[Matthew Mollica]

How many out there think that New South Wales fits the bill?

It's greens are of a different type of grass, yet it conforms to almost every other criteria in Lou's initial post.

Add to that, the great fun most enjoy while playing there, and it is a GCA.com poster child.

MM

[Lou_Duran]

SPDB,

That you would agree with anything I said would be a surprise.    Please enumerate the dimensions you attribute to CPC #16.  I count two: 1) challenge the dead trees left with a mid-iron to play the hole as a par 4; 2) whack a metal wood, probably a driver at the hole and hope you end up on land.  There is nothing going down a couple of clubs to play it below the wind, feathering something into the pin, or laying it up short below the hole for an easy chip.

Having said all this, I love the heroic nature of the hole, and it is likely the one I would choose to play if it was the last in my life's allotment.    

As to the introduction of entitlements, where did this come from?  The concept of possessing a right simply by virtue of being is an anathema to me.  Pars, birdies and eagles are earned.  It was a pure joy to watch Rich Goodale hit a driver well on #16 and soar to the back of the green while the rest of us chose lesser clubs (with two of us ending up in the rocks).   Birdies and entitlements were the last thing in our minds.

[Anthony Butler]

How many out there think that New South Wales fits the bill?

It's greens are of a different type of grass, yet it conforms to almost every other criteria in Lou's initial post.

Add to that, the great fun most enjoy while playing there, and it is a GCA.com poster child.

MM

Mathew,
Too many holes there where a even a mediocre shot takes you out of play. For instance, the 15th into the wind, requires a bullet of some 240-250 into a 20 mph coastal wind for you to be in the hole. In a different direction the 5th is the same deal... arb:

[Phil McDade]

In honor of the mini-GCA outing in a few weeks, I'll nominate Lawsonia:

-- Fairways are generous, pinched at times by bunkers but not overly so.
-- Rough is a factor, for sure, but my experience is that it's not terribly penal, unless you get into the hay.
-- Green complexes are simply superior, with huge contours on the surfaces and several greens within greens. You simply don't see green complexes built in the manner of the Links course all that often.
-- Bunkers surrounding greens and in fairways are both a visual feast and truly play into the strategy of the course.
-- One pond, and it shouldn't come into play for most golfers.
-- Trees don't play much of a role (the pinching ones on the 5th being an exception), and frame only a few holes (notably the 14th).
-- Eclectic routing (the well-discussed 5-3-5-3-5-3 routing of holes 9-14) that utilizes the contours of the land.
-- Wonderfully expansive views of the course (I could stand on the 6th tee all day, esp. on a fall Wisconsin afternoon).

There may be other courses out there that fill Lou's criteria just as well or better, but for a public-access course, Lawsonia is a tough act to follow.

[Tom_Doak]

Lou:

I think your list of criteria are pretty much spot on, with one exception.  You say the course should ideally have 30-40 bunkers!  I can't think of very many courses which have been raved about on GCA.com which have less than twice that number.  It may be an ideal, but it's not what these guys seem to prefer.

By the way, that's the only one of the criteria where Ballyneal doesn't get a very high score.

[SPDB]

Lou -

Your post makes my point for me.  CPC 16 has two options, which is 1 more than most Par 3s.

Option #1 in your view illustrates how you view a legitimate birdie opportunity as an entitlement. Why should par change depending on what route you take? You can either go at it directly and hopefully give yourself a birdie opportunity, or go left and try to safely make par. Par remains the same, the only variable is the player's tolerance for risk.

[Gary Daughters]

"... (no correlation between length of hole and green size)"

Lou --

Could you expound on that and how it fits into your overall philosophy?  

[Lou_Duran]

First of all, the noted characteristics are not mine, but a compilation of what I've seen discussed on this site and which I believe have considerable consensus among the active participants.  I do happen to agree with most of them.

Regarding the number of bunkers, I think it was MacKenzie who wrote that there should be some economy in their use, with their placement and function much more critical than their number.  Unless a course is blessed to be on sand (like Pacific Dunes and Prairie Dunes), sand bunkers are expensive to build and maintain.

I suppose that on a short course, the number of bunkers may be more critical if it is to be challenging.  Personally, I like bunkers of different sizes, shapes, depths, orientation (lateral, diagonal, cross) and placement.  I even like directional bunkers which can from time-to-time come into play.  Sites devoid of natural features probably require heavier bunkering.

As to the correlation between the length of the hole and the green size, I think that some architects have held that the longer the hole in terms of the approach to the green, the larger the green.  At sea level, a 235 yard par 3 would tend to have a rather large, often uncomplicated green.  A 550 yard par 5 with a wedge or less on the approach may do very well with a small, sloped green.

Heavy internal contouring, "greens within greens", and 6,000 -10,000 s.f. greens seem to be coming back into vogue.  It appears to me that folks on this site prefer less formulaic, more provocative greens and green complexes.  It is probably impossible to get a lot of movement in various directions in small areas.  Also, on heavily played courses, small greens are difficult to maintain.

Personally, I tend to like smaller greens, and generally believe that the length of the approach should having some bearing on the size and complexity of the green.          

[Gary Daughters]

"... the length of the approach should have some bearing on the size and complexity of the green."

This seems to be the prevailing wisdom, and that's why I asked.  

I wonder whether large greens tend to shrink the delineation between the "hitting" game and "putting" game.  Or do they actually expand it?

       

[Lou_Duran]

Gary,

An interesting question you pose.  I spoke to Jackie Burke about that last year (do large greens favor the better strikers of the ball or the superior putters) and I don't remember getting a clear answer.  His Champions Golf Club's Cypress Creek course has huge greens and it is also relatively long.  Perhaps Mike Nuzzo who was present can chime in.  Orville Moody won the US Open there, and he was known to be a good striker of the ball, but not a particularly good putter.  On the other hand, Davis Love III has won at Harbour Town several times, a course that has very small greens, and he too is known for his ball striking as opposed to his short game.  Intuitively, I would think that large greens play to the better putters' strength, but I could be totally off.  


 

[ForkaB]

SPDB,

That you would agree with anything I said would be a surprise.    Please enumerate the dimensions you attribute to CPC #16.  I count two: 1) challenge the dead trees left with a mid-iron to play the hole as a par 4; 2) whack a metal wood, probably a driver at the hole and hope you end up on land.  There is nothing going down a couple of clubs to play it below the wind, feathering something into the pin, or laying it up short below the hole for an easy chip.

Having said all this, I love the heroic nature of the hole, and it is likely the one I would choose to play if it was the last in my life's allotment.    

As to the introduction of entitlements, where did this come from?  The concept of possessing a right simply by virtue of being is an anathema to me.  Pars, birdies and eagles are earned.  It was a pure joy to watch Rich Goodale hit a driver well on #16 and soar to the back of the green while the rest of us chose lesser clubs (with two of us ending up in the rocks).   Birdies and entitlements were the last thing in our minds.

Lou

It was all down to the caddies.  As with most people playing CPC for the 1st time I was thinking about 16 all the way round, and was thinking 1-iron for most of that time.  But, by the time I got to the tee, I had a very good relationship going with my caddie and when he handed me the Driver I just took it and cut it into the wind, and happened to hit it straight.  As I remember, your relationship with your caddie was not so copasetic, to say the least......  If you had been lucky enough to have had mine, you probably would have shot 69, and if I'd had yours (which I did the next time I played ) I would have shot 80-something, as I did on that later day.......

[Lou_Duran]

Rich,

I got a kick out of Barry, though we did have some disagreements with his need to club me and his definition of our respective responsibilities.  His advice on #15 and #16 was not sought, but I was the fool for having taken note.  After playing golf for some 30 years, you'd think that I could rely on my instincts.  Anyways, when things went bad on 16, he didn't provide a word of advice the rest of the way.  He chirped up again upon collecting his generous compensation on the putting green.  BTW, I asked for and got him as my caddy again on a subsequent trip.  Afterall, the chap was a Viet Nam vet and he knew the greens.

BTW2, as I recall, you had the benefit of watching a certain long-hitting companion on #16 lash out with some flatware, maybe a 1-iron, propelling the ball into the rocks  
(did he reach into his bag for a water ball before he hit?).  And if I am not mistaken, you also witnessed the "strategic option", though it may have been after your turn.
 

[ForkaB]

Yes, Lou, I remember our 4-ball well.  Particularly at the 16th.....

--The meticulously strategic lawyer who wimped out with an iron to the left and probably still got a 5.  Who cares?
--The self-proclaimed gorilla who unsuccessfully tried to carry the chasm with his 3-iron on his 92nd stroke of the round
--The grizzled and shameless veteran who bunted his choked driver to the back of the green
--The hot-blooded latin who made an heroic 5 after hooking two 3-woods onto the beach long left

As Archie Bunker used to say, "Those were the days, my friend....."

[Lou_Duran]

Rich,

Thanks for conceding the 6' for the 5, but I did miss it for a 6.  It was a huge break of luck to find my ball in the beach and be able to hit a great shot to have a chance to save the double bogie.

It was amusing that Barry did not even say good shot when I knocked an 8-iron to within 2' at 17 for a tap-in birdie.  Alas, my 73 will always have an asterick beside it because my approach on 18 stuck in a greenside tree, and though Barry "indentified it" among the two or three we spotted (he said he could see my marking), we didn't think it was appropriate to hurl clubs at it in the presence of our host in order to dislodge it.

My two best shots of the day could have been that approach from the woods right and the subsequent pitch from below the tree for an up-and-down questionable 5.  Despite being unable to finish my round (5-4-6-3-5 finish), that day was among the most memorable in my golfing life.  Perhaps I'll pull-up today the many pictures I took in between arguing with Barry, "chasing" my divots, and hitting my shots.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()