[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

I know your passions run high, ND on one hand, TF on the other, but.....
I don't think it's fair to use a negative analogy between courses, when you've never laid eyes on one, or both of the referenced courses.

The real proof is in the evaluation after the play of a course, hopefully on more than a few occassions.

I don't think you know what attention to detail was imparted on the design and construction of The Bridge, and I think it
diminishes your credibility to make such judgements, sight unseen.

Rather than speculate, play the course, then offer your harshest criticisms from a factual data base, formed from personal experience, not hearsay and rumors.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, you're crowning Friar's Head as one of the great ones, and NO ONES EVER PLAYED IT.  

I may agree with you on Friar's Head, but I think the process of condeming one course, and elevating another to diety status, when you've played neither, is unfair to both golf courses.

I don't care if ten angels are whispering in your ear, you have to play the courses in order to make a valid assessment of their relative merits.

                                 

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tommy,

You're absolutely correct. Rod Whitman is not building golf courses for the money, nor the fame. He simply loves what he does.

I don't know Proctor or Axeland, but they're both very good friends of Rod's, and I get the impression their attitudes are exactly the same as Whitman's. If these guys were guaranteed a roof over their heads, food to eat and a few beers for the evening, they'd design and build golf courses for FREE!

Coore and Crenshaw do benefit greating from the sincere efforts of these guys.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat, Please notice, I say, "I have to say that if this isn't going to be one of the great ones, then I'll eat my hat." It is is being said in a pretense.

However, it is the attention to detail we are talking here. I'm not condemning the Bridge, (Especially since I haven't seen it) I'm just saying that the style of golf architecture that has been reported to me is far away from what I consider worthy of my time there to study.

(I'm saying this from the context of someone who is on the island for short time and has to make the most of it.)

And while Friars Head isn't open yet, wouldn't it be just as pretencious to openly declare The Bridge as being in a class of the Top 5 on the Island when it has only been open for what, six months?

However to add to this, I played Pacific Dunes four months before it opened and I can say that it was a "GREAT" course from every vantage. Especially on greens that weren't even fully grown in!  In fact, There were about 35 other golf designers that might also agree with this opinion. However, I knew Pacific Dunes was going to be great by looking at the pictures of it during its construction. I think anyone who saw them more then likely did.

I would rather take the time to go study The National, Shinnecock or Maidstone and consider it a good gamble that I would learn more from what I would learn from The Bridge.

Great design is something that has to be looked over and over and over, and still, you miss a lot. There are features I would surely never want to miss at The National that you have prescribed. It is important that one who gets the chance to experience these courses take all he can in to further an education. After all, you have told me so!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

NGLA, Shinnecock, and Maidstone are established GOLD standards, not courses new to Long Island.

I think Matt's top 5 ranking may have been a little strong, but I'll have to see for myself before I pass judgement.

If people want to report to you on their impression of the Bridge, or any other course, let them post their position, under their own name on this site, don't let them use you as the messenger, subjecting you to questions you can't answer because you never saw the course.

With Pacific Dunes, the distinction is:
You played the course, albeit in rough condition, yet you could appreciate the architecture through personal experience.

The pictures you saw previous to playing PD were no doubt stunning, and in sync with your preference in the look, sense of style and feel, but the real proof had to be in the actual playing experience of the golf course.

Every one owes 5 % of their time to R & D.
To stick your head in the sand, and not want to see a new course, especially one widely talked about, deprives you of a broader data base from which to draw your conclusions and espouse your philosophy on golf architecture, new and old.

How wuould you interpret a FAZIO fan refusing to visit Friar's Head, and then discussing Friar's Head based on hearsay and rumor ??

Go, visit The Bridge, and other courses.
Visit them without bias, with an open mind, then draw your conclusions, and even throw in a bias or two, but see and conclude for yourself, not others who may not possess your discerning eye.

That's just my opinion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

Sent you the ND holliday catalogue yesterday.

How goes # 1 at NGLA ?

Do we have a target date for posting ?

[M.W._Burrows]

Bravo Patrick, bravo.  
It becomes tiresome reading those negative posts all the time.  From what I understand this site has lost many great posters who became turned off by people ranting about the same three architects and praising only three other firms.  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood mentioned a while ago that the architects in the old days and those that were interested back then wrote more about architecture in a critical manner for the good of architecture. I think he's right, to a degree!

Others who come on this site say that we play favorites on this site and aren't critical enough of the architects we appear to support.

I've played Applebrook a couple of times now and so have the others who frequent this site, so in fairness to all and to architecture you should be honest about critiquing even the courses of your favorite architects. One regular on here said he didn't really want to do that right now without thinking more about it. I've thought a lot about Applebrook in the last week or so and I'm ready to go through it in detail. I'm even ready to make some architectural suggestions, maybe at least 5-6 of them that I think could improve things.

The point is we shouldn't be shy about doing this even with the architects we really like. At least I think that's what Tom MacWood is saying!

[Jeff_Mingay]

The best artists invite discussion about their work; whether it's positive or negative.  

You can look at criticism two ways: "constructive" or "harse". I think if you favour the former, and accept it positively, you'll continually learn. And there's nothing wrong with that.

[TEPaul]

Applebrook G.C., par 71, 6825yds, 6285yds.

Hole #1:
Par 5, 540yds (all ydges from back).
The tee boxes are tucked back into a bit of a chute that feels a bit restricting on the right with the boundary of the range along the left side playing as OB. The fairway is extremely wide and devoid of architectural features. A rise across the fairway out about 250yds is the only real strategy on the drive to give yourself a bit more height and visibility and distance to deal with the strategies of the second shot. The drive is a good "get into the round" opener as the fairway is extremely accomodating to the tee shot which happens to be the theme of many of the holes of Applebrook (an unusual theme and an interesting and gutsy one on Hanse's part--since huge accomodating fairways can be easily misunderstood in this day and age!). The second shot strategy is basic but excellent. A really good half cross bunker eats well into the fairway from the left and a bit diagonally and requires a good second shot over it to position yourself properly for the correct entry to the green which has a left to right orientation and cant and a very good left/right shoulder coming in off the left greenside bunker and carrying through the green surface as a low side to side center ridge. The approach to the green is accomodating from the left and allows for a run-in shot option using the gradual left/right slope of the approach and green surround. The green is large in length and width. The safer play second shot is to the right fairway area short, along side or past the half cross bunker but leaves a more difficult shot into the green with a drop-off covering about half the green entrance from that angle. Of course golfers have to be careful on the green-end of this hole as an enormous irrigation pond is to the right of this hole down a steep bank.

Hole #2:
Par 4, 380yds.
A left to right elbow hole around an enormous an impressive bunker set into a substantial rise at the elbow of the hole and the tee shot landing zone. Strategic considerations on this tee shot are in the top 2-3 most important and meaningful on the golf course! One obvious strategic consideration is to carry the big bunker thereby considerably shortening the hole. A safer strategy is to hit the ball down the fairway coming as near to the big bunker as possible. This safer option also very much has to consider the length of the drive since Gil has cleverly run the top of the rise out across the fairway at about the same distance from the tee as the carry over the big bunker. This rise very much gives this option an "anti-turbo boost" area where a less than satisfactory drive distance-wise will get killed by the rise across the fairway. Safer still is to play the tee shot farther left and wider off the bunker and short of the top of the rise. This will leave a longer and blind approach to the green though! Rodney Hine created a revetted bunker straight through the fairway's center line that gives a shadowy appearance from the tee. If you reach the top of the rise it's a short iron into an interesting green shape and orientation which appears and is slightly perched up with a large swale chipping area front and right and a back left side of the green that can come up quickly on the golfer. Even with a short approach this green has quite a lot of approach interest to it. The chipping area across the rear of this green melds seamlessly into #3's tee space!

Hole #3:
Par 4, 300yds.
This is a terrific and unique little left to right delayed dogleg or elbow hole that is driveable as one of many interesting options. #3 is the hole on the course that almost any golfer will seriously consider a number of club selections (for distance) and a number of options for line of play! The green is hidden behind a large right ridge that L's out by the green with a large bunker and wasty area to carry and about a 25yd downsloping run-in area to a longish side to side but relatively shallow green from this angle. Only the top of the flag is visible from the tee. The other basic option is to play down the fairway well to the left of the green but this option is brilliantly complicated by a center pot bunker out about 200yd in the middle of the fairway. This small bunker creates perfect and complete "line of charm" options for the safer (nondriveable option). The golfer can choose from the four options of laying up in front of the pot bunker for a longer but blind approach or playing to the right of the pot for a shorter but still blind approach or to the left of the pot for a longer approach but one that opens up the green a bit more. Or finally the option of playing over the pot and opening up the visibility and coming into the green for a length-wise approach. This green has excellent green space with a great back right pin position mini-bowl and a narrowish front pin position too. Applebrook's #3 is almost as interesting as Inniscrone's excellent driveable #3, which is probably the overall player favorite at Inniscrone. They are very different from each other and Applebrook's will probably not be as popular as Inniscrone's owing to it's blind characteristics. But both of these holes are some of the best driveable new par 4s anywhere!

Hole#4:
Par 4, 415yds.
#4 returns to Gil's basic theme of enormous unencumbered tee shot landing area. There are no fairway bunkers on this hole and the fairway is app. 50yds wide with playable rough on its outside. The wide fairway ends at app. 310 out and drops off to a small lower fairway with a "HaHA" that creates a seamless look from the tee. The "HaHa" also hides a maintenance road almost entirely! This green-end is fairly "unfeatured" with only a bunker front left. The interest of this green-end is the shape and internal contours of the green. There is also and interesting rolling rise that covers the front right half of the green approach obviously complicating a run-in shot or even and aerial shot. A run-in shot could be used by slotting the ball between the left greenside bunker and the rolling rise on the right front. The green is a bit of a "greens within a green" effect and is most of the interest of hole #4.

Hole #5:
Par 3, 195
This par 3 plays to a semi-blind green surface a bit uphill and is all carry to the green front probably mostly into a prevailing wind. This hole will play in almost all conditions longer than the card yardage. The green surface is longish with some interest on either side vis-a-vis where one should miss the ball or the green. There's an unusual little detached fairway patch to the front right and slightly below the green surface which might be considered a "lady's aid".

Hole #6
Par 4, 410yds.
#6 plays to another very wide and mostly unencumbered fairway that rises slightly from tee to LZ. As I understand it this green and green-end was the brainchild of Bill Kittleman and one that was making him nervous as to how it might be perceived or received. I don't know how it's being received but architecturally and strategically I think the green-end is really good and very unique to look at and also to play! Basically the tee shot strategy must be to get a drive out as far as possible to open up the green-end and particularly the left side of the green area to visibility as much as possible. The green surface itself is really not visible but is demarked well (at least the right side is) by an unusual chipping area upslope covering the front of the green that's particularly steep at the right front of the green. From the approach area the green is perched up and a bit above the player and has a bit of a "skyline" look to it. But the most interesting aspect to the hole is the substantial ridge short and left of the green that makes the entire approach appear to play through a real "cut" and one that hides the entire left side of the green from the approach. An approach short will come back down the upslope chipping area all across the front of the green and an area that has many options for recovery back up to the green. The green surface is quite interesting in shape with a very good right front section. The chipping area which surrounds the entire front and left of the green again melds seamlessly into #7's tee area as did #2 and #3.

I'll submit the first six holes so as not to lose the post and I'll do the rest later.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

I hope you played this course at least once more since we played.  Your recall of the holes is most impressive.  Keep going I want to hear more and your opinions a bit, negative and positive.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok...I'll weigh in although I'd hoped to hear others viewpoints first so as not to influence anyone else's opinion.

There is a LOT to like at Applebrook.  It's a contiguous course built on a beautiful, gently rolling plain without a lot of the usual culprits that plague modern design (i.e. woods, wetlands, housing considerations, steep elevation changes, etc.)  A few glades of trees break up the landscape nicely, but the overall look is wide open and sprawling.  Wind is a definite consideration, although we happened to play on what was a relatively mild day.  

From an architectural standpoint, Applebrook is chock-full of the type of features we all love.  WIDE fairways, rolling naturally along with just enough contour to make things interesting.  No unnecessary ugly mounding.  Bunkers that look and play like hazards.  Holes that are thoughtful and with a clear attempt to facilitate multiple strategies.  Greens that are maddeningly and multi-breakingly difficult.  Chipping areas, false fronts, steep fall-offs, and ratcheting up of difficulty as one nears the ultimate target, the greens.  What's not to like?

However, in my humble opinion, despite all of these excellent attributes, Applebrook falls short of being a great golf course.

Why?  A number of reasons.  Architectural features in and of themselves must pass the final test of how they play, and in that respect, Applebrook is too one-dimensional.

I will continue below, but don't want to lose this post.

[Mike_Cirba]

I've really tried to think about how well those architectural features are utilized, and also tried to imagine playing the course if I had absolutely no idea who designed
it.  Even doing so, I'll draw some comparisons to Inniscrone because it's
where so many of these features are utilized well.

- A good example is the second hole that Tom Paul describes above.  The deep, gaping bunker at the corner really needs to be challenged, else one is left with a blind, uphill/sidehill lie for the approach to a green that sits dangling on a man-made ledge that serves to repel approaches.  Three of us hit very solid drives right into the bunker.  Not one was seriously capable of carrying it, although all of us drive the ball a fair ways when we hit it solid.  Thus, although the option is there, it's for the Matt Wards and Jamie Slonis gang while the rest of us have to take our lumps and play safe.  Move the back tee up 10-15 yards and it becomes a thrilling hole.  As it is, only very long drivers even have the option.  On a second go round, I wouldn't even consider playing towards the bunker.

- Applebrook is much more aerially-oriented than Inniscrone.  Almost every approach is best flown all the way to the green, and most holes in fact demand it.  Some of the potentially best uses of merging the existing predominant slopes into the green (i.e. 10, 13) in fact do just the opposite. The bailout areas instead repel balls away from the green, which is certainly a viable architectural move, but simply accentuates the focus on the air game.  In contrast, holes like 1, 6, 9 and others at Inniscrone do just the opposite, and allow for the run up shot using the existing terrain.

- On such a windy site, I think accomodation of the ground game should have been a much bigger consideration.

- The par threes as a group are very demanding..penal even..and possibly too much so with three of them occupying narrow shelves falling into serious danger.  

- The par fives are generally ok, but nothing approaches the brilliance of
say...15 at Innsicrone, where once again the golfer must use the surrounding terrain to guide the approach.  10 would have been the best possibility for something similar.  

- Lots of really good par fours, but the focus on throwing too many things
into the pot in terms of interesting green surrounds and the forced aerial
game makes the course too one-dimensional when the intent is to be anything
but.  For instance, quite a number of holes featured false fronts, steep
surrounds, penal bunkers, chipping areas, considerable slopes, and
significant internal contours, ALL at ONCE!.  The brilliant subtlety
exhibited at Inniscrone is largely missing.

- Because of this, and despite the width of the fairways, the course does not
play particularly strategically.  Several fairway bunkers seem well out of
play and I really had to think about their purpose as anything but eye candy,
or perhaps directional aids.

- The greens seem to me to be overdone.  Once again, it's important to
remember that we are talking about a windy site.  I would have much preferred
to see something much more low-profile akin to Garden City, with greens as
natural extensions of the fairways, and the use of slope much more than
internal contours to create challenge.  Applebrook features both, and makes
putting challenging..yes...but perhaps to an unfair degree.  On many putts,
large internal curves need to be considered, but then flatten out near the
hole.  I'd have rather seen something more lay of the land, but perhaps
that's just personal preference.  

- I really am not a fan of the whole overdone complex around 9 & 18 greens, or either hole generally (even without considering the waterfall the owner demanded).  I think it's the kind of showy thing that any of us might criticize somewhere else.  Nine isn't a particularly
noteworthy par three, and I think 18 is just poor in it's present state.  The
green configuration just doesn't support the length of the shot, and I think a reverse redan where you could aim left and let the contours direct your ball to the right would have been awesome.  Instead, the left side of the green directs the ball away from the right, and a shot to the right back from that distance will never hold, instead having to utilize the steep backstop that was built behind that pin position, which is sort of goofy,to be honest.  

- All that being said, I loved 2,3,4,7,11,12,13,14,15, & 17.  However, I think that Applebrook has so many visually pleasing features as well as considerable architectural interest that it's a shame it doesn't all come together as I kept hoping it would.  It could have been great, but just misses.

[GeoffreyC]

Mike

I have to disagree with several of your criticisms Applebrook.

I do agree with you about the apparent eye candy fairway bunkering on several holes.  Beautiful bunkers that are apparently out of play.  Perhaps different wind patterns will prove this wrong. I also agree with you about #18 being very severe and difficult for antthing but a carry onto the green surface.  The assistant pro (Pete) however, had no trouble hitting a 9 iron into the green and using the backstop as well.

I had believed that Applebrook would play very difficult after walking it twice in the last year. However, after playing it I think it plays significantly EASIER then Inniscrone especially once on the putting surfaces. Did you really think the greens were that difficult?

I think Applebrook has about the best set of par 3's I've seen in a long time. I loved seeing a modern uphill par 3 and this course has 2 of them.

The only hole I really didn't get was the par 5 8th hole so I'm awaiting Top Paul's evaluation.

I'm also not sure about your one dimentional criticism.  I know twhat you are getting at but the course features great short and long holes.  Par 3's with 9 irons that put a lump in your throat are rare. #11 at Applebrook will do that. Then there are semi blind uphill par 3's that require great precision (#5, 17) and a very long downhill 3 par that requires all the 3 iron in your bag (#15). There is equal variety in the par 4's.

As for the right side fairway bunker on #2, there are probably different wind conditions that will affect your choice of tee shots.  It apparently tempted you.  Maybe next time you will play to the left.  If you hit a really good one you may be tempted to try the big carry to the right again.  It seems like a sound design.  Its still only a reasonably short iron from the left side of the fairway and perhaps a better angle to right pin locations.

Is Applebrook a great course?  I'm not sure but its a hell of a lot better then the Trump National course I just saw earlier today.

[Mike_Cirba]

Geoffrey,

Since I'm sure we both know that we're getting into fine details of criticism here, I'll be happy to join you in friendly debate.

Pete hit a 9-iron into 18?!?!  Sheesh....I really need to consider weightlifting!  

I hit a really solid drive and was left with 190 steeply uphill yards and selected a 4-iron.  I would have loved to have tried a left-handed draw to the right to left diagonal green, but the flow of the land conspired against that shot.  

Still, I guess a 455 yard par four with a significantly uphill green set diagonally on a ledge is easier to approach with a 9-iron, although even he had to use the steep "backstop" per your description.  I'm not quite sure whether I should applaud that imaginative solution to the back right pin position predicament or wonder if it isn't an architectural stopgap.

Were the greens that difficult?  Well, I certainly didn't have my putting touch, admittedly.  Still, it seemed that even my best putts would need to account for a significant borrow, only to watch them straighten out within 6 feet of the hole time and again.  I also watched a group of who I assume were local pros play the 9th.  Three of them hit their teeshots within 8 feet and none walked away with birdie.  I had played Merion East & Gulph Mills the previous two days under very fast conditions, but was frankly baffled by Applebrook's greens.  Perhaps I was simply shellshocked by that time, because Rich Goodale seemed to be a magician on them (but then again, he seemed to be a putting and chipping magician all week!!), using his patented "claw" method.

The par threes were exacting, to say the least.  As you know, I have nothing at all against blind or semi-blind shots, but I thought they bore a similarity in severity, and narrowness of target that I wondered about their variability and playability for all level of golfer.  The easiest of them..the ninth, I thought was simply better to look at than to play.  I also thought the postage stamp 11th hole was very good, but three par threes to narrow targets with steep falloffs to the sides seemed at least one too much.  

On number 2, I would have to have a hurricane behind me to challenge that bunker again.  I loved the concept, but criticize the practicality.  

To add to the positive side of things, I completely agree with you that the course features a great variety of hole lengths.  Even better was the VERY intelligent routing, that just followed the lay of the land very naturally.  Never does Applebrook feel forced, cramped, or otherwise imposed on the land.  The routing, simply put, is stupendous.

However...Geoffrey, on what holes were you either tempted to play a running approach, or did you feel that the green surrounds might accomodate one?  Was there anything similar to holes like 6, 9, 14, 15, or 17 at Inniscrone where the flow and tilt of the surrounding approach can be used to direct the ball onto the green?

On what holes did you have to think about landing your ball on a particular side of the fairway to guarantee a preferred approach?  

Did you think the architectural features around any of the green (and within the greens themselves) bordered on overkill?

Did you think that some pin positions were borderline over-the-top (such as the top left on 14) given the other demands of the hole?

What do you think of the entire 9th/18th green complex?  Is it really that different from what one might see from any number of modern architects?

Geoff...I'm nitpicking to some degree, admittedly.  However, in an effort to be even-handed and offer constructive criticism, I think that sincere, classically-intentioned guys like Gil Hanse would welcome this level of in-depth, comprehensive critical discussion about a course that he clearly put enormous personal effort into.  

All in all, I just believe that the subtleties of Inniscrone surpass the more visually-arresting features of Applebrook due to the way it plays...on the ground.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul, Mike and Geoff,

Having only walked AppleBrook, and...
since it just opened, and.... since Gil is a stone's throw away, I would imagine that the data obtained through the substantive play of the course, will lead to fine tuning which will improve the course.

I get the feeling that some are expecting a newborn to run the 100 yard dash in under
10 seconds.

Give it a little breathing room lads.
Let it evolve and mature.

[TEPaul]

Hole #7;
Par 4, 475yds;
Another of the wide open fairway (maybe 45-50yds) par 4s with one left fairway bunker of not much strategic consequence. The control house on the right sets a bit of a visual reference to aim left off of. This tee shot should be an interesting one from a high tee and a strong left to right prevailing wind. There is a bit of a "speed lane" (as Rich Goodale calls them) on the right side of the fairway. The green is large and mostly open in front but guarded somewhat on the left by an enormous bunker starting well before the green on the left and continuing to mid left of the green. The approach can very much be used as a ground game run-in with a somewhat aerial required back left pin position (guarded somewhat by the enormous left bunker. I suppose the drive should be positioned left for the front right pin and right for the left back pin but this is a long hole and hitting the green will do. I would think that the green should have a bit more of a right to left filter or slight carom off the approach then this one does. This green is very much the low profile seamless meld from fairway approach into the green space that Mike Cirba was saying that Appelbrook needs more of.

Hole #8:
Par 5, 575yds.
A drive to another very wide fairway basically devoid of fairway bunkering but with the large irrigation lake running along the right side. An enormous and impressive set of extremely rugged bunkering is set into the upslope to the higher tier at the midway point of this hole. Most golfers who have never been to Applebrook will ask if they can hit this bunkering from the tee but in fact will not come near it. This bunkering comes more into play on the second shot options and covers about half the fairway on the left as it rises to the higher tier on the second half of the hole. This tier which forms the higher second half of the hole is actually a clever use by Gil of one of the old building pads that the site had for many years. The second shot options are somewhat interesting but in my opinion could be much more so with a bunker scheme addition. As it is the rise to the second tier starts about the same distance as the carry over the enormous and rugged bunkering on the left. The right side is fairway with the uptier. This uptier with the enormous left bunkering makes the landing area for the second shot relatively blind. When you reach the second tier you find an immense amount of fairway out to the left of the green and running all the way to the back of the green. I can't quite understand why there is so much fairway out to the left of the green although there is a big bunker starting to the front right of the green and running along it obviously making playing out to the left a bit the best play, but still there is way more fairway out to the left than seems needed. The green is large and melds very flat and seamlessly off the approach into the green. I believe this hole absolutely requires another bunker scheme in the middle of the fairway on the second half of this hole starting out about 150yds from the center of the green. With this addition the second shot would become far more interesting and strategic. Off a good drive the player would have to choose between laying a second shot up in front of this bunker scheme or playing to the right of it and bringing the right greenside bunker into play. Another option would be to play out to the left and past this additional bunker scheme thereby creating an open angle to the green. This would seem to be more reasonable to utilize all the fairway out to the left. If one took this line they would also have to consider the consequences of carrying the enormous bunker scheme at the left on the uptier. As it now there is no reason not to just hit the ball into the middle of this extremely wide approach fairway. Of course an aggressive golfer could choose to carry this additional bunker scheme by going up the middle over it. An additional bunker scheme at the point mentioned would be perfect and an ideally placed "line of charm" feature and would add some real meaning to the immense amount of fairway out the the left which at the moment doesn't appear to have  much meaning. The green again is a low profile meld off the large approach and can be well used for the ground game as a real wind option! Some nice subtle contours in this low profile green.

Hole #9:
Par 3, 160yds.
A somewhat diagonal green orientation through a valley to a perched up green with a very deceptive diagonal front bank running right to left. You need more distance to carry the left side. This green has some wild contours and slopes particularly on the front right which deceptively falls off into a right chipping area. A rear bank running along the back of this green can cause problems as the green is very wide but relatively shallow. This green space is definitely a bit of the "greens within a green" concept and I'm sure extremely 3 puttable if the ball is in the wrong part of the green.

Hole #10:
Par 5, 510yds.
Another extremely wide fairway with some flanking bunkering left but quite far out and a creek running along the right side and crossing over the hole at midsection in a right to left diagonal. I'm not crazy at all about the high back tee setting on this hole. The back tee looks ungainly sticking up so high by itself. I would rather see a back tee at almost fairway grade making the wide fairway somewhat more blind (over some rough area). The second shot options off a good drive are a go at the green over some good looking bunkering covering the entire green and set into a depression and up quite close to the green front. This would not be an easy green to hit and hold properly on a second shot.

To the right of the fairway layup area fronting the green is another large bunker starting probably a 100+yds from the green. Over this bunker and well out to the right is another section of fairway hooking well out to the right of the green. I think a really good multi-optional architectural opportunity was lost here. That's because the bunker scheme covering the front of the green is carried well to the right of the green and creates an elbow that the wide hook-out of the fairway coming into the green from the right hooks around. I can see no reason whatsoever why any golfer would choose to use this hooked out fairway coming into the green from the right as a layup area and I can see no reason either why a golfer going for the green in two would ever try to use this area since carrying the front bunker scheme out to the right is the same distance as carrying the green!

I believe this can be easily tweaked by removing the right section of the green fronting bunkering and repositioning it along a soft ridge in a diagonal back to the right bunker about 100yds from the green. If this were done it would cut down substantially on the layup fairway area fronting the bunkering directly in front of the green. Narrowing this option down substantially would make the golfer look for the other option of playing the ball out to the increased layup area to the right of the green. Another interesting option would be to replace the depressed area where the right fronting bunkering used to be with a fairway type bowl that the golfer might have a change of running the ball through and onto the green. This would be a very creative and gutsy play and if the ball came up short in the fairway bowl the up and down would be interesting indeed to a green very much running left and away from the golfer. Some might say if this bunkering was repostioned that a player would have a much easier time just blowing the ball out the the substantial unprotected fairway area to the right of the green. That might be so but then the golfer would have a really difficult short third shot to a green that fell completely away from this angle. I have little doubt that this tweak would create far more and interesting options on this 510yd par 5.

Hole #11
Par 3, 140yds. (I don't think the hole is 140 yet--more like 120 max).
This is a great little very short par 3 with a green set on a narrow windswept ridge! The green is not wide and I'm certain could be very challenging and entertaining in a strong wind. Nevertheless, I've already heard people say the hole is weak because it's so short. This is certainly not a tweak recommendation because it wouldn't be worth it at this point but if Gil had the green to do over again I would recommend that he create a narrower front section to this green that was visible from the tee and enough of a front to back fallaway to the wider rear of the green (and it wouldn't have to be much of a fall-away) that would hide the back section of the green space ever so slightly from the tee. This wouldn't really change the playability (wouldn't  change the green width) but it would very much appear to be narrower to an already narrow ridge and would deceive the golfer into thinking there was almost nothing there. In this way the green would take on some of the deceptiveness of the mostly blind and world class little par 3 #7 at Royal County Down that also sits on a similar windswept ridge and is about the same length hole.

[brad_miller]

Pat, your point is what I was getting at on the post about tweaking in years 1-3 after opening.

[SS]

I don't usually post on this board, but having played Applebrook, I feel compelled to jump in with some of my comments.

Really super analysis by TEPaul.

What made me want to post was the comment on #10.  I drove the ball far enough to go for the green in 2, but "bailed out" right into the chipping area.  Slight disagreement with TE Paul in that I think the chipping area to the right on #10 is sufficiently large to be a strategic option.  IN fact, I suggested to a person familiar with the course design that this option be removed in order to make the hole harder (I know of at least 3 birdies on this hole already).  I was correctly laughed at for this suggestion, proving why I'm not in the design business.  I did birdie the hole.

Other comments - All of the par 3's are great, both individually and as a whole.  The uphill par 3s are blind only once.  I bogeyed them both but now I know the design of the hole now and would play them more confidently again.

I like #1.  I though there were strategic options by driving center-right, which leaves a shorter 2nd shot to the green.  Playing down wind, I hit a 4 iron 2nd shot just short (the water on the right is very intimidating and makes you think about missing right).  The approach would be longer from the left of the fairway

Totally agree on #1.  The wider front of the green made me feel very confident about hitting the green.  I didn't realize how narrow the back of that green was until I stood on the green.  I would suggest changing the hole, but the comment is valid.

I also loved the look of the approach on #6.

[GeoffreyC]

Mike

Perhaps we are nitpicking here.  I know exactly what you are thinking of in your criticisms but some of them are why I think Applebrook plays easier then Inniscrone and not harder.

When we were last at Inniscrone, the ground game was NOT an option due to soft conditions. Applebrook just opened and perhaps maintenance, differing weather conditions and aging will affect ground options.  There are several holes where running the ball up on the green is possible and possibly favored.  On #12 (I think) playing downhill over the central bunker 30 yards short of the green will allow a ball to chase up on the green.  

As far as strategic options from different sides of the wide fairways goes, I partially agree with you and this is possibly where some of those eye candy bunkers could have been placed more in play.  However, #12 has one of the best options I've ever seen in a medium/short par 4.  Playing way left seems like the prudent play off the tee to avoid the huge deep pit on the right.  However, from the left you must cross that semi-blind hill by the green that is filled with evil bunkers and to top that the green runs away from approaches on that side.  Playing shorter up the right side from the tee leaves a MUCH easier approach.  Its a great hole.

SS- I loved the approach to the 6th as well. The second shot to the 6th reminded me of the par 3 3rd or 4th hole at Rosses point with its steep closely mown falloffs to the front and side.

Tom Paul.- thanks for the evaluation of #8. I didn't get it when I played the hole.  I hit 3 rather poor/bad shots and yet a reasonable birdie effort just missed.

Mike - on #14 I actually thought that Gil finally put something really wild into the greens.  I really liked having a severe green pin option on a long par 4.  The pin was right on top of that ridge when I played.  My ball was to the right side of the green and I said that "I finally have a put I recognize" as its a lot like many putts at Yale.  I proceeded to putt just to the top of the ridge and then see it come back down towards me.  I holed the next attempt   .

Mike - The criticism that I agree with you about is perhaps putting more consequences into choosing a specific line of play to the wide fairways. Perhaps we both did not see the course with typical wind velocities.

[TEPaul]

SS:

Going back to #10 for a minute to analyze the hole as is and also to analyze it altered to what I've recommended. This will take a bit of detailed discussion, I guess,  but when done we can see clearly what the hole might then offer compared to what it does right now.

First of all the hole is 510yds from the tips which clearly is a reachable par 5 for longish hitters. However, the hole does play into the prevailing wind (which is quite consistent in this area). Actually if you think through the routing, hole variety and balance, Gil has designed the hole types very well for the prevailing wind--ie, most of the shorter holes into it and some of the longer ones like #13 and #18 to offer the golfer the option of trying to sling a big draw and ride the slightly over your right shoulder prevailing wind--generally the longest type of tee shot!

Back to #10. The prevailing wind should generally lengthen the hole some--a good thing. But basically with the enormously wide unencumbered fairway for the tee shot the designer is tempting the golfer to hit the hell out of the tee shot (without much risk) and then the basic strategy of the hole begins--ie, to go at the green in two or not--your basic Go/no go par 5 like ANGC's #13 or #15.

The bunker alteration I'm suggesting would not or should not have much real effect on a golfer who chooses to go at the green in two, since the bunkering in the depression directly in front of the green would remain and protect the green from a shot coming at it in two just as it does now. And I also can't see why a golfer going at the green in two would think to intentionally bail out to the right of the green since carrying the ball to that area is just as long as carrying the ball to the green itself. If this area was a shorter carry then it would make some sense, but it isn't shorter. Frankly, if I missed the shot going at the green in two I would much prefer to miss the ball in the bunkering directly in front of the green--that would be a much easier recovery than trying to chip from the area to the right of the green with the green running dead away from you! If the green was one that canted from left to right instead of quite severely from right to left (particularly the right side of it) then I could see that this rightside fairway area (as it is now) would make a bit more of a reasonable option for the golfer, either playing the hole in three or even going in two!

The bunker alteration I suggest, however, would be designed primarily for the golfer who does not go for the green in two but lays up to play it as a short three shotter. As it is now the overridingly obvious play for playing the hole in three shots is to lay up in the accomodating area directly in front of the green although that area does slope from right to left making it a little harder to hold the ball where you may want it (and of course there is the diagonal creek back a ways that some will have to worry about carrying). Your third shot would then be a short one carrying the bunkers fronting the green. I just cannot see why any golfer would want to play off to the right fairway area. It seems to be much more difficult to do anyway (carrying the right bunker 100yds from the green) and then when you're out there you have a third shot into the green that is far more difficult than laying up in the fairway area in front of the green. For this reason I don't think the rightside fairway area will ever really be used, and an option that is rarely used is not a good option (or not an option at all) and the holes strategic ramifications then start to be diminished! Analyzing and testing any and all options as to their use and functionality (and the temptations they evoke) is the best test and barometer for analyzing the quality of a golf hole, in my opinion.

So the idea for altering the rightside of the bunker scheme that eats into the fairway area to the right is not just to do it to induce the golfer to use this area more often but that by doing this and reconfiguring the bunker scheme so it connects back on a diagonal to the bunker on the right 100yds from the green is to thereby reduce the fairway area in front of the green and make that option quite a bit harder and needing much more accuracy from the golfer. If you increase the need for accuracy in this fairway area enough the golfer is going to start to look for alternate options and he will find it out to the right. I would actually try to make this right fairway option easier for the golfer to get to than the one fronting the green simply because if he used the right side he would have a much harder third shot play into the green from that angle with the green running away from him. I would also replace the area where the rightside fronting bunkers used to be by just planting it as a bowl-like chipping area making even that an interesting option for either the golfer going in two or the golfer coming in in three to play through. It would be quite complex but might seem more reasonable than trying to land the ball on the green with the severe run-away slope!

Also connecting the fronting bunker scheme with the bunker right and 100yds from the green would create a great looking detached and divided layup area and a bit of a cape effect for golfers going out to the right. And of course if a golfer trying to lay up in the front fairway section happened to push his layup he would find himself in this diagonal bunker line with the hardest shot in golf--the medium length bunker shot (20-80yds.)

I don't think this would make the hole any easier and it certainly would make it more multi-optional, interesting and entertaining. The options may seem easier at first and they very well may be in and of themselves but a good option is not really one in and of itself but one that is cleverly connected to the ramifications of what comes next! That's why this could be very interesting--because of eveything the hole is--like the slope of the putting green which emantes many possibilities backwards--that alone dictates a lot of possibilities, particularly ones coming in from the right side. If done really well this reconfigured right side fairway might even lull a golfer into a sense of false security and we all know how effective that can be if what comes next is interesting and complex--as it would be!

Long post but I hope you can visualize all that's I'm talking about.

Also this is a short par 5 that as such is birdieable with four well executed shots and I do not subscribe to the theory that if some golfer plays four well executed shots and then birdies the hole that that means the hole is easy! All it means is that he executed four good shots on a par 5 and was rewarded with a birdie!

But by giving him more choices and interesting ways to play the hole the chances of him trying them will increase and the chances of him making a mistake will increase not decrease, as most people believe.

[SS]

TE - Agree with ALMOST everything you said about #10.  I was going for the green in 2 on #10, and admittedly, the bail out was not intentional.  I had a slight mishit and the ball sailed out into the "bail out" area.  Agree by making that area bigger, the strategy would be clearer. To be honest, it reminded me a little of the shot @ #12 Plainfield - where I was not going for the green in 2, but had a long iron for my 3rd shot.  I also think the bail out area is ever so slightly shorter than the forced carry over the bunker (by 3-5 yds), but I've only played the hole once.

Yes the hole plays into the prevailing wind, but for some reason that hole doesn't seem as affected by the wind.  Doesn't that hole seem to "sit down" below the wind to a certain extent.  

Also, had no problem chipping onto that green for a birdie :-)

[ForkaB]

Firstly, many thanks to TomP and MikeC for not only accompanying me around Applebrook, but also refreshing my increasingly "Senior Moment" short term memory with their discussions.

I played the course in the middle of a 5-day visit to a very distinguished set of tracks and I can truly say that Applebrook was not out of place in that exalted company, IMHO.  No, it's probably not (yet) a "top 50" type course (as were 3 of the others I played, plus (potentially) the one that I walked as it was growing in), but it blended in splendidly in the sequence of my experiences.

Like others, I found the 18th to be the only hole that didn't instantly please me, but that was partly because I played the hole hacking it up the right side rather than from the left, as I should have (and intended to!).  It is certainly a test (even if non-mortals can hit it with a 9-iron, and I did think that for the shorter hiter a cut approach could get to the back left pin using the slopes at the back of the green.

Overall, I found the fairway width to be deceptive, given the subtelties of the green complexes, which are truly the highlight of the course.  You have to drive it in the right position to get a shot at the flag in most cases, or rely on your short game.  As others have said, the par-3's are an admirable set, as are the par-5's.  I do agree with Tom and SS that the 10th could be improved by opening up the right side, particulalry as my caddy directed me to hit a 1-iron which I flushed into an unplayable lie in the bunker complex that exists now! Overall, the bunkering is superb, both strategically and visually and is a real testimony to the skill and dedication of Bill Kittleman.  Also, as others have said, the course can only get better as it grows in and the course is tweaked to it's maximum potential.

I've been fortunately enough this year to play 4 of the best courses built in the last 5 years or so--Kingsbarns, Bandon Dunes, Pacific Dunes, and now Applebrook.  It fits in very comfortably with that group, with only Kingsbarns, perhaps, being arguably better.

[TEPaul]

Continuing on....

Hole #12:
Par 4, 365yds.
#12 is a brilliantly conceived hole architecturally with options and angles that connect extremely well to each other and to what comes next depending on which is chosen! First of all I love shortish holes that offer a fairway offline that you should hit to but where the green itself is very visible but way off line and where a golfer's aim tends to get pulled away from the reasonable target and towards the green--this is such a hole.

The fairway options are very well done by providing another very wide fairway with an awesome depressed bunker set on the inside of the elbow on this left to right elbow hole. Apparently Bill Kittleman spent months (and many cigars) handworking this bunker set itself. The medium aggressive play is to get as close to this bunker as possible to shorten the hole. However this line is complicated by a swale across the fairway that kills the distance on the drive (anti-turbo boost area) if not hit far enough. Having your drive killed by this swale would leave you along side the big right bunker set with a blind to semi-blind shot but at least coming into the green orientation and green cant from a good angle. The conservative play is well out to the left which can give you a flatter lie but from which at least the left half of the green is obscured (and also obscured is a bunker that needs to be carried hard along the left side of the green from this angle). As Geoffrey said earlier the slope of the green is much less than ideal from this angle too. This hole offers a lot architecturally and all that's offered hangs together very well. As good as this hole is there are two little tweaks that I wish had been done. The first is that the swale in the fairway crosses the fairway too perpindicularly from the tee, I believe. If the swale was brought backwards on the left side it would allow a golfer taking the conservative route out to the left a better chance of clearing the swale and would probably induce him to take the conservative route more often. Also, I don't believe the fairway area over the terrific bunker set at the elbow can be seen from the tee. If it could be seen I believe it would tempt the very aggressive golfer to try to carry this bunker more often and the golfer would be definitely penalized if he failed this risk. Even if he succeeded in clearing the bunker with a heroic drive it would put him close to the green and into a half pitch situation which most amateurs (even good ones) aren't that good at. This would then be almost a fake-out reward which I also admire architecturally.  

Hole #13:
Par 4, 465yds.
As mentioned earlier this tee shot on this long par 4 will probably ride a prevailing hooking wind most of the time. Even without a wind aid this hole doesn't really appear to play to its actual yardage distance-wise. The hole is demarked on the left of the driving area by a gorgeous tree standing alone. The right side of the fairway is demarked by some really beautiful bunkering set into some ideal little upslopes. This is a fairway that isn't quite so accomodating width-wise far out in the ideal landing zone and I can tell with some real speed through the green at Applebrook this is a tee shot that can hit the fairway and get away from the golfer quite easily. With real speed through the green a good tee shot will probably have to be played much closer to the right side bunkering.

The second shot here is interesting and probably will be a little controversial architecturally. Mike Cirba thinks so and I can see what he means. There is a great center bunker about 30yds from the front of the green and an enormous amount of fairway out to the right of the green. Mike doesn't think this fairway area out to the right and approaching the green is sloped correctly to bring a ground game ball played out there back enough towards or onto the green. He's probably right about that and my recommedation would be to tweak it to do so if the ball was accurately placed on the ground just to the right of the green but if it wasn't and was played farther to the right would actually stay out there. This would be the penalty for an ultra  conservative ground game play and would then leave an interesting chip or even putt from well off the green down the slope and onto a green that runs away from this angle. Playing a ground game ball closer to the green would then have a smaller margin for error but would be doable. Pulling this ground shot could kill the ball on the upslope directly in front of the green or even take it left of the green into some good greenside bunkering or short of it. The option of going directly at the green seems to be primarily a aerial one (as MikeC points out) due to the excessive upslope in the fairway approach directly in front of the green. I would qualify Mike's assessment of this by claiming that the ground game run-up directly at the green front is doable but in a way he may not have recognized. The upslope just in front of the green does seem to require the ball to be flown onto the green surface but I don't think it requires that entirely. For this reason; If you play a ground game shot at the green and land the ball too close to the upslope it will kill it! That happened to me and my ball died immediately. But on closer inspection I can see that if you land the ground game ball well back in the fairway it will run well up the slope and onto the green. And because this is possible and very doable you can then see why the center bunker is positioned well in front of the green--you have to actually just risk getting in that bunker to get just over it and get the ball on the ground and running just over the bunker which actually slopes downward and gives the ball forward momentum on the ground and running up the green front upslope. This is very much the style of some of the best Ross and Flynn carry bunkers placed about the same distances from their green fronts. As for the upslope just in front of the green that MikeC thinks kills the ground game and therefore requires an aerial shot, it is really no different than the upslope in front of #12 green NGLA. I can't tell you how many times I tried that run-in shot on that hole and how many times I watched others try it with no effect. Then I saw a golfer or two land the shot well short of where we all were, get the ball on the ground much sooner and running up the steep slope in front of the green instead of landing near or into it and getting the shot killed. So for that reason I think the ground game does exist directly at this green, it's just that it's far more sophisticated, particularly when you combine it with the need to get it on the ground father back and that fairway bunker in the center about 30yds out!!

The green has excellent slope and contour and many interesting pin positions. The chipping area behind and to the right of the green melds again seamlessly into #15 tees!

Phew, this is a lot of typing and I'm down to two holes at a time now. I certainly hope all this critiquing is making Tom MacWood happy!

[THuckaby2]

I am loving all of this - thanks TEPaul!

I have little to add, even after playing it myself (same group as Rich) but I will note:

- someone hitting #18 with a 9iron almost made me spit on the screen.  I hit a good drive for me and had 210 up that severe hill - that meant 3wood!  I hit it a little right and paid the price - hit the hill and bounced back.  But I have nothing against this hole, it's just freakin' hard, that's all.  The backboard to me was really cool - wish I would have had the balls to play it off of that on my pitch shot.

- overall Applebrook is a very "brawny" course from the tees we played.  I like to think I'm not that short of a hitter, but I had a lot of long shots for approaches, not to mention 2 3woods and a 2iron to par 3's...  That being said, all of TEPaul's comments are spot-on, as always.  But don't think by any means this is a "short" course - it's not.

- I've yet to get to Kingsbarns, but I've had a hell of a year also course-wise, and I'd put Applebrook definitely up there with or better than Pacific Dunes and Bandon Dunes, as Rich says... it is indeed that good.  I just need more game if I were to play that all the time...

And like Rich, it did fit in quite well with the other greats I played last week.  Damn there's an incredible depth of great courses in the Philadelphia area...

TH

[GeoffreyC]

Tom and Rich

Glad you both had safe trips back to the left coast.

I'm certainly not at all surprised that you both liked Applebrook a lot but I a bit surprised that both of you compare Applebrook so favorably with Bandon and Pacific Dunes.

Lets factor out the Pacific Ocean effect for a moment (which you both apparently have already done) and give us a bit more detail about your comparisons.

Thanks

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()