Pat:

I don't see the Lower as being some testament to compelling architecture. I've played it numerous time over a number of years and I state that from more than just the "back tee" perspective. That doesn't mean it's a dog track -- it just means, I believe, that people have confused the hosting of majors with architectural greatness.

That doesn't diminish what the facility has clearly provided to the game of golf as a host site for some of the game's premier events. The PGA Championship was well done and a most deserving champion was crowned. But having the desire and facilities to host such events is one thing -- having a layout that is among the very best in NJ from a strictly architectural perspective is quite another IMHO.

With that said -- the desire to morph the Lower into some 21st century candidate as a design of vintage quality doesn't ring home for me -- in some ways thise desire to "remain in the picture" has simply meant added length for the sake of length and little in terms of overall character being enhanced.

The Lower is long, no doubt, but save for the unique back-to-back par-5's closing holes the rest of the layout is fairly ho-hum with little that causes the pulse to beat faster with anticipation. I also believe the par-3 4th is one of the most overrated holes of its kind. Candidly, the story of Trent Jones and what he did on the hole has simply added to its fanfare --and I can certainly appreciate what he did with the hole design wise and when he holed out that memorable day.

Hosting majors is one entirely different matter when compared to compelling architecture. The Lower brought in Rees Jones for some upgrades / modernization, call it what one will. The outcomes have been a mixed bag at best. You can likely recall the discussion of the fairway bunker complex on the 18th on the Lower -- it simply doesn't match up.

I'm not suggesting Bedminster is some sort of poster child for architectural greatness -- but if I had to choose where I would play ten rounds I'd take the Bedminster layout no less than seven times to three for the Lower.

Steve L:

How nice -- we can agree !

redanman:

Good point on the inane back tee at the 18th at Bedminster. Playing from the 550-yard mark does bring into play a vast array of different options.

Matt mentioned a Met Golfer article above on Trump.  It's online now:

http://www.mgagolf.org/intraclub/query/catquery.html?doc_number=6809

Mostly a fluff piece that tries to portray Trump as a golf visionary.

Matt mentioned a Met Golfer article above on Trump.  It's online now:

http://www.mgagolf.org/intraclub/query/catquery.html?doc_number=6809

Mostly a fluff piece that tries to portray Trump as a golf visionary.

Our desire and soon to be quest is to see the article our own redanman penned for The Jersey Golfer.  I heard Jose Eber couldn't have put more fluff in a piece.

Matt Ward,

I'd take Baltusrol Lower 9-1.

From the member's or regular back tees it's an interesting golf course, and I do believe that a good number of holes jump out at you.

# 2, # 3, # 4, # 9, # 11, # 12, # 13, # 15, # 16, # 17 and
# 18.

In addition, the green complexes and bunkering are superior to TN, although, I like many of those greens.

One of the comments I heard from a number of golfers was that there weren't any distinctive holes.

I'd disagree with that as I thought # 5, # 6, # 8 and # 16 were distinctive.

Forget about length at Baltusrol Lower.
Nonone plays from the tips and scores anything close to their handicap.  The course from the tips is meant for one golfer, the PGA Tour Player.

But, from the regular back tees or the middle tees it's an interesting golf course.

If you compare the par 5's, par 3's and par 4's at both courses, I think you'd have to give the nod to BL.

In addition, since you're harping on the length added to BL, don't forget that TN is now at 7,560, which is far longer than BL.

Tim Pitner,

He's not a 1 or a 2, but then again, how many golfers are 1's or 2's ?

He enjoys playing golf, just like the rest of us.

Trump's index currently is 4.4, playing out of Winged Foot.  Look him up on ghin.com.

And as a current 3.7 who looks like a 15 at least, I shall cast no aspersions on anyone.

You go, Donald.

 

All 5 scores he has posted since 2002 make him a 4.4.

It's interesting to me that some of the criticism seems picaune, and it's mixed with admissions that it is comparable in many ways and grudgingly even better than Baltusrol Lower in some accounts.  That seems like pretty lofty company to me for a brand new course.

I have to wonder if it was built by someone not named Donald if the tone of the discussion wouldn't be quite different.  

Patrick,

I think I know what you love in golf courses and I tend to be simpatico.

However, perhaps my range is a bit broader (you might argue that I'm less judicious) because Trump National and Galloway National are two of my very favorite courses in New Jersey.  I think the former is in my top five, and I raised a few eyebrows last year by stating that opinion.  

It's too late at night for me to re-type the analysis I wrote here last year, or debate your contentions on a hole by hole basis, but I will say as someone who has been accused of being a "Fazio basher" that I could play it every day and I also believe it contains some of the most original and envelope-pushing work I've seen from TF.   Holes such as 3,5!,6,7,8,14!!!,15!,16!!!, and 18 are all not only memorable, but ultimately thought-provoking and strategically interesting.

I could play Maidstone, GCGC, Hidden Creek, Wild Horse, Atlantic City, The Creek, Piping Rock and NGLA every day, so perhaps that will give you a sense of my preferences for "Sporty" golf courses.

Looks more like a preference for great courses!

Mike C -

How would you compare Trump to Baltusrol Lower? You wrote one of the more persuasive posts on the latter a few years ago, I still think of it each time I read someone who feels its ranking is due to its legacy.

George P:

Yes, legacy is a factor and sometimes people confuse the two.

So much of a club's standing (in the minds of many golfers) is tied to the factor in having hosted major events. The Baltusrol membership is to be saluted for their contributions to the game and their desire to be a place where golf history has been created -- see the two Nicklaus triumphs as case in point.

However, the hosting of majors is not in and of itself a testament to compelling architecture. I find the Lower as weaker parcel of the two-18-hole layouts there. I see little in terms of the caliber of the greens and bunker styles versus the likes of other Tillie layouts -- most notably other Jersey gems such as Ridgewood, Somerset Hills, to name just two.

In sum -- there are aspects of Baltusrol Lower which are quite interesting -- I alluded to the closing back-to-back par-5's, as one clear example. The bulk of what is there simply doesn't present enough of what Tillie has done elsewhere and to great success.

I salute Pat's outlining of his preferences -- clearly what TF does provide -- and we are talking about his best works in Galloway National most certainly, and less so for some with Trump National / Bedminster -- although I do like the course a good bit more than many.

Clearly, when The Donald's name is entered into the scene there are many people who are already panning the ocurse as nothing more than a blowhard attempt by the man to cement himself among the top tier layouts.

There's plenty of architectural dynamics at work with the Bedminster layout -- and if The Donald happens to be the beneficiary of such a situation more power to him.

Tom Fazio is often the poster child for whipping by many here on GCA. He has done some outstanding layouts and I agree with Mike and a few others on the totality of what he did at Galloway National. While I would not add Bedminster as an equal to Galloway I would dare say the course is very close in what it offers -- provided, as Bill V indicated previously, that people understand their limitations and play the appropriate tee boxes.

Pat:

At the end of the day -- whether DT inherited TF or not is merely a sidepoint IMHO. So what? He still had input on what was eventually completed and it's his name NOW that is associated with the property.

I give credit to Trump in seeing the sheer possibilities of the total property site there. Clearly, the coming second 18 has some heavy duty territory to cover in order to be placed as a co-equal layout. We shall see when it comes on the scene sometime in '08.

I don't doubt DT makes brash comments -- it's part of his mantra to be a showboat. However, when the goods of Bedminster are truly examined the totality of the product speaks loud and clear to me. I can separate Trump's noise self promotion from the real deal of a first rate layout. I would hope others can do likewise.

I think you also need to cut some slack on TF designs because you simply seem to dismiss them. No doubt personal preferences play a role but I can easily say that after playing 18 I would love a return engagement at Galloway National and Trump / Bedminster. Baltusrol / Lower is a fine layout but when held to the highest of standards as architecture of the most compelling type -- I don't see it and others have opined no less than I on that matter.

At the end of the day -- to each his own.

Pat Mucci:

Yes, I remember your defense of TF's work at Shadow Creek but frankly you need to play a few others in his portfolio because IMHO Shadow Creek is more about the tenacity of man to overcome Mother Nature to build what's there now. That to me, at least, is the major headline that comes out of its existence.

The strategic pulse of Shadow Creek is a good bit lower than a number of his other stellar efforts (which I'll be glad to name) -- you can look locally most notably at Galloway National as a clear example of what I just stated.