[jim_lewis]

Geoffrey:

As I said, since I have not seen Plainfield, I don't feel qualified to discuss that course specifically.  However, I will say that I can't remember any Ross course (of the 50+ I've played) that could be improved by a modern architect and a bulldozer.

With regard to blind shots, I admit to having a double standard. If they are found on a classic, pre-WWII course, leave them alone, no matter how many there are. In most cases they are there because of natural land features and the architect could not or chose not to remove them.

On new courses, a few are o.k. as long as they are natural. If the land would dictate too many blind shots, either find another site, eliminate some with equipment, or re-route. Please refrain from moving earth for the purpose of creating an unnatural blind shot.  

At least, thats how I see it.

[T_MacWood]

Jim
Do you think it is appropriate to dismiss criticisms of Fazio or Nicklaus as unfair attacks, while at the same time admitting to having a double standard when it comes to the use of existing natural features, especially blind shots, on classic or modern courses?  Do you object

[T_MacWood]

Sorry --

do you object to man-made blindness on classic courses?

[ForkaB]

It is interesting to me that, on another thread, Brian Schneider is documenting (and Paul Daley confirming) how Lahinch, one of the poster children for blind shots, is systematically removing them from its arsenal.

For me, as long as this program includes the Klondyke, but stops at the Dell, I'll be happy.

[jim_lewis]

Tom:

Hey, I have no problem with being inconsistant. That way I increase my odds of being right occasionally. Besides, I don't recall dismissing criticism of the EXISTING works of Fazio and Nicklaus, or any other architect as long as its based on first hand observations.

If a course was built long enough ago to be considered a "classic" I may not be observant enough to recognize that the land features that produce a blind shot were man-made.  But, if someone pointed out to me that a blind shot was created by the architect, I would probably ask, "What in Hell did he do that for?" I can see no merit in unnatural blind shots, no matter when they were created and by what architect. However if it has existed for over sixty years, I see nothing to be gained by changing it now.  

Can you cite a specific instance of a man-made blind shot on a clasic course?  Please share with us your views of blind shots, man-made and otherwise.

[Craig_Rokke]

Mike-
I'm trying to better visualize the hole. It
sounds like you don't really know where exactly your shot went until you get the the crest of the ridge and survey the fairway below? Did you say the ponds were in play off the tee? Perhaps a little like Ross's hole at P. Manor that has the industrial silos of some kind off in the distance. Tee shots disappear on that one about a hundred yards out.

[GeoffreyC]

Jim

Thanks for the reply. With regard to Plainfield, it was really striking how Ross used some of the existing features to create indecision, ground game options and an absolute need to think your way around the course. The very first hole is a great example of this as are numerous others.  Then you get off the green and walk almost immediately to the next tee in most cases.  I could not think of how someone could reroute that course (and improve it) to avoid some of these features or to bulldoze them away yet it is clear that would happen to the same property if used for a course today.

I think that Plainfield is really a teriffic course and as others have said before me, perhaps the second best that I have played in New Jersey.  Yet, you say "On new courses, a few (blind shots) are o.k. as long as they are natural. If the land would dictate too many blind shots, either find another site, eliminate some with equipment, or re-route."  What would happen to that identical property at Plainfield today? Personally, I don't think there are too many blind shots at Plainfield but what would you do? Create an inferior routing and/or course just to eliminate a few blind shots? I'm not trying to be confrontational in any way here. I think Ross probably did about as good a job as possible with that routing and that property.  If there were a better way to do it I sure would want to play that course.  I'm trying to see if perhaps some modern architects with all their technology, budgets and bulldozers are limiting themselves to some formula of what is proper and thereby losing out on what nature put right in front of their eyes.

[T_MacWood]

Jim
The Punchbowl greens created by Macdonald and Raynor, which by the way the few I have played, I've enjoyed thoroughly (St.Louis has an especially good one)-- and I do try to judge older and newer courses by the same rules, although I'm not sure I'm successful. I agree the constant attacks on Fazio and Nicklaus (without any measure of even-handedness) can be irritating, but those who blindly defend them at the drop of a hat are equally irritating.

Neither can be as bad as many would have you believe (remodeling is another story), but many supporters have difficulty excepting any criticism and when called have difficulty articulating why they enjoy their work.

Not all MacKenzie courses are great, but generally he is a phenominal architect. Not all Fazio courses are bad, but he is generally a __________ architect.

Fill in the blank.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Many punchbowl greens have the hole location clearly indicated by the flag, or a backround directional marker.

Other punchbowl greens feed everything to the center cupping area.

The tee shot at # 10 at Plainfield is blind.
Oringinally, the water was barely in play, today, it's a substantial obstacle, made unnatural by the set-up and feel of the hole from the tee.  Even after you've played it once or more, you still feel uncomfortable at the tee.  Clearly, the pond doesn't belong on or fit the hole.

I think Gil Hanse's restoration plan addresses the pond issues at #10 & # 18 and improves the architecture and play of both holes.

Plainfield has a number of tee shots to uphill and downhill plateaus, which adds interest to the golf course.

But, rather than focus on a hypothetical, a really far out hypothetical involving an innocent bystander, FAZIO, it would be more productive to find out who planted all those trees that altered play and fairway lines.  Why were they planted, who was the architect responsible, and why did the membership acceed to this program.

Mike Cirba,

I'm told the ponds were put in on different years, who told you RTJ was the architect responsible for one or both ?

Are you sure that Kobobo (sp?) didn't have a hand in the ponds and trees, like he did at Echo Lake, next door ??

[Lou_Duran]

Tom:

My comments regarding the construction of the OSU courses are based on my conversations with two retired OSU professors (whose names escape me).  They worked for the WPA on the course after completing undergraduate school and finding an extremely hostile job market.  Their story was that the course, including digging out the lake and transporting the material to green and tee sites, was largely done by a horde of laborers without the benefit of heavy machinery.  Perhaps these gentlemen were either confused or only saw part of the construction.  The story made some sense to me because the WPA was created to provide work for the large number of unemployed men.

You are right, earth moving machines were available at the turn of the century.  I believe that the Panama Canal was built from the late 1880s to the mid 1910s, and I've seen pictures of the huge machines used in this colossal construction project (even by modern standards).  However, the machines used on golf projects at that time were primitive, and I suspect, rather costly. I agree that the MacKenzies of the world adapted their designs to the land, but I would wager that if given the chance to improve Mother Nature's canvass by using modern equipment, they would jump at the opportunity.  I do agree with you that MacKenzie would probably prefer rolling back green speeds in favor of firmer, more undulating surfaces.
 
Whether Ross would have cut the ridge on the 10th at Plainfield if he had the use of modern equipment, I suspect not.  Change is difficult and tastes change slowly.  Blind shots can be interesting, but the downsides already discussed are not easily dismissed.  I leave this subject by suggesting that evolution is a powerful force, and over the long run, things generally change for the better.  Who knows, 50 years from now, Fazio and Nicklaus courses might be held in the same high regard as we now hold for the work of MacKenzie and Ross.

[Matt_Ward]

The discussion about the "unfairness" of the 10th at Plainfield amazes me.

Yes, it's blind and yes it becomes a feel shot. So what? There are many blind shots at classic courses and people who play them make the necessary adjustments or they lose strokes. What's wrong with that? Let's also keep in mind that the 10th is about 360 yards (give or take a few yards) and is not some long par-4 that would be unfair to the shorter hitter. Enough of the whining!

I believe those who protest in this case are really overboarding the "fairness" issues. Are people applying the same standard to other blind holes at other classic courses???

The 18th, in my mind, is not a demanding hole in many ways although it can extract vengence on the green. A good closer, but hardly great. The club's position confirms this in having the existing 9th serve as the closing hole for the 1987 Women's Open and from what I have been told will be the closer for the 05 Senior Open. I'm also aware that the existing 9th does end in fron the clubhouse and can handle more gallery viewing.

Mike --

I understand the long tree protecting the the corenr of the dog-leg on the 17th is no longer there. Is that true? Do you remember?

Keep in mind I have heard from a wide variety of sources who are not enthused about all the "improvements" takening place at Plainfield.

The Jersey Golfer will be featuring a major story in our next issue about what is happening to a course we have consistently cited as the Garden State's #2 course.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jim,
Come on now, I don't think of you as the type that isn't always up for a healthy debate!

[BillV]

In an ideal world, PLainfield #17 would I suppose have a dune line and  crashing surf to its right side, but in a real world there is a balance to the road OB right to be protected by trees and the architectural shaping of the fairway and rough area to create "ideal lines of play" through the area occupied formerly by a grove and now by a tree or three, once again blindly.

On #10, Patrick, a golfer who I suppose feels little is generally out of his control, continually feels uncomfortable on that tee.  Having played the hole a good number of times myself, it makes me uncomfortable to stand on that tee as well.  I have comfort in knowing that it is just as uncomfortable for everyone else.  I accept the pond as it is and look forward to the stream restoration to make the hole better (I hate to lose a ball!). There are times in our lives many of us proverbially stand on such a "tee" and face such a life decision that makes us as uncomfortable as that tee shot.  Leaving the hill in place and knowing that green is so severe, Ross created a unique test, especially for the repeat golfer at Plainfield.  It is truly an uncomfortable hole to play again and again, knowing it can wreck a score.  In life we never get to play a hole over, do we.

Getting back from the philosophical waxing,  exciting, blind lines of play are what are under discussion here.

Difficult if not impossible to allow in a politically correct 2001 golf course, they add a hightened sense of enjoyment to the game we love so much.  In the case of these two unique holes, quite butt-puckering ones, I might add, those that make us think about fair vs. unfair to different degrees, holes that perhaps even add to the lore of golf.

[T_MacWood]

Lou
I met with John McCoy who was the construction foreman at OSU and the son of the project's director George McClure -- who was also a laborer on the project. There was a great deal hand labor, but there was also heavy equipment -- the course was completed in 1938. And there were no mules and scoops. Most of the bunkering was added later at the direction of the pro Kepler.

Both ANGC and Cypress Point were constructed with heavy equipment, as were countless other 'golden age' courses. I think there is a misconception that these architects were hindered by technology which prevented them from doing certain things -- which is perpetuated in Fazio's book. They had dynamite and heavy equipment, but they also had philosophical differences from many modern architects and those differences, in my opinion, are illustrated in the results.

[Scott_Burroughs]

To all who have played Plainfield, how far is the pond from the tee?  If it was 250 from the tee on a 360 yard hole, then just laying back would seem to take care of the problem.  I'm also taking notes as I may be playing Plainfield at the end of the month if my potential host can find a baby sitter.

In terms of blind shots in general, I find them to be one of the many great things about golf, the uncertainty, the need to play the course more than once to get a good feel.  To me, one of the (many) great things about golf is when you hit a shot to a blind green and someone else in your group gets to the green first and says "Great shot!" before you can see it.

[Patrick Mucci]

Matt Ward,

Noone objects to the blindness of the original hole, it's the addition of the water on the blind hole that people object to.

As you know, the downside of the ridge propels, or as Tom Paul says, turbo boosts the ball into the water.

Well played drives end up in the left woods.

It's not so much an unfair hole as it is a poor hole architectually with the addition of the retention pond.

As to your sources who aren't happy with the changes, proposed and completed, I would say they are either uninformed, don't understand the original architecture, nor the horrible changes that have taken place over the years at Plainfield, and lack an understanding of the restoration plan.

Scott,

The pond location and proximity to the tee cause an INFORMED golfer to aim into a tree line.  In addition, the slope of the hill will propel balls toward the pond.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok...let my try to answer some questions..

Patrick,

As I mentioned earlier, I can't confirm that RTJ Sr. was responsible for the changes at Plainfield, but I can tell you what I do know.

From "Top 100 Golf Courses and Then Some" (1982 from William H. Davis and the Editors of Golf Digest), "In preparation for the 1978 US Amateur, over 20 sand bunkers and 4 major water hazards were added to the course."

Last spring, Tommy Naccarato played Plainfield while on the East coast and I recall the ensuing discussion naming RTJ Sr. as the one responsible for the changes.  Tommy or Bill...if you fellas could elaborate here on what you might know??

On the face of it, it seemed to make sense for a number of reasons.  First, RTJ Sr. WAS the original "Open Doctor" for courses hosting major events.  Second, he was a big fan of converting natural creekbeds into ponds (with the 16th at Augusta National being his most successful example), and finally, the placement of those hazards on the inside corner of the dogleg 10th & 18th seems to fit into his "heroic" school of design thought.  I will also say that there are some bunkers out there (left side on #2 green for instance) that look a lot more like RTJ Sr. than Donald Ross.

I don't know anything about the person you mentioned.

Craig,

Let me try to explain the hole.  The tee sits on the hill near the clubhouse.  The first 100 yards or so out from the tee is mostly flat, and possibly even slightly uphill.  As the hole is only 350 yards or so, and a sharp dogleg right to a green perched on another hill, you can see the green from the tee.  Because of that, every bone in your body makes you want to challenge the corner.  

However, "someone" built a little pond right in that corner that isn't visible from the tee.  Our caddies told us to aim between the ladies tee and a point on the horizon, which turned out to be the very correct line as 3 of the 4 balls ended in the fairway with less than 150 in.  

However, of the first 100 yards, the tee shot is blind.  After that, it drops probably 30 or so feet to fairway (and pond) below.  Once esconsed in the fairway, the approach is a very challenging shot because either right or long is brutally difficult given the severity of the green.  

I agree with Patrick that the pond needs to go, but I do like the fact that if you challenge the right side, there is a risk to be avoided.  As it is, you must aim further left than you think, which is psychologically difficult due to both the blindness of the tee shot as well as the fact that the green over on the right "pulls" at you.  

Matt Ward,

That tree on 17 is still there.  I know because I hit it!!  I'm hoping that Gil's restoration plan has a big red X through it!    

[Matt_Ward]

Pat:

As far as the Plainfield modernization / restoration is concerned, I will be visiting the club in the next day or so and will be able to communicate with key club officials on what is the "game plan" and why certain changes are being fast tracked ahead.

Pat --

Do not minimize the sources I have that tell me they are greatly concerned about thbe direction taken. I respect their point of view and out of respect to them I cannot divulge their identity.

As far as the 10th hole is concerned let us be clear -- it's 360 yards and there is an area where you CAN land your tee shot in order to play towards the green.

Is the pond invisible from the tee? Yes, it is. So what! Many classic designed courses have blind holes and guess what -- the players make the necessary adjustments whenever playing the hole.

Blind shots, in my mind, are fair game in the strategy of a golf hole. Players must have the sense of "feel" when playing those type of holes.

If the club sees fit to replace the pond with a stream then so be it. But ask yourself this -- how "bad" could Plainfield be when it is already rated among the best 50 courses in the USA!!!

Courses that seek to "improve" had best study the track record of others who have failed (i.e. ANGC, Inverness, Oak Hill, etc.)
We will be featuring a major story in the next issue of The Jersey Golfer and the respect we have for Plainfield is truly front and center. We see Plainfield as Jersey's 2nd best layout.

Plainfield is not on the radar screen for many people who live outside the immediate NY / NJ metro area. I sincerely hope the plans being forward will enhance the overall stature of a course that is a jewel in the design portfolio of Donald Ross.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt,

You can't legitimately defend # 10 in its present form.

I've seen Gil Hanse's plan.  It is terrific !
Thus I stand by my statement.

[A Member]

When ever major changes take place to a golf course, you are going to get varying opinions.  Frankly, the majority of members that I speak to at Plainfield are very happy with what is taking place and are excited about the additional changes planned.  The members that are unhappy mostly object to the tree removel  They believe it will make the course less difficult.  Of course many of these guys are already struggling to break 100.

With regard to the pond, I agree it needs to come out or be replaced.  But, I must say, I have never seen a tee-shot go into the pond.  It doesn't come into play nearly as much as the discussion on this board suggests.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Member,

If you will research the placement of trees at Plainfield you will discover that most of the invasive trees were planted 25+ years ago

Those trees were improperly located initially and have grown beyond what was initially envisioned over the years.  
In addition to being invasive to the lines of play, they have terribly altered the fairway lines as well.

Just look at the individual original Ross drawings in the grille/card room, and the overall schematic and you will see the original fairway lines, and no trees.

The eighth hole is a perfect example of removing bunkers, planting trees in the wrong locations and altering the fairway lines, all to the detriment of the design integrity of the golf course, and playability of the hole.

If anything the members should be clamoring for more tree removal.

The land at Plainfield is unique and spectacular and tree removal will highlight those features and enhance the golf course.

[A Member]

Patrick,

Maybe my post was misleading.  I'm all in favor of the tree program and the changes that are taking place.  Most of the members are, some of course are not.  You are correct, like many old courses, some of the original character of Plainfield has been altered by the planting of trees, shifting fairway lines and altered green sizes.  As you know, these issues are being addressed by the club with the assistance of Gil Hanse.  

The changes over the last few years are already quite obvious.  Many trees have been removed, especially those framing holes, which allows for much better vistas of the course and exposing the natural rolling terrain to a greater degree.

With regard to the fairways, I believe many will be shifted back for next season.  Many fairways (including the eigth) have already been marked off.    

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I totally agree.  The restoration should be splendid!  After seeing the plans and then playing the course and realizing that holes like 16 are going to have whole new routes opened it's tough not to be excited.

Any thoughts on my mention of RTJ Sr.?  

Tommy N or BillV...what's the story?  Did he do the work in the 70s??  Anyone?

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Member,

I think you have a wonderful opportunity to showcase your golf course and the restoration work of Gil Hanse in the 2005
US SR OPEN.  Good Luck.

Mike Cirba,

I think Kobobo (sp?) may have been responsible for the extensive tree planting and fairway altering at Plainfield.

I am unaware and uninformed with respect to any involvement on the part of RTJ SR at Plainfield.

[BillV]

I am totally unaware of any involvement of RTJ Sr. (or Jr.!) at Plainfield.  He seems to be a whipping boy just as his son Rees is.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()