Paul:

Par-5 holes are fundamentally a part of the troika of holes you should find at a top course. I'm not saying that a facilty must have four par-5's but if a course lacks any of them then yes, I would weigh that against it's overall standing. On another point -- let me remind you that I thoroughly enjoyed the quirky Pennard when I visited Wales last September, to name just one example. People who seek to pigeonhole me on course preferences will be sadly mistaken in a number of instances.

Paul, architecture to me is not simply some "artsy" concept. It is defined by its ability to create an interesting and solid array of shots and holes. SH has a number of them -- it also possesses it's fair share of the ordinary. My point was that other Jersey courses -- that are no longer than SH -- are in so many ways just as interesting -- possibly even more interesting.

Paul -- help me stop laughing when you seek to defend the par-5's at SH versus those at Plainfield. If you think it's even remotely close then we are in different worlds -- not just states. Yes, the green at #10 is quite nice but where's the real demand on the 1st or 2nd shots? It's a good long par-4 --that I will concede. As a par-5 it's simply low level filler between the 9th and 11th holes.

We see the par-3 situation differently. I have Plainfield with a tiny edge. The par-3 3rd at Plainfield is solid -- you might not have remembered the delicious bunker that guards the left side of the green for those who pull their approach away from the H20 -- great architecture because of where it's places and the demands it intensifies for players who bail out to that side. The 6th green is a well done Ross hole. It looks easy but few come away with a birdie. The 11th is a great short par-3 -- nuff said. The long par-3 14th can be a real bear -- I have even said that at full length the hole may be too demanding. I concede the greatness of SH's 2nd hole -- the 8th is also good. The 12th is simply overrated IMHO and the 16th is no better than Plainfield's 6th.

The situation with the 17th and 18th at SH is also quite clear to me. Clearly, the "architecture" aspect supersedes the "golf" aspect for you. The 17th and 18th at SH are simply lame holes for a course that begs for a really thrilling finish.

Matt

Great architecture is about having holes and shots that draw you back time after time.  Not whether it has par 5s or not.   Or is that too artsy fartsy for you?

That's the trouble with some rankers, they've been programed too much as to what constitutes great golf architecture..with their little categories.  Thank goodness the great architects of the past didn't have such constraints.

So the 10th at SH is a good par 4 but a poor 5.  That makes no sense.  It's simply a good hole.

You're still wrong on the par 3s.  I never compared the 5s at SH and Plainfield.  And you still conveniently ignore 13-15 at Plainfield.

I always play the courses, if I can.  It's not some esoteric appreciation of architecture.  I'm just not really concerned about par, slope, rating...

What exactly is lame about the 17th and 18th at SH?  I suspect you just find them too short for your own game.  Like the 18th at Portmarnock, definitely a fine links finisher, but too short for you as I recall.  Either it's a really tough finish, or it's lacking in your book.

PS You still haven't answered Mike's question as to how the ranking differs from your own. The list does seem to be awfully close to your stated preferences in threads on GCA; particularly in the top spots.

You can have the last word.

Paul:

The 17th & 18th at SH are holes that lack any definitive appeal for me. Clearly, one has played a full range of short to medium length par-4's prior to those two last holes and they simply add nothing to what a closer should be. FYI -- I never insist that the two final holes have to be monster par-4's but they should be more than simply repeat or pedestrian type holes.

I mentioned a weakness of SH being the par-5 side. You have simply tap danced around that weakness by making another argument that who cares if courses have par-5's. Well, for me the totality of golf courses should have a nice mixture of holes and last I checked the par-5 hole is part of that equation. If one took your argument to logical extremes then a "great" course could exist even if all the holes were par-3's. While they may be fun for some it would be extremely one-dimensional to me. It's no different than a course that simply overdoses on the length / dfficulty equation.

Paul -- I don't need some herculean 470 yard par-4 to close the day at any course. I need a hole or strecth of holes that offer maximum versatility and yes, challenge is part of that equation. I want to see art and shot values tied together -- too many people, possibly you among them, seeks the art in architecture, but forgets how cumulative shot values enhance what the architect provided for all levels of players.

Paul -- I'm not worried about rating / slope / par. I am a big fan of Morris County GC in Convent Station and the course is not even 6,300 yards from the tips. There is this desire to categorize me because I don't make it easy for people to say that's the kind of course that Ward would want to play. I also mentioned how I liked Pennard -- a course others indeed like. I also enjoy modern style golf when done correctly -- like Black Mesa, Glen Wild in Utah and Outlaw in Arizona, to name just three quick examples. My tastes in golf are much wider than the narrow take some have here on GCA.

Yes, by the way, I still hold that the 18th at Pormarnock is a lame hole for such a wonderful course.

My listing for Jersey golf courses is quite different. I don't view either Baltusrol Lower or Upper among my personal top ten in the state. I am a big fan of Essex County and I salute what Hanse / Bahto have done there. Too many people have not played the course but they are quick to bitch about how it can be placed among the elite courses.

I believe Ballyowen should be a bit higher than where it finished. Roger Rulewich gets blamed at times for his work at Yale but his 18-hole layout at Ballyowen is well done there.

I am a big fan of what Charles Banks did in Jersey and beyond Essex County I also see Forsgate / Banks and the combo 18 hole layout at Montclair #2 & #4 to be quite good.

I also like what Tom Doak did with ACCC and think it should be higher than a 20-25 position. I also like Morris County -- it's a Seth Raynor design and gets little ink. Morris County did not even crack the top 25. I could go on and on and on with other examples.

The Jersey Golfer ratings are a consensus approach --  no different than what other magazines do. Few people have really played all of the major candidates. I know I have played all of them but even for myself getting back to all the prime players on a regular basis can be taxing but I try to do it.

Paul -- if people have a serious problem with where particular courses are included or excluded I would like them to be quite specific instead of throwing out some vague assertion that the Jersey Golfer ratings seem like a direct link to what Ward preferes. That is utter rubbish.




 

Tom D:

Fair questions ...

Let me address each of them ...

A ratings is a collection of thoughts from different people. We try at Jersey Golfer to solicit the opinions of people who are active in their zeal and love for the game and have a real zest for high quality architecture. I personally believe the folks we use have more insight on what is taking place here in Jersey than any other group that does similar things for the different nationwide publications. The folks we use are timely in their assessments and are open to change when it's been demonstrated. If one studies the outcomes of the results over the years that has been evident as courses have moved up -- moved down and in some cases -- moved out.

Let me also mention this idea of Somerset Hills not being accorded respect as a top shelf design. How does coming in the top ten for a state as competitive as New Jersey is for quality golf imply or suggest some sort of disrespect? That is silly. The reality is that there are other courses in the state that are ALSO making strides to improve what they have to offer. Plainfield and Essex County, are just two of the noteworthy examples. Mountain Ridge and Crestmont are two others that come quickly to mind.

I said this before and I'll repeat myself again -- too many raters and others "in the know" spend way toooooooo much time on going to the same courses because of the "reputation" they have and sometimes they forget to visit other courses that are equal or beyond. Raters should always be interested in seeing different layouts and revisiting facilities when changes have happened to see how everything has sorted itself out.

When you say my thoughts that Morris County with Shoreacres is silly please Tom help me understand your infatuation with anything Raynor and yet you fail to address the obvious shortcomings of the Illinois layout? I read your comments in "Confidential Guide" and frankly the repetitive elements that Raynor does gets quite old and predictable. It also doesn't help that Shoreacres has plenty of pedestrian holes at the very beginning and end of the round. Do you really see Shoreacres in the first 50 of modern courses in the USA? I don't by a country mile. Morris County does have a number of stellar holes -- it also has its share of mediocre stuff but to suggest that the Illinois layout is ways beyond is something I disagree with.

Tom -- let's be frank -- ACCC is a restoration job you did. I can understand your conflict of interest on the subject and I even said the course should be higher than what the consensus suggested. ACCC, however, is not a top ten course in the state IMHO. It would likely make my listing from somewhere between 13-18.

Last item on Somerset Hills -- the course DOES have shortcomings. I have addressed them in my back-and-forth discussions with the honorable Paul Turner. Yes, it has a number of great greensites, but it DOES still have a number of areas where a tweak here and a tweak there would only serve to enhance what it does offer.

Clearly, the desire by the club to use your services indicates something is amiss and is need of careful attention by a qualified expert like yourself.

Tom -- the people who rate for Jersey Golfer have the means and networks to access any course in the state. From Pine Valley to Somerset Hills to the local muni's. You idea that access / lack thereof guides and shapes their rating decisions is not valid here.

FYI -- be most curious as to the exact nature / scope of your work at SH. If you would like to communicate such info offline I would appreciate it. Thanks ...

George:

Fair questions ...

We don't release any individual numbers or specific comments made by those who rate for Jersey Golfer.

I can say this for sure -- the #1 position for Pine Valley is above and beyond that of #2 Plainfield and the spread between #2 Plainfield and #3 Essex County is also considerable.

When you go from #3 Essex County to #10 Montclair GC the spread isn't really that wide apart. There is also another space gap with the second ten -- those courses finishing in the first half were quite a bit closer to each other than those finishing from #16-20.

George -- there are no courses overlooked. I'm sure there are certain courses that believe they are overlooked because they were either not rated high enough or that some other course was rated above them. That's always the lament of those looking from the outside in.

The wonderful part about New Jersey is that since the state isn't thaaaaaaaaaaaaaat large it's not difficult at all to play all of the key courses. Let me also point out that with a wide variety of contacts throughout the state I receive plenty of info on what courses are attempting to do in order to improve what they have. Given the success of Essex County and Plainfield, to name just two, there are more courses moving towards that direction and in two years time there may be a different outcome among the top courses. However, the positioning of PV and Plainfield at the very top has never seriously been challenged -- given the greatness of PV I doubt it will ever leave the #1 slot -- Plainfield is also solid in the #2 position -- especially since the restoration work by Gil Hanse.

Last item -- George the quality of public golf in NJ has risen dramatically -- it's just that no public course has ever been rated in the top 15 by Jersey Golfer -- the depth of private golf in the Garden State is still toooooo strong.

Nonetheless, public golf has made major strides since the late '80's and you can see that by the number of public courses that fill the 26-50 positions.

Regarding criticism -- that's the nature of ratings. There will always be those who feel they have been ignored or not better appreciated. In a number of instances, the people making such arguments usually have some connection to one or more of the clubs involved.