East Hampton-Photos

[RobertWalker]

Pat Mucci,
What's not to like in the 3rd photo? That bunkering looks like it's been there forever.

Another aspect about C&C's work that does not show through very well is texture in the fairway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Robert Walker,

You're referencing the wrong hole on the wrong golf course.  Tom MacWood was talking about the third photo of The Bridge.

What is "texture in the fairway" ?

Tom MacWood,

Where the land form pitches at a pronounced angle, certainly you can't fault an architect for making the pitch closer to level, otherwise balls hit to firm fairways on a windswept site would end up in deep rough or worse, making the hole a disaster from a playability perspective.

The hole looks pretty neat to me, but I really can't judge from the photo.  After I've played the course, I'll be in a better position to intelligently comment on it.

[RobertWalker]

Pat Mucci,
I think your're in the wrong thread. This is the East Hampton Thread.
You have to go to the course to see the texture that I am talking about.

[TEPaul]

George Tiska:

As I mentioned I only played Easthampton one time probably a year ago, but I suppose my preference in nines overall would definitely be the back. Others I've heard from felt the front was a little narrow but I really didn't find it so but maybe because I'm quite straight. The first hole, like most people I've heard from is a bit unprepossessing but OK. #2 is OK with quite nice variety in pin positions I would think. Holes #3, #4, #5 are very good I found and the bunkering on #4 is wonderful. At this point you really do get a bit of a Pine Valley feeling. Excellent hole #5 with a wonderful and complex green. I think Coore feels that #6 is one of his favorites. Maybe not one of mine but a nice hole. #7 seems to be very much an experience hole as you really can't tell well where exactly to hit the drive or even the second shot without help or experience. One could make an error here hitting it where you might think but shouldn't. I just love both #8 and #9, really like them a lot. The green on #8 is really interesting and appears to be almost greens within a green and that's something for such a short hole and relatively small green. This hole I heard almost didn't get built as is as Ben didn't really think it possible. And #9 is unique and an unsually hard green to hit even with an L wedge and an easy hole to make a double on if you don't. I wish somehow that you could get a tee shot over to the left on #9 inline lengthwise with the green but it doesn't really appear possible with the trees on left. I think that would be a good option and widen the option spectrum on tee shots. #10 is a good long hole and the run-up availability there is great. #11 is fantastic--could get to be one of my very favorite short par 4s anywhere possibly. #12 is so different looking and at first it confused me. I love the look of it but I really don't know how well the options work and I heard anyway that they might have to change it because of the neighbor. #13 good, #14 too and I loved the look of some of the bunkering along the left at the tee shot in what you said on here is containment mounding. I did not know that and I'm amazed. Excellent hole throughout. #15, #16 good and I love the green on #16 and the progressive visibility on that approach through additional length--simple effective strategic offering. #17 is the one I didn't understand but now think it is one of the more clever psychological "numbers" ploy of any hole the way they did that. #18 I was not that impressed by although I really don't know why at this point.

But again, the rugged detail and the bunkering and its classic ruggedness with the fescue look is some of the best. And the basic melding to the natural site, and how it's a bit different on either nine because it should be is also terrific and that's the subject we're trying to discuss here compared to The Bridge. Not that the Bridge is bad at all but the differences in some of the details and the overall style is an interesting architectural subject to discuss.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Robert Walker,

I know what thread this is, but, if you were paying close attention, you would have seen that Tom MacWood, in his above post of
11-11-01 at 10:01 am, clearly and unmistakenly referenced The Bridge.

To quote him, " I actually like the look of the third photo of THE BRIDGE."  I later stated that I did too.  

I don't know how you got off the track on this one, perhaps you were distracted because you were so anxious, in your desire to correct me, even though you were wrong, that you made this obvious mistake, in haste.

Please tell Tom MacWood, which thread this is, I'm sure he'll want to know, and that it makes a major difference, especially since the two threads are so intricately connected.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Robert Walker,

I've only seen a few fairways, and I don't recall the "texture of the fairway" as a design element in any of them.

Most of the fairways were bermuda varieties in the south and cooler weather varieties in the north.  Most of these fairways were mowed at differing heights, depending on location, weather, etc.,etc.. and most of these fairways were mowed in a random or repeating pattern,  Some were firm, some were soft.

But I've never heard a Green Superintendent, North or South refer to "the texture of the fairway".

I've never heard Tom Doak, Rees Jones, Pete Dye, Gil Hanse, Ron Forse, Bob Von Hagge, Kelly Moran, and others use the term
"Texture of the Fairways"

Why would I have to go to EastHampton, especially at this time of year, to see, and/or understand the term ?

Why can't you explain it in a few words, or a few pages ?

Unless, of course, you're just funnin us.

I'm always looking to learn something, thanks

[RobertWalker]

Like I said, what's not to like about the 3rd photo in this thread?

The "fairway texture" that I am talking about does not show up in the picture, but is there.

last word to Pat Mucci (isfh)

[Gene Greco]

Gentlemen:

Please allow a simpleton to inject my thoughts at this time. Pour yourself a whiskey; take a break.

- I love golf courses which are 6300 yards filled with lots of quirk and fossilized sheep shit.
- I hate change and resent anything and everything that has been done to Augusta National in the past, present and will be done in the future. Those making the changes ought to be drawn and quartered.
- A print of Bobby Jones hangs over my fireplace and replaced the picture of my wife and I on our wedding day.
- I love classic golf architecture and will not give credence to those with great power in the world of golf who have chosen to ignore their timelessnes.
- I have played nearly as many great courses as someone above has stated he has.
- National Golf Links of America may be the greatest golf course in the world.
- Coore and Crenshaw are not gods. They are simply the best living golf course architects. Sand Hills is where THE GOD tees it up these days.
- Never cared for Rees Jones' style but I think he is finally getting it.
- I like The Bridge. It IS one of the three best championship courses on Long Island along with Shinnecock and Bethpage Black. It is suitable for major championship play without setting up the course in a silly manner. It is a fair test.
- It has very little containment mounding.
- It has one of the best supers in all of America who has it playing and always will have it playing hard and fast.  
- It is fun to play from the members tees.
- It is Rees' best. Period.
- The walk sucks.
- I like Machrihanish better.
- Cheers

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gene,

Thanks for your imput on The Bridge.

You have provided a rather strong endorsement that seems to be at odds with the photo analysts.

[RobertWalker]

Thank you!
Pat Mucci! (isfh)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Robert Walker,

It's always nice to have you contribute something meaningful to the site.

When will this happen ?

[Paul Turner]

Gene

Most importantly, does The Bridge have shots that draw you back to try and perfect them, again and again?  Like Machrihanish has in abundance.

(Any front to back sloping greens?)

[Gene Greco]

 (MY POST WAS MADE IN THE WRONG THREAD). Paul, Let's move this discussion over to the Bridge thread.

[TEPaul]

Gene:

One of the best posts I've ever read on Golfclubatlas!

You've got a ton of architectural "freethinking" in there, all of it excellent. I love some of your remarks about Coore and Crenshaw and I like your remarks about The Bridge. What I like most about your Bridge remarks is your endorsement of Geo. Tiska and his intention to keep the course firm and fast! I'm hoping and maybe assuming that's the way it was designed to be and if so just looking at it I would then very much expect the ball to "flow"!

The only freethinking random "truths" you left out were a few about P.Mucci;

For instance, he doesn't take the time to read and digest what's written; he's a frustrated courtroom defense attorney who for some reason wasn't allowed his felt calling; His need to practice his stultified calling on Golfclubatlas with far too many objections; an inclination to tilt against windmills with screeching requests for facts; and blindly defending those he thinks are his "clients" despite the fact that those "clients" have not been accused of what he thinks they've been accused of!

Even without that necessary P. Mucci addendum, yours was a great post!

[Gene Greco]

Tom:

Much thanks and glad you were able to "read" into it.

(However, I moved this post to where it should be - in The Bridge thread).

[RobertWalker]

Pat Mucci,
That last comment does not merit a response.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Robert Walker,

I thought you were being a wise guy with your previous post and responded accordingly, if I was mistaken, I apologize.
Some of your posts can be ambivilant or difficult to distinguish, and some have been sarcaatic with a clear wise guy theme, so if you were not trying to be a smart ass, again, I apologize.  If you were, I stand by my response.

TEPaul,

You don't have to explain YOUR INTERPETATION of my posts, to Gene.  I'm sure he can read and comprehend quite well.  

I also hope you're not actively campaigning for support for your erroneous positions, are you ??

With the exception of my eyesight, and putting, I'm not frustrated about anything.
Well.... perhaps the DOU7BLE STANDARD I see here every now and then, but other than that I just enjoy debating posts, especially posts made without the facts, posts exhibiting favoritism, or unfair or mean spirited posts.

I also recognize that there are different STYLES of golf course architecture, and while I may greatly prefer the Golden Age architect's styles, that doesn't mean that every other golf course architects style is bad, especially those that don't emulate the minimalist or golden age style.

Lastly, when people have been able to prove their point, to demonstrate, with facts and logic, I've listened and changed my mind.
I've also admited when I was wrong, so I've demonstrated flexibility, and a willingness to learn and change perspectives.  But, when people unfairly attack others and can't offer facts, or logic, but rely on preconceived preferences, emotion and biases, I'm unmoved, resolute in my beliefs.

You should consider yourself lucky to have friends like me.

[TEPaul]

Pat,

I am lucky to have friends like you!

However, you do go on and on about defending an architect like Rees from what you consider bias and you campaign against what you see as double standards.

I posted some analytical opinions on some of the holes in the photos of the Bridge after looking closely at what I could see on them and from touring the golf course last summer. What kind of bias do you see in my posts? What leads you to feel that I'm being unfairly negative about the Bridge or Rees? I never said a thing about how the Bridge  plays because I've never played it. If someone feels that a mound around a green might be better if a little less severe or maybe a slope by a green would look better toned down, what's so biased about that?

What do you consider architectural analysis anyway, just saying how wonderful each and every single thing is? Why don't you notice or mention the positive things I remarked on about The Bridge? Why are you always harping on people who are trying offer positive criticism. Valid criticism cuts both ways you know?

If you're saying I analyze Rees's Bridge one way and Coore and Crenshaw's Easthampton another way then go back and read what I said about the holes I've seen at the Bridge and then go back and read what I said when George Tiska asked me what I thought of Easthampton after playing it and then tell me what the big deal is, what the big difference is, where this perceived bias you keep harping about is. There isn't any.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think the bias was in the proposition.

Holding out for comparison, to determine superior design work, the evaluation of a
one or two foot high mound/berm hiding a road on a flat piece of land, to an eight foot tall mound hiding a building on an elevated, sloping piece of land.

The bias is clearly in the setup of the test.