Craig:

I'm really familiar with it (I once won their Kerwin Cup there with my long time little outrageous better ball partner Mike Nilon--the very same man who just RElabeled firm and fast conditions as "Prom Night" which I put on here as a thread and it was deleted apparently for being too suggestive! ).

In any case, what do you want to know about Torresdale, and also where have you been?

I have played it 4 or 5 times;there is a truly fine course somewhere within the trees.

 I think the #8 green used to be short of the water. I think they should put it back. There are several holes where the green is just over the water;it can get repetitive. This would bring to the player a different look. Also, while I enjoy #6-#7-#8--back to back to back, I think the original idea is better. Maybe it was a drainage issue,but I suspect that it was tinkering.

Mayday:

I don't care whether the green was originally short of the creek on #8 or not, putting it there now is one of the truly worst ideas I've ever heard of. That golf hole the way it is now (and perhaps always has been) is one of the top 3 really great and intense par 4s in the region. For years people who mention Torresdale almost always mention #8 in the next breath. Doing what you suggest at this point would completely gut the super intense concept of that hole which is frankly a really unique "go/no go" PAR 4s!!!.

Also saying that stretch of holes #6, 7, 8 is repetitive is really nuts. Those three holes are all long and straight but other than that their playing characteristics are different. In a tournament sense that stretch is a lot like some of the "three set" variety of Merion East's routing and surely no one needs to tamper with that true uniqueness. I can tell you from experience when you play tournament golf on Torresdale that three hole stretch is always somewhere in the back of your mind and you do feel birdies are more necessary on the shorter holes to get ready for those three holes or to make up for them!! The other holes that are always in the back of your mind are #3, 11 and 14!

If Torresdale was to go on a tree removal program they really would need to be very careful where they did it. They could do it on the side of the holes that face inward to the course but if they started removing trees on holes whose sides flank the periphery of the property they could create a virtual visual disaster. This is also true on courses such as Rolling Green, Manufacturers and a number of others in crowded areas that today look nothing like the surrounding areas when those courses were built.

The one thing that stood out about T-F was the severity of several of the greens.  Not necessarily in pitch from back to front, but some of the internal slopes given the size of the greens.  I think it's #3 or 4 that was most notable.  With that in mind, T-F is an excellent course.  Don't let the total yardage fool you, there are several really long par four holes, particularly #7 and 8.  The eighth hole, along with the finisher, are most in need of a chainsaw.  There's a hole on the back nine (like the 13th)where the cart path just over the green is out of bounds.  Definitely worth seeing if you're in the North part of Philadelphia.  

Good points, Adam. The par 70 layout does play longer than its length. Some long par 4's , as you mentioned, and several
of the par threes are about 180 or longer.

Craig:

A couple of those par 3s really are interesting and good. Somehow I don't think #9 green is Ross (or #17 for that matter) but it's very tricky to play even with a 6-7 iron. #11 is a good and dangerous hole that sort of gets in your head early and #14 is something else---if you come away with a par on that one you definitely feel you've picked up a shot or so on most of the rest of the field. (In one of the big GAP tournaments I think Sigel knocked it right in the hole on that one! ).

Interestingly, as slopy as a few of those T-F greens are that course has always had a reputation for very fast greens, believe it or not.

As I think about playing there today, one of the subtleties
that appealed to me was simply the "look" of the the holes
from the tee boxes and from approach shot areas. That may sound rather vague, but I'll try to explain.

I think the appeal to me, lies in a very natural(there's that word again) use of the land. There's almost always something of interest between the golfer, and where the ball needs to go, be it a gaping creek, interesting folds in the terrain,
drastic rises and falls, or the mystery of what lies beyond
a blind shot over a rise. In most cases, it never looks tricked up, or artificial.

The look of the green sites held appeal for me as well, whether
the greens were shelved into a hillside, hemmed in by
muscular surrounds, or protected by several well-positioned,
gaping bunkers. Despite the semi-straight nature of many of the holes, the golfer is often given varied, interesting looks.