The best non prototypical Raynor hole at the Creek?

« **Reply #25 on:** August 26, 2005, 11:36:55 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on August 25, 2005, 09:23:26 PM

The 5th is a skyline green.

If you view it from the right rough the trees behind and below the green block the sky. If you view it from the left side it's clearly a skyline green.

OK, let's look at this from above. All I see are trees behind
the green, no matter which side you're on, but I am 100%
confident that these trees disappear from view on the days
when Pat Mucci plays this course, because he says they
can't be seen OR looking at this from an aerial view cannot
give you the ACTUAL angles you see from the ground:

« **Reply #26 on:** August 26, 2005, 02:20:55 PM »

Quote from: Douglas R. Braunsdorf on August 25, 2005, 10:07:54 PM

To concur with SPDB, I'm not so sure 15 is a double plateau green; from my memory (and I have played The Creek) it isn't a double plateau green of similar design to, say 16 at Essex County CC, 2 at Knoll West, to give two examples.
Essex County is a unique double plateau as is The Knolls, neither are similar to # 15 at the Creek or # 11 at NGLA.[/color]

The green is, overall, square-ish in shape, unlike the double plateau designs we may be most familiar with, that being with a sort of 'L' shape.

It is an L shaped green, the rear portion is elevated above the front portion.

The name of the hole is derived from its fairway, just like # 5 at NGLA[/color]

My memory's pretty damn good--I recall the green being not unlike a sheet of paper that is lightly twisted. Obviously, I agree partially with Geoff, in that I will defer to George on this matter, as he would know best.

I will concur with you on #16. A great, square green that is visually striking.

I also liked #10, as you move from one part of the property (upper part) to the holes that are routed through the marshland, and play the next several (10-tee shot of 14) around the tidal marsh/Frost Creek.

Five, it appears to be a skyline green. That hole is quite memorable. As Wayne Freeman put it, the tree at the top of the hill 'pulls' you up, visually; and then, at the crest of the hill, the view is astonishing.

Wayne- I agree with you re fairway bunkers. I don't recall being in any on any of my visits (and yes, I was in the correct fairway! ).

Pat-

Let's call a spade a spade here. If you can dish it out as much as you do, you best be able to take it in return.
I have no problem with that.[/color]

« **Reply #27 on:** August 26, 2005, 02:25:49 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on August 25, 2005, 09:23:26 PM

The 5th is a skyline green.

If you view it from the right rough the trees behind and below the green block the sky. If you view it from the left side it's clearly a skyline green.

Scott Burroughs,

You need to bone up on your reading comprehension skills.
Your aerial confirms my above statement.

And, your aerial fails to account for the dramtic elevation change behind the green.

Again, For someone who's never seen it you sure have a lot to say and nothing to contribute.[/color]

As to your claiming that you've played The Creek, I'm 99.5 % sure you haven't.

You implied you have, so tell us when you played it and whose guest you were ?

« **Reply #28 on:** August 26, 2005, 02:47:32 PM »

Scott Burroughs,

So you LIED when you implied that you had played The Creek.
False in one, false in many.

I played there monday and made the effort to examine the view of the green from many angles.

It's structure, topography and surrounds is that of a skyline green.

There is a lone tree behind and below the green that appears on the horizon from the tee and from the fairway, but that doesn't negate the skyline green effect.

Three other people who played there on monday also maintained it's a skyline green, but you, who's never seen it, who now relies on an unnamed source in the pro shop, who may or may not understand the nature of a skyline green, insert your opinion as that of an expert.

Since you're such an expert, tell us, was the 2nd green at PV designed as a skyline green ?

How about the 9th green at PV, was that designed as a skyline green ?

The 5th at The Creek was designed as a skyline green, and from the left, remains a skyline green.

80 years of unrestricted tree growth have altered what's behind the left side of the green.

Next you'll be telling us about your Friar's Head experience.

« **Reply #29 on:** August 26, 2005, 03:06:58 PM »

Why do you keep bringing up INTENT of a skyline green vs. what is presently there?

How would I know the INTENT of a design from 80+ years ago? I wasn't there then. All I can know is what is there NOW. Tree growth can mask INTENT, but INTENT does not matter now. What matters is what is there NOW.

As for all that you know about me, who says I haven't seen Pine Valley? One of the most amazing courses I've ever seen (yes, on the ground).

« **Reply #30 on:** August 26, 2005, 03:10:51 PM »

I could be mistaken but I believe Uncle George Bahto believes it was a skyline green.. I certainly think so.

« **Reply #31 on:** August 26, 2005, 03:18:17 PM »

Well, I did love the routing and general use of the land at the Creek. OMG the 1st green was so good it hurt. I liked it much better the the redan hole green complex. The 6th lived up to expectations and then some. 13 and 14 are wonderfully natural holes. 15 and 16 are well just great holes period. I actually was left a little iffy about the par 3's. They unlike the 4's did not live up to my expectations. A as yet unidentified member noted that Raynor was the engineer on the course and not the architect.

« **Reply #32 on:** August 26, 2005, 03:46:21 PM »

5-green: you have to be on the ground, on the course, playing the hole, looking uphill to the appearance of the green to understand 5-green - this WAS a skyline green - but as trees grow, things change. Certainly Mac-Raynor would not like the tree!!

A lot of hole names at Creek are not indicative of the type holes they represent(ed) - and there have been a lot of undocumented changes - certainly on the greens.

To me, originally, hole 10 seemed to be a Cape hole (the old-thinking of the diagonal drive as well as Macdonald's thinking, a green jutting out into something) ..... however I have some writings indicating it to be a Leven hole (it has the normal yardage and the obfuscation of a portion of the green).

I originally thought of hole 12 to be a Road hole (the turn in the f'way and the greenside bunkering and the green itself - sort of a weak version) - now, this is the Cape hole it seems.

There is a lot at Creek that is not clear - I can't figure out why this is and this makes it so intriguing to me.

like: .... "what's going on here guys?" - it is so non-prototypical

Is this because of the elite group of Founders and what may have been their input?

Is it what evolved to the course over the years?

« **Reply #33 on:** August 26, 2005, 04:48:33 PM »

George, as to the 12th hole, I didn't see any Road hole or any Cape hole at all. Of course I am a neophyte in these matters. There was neither a diagonal carry or deep fronting bunker on the hole, and the green didn't sit at an angle.

It did seem like a very good straightforward par 4. Thinning a PW into the back bunker, by the way, is NOT the recommended way to play the hole!

#5 had all the earmarks to me of a skyline green in that there were nothing raised at the back of the green site at all, no bunkers, no banks, no mounds, just thin air. These days the thin air is filled with trees a good way behind the green, but I believe it still qualifies as a skyline green. And a beauty too I might add. The walk from #5 green onto #6 tee is a great one. As they told me, that's where the course begins!

« **Reply #34 on:** August 26, 2005, 06:14:43 PM »

Bill McBride said:

"The walk from #5 green onto #6 tee is a great one. As they told me, that's where the course begins! "

Bill - that is a real thrill - especially the first time around ..... and then you get to play #6

I know what you're saying about #12 - that's what makes me crazy about some of the things about Creek - some of what has been written and mostly the non or semi-prototypical aspects of its design. And you still have one of their greatest courses ..... "go figger"

I'll add to the written "explanations" I've spoken about, about the course when i get home.

I guess i was "looking" for a Road hole when I first began visiting the course and, at the time, #12 seemed to fit the bill best.

Like I said, very confusing in the context of their "usual" designs.

Interesting, the story of Macdonald's problems on the lower-elevation holes which lead to his getting te boot and then a few years later getting an honorary-lifetime membership.

gb

« **Reply #35 on:** August 26, 2005, 07:08:46 PM »

Quote from: Scott_Burroughs on August 26, 2005, 03:06:58 PM

Why do you keep bringing up INTENT of a skyline green vs. what is presently there?

Had you supported Mike Sweeney's charity you could have played The Creek on monday and ended your speculation about what's there and what isn't there.[/color]

How would I know the INTENT of a design from 80+ years ago? I wasn't there then. All I can know is what is there NOW.

But, you don't know what's there NOW and what it looks like from the approaches because you've never been there.[/color]

Tree growth can mask INTENT, but INTENT does not matter now. What matters is what is there NOW.

I guess, when three people who played there on monday reference the green as a skyline green they were talking about NOW, or at least monday. You've never been there so you don't know what's there and how it looks as you approach the hole.[/color]

As for all that you know about me, who says I haven't seen Pine Valley?

I never said that you hadn't seen Pine Valley.
Can you show me where it's alleged that I said that ?
I said, you LIED when you implied that you had seen The Creek when you've never set foot on the property.[/color]

One of the most amazing courses I've ever seen (yes, on the ground).

Then you can tell me, are # 2 and the left green at # 9 skyline greens ?

And, while we're at it, you can tell me if # 2 and # 13 at Sand Hills are skyline greens.[/color]

« **Reply #36 on:** August 26, 2005, 07:11:32 PM »

Why do people have to "Strech The Truth" here all the time.............it is absolutely ridiculous........TELL IT AS IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody will like you more or less, based on what you have or haven't done, or where you are or aren't a member. It's time to get "OUT OF THE 2ND GRADE PEOPLE"

I am not a "self proclaimed expert", but lately, "SOME" of these "Lurker-types" on GCA (you know, the ones that secretly instant message you asking you to get them on a certain hard to gain access to course) seem to be more interested in "Social Climbing" or just like to be "False-Braggarts"

It's refreshing to see people like "Mucci" calling a spade a spade And backing up his thoughts, claims, and commentary, with solid, hard-core facts. When and if "Mucci" mis-speaks" (rarely occurs) he at least has the "NADS" to admit as much!!!

AND BY THE WAY "T.N."............NO DELETING THIS POST!!!!!!!!

Back Off People, Back Off!!!

« **Reply #37 on:** August 26, 2005, 07:18:54 PM »

NAF,

I prefer the 1st green to the 8th.
I also prefer the approach shot as I'm not crazy about the elevated nature of the 8th tee and the substantively downhill approach.

I also like the blind to semi-blind tee shot on # 1.
When the golf course is firm and fast it plays considerably different from monday's conditions, and puts a tremendous premium on drives and approach angles.

Doug,

I'd agree, the left of # 15 doesn't have the sharp or pronounced elevation differential that # 11 at NGLA has, although, the 17th at Yale doesn't have that sharp elevation differential either.

As a course to play day in and day out, it's a pure joy.

Although, I'm disappointed with the putting surface in the "short" hole. Most "short" holes have more contouring.

George Bahto & Tom Doak,

What was there originally, and why wasn't more contouring added to a rather large green.

« **Reply #38 on:** August 26, 2005, 07:24:50 PM »

As Ran's Opening Statements on the "Home Section of the Main GCA Webpage say:

"GolfClubAtlas.com is presented to promote "the frank commentary" on the world's finest golf courses. Within this site, the subject of golf course architecture is discussed in several different sections, including:

Course profiles that highlight the finer virtues of golf architecture found...........

Please "post any meaningful analysis" you may have regarding each course..........."

Enough is enough!!!!

« **Reply #39 on:** August 26, 2005, 07:25:17 PM »

Pat, the Short at Chicago Golf Club -- which I saw a couple of weeks ago at the Walker Cup -- had a fantastic green, with relatively steep slope and three tiers! The original at St Andrews is very bland compared to Chicago, and I felt that Yale and the Creek both were rather bland as well, when compared to Chicago.

I haven't seen NGLA, how does it compare?

« **Reply #40 on:** August 26, 2005, 07:34:29 PM »

Bill McBride,

The 6th at NGLA is one of the most fantastic greens in golf.

The 5th at Yale may have had more internal contouring in its original version. George Bahto and Geoff Childs could probably comment on that. As I understand it, a previous superintendent eliminated substantive contouring in # 2 green, so perhaps he softened # 5 as well.

It is highly unusual with several greens within a green as its concept.

The 7th at the 4th nine at Montclair had a neat horseshoe in the middle of the green and the green had steep banks leading down to bunkers and worse.

I believe the Short at Forsgate had contouring as well.

The Short at The Knoll was interesting as well.

The short at Westhampton is fabulous.

Raynor and Banks almost always elevate the green, surround it with bunkers, and contour the green.

One has to wonder about the impact of topdressing over the last 80 or so years and whether or not some of these clubs chose to soften the contouring.

What I like about the "short" hole is the elevated nature, the punishment for missing the green and the impact of pin positions near the edge or next to the internal contour.
It's an especially interesting hole when it's subjected to wind.

It remains a neat hole where the approach shot hasn't changed much over the intervening years.

« **Reply #41 on:** August 26, 2005, 07:44:06 PM »

George I tried to get you with the Raynor engineer comment. You did not bite. I am sorry i missed you on the trip. I even brought your book with me. John

« **Reply #42 on:** August 26, 2005, 08:56:37 PM »

yo Tiger B: You can't get me on that one - hah .....

The club prefers most of the credit for the course should be "Macdonald" - he was one of the founders and of course had much input. They are one of the clubs in the Macdonald Cup!

Raynor and his guys built the course .......... it has never been clear how much input Raynor had in the design (that should satisfy a lot of folks -

It has never been clear tp me how much input Raynor had at Lido - I'm sure it was a lot but CB had a lot also. I would say the Channel hole is CBM for sure (smacks you right between the eyes) - Raynor at Lido? Certainly the Prize dog-leg hole where he combined two contest winning submissions. The Strategy hole at Lido? I can't tell .. because Raynor (on his own) had built one at Westhampton (the left side option now gone)

Then take Yale - such bold features on the greens reflecting the violent Yale terrain - dual design greens! The first hole a combo of Road hole on the left and P Bowl on the right with that great dual level feature between.

Couple more thoughts on the Creek's course:

When they were doing the course there apparent "differences" - one of the results is the present "Short" - someone else can address this.

As far as I can tell, virtually ALL Shorts had the horseshoe feature as well as a lot of other internal features - even the Greenbrier’s Old White and other hotel courses and public access courses originally had a very pronouned feature on their Short holes.

I mean this is what that hole is about! "I'll test you short iron play but watch out! - you'll have putting problems if you are in the wrong segment" pretty straight forward

gb

« **Reply #43 on:** August 26, 2005, 08:58:18 PM »

The 10th at Yale ('24-'26) and the 9th at Creek ('22-'23): same hole

« **Reply #44 on:** August 26, 2005, 09:42:35 PM »

George Bahto,

What do you think of the 1st and 12th greens at Yale ?

They seem somewhat similar in that they appear to offer two seperate playing surfaces that resemble one another.

« **Reply #45 on:** August 26, 2005, 10:27:47 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on August 26, 2005, 09:42:35 PM

George Bahto,

What do you think of the 1st and 12th greens at Yale ?

They seem somewhat similar in that they appear to offer two seperate playing surfaces that resemble one another.

Pat

1 and 12 greens are sort of mirror images of one another. However they really do putt pretty differently. The "upper" section of 1 has more front to back tilt and little internal bumps that make reading a putt difficult (for me anyway). Hitting the upper section of 12 green is difficult but once there easier to putt. The lower section of 1 green isn't that difficult to read or putt whereas 12 lower has quite a bit of back to front and side slope that aren't really that hard to read but not properly stroked hard to control.

Both greens have shelves separating the two sections of the green that are variable in height along their lengths, a feature that makes putting over and across them inteeresting. Too often modern greens look too uniform and "computer drawn" (because of USGA specs?) and they lose so much character.

I love the 1st green at Yale and think it one of the more interesting in golf. For some reason 12 never came across the same way.

I too woudl be curious to hear George's comments.

« **Reply #46 on:** August 27, 2005, 10:18:23 AM »

#6 is a super hole, after that I really liked #1 and #16 of the non-prototypes. What struck about the Creek is its naturalism....what a lovely spot. IMO the course melds perfectly with the site...Raynor was a genius at that.

Is the Creek a Raynor or a Macdonald/Raynor?

« **Reply #47 on:** August 27, 2005, 09:26:39 PM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on August 27, 2005, 10:18:23 AM

Is the Creek a Raynor or a Macdonald/Raynor?

Architect - CB Macdonald
Engineer - Seth Raynor

« **Reply #48 on:** August 27, 2005, 09:31:18 PM »

When it became evident that there were troubles with the "water holes" (10-14) Macdonald blamed the engineer. Not mentioning him by name, it would seem that he was fingering Raynor. It would seem that Macdonald was, as Mike said, the designer of the course and Raynor the engineer and construction guy.

Tom MacWood,

What do you mean by: "the course melds perfectly with the site"

« **Reply #49 on:** August 27, 2005, 10:40:45 PM »

I mean that the site is unusually picturesque, and Macdonald or Raynor did a brilliant job of melding the golf course on to the terrain. The golf course is a natural beauty despite the clearly man-made green sites--an excellent example of the Macdonald/Raynor paradox.

A great spot for a evening stroll or a picnic.

News:

Scott_Burroughs

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Scott_Burroughs

NAF

Tiger_Bernhardt

George_Bahto

Bill_McBride

George_Bahto

Patrick_Mucci

Top100Guru

Patrick_Mucci

Top100Guru

Bill_McBride

Patrick_Mucci

Tiger_Bernhardt

George_Bahto

George_Bahto

Patrick_Mucci

Geoffrey Childs

T_MacWood

Mike_Sweeney

wsmorrison

T_MacWood