Eastward Ho! - the last great U.S. hidden gem?

[Ran Morrissett]

When I started this website 2 1/2 years ago, some guy from Ohio called Tom MacWood emailed me and said that it appeared that I would enjoy a course called Eastward Ho! on Cape Cod.

Not surprisingly, it turns out Tom was more than right, and I am still in amazement that this course receives so little recognition. Please check out the course profile and see if you don't agree.

When at Harvard, Bob Jones would grab Francis Ouimet and head down to the Cape for games at Eastward Ho! One read of his comments on page 123 of Mike Miller/Geoff Shackelford's book "The Art of Golf Design" will tell you why.

According to Tom MacWood, the golf periodicals of the day raved of Eastward Ho! in the same manner as if talking about TCC or Myopia Hunt.

Bottom line: this was considered a big time then and it should be considered a big time today.

Cheers,

[Note: This message has been edited by David]

[SPDB]

Ran - great job on this way-overdue course profile. Glad you finally got a chance to see this "hidden gem." Fortunately and unfortunately I have only had the opportunity to play the front nine. I was amazed at the architecture of the nine as it winds into the corner of the property to where the 6th tee sits above the shore.

[Ted_Sturges]

Wow!  Great write-up.  I'll be adding Eastward Ho! to my "to do" list.

TS

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

I agree with Ted, this looks like a must see.

The write-up was great and the pictures were super.

Great job Ran, one of the best features.

[Ran Morrissett]

Sean,

While there is no doubt in my mind that you played the best stretch of holes (#6-9), I imagine some members would tell you that the second nine is better. You've got to make it back for the full monty!

Fowler's use of the wild, rolling topography is a must-see for all architecture fans, especially for those of us who enjoy a new experience - Eastward Ho! won't remind you of any course you've ever seen.

Why it isn't on any/all of the top 100 lists is beyond me.

Cheers,

[SPDB]

Ran - I meant the 7th tee (not 6th). Read the profile again - brilliant. congrats

[John_Conley]

A friend of mine taught himself to play at this course on the Cape and went on to become a great player.  He has told me about the course blow by blow and made it a must on my "to get to" list if I'm ever in the area.  Once I found out that it shared architectural bloodlines with Cruden Bay (which, regretfully, I've only walked around in 1989), I became even more eager to get to it.

I'll see if he can chime in.

The irony is that he is/was a VERY long hitter and prefers courses that are shorter and tighter than others that would seem to play into his hands.  I can only assume it is because of his exposure to this great course in learning the game.

[Matt_Ward]

Ran:

You're post and thoughts are rigtht on target. I've always been a big fan of Eastward Ho! but for some unknown reason many people look past it and place such clubs as Kittansett and a few others in the region ahead of it.

The facility has tremendous land and the range of holes work beautifully on the superb terrain.

I really enjoyed both nines, but I agree the front has the better terrain. The closing hole (460 yards / par-4) is an absolute joy with the slope of the land and the picturesque view of the bay on your left as you approach the wonderous green that sits above the fairway. A class ending act to a course with charm and guile.

[Ran Morrissett]

Two snipets from 1922, which is the year it opened:

Ouimet called Eastward Ho! the hardest he had played and that once mature, it would be the "toughest of the tough."

The Boston Herald reported that "nothing short of majestic are some of these holes" and found the course comparable to NGLA and the big links in the British Isles.

Not bad praise!

[Mark_Fine]

Ran,
Glad you got to see this one.  It is a gem but it has never been hidden from my own list.  If you spend some time on the Cape, you'll find a number of really fun and interesting old golf courses!  
Mark  

[Ran Morrissett]

Mark, I long remember your posts praising it as well. Tell me - do you vote for it in the U.S. top 100 for Golf Digest? If not, why? Are there really one hundred places you would rather play in this country than Eastward Ho!?

Cheers,

PS Surely none of the other Cape courses can match this one?

[ForkaB]

Ran

I asked my sister, who has played Eastward Ho many times (she was on the waiting list for a while until she realized that if whe got in it would lower the average age of the members by about 15 years (she's 59)).  She thinks that Woods Hole is as good a golf course as EH, but without as many seas views and with a bit less cachet.  But, of course, we don't consider those things on this web site, do we?

Rich

PS--I haven't played EH, but the pictures remind me very much of the topography and the general look and feel of WH.  Try it.

[T_MacWood]

Ran
Excellent profile. I've always been bewildered by Eastward Ho!'s lack of appreciation -- even on this site. I've brought the course up more than once in the past and it has recieved suprisingly tepid support. It is truly unique and wild! GD has it #10 in Mass behind the likes of New Seabury.

Rich
I really like Woods Hole myself, I'd put it near the top of the 2nd tear Cape courses. There are quite a few mature members at EH!CC which is interesting because it is one hell of a walk. Perhaps your sister is not a fan of severe terrain. Woods Hole and Chatham are two very special places.

[TEPaul]

Thanks for the course write-up and photos and the mention in the discussion group. I've only heard the name and nothing else about the course. It sure does look like a gem and something well worth studying.  Certainly more should be known on this site about Fowler too. He should be talked about much more than he has been. I always took note of how much time and text C&W gave to him and GeoffShac occasionally too.

Appears from your first few paragraphs, Ran, that he was one of the real significant ones that created the first great non-links courses (the heathland). It appears that the linksman didn't think heathland arcthitecture could be done well enough and sort of pooh-poohed it as real golf for a while.

Tom MacW:

I've been following your ongoing discussion with Jeremy Glenn about the pros and cons of Landscape architecture and I notice you seem to say that today's architects just can't accept what appears to be the rough and unpretty elements of the ground on a site. I don't know what that photo from #3 tee is all about (in other words I don't know where the hole goes) but that photo has got to be some of what you're talking about with Jeremy. There are some odd and interesting lines in that photo. I'm sure no modern architect would stand for something that looks like that. I see holes like that sometimes (like at Misquamicut) and I just look at them and say; "Wow, how did they get like that or how did this happen?" I conclude they're that way because that's just the way they are! I love stuff like that sometimes!

Ran:

I've never been to Eastward Ho! but I noticed with interest your remark about hole #6 and how would Fowler have ever even found a hole like that. I might be going way out on a limb here but it appears to me pretty obvious how he found it and came to make it what it is. It's probably not much more than "economy of architecture" or "economy of routing" if you will.

He surely noticed that beautiful vista through the cut out to the water. I don't know what's behind the tee but he obviously saw a hole right there, going out to the water. But where exactly to place the green site? He probably could have placed it anywhere along the shoreline but may have had a problem with picking up enough distance for the hole so he placed it well out to the right. That might have been his first thought, but his second thought would have been, "Once here (at the green), how am I going to get out of here?" Placing a tee along the shore (which looks a little like shoehorning) up to that great #7 greensite was his answer! He probably could have come from a tee around #7 down to the green site at #6 but that might not have been the right kind of hole in the routing and I'm sure he felt that was using up a lot of the shoreline on one hole instead of two.

All I'm saying is a guy on a horse doing a routing spots lots of great green sites and portions of things that can make holes but is always struggling with the thought of, "how am I going to get there and what will it be as a whole hole and how am I going to get away from there to the next green site and have it make sense for the next hole and in the whole flow of things. Also with things like shorelines and property lines your spectrum or latitude and available choices of ways to go (or get away) sort of gets cut in half. It looks like he did a clever thing on #6 and #7 by making two interesting holes in a limited amount of real estate. Do you think a modern architect would have placed #7 tees where Fowler did?

[M.W._Burrows]

I've been very fortunate to play some wonderful lesser-known courses this year.  Fenway, Charles River, Winchester were all more than I expected.  I have to say that Easward Ho! is my favorite of the bunch.

Being an Assistant Superintendent, my mind was reeling trying to imagine how long it would take to mow those fairways and how much money it would cost to spray them.  They are vast, expansive fairways that have contours more wild than 9 at Shinnecock.  The amazing thing is how wide the course is for being under 6500 yards.

The greens are amazing as well.  They scream originality as they are tiny like The Country Club, only with wild contours, shelves, and severe cant.  

Tom Paul,
We spoke about strictly laying out a golf course without moving a great deal of material.  Simply finding and fitting the best holes in a good flow with diversity.  This course is a perfect example.  The way Fowler used the land is genious.  Particularly on the front nine.

Most of the time when we on this site talk about courses we speak of greens, bunkering, specific holes, or general routing.  The things that sticks out in my mind over all else (including the ocean views) are the fairways.  It's not something that normally stands out to me when playing a course for the first time but at Eastward Ho! the fairway sizes and contouring were spectacular.  

[Paul Turner]

Ran

So how does Eastward Ho! rate with Fowler's best in England?  As good as Walton Heath Old and Westward Ho!?  Or more of the Saunton East/The Berkshire calibre?  

(Did Fowler contribute much at Cruden Bay or was that all T Simpson?)

[TEPaul]

Matthew:

Ran did ask how Fowler could have found #6. I've never been there so I have no idea what's around it, behind it etc, etc, except what I can see in the photos in the write-up. So help me out, you know the course. If Fowler was on his horse on or near that #6 tee, what were his options? If he wanted to use that shoreline from that tee site, he would have to have gone right to the present green site, don't you think? What if he went straight? He would waste the real estate to the right where the green now sits, don't you think? And he would also be wasting the real estate to the left too, it seems to me. What could he do over there then? So if he went straight he would be wasting both right and left, wouldn't he? And futhermore what could he then get away from #6 green site with next?

I didn't really think to look on the photo from #6 tee but I don't think he could have gone at #7 greensite from #6 tee. There's that enormous hillide shoulder and what kind of hole would that have been distance-wise and otherwise. If it was good he could have gone there and then down to #6 green site from #7 green site as hole #7 (a par 3) but then where would he have been and how could he have gotten away to a #8? I don't know because I can't see it. So the entire #6 landform (which actually includes #7 too) seems to sort of speak for itself or logically lead an architect/router certainly in its efficiency of design and routing and use of real estate. That's what it looks like to me although it clearly looks like he shoehorned #7 tees in there!

[Mark_Fine]

Ran,
It's in my own Top 100 and I voted it high enough to make GD's as well.  My guess is the difficulty factor keeps it out.  Unfortunately too many guys hold that criteria in very high regard and it impacts their overall rating.  
Mark

[Michael Moore]

Damn, that is a fine-looking golf course, even more so for being within striking distance.

Speaking of mysterious Cape courses, what of Oyster Harbor? All I ever hear about this Ross course is that it is so ultra-exclusive that the raters never get on.

[John_Conley]

Mark Fine:

"Too many guys"?  The criteria is set by Golf Digest, not the panelists.  I think what you may mean is that your personal feelings on what makes a golf course great differs from the criteria set forth by the magazine.

(A lot of us feel that "Tradition" is too arbitraty and "Resistance to Scoring" can celebrate the wrong type of courses.)

[Jamie_Duffner]

Was wondering if anyone has heard of an Eastward Ho on Long Island?

I was playing golf in Florida last winter and was paired up with the pro from Eastward Ho, except he described it as near Bayshore on Long Island.  I could swear he said it was a Tillie course.  Does anyone Know?

[SPDB]

Jamie - you are thinking of Southward Ho!, which is a Tillinghast design in Bay Shore, Long Island. I know nothing of the quality of the course.

-sean

[Chip_Royce]

Perhaps I can help...I'm a former member of Southward Ho.

The club is in Bay Shore, 45 min outside of NYC on the South Shore of Long Island (about 1/2 mile from water).

The course is an older Tillinghast design (1925ish) and a nice track, despite the rather flat, parkland kind of conditions. It plays to approx. 6600 from the tips, members play it around 6400.

I found the lower course at Baltusrol to be the closest Tillinghast track in comparison. Its green complexes are nicely elevated (bunkers restored in early 1990's to orig. specs) and many good long par 5's.

[Ed_Baker]

I don't know why the "raters" seem to overlook Eastward Ho!
The local golfers "mindset" seems to be based on the severity of the terrain and the difficulty of the golf shots.Most of the club golfers seem to prefer Kittansett,Oyster Harbors,and Hyannisport to Eastward Ho! because of their ability to play the other courses without getting beat up.

Oyster Harbors is essential Ross and is accepting of all levels of play,very few forced carries and a ton of "open front" greens that allow run ups.It is possible for the less skilled player to "bumble it along the ground" and still finish the holes without holding up the golf course.The expert will still find it challenging to shoot a near par score.It shares many of the playability characteristics of its other "Ross Cousins" in the area,Salem,Winchester,Charles River,Brae Burn,it is spectacular when fast and firm.However,the site itself (the island it is built on)can't hold a candle to Eastward Ho! for interesting land features and their brilliant incorporation in to golf holes by Fowler.

Eastward Ho! is a GCAers valhalla for all the reasons we hold dear. Use of the land,architectural merit,variety,quirk,width,ect. But as we have identified on here many times, we (GCAers)are atypical of most golfers in that we tend to evaluate golf courses based on  their own physical elements,not our individual ability to play them well.That said,for the club golfer Eastward Ho! is a  difficult test of golf everyday,not exactly everybodies cup of tea.I think probably it is unfairly condemned by most local golfers because of that difficulty and the greatness of its features and design are not appreciated as a result.

The most common quote from the locals I hear is," It's a great golf course,but I wouldn't want to play it everyday!" I suspect that most of the same critics wouldn't enjoy,TOC,Dornoch,or Cruden Bay for the same reasons.

[Jamie_Duffner]

Sean/Chip - thanks for clearing that up.