[Matt_Ward]

Mark:

Agreed -- one of the finest TF designs but one rarely, if ever, mentioned.

I would include that as well among my personal top 10.

P.S. Common Mark -- how bout posting your top ten layouts -- you've played a good smattering of them no doubt?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark/Matt;

Fully agreed about Galloway National.  

I'm hoping to get back down there this year to see if it is actually as good as I thought it was the first time.

I have no problem at all with your "8" Mark.  I think that's fair and representative.

[Steve Lapper]

[quote author=Matt_Ward
slapper:

A few other things to mention -- there are really no par-5's of quality at Somerset Hills. Yes, it does possess a number of interesting greens, however, there are quite a few pedestrian holes that really don't have the architectural heft you outlined.

Need some examples? What about the lame ending hole -- I mean the hole at Somerset Hills makes the finale at Cypress look like a real tester! You also seem to forget the snooze downhill par-4 17th. I really like the first two holes but the 3rd is simply a let down.

Also -- the par-3 12th is a fine hole but when everyone gushes about it I have to wonder have they played the superb quartet of par-3's at the Banks Course at Forsgate -- I mean "short" -- the par-3 12th at Forsgate is a superb design with it's stunning horseshoe designed putting surface. When the pin is placed directly behind the horseshoe the probabilty of getting close takes a jeweler's touch to pull off.

Somerset Hills could use a gentle tweaking because while there are some grand holes -- the 2nd, 8th and 11th come quickly to mind -- there are also a number holes that simply lay there and don't do much for me.

Is it a top ten course in NJ? I think there are plenty of contenders who could garner such a position and I think Somerset Hills has benefited from a number of people who have come to the area and played it without visiting the other stellar courses that are here.

Matty my boy,

    Seems your speed reading got the best of you. Did you miss these statements:

" 17 is not a great hole...it is short and mostly feels squuezed in. 18 is likewise short, but has one of the more complicated green complexes on the course. It is not the greatest finishing holes, but it does make any match that comes down to the wire play their best to walk away with a win."

"It is a natural par 70 and it's fives definitely lack some of the "meat and muscle" that Matt and Jaimie may like, but nearly every other hole tests every good player with ANY club in their hand. "

   I dont't try to defend the undefendable. Nor do I forgot their shortcomings. The last two holes at Somerset are mostly lame, save the 18th's green complex. I've always said that Somerset is a superb SHORT test and should realistically be considered a par 70. I know that's not your flavor, but it is more like many of our greatest classic courses and their splendid architecture than Baltusrol or even the Banks course. Don't tell me there are not any "pedestrian" holes at either of your NJ faves.
   Somerset deserves the 3 spot because of its strong 3 and 4 pars....something Baltusrol Lower hasn't got much individuality with, period! Most are repetitive and owe their test to distance alone.
  Both Forsgate and BL do have better 5 par tests than SH, but neither matches up on variety, style or architectual character (although I'll admit the Banks course does a better job than BL!).

     In sum, I'm not sure I disagree about some of the potential tweaking (I'd like to see 6 & 9, and 17 & 18 get some heft or at least pinching bunkers at the easy layup areas), but overall I wouldn't touch too much!

      You say Vanilla, but I say Coffee...just two different tastes!

[Top100Guru]

Hollywood over Plainfield, due to major renovation/retoration, then Due Process.....

[Mike_Cirba]

Top100Guru;

Have you played Plainfield in the past two years since Gil Hanse and crew have been doing restoration work?

I love Hollywood, although I think the "renovation" work is somewhat of a mixed bag.  For instance, the changes to 14 are stupendous, but other touches, such as the new bunkers to the outside of the dogleg on the next hole are out of character.  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike Cirba,

There are no outside bunkers on the 15th hole at Hollywood.

The 15th hole at Hollywood is a terrific par 3.

Is this what you'd call "in-accuracy in reporting" or "Bias" ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

My mistake...I should have said "preceeding" hole, the 13th.  

Must be my subliminal bias.  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike Cirba,

I would disagree with you about the new bunkers at # 13.

Previously the fairway/rough rolled off into the woods, blindly, without providing any definition to the hole.  I think the hole needed a tactical signal at that location.  Remember, the bunkers aren't at the elbow of the dogleg, but at the end of the playing zone, straight off the tee.

You may object to the style, but I believe there was a need to insert a tactical signal, and I think the bunkers accomplish that quite well.

In order to be visible, and to differentiate the invisible fairway/rough from the woods, the bunkers had to be elevated so that they could be seen from the tee.

I view these bunkers as serving a dual purpose, providing definition off of the tee and acting as catch bunkers preventiing balls from going into the woods/hazard.

I think the elevated footpad provides the visibility required from the tee, but as you get to the middle of the fairway, and view the bunker foot pad which sits at a lower elevation, the bunker complex seems out of sorts.

I think this is an example where function must be the overriding factor, for without that function, the bunkers would fail to serve their purpose, especially for the first time golfer.

The alternative solution would have been to elevate the entire fairway and rough from the midpoint of the fairway at the elbow, all the way into the woods, and that doesn't seem financially or architecturally sound.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Almost every reason you've stated here is exactly why I don't like them.  The style has nothing to do with it.

It's a very short par four (about 330) which curls to the left in almost a lazy C shape.  Choosing the correct line from the tee on such a hole should be more of a guessing game, and I'm not sure why the need for visual cues and depth perception aids, as you suggest.  

If Hollywood were a resort course, with many first time players, perhaps I could understand, but it's a fairly limited private membership club.  

Don't you think the members know what lines to take with which clubs?  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike,

It's a very short par four (about 330) which curls to the left in almost a lazy C shape.

It's a sharper dogleg then you describe.  

Choosing the correct line from the tee on such a hole should be more of a guessing game, and I'm not sure why the need for visual cues and depth perception aids, as you suggest.  

Because, you're totally forgetting about the blind cross bunkering that extends to the inside elbow.
The punitive nature of the double blind hazards was excessive, in my view, and I think the addition of bunkers at the edge of the fairway, not unlike the bunkering on # 15 or # 16 at Hidden Creek serves a valueable dual purpose, as catch bunkers and bunkers that send a tactical signal to the eye of the golfer on the tee.

If Hollywood were a resort course, with many first time players, perhaps I could understand, but it's a fairly limited private membership club.  

Guests and competitors in tournaments are now to be abandoned

Don't you think the members know what lines to take with which clubs?  

Based on my play with many of them..... NO
The hole presents visual and tactical challenges no matter how many times you play it, and remember, Hollywood is about a mile or less from the Atlantic Ocean and gets some pretty good winds out of the east and west, which dramatically affects the play of the hole

[Top100Guru]

Mike;

Will visit Plainfield agai this summer and see the changes and get back to you.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

It's a very short par four (about 330) which curls to the left in almost a lazy C shape.

It's a sharper dogleg then you describe.  

Well, my descriptive efforts may be lacking, so a pic might do a better job.



Choosing the correct line from the tee on such a hole should be more of a guessing game, and I'm not sure why the need for visual cues and depth perception aids, as you suggest.  

Because, you're totally forgetting about the blind cross bunkering that extends to the inside elbow.
The punitive nature of the double blind hazards was excessive, in my view, and I think the addition of bunkers at the edge of the fairway, not unlike the bunkering on # 15 or # 16 at Hidden Creek serves a valueable dual purpose, as catch bunkers and bunkers that send a tactical signal to the eye of the golfer on the tee.

Patrick, I don't care for the bunkers through the dogleg on 15 at Hidden Creek for much the same reasons.  I LIKE holes where indecision is part of the psychological game and generally decry this whole effort to create "target bunkers" as visual and depth perception aids.  I guess we just differ as to their necessity.

If Hollywood were a resort course, with many first time players, perhaps I could understand, but it's a fairly limited private membership club.  

Guests and competitors in tournaments are now to be abandoned

Not only that, but they should be rounded up and imprisoned!
Don't you think the members know what lines to take with which clubs?  

Based on my play with many of them..... NO
The hole presents visual and tactical challenges no matter how many times you play it, and remember, Hollywood is about a mile or less from the Atlantic Ocean and gets some pretty good winds out of the east and west, which dramatically affects the play of the hole

I think that the fact that the hole "presents visual and tactical challenges no matter how many times you play it" is the sign of a well-conceived hole.  As far as the member's inability to choose the correct club or line on a consistent basis, whose fault is that??

From Ran's hole description;

13th hole, 330 yards; A clever dogleg left hole where it is imperative that the caddie know where the hole location is for that day. If it is left on the somewhat V shaped green, the golfer wishes to drive long right to the outside of dogleg. Conversely, if it's right, the golfer ideally will position himself shorter off the tee and closer to the inside of the dogleg. Regardless, the hoped for birdie never seems to materialize as often as one might wish on a hole of this length.

Also, a pic of the approach from the left side of the fairway;

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike,

The pictures are from benign angles and not from the tee.

The elbow and cross bunkers pictured are invisible from the tee.

The pictures are no substitute for being there and playing the hole.

[Matt_Ward]

slapper:

When a course has no par-5's of merit -- and ends with two nondescript holes it's tough to elevate it beyond a certain level even when it does have a number of interesting elements.

Somerset Hills is a design marvel in that the course was created on such a unique piece of property. It does have a number of design flourishes -- the quality of the greens in many areas is very good, to name just one thing. However, there are simply tooooooo many mid-length par-4's that really don't expand upon the range of par-4's you encounter. I don't doubt the 1st and 7th are quite good but must one play the same version of a 360-390 yard hole all day?

I also never said there weren't any pedestrian holes at the courses I mentioned -- but Forsgate / Banks Course is beyond Somerset Hills. The quarter of par-3's at the Banks Course is easily beyond SH and I would be quick to add that set of holes there is among the best 3-4 in the Garden State.

The routing and green contours is also well done -- you also have a superb closing stretch of holes starting with the 16th thru 18th holes.

As an FYI -- there have been some improvements to the Banks Course and you may not have been back there within the last year. Also, the back-to-back par-5's at the 8th and 9th are, in my mind, likely ahead of the dynamic duo you get at the Lower at Baltusrol.

If you want another course to play int he spirit of Somerset Hills that's also on a tight piece of property and is not long try Morris County GC in Convent Station. The layout features a good mixture of Raynor holes --I believe the 7th hole (dubbed "Big Ben") is simply delicious. Ditto the bending dog-left par-4 8th hole.

If I was classifying courses according to a "weight class" like boxing I would say Somerset Hills is a wonderful bantamweight fighter. It has it's moments for sure -- the par-3 2nd (redan hole) is also well done -- but Baltusrol Lower has a bit more than simply length as many critics often cite. The layout
forces you to play a much wider array of holes and although the greens at the Lower are not as visibily demanding as it's sister Upper Course they can be quite vexing simply because they have such subtle breaks.

You're right slapper -- we are vanilla and chocolate!

I have to add this again -- kudos to George Bahto for the work at Essex County. This Banks Course has now elevated itself even beyond where it was previously. For those who have not been back recently it pays to see what has been done there.

Mike C:

Saw your comments / re: The Knoll. I agree it's a fine public layout -- in my mind, still among the state's ten best, but the work being contemplated by George Bahto there is still in the exploration stage.

The Knoll has suffered through the years because of management and the inability to carry forward the design elements Banks originally provided. I mean how good is the first three holes there? You also have a superb Biaritz hole at the 13th that needs some attention and the finale is truly a dynamic closing hole -- a few more yards would add to that hole given today's technology.

I know George loves the place -- like I do -- and I also know that if and when his desire to bring back to life the Banks spirit is done the inherenet qualities of The Knoll will once again rise. We shall see ...

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

The pictures are from benign angles and not from the tee.

Patrick; agreed, the tee is further back to the left.

The elbow and cross bunkers pictured are invisible from the tee.

Agreed, it's not exactly the most visibly framed target, at least without the new bunkers.  I liked that and you didn't..no harm, no foul.


The pictures are no substitute for being there and playing the hole.

Yep, but they do give others here a better idea of what we're talking about

Do you think the far end of 12 at Pine Valley needs similar target bunkering?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Matt and others
Although I have not played there yet, where does Hamilton Farm fit into this discussion?
Steve

[Matt_Ward]

Steve:

The top ten in Jersey is extremely difficult to enter as a new course for a host of obvious reasons. The quality of the architecture quite rightly favors a number of outstanding courses -- some of which fly below the national radar because of the heavyweight appeal / fanfare rightly tied to  PV and Plainfield.

I have played Hamilton Farm a few times since it opened and I do like the course. Hurdzan / Fry did a very nice job using the rolling countryside that makes up the course. The issue? I have to say there was an overt tendency to overkill with flowery bunkers that simply overwhelm the naturalness of the site. Sometimes it's best to allow the land to breathe without attempting to engulf it with just one more added flourish of man's hand. Sometimes the "extras" become a bit more than what is prudent.

The land can speask volumes for itself and you often see many unique courses in NJ in which the land can say more than what man can / should provide. One good example is Morris County GC in Convent Station. Here you have a Seth Raynor design that is quite short (less than 6,400 yards) but the land makes for some compelling golf. Raynor just used what nature provided and you have some interesting holes that you will likely not find at many other courses in the state -- e.g. the long par-4 7th (nicknamed "Big Ben") comes to mind.

I am a big fan of a number of holes at HF -- the downhill par-5 9th is a good one although a number of people I know believe it too features a good bit of overkill.

Even with that I would say Hamilton Farm would likely crack the top 20 in the state -- would it be among the low or high teens? That's a tough call -- I would have to say somewhere in the mid-to-high teens would likely be about right IMHO.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike Cirba,

The far end of # 12 at PV is a lot harder to hit through then the 13th at Hollywood, and that's an important distinction.

The 12th at PV also favors the long ball, I'm not so sure that the canted green at Hollywood provides the same incremental benefit to the long ball.

The holes are similarly configured, but play differently.
A short ball in the fairway at PV creates far more problems with the approach then a short ball in the fairway at Hollywood.

[T_MacWood]

Anyone know why Rees ignored the original bunkering sceme for the 13th?

Instead of framing the outside of the driving zone, there was roundish bunker smack dab in the middle of the fairway, very near what would appear to be position A. Actually it wasn't a single bunker but a bazarre nest of very small bunkers forming a larger bunker--something I imagine you'd want to avoid.

There was narrow longish bunker at the corner, basically parallel to the tee shot. It appears the fairway was wider back then, especially on the right. I would guess this was the bail out area for the shorter folk. There was a bunker on the right--that ran perpandicular to the tee shot--that the wee folk would have to play short of.

The hole looked to be a dog-legged version of the 4th at Woking, requiring careful thought.

[Steve Lapper]

Matty (Vanilla Ice ):

  I have to, once again, slow you down a bit and force you to focus better. #1 and #7 at Somerset Hills are 448yds and 445yds (tips) respectively. Hardly the stuff of  "the same version of a 360-390 yard hole all day." As for the the par 3's, I really believe Somerset's to equal those of Forsgate, not so far below as you suggest and both places get absolutely no competition from Baltusrol Lower. Their variety is unparalleled.

  I've not played Morris County GC yet so I can't comment, but like your descriptions, I've heard nothing but good things. Your boxing analogy work well, but I see SH as a welterweight and BL as a sluggish, over-fed middle-heavyweight!

 Keep it coming Vanilla boy!!


Steve:

     On the subject of Hamilton Farm, I usually refrain from commenting on it as I'm sure to be viewed as bias, but I really do think it handily makes the NJ top 20. In fact, I'd put in just near 13-17 depending on the year and condition.

    Matt is right about its bunker overkill and I am one of those who disagrees with him about the 9th, finding it among the goofier of the holes. The course, unlike an over-manufactured Due Process, follows the rolling countryside with a light and wonderful touch and provides excellent and real, elevation changes. Its routing allows for the wind to give each hole its own extra test and the lengthy par 3's add spine to any round. Again, unlike say a Due Process, Hamilton Farm lends itself to sidehill and awkward stances that follow poorly planned shots, insuring integrity of strategy.
    Most importantly, the full length 18 hole Hickory par 3 course is most likely the best of it's kind in the world and combined makes Hamilton Farm a wonderful NJ asset (even Matt will agree with that! )

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Tom MacWood,

Anyone know why Rees ignored the original bunkering sceme for the 13th?

The 13th hole was not part of the original lay out at Hollywood.

The land the hole sits on was acquired from Deal Golf Club subsequent to the design and building of the original 18.

The add on holes in this location were originally two par 3's.

Instead of framing the outside of the driving zone, there was roundish bunker smack dab in the middle of the fairway, very near what would appear to be position A. Actually it wasn't a single bunker but a bazarre nest of very small bunkers forming a larger bunker--something I imagine you'd want to avoid.

There was narrow longish bunker at the corner, basically parallel to the tee shot. It appears the fairway was wider back then, especially on the right. I would guess this was the bail out area for the shorter folk. There was a bunker on the right--that ran perpandicular to the tee shot--that the wee folk would have to play short of.

Some zealous green chairman or president planted trees along the right side years ago, substantially narrowing the hole.  The recommendation to remove many trees on this hole and others, especially the invasive oak on # 3 were rejected by the membership

The hole looked to be a dog-legged version of the 4th at Woking, requiring careful thought.

This is the product of combining two par 3's into a par 4, after the original course was built.

# 13 remains a terrific little par 4 sandwiched between two long, terrific par 4's

Slapper,

# 1 at Somerset Hills plays a lot shorter then its yardage.
It used to be that you needed helmets and flak jackets when putting on # 3 green.

But, it remains a testing opening hole.

I've always felt that the nines should be reversed in order to gain a better finishing stretch and to start off a little kinder.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
An interesting side bar about the Deal-Hollywood controversy of 1912, but I don't see what that has to do with the question of why Rees chose not to restore the 13th hole.

After all the Hollywood course RJ was working on was at one time considered one of the best in the world With the par-4 13th) and that dog-leg par-4 has been around for over eighty years.

Why didn't he restore the hole with the central bunker?

[Steve Lapper]

Pat,

    You are right on all counts....it (SH#1)does indeed play shorter, unless you are facing a stiff Nor'east wind that often appears in Spring and Fall (best times of year to play that course anyway). The green cant does well to stiffen the lack of playable length. The nines should be switched and interestingly many members do seek to deliberately play them in reverse for matchs.

The only good news is that with the new ball and club technology, the #3 green now only comes into play for the really short hitters!

[Matt_Ward]

slapper:

You'd be hard pressed to make a case that Somerset Hills has the better architecture when compared to Forsgate / Banks Course and Montclair #2 & #4. The totality of the two courses in Jamesburg and West Orange is a bit ahead of the one in Bernardsville in my mind.

Somerset benefits from being close to Golf House and the likelihood that the friends and members of Baltusrol, Canoe Brook, etc, etc frequent the place to get away from the crowds at their respective home courses.

You need to play Morris County when time permits. I think the first six holes are somewhat redundant -- but when you step up the 7th tee the game is indeed on. I would go even further and say the 7th at Morris County is one of the best individual holes in the Garden State. It plays 452 yards and simply uses the property in an exquisite fashion.

Best of all -- Morris County isn't really long -- I don't know if it even hits 6,400 yards total. I would not place the course among the best 25 but it would certainly be a sleeper people should play to see what it does offer.

Let's talk about Somerset and the overdosing of the mid-length par-4's. It's just too bad the course didn't offer the real variety in hole lengths -- along with some quality par-5's -- to be even higher rated than it is now.

I'll mention another sleeper for you to consider playing -- Oak Hill just south of Philipsburg. It's a David & William Gordon design and has some of the best greens in the state.

One last thing -- the quartet of par-3's at Forsgate is only surpassed by what you find at PV and Plainfield. I'll be glad to argue their strengths against any other course in NJ.

By the way slapper -- can you dare post your top ten in NJ in order. I'd like to see where you place Baltusrol Lower and the Banks Course at Forsgate?

P.S. I do agree with you on the overall placement of Hamilton Farm -- likely it would be around 17th-18th place for me.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Tom MacWood,

An interesting side bar about the Deal-Hollywood controversy of 1912, but I don't see what that has to do with the question of why Rees chose not to restore the 13th hole.

After all the Hollywood course RJ was working on was at one time considered one of the best in the world With the par-4 13th) and that dog-leg par-4 has been around for over eighty years.

Why didn't he restore the hole with the central bunker?

Because the members didn't want to restore everything about the old course.

The old course was altered primarily by the membership over the years, especially the filling in of bunkers.

The course became too hard as the membership aged, and membership into Hollywood was a difficult task, reserved primarily to older or established individuals, hence the golf course was altered to suit their needs.

The membership was not interested in returning the golf course to how it appeared in the old photo I provided, even though I would have supported that plan.

The photo gives the impression that the course was more difficult then Pine Valley, and I doubt that an aging membership who used Hollywood as their summer vacation golf course, wanted to battle such a rigorous test.

The "will of the membership" dictates policy and restoration was not their objective  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()