, 17 don't require above-average length.

Don't get me wrong, I think RCD is a supreme challenge and in the Top 5 that I've played. But it's more of a thinkers course and uses angles very well, whereas I thought Portrush was a complete brute.

« **Reply #2 on:** November 26, 2003, 08:00:33 PM »

In my opinon RPR uses more raw topography to put demands on the drive while RCD relies more on fairway bunkering (and extremely penal bunkering in places) to put demand on the drive. RCD's use of demanding fairway bunkering reminds me to some degree of the driving demands of Oakmont.

« **Reply #3 on:** November 26, 2003, 08:03:59 PM »

Brian:

Don't shortchange CD -- it DOES make you work the ball on more than a few occasions. You also have a number of long par-4's that require you to "up the ante" in terms of both length and accuracy -- i.e. the 13th and 15th, to name just two.

Brian -- I also enjoyed the "blind" aspects at CD. It makes you have to trust your swing and line of play you choose.

The thing about Dunluce is that some of the fairways are just TOOOOOO narrow. I'm not suggesting by any means that they be windened too much -- but adding at least five-ten more yards on a few of the holes would make them a bit more sensible given the daily weather conditions that inhabit the area. Otherwise, the smart player will simply clubdown and avoid the showdown. That would be unfortunate and not in keeping with what the course is trying to achieve.

I'll say this for sure -- when you play CD and Dunluce you will not "luck it out" unless you're driving the ball with the highest degree of nerve and skill. I like my golf when the game starts at the tee -- and skill in hitting the driver for length, ball movement and height is a major factor when playing these two gems.

« **Reply #4 on:** November 26, 2003, 09:23:24 PM »

Matt,

I agree that RCD makes you work the ball more than Portrush. But to me they present two different types of challenges (and I agree with TEPaul on this). RCD gives you the options of playing short or around bunkers as well as potentially long. This means I could hit 3iron, 4w, 3w or driver on alot of the tees. Only 5, 8 and 9 really make you have to consider driver because of their length on the front, and 15 on the back.

At Portrush, the combination of length and accuracy really starts to get in your head because you have to go driver on more holes; 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 13, (sometime 14 if the wind is really howling), 16 and 18. And missing the fairways is potentially a lost ball on any hole because of the length of rough.

Don't get me wrong, they both require that you be on top of your game. RCD makes you bring a complete game, whereas Portrush is all about driving the ball off the tee. I could play RCD everyday for the rest of my life, whereas I don't know that I'd want to play Portrush more than once a week...I might go insane.

« **Reply #5 on:** November 26, 2003, 09:40:20 PM »

Matt,

I just reread your original post and realize that you weren't comparing the two courses, but stating that the pair make as good a driving challenge as any other other pair. For two courses within reasonable driving distance, I'd have to agree with you. For some reason I thought you were trying to compare the merits against each other. My bad..

« **Reply #6 on:** November 27, 2003, 10:03:35 AM »

I totally agree.
My lament on several American courses are how short they play. Even the Scottish ones now suffer to tech.

RCD has a combination of brutes and thinkers.
Wonderful variety.
Several holes challenge you to work it r-l or l-r.

Once #16 gets its update, I'm there again.

Tom

« **Reply #7 on:** November 28, 2003, 08:33:02 AM »

Matt,

Whilst I agree with you that both courses are a exacting test of your driving abilities, I will have to disagree with your comment that the fairways at Portrush are TOOOOOOOOOOOOO narrow

I know, you are not surprised that someone on this site has decided to come up and bite on your comments, but Portrush to me is my #1 course ever played, and I have played most of the great ones.

It all depends when you play it. I too played RPGC about a week before you did, and the rough was indeed punishing. But it SHOULD BE !!

No-one ever said this game was supposed to be easy.

The fact that you are required to thread the needles on holes like 1,2, 4, 7, 8 and 9 stand as testament to the architecture. Colt also allows you to err on holes like 5, 10, 13, 16, 17, and 18, albeit slight. Compare it for a second to a course on FLA

where you have water down one side and OB and housing down the other. There's wind in Fla, right? Or compare it to a site in the NE, where tree shutes make you claustrophobic standing on the tee. It's no different IMO.

What I sense you experienced was the wit of the powers that be at RPGC, who have protected the golf course from long hitting "animals" like you by narrowing the landing areas in the 260-300 yard range, thus challenging you to hit it straight or pay the toll. If you hit it 240, like the rest of the mere mortals that play this game, you would have found the fairways to be tight but fair.

#10 would be a perfect example of what I mean - the bunkering that has been added there makes that hole very playable for the average joe, but for you and I it reeks of pure accuracy, piching you in to a mere 14 yards at the 290 mark, I fully commend the club for taking these strategic "preventitive" measures to protect the integrity of the layout. When I played there, I played 2 days in a row with the Club Pro, who hit driver both times and slotted it right into the neck, leaving himself about a 4 iron into the hog back green. This is true "risk-reward". Hit 3-wood off the tee and he is left with another for his second shot.

The options that RPGC provides inspires me, that's why I am a member

« **Reply #8 on:** November 28, 2003, 09:16:17 AM »

Matt:

There's not a damn thing wrong with the fairways of Dunluce--they're certainly not too narrow although they are demanding because of it.

I'm disappointed in you but perhaps when you played Dunluce you forgot to 'wake up and smell the coffee'.

« **Reply #9 on:** November 28, 2003, 09:41:39 AM »

Great post, hp@hc

Exactly what the great courses, links or otherwise, can do to "protect" themselves from new technology (and mad bombers who think that if they hit it 300 they should be free from punishment.....

).

Some of the greatest holes in golf have that "bottelneck" at the 280-300 yard mark which allows long AND straight to "prevail," but also accommodates the 2-iron/3-wood bail out, at commensurate higher difficulty for the 2nd.

« **Reply #10 on:** November 28, 2003, 12:37:27 PM »

hp@hc:

I don't enjoy much about many courses when the "lost ball" feature is an item that looms quite large. All I suggested is that Dunluce be widened a "tad" -- a "tad" doesn't mean you reinvent the 1st at TOC! I seem to remember Alister Mackenzie's comments on the avoidance of searching for "lost" balls when playing -- you may want to re-read his thoughts. The good doctor knew not to "doctor" a course in such a heavyhanded manner.

Let me mention again I thoroughly enjoyed the course -- it is everything and more from what I had heard prior to my playing there this past September. Dunluce is a test of high level shotmaking execution which I truly relished -- especially with the driver. But, just like short hitter laments when playing courses with fairways as wide as Kansas let me argue the counterpoint that courses that rely on being too narrow (witness the travesty the R&A carried forward in preparing Carnoustie) only serve to ensure that the longer hitter will simply "club down" and avoid the showdown. Why not "tempt" that type of player to pull out the big stick and give it a go?

Let me also mention the other aspect and that is recovery. When you have courses that provide "hay" for rough all you get (assuming you find the ball) is a simply pitch out to the fairway -- ironically, you then go the other direction and "overemphasize" one skill (driving accuracy) to the exclusion of everything else.

My only comments were put forward to provide some sort of "balance" in regards to the marriage between length and accuracy.

At Dunluce when you leave the fairway the "transition" zone between the finely cropped fairways and the "hay" zone is really not that much -- if at all on quite a few of the holes.

Gentlmen:

My greater point was why American golf (with few exceptions) is not based on the tee-to-green model you see with Dunluce and CD. The emphasis in American design (please allow me a bit of elasticity) is to create putting surfaces that are overly contoured to simply enlarge the role of putting. Clearly, how many American courses are as comprehensive in their scope as the driving requirements you find at Dunluce and CD -- I can't think of more than a few.

TEP:

You've got to come up with something more original. Heck -- I can't help it that you still think Maidstine is one of America's premier tracks -- you might want to check out the coffee you're drinking and see if the brew is strong enough to wake you up!

« **Reply #11 on:** November 28, 2003, 01:12:14 PM »

Quote from: Matt_Ward on November 28, 2003, 12:37:27 PM

My greater point was why American golf (with few exceptions) is not based on the tee-to-green model you see with Dunluce and CD. The emphasis in American design (please allow me a bit of elasticity) is to create putting surfaces that are overly contoured to simply enlarge the role of putting. Clearly, how many American courses are as comprehensive in their scope as the driving requirements you find at Dunluce and CD -- I can't think of more than a few.

I'm curious to know if there are many other folks out there with anything approaching Matt's level of experience who would agree with this.

My admittedly vastly more limited experience suggests quite the opposite. Far more emphasis today is placed on driving the golf ball long & straight, with concomitant dumbed down flat but speedy greens, versus yesterday's courses with less emphasis on driving and more on putting.

P.S. I see interesting green complexes - whether through contour, slope, or surrounding hazards - as providing far more interesting, entertaining and thought provoking golf than simply difficult driving holes.

« **Reply #12 on:** November 28, 2003, 03:35:53 PM »

George

I would say that American greens have always been-in general-more heavily contoured than in GB&I. You yanks were the first to really embrace wild greens.

Matt certainly isn't alone with his opinion that Dunluce's fairways are too narrow (I believe that Ran also has this opinion.) Myself, I can't quite remember, need to get back there. Certainly it wasn't Colt's style to have narrow courses, so perhaps they have shrunk.

Portrush has a super set of greens so it ain't just a driving course.

The best drive, for shaping, at RCD is the 5th.

« **Reply #13 on:** November 28, 2003, 03:57:01 PM »

George,
Of course I don't agree with this! Here you have two people that thrive on distance--Matt & Tom. I have played with them both. Matt is a longer driver of the golf ball then Tom, but Tom is a far better player--little thought is given to other games except their own. If the par 5's are to short, and Tom complains 99.9 % of the time of reaching them too often, then he should tee off with a two or three iron. After all, wouln't his complaints mean that the golf ball is going to damn far? If Matt thinks the fairways are TOOOOOOOOO narrow, then wouldn't one think that it was built to challenge players like him?

Me, while I'm probably a good 60 yards behind them most of the time--I can make up that distance in one fell swoop with my putter, and give me the wildest greens in the land, that work with the fairways to do it!

Paul, How can you say that when Colt's Eden Course has some of the wildest greens in Scotland?

« **Reply #14 on:** November 28, 2003, 04:27:24 PM »

Tommy

I did write "in general". I'll stand by that statement.

What do others think? Those that have a lot of experience on both sides of the pond.

« **Reply #15 on:** November 28, 2003, 05:10:00 PM »

"TEP
Heck -- I can't help it that you still think Maidstine is one of America's premier tracks --you might want to check out the coffee you're drinking and see if the brew is strong enough to wake you up!"

Matt:

I realize you can't help it that I think Maidstone is one of America's premier tracks. That precisely why I think your 'wake up and smell the coffee' cliche is so funny!

« **Reply #16 on:** November 28, 2003, 06:08:27 PM »

Tommy (aka "The Emperor"):

Don't go selling my game short big guy!

Heck -- you only saw me play at the tail end of a 7-day adventure and over 2,000 miles driven. I'd love to hook up with T Brown and the other top talent that posts on GCA. I always love getting strokes when someone is "a far better player."

All kidding aside Tommy -- just realize the premise I originally stated. I wasn't advocating by a long shot that Dunluce be as wide as the 1st at TOC or Rustic Canyon. Dunluce has become aggressively penal in the driving zone -- much more so than even CD -- you either find ball or you will likely lose ball. Throw in the daily climatic conditions and you had better have plenty of eggs. The grass is beyond what the rough used to be like at Bethpage Black and that's saying something in my book.

A course set-up can still be achieved that provides the proper amount of "balance" for the different player types. I don't see how bowling-alley fairways accomplish that. Come to think of it wasn't the reputation of Carnoustie hurt because of the draconian set-up used for the Open a few years back. Oh -- one other thing --I seem to remember the winner of that event as clearly being on the front page of the game's premier players -- Paul Lawrie.

I guess the previous winners at Carnoustie (i.e. Hogan, Player, Watson) were really light weights when they didn't bastardize the layout with penal rough and fairways choked down to 15-20 yards!

George P:

I hear what you're saying but my point was in comparing the qualities of the "elite" courses that you often find in the States. George, I don't doubt for a New York minute that many of the "new" courses you see in the States do feature what you're saying -- very long and dumbed-down green sites with the tried-and-true boring flanking bunkers on each hole.

Let me give you a somewhat appropriate example of a course in your "neck of the woods." Quicksilver in Midway is really about greens -- that when up to speed is really a test of the flatstick more so than with the driver. I like the course, however, the driving skill quotient is really not the primary aspect of what makes it tick in my mind. It's the greens that really make the statement about the course.

I didn't find Dunluce and CD to be about the savage nature of the greens. You need to strike the ball with complete confidence when playing those holes. I'm also not saying for a New York minute that the greens are amateurish by any means. You still need a good stroke and have to be in the right position to score. However, you don't get the windmill parody of miniature golf that you see so many times among the bigger name clubs in the states. I'm heading to Phoenix next week and one that comes quickly to mind is Desert Highlands. It seems Jack designed a number of holes there with a multi-level theme.

I'd like to see golf where "working the ball" off the tee is a major element in playing. I have always found that to be the key with my favorite course in the states -- SH. The greens are certainly not pushovers but they don't have to be "created" to overshadow the shotmaking that precedes it.

TEPaul:

To be clear -- I believe Maidstone is one of America's fine clubs. But -- I'm just not sold on saying it belongs in the top 50 or 100 echelon in the States as so many are wont to believe.

One last thing Tom -- I don't drink coffee but I enjoy sleepy heads (not you of course

) who persist in their defense of such gems to be quite amusing.

P.S. There are even those who believe it belongs as an equal in a trolika with SH and NGLA. That goes beyond coffee and speaks of strong wacki-tobaci!

« **Reply #17 on:** November 28, 2003, 06:36:00 PM »

"TEPaul:

To be clear -- I believe Maidstone is one of America's fine clubs. But -- I'm just not sold on saying it belongs in the top 50 or 100 echelon in the States as so many are wont to believe.

One last thing Tom -- I don't drink coffee but I enjoy sleepy heads (not you of course ) who persist in their defense of such gems to be quite amusing.

P.S. There are even those who believe it belongs as an equal in a trolika with SH and NGLA. That goes beyond coffee and speaks of strong wacki-tobaci!"

Matt:

All kidding aside, I'm well aware of how you feel about Maidstone. And I think you're probably well aware of how I feel about some of the top 100 lists that you and some others are so into when you evaluate golf courses and golf course architecture. To reiterate, I'm not so enamored with those lists and that process. The coffee thing is a joke as I'm sure you know. What isn't a joke, though, I guess, is the fact that you and I do not share the same feelings and thoughts about what consititutes good and great golf and golf course architecture.

« **Reply #18 on:** November 28, 2003, 06:58:41 PM »

TEPaul:

Would not life be boring if everyone had the same preferences sir?

I believe I have some clue on what constitutes "good" and "great" architecture. In all likelihood we have agreed a good deal more times than we care to mention since those annoying "disgreements" get in the way. And that's what makes life / golf so appealing IMHO.

« **Reply #19 on:** November 28, 2003, 11:28:14 PM »

Hey - I'm just happy someone is listening to me.

Thanks for the compliment Tommy.
Though, I'd easily sacrifice a few strokes for Matt's globe trotting schedule.

I totally agree w/ Matt's balance comments.

I'll concede I'm self-absorbed when it comes to golf course arch. I will say this in my defense. I like the fact that the world has TOC and RCD. Different topographies, different driving, different greens, ...
I love them both.
Both meet the "great" criteria for different reasons.
And, yes Tommy N. might be able to whip me on any given day on TOC, but not RCD. (sorry).

BTW - I still totally disagree w/ the 2 iron off the tee thing.
That's a bummer.
I think that was the point of Matt's thread.
It's fun for a course to challenge your best & longest teeball because so few do now. I love Bethpage Black partly because of this. And, I think the lengthing at ANGC was preemptive and necessary. I'm a GCA, Fazio-loving heretic now

-Though I would have pushed #10 back a ways and relocated some of the "cabins".

On a lighter note, my wife & I bought a minivan today for the kids and her. So my teeball has to be shorter be at least 20 yards, right?

« **Reply #20 on:** November 29, 2003, 02:04:50 AM »

The drive from Machrihanish to Mallaig, of course.

Lahinch thru Connemara and up to Belmullet.

Hiway 550 from Ouray thru Silverton to Durango in Colorado is pretty darn special too. (Must make to it Farmington next time)

Blue Ridge Parkway.

Columbia River Gorge

The Alcan

And, most intensely, driving in Florence, Italy!

"Dirty white caravans down narrow roads, sailing.
Vivas, Cortinas, weaving in their wake.
With hot, red-faced drivers, horns flattened, fists wailing,
putting trust in blind corners as they overtake.

And it's Oh, come willing now,
Spend a schilling now,
Stack up the back of your new motorcar.
There's home-dyed woolens
and wee plastic Cuillins -
the day of the Broadford Bazaar...

Where once stood oil rigs so phallic
There's only swear words in Gaelic
To say at the Broadford Bazaar." IA

« **Reply #21 on:** November 29, 2003, 06:38:11 AM »

Dear Matt, I have the utmost respect for you, so please forgive me when i say, you lucky BA**ARD! the courses you have just played offer a Golfer pleasure with pain. (Sad-omasacist golf) Wondering how you got on, is there something your not telling us?

« **Reply #22 on:** November 29, 2003, 08:12:06 AM »

Matt Ward,

You say that Portrush's fairways are a "tad" tight, and that it turns it into a driving contest.

I can counter this on two fronts.

1. The technology of today is a "tad" outrageous, and Colt could never have imagined COR and springlike effect, muchless the broomhandled cheaters clubs of today. The fact is that technology has forced the issue, not the clubs who are trying to protect the integrity of the layout in the face of fast-changing times ( and please note that I am certainly speaking for myself, not on behalf of the club). A main reason why the Senior British Open keeps going back there is because the course itself has survived the test of time. Other courses stateside cannot boast the same forward-thinking.

2. Don't we hear over and over that American golf has turned into a "putting contest". At RPGC you have the whole package, and great driving examination, and greens that move naturally with the land and force you to play a multitude of shots to save par. The greens are FAIR, and when you get there you feel a sense of accomplishment. With US golf there is often no sense of accomplishment, because you know the hole hasn't started until you whip out the 40 inch chest dagger that you call a putter!!

What is wrong with testing you "right out of the gate". Golf is about playing different courses, and we should beat our chests that we thought to take up a game where the playing surface is always changing. Pool or tennis is a fun game, but you always know the "course" and the layout, and it pales in comparison to the thrill of getting on the 1st tee of a new course and navigating your way around the hollowed turf.

Vanilla and Chocolate

« **Reply #23 on:** November 29, 2003, 09:04:52 AM »

Matt Ward said;

"TEPaul:
Would not life be boring if everyone had the same preferences sir?
I believe I have some clue on what constitutes "good" and "great" architecture. In all likelihood we have agreed a good deal more times than we care to mention since those annoying "disgreements" get in the way. And that's what makes life / golf so appealing IMHO."

Matt:

Life would indeed be boring if everyone had the same preferences. And I certainly do believe that the same is very true for golf and golf architecture. That's the primary reason I keep saying on here that "difference" is probably the real essence of golf course architecture. And that's why I keep saying;

"Golf and golf architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone."

And I do believe that you and I have different preferences in golf architecture and we do look at golf architecture differently. I believe also that you certainly do have a clue what constitutes "good" and "great" architecture but for you not for me. And the same is obviously true with what I like and I also have a real clue why I think architecture is "good" and "great". You may not agree with me and vice versa but I don't see why there should be a single thing annoying about that and I don't see why that should get in the way of anything.

It seems that some on here, including yourself, think that if someone disagrees with you and your opinion on architecture that they're saying or implying that you're wrong about something--not at all, because;

Golf and golf architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone!"

« **Reply #24 on:** November 29, 2003, 12:07:23 PM »

TEPaul:

Before we begin to have a love-fest with all the back slapping in agreement let me say that my strongest disagreements come with people who base their SOLE opinion on a course through either photos / aerials or third hand comments. I simply believe the only TRIED AND TRUE way to assess a course is to play it. I don't have patience or a desire to heear someone rave or bark about ANY COURSE when they don't put in the necessary fieldwork. End of story.

You're absolutely right we do have disagreements but I have made it a point to highlight in some sort of detail the why and why nots for my opinions.

hp@hc:

You need to check with what Paul Turner wrote. Do you actually believe Colt would have narrowed the fairways in a number of areas at Dunluce to the point at which they become bowling alleys? I'm not a historian on Colt but I don't believe so.

Second, you bypassed my point on how Carnoustie was set up for the '99 BO. Was that appropriate to have fairways necked in to no more than 15-20 yards? Heck -- there are some at Portrsuh with the same dimensions. Let me also add you also bypassed my point that going from cropped fairways to major league hay is not necessary -- it's overkill. Some of the grass at Portrush looks like it's NEVER BEEN CUT.

Don't get me wrong for a New York minute -- I loved
Dunluce -- all I am suggesting is that the rough and fairway dimensions be re-examined (my word was "tweaked") so that you can have a layout that doesn't overdose with severe / penal consequences. The layout is so well done that it's not necessary to "cheapen" the thrill with the desire to provide brillo-pad length rough / gorse / you name it it's there. Adding a mere 5-10 yards to some of the fairways and providing for some sort of transition "rough" between the fairway and the hayfields is not going to diminish the thrill in playing such an outstanding course -- I believe it will simply add to it.

andy stovepipe jack:

Maybe we can hook up sometime for a game. I'm usually flying somewhere so who knows maybe we can arrange something down the line. Let me know offline your schedule in '04.

News:

Matt_Ward

Brian_Gracely

TEPaul

Matt_Ward

Brian_Gracely

Brian_Gracely

Thomas_Brown

hp@hc

TEPaul

ForkaB

Matt_Ward

George Pazin

Paul_Turner

Tommy_Naccarato

Paul_Turner

TEPaul

Matt_Ward

TEPaul

Matt_Ward

Thomas_Brown

Norbert P

stovepipe

hp@hc

TEPaul

Matt_Ward