Hudson National...Very Good Fazio

« **Reply #25 on:** September 08, 2003, 11:14:23 AM »

Corey,

Your description of the Rees bunkers at SH very aptly could be applied to some of the Rees bunkers at Monterey Peninsula CC (Dunes). That or something about a moustache on a painting in the Louvre?

« **Reply #26 on:** September 08, 2003, 11:43:08 AM »

Corey,

I agree with a few of your observations and disagree with others:

1) The par 3 comparison is hands down Sleepy (one of the great sets) Although HN#16 is very good.

2) I've said it already, the Sleepy greens have way more undulation (as Faz's almost never do), but HN's are very fast, very true and vary in size and are often well proportioned to the hole's shot strategy.

3) Sleepy's fairways, while undulating, are nothing to get excited about. They need some pruning and restoration for sure. HN's are solid, well pinched and canted. Not great, but solid.
4) Your note on SH #8 is spot on....needs more penal bunkering and that happens a few other places as well on the course.

I simpley said I liked HN and thought it a good test. I'm not going to get into a knocking contest on SH....If it were well restored...it would rise to stellar in my book.

As for the Beaver...you may well have the best stories...but he's still my b......!

« **Reply #27 on:** September 08, 2003, 12:50:46 PM »

slapper:

I beg to differ with you regarding HN versus The Bridge (except the aspect of the walk) but let's be clear -- you won't convince me nor I you. I understand English quite well --it's hard to understand it though when people put Somerset Hills as the third best course in the Garden State though.

Well -- to each his own ...

Hudson National from the four times I've played it has usually been overwatered and although it cuts a fine view I have to say from the architecturally compelling aspect it's more show than substance -- if you want to see a more contemporary Fazio course with plenty of unique and fascinating design aspects see Glenwild in Park City, UT.

Yes, HN has a few holes of serious note -- in fact, I do really like the 18th although a few of the serious archie types despise it as being overally shaped. By the way -- I really enjoy the finishing three holes because they are among the best you can play when there.

slapper: Puhleeeeeeeeze, nuff of the cuss words -- that's not your style! I give a damn what you say ...

Jim Michaels:

Plainfield behind Quaker Ridge, Maidstone -- really?

Somerset Hills ahead of Forsgate, Montclair (#2 & #4) and Essex County -- really? Have you seen the three I just mentioned recently?

Just a quick question -- how much of Jersey have you seen / played? No Hollywood either? Interesting.

By the way Jim -- where's Winged Foot?

« **Reply #28 on:** September 08, 2003, 01:02:45 PM »

Matt,

I know you understand English

(For the Record, I hate all the Clintons!)...I just like stirring you up. I still believe SHCC is better than Baltusrol, et.al(maybe not Hollywood)....so there!

My folks spend their summer in Utah and raved, like you, about Glenwild....so it must be decent. Damn

though, I do prefer HN over the Bridge. The opening three and final three play very well and I actually liked the stretch of 14/15/16 as well(love the small, well guarded 14 green).

slap

« **Reply #29 on:** September 08, 2003, 01:27:42 PM »

Matt

I believe Jim Michaels said "in no particular order" with regard to those courses.

note- I played Plainfield recently with Mr. and Mrs. Redanman and it grows on me each time I visit. For a top 50 course its underappreciated if that's possible. As redanman states, "it seems like Plainfield is always ready to host a US Am or Sr. Open on a days notice. Cut the greens a bit closer and bring it on.

It is a course that is BOTH "championship" AND "sporty". How many of those are there?

« **Reply #30 on:** September 08, 2003, 01:34:48 PM »

Generally, I think Hudson is an amazing "environment for golf." It has a priceless intangible feel that brings so much to a round of golf. It feels remote and almost "creepy" up on that hill. You can't buy that. Anyway, GCA is a forum for discussing golf course architecture and HN certainly has it's achievements and failures. Generally, I think the par-3s are mediocre. Except for #16, I'm unimpressed with what Fazio accomplished. #s 2, 11 and 13 are huge underachievers but not necessarily bad holes. #8 is aesthetically striking but I think it could have been so much better. For me, it's only a good hole from the way-backs. Sleepy's par 3s absolutely crush HN's, no doubt. On the other hand, I've got to hand it to Fazio on how well he created some excellent 4 and 5 par holes on this billy-goat property. My favorites, in order are #10, 14, 6, 18, 4, 15, 12. Hudson is a unique and satisfying experience and perhaps I give that aspect more credit than I should. It's not a good walking course which I also feel is very important. I love the hairy and rugged natural feel of HN. I also prefer the way the routing at HN traverses the steepest hills vs the way Sleepy does it. Purely on the clinical merits of golf hole quality, Hudson is good but not great.

« **Reply #31 on:** September 08, 2003, 01:48:41 PM »

Geoff,

Good question: how many Championship & Sporty: courses are there?

Scratch,

As is all together too easy, you have neatly summed up my take on the place....very good, but not great. Thanks for the abbreviations.

Slap

« **Reply #32 on:** September 08, 2003, 01:58:16 PM »

Geoff:

I still have to wonder if Jim Michaels has played the rest of the Jersey courses I listed that he omitted.

By the way Plainfield is far from "sporty." I don't doubt for a New York minute the qualities of the course and have to wonder how many people consistently underrate the layout when a discussion of the best in the greater NY Metro area takes place.

If you want to find courses that have "combo" capabilities I refer you to the last sentence Tom Doak said about Shinnecock Hills in "Confidential Guide." I think that's the aspect you are speaking about.

« **Reply #33 on:** September 08, 2003, 02:08:43 PM »

Matt

Tell me that holes like #4, 10 and especially 11 aren't "sporty". You can even fit #9 in there with its green complex. Plainfield has it all including sporty holes along side those beastly par 4's and 5's. It also might be the best "big" course packed into such a small site. Riviera is the only other that compares IMHO.

« **Reply #34 on:** September 08, 2003, 02:11:08 PM »

Matt,

Plainfield is sporty...it is complete, yet small enough to describe along those lines. I for one do not underestimate its merits and agree with you about it belonging in Jersey's 2 spot and among the Metro area's finer layouts. Arrrrrgh...I can't beleive we really agree on something!

« **Reply #35 on:** September 08, 2003, 02:11:19 PM »

EC and Forsgate, yes. Montclair no. They are both good and are both better than Hudson. Does that answer your question, Matt? Thank you G Childs for noting the "in no particular order" aspect of my post. I probably consider Hollywood borderline metro area, but if I am putting Eastern LI on that list, then yes, Hollywood should definitely have been on the list.

« **Reply #36 on:** September 08, 2003, 02:29:21 PM »

Hey Jimbo -- cool your jets -- OK! When I've post stuff it's no big deal for people to shoot their canyons at me. I'm just asking questions.

Jim when you say Essex and Forsgate is a "yes" does that mean you believe they are both better than Somerset Hills or not. When you say "no" for Montclair -- is it fair to say you believe Somerset Hills is better than #2 & #4 at Montclair.

One last thing -- maybe my eyes are going did you leave Winged Foot off your "no particular order" list by accident or design?

slapper:

We agree on plenty of things my good buddy! I just believe Plainfield is vastly underappreciated by too many people from within OUR AREA.

Geoff:

Help me to understand what "sporty" is?

« **Reply #37 on:** September 08, 2003, 02:38:56 PM »

Matt:

Sporty is:

I believe that Merion, Yale and maybe Forsgate (need to see the remaining holes to be sure) fit the cross of Sporty and Championship.

« **Reply #38 on:** September 08, 2003, 02:48:46 PM »

Mike:

Love the picture but define for me what sporty is?

FYI -- Forsgate is not a "Championship" layout by the narrow definition of having held a major event of serious consequence beyond state / regional events. Is it sporty? Maybe there's another category between the two groups.

I also have a hard time swallowing when a course is defined as "sporty" as being something of high quality. I guess it's my bias to courses that are 9,000 yards in length and have CR's of 78.0 and slopes of 150+.

« **Reply #39 on:** September 08, 2003, 02:56:20 PM »

Good ones Mike.

Matt

Sporty to me is exhilarating, teasing and fun yet challenging but with expectations for success (perhaps over a wider handicap range). Frequently the expectations are met with heartache when the execution of the shots it not just right. (sporty frequently = good architecture).

When you get to the 11th tee at Plainfield I'm sure you're only hitting a wedge from the back tee (my 8 iron

). What happens if you miss the green? What happens if gravity fails and you wind up above the hole? Sporty!

Bethpage and WFW = the antithesis of sporty.

« **Reply #40 on:** September 08, 2003, 03:06:27 PM »

In general, a shorter (easier?) hole with lots of options. I think the 12th at Merion is a "sporty" hole. You can hit driver and try to fade it fairly close, or lay back with a 3 wood or iron. Fairway placement is key as too far right creates a difficult shot over the bunker. The 8 iron to wedge in is key, as the green complex makes the hole "sporty". Deep bunker, severe slope to the green requires a below the hole, OB behind with Ardmore Avenue. Sporty can be an easy 4 for the 18 handicapper and a hard 6 for the 5 handicapper.

« **Reply #41 on:** September 08, 2003, 03:14:12 PM »

Geoff:

Given what you have just defined as "sporty" -- please read the last sentence that Doak posts for Shinnecock Hills in "Confidential Guide" and tell me why or why not you believe the term "sporty" can apply there?

Can a course have a "sporty" hole and really be much more than just that?

Plainfield's 11th that you define as "sporty" -- I would just say it's a superb hole and is balanced with other key par-3's during the round. If you ask a good many people familiar with Plainfield over the years I think they might take umbrage that their esteemed layout is thought of as "sporty."

I also have to wonder how close "sporty" is when you have such other words as "tricky" or "quirky?"

« **Reply #42 on:** September 08, 2003, 03:18:10 PM »

Slapper - are you saying that bunkers that cause you to play out backwards or sideways are a negative as fas as reviewing a course? I'm not a big fan of the fingered bunkers, but are the fingers from an aesthetic viewpoint the problem or that they cause one to play out backwards, even on an almost good shot?

There are a few bunkers on some courses in Scottland that cause that sort of play

« **Reply #43 on:** September 08, 2003, 03:38:06 PM »

Matt

I said championship and sporty at the same time. It was meant as the highest compliment possible. Anyone can build "the hardest golf course in the world". The trick is to make it challenging and fun for the widest variety of players. Plainfield is that in spades.

« **Reply #44 on:** September 08, 2003, 03:50:26 PM »

Quote from: Jamie_Duffner on September 08, 2003, 03:18:10 PM

Slapper - are you saying that bunkers that cause you to play out backwards or sideways are a negative as fas as reviewing a course? I'm not a big fan of the fingered bunkers, but are the fingers from an aesthetic viewpoint the problem or that they cause one to play out backwards, even on an almost good shot?

There are a few bunkers on some courses in Scottland that cause that sort of play

Jamie,

As I've elaborated on before in this column, these particular bunkers are indeed a decidedly negative factor and affect the review of this course. They are considerably unfair in spots (imagine taking an Oakmont style "church pew" bunker and placing it vertically next to a green). That makes it unfair and DUMB. They are there to please and example the architect's aesthetic....something you won't see in those Scottish bunkers you are thinking of. The deep pot bunkers found among the links are placed to strategically define the line to the green and force a player to make a shot around them. Same at Pine Valley or RSG or Royal Portrush.
At HNGC, they are numerous and give any golfer a fit and don't make sense in the context of strategy. Should a just slightly missed 40 yd wedge face a downhill bunker lie with absolutely NO BACKSWING?? You tell me if that is remotely fair? I don't think so and playing out backwards on numerous greenside complexes is just plain stupid.

« **Reply #45 on:** September 08, 2003, 04:57:10 PM »

Matt,

Between quaker ridge and bethpage I think you can see there that I typed in winged foot (both). And what I meant was that Essex County and Forsgate are better than Hudson for my money, not better than Somerset.

« **Reply #46 on:** September 08, 2003, 06:13:34 PM »

Jim:

Thanks for the comments -- to help me understand further -- can you tell me in what manner Essex County & Forsgate are behind Somerset Hills? Have you played both courses since their updating?

Pardon me on WF -- but where do you place Montclair #2 & #4? Ahead / behind Somerset and why in either answer. Also -- where do you place Hollywood in comparison to Somerset?

Appreciate the response ...

Geoff:

I hear what you're saying but the term "sporty" in the minds of many people I talk with is not exactly the "endearment" word you mean it to be. Many, myself included, see "sporty" as a course of lesser quality -- too bad there isn't a word in between 'championship' and 'sporty.'

« **Reply #47 on:** September 08, 2003, 07:07:06 PM »

Matt Ward,

I use "hybrid"

Shinnecock is Championship caliber
NGLA is sporty.

Merion and Plainfield could be in between or both.

I guess it's a matter of perspective.

I think that you also have to define the competitive category
applicable to the categories, ie,

PGA TOUR PRO
Local/regional PROS
0 to + Amateurs (National Caliber)
0 to 4 Amateurs (local/regional Caliber)

etc., etc..

« **Reply #48 on:** September 08, 2003, 07:21:37 PM »

Matt, I haven't played Montclair.

With regard to this sporty vs. championship discussion. I think that whatever we are trying to describe here is a big part of the difference in the two major biennial rankings. GOLF tends toward the "sporty" and Golf Digest tends toward the "championship" variety, if I understand how you guys are using the terms.

« **Reply #49 on:** July 22, 2005, 06:08:07 AM »

Quote from: Mike Sweeney 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

Based on Cary's suggestion, I found this old thread and answered my own question 2 years later after missing a first round at Hudson National. I definitely prefer Branton Woods to Hudson National. They are very similar in the design with a big bold feeling. Both have nice but not necessarily interesting greens. Branton is a less hilly site however with no views of the Hudson, and two holes that are squeezed in a corner. It is much more user friendly on a daily basis. If you are running an outing and cost is not a consideration, you would probably choose Hudson for the views, food and service. In the ten rounds of life test, I would choose Branton 7 and Hudson 3.

I think Cary's bigger question on the other thread is can these type of Fazio modern courses be compared to say GCA favorites Friars Head and Sebonack? Well it goes back to my basic premise that great sites make great architects, and Doak and C&C have figured out how to get great sites.

News:

Scott_Burroughs

Steve Lapper

Matt_Ward

Steve Lapper

GeoffreyC

Scratch_Nathan

Steve Lapper

Matt_Ward

GeoffreyC

Steve Lapper

Jim_Michaels

Matt_Ward

Mike_Sweeney

Matt_Ward

GeoffreyC

Mike_Sweeney

Matt_Ward

Jamie_Duffner

GeoffreyC

Steve Lapper

Jim_Michaels

Matt_Ward

Patrick_Mucci

Jim_Michaels

Mike_Sweeney