In Defense of Baltusrol

« **Reply #50 on:** August 19, 2005, 03:51:18 PM »

Mike Cirba,

Thanks for admitting the error of your ways.
Adding false information that fuels the Rees feeding frenzy
isn't fair.

I'm still waiting for Tom MacWood to point out where those bunkers that he claimed weren't completely removed are, OR, I'd like to see him stand up like a man and admit that he was WRONG on that issue. But, I'm not holding my breath.

While the features that comprise the HHA at Ridgewood are unique, I've never really liked them. However, for the better player, the green is reachable from them, whereas if they were bunkers the green would be far more difficult, if not impossible to reach, and perhaps that's the reasoning behind their retention, the members find them easier to extract themselves from and don't take big numbers when playing the hole.

I don't agree with you regarding the HHA feature on # 17 at Baltusrol. I think it serves its strategic purpose quite well.
And, to return it to the shaggy look, without doing the same to all of the bunkers at Baltusrol, would reflect a disruption in continuity.

You should also know that in many cases the "look" of the bunkers in 1935 is not that much different from today.
Some, in 1926, also reflect clean or crisp lines.

Golf courses, like society, go through cycles, fads, ebbs and flows. Perhaps, bunkers will become shaggy at some point in the future. But, to judge their merit on their look alone is a gross miskake on your part. Functionality and playability should be the primary factors in determining their worth.

As to the bunkers on # 13, a bunker complex was there previously. Additional bunkers were added changing the configuration of the complex.

What I'm surprised at is that noone has applauded the adding of the bunker in the center of the fairway on # 7 by RTJ Sr.
This alteration improved the strategy and challenge offered by the hole dramatically. Yet, that alteration is conveniently swept under the carpet.

I think # 18 needed bunkers in the right rough.
The fairway has been very wide and allowed for an overly generous bailout. As to the "look" and configuration of those bunkers, there's probably room for us to agree and disagree on those points, but, in general, the hole needed some amendments as a finishing hole.

« **Reply #51 on:** August 19, 2005, 08:29:34 PM »

Pat
The two Sahara hazards Tilly created at Ridgewood were a combination of rumpled ground, rough grasses and sand. The rumpled ground is all that remains; not maintained as fairway, the remnants of the great hazard currently act to segregate the fairway on both holes. With your eye for detail I'm surprised you didn't recognize the remnants of the HHA hazards. No worries.

« **Reply #52 on:** August 19, 2005, 08:50:45 PM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on August 16, 2005, 11:32:28 PM

I'm surprised you were not aware of the HHA bunkers at Ridgewood, they were never completely removed, their remnants still remain[/color] for a qualified architect to restore.

Tom MacWood,

You claimed that the BUNKERS were never COMPLETELY REMOVED.

BUT, THEY WERE.

THERE ARE NO BUNKERS ON THE HHA AT RIDGEWOOD.
THEY WERE COMPLETELY REMOVED.

YOU WERE WRONG AGAIN.

AND, YOU JUST CAN'T ADMIT IT.

YOU'RE INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, AND A FRAUD.[/COLOR]

I've been playing Ridgewood for 40 years and as recently as a few weeks ago. I'm far more familiar with the HHA feature than you'll ever be.

You're a fraud.

First you said that the bunkers weren't completely removed.
Then after you were caught being dead wrong again, you changed your story and now maintain that there are no bunkers or portion of the bunkers remaining.

You're a fraud.

When you've never seen a course, take the time to research the facts first, before making definitive comments, instead of offering your uninformed opinion as expert testimony.

You're dead WRONG again, and you continue to make a fool of yourself.

Tommy Naccarato,

You shouldn't have removed Don Hendrick's post.

« **Reply #53 on:** August 19, 2005, 09:07:34 PM »

Pat
I probably should have said HHA hazard or HHA complex for your benefit...sorry, my mistake.

« **Reply #54 on:** August 20, 2005, 01:44:37 AM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on August 19, 2005, 09:07:34 PM

Pat
I probably should have said HHA hazard or HHA complex for your benefit...sorry, my mistake.

Tom MacWood,

Since you were SO far off base about the existance of the bunkers, I don't think that you should have said anything, and you certainly shouldn't revise your statement for my benefit, but, for your own benefit, for the sake of being accurate in what you report and for the sake of your own credibility.

You failed to do your homework and in your zest to bash Rees you made rash, erroneous, irresponsible statements that weren't true, and that was unnecessary and certainly,
not fair.

Had you actually seen Ridgewood and studied the HHA features you would have known that no bunkers exist in those HHA features.

Your statements, support of statements, theories and conclusions on Ridgewood, Seminole and Aronomink reflect the problem with commenting on golf courses, with a high degree of certainty, if not infallibility, when you've never seen them.

In the future, err on the side of caution.
[/color]

« **Reply #55 on:** August 20, 2005, 02:14:15 AM »

If you bunch of wonkers are going to talk about golf architecture at least get the terms straight.

Tillinghast didn't refer to the kind of massive hazard across the fairway (had to be about 100 yards long and stretching across the hole according to him) as HHAs even though he apparently was the one who recommended the concept to Crump at PVGC. The only HHA is at PVGC.

Tillinghast sometimes referred to this feature as a "sahara" or a 'break in the fairway that must be great' or 'the big break' and on at least one of his drawings as the 'great hazard area'.

If you bunch of frauds and phonies and yappers are going to discuss golf course architecture seriously, at least try to get the terms straight.

« **Reply #56 on:** August 20, 2005, 08:09:45 AM »

Tom,

Sometimes he also referred to it as "yon wondrous stretch of powdery rock and scattered shrubbery which one doth venture to carry a small pellet acrossth".

He was also known to refer to it as "I'm tired and hungover and we've just landscaped 400 freaking yards...just leave that patch of sh*t be".

« **Reply #57 on:** August 20, 2005, 08:17:12 AM »

"You failed to do your homework and in your zest to bash Rees you made rash, erroneous, irresponsible statements that weren't true, and that was unnecessary and certainly,
not fair.

Had you actually seen Ridgewood and studied the HHA features you would have known that no bunkers exist in those HHA features.

Your statements, support of statements, theories and conclusions on Ridgewood, Seminole and Aronomink reflect the problem with commenting on golf courses, with a high degree of certainty, if not infallibility, when you've never seen them."

Pat
Calm down, your anger appears to be effecting your facalties....especially your reading comprehension.

Here are my comments on this thread which resulted in your Ridgewood meltdown. I simply pointed out there once existed two HHA bunkers at Ridgewood and the remnants still remain. Both factual statements...not a word on Rees work there...your adoration for Rees is effecting your judgment.

Fabricating statements appears to be your new modus operandi...followed by a constant barage of repeating the fabrication (I suppose your reasoning being if you repeat it enough perhaps others will believe it is true) in conjunction with numerous inflamatory comments, everything usually in nice shade of green or red.

A new low for you and for GCA. Way to go.

Pat
Ridgewood had two Sahara bunkers...the 4th of the west nine and the third of the east. Rees' work on the HHA at Quaker Ridge borders on the criminal.

Do you ever get tired of defending Rees? Have you ever given any thought to defending Tillinghast against these transgressions?

Pat
I'm surprised you were not aware of the HHA bunkers at Ridgewood, they were never completely removed, their remnants still remain for a qualified architect to restore (just like at QR and Baltusrol).

Yes I've played QR. Why? Have you? What do you make of his work there? Have you ever given any thought to defending Tillinghast against these transgressions?

You have consistantly defended among the worst offenders to classis golf architecture today...not once criticizing anything he has done. Disgraceful.

Pat
My...you're in an ugly mood today. Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed? May I suggest an extra helping of bran.

I'm surprised you were not more familar with Tilly's original architecture at Ridgewood....you would have probably recognized the remnants of the HHA's.

I've played QR once and written a report on the original architecture of the course.

Do Rees's features become less offensive on subsequent plays?

Did the members request ugly totally out-of-character bunkers...is that why they are in the process of removing his work?

Do those Rees bunkers at QR bear any resemblance to the original bunkering at QR or bear any resemblance to anything Tilly ever built?

I believe the root of your problem is twofold: a poor eye for detail and lack of historical background/information...this unfortunate combination is likely responsible for your unwavering support of everything Rees does. Very sad.

« **Reply #58 on:** August 20, 2005, 09:20:52 AM »

"Tom,

Sometimes he also referred to it as "yon wondrous stretch of powdery rock and scattered shrubbery which one doth venture to carry a small pellet acrossth".

He was also known to refer to it as "I'm tired and hungover and we've just landscaped 400 freaking yards...just leave that patch of sh*t be"."

That's true. The first type was the way he referred to it after about 4pm and the second type is how he referred to it around 8am.

« **Reply #59 on:** August 20, 2005, 10:15:08 AM »

I recall seeing those areas at Ridgewood.

What's interesting is they look surprisingly similar to the sahara complex at Fenway BEFORE Gil Hanse came in and restored the bunkers. THey were a series of mounds in rough. I had always thought them an interesting and unusual hazard not realizing they were a sahara complex because at Fenway it does not fully cross the fairway.

Will Gil who is working at Ridgewood now restore them at Ridgewood?

At Fenway it certainly turned a superb par 5 into my second favorite Tillinghast par 5 and a world class par 5.

« **Reply #60 on:** August 20, 2005, 11:00:52 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on August 19, 2005, 08:50:45 PM

Quote from: Tom MacWood on August 16, 2005, 11:32:28 PM

Tom MacWood,

My reading comprehension skills remain sharp
.
Here's what you said.[/color]

I'm surprised you were not aware of the HHA bunkers at Ridgewood, they were never completely removed, their remnants still remain[/color] for a qualified architect to restore.

You said the bunkers were never completely removed.

But, they were. And, you were dead wrong again.

Mike Cirba made a mistake and indicated that Rees had altered the bunkers on the HHA features at Ridgewood. Rather than do your research you jumped on the band wagon, bashing Rees and compounding Mike's error.

Mike admitted his error, but your ego won't let you admit that you made another of your colossal blunders.

Every time it's pointed out that you're wrong, you claim I"m angry or that I awoke on the wrong side of the bed, neither of which are true. I"m merely taking you to task for making false statements about golf courses you've never seen.

For you to claim that my reading comprehension skills are lacking because you made a colossal error in announcing that the HHA bunkers weren't completely removed is comical, and evidence that your arrogance won't let you admit you made a mistake.

Admit it Tom, the bunkers on the HHA feature at Ridgewood were COMPLETELY REMOVED, despite your statement to the contrary.

You made another mistake because you were speaking about the features at another golf course that you've never seen.

We all make mistakes, you just seem to be making them in large quantities lately.[/color]

Geoff Childs,

The mounds in the HHA features at Ridgewood are substantially more pronounced then the ones you pictured, which I wouldn't classify as mounds, rather as islands.

The mounds at Ridgewood, especially on # 4 west are large and relatively high, and the feature is larger on # 4 West as compared to # 3 East. Perhaps that's due to the dogleg nature of # 3 East, and the substantive slope of the fairway and the almost 4 tiered, angled green surrounded by bunkering and steep drop offs.

I've maintained that the par 5's at Ridgewood are amongst AWT's best set.

« **Reply #61 on:** August 20, 2005, 11:37:21 AM »

Macwood/Dugger

You wrote "I'm surprised you are not aware of the HHA bunkers at Ridgewood, they were never completely removed, their remnants still remain for a qualified architect to restore".

In addition to the fact that you are totally wrong, AGAIN. And are commenting on a club you have not seen , AGAIN.
This is more egregious than the deception you tried to pull on the Sandpines thread.

Would you please provide a list of "qualified architects" for the folks at Ridgewood so in a few years they don't have a guy in Ohio, who has never seen the course, or been involved in the process, criticize them?

« **Reply #62 on:** August 20, 2005, 12:05:24 PM »

Mike Cirba asked ... "I guess I'd like to understand why many in this group love Oakmont, with wall to wall narrow fairways, deep rough, and oodles of penal fairway bunkers yet decry the same type of course at Baltusrol?"

Mike -- for me Oakmont is among the top 5 courses I have played in the States.

In regards to comparisons with Baltusrol / Lower I would say the following ingredients work to the advantage of Oakmont.

1). Better land site -- there is more pitch and roll to the property at Oakmont than at the Lower.

2). Better overall routing -- Oakmont swings the play in a number of directions -- Baltusrol / Lower is primarily a - north/ south routing.

3). The greens at Oakmont -- nuff said on that score.

4). The interplay of the different holes makes for a stellar combination of holes as the round progresses. Keep in mind that I am not in favor of Oakmont's / USGA's desire to change the uphill par-5 9th into a long par-4 for the '07 US Open.

At Oakmont you have such a wonderful combination of holes and the pattern is rarely the same. At the Lower you have a host of ho-hum par-4's that while they may be challenging are not really unique from an architectural perspective.

Check the roster of champions that Oakmont has crowned over the years -- you won't find any major winner (I concede Sam Parks) that is not one of the truly gifted players.

« **Reply #63 on:** August 20, 2005, 12:22:07 PM »

Matt,

Not to put words in your mouth, but does your list of positve attributes concerning Oakmont just create a "pass" on the narrow fairway/ deep rough issue Mike Cirba asked about? I have no personal experience with either course, but am curious because I am not a big fan of skinny/deep setups.

Thanks,

Joe

« **Reply #64 on:** August 20, 2005, 12:28:20 PM »

Joe:

Fair point. I don't like single file fairways either.

I will say this though -- the architectural elements that make up Oakmont would only be fuirther enhaced if there was minimum rough. The same cannot be said for the Lower IMHO.

The rough is added to rein in the world's best for the elite events.

I am a Jersey guy and I salute Baltusrol and the PGA for a wonderful event and hope future majors can come to Baltusrol because it has the logistics and space needed for such events, however, the totality of the architectural elements and details when compared to Oakmont are close to a nightand day situation for me.

Oakmont is arguably the best American parksland course we have in the States -- only Winged Foot and Merion can even make an argument for the top spot IMHO.

« **Reply #65 on:** August 20, 2005, 12:34:21 PM »

Matt Ward

thanks for the analysis. I appreciate it from someone who actually plays the courses. Could you provide a list of your top five parkland course? I am interested as I have not played Oakmont. I hope this will not lead to the common arguements we get with such lists but I do appreciate getting it from someone who knows rather than all the raters here who never utter a peep for fear of losing access.

« **Reply #66 on:** August 20, 2005, 12:47:28 PM »

Quote from: HamiltonBHearst on August 20, 2005, 12:34:21 PM

Matt Ward

thanks for the analysis. I appreciate it from someone who actually plays the courses. Could you provide a list of your top five parkland course? I am interested as I have not played Oakmont. I hope this will not lead to the common arguements we get with such lists but I do appreciate getting it from someone who knows rather than all the raters here who never utter a peep for fear of losing access.

Hamilton,

What exactly don't we utter a peep about?

Losing access to what?

I have no idea what you're talking about...could you at least name names if you're going to make accusations? That would seem the courageous thing to me.

I've played Baltusrol and walked Oakmont a few times.

I agree with Matt that Oakmont is the better course, but I just thought this group needs to examine its "Oakmont good" rationale when many of the things they lauded there they criticized at Baltusrol.

« **Reply #67 on:** August 20, 2005, 12:54:57 PM »

Put your top 100 up like Ward did?

« **Reply #68 on:** August 20, 2005, 12:56:52 PM »

Bill:

I'm assuming your BPB initials are Bethpage State Park's Black Course.

The short answer -- no.

Bethpage State Park is one of personal favorite courses -- I've played no less than 200 rounds over the last 30 years and love the course. However --

The Black is primarily a muscular course and has become even more so with the latest changes. I still can't fathom what the point was in adding another tee box to the 9th hole? It clearly doesn't have the rich detailing that makes up the unique putting surfaces that Oakmont has IMHO. BB has no more than 10 holes where the greens are even reasonably good or beyond in terms of their overall character. You have a number of other greens that are simply flat discs with little appreciative design elements worthy of the name Tillinghast (see Fenway, Winged Foot, for better geen designs, etc,etc).

Oakmont is the quintessential test for all putters -- they don't even need the silly 13+ Stimp speeds to prove it.

In addition, the Black doesn't have really any outstanding finesse holes. I do agree with Tom Doak that the truly great courses need to have this item in their design. I don't consider the 2nd and 6th holes at the Black to be great -- frankly I think the 2nd needs to be altered although I do like the 6th a lot. But one cannot compare the Black's to Oakmont's -- with the likes of the 2nd, 7th and 17th, to name just three.

You also have the weak closer at BB -- simply hideous -- when compared to the likes of Oakmont's.

Oakmont is a solid layout that doesn't need the heavy hand additional rough that is put into place for the biggest events. Even if you took out all the rough the playing angles and the greens would be sufficient enough for 90%+ of all golfers.

Hamilton Hearst:

I'd have to list Oakmont at the top with Meriion and Winged Foot right underneath. In addition, Pine Valley would need to be included -- ditto the likes of Pinehurst #2 which continues to fascinate me as it proved once again with this year's US Open championship.

I've never played Augusta but after being on the grounds numerous times through the years I have to say I am tremendously disappointed on what they have done with the addition of trees and second cut rough. The course has been bastardized way beyond it's original character.

« **Reply #69 on:** August 20, 2005, 01:40:20 PM »

Quote from: HamiltonBHearst on August 20, 2005, 12:54:57 PM

Put your top 100 up like Ward did?

Hamilton,

I've listed my Top 10 here before.

I haven't played as many courses as Matt (who has?

) although I've played over 700. Still, I've played only 35 of the courses on Golf Magazine's newest list for instance, so i'm not sure what listing 100 would be worth.

I'd rather give you a Doak Scale rating for each course I've played.

Whaddya wanna know?

« **Reply #70 on:** August 20, 2005, 02:00:25 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on August 20, 2005, 11:00:52 AM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on August 19, 2005, 08:50:45 PM
Quote from: Tom MacWood on August 16, 2005, 11:32:28 PM

Geoff Childs,

The mounds in the HHA features at Ridgewood are substantially more pronounced then the ones you pictured, which I wouldn't classify as mounds, rather as islands.

The mounds at Ridgewood, especially on # 4 west are large and relatively high, and the feature is larger on # 4 West as compared to # 3 East. Perhaps that's due to the dogleg nature of # 3 East, and the substantive slope of the fairway and the almost 4 tiered, angled green surrounded by bunkering and steep drop offs.

I've maintained that the par 5's at Ridgewood are amongst AWT's best set.

Pat- The mounding at Fenway was much more obvious BEFORE Gil restored all the bunkering. Either the mounds were altered (unlikely) by Gil or they just appear less alpanized with the bunkers intact. Perhaps Ridgewood's Sahara would look the same after bunkers were reinstated.

We can find out a bit more on Monday perhaps as a RIdgewood member I know will be at the Creek.

« **Reply #71 on:** August 20, 2005, 02:29:30 PM »

Mike Cirba

What publication do you rate for? Why not just give us the rating you submitted to the magazine rather than Doak ratings? It would be helpful if we saw your ratings based on the specific requirements of the organization

How about a specific area MGA, GAP?

« **Reply #72 on:** August 20, 2005, 07:09:35 PM »

Geoff Childs,

I've known a good number of members of Ridgwood over the last 40 years, and I can't recall any of them listing a reclamation of the bunkers on the HHA feature as a priority.

Tree clearing and improving the condition of the putting surfaces have been in the forefront.

I can't see Ridgewood moving ahead with creating a bunker complex at the HHA's until other issues are addressed..

Mike Cirba,

If I understand you correctly, I agree with you regarding Oakmont, however, you can't ignore the problem.
And, the problem is:
If you widen the fairways for the PGA Tour Pros, they'll bomb the ball 350 to 400 down that enlarged drive zone, leaving them little more than wedges and short irons into the longest of holes.

The dilema they have is easiest solved by narrowing the fairways.

They can't invoke the use of a competition ball because none exist. They can't limit club head size, or shaft length.

Their court of last resort is to narrow the rough and allow it to grow.

What I can't believe is that all of the clubs that are in the PGA and US Open Rota, along with Augusta, don't ban together to say, enough is enough to the USGA.
Put limits on the ball and implements and let's stop this insanity.

Recently, I spent a day with an individual who owns a golf course. He was complaining about the cost to maintain longer golf courses, which typically have five (5) sets of tees.

Despite a heightened awareness of the problem, by a broader cross section of the golf spectrum, nothing is being done on an urgent basis to counter the trend.

I don't understand why the USGA hasn't taken a stronger position, sooner. I know Buzz Taylor tried when he was President, but, somehow, his efforts were muted.

It's time for the USGA to show some leadership qualities and finally live up to their motto of protectors and perservationists of the game and the integrity of the game.

If Jack Nicklaus hit a drive of 270 in his prime, he was thrilled.
Today, guys who couldn't hold his jock strap hit it 100+ yards past that mark.

Oh yeah, I forgot, they're in much better shape today.
That John Daly has some physique and stamina and could easily play linebacker in the NFL if he wanted to.

« **Reply #73 on:** August 20, 2005, 10:25:09 PM »

"Here's what you said.

I'm surprised you were not aware of the HHA bunkers at Ridgewood, they were never completely removed, their remnants still remain for a qualified architect to restore.

You said the bunkers were never completely removed.

But, they were. And, you were dead wrong again."

Pat
You are correct that is what I said. They were not completely removed. You view Tilly's Saharas as conventional sand hazards only, that is a very simplistic (and mistaken) way to look at his great hazards. They were a combination of sand, rumpled ground/mounds and rough grasses. The remnants of the great hazards at Ridgewood still remain; they were not completely removed. If I erred, it was in not clarifying the difference between bunker and hazard. I assumed you knew.

However I was wrong in accusing you of being HamiltonBHearst...you are not and I apologize.

« **Reply #74 on:** August 20, 2005, 11:37:28 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on August 20, 2005, 07:09:35 PM

Geoff Childs,

I've known a good number of members of Ridgwood over the last 40 years, and I can't recall any of them listing a reclamation of the bunkers on the HHA feature as a priority.

Tree clearing and improving the condition of the putting surfaces have been in the forefront.

I can't see Ridgewood moving ahead with creating a bunker complex at the HHA's until other issues are addressed..

Pat

I never said or implied that restoring them was a priority or if it is being considered. I only pointed out the similarity with Fenway which I played many times before Gil restored the feature. I never even knew or recognized there was a Sahara complex at Fenway until it was restored. The moguls and mounds that were there before were not nearly the hazard (actually they are technically NOT a hazard) as the bunker complex.

We can ask a member of Ridgewood on Monday if he knows more about Gils Master Plan then either of us seems to know.

That's all.

Did Tillinghast himself suggest removal of these bunkers?

News:

Patrick_Mucci

T_MacWood

Patrick_Mucci

T_MacWood

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Mike_Cirba

T_MacWood

TEPaul

Geoffrey Childs

Patrick_Mucci

HamiltonBHearst

Matt_Ward

Joe Hancock

Matt_Ward

HamiltonBHearst

Mike_Cirba

HamiltonBHearst

Matt_Ward

Mike_Cirba

Geoffrey Childs

HamiltonBHearst

Patrick_Mucci

T_MacWood

Geoffrey Childs